HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 10-01; SEABREEZE VILLAS; STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2010-09-28, ' . ,
"
.
','
, '
"
1 .." ~\
\ .
, " .'
, .
,;
, '
PRf" Uf"\ INfA ~ Y
STORM WATER MANAGEME_NT PLAN
Project Site:
Prepared For:
Date Prepared:
(SWMP)
FOR
SEA BREEZE VILLAS
Project No. CT-10-20
391 Tamarack Avenue
Carlsbad, California
TMS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
32 Sylvan
Irvine, California 92603
September 28,2010
CONSULTANTS, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
12371 Lewis Street, Suite 203
Garden Grove, CA 92840
714.740.8840
•
•
•
September 28, 2010
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
City of Carlsbad Required
PRELIMINARY
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(SWMP)
For
SEA BREEZE VILLAS
PROJECT NO. CT 10-01
Prepared By:
OMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
SURENDER DEWAN, P.E.
12371 LEWIS STREET, SUITE 203
GARDEN GROVE, CA 92840
714.740.8840
Surender@DMSConsultantslnc.com
Prepared For:
TMS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
32 SYLVAN
IRVINE, CA 92603
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
Page 1
•
J: •'
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
CERTIFICATION
Surender Dewan, .E. Date
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
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, Urban
Runoff 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 City of Carlsbad Runoff Management Program 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 document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity.
Signed:
Name:
Company/Owner:
Address:
Telephone #:
September 28, 2010
cL2
~
evelopment, LLC
32 Sylvan
Irvine, California 92603
Title:
-E-q'e-~~82'--1~Ir---'{;¥--~~to_-Date:
Page 2
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 11 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
2.0 APPLICABILITY AND PROJECT TYPE .......................................................................................... 6
3.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... i •••••••• 11 •• 1 7
3.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Project Size ................................................................................................................... ; .... i ........................ 7
3.4 Impervious and Pervious Surface areas ..................................................................................................... 7
4.0 PROJECT SITE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 11 ••••••••••••••••• 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 ................................................................................................. i ............ 8
4.5 303(d) Listed Receiving Waters .................................................................................................................. 8
4.6 • 4.7
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ......................................................................................................... 9
Soil Type(s) and Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 9
5.0 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN ............................................... 11 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 0
5.1 Project Categories and Features .............................................................................................................. 10
5.2 Project Watershed Information ................................................................................................................. 10
6.0 HYDROLOGIC & GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF CONCERN! DRAINAGE REPORT ......... 11
7.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) ................................................................................ 12
7.1 LI D Site Design Strategies and BMPs ...................................................................................................... 12
7.1.1 Optimize the Site Layout .......................................................................................................................... 12
7.1.2 Use Pervious Surfaces ............................................................................................................................. 13
7.1.3 Disperse Runoff ....................................................................................................................................... 13
7.1.4 Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) ................................................................................................ 13
7.2 Source Control BMPs ............................................................................................................................... 13
7.3 Treatment Control BMPsIIMP Calculations .............................................................................................. 15
7.3.1 Selection ............................................................................................................................................. 15
7.3.2 Design and Sizing .................................................................................................................................... 15
•
September 28, 2010 Page 3
•
•
•
8.0
9.0
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
PROJECT PLAN(s) & BMP LOCATION MAP ............................................................................... 17
BMP MAINTENANCE ............................................................................ 11 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18
9.1 Facility Ownership & Maintenance Agreements ....................................................................................... 18
9.2 Operations, Maintenance and Inspection ................................................................................................. 18
9.2.1 Typical Maintenance Requirements ......................................................................................................... 18
9.2.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan ................................................................................................. 18
9.2.3 Project BMP Verification .......................................................................................................................... 18
9.2.4 AnnualBMP Operation and Maintenance Verification ............................................................................. 18
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
September 28, 2010
Water Quality Treatment Plan
Tentative Map
Soils Report
Hydrology Study (Pre and Post Construction Conditions)
•
•
UNI ECO·STONE Permeable Pavers
Baffle Box, Suntree Technologies, Inc .
Page 4
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -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 Sea Breeze Villas. The site design, source control and treatment control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to provide long term solution to protecting water quality. This
SWMP is subject to revisions as needed to accommodate changes to the project design, or as required by
the City and/or Engineer.
September 28, 2010 Page 5
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
2.0 APPLICABILITY AND PROJECT TYPE
Based on the criteria established in Order R9-2007-0001 NPDES No. CAS0108758 Section 0.1, and
review of the City's Stormwater Standards Manual Section G (local SUSMP) Chapters 1 and 3, and after
completion of the City of Carlsbad's Checklist 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) SMPs, Source Control BMPs, and
Treatment Control BMPs .
September 28, 2010 Page 6
•
•
Sea Breeze Vii/as -Storm Water Management Plan
3.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
3.1 Project Location
The project site is located in the City of Carlsbad on the south side of Tamarack Avenue, adjacent and west
of the railroad right-of-way, at 391 Tamarack Avenue, APN 206-020-08. Figure 3.1 illustrates the project
location. The Tentative Map included as Attachment A includes the project details, as further discussed in
this section.
Figure 3.1
3.2 Project Description
The proposed Sea Breeze Villas project is a private 12-unit airspace condominium project with a play area
located north of Building B. The project has a total of 5 guest parking spaces.
To conform to LID requirements for BMPs, the project utilizes the use of permeable pavers manufactured
by ECO Stone. These pavers are located in the center 8-foot wide section of the driveway. Overflow from
the site drains via a 12-inch diameter PVC drain which connects to an existing catch basin located along
the southerly curb of Tamarack Avenue. The yard drains in the project area tie to the underground storm
drain system.
The existing site has a single family home on it. The home is to be demolished. The property is
surrounded to the west and south by multifamily development and by the railroad to the east.
The detailed BMP Treatment Plan is included as Attachment A.
3.3 Project Size
The project is located on a 0.70 acre site. The total disturbed area of the site is 0.70 acres. The project will
be built in one phase.
3.4 Impervious and Pervious Surface areas
The existing site is approximately 90% pervious. The proposed development after completion will be about
75% impervious. The project will result in an increase in impervious are from existing to final development
conditions .
September 28, 2010 Page 7
Sea Breeze Villas -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.
Constrains presented by high density land use eliminated the use of urban green biofilter, vegetated
swales, wetlands/wetponds. Use of UNI Eco-Stone permeable pavers provided the opportunity to infiltrate
the runoff into the ground.
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 pattern.
4.3 Existing and Proposed Drainage
The existing site drains southerly in an uneven fashion towards the railroad property.
The proposed drainage system consists of permeable pavers manufactured by UNIEco-Stone. These
pavers are installed in the center of the driveway. The pavers are laid over a bedding course of 1 %" to 2"
thick aggregate which is laid over a stone open graded base. Overflow/secondary outlet from the site
consists of a 12" diameter PVC storm drain which connects to a public storm drain on Tamarck Avenue that
connects to storm drain discharging at Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
4.4 Watershed and Receiving Waters
The proposed project is located within the Carlsbad (HU 904) watershed or hydrologic unit and the
subwatershed or hydrologic area of Encinas. The surface and groundwater receiving waters located in the
area and downstream of this project include Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The designated beneficial uses of
these waters include MUN, AGR, REC1. REC2, IND, PROC, GWR, FRSH, NAV, POW and COMM.
4.5 303(d) Listed Receiving Waters
The receiving water body for the project is Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the ultimate receiving body is
Pacific Ocean. The receiving water is impaired for the following pollutants.
Agua Hedionda Creek: manganese, selenium, sulfates, TDS; Agua Hedionda Lagoon: indicator bacteria,
sedimentation/siltation; Pacific Ocean Shoreline (Buena Vista Creek HA, Escondido Creek HA, Loma Alta
HA, San Marcos HA): indicator bacteria .
September 28, 2010 Page 8
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
4.6 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Hydrologic Water Quality Nutrientsl Sedimentationl TOS Bacteria Descriptor Limited Segment Eutrophication Siltation
LowerYsidora HSA Santa Margarita Lagoon Yes (902.11)
Lorna Alta HA Lorna Alta Slough Yes Yes (904.10)
Lorna Alta HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Creek Yes (904.10)
EI SaltoHSA Buena Vista Lagoon Yes Yes Yes (904.21)
Buena Vista Creek HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Creek Yes (904.20)
* Los Monos HSA Agua Hedionda Lagoon Yes Yes (904.31)
Los Monos HSA Lower Agua Hedionda Creek Yes (904.31)
San Elijo HSA San Elijo Lagoon Yes Yes Yes (904.61)
Escondido Creek HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Lagoon Yes (904.60)
Miramar Reservoir Los Penasquitos Lagoon Yes
'. HA
Mission San Diego Famosa Slough & Channel Yes HSA(907.11)
4.7 Soil Type(s) and Conditions
A soils report prepared by Strata-Tech, Inc. dated April 20, 2010 indicates that the existing soil is mostly
light brown medium to fine grade sand, under laid with 2' to 3' of natural soil brown silty sand. There was
no ground water encountered up to a depth of 10 feet.
September 28, 2010 Page 9
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
5.0 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
The potential storm water or urban runoff pollutants expected to be associated with this project 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 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 below.
BASIN NUMBER HYDROLOGIC BASIN BASIN NUMBER HYDROLOGIC BASIN
4.00 CARLSBAD HYDROLOGIC UNIT
4.10 LomaAtta HA 4.50 San MarCos HA
4.20 Buena Vista Creek HA 4.51 Batiquitos HSA
4.21 BSatto HSA 4.52 Richland HSA
4.22 Vista HSA 4.53 TVvinOaks 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
September 28, 2010 Page 10
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
6.0 HYDROLOGIC & GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF CONCERNI DRAINAGE
REPORT
This section of the SWMP identifies hydrologic and geotechnical conditions of concern related to the
proposed project. Ir,npacts to the hydrologic regime resulting from development typically include increased
runoff volume and velocity; reduced infiltration; increased flow frequency, duration, and peaks; faster time
to reach peak flow; and water quality degradation. A change to a priority project site's hydrologic regime is
considered a condition of concern if the change impacts downstream channels and habitat integrity.
Conditions of concern can include problems such as flooding, erosion, scour, and other impacts that can
adversely and permanently affect channel and habitat integrity.
There are no hydrological and geotechnical conditions of concern. A drainage report was prepared for the
proposed project by DMS Consultants, Inc., as required by the City, and is included as an Attachment D.
A geotechnical report was also prepared for the proposed project by Strata-Tech, Inc., dated April 20, 2010,
as required by the City, and is included as Attachment C .
September 28,2010 Page 11
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
• 7.0 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 1 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 drainage
impacts identified in Section 5 of this report and the introduction of pollutants identified in Section 2 of City's
Stormwater Standards Manual, into the municipal storm drain system and/or ultimate drainage receiving
waterbody.
7.1 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) .
Where the project is located within the Agua Hedionda Hydrologic Area, the following design strategies
shall be implemented where applicable and feasible.
• Medium Density Residential: A cluster design shall be used, grouping the housing units closer
together on smaller lots, and leaving one-third of the site as undeveloped open space. Impervious
area shall be reduced by decreasing driveway length, sidewalk use, and overall road footprint.
• Multifamily Residential: Impervious area shall be reduced somewhat by more efficient layout.
Porous pavement should be used for all sidewalks. Swales treat a greater proportion of the site.
Large cisterns capture roof runoff, and reuse the water for irrigation.
• Commercial: Porous pavement shall be used for large fraction of the parkillg area. Large cisterns
shall capture roof runoff, and reuse the water for irrigation.
• Industrial: The most challenging site, with layout constraints and little economic incentive for
cisterns for irrigation. Porous pavement parking spaces shall be utilized (a small fraction of the total
paved surface), and the swales shall treat a greater proportion of the site.
7.1.1 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.
September 28, 2010 Page 12
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
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.
7.1.2 Use Pervious Surfaces
Pervious pavers will be used in the drive area to retain runoff. An emergency inlet has been provided
at the downstream end of the driveway for emergency overflow. The runoff from this overflow will drain
via a 12-inch PVC storm drain and connect to an existing catch basin located in Tamarack Avenue.
The runoff from rear yards will be directed to a baffle box located downstream of rear yards before out-
letting into the storm drain system
7.1.3 Disperse Runoff
The runoff from impervious areas drain to impervious pavers located in the center of the driveway.
Runoff from patios drain to flow through planters.
7.1.4 Integrated Management Practices (IMPs)
IMP used for the project is a permeable interlocking concrete pavers manufactured by UNI Eco-Stone.
7.2 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 7·1
summarizes the Source Control BMPs to be installed and/or implemented onsite .
September 28, 2010 Page 13
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE 7-1 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 ... THEN YOUR STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs
BE ON THE PROJECT
SITE ...
1
Potential Sources of Runoff
Pollutants
~ A. On-site storm drain
inlets
~ 02. Landscape/ outdoor
pesticide use
September 28, 2010
2
Permanent Controls-show on
SUSMP drawings
~ Location of inlets.
3
Permanent Controls-List in
SUSMP Table and Narrative
~ Mark all inlets with the
words "No Dumping!
Drains to Creek" or similar.
~ Manage landscape and
irrigation procedures and
management of use of
fertilizers and pesticides .
4
Operational BMPs-lnclude in SUSMP
Table and Narrative
~ 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.cabmQhandbooks.com
~ Include the following ir'llease
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."
~ Monthly during regular
maintenance.
Page 14
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
7.3 Treatment Control BMPslIMP Calculations
Given Below is the basis of selection of use of permeable pavers as BMP and the related calculations.
7.3.1 Selection
Various BMPs including modular wetland system, urban green biofiller, flow through planter box,
vegetated swale and wetlands/wetponds were considered for the facility but not found feasible because
of the following reasons.
1. The natural terrain is not existent for wetlands and reuse. Also the existing ground is not habitable
for it.
2. Vegetated swale was not considered suitable for the site, due to the high density land use and
development leaving unsuitable amount of area for such BMPs.
Table 7·2 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 7-2 Groups of Pollutants and Relative Effectiveness ofTreatment Facilities.
Bioretention Settling Wet Ponds Infiltration Higher-Trash Racks
Facilities Basins and Facilities or Media Higher-rate rate media & Hydro Vegetated
(LID) (Dry Ponds) Constructed Practices Filters biofilters filters -dynamic Swales
Wetlands (LID) Devices
Pollutant of Concern: 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:
• UNI Eco-Stone pavers were selected for the project because not only does it conform to LID
requirements; it also allows reduction of volume and peak flows, improved water permeable
pavers, filtering of pollutants and recharge of ground water. The Geotechnical report included as
Attachment C of this report indicates that the ground water is 10 feet or greater from infiltration
facility. Rear yards will be treated by installing a baffle box, model NSBB-2-4-60, manufactured by
Suntree Technologies, Inc., downstream of rear yards before outletting to 18" diameter on-site
storm drain system, see Attachment A, Band E.
7.3.2 Design and Sizing
The selected BMP will provide adequate treatment. Table 7·3 provides the storm water quality
calculations for the selected BMP .
September 28,2010 Page 15
•
•
•
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE 7-3 Storm Water Quality Calculations .
. .
. . Storm' Water Quality Calculations for Sea-Breeze Villas.
Site Data
Graded Area
" .. '
85th Percentile Depth
Soil Group
Pre Project Runoff Coefficient "C"
Post Project Runoff Coefficient "C"
Storm Water Quality Volume
Pre Project 85th Percentile Runoff Volume
Post Project 85th Percentile Treatment Runoff Volume
Required Infiltration Volume (LID)
Design for Infiltration of Treatment Volume
Available Storage
Paver Length
Paver Width
Paver Area
Gravel Sub-base Depth
Porosity
Total Storage Volume Available
Time for Complete Infiltration
Infiltration Area
Infiltration Rate
Infiltration Rate
Total Infiltration Per Day
Total Infiltration Per Hour
Required Infiltration Time
September 28, 2010
Value
30100
0.61
B
0.25
0.58
Units
sf
in
382.52 ftA3
887.45 ftA3
504.9275 ftA3
887.45
285
8
2280
12
0.4
912
2280
15
2.003
4566.09
190.25
4.66
ft
ft
ftA2
in
ftA2
(see following
attachment)
> 887
OK
gal/day/square foot
cubic feet /day / square foot
cubic feet! day
cubic feet!hour
hours < 72 Hours OK
Page 16
•
•
•
-
• :100Yea'-r ;t\VdrorQgyCalculatibns for Sea breeze Villase -
Site Data
Graded Area
Soil Group
Pre Project Runoff Coefficient "c"
Post Project Project Runoff Coefficient "c"
Pre Project 100 year 6hr Runoff
Pre Project Ti
Earth Swale Length
Earth Slope
Earth Swale Z
Earth Swale N
Earth Swale Flow Depth
Earth Swale Velocity
Earth Swale Tt
, Tc =Ti + Tt
100 year 6 hr Depth
100 year 6 hr intensity
100 Year flow rate
Post Project 100 year 6hr Runoff
Post Project Ti
Paver Swale Length
Paver Slope
Paver Swale Z
Paver Swale N
Paver Swale Flow Depth
Paver Swale Velocity
Paver Swale Tt
Pipe Size
Pipe Length
Pipe Velocity (Assume pipe flows full)
Pipe Tt
Total Tt
Tc
100 year 6 hr Depth
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations)
Effective 100 6hr Depth at ground surface
100 year 6 hr intensity
Infiltration Area
Graded Area Less Infiltration Area
100 Year flow rate
Post project 85th percentile treatment runoff volume
= 30,100.00 x 0.61 x 0.58 = 887.45
12
Value Units
30100 sf
B
0.25
0.58
10.90 min
210.00 ft
0.020 percent
20.00
0.025
0.210 ft
0.56 ft/sec
6.24 min
17.14 min
2.50 in
2.98 in/hr
0.51 cfs
8.20 min
235.00 ft
0.005 percent
50.00
0.02
0.155 ft
0.75 ft/sec
5.24 min
12.00 in
275.00 ft
1.04 ft/sec.
4.39 min
9.63 min
17.83 min
2.50 in
0.61 in
1.89 in
2.19 in/hr
2280.00 ftJ\2
27820.00 ftJ\2
0.81 cfs
4-
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
• 8.0 PROJECT PLAN(s) & BMP LOCATION MAP
•
•
A BMP map included as Attachment A, illustrates the BMPs that will be implemented as described in
Section 7 of this Storm Water Management Plan .
September 28, 2010 Page 17
• PCSWMM for Permeable UNI ECO-STONE® Pavements
•
•
File: untitled.PCS Date: 1/31/20034:14:50 PM
1.0 Input Parameters
Paver Description:
Clogging Potential
Void condition
Infiltration rate
Area
Slope
Length of overland flow
Run-on Description:
Type of surface
Area
Slope
Length of overland flow
Manning's n
Depression storage
Base Description:
Base material
Depth of base
Porosity
Saturated H.K.
Field capacity
Curve fitting parameter
Tension 1 soil moisture
Initial moisture content
Initial depth of water
Drainage Description:
Drainage type
Threshold elevation
Flow coefficient
Flow exponent
Subgrade Description:
Subgrade soil type
Percolation coefficient
Design storm:
Rainfall time step
Rainfall values (in/hr)
Evaluation Criteria:
Medium
New Installation
7.8 in/hr
2280 ft2
0.5%
280 ft
No run-on
0ft2
0%
Oft
0.014
0.02 in
Open graded
12in
0.38
3500 in/hr
0.05
10
15 ftlfraction
5%
Oin
Slow drainage
Oin
1 in/hr-ftJ\exp
2
Silty Clay to Sandy Clay (SC,CL)
0.2 in/hr
5 minutes
0.2,0.2,0.2,0.67,1.08,2.66,
1.44, 0.67, 0.67, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2
Allowable surface runoff 5 % (6.642085 fr)
Allowable base water depth 85 % (10.2 in)
2.0 Computational Results
Maximum depth of groundwater in base material: 2.016 In
• Overall runoff coefficient (C=RlP): 0
•
•
Surface summary:
Total rainfall
Total infiltration
Total evaporation
Total runoff
Remaining surface storage
Subsurface summary:
Total lateral base drainage
Total deep percolation
Initial storage in base
Final storage in base
Volume
132.8417 ft3
132.05 ft3
.7916642 ft3
Oft3
0ft3
Volume
7.16285 ft3
9.337836 ft3
114 ft3
229.426 ft3
Continuity errors in computation:
Surface continuity 0.000 percent
Channel continuity 6.648 percent
Groundwater continuity -0.029 percent
Notice:
Depth
0.699 in
0.695 in
0.004 in
0.000 in
0.000 in
Depth
0.038 in
0.049 in
0.600 in
1.208 in
The PCSWMM for Permeable Pavements software package is only a tool to aid design and for general
guidance. The results given above are not a substitute for engineering skill and judgement and in no
way replace the services of experienced and professionally qualified civil engineering consultants.
Further, PCSWMM for Permeable Pavements is an interface for the USEPA Stormwater Management
Model (SWMM) program -the results above are produced by the SWMM program and no guarantee is
made by Computational Hydraulics Int. or F. VON LANGSDORF LICENSING LTD. as to the validity of
these results. Full responsibility for the use of these results and this software package for any project
remains wholly with the user.
UNI® and ECO-STONE® are trademarks of F. VON LANGSDORF LICENSING L TO.
PCSWMM'" is a trademark of Computational Hydraulics Int.
••
Sea Breeze Villas -Storm Water Management Plan
9.0 BMP MAINTENANCE
9.1 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 Development, LLC
33 Sylvan
Irvine, CA 92603
9.2 Operations, Maintenance and Inspection
9.2.1 Typical Maintenance Requirements
All permeable pavements, including porous asphalt and pervious concrete, require periodic cleaning to
maintain high infiltration rates, and care must be taken to keep sediment off the pavement during and
after construction. Studies and field experience have shown that infiltration rates may be maintained
by street sweeping/vacuuming. The frequency of cleaning is typically dependent on traffic levels. It is
generally recommended to vacuum the pavement surface at least once or twice a year. Periodic
inspections of the site should be conducted for ponding or areas with reduced levels of infiltration.
9.2.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan
• An O&M Plan will be provided with the Final Storm Water Management Plan.
•
An O&M Plan will be prepared for the proposed project and submitted for approval by the City prior to
entitlements. The O&M Plan describes the designated responsible party to manage the stormwater
BMP(s), employee's training program and duties, operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine
service schedule, specific maintenance activities, copies of resource agency permits, and any other
necessary activities. At a minimum, maintenance agreements shall require the inspection and
servicing of all structural BMPs per manufacturer or engineering specifications. Parties responsible for
the O&M Plan shall retain records for at least 5 years. These documents shall be made available to
the City for inspection upon request at any time.
9.2.3 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.
9.2.4 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 15t of each year) .
September 28, 2010 Page 18
., . --PCSWMM 2005 for Permeable ONI, ECO-STONE Pavementsr
untitled 1/31/2003 4:14:50 PM
~ 750U~ _ '-'"
Q)
~ 500u .~
'0 ~ 250u
as
al 0 , __ 1
~ (,) '-'" :g
c: 2
~ ~
o
:::l C/)
.-c: c
-~~I----------~----------------------------------------------~
:a 6
Q)
'0
L..
.$ ~
Q)
4
2
,I'
~ co o.f: --4 'C' ..c: -c: y
c: o E 2 :9-(,)
~ a..
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time since start of simulation (hours)
.......
•
•
• •••• . -.
•
".
~.
•
E;?!§~7if.£L,.L2"'LLI~ T RAT A -TEe H , INC.
" , , . ...,.,., Gl E 0 CON S U L TAN T S
-=--7372 Walnut Avenue, Unit F,Buena Park, California 90620
April 20, 2010
Tony Sfredo
21 Woodcrest
Irvine, California, 92603
714-521-5611
562-427-8099
FAX 714-521-2552
W.O. 262310
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed
Multi Family Residential Development, 391
Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, California.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, a geotechnical investigation has been performed at the subject site. The
purposes of the investigation were to determine the general engineering characteristics of the soils
on and underl)i.ing the site and to provide recommendations for the design of foundations,
pavements and underground improvements.
PROPOSED DEVELOP:MENT
It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of approximately 12 attached
town homes of wood-framed construction with parking and landscaping.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of t;4e study was to obtain subsurface information within the project site area and to
provide reco:rnrn;endations pertaining to the proposed development and included the following:
1. A cursory rdconnaissance of the site and surrounding areas.
I
2. Excavation of exploratory geotechnical test pits to determine the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions.
3. Collection of representative bulk andlor undisturbed soil samples for laboratory analysis.
4. Laboratory analyses of soil samples including determination of in-situ and maximum density,
in-situ and. optimum moisture content, shear strength and consolidation characteristics,
expansion potential and liquefaction analysis.
5. Preparation of this report presenting results of our investigation and recommendations for the
proposed development.
•
• .~
STRATA-TECH,INC .
GEOCONSUL.TANTS
Tony Sfredo
Geotechnical Engirteering Investigation
SITE CONDITIONS
2 W. O. 262310
March 15, 2010
The 117 by 266: foot rectangular lot is located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue, adjacent to
the west side of:the coastline railroad tracks in Carlsbad, California. A small single story house is
currently in the front of the lot, with a debris-covered lot in the rear. The site is shown on the
attached vicinity, Map, Plate No.1.
Site configuratiC?n is further illustrated on the Site Plan, Plate 2.
FIELD INVES1IGATION
The field investigation was perfonned on February 26,2010, consisting of excavating four backhoe
test pits and two hand dug percolation test holes. The locations are shown on the attached Site
Plan, Plate 2. As the excavation progressed, personnel from this office visually classified the soils
encountered, and secured representative samples for laboratory testing.
Description of ;the soils encountered are presented on the attached Test Pit Logs. The data
presented on th~se logs is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies
only at the specific boring location and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative
of subsurface cdnditions at other locations and times.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth material$ encountered within the exploratory test pits were visually logged by a
representative ITom STRATA-TECH, Inc. The materials were classified as artificial fill and native
soils.
Native soils copsisted of a silty residual sandy soil to a maximum depth explored of 7 feet.
Groundwater Wfts not encountered in any of our geotechnical pits.
SEISMICITY,
Southern CalifQrnia is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to strong earthquakes can
occur on numerous faults. The United States Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and
Geology, priv.ate consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in
Southern Califo,rnia for several decades. The purpose of the code seismic design parameters is to
prevent collaps~ during strong ground shaking. Cosmetic damage should be expected.
The principal s~ismic hazard to the subject property and proposed project is strong ground shaking
from earthquak~s produced by local faults. Secondary effects such as surface rupture, lurching, or
flooding are nor considered probable.
•
•
-....... ----.
STRATA-~ECH,INC •
I GEOCCNSLfL.TANTS
Tony Sfredo
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 3
2006 I.B.C. SEfSMIC DESIGN VALUES
2003 NEHRP S~ismic Design Provisions Site Class E ,.. Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0
Spectral RespoItse Accelerations Ss and SI = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Data are b.ased <i>n a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Ss= ~.33
I
!
!
I
SI=0.5
CONCLUSIO~~S AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Sa=.88
W. O. 262310
March 15,2010
Development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoipt,
provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are
implemented in; the field. Recommendations are subject to change based on review of final
foundation and ~ading plans.
! I
It is recommeh.ded that the proposed structures be entirely supported-by compacted fill.
A minimum 1 ifoot thick compacted fill blanket below the bottom of the footings. is
recommended. :
F or other minot structures such as property line walls or retaining walls less than 4 feet high~
competent nati~e soils or compacted fill may be used for structural support.
,
! I
PROPOSED ~RADING
I
Grading plans iwere not available at the time our work was performed. It is assumed that
proposed gra~es will not differ significantly from existing grades. The fo Howing
recommendatiops are subject to change based on review of final grading plans.
i
I
I
i ,
GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS !
Removal and ~ecompaction of existing fill and loose native soils will be required to provide
adequate support for foundations and slabs on grade. The depth of removal' shall be 1 foot below
the bottom of t~e footings. The depth of removal is estimated to be at least 3 feet.
I
i
Earthwork for i foundation support shall include the entire building pad and shall extend a
minimum of 51feet outside exterior footing lines where-feasible or to property line. While no
structures are 0):1 adjacent properties care shall be exercised not to undermine adjacent hardscape,
walls, or pavlents.
I
•
•
STRATA-trEC H, INC.
I
GECOONSU:L.TANTS
Tony Sfredo I
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
i
I
4 W. O. 262310
March 15, 2010
The exposed ex,~avation bottom shall be observed and approved by STRATA-TECH, Inc. and
I 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, the area shall be
scarified 6 incMs, moisture conditioned as needed, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction. ,
i
Fill soils shalli 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 haridscape areas shall consist of removal and recompaction of soft surfidal soils.
Removal depth~ are estimated at 1 to 2 feet. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with
previously spec~fied methods.
i
Grading andlor foundation plans shall be reviewed by the soil engineer. All recommendations are I subject to modifj.cation upon review of such plans.
I I I !
FOUNDATIO~S ON COMPACTED FILL i The proposed quilding 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 p~r square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for
total including s~ismic and wind loads where allowed by code.
I
I •• Minimum Bearing Increase jMmlffium Maximum Type 1 Depth Width Value Width Depth (pst) 1 (inches) (inches) (pst) (psflft) (psflft)
Continuous I 24 12 2000 180 440 3500
Interior Pad 18 24 2000 180 440 3500 ,
i
It is recommended that all footings be reinforced with a minimum of two no. 4 bars (1 top and 1
bottom). The: structural engineer's reinforcing requirements should be followed if more
stringent. :
I
Footing excava'tions shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc. prior to
placement of ~teel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil
conditions are ~xposed mitigation will be recommended.
I
I FOUNDATIO~S ON COMPETENT NATIVE SOILS -for Minor Structures
I
Minor structur~s may be supported by continuous spread footings placed a minimum depth of
24 inches belot lowest adjacent grade and 12-inches into natural soil utilizing an allowable
STRATA-iTECH,INC.
GEOCCNSU,L.TANTS
Tony Sfredo
Geotechnical Engi~eering Investigation 5 W. O. 262310
March 15,2010
bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be
increased 1/3 fot total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code.
I
Footing excava~ions shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc. prior to
placement of st~el or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil·conditions
are exposed, mitigation will be recommended. ,
LATERAL DE~IGN I Lateral restraint!at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead
load and a coeffjicient of friction of .30. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used
to resist lateral ~orces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the
rate of 300 po~ds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot,
may be used fd.r compacted fill or native soils at this site. If passive pressure and friction are
combined when! evaluating the lateral'resistance, the value of the passive pressure should be limited
to 2/3 of the val~es given above.
I
,
RETAINING WALLS
Unrestrained w411s up to 5-feet in height retaining drained earth may be designed for the following:
i ,
Surface Slope of Retained Material Equivalent Fluid Pressure Pounds
I Horizontal to Vertical Per Cubic Foot
I Level 30
! 5to1 32 , 4to 1 35 , 3 to 1 38 ,
i 2 to 1 43
i
These values in~lude seismic loading. Backfill should consist of clean sand and gravel. While all
backfills should be compacted to the required degree, extra care should be taken working close to
walls to preveni excessive pressure. Retaining walls should include subdrains consisting of 4-inch,
SCH 40 or SD~ 35 perforated pipe surrounded by 1 cubi.c foot per lineal foot of crushed rock. All
wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
!
All retaining s~ctures should include appropriate allowances for anticipated sur~harge loading?
where applicab~e. In this regard, a uniformly distributed horizontal load equal to one-half the
vertical surchar~e shall be applied when the surcharge is within a horizontal distance equal to the
wall height. i i
Retaining walll footing excavations shall be founded entirely in ~ompetent native soils or
compacted fill. i Footing bottoms shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc., to
verify compete~t conditions.
I i ,
i
•
•
-.
STRATA-TrECH,INC.
GECCCNSYL.TANTS
1
Tony Sfredo
Geotechnical Engi~eering Investigation
EXPANSIVE SOILS
I
6 W.O.262310
March 15,2010
Results of expartsion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a low expansion potential.
SETTLEMENT i
The maximum :total post-construction settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 112 inch.
Differential settjements are expected to be less than 112 inch, measured between adjacent structural
elements. i
I
I
SUBSIDENCEi& SHRINKAGE
I
Subsidence ovet the site during grading is anticipated to be on the order of .5 feet. Shrinkage of
reworked mater~als should be in the range of 10 to 15 percent.
i
I
I
I
FLOOR SLABS
i
The surface soi1~ are non-plastic with low expansion potential.
I I _
Where concretd slabs on grade are utilized, the slab shall be supported on at least 1 foot of
engineered fill ?ompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Slabs should be at
least 4 inches th~ck and reinforced with a minimum of no. 3 bars 24 inches on center both ways.
I
The soil should, be kept moist prior to casting the slab. However, if the soils at grade become
disturbed durin~ construction, they should be brought to approximately optimum moisture content
and rolled to a ~mn, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete.
i
In areas where ia moisture sensitive floor covering will be used, a vapor barrier consisting of a
plastic film (6 rhl polyvinyl chloride or equivalent) should be used. The vapor barrier should be
properly lappediand sealed. Since the vapor barrier will prevent moisture from draining from fresh
concrete, a better concrete finish can usually be obtained if at least 2 inches of wet sand is spread
over the vapor ~arrier prior to placement of concrete. .
j
I I I UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS I I
All utility line qackfills, both interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction and shall require testing at a maximum of2-foot vertical intervals.
I I
•
••
! I STRATA-TrECH,INC.
GE[JCONSWLTANTS
!
i
Tony Sfredo i
Geotechnical Engirieering Investigation
!
HARDSCAPE lAND SLABS I
I
7 W. O. 262310
March 15,2010
Hardscape and ~lab subgrade areas shall exhibit a mfuimum of 90 percent relative compaction to a
depth of at least 1 foot. Deeper removal and recompaction may be required if unacceptable I . , conditions are encountered. These areas require testing just prior to placing concrete.
I
STORMWATJ1:RINFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Two 3 foot dee~ Hand Dug test pits were excavated in the central driveway portion of the site on
April 20, 2010. ! The diameter of the test hole was 6-inches.
I The lower depth of the pit exposed a natural soil layer of loose medium grained brown Silty SAND
that is typical ~f the underlying soils. The bottom of the test pit was saturated and tested the
following mom,ng. The percolation test was performed by siphoning a 5-gallon water bottle into
the hand-dug ho'e. The water level was kept at 5 to 6 inches in depth for a period of four hours. At
the end of four ~ours, the time for the water to drop from the 6th to the 5th inch Was measured. This
value was 15 minutes for both holes. This corresponds to a percolation rate of 15 gallons per
square foot of sidewall soil per day .
!
The percolationirate can be expected to perform at the tested rate over a short period of time with
clean water floting into undisturbed soil. A high factor 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. ! I
DRAINAGE:
I
Positive draina~e should be planned for the site. Minimum drainage should be 2 percent for
landscape areas land 1 percent for hardscape. Drainage should be directed away from structures via
non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas. The structure should utilize roof gutters and down
spouts tied dire~tly to yard drainage.
I
Unlined flowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constructed against the perimeter of the
structure. If s~ch landscaping (against the perimeter of a structure) is planned, it should be
properly drained and lined or provided with an underground moisture barrier. Irrigation should be
k .. I ept to a mlmm\lll1. .
I -i I
This report is iksued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to
the attention of /the engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary
steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in I . the field. !
•
•
•
I
STRATA-irECH,INC.
a£ocoNsuILTANTS 1 I ,
I
Tony Sfredo i
Geotechnical Engirleering Investigation 8
ENGINEERIN~ CONSULTATION, TESTING & OBSERVATION
W.O. 262310
March 15, 2010
We will be pleased to provide additional input with respect to foundation design once methods of
construction and/or nature of imported soil has been determined. .
I ! I
Grading and foupdation plans should be reviewed by this office prior to commencement of grading
so that appropri~te recommendations, if needed, can be made.
I
Areas to receivel fill should be inspected when unsuitable materials have been removed and prior to
placement offill~ and fill should be observed and tested for compaction as it is placed.
! , ,
! AGENCY RE'fIEW
All soil, geolog~c and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and
approval of the Igoverning agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency (s) can
dictate the maIDler in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the
proposed improyements andlor could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable.
Supplemental g~otechnical consulting in-response to agency requests for additional information
could be requirer and will be charged on a time and materials basis.
i LIMITATIONS
This report pre~ents :~commendations pertaining ~o the subject site b.ased on the assumption that
the subsurface pondItlOns do not deVIate appreciably from those dIsclosed by our exploratory
excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of I the proposed copstruction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not guarantee the
performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgments meet the standard of care
of our professio~ at this time.
I I
In view of the ~eneral conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may
exist. Any dev~ation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to
the attention of~e Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendatjons can be
made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project. I
If the proposed /construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing
information anql possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the
fmished plans s~ould be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would
be extending qevelopment to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed
development for more than a year, or changes in ownership.
I i
I
• ----'
••
I i
i I STRATA-jTE C H, INC.
I GEOCONSULTANTS
!
Tony Sfredo !
Geotechnical Engimeering Investigation
!
I I
j
I
2 W. O. 262310
March 15,2010
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, tb ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to
the attention ofihe Architects and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that
the necessary ~teps are taken to see that the contractors and subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
!
This report is s~bject to review by the controlling authorities for this project.
W . t . b f . e apprecIate t! IS opportumty to e 0 servICe to you.
I Respectfhlly submitted: I STRtTA-TECH.UiC.
I / I / : -/ //··~---r~'· /;' (/ /jl
./ ..... r··,:;// //// ( <; ~/!'/·~:.L~/ c:=..., , .• , I 7' ,----.......... .' "''''.' i h ... < ! \ .... /
Enclosures:
I Rolatid ACUlia. PG
PrincIpal
I I i I
I
!
Larry Finley
RCE46606
Plate 1: iVicinity Map
Plate 2: I Site Plan and Boring Location Map
Test Pit/Logs
Appendfx A: Laboratory Results and Engineering Calculations
Appendfx B: Specifications for Grading
i i
I
4l.
4l.
••
VICINITY MAP
,*.'
'.' '-'0.; . ~.: .~
.... Jvy . Rd ... \~ .. ' ~t;[
i
I
I
j
I Pacifi9
I o c ea nl
I I
.... ': . .. ' .
<,'
i I Co ri ht @) 2005 Mcrosoft Co
• -=.:' .~--~.:..
_. ,.' .
' ... ".:
G~otechnical Engineering Investigation
! I 391 Tamarack Avenue
I Carlsbad, California
STRATA -TECH, INC.
Park Dr
I' .
Work Order 262310
Plate No. 1
•
•
I
I I i
!
! " HwL~ ~ ; I
" I" -(
\'
~;~\
I~~_l
.~ i=SJ= ...... ;:.;,..
.2
~ :.r.
, I ~. -,----~
~~---:-
.. -.-; .
~ !
'---"-.~,~r.-'----=:=~=-'-----=-F----'''-
:/G
z
r' , I
z
J>
Z
:> <
z
.'!
1 R ECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
:::R->., -Date 2/25/2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. :!:: I (/) ~~ ~b ..... 0) LL. c.. ....... :::::Ie:-0)1° ..c: 391 Tamarack Avenue E ii)-c °8 -til '0 ~ e:-I 0..
Cf) 0)
:iE~ °i ° Carlsbad, California I
U B , Work Order 262310 Test Pit No.1 ,
!
D",,,,,,,,,tJ.,v, of Earth I'Ii'CIL""'C"'"
0 -0-2', TOPSOIL, MOIST, SMALL ROOTS
I 2 -2-6',: ORANGE-BROWN F-MED GR. SAND
[ DRY I 6 114 4 -6-8', SOIL, M-F GR. SILTY SAND, DAMP
I DENSE
I 6 -i End of Test Pit at 8' Feet. No Ground Water. No Caving.
8 -
• R 1=,
~' ORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
~-~ -Date 2/25/2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
(/) C:U~ '2 ..... 0) (/) r LL. c.. :;e:-....... 0) ..c: 391 Tamarack Avenue E ii)-c 0 0.. til ·o~ e:-Cf) 0) :iE~ ° ° Carlsbad, California
U B Work Order 262310 Test Pit No. 2
uescr,tJ.,v, of Earth ~vICl,,,,,,dIS
0 -SURFACE: WEED COVERED YARD
0-6" TOPSOIL, BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SMALL ROOTS
1 -6-24": LIGHT BROWN NATURAL SOIL F-MED GR SAND
FAIRLY DENSE WITH SOME CLAY BINDER: MOIST
I I 2 -24-36" NATURAL SOIL,BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
3 -SHARP GRAVELS, COHESIONLESS
4 End of Test Pit at 3 Feet. No Ground Water. No Caving, -
i STRATA -TECH,INC. I ••
I
~ECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
~-~ Date 2/25/2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation C/) ~~ -(I) ~ 0. 5~ ~& IJ..
E -1;)-0 ..c: 391 Tamarack Avenue en ·o~ 0. C/) ,~-~;:,~u, Califulliia ~!2...,. (I) p 0
U B , Work Ordes ?62_~ 1 ~ Test Pit No. 3
DescriPtion of Ei:lrih MClLclria'i:>
0 ~ I -0-1.5' TOPSOIL, MOIST DARK BROWN SILTY SAND WITH I I 2 SMALL ROOTS I
I J1.5-'41: RESIDUAL (NATURAL) SOIL BROWN F-MED GR. SAND
6.1 ~14.1 4 MOIST
I
I 6 4-7 yellow, M-F GR. SIL TY SAND damp -
I 8
5.8 -r13.7
I 10
End of Test Pit at 9-Feet. No Ground Water. No Caving. I I 12
I I I
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
I
::R.-~ -Date 2/25/2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
(/) 0(1) -g it (I) I~~ 0.. 5~ -E ..c: 391 Tamarack Avenue 1;)-0 0. en ·0 ::R. .... -C/) (I) ~!2...,. :s' 0 Carlsbad, California
U B Work Order 262310 Test Pit No. 4
I ue,Scr'I-'LIV' C>f Earth ~V'ClL""IClI'"
I SURFACE: WEED COVERED LOT ! 0 -0-6" TOPSOIL, MOIST DARK BROWN SIL TV SAND
1 -6-24": BROWN NATURAL SOIL F-MED GR SILTY SAND
AIRL Y DENSE MOIST
2 -12-3': RESIDUAL (NATURAL) SOIL BROWN F-MED GR. SAND
3 -DENSE, MOIST
End of Test Pit at 3Feet. No Ground Water. No Cavjng.
I 4 -
STRATA -TECH, INC.
I
I
I
" " " ,
"-
\ '.
"-"-
NEAR SOURCE FAULT MAP
"-"-" \.
\.,
\.
\.
\ \ \.
\
\. \
\
\
\
\.
"-
\
'\ \.
"-"-"-, ,
"-,
"-,
\
"-\.
\ \
Ge01~Chnical Engineering Investigation
391 Tamarack Avenue
I Carlsbad, California
STRATA -TECH, INC.
Work Order 26231 0
Plate No. 4
I STRATA-rECH,INC.
GEOCONSYL.TANTS
!
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
This appendix qontains a description of the field investigation, laboratory testing 'procedures and
results, site plan! and exploratory logs.
I
I FIELD INVESTIGATION
I The field investigation was perfonned on February 26, 2010, consisting of the excavation of four
exploratory treJches at locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavation
progressed, per~onnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured
representative sdmples for laboratory testing.
Sample Retri-+al-Backhoe
Undisturbed sa~Ples of earth materials were obtained at frequent intervals by driving a thin-
walled steel sanp.pler by the hydraulic action of the backhoe bucket. The material was retained in
brass rings of2i41 inches inside diameter and 1.00 inch height. The central portion offue sample
was in Close-fi,ing, watertight containers for transportation to the laboratory.
De~criptions ofj the soils encountered are presented on the attached boring Logs. The data
presented on th~se logs is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountyred and applies
only at the specific boring location and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative
of subsurface tditions at other locations and times.
Laboratory Testing
Field samples tere examined in the laboratory and a testing program was then established to
develop data fOj preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions.
Moisture Denslty
Field moisture lontent and dry density were detennined for each of the undisturbed soil samples.
The dry density was detennined in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture content was detennined as
a percentage of the dry soil weight. The results of the tests are shown in the test results section of
this appendix. I
Compaction Character
Compaction teSf~S were perfonned on bulk s~ple of the existirt~ soil in ~ccordan~e with ASTM
D1557-07. The esults of the tests are shown ill the test results sectIon of thIS appendIX.
Shear Strengtll I .
The ultimate shbar strengths of the soil, remolded soil, highly weathered bedrock and bedrock was
detennined by perfonning direct shear tests .. The tests were perfonned in a strain-controlled
i
. I
•
STRATA-P-ECH,INC.
GEOCONS1LTANTS
•
•
I
machine manuflctured by GeoMatic. The rate of deformation was 0.005 inches per minute.
Samples were sB.eared under varying confining pressure, as shown on the "Shear Test Diagrams".
The samples in~icated as saturated were artificially saturated in the labor!;ltory and were shear
under submerge~ conditions. The results of tests are based on 80 percent peak strength or ultimate
strength, which4ver is lower, and are attached. In -addition, a shear was performed on an upper
layer sample rejOlded to 90-percent of the laboratory standard with low confining pressure.
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Densitv/Ol!timum Moisture (ASTM:D-1557-07)
Trenc~ Depth in Feet Maximum Density Optimum Moisture
(pet) (%)
3 I 1-3 124 12.0
In-Situ D!:I Densitv/ Moisture
Trenc~ Depth in Feet Dry Density Moisture
(pct) (%)
1 I 3.5 114.0 6.1
3 I 4 114.1 6.0
3 I 9 113.7 5.8 I
Direct Shear
I Cohesion Angle of Internal
Trench Depth in Feet (pst) Friction
I (degrees)
3 I 4 200 30
•
•
•
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
Reference: "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice", Terzaghi and Peck, 1967
pages 222 and 223.
Bearing Material: compacted fill
Properties:
Wet Density ( ) = 130 pcf
Cohesion (C) = 200 psf
Angle of Friction ( ) = 30 degrees
Footing Depth (D) = 2 feet
Footing Width (B) = 1.0 foot
I
Factor of Safety = 3.0
Calculations -Ultimate Bearing Capacity
from figure 33.4 on page 222
I
Nc = 30.14 Nq = 18.4 N = 22.4
Q u I 1.2 C Nc + D Nq + 0.4 B N (Square Footing)
1.2 * 200 * 30.14 + 130 * 2 * 18.4 + 0.4 * 130 * 1 * 22.4 f t 7233 + 4784 + 1164 = 13181 psf
AIIOWjble Bearing Capacity for Square Footing
Qau1 QuI F.S. = 4393 psf
USj 1500 psf (Settlement Control)
Qu =_1 1.0 C Nc + D Nq + 0.5 B N (Continuous Footing)
1.0 * 200 * 30.14 + 130 * 2 * 18.4 + 0.5 * 130 * 1 *22.4 t 6028 + 4784 + 1456 = 12268 pst
AIIOWjble Bearing Capacity for Continuous Fqoting
Qaul Qu I F.S. = 4089 psf
US\3 1500 psf (Settlement Control)
Increa~es: 440 psf I ft in depth over 2 feet
I 0 psf I ft in depth over 1 foot
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
391 Tamarack Avenue
Carlsbad, California
STRATA -TECH, INC.
Work Order 262310
•
•
•
ACTIVE RETAINING WALL PRESSURE
Free Body Diagram
PA
Proposed ....-.:IfII'
Pool -b
WALL
H
L
Slip Line
=45 + m/2
H = 5 ft
Hc = 2 ft
= 53.1
F.S. = 2.00
m = 130 pef = 0.13 kef
C = 200 psf = 0.2 ksf
= 30
Cm = C I F.S. = 0.1 ksf
m = tan-1 (tan I F.S.) = 16.1 degrees
D = ( H -Hc ) tan (90 - ) = 2.26 ft
L = ( ( H -Hc ) 2 + D 2 ) 1/2 = 3.76 ft
w = A m = 0.5 D (H + Hc) m = 1.03 kips/LF
m
m, *
a
W=a+b
a = Cm L sin (90 + m) I sin ( -m) = 0.6 kips/LF
b = W - a = 0.43 kips/LF
PA = b tan ( -m) = 0.32 kips/LF
Design EFP = 2 PA I H 2 = 25.6 pef. Use 26 pef (30 min.).
Geiotechnical Engineering Investigation
391 Tamarack Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Work Order 262310
STRATA -TECH, INC.
•
•
•
I STRATA-r-ECH,INC.
GEOCONS1LTANTS
I
I APPENDIXB
I
I SITE CLEAIWYG
SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
All existing veg~tation shall be stripped and hauled from the site.
I
PREPARATIOf
! After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed
until it is unif0nP and free from large clods, brought to a proper moisture content and compacted to
not less than 9~ percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with AS1M:D-1557-02 (5
layers -25 blOW, per layer; 10 lb. hammer dropped 18"; 4" diameter mold).
MATERIALS I
!
On-site materials may be used for fill, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the
Soils Engineer land may be obtained from the excavation of banks, borrow pits or any other
approved sourcy. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious
substances and ~hall not contain rocks or lumps greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension.
I PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIALS I .
Where natural s~opes exceed five horizontal to one vertical, the exposed bedrock shall be bl;:n~hed
prior to placing fill.
The selected fi* material shall be placed in Jayers which, when compacted, shall not exceed 6
inches in thickrIess. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the
I
spreading to en,ure uniformity of material and moisture of each layer.
Where mOistur9 of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, water shall
be added until I the moisture content is as required to ensure thorough bonding and thorough
compaction. I
I
Where moistur~ content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, the
fill materials sh~ll be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is
as specified. I
After each layeJ has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not
less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM~D-1557-02 (5 layers -
25 blows per ldyer; 10 lbs. hammer dropped 18 inches; 4" diameter mold) or other density tests
which will a1 equivalent results .
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hydrology Study
Sea Breeze Villas
Project No. CT 10·20
Carlsbad, California
Prepared For:
TMS Development, LLC
32 Sylvan
Irvine, California 92603
Prepared By:
Surender Dewan, P.E.
DMS Consultants, Inc.
12371 Lewis Street, Suite 203
Garden Grove, California 92840
714.740.8840
August 12, 2010
CONSULTANTS, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
•
•
•
Site Description
SEA BREEZE VILLAS
CARLSBAD
The proposed project is located in the City of Carlsbad on the south side of Tamarack Avenue, at 391
Tamarack Avenue on a 0.70 acre site.
The proposed project is a 12-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. For overflow conditions a 12-inch diameter PVC
pipe has been installed, this overflow pipe connects to an existing catch basin located along the
southerly curb of Tamarack Avenue .
• Section 1.0100 Year Hydrology elaculations
•
•
1.1 Rainfall
The 100 year 6hr rainfall depth was taken
from the San Diego County Hydrology Manual
isopluvial maps. Figure 1 below is an
enlarged copy of the applicable section of the
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 total
total from the Manual.
1.2 Soil Type
The hydrologic soil type for the areas of the
proposed tract is listed as "B" in the
Manual 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 northwest with an
average slope of 2%. The iniital 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 Manning's equation
Figure 1100 Year 6hr Isopluvials
Figure 2 Soil Type
assuming a broad open swale with a 20:1 side slope to calculate the flow velocity. See the
attached hydraulic calculations for the swale travel time.
•
•
•
1.3.2 Proposed Condition Tc
In the proposed condition the lots drain to a paver swal in the center of the tract wnich ~onveys
the flows to the north east corner of the lot. The flows then enter a storm drain pipe and are
conveyed to the existing inlet in Tamarack Avenue. The initial Ti was estimated using Table 3-2
of the Hydrology Manual. The velocity in the swale was estimated using Manning's equation
and the velocity in the pipe was calculated using V = OJ A and assuming the pipe will be flowing
full.
Section 2.0 Storm Water Quality Calculations
2.1 Rainfall
The storm water quality treatment
volume was taken from the Manual
Appendix E. Figure 3 is an enlarged
copy of the applicable section of
the map.
2.2 Storage
The geotechnical evaluation of the
site yielded a percolation rate of 15
gallons per day per square foot or
2.003 cubic feet per day per square
foot which is 1.0 in/hr. Because
this is less than the 5.0 in/hr
required, the site will require
storage of the storm water quality
Figure 3 Storm Water Quality Depth
volume. The storage will be accomplished using porous pavers and a gravel subbase under the pavers.
The pavers have the required 5.0in/hr infiltration rate.
The required storage was calculated usJng the pre and post project runoff coefficients from the Manual
and determining the incremental increase in the storm water yeild for the water quality depth. The size
of the paver area and the depth of the gravel subbase were set so that the entire incremetal increase in
the storm water quality runoff could be stored in the gravel subbase. (See the attached storm water
quality calculations)
2.3 Infiltration
The storm water stored in the gravel sub-base will percolate into the in-situ soils at a rate of LOin/hr.
(See above). The entire storage volume must be drained in 72 hours. The required infiltration time
was calculated by dividing the required storage by the area of the paver swale and the rate of
percolation for the geotechnical analysis. See the attached calculations for the results of the analYsis .
St()rm Water QvaHtv Ca.lcul~tionsfor Seabree_ze Vmas • Site Data Value UnIts
Graded Area 30100 sf
85th Percentile Depth 0.61 in
Soil Group B
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "c" 0.25
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "c" 0.58
Storm Water Quality Volume
Pre Project 85th Percentile Runoff Volume 382.52-ftl\3
Post Project 85th Percentile Treatment Runoff Volume 887.45 ftl\3
Required Infiltration Volume (LID) 504.9275 ftA 3
Design for Infiltration of Treatment Volume 887.45 ftJ\3
Available Storage
Paver Length 285 ft
Paver Width 8 ft
Paver Area 2280 ftl\2
Gravel Subbase Depth 12 in
Porosity 0.4
Total Storage Volume Available 912 ftJ\3 >887 OK
• Time for ComQlete Infiltration
Infiltration Area 2280 ftl\2
Infiltration Rate 15 gal/day/square foot
Infiltration Rate 2.003 cubic feet /day / sql,lare foot
Total Infiltration Per Day 4566.09 cubic feet/ day
Total Infiltration Per Hour 190.25 cubic feet/hour
Required Infiltration Time 4.66 hours < 72 HOUrs OK
•
-, .100 Y~ar 'HydroI9gyCalql;JiC3tlons forS$abreezeVillas -' 1 • Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 30100 sf
Soil Group-B
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "c" 0.25
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "c" 0.58
Pre Project 100 year 6hr Runoff
Pre Project Ti 10.90 min
Earth Swale Length 210.00 ft
Earth Siope 0.020 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.210 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.56 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 6.24 min
Tc=Ti +Tt 17.14 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.50 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 2.98 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.51 cfs
Post Project 100 year 6hr Runoff
Post Project Ti 8.20 min
Paver Swale Length 235.00 ft
Paver Slope 0.005 percent
Paver Swale Z 50.00
Paver Swale N 0.02 • Paver Swale Flow Depth 0.155 ft
Paver Swale Velocity 0.75 ft/sec
Paver Swale Tt 5.24 min
Pipe Size 12.00 in
Pipe Length 275.00 ft
Pipe Velocity {Assume pipe flows full} 1.04 ft/sec.
Pipe Tt 4.39 min
Total Tt 9.63 min
Tc 17.83 min
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.50 in
Infiltration Depth {See Storm Water Calculations} 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 1.89 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 2.19 in/hr
Infiltration Area 2280.00 ftll2
Graded Area Less Infiltration Area 27820.00 ftll2
100 Year flow rate 0.81 cfs
•
• • •
10(:> Year Sw·ale Velocity ·Calculationsfor Seabreeze Villas'
PaverSwale
depth n b zl z2 area wp r r1\2/3 s sl\.5 q VEL
0.15 0.015 0 50 50 1.125 15.003 0.074985 0.177821 0.0018 0.042426 0.840813 0.747389
Natural Swale
depth n b zl z2 area wp r r1\2/3 s sl\.5 q VEL
0.21 0.025 0 20 20 0.882 8.410493 0.104869 0.222381 0.0018 0.042426 0.494631 0.560807
• • • Paver Swale
depth n b zl z2 area wp r rA2/3 5 sA.5 q VEL
0.155 0.015 0 50 50 1.20125 15.5031 0.077485 0.181751 0.0018 0.042426 0.917643 0.763907
Natural Swale
depth n b zl z2 area wp r rA2/3 5 sA.5 q VEL
0.12 0.025 0 50 50 0.72 12.0024 0.059988 0.153241 0.0018 0.042426 0.278243 0.386448
•
•
•
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(ATTACHMENTS)
Table 3.1 and Table 3.2
~
San Diego County Hydrology Manual
Date: June 2003
•
Table 3-1
___ RUNOElLCOEEEICIENTS-EOR-URBAN-AREAS--
Section:
Page:
3
60f26
0.49
0.52
0.57
0.60
0.63
0.71
0.79
0.79
0.82
'0.85
'0.85
0.87
•
*The values associated with 0% imperviol,ls maybe used for direct calculation of the runoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff
coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or foJ;' areas that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. Jl.lstification must be·given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g., the area
is located in Cleveland National Forest). .
DU/A = dwelling units per acre
NRCS = National Resources Conservation· Service
3-6
·t,
•
•
••
San Diego co~ty Hydrology Manual
Date: June 20Q3 . I
Section:
Page:
3
12of26
Note that th~ Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general l~d-use at the
upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have
• significant rffect where the drainage basin are. is 20 to 600 acres.
Table 3-2 pr0vides limits of the length (Maximum Length (LM)) of sheet flow to be used in
hydrology s~dies. Initial Ti values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are
I also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described
below. ExcJptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a
detailed studt.
I I Table 3-2
MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH (LM)
I & INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Ti)
E1ement* nUl .5% 1% 2% 3% 5% 10%
Acre LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti
I
V11\1>. ~Ti Pre Project I Natural I 50 13.2 70 12.5 85 10.9 _~'l1\-'" -"-i I'.lVV LV • ..) JeVV 0.1 .lVV
LDR 11 50 12.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100. 8.0 100 6.4
LDR 21 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 ioo 5.8
LDR 219 50 10.7 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 8.1 100 7.0 100 5.6
I MDR 4j3 50 10.2 70 9.6 .80 8.1 95 7.8 100 6.7 100 5.3
MDR 7b 50 9.2 65 8.4 80 7.4 95 7.0 100 6 .. 0 100 4.8
I
MDR 1~.9 50 8.7 65 7.9 80 6.9 90 6.4 100 5.7 100 4.5
MDR 14.5 50 .r "" ~ "t~ITi Post Project I 8.b-0,) /.'7 OV U • ..l 7V V.V .lVV oJ."" .lVV
HDR 24 I 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5.1 90 4.9 95 4.3 100 3.5
I . HDR 4~ 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7
N.Com I 50 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7
G.Com I 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 .90 2.9 100 2.4
O.P.lCom I 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2
Limited I. I 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2
I
General I. I 50 3.7 60 3.2 70 2.7 80 2.6 90· 2.3 100 1.9
~See Table 3-i for more detailed description
I
3-12
.'.
1\
~ 'W" •• " I \
.'
,
. I' '~I II
1.\ I
,. 1" I
.. 1 I: ':~
.,., I W·
. l 1.\
.... Q L
.... 10011
t
..-
_1!fIO~
.~
""'~j;,
,. ._..,
I
'jl i
. \ ~.
'\ , :)
'\1 , " .. 'I I,
II . r _1:,-
I
1 (
I·
o f ,
.rf
:1 .1
1:
I
\tJ
\. '
l
... ,: •...
. ~
SCALE: 1-=.30! t . . } . i .,
'I 'i
1 .~
I{ ~
~'-
! ~ .. ~-".
.'
" . -."--~----~--~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~--~-============== ' .. ' : ...
D·• .. ·M···· -··S··:···
'-, ." , -. ,
--,' . , ~, , . .. "
I '-;
: C .1 V 1 LEN G I. NEE R S Ii 12371 ~ Sl #iQ3 Garden Grow CA.92840 P. 71:t:-740 .. :8840 F. 7)4-'-740-8842 ,I
I
'.' '} .'
'j
~ VICINITY MAP. N ... '
. LEGEND ..
. ~ . ARtA. DISCRIPnON
.' ~. AREA IN ACRES
. ® NoDE NUMBER
..,.
') ~' .
HYDROLOGY ·PLAN.· .
:PROPOSED··.CONPITIONS.
SE'ABREEZE VILLAS . CAR'LSBAb~" CALIFORNIA
', .. ,
'."
',.' ..
.,~. '.
.' , ,: .' . I'.
\ .
,(~ I~ " .
L"
~ , -
~
I·
..
" '
~~=M
;.......;.-t~
,I. • '~41'"
.41.l1li
," 1\ ,\ .
'J~I' "
~
I
r
';., '
I '
--~ .. -'~~,\"'.
It~t -... M,
'41.41
"'1.11, , -,41.#1
~
• '\) , if~\Y'
y-.4t.13, . , , .@,
.:-'~ ,'r .,.ra, B4I:_~'.~· ,
• , 41
, Ii,
f ~ .' ~.
.~1JIt f
'f. . I,
l, e
.tJ
1 . [ .
. , .. SCAlE: :1~=30' .(
i
,"
I:
" !,
~ l
.4031
-.co..tJ .fO,.1O
,4MB .4~ _ 4!.so 41Z>.
q'
··DMS
"
.1:
'c
. !
i; ,
I, ii
,i.
:i
. i
'1 \ i,
I'
~:l
i"> ..
I'
C I'V I '.L' E:N GIN" E E RS
: 12:371 'l ... ·S~ f203 Gorden Grove·CA. ~2840 P. 7i4'-740-8840"F. 71~740-s842' .!
, ~ VICINITY MAP N . NTS
" LEGEND
@'" AREA DISC{?IPTION ."
f).OO·' AREA' IN ACRES ' , ,
, C@)' NODE NVMBER'
, HYDROLOGY' PLAN,"
'. EXISTING, 'CONDITIONS· . ~. ,-" ~' . .','" '
, , ,
" SEABRtEZE VILLAS,
CARLSBAD tAUFORNIA , ; . , ", ,
.. CONSULTANTS, :lNC. 'j:'
, . . ',.. ..
, .' k
.:,
•
•
>< o m
(J) e cu m
W "'C
'C: cu ...... tJ) z ;.
w~ :is 0...
~(J)
0::0 <C~ I-E 1-0> C(o..
•
•
FIND A MANUFACTURER
PERMEABLE PAVERS
_;' UN! ECO-STONE'
~ ECO·PRIORA'"
TRADITIONAL PAVERS
PROJECT GALLERY
DESIGN & INSlJULATION
DESIGN PROFESSIONAlS
CONTRActORS
REFERENCE & RESEARCH
DOWNLOADS
EXPOS &EDUCAU:ON
INFORMATIONAL LINI{s
WHAT'SNE\V
Eco-Stone Design
Guide and Research
Summary ...
Newly Updated!
This comprehensive guide
has been updated to 60
pages with new design,
construction and research
information ... Learn more.
Porous Pavements
UNI ECO-STONE@ FAMILY OF
PERMEABLE PAVERS
UNI·GROUP U.S.A. first brought UNI Eco·Stone® to North America in 1989,
well before permeable interlocking concrete pavers became popular. As
leaders in the industry, we recognized the possibilities and environmental
benefits of being able to infiltrate water through the pavement surface, into
the ground below.
With the advent of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mandate to
control stormwater runoff through it's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) in the early 90's, the path was paved for the
growth of permeable pavements. The EPA is now working in conjunction with
other agencies and organizations such as the Low Impact Development
Center, the U.S. Green Building CounCil, and the Center for Watershed
Protection to promote the use of low impact development (LID) and LEED
and Smart Growth as a way to manage runoff. The EPA plans to establish
ordinances to move the program in the direction of preferred design and best
management practices. Infiltration practices have emerged as a major focus
of these agencies and Eco·Stone® permeable interlocking.concrete
pavements utilize infiltration to control stormwater runoff. Click here for a list
of federal, state and municipal approvals of permeable pavements and Eco-
Stone®.
FEATURES & BENEFITS OF ECO-STONE@ PERMEABLE
INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVERS
• Can be designed to accommodate a wide variety of stormwater
management objectives
• Runoff reductions of up to 100% depending on project design
parameters
• Maximizes groundwater recharge and/or storage
• Allows for retention and storage of stormwater for possible re-use for
irrigation or other non-potable uses
• Reduces nonpoint source pollutants in stormwater, thereby mitigating
impact on surrounding surface waters, and may lessen or eliminate
downstream flooding and stream bank erosion
• Minimizes impacts and stress on existing storm sewer systems
through reduced peak discharges
• Allows better land-used planning and more efficient use of available
land for greater economic value, especially in high-density, urban
areas
• May decrease projects cost by reducing or eliminating drainage and
retention/detention systems
• May reduce cost of compliance with stormwater regulatory
requirements and lower utility fees
• May reduce heat island effect and thermal loading on surround
surface waters
For more information on the Eco-Stone® Family of Permeable Pavers, please
click on the quick links provided in the menu at left or in the side bar at right.
While Eco-Stone® is available at all UNI Manufacturer locations, a number of
the newer products may not be available in all areas. Please check with your
manufacturer for availability.
UNI ECO-STONE@
The original UNI Eco-Stone® paver has become the
permeable paver of choice for design professionals.
The classic shape provides structural interlock to
provide a strong, durable pavement surface under
vehicular traffic, yet allows for -the infiltration of
stormwater for environmental benefit.
UNI ECO-STONI
Permeable Paver
Quick Links
• Project Gallery
• List of Projects
• Eco-Sttme Brochure
• Eco-Stone Design-Guic
• SpeCifications
• Case Studies
• Articles
• EPA Information
• Municipal Regulations
• Low Impact Developme
• LEED
• Approvals
FAQ •..
Can permeable pavers be
snow plowed?
ANSWER .•.
Yes. Just as with our
Jraditional'pav~rs, UNI
Permeable Pavers can be
plowed in the winter.
In addition, snow and ice
melt and drain through th( ~rainage voids, thereby
minimizing icing hazards.
Have more questions?
See our FAQs PDF file to
learn more.
••
•
•
13 Engineering
13 Drawings
Nutrient Separating Baffle Box
Grate Inlet Skimmer Box
Curb Inlet Basket
High Capacity Curb Inlet
Basket
GR8 Protector
Itl Reports
Home I Products I Contact Us I Engineering I News I About Us
Nutrient Separating Baffle BoxTM
Because the entire flow is always
treated and head loss is so
minimal, determining the
appropriate size of the Nutrient
Separating Baffle BOXTM for a
project is more often an element of
pipe size than flow rate.
Listed below are common sizes.
Custom Sizes are available.
*Height can vary as needed so that
the top of the vault is either at
finish grade or close to finish grade
for access and servicing.
II REQUEST
INFORMATION
** Please contact us to obtain AutoCad drawings for specific
sizes/configurations **
Recommended Inside Inside Baffle Standard
Pipe Sizes: Model # Width Length Height Inside
Height*
~~ 4"to 12" NSBB-2' 4' 24" 5' 2-4-60
8" to 18" NSBB-3' 6' 36" 6' 3-6-72
12" to 18" NSBB-4' 8' 36" 7' 4-8-84
12" to 3~'' NSBB-5' 10' 36" 7' 5-10-84
18" to 36" NSBB-6' 12' 36" 7' 6-12-84
30" to 48" NSBB-8' 12' 36" 7' 8-12-84
36" to 54" NSBB-8' 14' 40" 8'4" 8-14-100
42"to 60" NSBB-10-14-10' 14' 40" 8'4" 100
48"to 60" NSBB-10-16-10' 16' 46" 10'5" 125
54" to 72" NSBB-12-20-12' 20' 48" 11' 132
798 Clearlake Road Suite 2 Cocoa FL 32922 Ph:(321) 637-7552 Fax: (321) 637-7554 Site Map
Login-
8/0 CLEAN ENVIRONMENTAL MODEL NO. NS88-2.5-L/--
FLOW &: BY-PASS SPeCIFICATIONS FOR THe
BIOMASS SePARATING SCReeN SYSTeM, SeDIMeNT
STORAGe. AND SKIMMeR SPeCIFICATIONS.
1. Inflow Pipe Area (8" PVC AS DRAWN) ---0.35 sq. ft.
SCRCCN SP,CIFlCATlONS:
2. Open orifice area In screen system 4.07 sq.ft.
3. Open orifice oreo in screen system 2.03 sq. ft.
with 50% blockage
4. Open orifice area In screen system 1.01 sq.ft.
with 75% blockage
5. By-pass through screen system 0.39 sq. ft.
6. Minimum by-pass around screen system --1.54 sq.ft. 7. Screen system storage volume 2.73 cu.ft.
<t. .... ,
24 II Manhole rings &: covers typical.
Also available, Hatches with Locks,
and risers.
OIL SKIMMeR TO Be PROVIDeD BY BIO CLeAN
STORM BOOM
PATENTED
AND PATENTS PENDING
TYP
SEDIM,NT STORAGE:
8. Volume of first chamber 5.16 cu.ft.
9. Volume of second chambIJr 5.00 cu.ft.
14" X 34" X 16" TALL
SCReeN SYSTeM
B" PVC
l3GROUT TYP
TURBULeNCe
DeFLeCTOR
INFLOW AND OUTFLOW PIPES ARE TO BE FLUSH WITH THE INSIDE SURFACE OF
THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE. 10. Volume of third chamber 5.16 cu. ft.
SKIMMER SPECIFICATIONS: 11. Flow area under skimmer 2.25 sq.ft.
12. Area of pipe in line with skimmer 0.35 sq.ft.
13. Area of between skimmer and outflow plpe-1.04 sq.ft.
parallel with the surface of the pipe
OIL SKIMMeR TO Be PROVIDeD BY BIO CLeAN
t,~.:ii;~.~ti..:::~~~r~t;1" .. ~!"t .. ,:·~':::~i;~!;';:;;;f.(:~'·t~.:.~:r: <'5· 7tI 72" GRA~ BEDOING fPR. l.£VEl.ING" ~~~·~!~t~·~i:t:f.~~~f~~~1~!.r.~?;;~,~~~;·~1~~~~ili~
BACK VieW
NOTES: 1. CONCRETE 28 Il4Y COItIP~
STRENGTH 1c-5,ooo PSI.
2. RClNFORCING:ASTM ,1,-615. GRADE 60.
'13
'8
1--30--\ r;;o?S:\
LeFT eND View
PEAK TREATMENT DESIGN FLOW
1 CUBIC FOOT PER SEC. 3. SUPPORTS AN H20 LOADING AS INO/CUED BY MSHTO.
4. JOINT SEALANT: BUTYl. RUBBER 55-5-00210
TRCATMENr ReFERS ro AT LCAST 80Jr REIJOVAL OF roTAL SUSPENDED PARTICLES FROIrI O.1251r11r1 ro 21r1'" IN SIZE. BASED ON A IJAXIIrIUIrI FLOW
RATE OF 6 UNCAR FEET PER S£COND THROUGH PIPE.
5. TOP. 8OTTOIrI. +WALLS ARE 6" THIC.K.
6. UDS foR THE TOP OF THE SCRffN' SYSTEII ARe AVAlLA81£ .
PEAK DESIGN FLOW
2 CUBIC FEET PER SEC.
PLAN View
FRONT View
(CAN NOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH)
OIL SKIMMER TO BE
PROVIDeD BY BIO CLEAN
¢13
¢8
It=;~~=n ~71
RIGHT eND View
EXCLUSIVE CALIFORNIA DISTRIBUTOR:
BIO CLEAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE
P.O. BOX 869. OCEANSIDE. CA. 92049
TEL. 760-4.:3.:3-764-0 FAX: 760-4-.:3.:3-.:31 76 ,
Email: inro@biocleanenvironmental.net
Tecnical Specifications
For The Nutrient Separating Baffle Box Model -Storm water Treatment System
1. The storm water treatment system shall be capable of inline installation with minimal head loss. Offline installation is not· an acceptable
aletemative, unless orginally deisigned by the engineer. Treatment of gross solids must occur at flow rates higher than the specified
treatment flow. The stormwater treatment system must provide treatment at all flow rates.
2. For flows of 74.67 gpm per square foot of settling chamber area a removal efficiency of at least 90X for TSS will be achieved and
flows of up to 124.44 gpm per square foot of seelting chamber area will be able to pass through the storm water treatment system for
treatment without causing scouring. This must be proven though full scale testing.
3. The storm water treatment system will be able to store captured solid debris such as leaves and litter in a dry state within the nutrient
separating screen sysetm between rain events. The volume of dry storage will be equal or greater than that specificed on the drawing.
4. The storm water treatment system will have the capacity to store equal to or greater than that specified an ·the drawing for captured
sediment.
5. The stormwoter treatment system will have a skimmer located in front of the outflow opening. The bottom of the skimmer will be
located 6~ below the static water level. Adjacent ta the influent side of the skimmer is a cage containing many hrdrocarbon absorption
booms that will float at the top surface of the water in the stormwater treatment structure. This ensures absorptIon of hydrocarbans
though a wide range of operating flows.
6. The nutrient separating screen system shall be positioned approximately 3.5~ above the static water level within the baffle box.
Adjacent to the inflow, the screen system will have openings on both sides that have a combined cross sectional area that exceeds the
cross sectional area of the pipe. These openings will act as an intemal bypass for water flow in the event that· the screen system
becomes full of debris.
7. The nutrient separating screen system shall have a minimum of 6~ of vertical adjustment. The adjustment method shall be a system
with brackets that are attached to the sides of the screen system that will slide vertically along 1 1/2~ x 1 1/2-aluminum square poles.
Two stainless steel bolts on each bracket can be tightened to lock the screen system in place, or loosened to allow for vertical
adjustment of the screen system. The square pales are anchored to the baffle wall by 1/2~ minimum diameter stainless steel bolts.
B. The nutrient separating screen system shall have a minimum of 3~ of horizontal adjustment. in the direction of the length of the
concrete structure. The brackets that clamp the vertical adJustment poles to the side of the screen system can be repositioned to allow
of horizontal adjustment.
9. The nutrient separating screen system shall have a section adjacent to the inflow which is hinged and can be apened for cleaning.
This section will functian as a screened ramp to direct debris into the main body of the screened system. The sides of this section' will
be made of stainless steel screen and transition in vertical height from a minimum of B~ tall nearest the inflow to the height of the
main body of the screen system. The lower sides along this inflow section will provide bypass for water flow around the main body of
the screen system if necessary. The cross sectional area of the byposs around the screen system will be equal to or exceed the cross
sectianal area of the inflaw pipe.
10. The nutrient separating screen system shall give access from above grade to the lower sediment collection chambers by the following method. The bottom of the screen system will contain hinged screened doors that can be opened rn such a way as to allow adequate
access for a vacuum truck to remove everything i'n all the lower collecbon chambers.
11. The nutrient separating screen wi'11 be a welded aluminum framework spanned by stainless steel screen, be rectangular in shaptJ, and
be formed to make a bottom, 2 long sides, and 1 end ; the top and 1 end will remain open. The screen system will conl!ist of panel
s~ctions that are held together with stainless steel bolts. When the panel sections are unbolted and separated from each other they
must be able to pass through an access hatch or manhole in the top of the baffle box for removal purposes. The aluminum frame
work will be made 1 1/2~ x 1 1/2~ x Jr aluminum angle beam. The screen used to span the aluminum frame is described as follows:
For the body of the screen system, flattened expanded stainless steel sheet 1/2-No. 16 F; Open area = 60X; Grade = 304 Stainless
Steel. The screen will be attached to the screen system frame by sandwiching the screen to the aluminum frame b~tween a series of 1 ~
x 3/16~ aluminum bars and welded in place.
12. A turbulence deflector will be attached near the top of each of the baffles with Jr stainless steel through bolts and stainless steel
fender washers. The turbulence deflectors will be made from laminated fiberglass and measure a minimum of 1/4~ in thickness. The
turbulence deflectors will form a horizontal ledge that measures B~ from the downstream side of the first baffle and 6~ fram the
downstream side of the second baffle. and span the full width of the baffle box.
13. The storm water treatment system will be precast concrete. The concrete will be 2B day.compressive strength· fc = 5,000 psi. Steel reinforcing will be ASTM A -615 Grode 60. Structure will support an H20 loading as indicated by MSHTO. The Joint between the concrete sections will ship lap and the joint sealed with Ram-Nek or equal butyl rubber joint sealant.
14. For access into the storm water treatment system. two to three holes will be cost into the top of the vault.
15. The inflow and outflow pipes will not intrude beyond flush with the inside surface of the Nutnent Separating Baffle Box. The space
between the pipe holes in the ends of the storm water treatment system and the outside surface of the pipe will be filled with non-shrink
graut to form a water proof seal.
16. The nutritmt separating screen system shall extended more than half way of the intemal lenght of the stormwater treatment system.
The nutrient separating screen system shall start at the inflow pipe not more than 4~ from the wall of the klflow pipe.
17. The storm water treatment system must have two separate reports verifying no scouring occurs at flows equal to or greater than. the
specified treatment flow rate for that particle size distnbution.
lB. The stormwater treatment system shall have a shallow sump, not more than 4B~ fram invert of outflow pipe to bottom floor of the
sump area.
19. The stormwater treatment system must have a miniumium of two sediment chambers (sump areas) which ore separated by a vertical wier that divides the chamber from the bottom of the sump to the lnvert of the outflow pipe. No openings are allowed at the bottom or
coming up vertically along the wier. Or any other method that would connect the two chambers together such as orfices.. .
City of
S'~nta Moniea'"
Wat~tshe4 Management Section
Office (If Sustain ability &
the Environment
June 22,2010
ATTN.:
From:
Greg Kent, President
Bioclean
Oceanside, CA
Neal Shapiro
200 Santa Monica:Pier; Suite E
Santa Monica, CA ,90401
(SiQ) 4$8:;8i2~, F~~93,~1279
neaLshap,it9@~njg~y.net
Subject: Water Quality Results -Centinela-Mar Vista urban11lnofftreatm~nt prqject
Dear Mr. Kent:
the City of Santa Monica installed ,a Nutrient SepatatingBaffle Box to treatwet:,weat4ernflJ.P#,
'generated from the City of Santa Monica's C~mtihela, Sub-Watershed' &'--alnage basin and a
portion of west Los Angeles. This project received a CASQAawatd for treatment
cpntrol/structural BMP Implemeptation in 2007.
Wet-weather flows are treated by a Nutrient Separating Baffle Box Model # 8-t2~96; T.1:l(} syst~1l;t
is designed to treat up to 33 CPS. The City of Sarita Monica independently gathered ~md"
evaluated pollutant removal data for wet ajId., d:ty-:·weatner flows:, ThIs data was shared w.ith the
public at a recent conference, California Water E,pyitqnment AssQ'Ciat(on',s (CW.:I1A) 36th• Annual
Pretreatment, Pollution Prevention, and StoIJJlwater (p3S)CQnference ~d,EAhiQitiQJ:): th¢'1Y:l;my
Hats ofP3S, Hyatt Regency, Monterey, CA., March 2A, 2010~,in a pres,entation titJe.d' '
"Effectiveness of Dry Weather Diversions". The presehtatl'On Was given by Jamie:Malpede Qfth.e
City's Water Resources Protection Program. '
Following are the results of the data colley ted fqr wet-w~ather flQWS~
• TSS -avg. influent ~66 mglL, avg. ~ffluent 48'mg/L. Avg. removal-of86.9%
• Oils & Grease -avg. influent 4 mg!.L, avg. effluent. NO. ~vg. retnQvalof>99%:
• Fecal Coliform -avg. influent> 16,000. avg. effluent:> 8,400. Avg: remova147.5%:
e· Turbidity -avg. influent 170 NTU, avg. effluent 48 NTU. !Wg. rehloval of?l.7% '
e Copper -avg. influent 7 ug/L, avg. effluent 4.2 ug/L. Avg. removal of 4.0%
PleaSe call me if you have any questions.
SlGJ~
Ne~ Shapiro, Supervisor
Watershed Section
Watershed Management PrQgram Coordinator
,
•
Nutrient Separating Baffle Box .. Removal Efficiencies
Study
Qillard & Associates· Field Test
Pandlt· Physical Modeling
NJ CAT VeRIFICATION (Fine TSS)
Sunset Park Baffle Box
Lubnow. Harvey's Lake
Royal· Indialantic
Royal· Micco
Pastore· Pine St
Pastore· 5th St
Pastore· 7th St
Stud
Pastore· Pine St
Pastore· 5th St
Pastore· 7th St
Study
Sunset Park Baffle Box
Royal. Indialantic
Numeric Reductions (mg/L)
".
1,: Total Suspended Solids
?: mg/L
if
Removal
Influent Effluent Efficienl;y
N1A N/A :.!$:~;~Wcii;
N/A N/A ;~(8,~~$iYci,! r
" ,~ N/A N/A :itl7~~%{~
81.15 2&.9 ri$$\\~%;:
918 12~ ~:;$$.~:3$;:';
32.9 7.6 "\7$Y9~'" t~;"'1 \~, ,,' .~t~:
16.65 8.625 ;::41i$,W.}:~
110 31 ;;;t~,;i$W.J;': iit
85 27 (i$al.:2~jli
44 27 :3If6%'~ ~~~" ,~_ ~ > "J
~.{ Zinc mg/L "
~ ,
f Removal
.~-Influent Effluent Efficiency ~
l~ 0.072 0.044 :,::{9.~);Y~ :J; ", :f~ 0.088 0.038 :,:;~,?:~",\
~ 0.057 0.041 i;'j~'alY~~:Y ~~,
'" !¥ BOD (mg/L)
,~
.' ~ i Removal ~ Influent Effluent Efficiency
~~ 16.391 ~
" 1.88 1'<1
Total Phosphorus mg/L
Removal
Influent Effluent Efficiency
1.909
0.47
1,.49
0.055
0.33
0.31
0.22
Influent
0.0085
0.014
0.0066
1.022 i,~:,i1t~~~ ~:\
0.32 '" :;:",
0.44 ii, _,I'
0.0425 P:~,~~:;:!;i
0.19 R:;~'~.w'~~\:J ~~
0.21 ~\~:,~~rvl~~;: i,f
0.18 ~. ':1;8~r' ~{,!,:; """," , ~~~'~
Lead mg/L
Removal
Effluent Efficiency'
Total Nitrogen mg/L
Removal
Influent. Effluent Efficiency
3.5 1.3 ' !\r;:6:a!y~i:~;,i
1.6 0.99 ~:r~3.S~~·,~~~
2.3 1.3 :~~:':;~~~~~:::n
Coppermg/L
Removal
Influent effluent Efficiency
Dillard & Associates Consulting Engineers· Field Test for Suntree Nutrient Separating Baffle Box • Test Report -Feb 2005
Pandlt & GQpatakrishnan • Florida Institute of Technology. Physical Modeling of a Stormwater Sediment Box -1996 -Independent Test
Sunset Park Baffle Box· Brevard County Surface Water Improvement· St. John's River Water Management District -199~ • Independent Test
Lubnow & Miller. Princeton Hydro· The DeSign, Installation, and Effectiveness of a Structural BMP for Harveys Lake· 2003 • Independent Test
Royal & Vanderbleek • Brevard County Surface Water Improvement Dlv· Sediment Control Project, Indlatiantlc/Micco· 19114 • Independent Test
Pastore· Blue Water Environmental. Atlantic Beach Monitoring Study: Pine St, 5th St, 7th St -2004
(
•
f •
\
f 5'
I \
I
I
I
II I
j I I III II
BENCHMARK
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE 2" PIPE Vi1TH DISK STAMPED "RCE 27616",
APPROXIMA TEL Y 670 FlEET ON THE INTERSECTION OF CHESTINUT AVE. AND LINCOLN
ST. ELEVATION : 41.44 M.S.L.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PORTION OF LOT 6 OF MAP NO. 1B03, IN BLOCK "L" OF PALISADES NUMBER TWO, IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1B03, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 25,1924.
41.47
x
x 41.45 x 41.96
II I 1I ' ~'l.' '\ 0
I I
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II ~I I~
I
1991-Q'ip92/lP
~I
~I
~
I
12' I 11' I
I
I
SDMH
I
I
I;;;
I
I
1
1
12' 5'
LANE
BIKE
GARFIELD -=-S~T __
~ \
1\ \
" \
x
--
SCALE; 1"=10'
EXIST. BLDG
----
-44,00
NOlES
1. THIS IS A CONCEPTIJAL GRADING PLAN OF A TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM.
THE NO. OF DWELLING UNITS IS TWELVE (12).
2. WATER SERVICES AND SEWER LATERALS TO BE INSTALLED AS A PART OF
THIS DEVELOPMENT
3. PROPOSED TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PER CITY ORDINANCES, ALL
EXISTING ON SITE TREES TO BE REMOVED
4. WATER: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
5. SEWER: CITY OF CARLSBAD
6. SCHOOL: CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
7. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
B. TRASH PICK UP Vi1LL BE CURB SIDE (IN FRONT OF UNITS OR ON TAMARACK)
43.13 42.96
___ -(42) _______ ----;:---:)
x 41.55 x 41.55
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING ELEVATIONS
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS
PROPERTY LINE
CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED DRAIN INLET
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT
---,( 40)1--
--40 -:-::=
( 40.00)FS_
x 40.00
PROPOSED SEWER CLEAN-OUT
DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE
EXISi. RR.
~ PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ (G-14A)
TR TOP OF RETAINING WALL
FG FINISHED GROUND
TW TOP OF WALL
FL FLOWLINE
FS FINISHED SURFACE
FF FINISHED FLOOR
INV INVERT
WM WATER METER
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
206-020-0B
ADDRESS
391 TAMARACK AVENUE,
CARLSBAD, CA 9200B
EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES 'MLL
BE MOUNTED ON GARAGES
NOTE:
SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROJECT DATA
-~ft-------~~---------\.I,\) , *"0' ~',,'v
(~L.)-__ _ (41l--------------____________ J
x 41.51 x 41.47 PROPOSED
PROJECT
LOCATION
~
NORTH
x 41.24
A
x 41.~~OPOSED SOUND WALL
PROIJIOE OPENINGS F°'iER OUilD SECONDARY FLOOD WA
BASIN 40.77
UNIT 12
43.70FF
43.20P
WM I
43.20GFIF
42.87PAD
---
41.70
I:
I
t3.20GFF
t2.B7PAD
J 41.65
REAR YARDS INLEi
~'4·.51
i BLDG!C
! EXIST. 43.20GFIF
42.87PAD
8"IW'T~R
SIUI'M DRAIN
[: ::::::::::J
BLDG A
41.81 IP"''''''''''''~ r--;i3.2i~ 41.53
EXIST. SHED
UNIT 11
43.70FF
43.20PAD
43.20GFF
42.87PAD
I _ .l-
}~ I ~I
x 41.25
." ..
43.20GFF
42. 87PAD
x 40.77
" .
43.20GFF
42.87PAD
9'
WM..J
42.60GFF
42.27PAO
x
42.60GFF
42. 27PAD
BLDG B
42.60GFIF
x 40."'2.27PAD
If .. -
iI''::
11::
1> .. -
VICINITY MAP
NTS
x 41.
41.06
~~I----
UNIT 10
43.1 OFF
42.60PAD
UNIT 9 x
43.1 OFF
42.60PAD
UNIT 8
43.1 OFF
42.60PAD
UNIT 7
10FF
<'.t ~O.70
x 41.26
/
WOO"i'N FENCE
C>
Z
UNIT 1
43.70FF
43.20PAD
,
<
,
, , /
/ UNIT 6
43.70FF
43.20PAD
/ I "'~.07 't-fI-*W
g
:::>
In
I
I
1
I
_--1
ENGINEER
UNIT 3"11 " 43.70FF "
43.20PAD " " 11('"
1--------
1
rr UNIT 4
:: 43.70FF
I> 43.20PAD
" "\ 11
EXIST. RET. WALL WI'lH
WOODEN FENCE ATOP
1
1
I
I FIRE SPRINKLERS WILL BE REQUIRED I
-44.60 ,-'----------="i
,. I EXIS-nNG BUILDING I -I
DMS ARCHITECT: OWNER:
REAR YARDS INLET (TYP)
"'---EXIS-nNG PARKING SPACES ~
.45.10
PLANS PREPARED FOR:
4
.....J PLAY AREA $
~';;;-1
x 41.36
----------
NO PARKING SIGN
NOTE:
THIS IS A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF A CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1350 OF THE CIVIL CODE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE PROJECT CONTAINS A
MAXIMUM OF 12 AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
~~ri----
I
I I~~ :J
I
.45.70
II I II
CITY OF CARLSBAD
/
C> Z r-(f)
x w
d
•
,
1
! •
PROJECT DATA
1. TOTAL AMOUNT OF SITE TO BE GRADED
2. PERCENT OF TOTAL SITE TO BE GRADED
3. AMOUNT OF SITE WITH 25% SLOPES OR GREATER
4. PERCENT OF TOTAL SITE WITH 25% SLOPES OF GREATER
5. AMOUNT OF SITE WITHIN HILLSLOPE REVIEW
6. PERCENT OF TOTAL SITE WITHIN HILLSLOPE REVIEW
7. AMOUNT OF CUT
8. AMOUNT OF FILL
9. AMOUNT OF IMPORT MATERIAL
10. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FILL SLOPE
11. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF CUT SLOPE
12. RETAINING WALLS: TOTAL LENGTH
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
13. EXISTING/pROPOSED LAND USE
14. ESTIMATED PROJECT ADT TO BE 96 TRIPS PER DAY
15. DENSITY: MAXIMUM ALLOWED
PROPOSED
16. ZONING
17. GENERAL PLAN
18. TOTAL SITE AREA
19. SETBACKS: FRONT
SIDE
REAR
20. TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE
21. PERCENT OF SITE TO BE LANDSCAPED
22. NO. OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
23. AVERAGE DEMAND (POTABLE WATER)
24. PEAK DEMAND (POTABLE WATER)
25. FIRE FLOW DEMAND
26. AVERAGE SEWER GENERAllON
30,100 SF
100%
NONE
N/A
NONE
N/A
150 CY
1100 CY
950 CY
1.50'
1.0'
440 LF.
2 FT.
TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM
19 UNITS/ACRE (13 UNITS)
17.1 UNITS/ACRE (12 UNITS)
RD-M
RH
30,741 SF (0.70 ACRES)
20 FT.
5 FT.
10 FT.
11,517 SF (37%)
13.30% OF TOTAL SITE
29
0.09 GPM
0.13 GPM
2,000 GPM FOR TWO HOURS
2600 GALLON/CAPITA/DAY
FL GB R/W
I I
PROPOSED EARTH
RET. WALL
WITH 6' HIGH
BLOCKWALL
I
~
EXIST. CHAIN _-[
LINK FENCE
EXIST. FG~ --
VARIES
1\1--BUILDING
." ".
SECTION A-A
NTS
GB
I
EXIST. RET. WALL
WITH WOODEN FENCE
EXIST. FG~
--
t-t--PROPOSED 6' HIGH
BLOCKWALL
SECTION B-B
NTS
[:l--BUILDING
3D' r-------~-~~--------~W
FULL DEPTH AC
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
C&G
TYPICAL SECTION
(TAMARACK AVE.)
NTS
BUILDING -i/,I
.
VARIES
I EXIST. CHAIN x
UNK FENCE -I
(REMOVE) x
-<>~ I
PROPOSED EARTH
H;..--RET. WALL
WITH 6' HIGH
BLOCKWALL
2 <;,,-<> x ~ ~~ l~
SECTION C-C
NTS
NDS 1211 GRATE
12"x12"
GRATE ADAPTOR---J---'
FINISH GRADE
4" DRAIN LINE
DRAIN INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
ENHANCED CONCRE1~
B" THICK
OPEN-GRADED GR~U
24'/25'
TYPICAL SECTION
(PRIVA TIE DRIVE)
NTS
8'/9'
ECO-STONE CONCRETE r---+-PAVER, 3 '/18" THICK
ENHANCED CONCRETE
45~---4---·~~~;~---~~--~---L·-~--~----+----~---+-----r-----~-------~-----r---~----+---~~---t----r---~---t----~--~-----r---T----r----1---,-t-n~--It---145 ~ , "' Ul Ul
G3 ~ 1= "' 0 '" CD en + ~ N a1 N ....
G g[ I I
,r---r-t----~t----~43
I I I I
39~--~~~~+----4----~1--~1--11----~----L-1--~----+----+----~--~----~----r----+----+---~----1---~r---_r----r----T----T----T----~---I~rr--_r----r_--~39
I I I I
37
I I I I I
I I I " EWER b..s",10or. . I I I
.1 I I -I
I I' I 35~----~~v+I~I~~~~ __ ~ ______ ,-__ ,-_~ ____ ~ ____ -, ____ ~~ ____ +-____ ~ ____ -+ ____ ~~ ____ +-____ ~-----+----~------+-----~-----t----~------t-----i------r-----t------!-----~----~-----t----~35 ''''1~ :'t-I I I v i "I:; I I I
I I I
I I I
0+00
ENGINEER Dl'-lS
C NSULTANTS INC.
o
SUR DER 1.1. DEWAN RCE 3 E 9 30 11
244.7 '
I
1+00
ARCHITECT:
BEGOVICH AND HAUG ARCHITECTS
3450 E. SPRING ST., #118
LONG BEACH, CA -90806
Tel: 562-988-1174
PRIV A TE DRIVEWAY
SCALE: HORZ: '''-'0'
VERT: ,"= 2'
OWNER:
TMS DEVELOPMENT LLC
32 SYLVAN
IRVINE, CA 92603
2+00
PLANS PREPARED FOR:
TMS DEVELOPMENT LLC
32 SYLVAN
IRVINE, CA 92603
DATE:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
SEABREEZE VILLAS
TENT A TIVE MAP
391 TAMARACK AVE, CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
09/28/10 SHEET 2 OF 3
l
, ,
•
I
I
\
II I
II I
II I
~I I~
12'
I
\1 I
j' SDMH I
11<;-"v'I.6' I ' It.> '" \ . ~",{ 20'
"L>~.v''' /'C '?
. I I
\ \ \
I II
I II
I II
I I I
I II
i I 3'
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-tso-SO IH I
I \
I
" ~I l\
I
I
• wv
I I
12'
rl43 1
\ \
1\
___ -(43)--__
EXIST. R.R.
42.49
43.13 42.96 (42)-----
__ -(42)-_____ -----:--~/
~ ~ -~~----------s:t-----------~I,\') ~ ",'"" ",'"" v ~. '----"~ ___ ~= 7L~:-=~~~·"~":=:=:::::::===::::::::=====:-:-==:::::::~'?--f----__ --'-C_EX_IST.D_IR_T S_W_A >,,-----'--------__ -L-___ --------
41.47
--0-, 41.55 , 41.55
41.68
4213
FIBER vn<'o....,I~GN'--_~ 1,0')
)1 4 .36
03.24 1
, 41.45 x 41.96 FIBER OPllC SIGN
x 41.26
_____ ---(41)----------------_____ ____
x 41.1
(42) ___ ~
I I
I r---.L../
--><--41.32
, .07
EXIST. BLDG
41.97
(
\
, 41.51
".:.41"".8"-.8 ----11 41. 73
41.95 _ r
x 41.16 x 41.25
EXIST. SHED
\
\
\ x
\L-_---~2.a\
leo ft EXI AC 41.58
"\67
I til
I I -I--
I . -I
I 141.68 41.89-.J _I iL __ 4~ _ - - - ---
42.08
1 __ -----
~4~2.0217~-=-,..--=-_=--=--=1 42.20
I I L -l41.73 41.87 _x-
41.77 I
x 41.25 \~ __ ':8-___ -G-_____ _
42,19
x 42.12
1-
x 40.64
----
I
I
I
I II
I \1
__ -1---iEXIST·F - ----
I L~
I
\ I _ _ _ - - -(41)
\ \
I I '
I \42.,4
\
x 41.7.3 \
\
d)\
L~~==-~~=-==-=~-=--=~=--' J 41.65
__ ----4:;2.06 L -- - - - - --
(42)--___ ~
, 41.62
, 41.73
41.81
...----441.53
EXIST. SHED
, 41.54 ~---' 41.50 t:S'"'--1---J.t~ 41.62
, 41.47
x 41.86
x
(41)-------
I
I
I
I
x 40.89
x 40,6
, 40.77
____ lL..---L--"'--
.1 41.15
I
___ J
, 40.86
-I
I
I
'41.48 '1.:./,1)~1
_____ ---(42)------
\~-X'~4~2.8~5~~~ca~~~~~~-~-f42~.,~9~CE~~~-~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~;r~~~~==~~4~'f~6==~-~~~~~~~-=~-~~==~~~~~~~
N.l-F T L' ~ ___ -I - -- - -'\::. EXIST. RET. WALL \\1~ -,:j":~
...l..-'-..\..--\<, _ ~ EXIST. F.H. ___ ------i;£!;t:' WOODEN FENCE ATOP i;?~'J
---
5'
L~NE
BIKE
~ ---",.~ I I
1'-..U.-.W --\<:;? I I .44.00
( \ I I
~ \ \ I I ~\ \ ----1 I-----------~
\ ---------, I EXISTING BUILDING I
SCALE: '''-10'
,44.60
-I
~ EXISTING PARKING SPACES ~
.45.10
, 41.24
x 40.37
x 40.87
x 40,63
, 40.74
, 40.80
x 41.12
x 41.36 41.28 41.48
41.06
D
D, ,
-
D x-x
D
40.70 l
I. o \il5---x-x
D <Xi
~ ~
'-t--EXIST. WOOD FENCE 41.06' x
D
D
'---x-x
41.07 1'
D
w ~ 0.70 '" Co I-f"-~* WG---x
~
Z
D ,
41. 2 "
1 x
, 41.06
D
41.07
D
41.52
__ -- - - - ------"t" ---1(1.<
il
~. ~ I I '" ~. ~
.45.70 II
II
II
\ I
II
I I
GARFIELD ..::Sc..:..T __ _
BENCHMARK
THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY OS THE 2" PIPE
WITH DISK STAMPED "RCE 27616", APPROXIMATELY
670 FEET ON THE INTERSECTION OF CHESTNUT AVE.
AND LINCOLN ST. ELEVATION :41.44 M.S.L.
ENGINEER D5IS
CONSULTANTS, INC.
c I",~Ar::...,E N GIN E E R S
12371 ~ ere .. CA. !2IWIl P. 714-7~ F. 714-740-8842
SUR,"OER •. OEW~ RJ?"'\~ \ 1l2.. 9/30/11
ARCHllECT:
BEGOVICH AND HAUG ARCHITECTS
3450 E. SPRING ST., #118
LONG BEACH, CA -90806
Tel: 562-988-1174
OWNER:
TMS DEVELOPMENT LLC
32 SYLVAN
IRVINE, CA 92603
PLANS PREPARED FOR:
TMS DEVELOPMENT LLC
32 SYLVAN
IRVINE, CA 92603
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
SEABREEZE VILLAS
TENT A TIVE MAP
391 TAMARACK AVE, CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
DATE: OS/20/10 SHEET 3 OF 3