HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 11-02; LA COSTA VISTA; STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2013-05-13STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
SWMP 13-04
FOR
Project Site: LA COSTA VISTA
Project No. CT 11-02, DWG 477-7A
7500 Jerez Court
Carlsbad, California
Prepared For: TMS JEREZ INVESTMENTS, LLC
19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, California 92603
Date Prepared: May 13, 2013
Prepared By:
DMS
CONSULTANTS. INC.
CIVIL N G I N E r R S
12371 Lewis Street, Suite 203
Garden Grove, CA 92840
714.740.8840
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
City of Carlsbad
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
SWMP 13-04
For
LA COSTA VISTA
PROJECT NO. CT 11-02
DWG 477-7A
Prepared By:
DMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
SURENDER DEWAN, P.E.
12371 LEWIS STREET, SUITE 203
GARDEN GROVE, CA 92840
714.740.8840
8urender@DMSConsultantslnc.conn
Prepared For:
TMS JEREZ INVESTMENTS, LLC
19196 SIERRA ISABELLE
IRVINE, CA 92603
MAY 13, 2013
May 13, 2013 f'^S^ ^
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
CERTIFICATION
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared under the direction of the following
Registered Civil Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer (Engineer) attests to the technical information
contained herein and the engineering data upon which the following design, recommendations, conclusions
and decisions are based. The selection, sizing, and preliminary design of stormwater treatment and other
control measures in this report meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R9-
2007-0001 anri subsequent amendments.
Surender Dewan, P.E.
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
Date
OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared for TMS Development, LLC by DMS
Consultants, Inc. The SWMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, Standard
Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) Management Program and Stormwater Ordinance, as well
as the Municipal Stormwater Permit which requires the preparation of SWMPs for priority development
projects.
The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions
of this SWMP. The undersigned will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date
conditions on the site consistent with the current Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP)
and the intent of the NPDES/MS4 Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements as authorized by the State
and EPA. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear
the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the SWMP. An appropriate number of
approved and signed copies of this dQCuqient shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity.
Signed:
Name:
Company/Owner:
Address:
Telephone #:
TonySfPeddo (/ Title: Owner
TMS Jerez Investments, LLC
19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, California 92603
951.801.0888 Date:
May 13, 2013 Page 2
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
2.0 APPLICABILITY AND PROJECT TYPE 6
3.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 7
3.1 Project Location 7
3.2 Project Description 7
3.3 Project Size 7
3.4 Impervious and Pervious Surface areas 7
4.0 PROJECT SITE ASSESSMENT 8
4.1 Land Use and Zoning 8
4.2 Existing Topography 8
4.3 Existing and Proposed Drainage 8
4.4 Watershed and Receiving Waters 8
4.5 303(d) Listed Receiving Waters 8
4.6 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 9
4.7 Soil Type(s) and Conditions 9
5.0 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 10
5.1 Project Categories and Features 10
5.2 Project Watershed Information 10
5.3 Hydromodification 11
6.0 BEST IVIANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) 12
6.1 LID Site Design Strategies and BMPs 12
6.1.1 Optimize the Site Layout 12
6.1.2 Flow Through Planters and Bioretention with Vault 12
6.1.3 Disperse Runoff 12
6.1.4 Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) 12
6.2 Source Control BMPs 13
6.3 Treatment Control BMPs 15
6.3.1 Selection 15
6.3.2 Design and Sizing 15
May 13, 2013 Page 3
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
7.0 PROJECT PLAN(s) & BMP LOCATION MAP 16
8.0 BMP MAINTENANCE 17
8.1 Facility Ownership & Maintenance Agreements 17
8.2 Operations, Maintenance and Inspection 17
8.2.1 Typical Maintenance Requirements 17
8.2.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan 17
8.2.3 Project BMP Verification 17
8.2.4 Annual BMP Operation and Maintenance Verification 17
APPENDIX
Appendix A BMP Plan
Appendix B Grading Plan
Appendix C Soils Report
Appendix D Hydrology Study (Pre and Post Construction Conditions)
Appendix E Permeable Pavers
Appendix F Calculations
May 13,2013 Page 4
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required by the City of Carlsbad for all Development and
Redevelopment Projects, pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 15.12). The purpose of this SWMP is to address the water quality
impacts from the proposed La Costa Vista development. The site design, source control and treatment
control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to provide long term solution to protecting water
quality.
May 13,2013 Page 5
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
2.0 APPLICABILE STORM WATER STANDARDS AND PROJECT TYPE
Based on the criteria established in Order R9-2007-0001 NPDES No. CAS0108758 Section D.1, and
review of the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan and after completion of the City of
Carlsbad's Storm Water Standards Questionnaire (E-34) for New Development and Redevelopment
Projects, the proposed project is identified as a Priority Development Project.
Since the proposed project has been identified as a Priority Project, this SWMP includes design and
supporting calculations for site design Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs, Source Control BMPs,
Treatment Control BMPs, and hydromodification.
Project was evaluated for exemption from hydromodification but determined that the project was not eligible
for exemption since the storm drain on Jerez Court outlets to a natural water course. Brown and Coldwell
BMP Calculator was used for threshold of Q2 x 0.10.
May 13, 2013 Page 6
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
3.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
3.1 Project Location
The project site is located in the City of Carlsbad on the northerly terminus of Jerez Court at 7500 Jerez
Court, APN 216-290-09. Figure 3.1 illustrates the project location. The Tentative Map includes the project
details, as further discussed in this section.
Figure 3.1
^ VICINITY MAP
NORTH
3.2 Project Description
The proposed La Costa Vista project is a private 7-unit airspace condominium project. The project has a
total of 2 guest parking spaces and 1 handicap space.
To conform to LID requirements for BMPs, the project utilizes the use of flow through planters and
bioretention.
The existing site is a vacant lot. The property is surrounded to the north and south by multifamily
development and by a golf course to the west.
The detailed single sheet post-construction BMP exhibit is included as Appendix A.
3.3 Project Size
The project is located on a 0.41 acre site. The total disturbed area of the site is 0.41 acres. The project will
be built in one phase.
3.4 Impen/ious and Pen/ious Surface areas
The existing site is approximately 100% pervious. The proposed development after completion will be
about 75% impervious. The project will result in an increase in impervious area from existing to final
development conditions.
Various treatment facilities like settling basins, wet ponds, media filters, higher-rate biofilters, and higher-
rate media filters were considered but not found feasible because of the restraints presented by the site.
Bioretention and permeable pavers were finally selected as the treatment devices.
May 13,2013 Page 7
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
4.0 PROJECT SITE ASSESSMENT
This section includes information used to consider the potential water quality and hydrologic impacts from
the proposed project. This information is important when considering the appropriate BMPs to reduce
identified potential impacts as well as when designing low impact development (LID), source control and
treatment control measures to reduce those impacts.
Constraints presented by high density land use eliminated the use of urban green biofilter, vegetated
swales, wetlands/wetponds. Use of flow through planters and bioretention and vault provided the
opportunity to filtrate and treat the pollutants as well as control the release of stored water.
4.1 Land Use and Zoning
The existing land use on the project is RD-M.
4.2 Existing Topography
The existing site is fairly flat and draws from north to south. The site has no definite drainage pattem.
4.3 Existing and Proposed Drainage
The existing site drains easterly in an uneven fashion towards the cul-de-sac.
The proposed drainage system consists of concrete gutter, drain inlets and drain pipes which outlet to flow
through planters and bioretention with vault.
4.4 Watershed and Receiving Waters
The proposed project is located within the Carlsbad (HU 904) watershed or hydrologic unit and the
subwatershed San Marcos HA 904.5. The surface and groundwater receiving waters located in the area
and downstream of this project include Batiquitos HSA. The designated beneficial uses of these waters
include MUN, AGR, RECI. REC2, IND, PROC, GWR, FRSH, NAV, POW and COMM.
4.5 303(d) Listed Receiving Waters
The receiving water body for the project is San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos HSA and the ultimate
receiving body is Pacific Ocean. The receiving water is impaired per CWA Section 303(d) for the following
pollutants.
San Marcos Creek: DDE, phosphorous, sediment toxicity, bacteria, nutrients and sediments.
May 13,2013 Page 8
La Costa Vista ~ Storm Water Management Plan
4.6 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Hydrologic
Descriptor
Water Quality
Limited Segment
Nutrients/
Eutrophication
Sedimentation/
Siltation TDS Bacteria
Lower Ysidora HSA
(902.11) Santa Margarita Lagoon Yes
Loma Alta HA
(904.10) Loma Alta Slougti Yes Yes
Loma Alta HA
(904.10) Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Creel< Yes
El Salto HSA
(904.21)
Buena Vista Lagoon Yes Yes Yes
Buena Vista Creek HA
(904.20) Pacific Ocean Stioreline at Creel< Yes
* Batiquitos HSA
(904.51) San Marcos Greel< Yes Yes
Los Monos HSA
(904.31) Lower Agua Hedionda Creel< Yes
San Elijo HSA
(904.61) San Elijo Lagoon Yes Yes Yes
Escondido Creel< HA
(904.60) Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Lagoon Yes
Miramar Reservoir
HA
Los Penasquitos Lagoon Yes
Missbn San Diego
HSA (907.11) Famosa Slough & Channel Yes
4.7 Soil Type(s) and Conditions
A soils report prepared by Strata-Tech, Inc. dated February 19, 2011 indicates that the native soil consisted
of black clay to brown clayey silt soil to a maximum depth explored of 10 feet. There was no ground water
encountered up to a depth of 10 feet.
May 13, 2013 Page 9
La Costa Vista - Storm Waler Management Plan
5.0 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Per Table 2-1 of City SUSMP, the potential storm water or urban runoff pollutants expected to be
associated with this project, an attached residential development and parking lot are:
• Bacteria and Viruses: Anticipated sources include animal excrement (found in areas where pets are
often walked), sanitary sewer overflow and trash container handling areas.
• Oil and Grease: Potential sources of oil and grease include motor vehicles.
• Oxygen-Demanding Substances: Potential sources include biodegradable organic materials and
various household chemicals, which deplete dissolved oxygen levels in water courses.
Anticipated storm water or urban runoff pollutants expected to be associated with the project are:
Sediment: Landscape areas and roof-tops are expected to be common sources of sediment due to
erosion and wear.
Nutrients: Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus and other compounds can be anticipated to be
generated by organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage and sediment.
Metals: Potential sources of trace metals (copper, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc) include
motor vehicles, re-roofing and hardscape/construction materials, and chemicals.
Pesticides: Sources of pesticides include household bug spray, weed killers and other household
sources.
Trash and Debris: These sources include common litter, biodegradable organic matter such as
leaves, grass cuttings and food wastes from landscaped areas and homeowners.
5.1 Project Categories and Features
The project is an attached residential development.
5.2 Project Watershed Information
The proposed project is located within the Carlsbad (HU 904) watershed or hydrologic unit and the
subwatershed San Marcos HA 904.5. The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (HU) 4.00 is approximately 210
square miles extending from the headwaters above Lake Wolhford in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the
west, and from Vista and Oceanside in the north to Solana Beach, Escondido, and the community of
Rancho Santa Fe to the south. The cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Encinitas are entirely within this
HU. There are numerous important surface hydrologic features within the Carlsbad HU including 4 unique
coastal lagoons, 3 major creeks, and 2 large water storage reservoirs. The HU contains four major coastal
lagoons. From north to south they are Buena Vista (901.2), Agua Hedionda (904.3), Batiquitos (904.5),
and San Elijo (904.6) HAs. There are other HAs and HSAs in the project area as listed on following chart
May 13, 2013 PagelO
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
BASIN NUMBER HYDROLOGIC BASIN BASIN NUMBER HYDROLOGIC BASIN
4.00 CARLSBAD HYDROLOGIC UNIT
4.10 Loma Alta HA 4.50 San Marcos HA
4.20 Buena Vista Creek HA 4.51 Batiquitos HSA
4.21 EISallD HSA 4.52 Richland HSA
4.22 Vista HSA 4.53 Twin Oaks HSA
4.30 Agua Hedionda HA 4.60 Escondido Creek HA
4.31 Los Monos HSA 4.61 San Elijo HSA
4.32 Buena HSA 4.62 Escondido HSA
4.40 Encinas HA 4.63 Lake Wohlford HSA
5.3 Hydromodification
See calculations in Appendix F.
May 13, 2013 Page 11
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
6.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
Minimizing the proposed project's effects on water quality, as well as compliance with State and local
requirements can be most effectively achieved by using a combination of BMPs which include Low Impact
Design (LID) Site Design, Source Control, and for Priority projects, Treatment Control measures. These
design and control measures employ a multi-level strategy. The strategy, which is detailed in the City's
Stormwater Standards Manual Section 4 of SUSMP, consists of: 1) reducing or eliminating post-project
runoff; 2) controlling sources of pollutants; and 3) treating stormwater runoff before discharging it to the
storm drain system or to receiving waters.
This SWMP and the proposed BMPs for the proposed project have been developed to minimize pollutant
impacts identified in Section 5 of this report and the introduction of pollutants identified in Section 2 of City's
SUSMP, into the municipal storm drain system and/or ultimate drainage receiving waterbody.
6.1 LID Site Design Strategies and BMPs
Conceptually, there are four LID strategies for managing runoff from buildings and paving:
1. Optimize the site layout;
2. Use pervious surfaces;
3. Disperse runoff; and
4. Design Integrated Management Practices (IMPs).
6.1.1 Optimize the Site Layout
The development has incorporated by design, reduced street widths to reduce the amount of
impervious area. The project also includes multi-level units to reduce the amount of runoff and reduce
overall footprint.
Impervious area has been substantially reduced by use of Eco-Stone pervious pavers in the driveway.
As part of the design of all common area landscape areas, similar planting material with similar water
requirements will be used to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration.
6.1.2 Flow Through Planters and Bioretention with Vault
Flow through planters and bioretention with vault will be used to retain runoff.
6.1.3 Disperse Runoff
The runoff from flow through planters and bioretention with vault is dispersed to curb outlet and catch
basin via PVC drain pipe.
6.1.4 Integrated Management Practices (IMPs)
BMPs used for the project are flow through planters and bioretention with vault.
May 13.2013 Page 12
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
6.2 Source Control BMPs
It is anticipated that the following pollutants will be generated at this site:
Sediment: Landscape areas and roof-tops are expected to be common sources of sediment due to
erosion and wear.
Nutrients: Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus and other compounds can be anticipated to be
generated by or founding organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage and sediment.
Metals: Potential sources of trace metals (copper, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc) include
motor vehicles, re-roofing and hardscape/construction materials, and chemicals.
Pesticides: Sources of pesticides include household bug spray, weed killers and other household
sources.
Trash and Debris: These sources include common litter, biodegradable organic matter such as
leaves, grass cuttings and food wastes from landscaped areas and homeowners.
Based on these anticipated pollutants and operational activities at the site the following Table 6-1
summarizes the Source Control BMPs to be installed and/or implemented onsite.
May 13, 2013 PaQe^3
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE 6-1 Stormwater Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist
How to use this worksheet.
1. Review Column 1 and identify which of these potential sources of stormwater pollutants apply to your site. Check the box that
applies.
2. Review Column 2 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable BMPs in your project-specific SUSMP drawings.
3. Review Columns 3 and 4 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable permanent controls and operational BMPs in a table in
your Project-Specific SUSMP. Use the format shown in Appendix 1 of SUSMP. Describe your specific BMPs in an accompanying
narrative and explain any special conditions or situations that required omitting BMPs or substituting alternatives.
IF THESE SOURCES WILL
BE ON THE PROJECT
SITE...
...THEN YOUR STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs
1
Potential Sources of Runoff
Pollutants
2
Permanent Controls-show on
SUSMP drawings
Permanent Controls-List in
SUSMP Table and Narrative
Operational BMPs-lnclude in SUSMP
Table and Nan-ative
A. On-site storm drain
inlets
Location of inlets. 1^ Mark all inlets with the
words "No Dumping!
Drains to Creek" or similar.
Maintain and periodically repaint
or replace inlet markings
Provide stormwater pollution
prevention information to new site
owners, lessees, or operators.
See applicable operational BMPs
in Fact Sheet SC-44,"Drainage
System Maintenance," in CASQA
Stormwater Quality Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Include the following in lease
agreements: "Tenant shall not
allow anyone to discharge
anything to storm drains or to
store or deposit materials so as to
create potential discharge to
storm drains."
02. Landscape/ outdoor
pesticide use
Manage landscape and
irrigation procedures and
management of use of
fertilizers and pesticides.
1^ Monthly during regular
maintenance.
G. Refuse Areas
N. Fire Sprinkler Test
Water
P. Parking Lots and
Sidewalks
May 13, 2013 Page 14
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
6.3 Treatment Control BMPs
Given below is the basis of selection of use of flow through planters and bioretention with vault as BMPs
and the related calculations.
6.3.1 Selection
Various BMPs including modular wetland system, urban green biofilter and wetlands/wetponds were
considered for the facility but not found feasible because of the following reasons.
1. The natural terrain is not suitable for wetlands. Also the existing ground is not suitable for it.
2. Bioretention facilities, settling basins and higher-rate biofilters were not considered suitable for the
site due to the high density land use and development leaving unsuitable amount of area for such
BMPs.
TaWe 6-2 provides a general comparison of how various types of treatment facilities perform for each
group of pollutants. The pollutants for the proposed project are identified in Section 5.
TABLE 6-2 Groups of Pollutants and Relative Effectiveness of Treatment Facilities.
Bioretention
Facilities
(LID)
Settling
Basins
(Dry Ponds)
Wet Ponds
and
Constructed
Wetlands
Flow
Through
Planters
(LID)
Media
Filters
Higher-Rate
Biofilters
Higher-
Rate Media
Filters
Trash Racks
& Hydro
-dynamic
Devices
Vegetated
Swales
Pollutant of Concem: Coarse sediment and trash
High High High High High High High High High
Pollutant of Concern: Pollutants that tend to associate with fine particles during treatment
High High High High High Medium Medium Low Medium
Pollutant of Concern: Pollutants that tend to be dissolved following treatment
Medium Low Medium High Low Low Low Low Low
Based on this, the following facility has been selected for the proposed project:
• Bioretention with vault and flow through planters were selected for the project because not only do
they conform to LID requirements; they also allow reduction of volume and peak flows and filtering
of pollutants. Impermeable liners will not allow recharge. The Geotechnical report included as
Appendix C of this report indicates that the ground water is 10 feet or greater below any BMPs.
6.3.2 Design and Sizing
The selected BMP will provide adequate treatment. Calculations for selected BMP are included in
Appendix F.
May 13, 2013 Page 15
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
7.0 PROJECT PLAN{s) & BMP LOCATION MAP
A BMP map included as Appendix A, illustrates the BMPs that will be implemented as described in Section
6 of this Storm Water Management Plan.
May 13, 2013 Page 16
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
8.0 BMP MAINTENANCE
8.1 Facility Ownership & Maintenance Agreements
The following individual(s)/organization will own the facilities, including all structural and non-structural
BMPs, and are responsible for maintenance in perpetuity:
TMS Jerez Investments, LLC
19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, CA 92603
Contact Person: Tony Sfreddo
951.801.0888
8.2 Operations, Maintenance and Inspection
8.2.1 Typical Maintenance Requirements
Flow-Through Planters: Inspect plants and structural components periodically. Maintenance is similar
for all container plantings. Other maintenance needs may include removing sediment, cleaning and
repairing pipes, and maintaining proper drainage. Downspouts, curb cuts, and other features where
debris may obstruct flow must be inspected and cleaned periodically.
Bioretention with Vault: Periodic scheduled inspections with a specified checklist, and inspections after
major rainfall events, to check for obstructions/damage and to remove debris/trash. Mowing on a
regular basis to prevent erosion or aesthetic problems. Limited use of fertilizers and pesticides in and
around the bioretention with vault to minimize entry into bioretention with vault and subsequent
downstream waters. Removal of any trash, etc. causing obstructions at the inlet, outlet, orifice or trash
rack during periodic inspections and especially after every runoff producing rainfall event. General
pickup of trash in and around the bioretention with vault during all inspections.
8.2.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan
An O&M Plan is included in the SWMP, refer to Table 8-1 on page 19.
8.2.3 Project BMP Verification
The applicant's Engineer of Record must verify through inspection of the site that the BMPs have been
constructed and implemented as proposed in the approved SWMP. The inspection must be conducted
and City approval must be obtained prior to granting a certificate of occupancy. This approval may be
verified through signatures on the as-built plans, specifically on the BMP sheet.
8.2.4 Annual BMP Operation and Maintenance Verification
The BMP owner must verify annually that the O&M Plan is being implemented by submitting a self-
certification statement to the City. The verification must include a record of inspection of the BMPs
prior to the rainy season (October l^t of each year).
May 13, 2013 Page 17
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
'1 certify that, as owner of the property described herein, I have read and understand the requirements
of this Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and that I am responsible for ensuring that all storm
water treatment measures described within said SWMP will be properly implemented, monitored and
maintained."
Investme
a limited liability company
Date
May 13, 2013 Page 18
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE 8-1 Operation and Maintenance Plan
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name
and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance, and
Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency
and Schedule
Person or Entity
with Operation &
Maintenance
Responsibility
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Yes N1. Education for
Property Owners,
Tenants and Occupants
HOA will insure that all homeowners will be given a copy
of the recorded CC&Rs, which will contain a section
outlining the environmental awareness education
materials. The HOA will establish requirements for the
implementation of a community awareness program that
informs home buyers of the impacts of dumping oil,
paints, solvents or other harmful chemicals into the storm
drain; the proper use and management of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping and
gardening practices; the impacts of littering and improper
watering. Environmental awareness education materials
will be provided to all property owners/tenants.
La Costa Vista HOA
Yes N2. Activity Restriction Within the CC&Rs language will be included to identify
surface water quality protection required by HOA.
Surface water quality activities will also be conducted in
conformance with the SWMP as it relates to the handling
and disposal of contaminants.
La Costa Vista HOA
Yes N3. Common Area
Landscape Management
Monthly during regular maintenance, manage
landscaping in accordance with Carlsbad Landscape
Manual and with management guidelines for use of
fertilizers and pesticides.
La Costa Vista HOA
Yes N4. BMP Maintenance Inspect prior to rain season, October 1='. Actual
maintenance intervals to be established once system
has been in operation and the rate of silt and/or debris
accumulated can be qualified.
La Costa Vista HOA
No N5. Title 22 CCR
Compliance
Not applicable to the project.
No N7. Spill Contingency
Plan
Not applicable to the project.
No N8. Underground Storage
Tank Compliance
Not applicable to the project.
No N9. Hazardous Materials
Disclosure Compliance
Not applicable to the project.
No N10. Uniform Fire Code
Implementation
Not applicable to the project.
Yes N11. Common Area Litter
Control
Weekly sweeping and trash pick within landscape areas
and outside walkways
La Costa Vista HOA
May 13, 2013 Page 19
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name
and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance, and
Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency
and Schedule
Person or Entity
with Operation &
Maintenance
Responsibility
Yes N12. Employee Training HOA through in-house seminars will provide monthly
training for both maintenance personnel and employees.
HOA shall be responsible for providing
homeowners/tenants with educational materials
regarding the impact of dumping oil, paints, solvents or
other potentially harmful chemicals into storm drains; the
proper use of fertilizer and pesticides in landscaping
maintenance practices; and the Impacts of littering and
improper waste disposal.
La Costa Vista HOA
No N13. Housekeeping of
Loading Docks
Not applicable to the project.
Yes N14. Common Area Catch
Basin Inspection
Once a month to clean debris and silt of basins.
Intensified around October 1^' of each year prior to 'first
flush" storm.
La Costa Vista HOA
Yes N15. Street Sweeping
Private Streets and
Parking Lots
Vacuum cleaning once a year. La Costa Vista HOA
No N17. Retail Gasoline
Outlets
Not applicable to the project.
structural Source Control BMPs
Yes Provide Storm Drain
System Stenciling and
Signage
Once every three months Inspect for re-stenclling needs
and re-stencll as necessary.
La Costa Vista HOA
No Design and Construct
Outdoor Material Storage
Areas to Reduce
Pollutant Introduction
Not applicable to the project.
No Design and Construct
Trash and Waste Storage
Areas to Reduce
Pollutant Introduction
Not applicable to the project.
Yes Use Efficient Irrigation
Systems & Landscape
Design
Once a week in conjunction with maintenance activities.
Verify runoff minimizing landscape design continues to
function by checking that water sensors are functioning
properly, irrigation heads are adjusted properly to
eliminate overspray to hardscape, and to verify that
irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in
accordance with water demands, given time of year,
weather, and day or night temperatures.
La Costa Vista HOA
No Protect Slopes and
Channels and Provide
Energy Dissipation
Not applicable to the project.
May 13, 2013 Page 20
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name
and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance, and
Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency
and Schedule
Person or Entity
with Operation &
Maintenance
Responsibility
No Loading Docks Not applicable to the project.
No Maintenance Bays Not applicabie to the project.
No Vehicle Wash Areas Not applicable to the project.
No Outdoor Processing
Areas
Not applicable to the project.
No Equipment Wash Areas Not applicable to the project.
No Fueling Areas Not applicable to the project.
No Hillside Landscaping Not applicable to the project.
No Wash Water Controls for
Food Preparation Areas
Not applicable to the project.
No Community Car Wash
Racks
Not applicable to the project.
Treatment Control BMPs
Yes Treatment Control BMP
Permeable Pavers and
Flow Through Planters
Permeable Pavers: Periodic clearing and vacuum
cleaning, once a year.
Flow Through Planters: 1 to 4 times a year determined
by accumulation of sediments.
La Costa Vista HOA
Yes Bioretention Twice annually or after heavy rain events. La Costa Vista HOA
May 13, 2013 Page 21
APPENDIX A
BMP Plan
APPENDIX B
Grading Plan
APPENDIX C
Soils Report
STRATA-TECH, INC.
SEOCDNSULTANTS
7372 Walnut Avenue, Unit F.Buena Park, Califomia 90620
SEOCDNSULTANTS FAX 714-521-2552
February 19,2011 W.O. 263810
Tony Sfredo
21 Woodcrest
Irvine, Califomia, 92603
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed
Multi Family Residential Development, 7500 Jerez
Court, Carlsbad, Califomia.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, a geotechnical investigation has been performed at the subject site. The
purposes ofthe investigation were to determine the general engineenng charactenstics of the soils
on and underlying the site and to provide recommendations for the design of foundations,
pavements and underground improvements.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of approximately 7 attached
town homes of wood-framed constmction with parking and landscapmg.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope ofthe smdy was to obtain subsurface infonnation within the project site area and to
provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed development and mcluded the followmg:
1. A cursory reconnaissance ofthe site and sunounding areas.
2. Excavation of exploratory geotechnical test pits to detennine the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions.
3. Collection of representative bulk and/or undisturbed soil samples for laboratory analysis.
4 Laboratory analyses of soil samples including detennination of in-situ and maximum density,
in-situ and optimum moisture content, shear strength and consolidation characteristics,
expaasion potential and liquefaction analysis.
5. Preparation of this report presenting results of our investigation and recommendations for the
proposed development.
XRATA-TEC H , I N C
EODONSULTANTS
W. O. 263810
Tony Sfredo ^ Fehniarv 19.2011
Geotechnical F.ngineering Investigation .—. •
SITE CONDITIONS
The 115 bv 150 foot rectangular lot is located on the westem side ofthe Jerez Court Cul de sac
Se i e ifshown on the attached vicinity Map, Plate No. 1. Two story wood frame dwellings exist
nor^h mdZ2 ofthe site. A golf course exists on grade adjacent to the westem property line
Ktou'l^rrl^^^^^^
Site configuration is fiirther illustrated on the Site Plan, Plate 2.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
groundwater at 10-feet.
Description ofthe soils encountered are presented on the attached Test Pit Logs. The data
nrS onl^logs is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and apphes
onrrt^^^^ location and the dale excavated. It is not wananted to be representative
of subsuiface conditions at other locations and times.
EARTH MATERIALS
soils.
Native soils consisted of a silty residual sandy soil to a maxiinum depth explored of 10 feet in test
pit 2. Groundwater was not encountered in any of our geotechnical pits.
SEISMICITY
Southem Califomia is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to sfrong earthquakes can
Let on numtris. T^e United States Geological Survey ^frvfrrrtC"?^^
Genlnev orivate consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in
Solem'calSa for several decades, l^e purpose oftiie code f^-^l'^^^^^^^^^^
prevent collapse during sfrong ground shaking. Cosmetic damage should be expected.
TRATA-TEC H.I N C .
EPCONSULTANTS
W. 0.263810
Tony Sfredo Februarv 19.2011
Geotechnical Fnpineerine Investigation ., . _
The Drincipal seismic hazard to tiie subject property and proposed project is sfrong ground shaking
eaZquZ^^ by local failts. Secondary effects such as surface mpfrire, lurching, or
flooding are not considered probable.
SEISMIC DESIGN VALUES
NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions Site Class D - Fa = 1.05 ,Fv = 1.57
Spectol Response Accelerations Ss and SI = Mapped Specfral Acceleration Values
Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Ss=L14 Si=0.43 Sa=.79
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development ofthe site as proposed is considered feasible firom a soils engineering standpoint,
provteT^^^^^^ stated herein are incoijporated in the design and are
implfmented in tiie field. Recommendations are subject to change based on review of final
foundation and grading plans.
It is recommended that the proposed structures be entirely supported by compacted fill
A m n rnum 2-foot thick compacted fill blanket below the bottom of the footings .
recon'^rnded. The over excavation requirement is 2 foot below footings, or 4 feet deep for 2 foot
footings. If tiie pad grade is cut, tiien tiie bottom will have to be deeper
For other minor sfructiires such as property line walls or retaining walls less than 4 feet high,
competent native soils or compacted fill may be used for sfrucmral support.
PROPOSED GRADING
Gradina plans were not available at the time our work was performed. It is assumed that
propos^ed'^ grades will not differ significantly from existing grades. The followmg
recommendations are subject to change based on review of final grading plans.
GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Removal and recompaction of existing fill and loose native soils will be required to provi^^^
SLe support for foundations and slabs on grade. The deptii of removal shall be 1 foot below
the bottom of the footings, which is estimated to be at least 3 feet bdow e-tmg^^^^^^^^
over excavation requirement is I foot below footings, or 3 feet deep for 2 foot footings. It
pad grade is cut, then tiie bottom will have to be deeper
IS
STRATA-TEC H , I IM C
EDCPNSULTANTS
Tony Sfredo
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
W.O. 263810
Febmary 19.2011
Earthwork for foundation support shall include the entire building pad and shall extend a
minimum of 5 feet outside exterior footing lines where feasible or to property line. Care shall be
exercised not to undermine hardscape, walls, or pavements that are located on adjacent
properties. If removals extend to off site stmctures or concrete block perimeter walls that are
located within 4-feet from the bottom excavation, then slot cutting or shoring will be required.
The exposed excavation bottom shall be observed and approved by STRATA-TECH, Inc. and
the City's grading inspector prior to processing. Dependent on field observations, removals may
be adjusted up or down. Subsequent to approval of the excavation bottom, tiie area shall be
scarified 6 inches, moisture conditioned as needed, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction.
Fill soils shall be placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned as needed, and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. This process shall be utilized to
finish grade.
Grading for hardscape areas shall consist of removal and recompaction of soft surficial soils.
Removal deptiis are estimated at 1 to 2 feet Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with
previously specified methods.
Grading and/or foundation plans shall be reviewed by tiie soil engineer. All recommendations are
subject to modification upon review of such plans.
FOUNDATIONS ON COMPACTED FILL
The proposed building may be supported by continuous spread and isolated footings placed a
minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade utilizing an allowable bearing value of
2,000 pounds per square foot This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for
total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code.
Type
Minimum
Depth
(inches)
Minimum
Width
(inches)
Bearing
Value
(psf)
Increase Maximum
(psf) Type
Minimum
Depth
(inches)
Minimum
Width
(inches)
Bearing
Value
(psf)
Widtii Depfli Maximum
(psf) Type
Minimum
Depth
(inches)
Minimum
Width
(inches)
Bearing
Value
(psf) (psfft) (psf7ft)
Maximum
(psf)
Continuous 24 12 2000 180 440 3500
Interior Pad 18 24 2000 180 440 3500
It is recommended that all footings be reinforced witii a minimum of two no. 4 bars (1 top and 1
bottom). The structural engineer's reinforcing requirements should be followed if more
stringent.
if ITRATA-TEC H , I N C
EOCONSULTANTS
Tony Sfredo
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
W. O. 263810
Febmary 19.2011
Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc. prior to
placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil
conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended.
FOUNDATIONS ON COMPETENT NATFV^E SOILS - for Minor Structures
Minor structures may be supported by continuous spread footings placed a minimum depth of
24 inches below lowest adjacent grade and 12-inches into natural soil utilizing an allowable
bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be
increased 1/3 for total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code.
Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc. prior to
placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil conditions
are exposed, mitigation will be recommended.
LATERAL DESIGN
Lateral resfraint at tiie base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be tiie product ofthe dead
load and a coefficient of friction of .30. Passive pressure on die face of footings may also be used
to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at tiie surfece of finished grade, mcreasing at the
rate of 300 pounds per square foot of deptii to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot
may be used for compacted fill or native soils at tiiis site. If passive pressure and friction are
combined when evaluating tiie lateral resistance, tiie value of tiie passive pressure should be limited
to 2/3 ofthe values given above.
RETAINING WALLS
Unrestiained walls up to 5-feet in height retaining drained earth may be designed for the following:
Surface Slope of Retained Material
Horizontal to Vertical
Equivalent Fluid Pressure Pounds
Per Cubic Foot
Level 30
5 to I 32
4tol 35
3tol 38
2tol 43
These values include seismic loading. BackfiU should consist of clean sand and gravel. While all
backfills should be compacted to tiie required degree, exfra care should be taken working c ose to
walls to prevent excessive pressure. Retaining walls should include subdrains consisting of 4-inch
SCH 40 or SDR 35 perforated pipe sunounded by 1 cubic foot per Imeal foot of cmshed rock. All
wall bacMll should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
STRATA-TECH, I N C
EOCONSULTANTS
TonySfredo 6 W. 0.263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Februarv 19.2011
All retaining stmctures should include appropriate allowances for anticipated surcharge loading,
where applicable. In this regard, a uniformly distributed horizontal load equal to one-half the
vertical surcharge shall be applied when the surcharge is within a horizontal distance equal to the
wall height
Retaining wall footing excavations shall be founded entirely in competent native soils or
compacted fill. Footing bottoms shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc., to
verify competent conditions.
EXPANSrSHE SOILS
Results of expansion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a low expansion potential.
SETTLEMENT
The maximum total post-constiuction settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch.
Differential settlements are expected to be less than 1/2 inch, measured between adjacent stmctural
elements.
SUBSIDENCE & SHRINKAGE
Subsidence over the site during grading is anticipated to be on the order of .5 feet. Shrinkage of
reworked materials should be in the range of 10 to 15 percent.
FLOOR SLABS
The surface soils are non-plastic with low expansion potential.
Where concrete slabs on grade are utilized, the slab shall be supported on at least 1 foot of
engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Slabs should be at
least 4 inches thick and reinforced with a minunum of no. 3 b^^ 24 inches on center both ways.
The soil should be kept moist prior to casting the slab. However, if the soils at grade become
disturbed during constmction, they should be brou^t to approximately optimum moisture content
and rolled to a firm, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete.
In areas where a moisture sensitive floor covering will be used, a vapor banier consisting of a
plastic film (6 ml polyvinyl chloride or equivalent) should be used. The vapor barrier should be
properly lapped and sealed. Since the vapor barrier will prevent moisture from draining from fresh
•
STRATA-TEC H.I N C.
EOCONSULTANTS
W.O. 263810
TonySfredo . , . . Februarv 19.2011
Geotechnical Engmeermg; Investigation
concrete, a better concrete finish can usually be obtained if at least 2 inches of wet sand is spread
over the vapor barrier prior to placement of concrete.
UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS
All utility line backfllls, botii interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction and shall require testing at a maximum of 2-foot vertical mtervals.
HARDSCAPE AND SLABS
Hardscape and slab subgrade areas shall exhibit a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction to a
depth of at least 1 foot. Deeper removal and recompaction may be required if unacceptable
conditions are encountered. These areas require testing just prior to placing concrete.
STORMWATER INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Two Hand Dug test pits were excavated at 3-foot elevation in tiie bottom oftiie back hoe test pits.
The diameter of the test hole was 6-inches. . u TU
The lower depth of the pit exposed a natiiral soil layer of very dense brown sandy si t. The
percolation test was perfonned by siphoning a 5-gallon water bottle into tiie hand-dug hole. The
water level was kept at 5 to 6 inches in deptii for a period of four hours. At ti,e end of four hours
the time for the water to drop from the 6* to tiie 5* inch was measured. This value was 105
minutes for both holes. • A t;^^ .^Ath
The percolation rate can be expected to perfonn at tiie tested rate over a short penod oftime with
clean water flowing into undisttirbed soil. A high fector of safety should be used for longer-term
use with unfiltered water. The percolation rate can be expected to increase at a power of 1.5 with
respect to head increase.
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be planned for tiie site. Drainage should be directed away from sfructures
via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas.
Unlined flowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constiiicted against tiie perimeter ofthe
stmcture. If such landscaping (against tiie perimeter of a sfructtire) is planned, it should be
properiy drained and lined or piovided witii an underground moistiire bamer. frngation should be
kept to a minimum.
This report is issued witii tiie understanding ttiat it is tiie responsibility of tiie owner, or of his
representative, to ensure tiiat tiie infonnation and recommendations contained herem are called to
tiie attention ofthe engineers for tiie project and incorporated into tiie plans and tiiat the necessary
TRATA-TEC H , I N C .
E OCDNSULTANTS
W. 0. 263810
Tony Sfredo February 19. 2011
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation . _ -
steps are taken to see that the Confractors and Subconfractors cany out such recommendations in
the field.
ENGINEERING CONSULTATION, TESTING & OBSERVATION
We will be pleased to provide additional input witii respect to foundation design once methods of
constiuction and/or nature of imported soil has been detemuned.
Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by tiiis office prior to commencement of grading
so tiiat appropriate recommendations, if needed, can be made.
Areas to receive fill should be inspected when unsuitable materials have been removed and prior to
placement of fill, and fill should be observed and tested for compaction as it is placed.
AGENCY REVIEW
All soil geologic and stmctiiral aspects oftiie proposed development are subject to tiie review and
a™^^^^^ agency^. It should be recognized tiiat tiie goveming agency (s) can
dSI tiie mamier in whL tiie project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the
Ssed lirements and/or could dictote which foundation and grading options are acceptable.
wS^^^^^ consulting in response to agency requests for additional infomiation
could be required and will be charged on a time and matenals basis.
LIMITATIONS
This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on tfie assumption that
tiie sSL conditions do not deviate appreciably from tiiose discbsed by our explorato^^
excavatLs. Our recommendations are based on the teclHii-»."-j;; ^^^^^^^
the proposed constmction, and our experience in tiie geotechmcal field. We do not ^^e
peX^^e of Ae project, only tiiat o^engineering work and judgments meet tiie standard of care
of our profession at this time.
In view ofthe general conditions in tiie area, ttie possibility of different 1<^^1^^" ^^^^jj;^^^^^^
exis Aiiv deviation or unexpected condition observed during consfruction should be brought to
lhem^onT±e Geoiechr^.l Engineer. In ttiis way, any supplemental recommendations can be
made witii a minimum of delay necessary to ttie project
If the proposed consfruction will differ from our present understanding ofthe project Ae existing
nfLati^ and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the
fmS Xurshould be reviewed by ttie Geotechnical Consultant Of particular importance would
L fxirg development to new areas, changes in sfrucmral loading conditions, postponed
development for more tiian a year, or changes m ownership.
TRATA-TEC H , I IM C
EOCONSULTANTS
Tony Sfiredo
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
W. O. 263810
Februarv 19.2011
This report is issued witii tiie understandmg tiiat it is tiie responsibttity of the owner, or of hs
represeLtive, to ensure tiiat tiie infonnation and recommendations contained herem are called to
hSSn oftiie Architects and Engineers for tiie prc,ject and incorporated into tiie plans and that
lhe ^essar^ steps are taken to see tiiat tiie confractors and subconfractors cany out such
recommendations in the field.
This report is subject to review by ttie contirolling autiiorities for tiiis project We
appreciate tiiis opportimity to be of service to you.
Roland Acuna
Principal
Einiey
Larry,
RCE 46606
Enclosures:
Plate 1: Vicinity Map
Plate 2: Site Plan and Boring Location Map
Test Pit Logs , ^ , w
Appendix A: Laboratory Results and Engmeenng Calculations
Appendix B: Specifications for Grading
STRATA-TEC H , J IM
kGEQCDNSULTANTB
APPENDIX A
This appendix contains a description of the field investigation, laboratory testing procedures and
results, site plan, and exploratory logs.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on January 19, 2011, consisting of tiie excavation of two
exploratory trenches at locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavation
progressed, personnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured
representative samples for laboratory testing.
Sample Retrieval- Backhoe
Undisturbed samples of earth materials were obtained at frequent intervals by driving a thin-
walled steel sampler by tiie hydraulic action of the backhoe bucket. The material was retained in
brass rings of 2.41 inches inside diameter and 1.00 inch height. The cenfral portion oftiie sample
was in close-fitting, watertight containers for fransportation to the laboratory.
Descriptions of the soils encountered are presented on the attached boring Logs. The data
presented on tiiese logs is a simplification of actiial subsurfece conditions encountered and applies
only at the specific boring location and tiie date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative
of subsuiface conditions at otiier locations and times.
Laboratory Testing
Field samples were examined in tiie laboratory and a testing program was tiien established to
develop idata for preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions.
Moisture Density
Field moisture content and dry density were detennined for each of the undisturbed soil samples.
The dry density was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture content was determined as
a percentage ofthe dry soil weight The results of the tests are shown in tiie test results section of
this appendix.
Compaction Character
Compaction tests were performed on bulk sample of the existing soil in accordance with ASTM
Dl 557-07. The results ofthe tests are shown in ttie test results section of this appendix.
Shear Strength
The ultimate shear strengtiis ofthe soil, remolded soil, highly weathered bedrock and bedrock was
determined by performing direct shear tests. The tests were perfonned in a strain-controlled
„STRATA-TECH, I IM C
EOCONSULTANTS
machine manufactured by GeoMatic. The rate of defomiation was 0.005 inches per minute.
Samples were sheared under varying confining pressure, as shown on ttie "Shear Test Diagrams".
The samples indicated as satiirated were artificially saturated in the laboratory and were shear
under submerged conditions. The results of tests are based on 80 percent peak sfrengtii or ultimate
strengtii, whichever is lower, and are attached. In addition, a shear was perfonned on an upper
layer sample remolded to 90-percent oftiie laboratory standard witii low confining pressure.
TEST RESULTS
Maicitniim Densitv/ODtimum Moisture f ASTM;D-1557-07J
Trench Depth in Feet Maximum Density
(pcf)
Optimum Moisture
(%)
2 1-3 126 11.0
Tn-Situ Drv Densitv/ Moisture
Trench Depth in Feet Dry Density
(txf)
Moisture
1 3.5 113.0 14.01
2 3 108.1 12.0
Direct Shear
Trench Depth in Feet Cohesion
(psf)
Angle of Intemal
Friction (degrees)
2 2 200 30
Proposed
Pool
PA
ACTIVE RETAINING WALL PRESSURE
H = Sft
Hc= 2 ft
25 = 53.1 "
F.S. = 2.00
yj0m= 130 pcf
C = 200 psf
;? = 30°
Free Bodv Diagram
0.13 kef
0.2 ksf
C^L
PA
H
25 = 45°+ 12 W=a + b
Cm = C/F.S. = 0.1 ksf
x"m = tan'^ (tan x" / F.S.) 16.1 degrees D
( H - He ) tan ( 90° - G ) = 2.26 ft
L = ((H-He)' + D')^''= 3.76ft
I.Q3kips/LF
a = Cm L Sin (90° + x"n,) / sin (S3 - x*m) = 0.6 kips/LF
b = w-a= 0.43 kips/LF
PA = b tan (25 - x"m) = 0.32 kips/LF
DesignEFP = 2PA/H^= 25.6 pcf Use 26 pcf (30 min.)
Geotechnical Engineering Invesfigation 75
00 Jerez Court Work Order 262310
Carlsbad, California
STRATA - TECH, INC.
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
Reference: "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice", Terzaghi and Peck, 1967
pages 222 and 223.
Bearing Material: compacted fill
Properties:
Wet Density (g) = 130 pcf
Cohesion (C) = 200 psf
Angle of Friction (x'^) = 30 degrees
Footing Depth (D) = 2 feet
Footing Width (B) = 1.0 fbot
Factor of Safety = 3.0
Calculations - Ultimate Bearing Capacity
from figure 33.4 on page 222
Nc= 30.14 Nq= 18.4 N'^ = 22.4
0^,= 1.2CNc + vjoDNq + 0.4>)oBN (Square Footing) =
1.2*200*30.14+ 130*2*18.4 + 0.4*130*1 *22.4
= 7233 + 4784+1164=13181 psf Allowable
Bearing Capacity for Square Footing
Qji= Qu/F.S. = 4393 psf
Use 1500 psf (Settlement Control)
= 1.0 C Nc + >)o D Nq + 0.5 >)o B N (Continuous Footing)
= 1.0*200*30.14+ 130*2* 18.4 + 0.5*130*1 *22.4
= 6028 + 4784 + 1456 = 12268 psf Allowable
Bearing Capacity for Continuous Footing
QaN= Qu/F.S. = 4089 psf
Use 1500 psf (Settlement Control)
Increases: 440 psf / ft in depth over 2 feet 0
psf / ft in depth over 1 foot
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 262310
7500 Jerez Court
Carlsbad, California
STRATA' TECH, INC.
.STRATA-TEC H , I IM
EQCDNSULTANTS
APPENDIX B
SPFCIFICATTONS FOR GRADING
SITE CLEARING
All existing vegetation shall be stiipped and hauled from tiie site.
PREPAEATION
After the foundation for tiie fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed
until it is unifomi and free from large clods, brought to a proper moistiire content and compacted to
not less than 90 percent oftiie maximum dry density in accordance witii ASTM:D-l 557-02 (5
layers - 25 blows per layer; 10 Ib. hammer dropped 18"; 4" diameter mold).
MATERIALS
On-site materials may be used for fill, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the
Soils Engineer and may be obtained from tiie excavation of banks, bonow pits or any other
approved source. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and otiier deletenous
substances and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater tiian 8 inches in maximum dimension.
PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIALS
Where natiiral slopes exceed five horizontal to one vertical, ttie exposed bedrock shall be benched
prior to placing fill.
The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed 6
inches hi ttiickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be ttioroughly mixed dunng the
spreading to ensure unifonnity of material and moistiire of each layer.
Where moistiire of ttie fill material is below ttie limits specified by tiie Soils Engineer, water shall
be added until the moisture content is as required to ensure thorough bonding and thorough
compaction.
Where moishire content oftiie fill material is above tiie limits specified by tiie Soils Engineer, tiie
fill materials shall be aerated by blading or otiier satisfactory metiiods until tiie moistiire content is
as specified.
After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be ttioroughly compacted to not
less tiian 90 percent oftiie maximum dry density in accordance witii ASTM:D-1557-02 (5 layers -
25 blows per layer; 10 Ibs. hammer dropped 18 inches; 4" diameter mold) or otiier density tests
which will attain equivalent results.
STRATA-TEC H , I IM C
EOCONSULTANTS
Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot roller, multi-wheel pneumatic tire roller or other types of
acceptable rollers.
Rollers shall be of such design that ttiey will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.
Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moishire content. Rolling of
each layer shall be continuous over the entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to
ensure ttiat tiie desired density has been obtained. The final surface of the lot areas to receive slabs
on grade should be rolled to a dense, smooth surface.
The outside of all fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or otiier suitable
equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until the outer 9 inches of the slope is at
least 90 f lercent compacted. Compacting of ttie slopes may be progressively in increments of 3 feet
to 5 feet of fill height as tiie fill is brought to grade, or after the fill is brought to its total height.
Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill.
Density tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed 2 feet of fill height provided all layers are
tested. Where the sheepsfoot rollers are used, ttie soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches
and density readings shall be taken in tiie compacted material below the disturbed surface. When
these readings indicate tiiat ttie density of any layer of fill or portion there is below the required 90
percent density, tiie particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been
obtained.
The grading specifications should be a part of tiie project specifications. The
Soil Engineer shall review the grading plans prior to grading.
INSPECTION
The Soil Engineer shall provide continuous supervision of the site clearing and grading operation
so that he can verify the grading was done in accordance with the accepted plans and
specifications.
SEASONAL LIMFTATIONS
No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When
work is intermpted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until tiie field tests by the
Soils Engineer indicate the moistiire content and density of the fill are as previously specified.
EXPANSB^SOIL CONDITIONS
Whenever expansive soil conditions are encountered, the moisture content of the fill or
recompacted soil shall be as recommended in the expansive soil recommendations included
herewith.
APPENDIX D
Hydrology Study
Hydrology Study
La Costa Vista
Project No. CT 11-02
Carlsbad, California
(Dwg No. 477-7A)
Prepared For:
TMS, JEREZ INVESTMENTS, LLC
19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, California 92603
Prepared By:
Surender Dewan, P.E.
DMS Consultants, Inc.
12371 Lewis Street, Suite 203
Garden Grove, California 92840
714.740.8840
June 06, 2013
CONSULTANTS, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
1 I Page
JEREZ COURT
CARLSBAD
Site Description
The proposed project is located in the City of Carlsbad at the terminus of Jerez Court @ 7500 Jerez Court
on a 0.41 acre site.
The proposed project is a 7-unit airspace condominium project.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine the total runoff generated for a storm of six (6) hour duration
for one hundred (100) year frequency and design an infiltration system to store the increase in volume
of runoff between the pre and post runoff condition.
2 I P a g e
Section 1.0 100 Year Hydrology Calculations
1.1 Rainfall
The 100 year 6 hr rainfall depth was tal<en
from the San Diego County Hydrology IVlanual
isopluvial maps. Figure 1 below is an enlarged
copy ofthe applicable section ofthe map.
1.1.1 Existing Condition Rainfall
Rainfall for the existing condition was
taken from the Manual.
1.1.2 Proposed Condition Rainfall
The total 100 year storm depth for the
proposed condition was calculated by
subtracting the Water Quality Depth (see
below) from the 100 year storm from the IVlanual.
4 .-I^XAy-'
Figure 1100 Year 6hr Isopluvials
1.2 Soil Type
The hydrologic soil type for the area of the proposed tract is listed as "C in the IVlanual Appendix A.
Runoff Coefficients
Runoff coefficients for the pre and post project
condition were taken from Table 3-1 of the
Hydrology Manual. (See attached table 3-1.)
1.3 Time of Concentration (Tc)
1.3.1 Existing Condition Tc
The lot currently drains, via overland flow,
to the southeast with an average slope of
2%. The initital time of concentration (Ti)
was estimated using Table 3-2 of the
Hydrology Manual (See attached Table 3-2).
The Tt for the rest of the flow distance
was estimated using Manning's
equation assuming a broad open
CARLSBAD
Figure 2 Soil Type
swale with a 20:1 side slope to calculate the flow velocity. See the attached hydraulic
calculations for the swale travel time. These values were entered into an Excel spreadsheet that
calculates the Tc and the corresponding I per the equation on Section 3 page 7 of 26.
1.3.2 Proposed Condition Tc
In the proposed condition the lots drain to a concrete swale in the center of the tract which
conveys the flows via inlet to onsite landscape areas. The initial Ti was estimated using Table 3-2
ofthe Hydrology Manual. The velocity in the swale was estimated using Manning's equation
and the velocity in the pipe was calculated using V = Q/A and assuming the pipe will be flowing
full. These values were entered into an Excel spreadsheet that calculates the Tc and the
corresponding I per the equation on Section 3 page 7 of 26.
1.3.3 Conclusion
Table A gives the pre and post project runoff for the four subareas on the site.The 100 year 6 hr
flow rate in the existing condition is 0.46 cfs and the proposed flow rate is 1.27 cfs for an
increase from the site of 0.81 cfs.
Hydraulic Evaluation Summary - TABLE A
Subarea Pre-Project Post-Project
C 1 A Q C 1 A Q Difference
(in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs)
A 0.30 3.15 0.070 0.07 0.69 3.87 0.070 0.19 0.12
B 0.30 3.77 0.050 0.06 0.69 3.77 0.050 0.15 0.09
C 0.30 3.27 0.130 0.13 0.69 4.33 0.130 0.39 0.26
D 0.30 3.36 0.210 0.21 0.69 3.81 0.210 0.55 0.34
Total 0.46 1.27 0.81
4 I P a R (:
ICQ Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhomes Area A
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 3049.2 sf
Soil Group C
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.30
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.69
Pre Project 100 vear 6hr Runoff
Pre Project Ti 10.90 min
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.100 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.34 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 7.31 min
Tc = Ti + Tt 18.21 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.15 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.07 cfs
Post Proiect 100 year 6hr Runoff
Post Project Ti 5.10 min
Length 120.00 ft
Slope 0.095 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale N 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.086 ft
Swale Velocity 0.52 ft/sec
Swale Tt 3.88 min
Tc 8.98 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 2.14 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.87 in/hr
Graded Area 3049.20 ft'^2
ICQ Year flow rate 0.19 cfs
ICQ Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhonnes Area B
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 2178 sf
Soil Group C
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.30
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.69
Pre Proiect 100 vear 6hr Runoff
Pre Project Ti 10.90 min
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.059 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.86 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 2.89 min
Tc = Ti + Tt 13.79 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.77 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.06 cfs
Post Proiect 100 vear 6hr Runoff
Post Project Ti 5.10 min
Length 78.00 ft
Slope 0.015 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale N 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.078 ft
Swale Velocity 0.48 ft/sec
Swale Tt 2.69 min
Tc 7.79 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 2.14 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 4.24 in/hr
Graded Area 2178.00 ft'^2
100 Year flow rate 0.15 cfs
100 Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhomes Area C
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 5662.8 sf
Soil Group C
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.30
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.69
Pre Proiect 100 vear 6hr Runoff
Pre Project Ti 10.90 min
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.126 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.40 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 6.27 min
Tc - Ti + Tt 17.17 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.27 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.13 cfs
Post Proiect 100 year 6hr Runoff
Post Project Ti 5.10 min
Length 90.00 ft
Slope 0.009 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale N 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.155 ft
Swale Velocity 0.62 ft/sec
Swale Tt 2.44 min
Tc 7.54 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 2.14 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 4.33 in/hr
Graded Area 5662.80 ft'^2
100 Year flow rate 0.39 cfs
100 Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhomes Area D
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 9147.6 sf
Soil Group C
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.3
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.69
Pre Proiect 100 year 6hr Runoff
Pre Project Ti 10.90 min
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.152 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.45 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 5.53 min
Tc = Ti + Tt 16.43 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.36 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.21 cfs
Post Proiect 100 vear 6hr Runoff
Post Project Ti 5.10 min
Length 164.00 ft
Slope 0.009 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale N 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.155 ft
Swale Velocity 0.67 ft/sec
Swale Tt 4.07 min
Tc 9.17 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 2.14 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.81 in/hr
Graded Area 9147.60 ft'^2
100 Year flow rate 0.55 cfs
Hydraulic Evaluation Summary
Subarea Preproject Post Project
C 1 A Q C 1 A Q Difference
(in/hr) (acres; (cfs) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs)
A 0.30 3.15 0.070 0.07 0.69 3.87 0.070 0.19 0.12
B 0.30 3.77 0.050 0.06 0.69 3.77 0.050 0.15 0.09
C 0.30 3.27 0.130 0.13 0.69 4.33 0.130 0.39 0.26
D 0.30 3.36 0.210 0.21 0.69 3.81 0.210 0.55 0.34
Total 0.46 1.27 0.81
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(ATTACHMENTS)
Table 3.1 and Table 3.2
San Diego Coooty Hydrology Manual
Daw: June 2003 Seclion: 3
6 of 26
Table 3-1
RUNOFF C OEFnCTEXTS FOR l'RB.4N AREAS
Land Use Rnooflr CoefiBcieot "C"
Soit Type
NRCS Elwaenis Coiwty Eteiaeatt %MPER. c D
0.30 0.35
0.J6 041
0.42 0.46
0.45 049
0.4S 0.52
0.54 0.57
0.57 0.60
O.«0 06}
0.69 0.71
0.7S 0.79
0.78 0.7S»
0.81 082
084 085
0.S4 0.85
0.87 0.87
Undutufbed Nanuftl Tetram (Natural)
Low Density Resicfentiat (LDR)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Low Den.«ity Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residenitial (MOR)
Medium Density RMidential (MDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Hifb Dmuiy Residential (HDR)
Htpx Deaeily Retidenlial (HDR)
Comm«rcial:'Indt>stnal (N. Com)
Commerciali Indtisirial (Q. Com)
Conimertialilndustrial (O P. Com)
Commerciali'Indttstriat (Limited I.)
Commetcial'lndiMliial (General I.)
Permanent Open Space
Residentiat 1.0 DU A or less
Residential 2.0 DU^A of less
Residential 2 .9 DU'A or less
Re^identiaL 4.3 DU A or less
ResidentiiiL 7.3 OU A <a less
ResideiUiaL 10.9 DU'A or
Residential. 14 S DU'A or less
Residetttial 24.0 DU'A or less
ResideiuiaL 43.0 DU/A or less
Neigbbortiood Cooinwrcial
Ceoeral C^cnunercial
Office ProfeiiioaalCooimercial
Umiied Ittdosirial
General Iiuiustrial
0»
10
20
25
50
40
45
50
65
80
SO
85
90
90
95
0.20
0.27
C Undeveloped j
038 04!
0.41 0.45
0.48 0.51
0.52 0.54
055 058
0.66 0.67
0.76 ("oj?
C developed
080 0.80
0.S3 0S4
0.83 0.84
0.87 0.87
•The valves associated with 0*-» ti^perv'ious may be used for direct calculation ofthe ivnoff coefficient as described in Section 31 2 {lepresenliug the perviom mnoff
coefficient. Cp. for the soil type), or for areas that will remain vndistHibed in perpetuity. Justification mustbe given tbat the arm will remain natural foie^er (e.g.. the area
is localed in Cleveland National Foiest).
DU'A - dwelling imits per acre
NRCS National Rcsotirces Coi^rvation ServKC
3-6
Table 3-2 Undevetoped Ti
MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW^NGTH (LM)
& INITIAL TIME OF CONCEI
Element* DU/
Acre
.5% 1% 2% / 3% 5% 10% Element* DU/
Acre LM T. LM Ti LM V LM Tx LM Ti LM T.
Natural 50 13.2 70 12.5 85 10.9 100 10.3 100 8.7 100 6.9
LDR 1 50 12.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4
LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 100 5.8
LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 Q 1 1 r\T\ T r. 6 LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 O.J Devetoped Ti 6
MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95
Devetoped Ti
MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 /7.8 100 b.l 100 5.3
MDR 7.3 50 9.2 65 8.4 80 7.4 T 7.0 100 6.0 100 4.8
MDR 10.9 50 8.7 65 7.9 80 6.9 /90 6.4 100 5.7 100 4 .5_
.3 MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6/ 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 4
.5_
.3
HDR 24 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5L1 90 4.9 95 4.3 100 3.5
HDR 43 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2 .7
.7 N. Com 50 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2
.7
.7
G. Com 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 90 2.9 100 2.4
O.R/Com 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 31 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2
LtDiitedL 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2
General L 50 3.7 60 3.2 70 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 100 1.9
*See Table 3-1 for more detailed description
INTENSITY-DURATION DESIGN CHART
Figure 3-1
DiraelieM tor AppitoaMn:
(1) From pradpitalkxi maps determine etv and 24 hratnounts
for the sdected fiequency. Theae mam an included in IDs
Counly Hyitology»tenial(10,50. and 100 yr maps induded In the Deaign and Preoedure Msnu^).
(2) Adjust 6 Iv prec«iitation fif necessay) so that it is wittiin
ttie range of 4S% lo 85% of the 24 hr precipitaliar (not
acplicapletoOeMit).
(3) Plot e hr precipitation on the right side of the chart.
(4) OraHi 9 ine through the point parallel to the ptoOed lines.
(5) Thia line is the inlen*lty.duistion cum for the location being anatyzed.
(a) Selected fretiuency.
. in.. P. 24-''24 (c) AdjuEled Pgl^l = _
(att^= min.
(B) I = inJhr.
I<tote: This ctian replaces the lntan£ity.OLirallan.Fra()usncy
curves used since 1965.
CURE
Intaeuity^tantfoa Daaisn Cttatt - Tamptata
County of SanDiego
Hydrology Manual
Rainfall Isopluvials
100 Year Rainfall Event - 6 Hours
Isopluvial (Inches)
r>pw/
^GIS GIS
IHIE l.*I.P IS PROWOEO WITHOUI WAHRAIJTY OF AHY KIND. OTHER EXPRECE OR WPLieo INCLl^OING. BUT NOT Llt/IIEO TO. ThE INtPUED WATtRANTlES
oFMencMMtT^eliJTV *MD FiihJEss FOR APARHCULAR PURPOSE. Cepyisfhi SanGIS, AM Righis fieie-vnil.
This pioducii may conUiln Inlonnalioa hom lh* SWDAO Regiooai ^ Nwmsiion Syslnm »*ich einnei bt inpioduced wiihoui the
This p"K)uft m"* ron' qianied by Thomas BiDiheis Maps.
jn whkh hit l>een wfxoduteri ivllli
3 0 3 Miles
CALCULATIONS FOR 6" STORM DRAIN PIPE
(Drains to Bioretention area witli vault)
Input Parameters
Diameter,
Flow,
Manning's coeff.,
Area,
Hydraulic radius,
D=
Q=
N=
A=
R=
Z=
Wetted perimeter, WP=
0.5
0.55
0.013
0.19635
0.125
1.486
1.5708 @Full capacity
Friction slope. Sf = 0.009541625
HGL @ outlet
Length of Pipe
HGL @ inlet
40.05
53
40.56
Top of Grate elevation @ Inlet = 40.80
HGL @ inlet < Top of Grate elevation =>0K
X ^
9- £
I ONE
Permeable Interlocking
Concrete Pavement
'/////////ffii} J;
Storviwater Inlet Drain - hike Park, FL
DF.VHl.OPMFN i; IMPERVIOUS COVER AND
IMPAC rS OF S lORMWAI ER RUNOFF
With ever-increa.sing levels of development, natural,
open land is rapidly being replaced with imperviou.s surfaces
such as asphalt roadways, parking lots, and buildings. As a
result, the management of increased levels ot stormwater
runoff and its impact on the environment has become a
major issue for all levels of government throughout the
country. Numerous studies indicate that stormwater runoff
is the primary source of pollutants found in surface waters
and contains a toxic combination of oils, pesticides, metals,
nutrients, and sediments. Additionally, research has shown
that once a watershed reaches just 10% iinpervious cover,
water resources are negatively impacted.
In the early 1990s,
the United States
Enviromnental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA)
established the National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater
regulations to comply
with the requirements
ofthe Clean Water Act.
Compliance with
federal, state, and local
stormwater programs involves the use of "best management
practices" (BMPs) to manage and control stormwater runoff.
Effective management of stormwater runoff offers a number
of benefits, including improved quality of surface waters,
protection of wedand and aquatic ecosystems, conservauon
of water resources, and flood mitigation. I'he EPA recom-
mends approaches that integrate control of stormwater and
protection of natural systems.
In 1999 and 2001, the International Ciry/County
Managers Association (ICMA) and EPA released the frame-
work for "Smart Growth" policies that communities around
the country could adopt to meet environmental, communi-
ty, and economic goals. Simultaneously, organizations such
as the Low Impact Development Center and the Center for
Watershed Protection began advocating low impact develop-
ment (LID) as a way to preserve and protect the nation's
water resources. They promote comprehensive land planning
and engineering design, watershed planning and restoration,
and stormwater management approaches that protect water
resources and attempt to maintain pre-existing hydrologic
site conditions. Their goal is ro achieve superior environ-
mental protection, while still allowing for development.
The EPA began working with these organizations in
2006 to promote the u.se of LID and Smart Growth as a
way to manage stormwater runoff. The goal is to protect
water resources at the regional level by encouraging states
and municipalities to implement policies that consider both
growth and conservation simultaneously. I hese approaches
are quickly gaining favor across the country and are being
incorporated into local development regulations to help
meet stormwater runoff requirements and provide more
livable, sustainable communities for residents. One of the
I'riihitc RaidetUf - .\air,l'',nhctt, Rl
primary goals of LID design is to reduce runoff volume by
infiltrating rainwater on site and to find beneficial uses for
the water as opposed to utilizing storm drains. LID objec-
tives include the reduction of impervious cover, preservation
of natural landscape features, and the maximization of in-
filtration opportunities. Infiltration helps recharge ground-
water, reduces urban heat island effects, and reduces down-
stream erosion and flooding. This allows development to
occur with much less environmental impact.
In addition, "green building" programs are gaining in
popularity. 'Lhe Leadership in Energ}' and Environmental
Design (LEED*) green building assessment system, devel-
oped by the U.S. Green Building Council, has been adopted
by a number of cities and states that now require municipal
buildings to meet LEED® certification standards. Also, the
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has released
a comprehensive guide on green building that promotes
mixed-use developments, cluster housing, green technologies
and materials, and alternative stormwater approaches.
UNI HCO-SIONE ...THE SOLU FION lO
SFO RVI WAFER RUNOFF PROBLEMS
Permeable interlocking concrete
pavements (PICPs) are becoming
increasingly popular as more
cities and states are faced with
meeting stormwater runoff
regulations, increased
impervious cover restrictions, and
the adoption of LID or LEED'" practices. UNI Fco-Stone'-
Eco-Stone® is a permeable interlocking concrete
pavement .system that mitigates stormwater runoff through
infiltration. This allows for reduction of volume and peak
flows, improved water qualit}', filtering of pollutants, miti-
gation of downstream flooding, and recharge of ground-
water. Eco-Stone® is a true interlocking paver that offers the
structural support, durability, and beauty of traditional
concrete pavers, combined with the environmental benefit
of permeability. "Lhe permeability is achieved through the
drainage openings created by its notched design. Measure-
ments of a typical UNI Eco-Stone*' paver and physical
characteristics are shown in Figure 1.
Physical Characteristics
Height/Thickness 31/8"
Width 41/2"
Length 9"
Pavers per sq ft
Percentage of drainage void area per sq ft
Composition and IVIanufacture
Minimum compressive strength - SOOOpsi
Maximum water absorption - 5%
Meets or exceeds ASTM C-936
and freeze-thaw testing per
section 8 of ASTM C-67.
= 80mm
= 115mm
= 230mm
= 3.55
= 12.18%
Figure I
The drainage openings in an Eco-Stone* permeable
pavement are created when the pavers are installed (Figure 2).
This is what distinguishes Eco-Stone"" permeable pavers
from traditional interlocking concrete pavers. Lhe drainage
openings are filled with a clean, hard crushed aggregate that
is highly permeable, allowing for rapid infiltration of
stormwater (Figure 3).
Figure .3
ECO-S i ONE PERMEABLE PAVEMEN F AS
AN EPA BES'l MANACEMEN F PRACFK F
'Lhe EPA encourages "system building" to allow for the
use of appropriate site-specific practices that will achieve the
minimum measures under Phase II of NPDES. Governing
authorities must develop and implement strategies that
include a combination of structural and/or non-structural
BMPs appropriate for their communities. Structural
practices include storage practices, filtration practices, and
infiltration practices tbat capture runoff and rely on infil-
trafion through a porous medium for pollutant reduction.
Infiltration BMPs include detention ponds, green roofs,
bioswales, infiltration trenches, and permeable pavements.
Non-structural practices are preventative actions that involve
management and source controls. Many states and munici-
palities have incorporated the EPA regulations into their
stormwater design and BMP manuals as they attempt to
deal with stormwater runoff, increased impervious cover,
and over-taxed drainage and sewer systems.
PICPs are considered structural BMPs under infiltration
practices. From an engineering viewpoint, permeable pave-
ments are infiltration trenches with paving on top that
supports pedestrian and vehicular traffic. By combining
infiltration and retention, Eco-Stone® permeable inter-
locking concrete pavement offers numerous benefits over
other types of structural .systems. Permeable pavements also
work well in conjunction with other recommended BMP
practices such as swales, bioretention areas, and rain gardens.
Rainuhiter Rumlf Model - Minnehaha Creelt Watershed Distriet, MN
ECO S IONE PERMEABEE PAVEMEN F AND
FID, FEED AND (.REEN BUILDING
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
LID has emerged as an attractive approach to controlling
stormwater pollution and protecting watersheds. With
reduction of impervious surfaces a major tenant of LID,
permeable and porous pavements, such as Eco-Stone®, are
listed as one ofthe ten most common LID practices. 'Lhe
use of site-scale technologies, such as PICPs that control
runoff close to the source, closely mirror the natural process
of rainwater falling onto undeveloped areas and infiltrating
into the earth. With many areas ofthe country experiencing
water shortages and increasing water pollution, LID and
Smart Growth approaches will not only help alleviate these
problems, but also create cities that are more energy efficient,
environmentally sustainable, and cost effective.
,¥eKinnij Green Building, MeKinney, I'X - LEED'" Platinum Certified
.Sherwood Island State Park - Westport. Cl
Lhe LEED® green building assessment system has be-
come increasingly popular with the North American design
community since its inception in 1998. I his voluntary
building system for rating new and existing commercial,
institutional, and high-ri.se residential buildings, evaluates
environmental performance from a "whole building" perspec-
tive over the projects life cycle. New green design standards
are being considered for neighborhood design and residential
homes as well. 'Fhe minimum number of points or credits
for a project to be LEED® certified is 26, though silver (3.3-
38 points), gold (39-51 points), and platinum (52-69 points)
ratings also are available.
UNI Eco-Stone* permeable pavements may qualify for
up to 14 points under the Sustainable Sites (SS), Material
and Resources (MR), and Innovation and Design Process
(ID) credits. While traditional concrete pavers also may
qualify under some of the credits, PICP can earn LEED*
points via Sustainable Sites stormwater management credits
by meeting water quality and runoff treatment criteria.
For years, most home builders and developers were
wary of green building practices. However, with impervious
cover restrictions and the increasing costs of energy now
beginning to impact residential projects, the NAHB is
encouraging the u.se of "green" products in single and multi-
family developments. Eco-Stone* permeable pavement
offers an attractive solution to impervious cover restrictions.
ECO-S I ONE AND MUNICIPAF S l ORM-
WAI ER MANACEMENI OBJECIIVES
Municipal regulations for managing stormwater runoff
vary across the country. Water quality and/or quantity may
be regulated, with criteria for reducing water pollutants such
as nitrogen, phosphorous, nitrates, metals, and sediment.
Many municipalities now restrict the amount of impervious
surfaces for virtually all types of construction, including
private residences. Lhousands of municipalities have created
stormwater utilities to fund the increasing costs of managing
stormwater. These fees vary, but are usually based on runoff
volumes and impervious cover.
Private Residenee - l ong Island, NY
Lafayette Road (Jffiee Park - North Hampton, NPI
Regional authorities, counties, and municipalities use a
number of design goals for managing stormwater runoff:
• Limit impervious cover to reduce stormwater runoff
and pollutants from developments
I C^apture the entire stormwater volume so there is
zero discharge from the drainage area
• Capture and treat stormwater runoff to remove a
stated percentage of pollutants
• Capture and treat a fixed volume of runoff typically
0.75-1.5 in. (18-40 mm), which usually contains the
highest level of pollutants
• Maintain runoff volumes generated by development
at or near pre-development levels
• Maintain groundwater recharge rates to sustain
stream flows and ecosystems and recharge aquifers
Eco-Stone® permeable interlocking concrete pavements
may offer .solutions for attaining all of these goals. PICP can
reduce runoff volumes and flows and recharge groundwater.
It also can filter pollutants with removal rates ot up to 95%
total suspended solids, 70% total phosphorous, 51 % total
nitrogen, and 99% zinc. Reduction of runoff also may offer
property owners reductions in stormwater utility fees.
I EAI URFS AND BENEFI IS OF Fill
UNI FCO-S FONE PAVEMEN I SYS FFM
Eco-Stone'"' is an attractive pavement that can be used
for residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational
pedestrian and vehicular applications. It can be used for
parking lots, driveways, overflow parking, emergency lanes,
boat ramps, walkways, low-speed roadways, and storage
facilities. Permeable or porous pavements should not he used
for any site classified as a stormwater hotspot (anywhere there
is a risk of stormwater contaminating groundwater). This
includes fueling and maintenance stations, areas where
hazardous materials or chemicals are stored, or land uses
that drain pesticides/fertilizers onto permeable pavements.
UNI Eco-Stone'"' permeable pavements are a site-scale
infiltration technology that is ideal lor meeting the L.PA's
NPDES regulations, LID and Smart Growth objectives,
LEED'"' certification, municipal and regional impervious
cover restrictions, and green building requirements.
B Can be designed to accommodate a wide variety ot
stormwater management objectives
• Runoff reductions ol up to 100% depending on
project design parameters
B Maximizes groundwater recharge and/or storage
I Reduces nonpoint source pollutants in stormwater,
thereby mitigating impact on surrounding surface
waters, and may lessen or eliminate downstream
flooding and streambank erosion
I Allows better land-use planning and more efficient
use ot available land tor greater economic value,
especially in high-density, urban areas
• May decrease project costs by reducing or eliminat-
ing drainage and retention/detention systems
• May reduce cost ot compliance with stormwater
regulatory requirements and lower utility fees
•I May reduce heat island effect and thermal loading
on surrounding surface waters
(Hen Brook Creen. Jordan Cove Watershed - Waterford, CP
Examples of pollutant removal and infiltration rates for
Eco-Stone® are shown in 'Fables 1 and 2. 'Fhis data is trom
the Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project 2003 Annual
Report by the University of Connecticut, who conducted
monitoring on this EPA Section 319 National Monitoring
Project. It should be noted that these infiltration results
were achieved using a dense-graded base. Even higher
infiltration rates would be expected with open-graded bases.
Test and Year Asphalt Eco-Stone'^
In./hr (cm/hr)
Crusheil Stone
In./hr (cm/hr)
Single Ring Infiltrometer
test 2002 0 7.7 (19.6) 7.3 (18.5)
Single Ring Infiltrometer
test 2003 0 6 (15,3) 5(12.7)
Flowing Infiltration
test 2003 0 8.1 (20.7) 2.4 (6)
Table 1. Avcra^^c infiltration rate.': (rom aspl.utlt, hco-Storu''- <i)i({ crusl)cd stone
Jordan C.ovc Urban Watershed Project
Variable Asphalt Eco-Stone
Pavement
Crusheil
Stone
Runoff depth, mm 1,8 a 0,5 b 0,04 c
Total suspended solids, mg/1 47,8 a 15.8 b 33.7 a
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/1 0,6 a 0.2 b 0.3 ab
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1 0.18 a 0.05 b 0,11 a
Total Kjeldalil nitrogen, mg/1 8,0 a 0,7 b 1,6 ab
Total phosphorous, mg/1 0.244 a 0,162 b 0.155 b
Copper, ug/l 18 a 6 b 16 a
Lead, ug/l 6 a 2 b 3 b
Zinc, ug/l 87 a 25 b 57 ab
Table 2. Mean weekly pollutant concentration in stornnvatcr riinolj
from asphalt, hco-Stone"- and crushed stone drweways
Note: Within each variable, rneans followed by the same letter are not
significantly different at tl =0.0^
ECO S FONF DESIGN AND (,ENERAL
( ()NS FIU iC FION G U11)FEIN ES
UNI-CROUP U.S.A. offers design professionals a
variety ot tools for designing Eco-Stone'"' permeable pave-
ments. Research on Eco-Stone® has been conducted at major
universities such as lexas A&M, University ot Washington,
and Guelph University, and ongoing pollution monitoring
is being conducted at EPA Section 319 National Monitoring
Program sites Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project in
C'onneclicut and Morton Arboretum in Illinois. We otter
design manuals, case studies, and Lockpave"" Pro structural
interlocking pavement design .software, with PC-SWMM
PP '"' for hydraulic design of Eco-Stone'" permeable pave-
ments. Eco-Stone® is featured in the book Porous Pavements
by Bruce Ferguson, a national authority on stormwater
infiltration. And, as members of the Interlocking Concrete
Pavement Instittite, we can offer additional design and
reference information, such as ICPLs Permeable Interlocking
Concrete Pavements manual. Lech Specs'" and C^AD files.
It is recommended that a qualified civil engineer with
knowledge in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted tor
applications using permeable interlocking concrete pavement
lo ensure desired results. Information provided is intended
for use by professional designers and is not a substitute tor
engineering skill or judgement. It is not intended to replace
the services ot experienced, protessional engineers.
Design Option.s - Full, Partial and No Flxfiltration
Eco-Stone® pavements can be designed with full, partial,
or no exfiltration into the soil subgrade. Optimal installa-
tion is infiltration through the base aggregate, with complete
exfiltration into a permeable subgrade. 'Fhis allows for not
only runoff and pollutant reduction, but also groundwater
recharge. For full exfiltration under vehicular loads, the
minimum soil infiltration rate is typically 0.52 in./hr (3.7 x
10 '' m/sec). Where soil conditions limit the amount ot
infiltration and only partial exfiltration can be achieved,
some ofthe water may need to be drained by perforated pipe.
Where soils have extremely low or no permeability, or con-
ditions such as high water tables, poor soil strength, or over
aquifers where there isn't sufficient depth of the soil to filter
pollutants, no exfiltration should occur. An impermeable
liner is often used and perforated pipe is installed to drain
all stored water to an outfall pipe. 'Fhis design still allows tor
infiltration of stormwater and some filtering of pollutants
and slows peak rates and volumes, so it still can be beneficLal
for managing stormwater. For extreme rainfall events, any
overflows can be controlled via perimeter drainage to bio-
retention areas, gras.sed swales or storm sewer inlets.
Ash Avenue Park and Ride - Marysville, U-yl
Infihratioii Rate Design
Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically
designed to infiltrate frequent, short duration storms, which
make up 75-85% of rainstorms in North America. It also
may be possible to manage runoff volumes from larger
storms through engineering design and the use of comple-
mentary BMPs, such as bio-retention areas and swales.
One ofthe most common misconceptions when design-
ing or approving PICP is the assumption that the amount
or percentage ot^ open surface area of the pavement is equal
to the percentage of perviousness. For example, a designer
or municipal agency might incorrectly assume that a 15%
open area is only 15% pervious. The permeability and
amount of infiltration are dependent on the infiltration rates
of the aggregates used for the joint and drainage openings,
the bedding layer, and the base and subbase (if used). Com-
pared to soils, the materials used in Eco-Stone® permeable
pavements have very high infiltration rates - from 500
in./hr (over 10 ' m/sec) to over 2000 in./hr (over 10 ' to 10 -
m/sec). Fhis is much more pervious than existing site soils.
Private Residence - Minneapolis. MN
Lhough initial infiltration rates are very high, it is
important to consider lifetime design infiltration of the
entire pavement cross-.section, including the soil subgrade
when designing PICPs. Based on research conducted to
date, a conservative design rate of 3 in./hr (2.1 x 10"^ m/sec)
can be used as the basis for the design surface infiltration
rate over a 20-year pavement life.
A number of design methods may be used fbr sizing of
the open-graded ba.se (see references). For designers who use
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve num-
bers in determining runoff calculations, the curve number
fbr PICP can be estimated at 40, assuming a life-time design
infiltration rate of 3 in./hr (75mm/hr) with an initial .abstr.ac-
tion of 0.2 (applies to NRCS group A soils). Other design
professionals may use coefficient of runoff (C) for peak
runoff calculations. For the design life of permeable inter-
locking concrete pavement, C can be estimated with the
following formula: C = I - Design infiltration rate, in./hr + I,
where I = design rainfall intensity in inches per hour.
(lonstiuction Materials and Genera! Installation
It is preferable that site soils not be compacted if
structural strength is suitable, as compaction reduces infiltra-
tion rates. Low CBR soils (<4%) may require compaction
and/or stabilization for vehicular traffic applications. E)rains
also would Typically be required for low CBR soils. It soils
must be compacted, the reduced infiltration rates should be
factored into the design. Permeable and porous pavements
should not exceed 5% slope for maximum infiltration.
Goodhys Marina - Jaeksonville, PL
Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically
built over open-graded aggregate bases consisting of washed,
hard, crushed stone, though a variet}' of aggregate materials,
including dense-graded, may be used depending on project
parameters. Typically, stone materials should have less than
1 % fines passing the No. 200 sieve.
Current industry recommendations include a subbase of
open-graded aggregate (typically ASTM No. 2 or equivalent)
at a minimum thickness of 6 in. (150mm) for pedestrian
applications and 8 in. (200mm) for vehicular applications.
Lhis makes it easier for contractors to install the base materi-
als. A base layer of open-graded aggregate (typically AS'LM
No. 57 or equivalent) is installed over the subbase. Lhis
helps meet filter criteria between the layers. 'Lhe recommend-
ed thickness for this layer is 4 in. (100mm). It may be pos-
sible, however, to use a single material for the base and
subbase depending on project design parameters and con-
tractor experience. Open-graded materials described here
r}'pically have a water storage void space between the aggre-
gates of between 30-40%, which maximizes storage ot in-
filtrated stormwater.
r/P NO S ACOR^GATr in OPCNItJGC
ECO'SIONE PAVER
roR t>/CRFiawO«Ai.*AC.i; .CURS &HO/VP;I
BEDDING COURSE
- I V'?TO;'t*0TOMMMirHICK
iri'P UO eAGGfiEGATE;.
- fl- SlOO MMf TMICrf ITVP NO 5' S^OME '
OPEN-GRAEJCD BASE
yp NO 2 STONEI
soil SueCPJvOE , ZERO iLOn
Figure 4 - lypical Cross-Section of nn Eco-Stone'^' I\i-nieable Pavement
Pull Exfiltration
For the bedding layer, material equivalent to AS I'M
No. 8 stone is recommended. Lhis same material is u.sed to
fill the drainage openings and joints. If desired, material
equivalent to No. 9, 10 or 89 stone also m.ay be used to fill
the smaller joints between the pavers. Bedding and jointing
sand used in the construction of traditional interlocking
concrete pavements should not be used for PICP.
Private Residence - Danvers, MA
Ihe liullege .School ofWebster Groves - St. Louis, MO
UNI Eco-Stone® can be mechanically installed and
trafficked immediately after final compaction, unlike other
types of porous pavements. It has been used successfully for
many years throughout North America and can withstand
repeated freeze/thaw in northern climates due to adecjuate
space for ice to expand within the open-graded ba.se. PICP
can be snow plowed, and because water does not stand on
the surface, it may reduce ice slipping hazards. Winter
sanding is' not recommended on PICPs. Permeable inter-
locking concrete pavement conforms to current ADA
requirements that surfaces be firm, stable, and slip resistant.
If the openings in the surface are not desirable, solid pavers
can be installed in areas used by disabled persons.
.Maintenance
All permeable pavements require periodic cleaning to
maintain infiltration, and care must be taken to keep sedi-
ment off the pavement during and after construction. Studies
and field experience have shown that vacuum-type street
cleaning equipment is most effective for removing sediment
from the openings to regenerate infiltration. Vacuum settings
may require adjustment to prevent the uptake of aggregate
in the pavement openings and joints. Lhe surface should be
dry when cleaning. Replenishment ot joint and opening
aggregate can be done, if needed, at the time of cleaning.
Lhe frequency of cleaning is dependent on traffic levels. It is
generally recommended to vacuum the pavement surface at
least once or twice a year, though some low-use pavements
may not need cleaning as often. As street cleaning is a BMP
under EPA guidelines, this also sadsfies other criteria in a
comprehensive stormwater management program.
If properly constructed and maintained, PICP should
provide a service life of 20 to 25 years. Like our traditional
interlocking concrete pavers, Eco-Stone® may be taken up
and reinstated if underground repairs are needed. If at the
end of its design life the pavement no longer infiltrates the
required amount of stormwater runoff, PICP is the only
type of permeable pavement that can be taken up, the base
materials removed and replaced, and the pavers reinstalled.
UNI ECOEOC HEAVY-DU FY PERMEABFF
FN l EREOCKlNG CONCRE I E PAVEMEN F
Ecoloc* features all the same attributes and features of
our Eco-Stone"'-" permeable paver with the added benefit of
supporting industrial loads.
It can be used together with
our industrial traditional
interlocking paver, UNI-
Anchorlock® to provide
design professionals with the
option of combining solid
pavement areas with
permeable areas. Pcoloe''" luith UNi-Anchorlock^'
Like Eco-Stone*, Ecoloc® features funnel-shaped
openings that facilitate the infiltration of stormwater r
Physical characteristics are described in Figure 5.
Physical Characteristics
Height/Thickness 3 1/8" = 80mm
Width 8 7/8" = 225mm
Length 8 7/8" = 225mm
Pavers per sq ft = 2.41
Percentage of drainage void area per sq ft = 12.18%
Composition and Manufacture
Minimum compressive strength -
8000psi
Maximum water absorption - 5%
Meets or exceeds ASTM C-936
and freeze-thaw testing per
section 8 of ASTM C-67.
Figure 5
Ecoloc* can be mechanically installed and is ideal for
larger-scale projects such as parking lots, roadways, storage
and depot areas, and ports. Over 173,000 sf of Ecoloc® was
used for an EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Permit
-S- ^i^S^tm^'-ir-'. • Project at Morton
Arboretum in Illinois.
It also is in use at a test
site located at Howland
Hook Terminal at the
Port of New York/New
Jersey that is subjected
to heavy, containerized
loads, port forklifts and
cargo carriers. Another
30,000 sf of Ecoloc "'
was installed at the E.ast
Gwillimbury Go
Commuter 'Frain
Station parking lot in
Newmarket, Ontario.
Seneca Colleo;e - Poronto, Ontario
Morton Arboretum - DuPage County, II.
In addition, Ecoloc® is undergoing an evaluation at
Seneca College in Ontario for the loronto and Region
Conservation Authority to study permeable interlocking
concrete pavement performance in cold climates conditions.
Please check with your local UNI® manufacturer tor
availability of Ecoloc® in your area. Please visit our website
www.uni-groupusa.org for updated information, design
references and research, a list of manufacturers, and more.
East {iivilhtuhury Go Commuter Prain Station - Newmarket, Ontario
REFERENCES & RESOURCES
"Animal Report - Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Section 319 National
Monitoring Program L^roject. University oi C^onneclicat, 200.5
" l/Nl Eco-Stone^' Design Guide and Research .Summary
' Lockpave " Pro structural design sojiware with PC-SWMAP'' PP hydraulic
design software
'Porous Pavements - Bruce K. Fergu.soji, (^RC Pres.s, 2005
' Permeable Interlockhig Concrete Pavements - Inceriocking C^oncretc I'avcmcn!
In.si itute. 2006
A special thank you to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute for use of sonic
project photos.
Pront cover photos: Eco-Stone' - Private Residenee Cape Cod. AIA and
Ecoloc '''' - Westmoreland .Street Project - Portland, OR
UNI La)-Scnnc" and UNI Fcciloc" are registered trademarks ot F. von Faiigsdortt Lie,
Ftd., C aledon, (.)ntario. Canada
4)2(1116-2007 liXI-(.;Rl)l,"l> i:.S„\, I'nrufd in th:- l.:.S.,\,
UNI-GROUP U.S.A. - National Headquarters Office
4362 Noiihlakc Blvd, • Suite 204 • Palin Beach (iaixleiLs, Fi, .5.5410
(561) 626.-4666 • FAX (56i) 627-6403 • 1-800-872-1864
wwvv.utii-groupu.sa.org • E-mail: irifoC'^^utit-groupusa.org
APPENDIX F
Calculations
IVCJJUl I IVCSUIl
Project Name JEREZ CT
Project Applicant TMS DEVELOPH/IENT LLC
Jurisdiction City of Carlsbad
Parcel (APN) 216-290-09
Hydrologic Unit Carisbad
Compliance Basin Summary
Basin Name: BASIN 1-OVERALL
Receiving Water: JEREZ CT
Rainfall Basin Oceanside
H/tean Annual Precipitation (Inches) 13.3
Project Basin Area (acres); 0.41
Watershed Area (acres): 0.00
SCCWRP Lateral Channel Susceptlbiity (H, Nl, L):
SCCWRP Vertlflcal Channel Susceptlbiity (H, M, L):
Overall Channel Susceptibility (H, M, L): HIGH
Lower Flow Threshold (% of 2-Year Fiow): 0.1
I Summary
ID Area (ac) Pre-Project Cover Post Surface Type Drainage Soli Slope
25624 Drains to LID BIWP1 LANDSCAPE 0.01 Pen/ious (Pre) Landscaping
25625 Drains to LID BMP1 PATIOS 0.02 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less...
25626 Drains to LID BMP 1 ROOFS 0.02 Pervious (Pre) Roofs Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less...
Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less ...
25627 Drains to LID BMP 1 DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, ETC 0.00 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less ...
25628 Drains to LID BMP 2 LANDSCAPE 0.00 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less...
25629 Drains to LID BMP 2 PATIOS 0,01 Pen/ious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less ...
i
i 25630 Drains to LID BMP 2 ROOFS 0,03 Pervious (Pre) Roofs Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less ...
1 25631
1 25632
i
Drains to LID
Drains to LID
BMP 3
BMP 3
LANDSCAPE
ROOFS
0,00
0,01
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious (Pre)
Landscaping
Roofs
Type C (slow infiltration)
Type C (slow infiltration)
Fiat-slope (less ...
Flat-slope (less...
http://uknow.brwiicald.com/wastewater/Toolkits/Watershed/SiteToolkit/ReportResult.^ 4/9/2013
ivepuii ivcsuii
1
25633 Drains to LID BMPS DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK. ETC 0.02 Pervious (Pre) Pervious concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less...
25634 Drains to LID BMP 4 LANDSCAPE 0.00 Pervious (Pre) Landscaping Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less, ,,
25635 Drains tc LID BMP 4 ROOFS 0.01 Pervious (Pre) Roofs Type C (siow infiltration) Flat-slope (less,,,
25636 Drains to LID BMPS LANDSCAPE 0,03 Pervious (Pre) Landscaping Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less „.
25637 Drains to LID BMPS PATIOS 0.01 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less,,,
25638 Drains to LID BMPS ROOFS 0,06 Pervious (Pre) Roofs Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less...
25639 Drains to LID BMPS DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK. ETC 0.11 Pervious (Pre) Pervious concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat-slope (less, ,,
BMP ID Type Description Pian Area (sqft) Volume 1(cft) Volume 2(cft) Orifice Flow/ (cfs) Orifice Size (inch)
BMP 1 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 441 367 264 0.001 0,1
BMP 2 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 413 344 248 0.000 0.1
BMP 3 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 110 91 66 0.000 0.1
BMP 4 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 152 126 91 0.000 0.0
BMPS Bioretention + Vault BIORETENTION 157 1022 0.00 0.003 0.2
httD://uknow.brwncald.com/wastewater/Toolkits/Watershed/SiteToolkit/ReportResult.aspx?pid=138617&bid 4/9/2013