HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 11-02; LA COSTA VISTA; STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2013-05-13RECORD COPY
Initial
4
ate
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
SWMP 13-04
FOR
Project Site: LA COSTA VISTA
Project No. CT 11-02, DWG 477-7A
7500 Jerez Court
Carlsbad, California
Prepared For: TMS JEREZ INVESTMENTS, LLC
19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, California 92603
Date Prepared: May 13, 2013
C5
Prepared By:
E4MS.
CONSULTANTS, INC.
CiVIL CNOINEERS
12371 Lewis Street, Suite 203
Garden Grove, CA 92840
714.740.8840
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
R1 CIJIVJ
City of Carlsbad LANc JUN 10 .jj2013
ENGINRft 1fl !vr
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
SWM P 13-04
For
LA COSTA VISTA
PROJECT NO. CT 11-02
DWG 477-7A
Prepared By:
DMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
SURENDER DEWAN, P.E.
12371 LEWIS STREET, SUITE 203
GARDEN GROVE, CA 92840
714.740.8840
SurenderDMSConsuItantsI nc.com
Prepared For:
TMS JEREZ INVESTMENTS, LLC
19196 SIERRA ISABELLE
IRVINE, CA 92603
0 MAY 13, 2013
May 13, 2013 Page 1
S
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
CERTIFICATION
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared under the direction of the following
Registered Civil Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer (Engineer) attests to the technical information
contained herein and the engineering data upon which the following design, recommendations, conclusions
and decisions are based. The selection, sizing, and preliminary design of stormwater treatment and other
control measures in this report meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R9-
2007-0001 an subsequent amendments.
48
________ 1' J i3
Surender Dewan, P.E. Date
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER co
OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared for TMS Development, LLC by DMS
Consultants, Inc. The SWMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, Standard
Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) Management Program and Stormwater Ordinance, as well
as the Municipal Stormwater Permit which requires the preparation of SWMPs for priority development
projects.
The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions
of this SWMP. The undersigned will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date
conditions on the site consistent with the current Standard Urban Stormwater Management PJn (SUSMP)
and the intent of the NPDES/MS4 Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements as authorized by the State
and EPA. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear
the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the SWMP. An appropriate number of
approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity.
Signed: __________________________
Name: Tony Sleddo Title: Owner
Company/Owner: TMS Jerez Investments, LLC
Address: 19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, California 92603
Telephone #: 951.801 .0888 Date:
May 13,2013 Page
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................5
2.0 APPLICABILITY AND PROJECT TYPE..........................................................................................6
3.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................7
3.1 Project Location..........................................................................................................................................7
3.2 Project Description......................................................................................................................................7
3.3 Project Size.................................................................................................................................................7
3.4 Impervious and Pervious Surface areas.....................................................................................................7
4.0 PROJECT SITE ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................8
4.1 Land Use and Zoning .................................................................................................................................8
4.2 Existing Topography...................................................................................................................................8
4.3 Existing and Proposed Drainage................................................................................................................8
4.4 Watershed and Receiving Waters..............................................................................................................8
4.5 303(d) Listed Receiving Waters..................................................................................................................8
4.6 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).........................................................................................................9
4.7 Soil Type(s) and Conditions........................................................................................................................9
5.0 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN.......................................................................................................10
5.1 Project Categories and Features..............................................................................................................10
5.2 Project Watershed Information.................................................................................................................10
5.3 Hydromodification ..................................................................................................................................11
6.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) ................................................................................12
6.1 LID Site Design Strategies and BMPs......................................................................................................12
6.1.1 Optimize the Site Layout..........................................................................................................................12
6.1.2 Flow Through Planters and Bioretention with Vault..........................................................................12
6.1.3 Disperse Runoff.......................................................................................................................................12
6.1.4 Integrated Management Practices (IMPs)................................................................................................12
6.2 Source Control BMPs...............................................................................................................................13
6.3 Treatment Control BMPs..........................................................................................................................15
6.3.1 Selection .............................................................................................................................................15
6.3.2 Design and Sizing....................................................................................................................................15
fl
May 13, 2013 Page
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
7.0 PROJECT PLAN(s) & BMP LOCATION MAP...............................................................................16
8.0 BMP MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................17
8.1 Facility Ownership & Maintenance Agreements.......................................................................................17
8.2 Operations, Maintenance and Inspection.................................................................................................17
8.2.1 Typical Maintenance Requirements.........................................................................................................17
8.2.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan.................................................................................................17
8.2.3 Project BMP Verification ..........................................................................................................................17
8.2.4 Annual BMP Operation and Maintenance Verification.............................................................................17
APPENDIX
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix 0
Appendix E
Appendix F
BMP Plan
Grading Plan
Soils Report
Hydrology Study (Pre and Post Construction Conditions)
Permeable Payers
Calculations
May 13, 2013 Page
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required by the City of Carlsbad for all Development and
Redevelopment Projects, pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 15.12). The purpose of this SWMP is to address the water quality
impacts from the proposed La Costa Vista development. The site design, source control and treatment
control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to provide long term solution to protecting water
quality.
May 13, 2013 Page 5
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
2.0 APPLICABILE STORM WATER STANDARDS AND PROJECT TYPE
Based on the criteria established in Order R9-2007-0001 NPDES No. CAS0108758 Section Dl, and
review of the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan and after completion of the City of
Carlsbad's Storm Water Standards Questionnaire (E-34) for New Development and Redevelopment
Projects, the proposed project is identified as a Priority Development Project.
Since the proposed project has been identified as a Priority Project, this SWMP includes design and
supporting calculations for site design Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs, Source Control BMPs,
Treatment Control BMPs, and hydromodification.
Project was evaluated for exemption from hydromodification but determined that the project was not eligible
for exemption since the storm drain on Jerez Court outlets to a natural water course. Brown and Coldwell
BMP Calculator was used for threshold of Q2 x 0.10.
S
S
S
May 13, 2013 Page 6
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
3.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
3.1 Project Location
The project site is located in the City of Carlsbad on the northerly terminus of Jerez Court at 7500 Jerez
Court, APN 216-290-09. Figure 3.1 illustrates the project location. The Tentative Map includes the project
details, as further discussed in this section.
Figure 3.1
VICINITY MAP
NOM NTS
3.2 Project Description
The proposed La Costa Vista project is a private 7-unit airspace condominium project. The project has a
total of 2 guest parking spaces and 1 handicap space.
do To conform to LID requirements for BMPs, the project utilizes the use of flow through planters and
bioretention.
The existing site is a vacant lot. The property is surrounded to the north and south by multifamily
development and by a golf course to the west.
The detailed single sheet post-construction BMP exhibit is included as Appendix A.
3.3 Project Size
The project is located on a 0.41 acre site. The total disturbed area of the site is 0.41 acres. The project will
be built in one phase.
3.4 Impervious and Pervious Surface areas
The existing site is approximately 100% pervious. The proposed development after completion will be
about 75% impervious. The project will result in an increase in impervious area from existing to final
development conditions.
Various treatment facilities like settling basins, wet ponds, media filters, higher-rate biofilters, and higher-
rate media filters were considered but not found feasible because of the restraints presented by the site.
Bioretention and permeable payers were finally selected as the treatment devices.
May 13,2013 Page
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
4.0 PROJECT SITE ASSESSMENT
This section includes information used to consider the potential water quality and hydrologic impacts from
the proposed project. This information is important when considering the appropriate BMPs to reduce
identified potential impacts as well as when designing low impact development (LID), source control and
treatment control measures to reduce those impacts.
Constraints presented by high density land use eliminated the use of urban green biofilter, vegetated
swales, wetlands/wetponds. Use of flow through planters and bioretention and vault provided the
opportunity to filtrate and treat the pollutants as well as control the release of stored water.
4.1 Land Use and Zoning
The existing land use on the project is RD-M.
4.2 Existing Topography
The existing site is fairly flat and draws from north to south. The site has no definite drainage pattern.
4.3 Existing and Proposed Drainage
The existing site drains easterly in an uneven fashion towards the cul-de-sac.
The proposed drainage system consists of concrete gutter, drain inlets and drain pipes which outlet to flow
through planters and bioretention with vault.
4.4 Watershed and Receiving Waters
The proposed project is located within the Carlsbad (HU 904) watershed or hydrologic unit and the
subwatershed San Marcos HA 904.5. The surface and groundwater receiving waters located in the area
and downstream of this project include Batiquitos HSA. The designated beneficial uses of these waters
include MUN, AGR, 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 San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos HSA and the ultimate
receiving body is Pacific Ocean. The receiving water is impaired per CWA Section 303(d) for the following
pollutants.
San Marcos Creek: DDE, phosphorous, sediment toxicity, bacteria, nutrients and sediments.
May 13,2013 Page
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
0
4.6 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Hydrologic Water Quality Nutrients! Sedimentation! TDS Bacteria Descriptor Limited Segment Eutrophication Siltation
Lower Ysidora HSA Santa Margarita Lagoon Yes
(902.11)
Loma Alta HA Loma Ma Slough Yes Yes (904.10)
Loma Alta HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Creek Yes (904.10)
El Salto HSA Buena Vista Lagoon Yes Yes Yes (904.21)
Buena Vista Creek HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Creek Yes
(904.20)
* Baquitos HSA San Marcos Creek Yes Yes
(904.51)
Los Monos HSA
(904.31)
Lower Agua Hedionda Creek Yes
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 February 19, 2011 indicates that the native soil consisted
of black clay to brown clayey silt soil to a maximum depth explored of 10 feet. There was no ground water
encountered up to a depth of 10 feet.
May 13, 2013 Page 9
S
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
5.0 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Per Table 2-1 of City SUSMP, the potential storm water or urban runoff pollutants expected to be
associated with this project, an attached residential development and parking lot are:
Bacteria and Viruses: Anticipated sources include animal excrement (found in areas where pets are
often walked), sanitary sewer overflow and trash container handling areas.
Oil and Grease: Potential sources of oil and grease include motor vehicles.
Oxygen-Demanding Substances: Potential sources include biodegradable organic materials and
various household chemicals, which deplete dissolved oxygen levels in water courses.
Anticipated storm water or urban runoff pollutants expected to be associated with the project are:
Sediment: Landscape areas and roof-tops are expected to be common sources of sediment due to
erosion and wear.
Nutrients: Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus and other compounds can be anticipated to be
generated by organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage and sediment.
Metals: Potential sources of trace metals (copper, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc) include
motor vehicles, re-roofing and hardscape/construction materials, and chemicals.
Pesticides: Sources of pesticides include household bug spray, weed killers and other household
sources.
Trash and Debris: These sources include common litter, biodegradable organic matter such as
leaves, grass cuttings and food wastes from landscaped areas and homeowners.
5.1 Project Categories and Features
The project is an attached residential development.
5.2 Project Watershed Information
The proposed project is located within the Carlsbad (HU 904) watershed or hydrologic unit and the
subwatershed San Marcos HA 904.5. The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (HU) 4.00 is approximately 210
square miles extending from the headwaters above Lake Wolhford in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the
west, and from Vista and Oceanside in the north to Solana Beach, Escondido, and the community of
Rancho Santa Fe to the south. The cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Encinitas are entirely within this
HU. There are numerous important surface hydrologic features within the Carlsbad HU including 4 unique
coastal lagoons, 3 major creeks, and 2 large water storage reservoirs. The HU contains four major coastal
lagoons. From north to south they are Buena Vista (901 .2), Agua Hedionda (904.3), Batiquitos (904.5),
and San Elijo (904.6) HAs. There are other HAs and HSAs in the project area as listed on following chart
May 13, 2013 Page 10
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
BASIN NUMBER HYDROLOGIC BASIN BASIN NUMBER HYDROLOGIC BASIN
4.00 CARLSBAD HYDROLOGIC UNIT
4.10 Loma Alta HA 4.50 San Marcos HA
4.20 Buena Vista Creek HA 4.51 Batiquitos HSA
4.21 El Salto HSA 4.52 Richland NSA
4.22 Vista HSA 4.53 Twin Oaks NSA
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 Wohiford HSA
5.3 Hydromodification
See calculations in Appendix F.
May 13,2013 Page 11
La Costa Vista Storm Water Management Plan
6.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
Minimizing the proposed project's effects on water quality, as well as compliance with State and local
requirements can be most effectively achieved by using a combination of BMPs which include Low Impact
Design (LID) Site Design, Source Control, and for Priority projects, Treatment Control measures. These
design and control measures employ a multi-level strategy. The strategy, which is detailed in the City's
Stormwater Standards Manual Section 4 of SUSMP, consists of: 1) reducing or eliminating post-project
runoff; 2) controlling sources of pollutants; and 3) treating stormwater runoff before discharging it to the
storm drain system or to receiving waters.
This SWMP and the proposed BMPs for the proposed project have been developed to minimize pollutant
impacts identified in Section 5 of this report and the introduction of pollutants identified in Section 2 of City's
SUSMP, into the municipal storm drain system and/or ultimate drainage receiving waterbody.
6.1 LID Site Design Strategies and BMPs
Conceptually, there are four LID strategies for managing runoff from buildings and paving:
Optimize the site layout;
Use pervious surfaces;
Disperse runoff; and
Design Integrated Management Practices (IMPs).
0 6.1.1 Optimize the Site Layout
The development has incorporated by design, reduced street widths to reduce the amount of
impervious area. The project also includes multi-level units to reduce the amount of runoff and reduce
overall footprint.
Impervious area has been substantially reduced by use of Eco-Stone pervious payers in the driveway.
As part of the design of all common area landscape areas, similar planting material with similar water
requirements will be used to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration.
6.1.2 Flow Through Planters and Bioretention with Vault
Flow through planters and bioretention with vault will be used to retain runoff.
6.1.3 Disperse Runoff
The runoff from flow through planters and bioretention with vault is dispersed to curb outlet and catch
basin via PVC drain pipe.
6.1.4 Integrated Management Practices (IMPs)
BMPs used for the project are flow through planters and bioretention with vault.
May 13, 2013 Page 12
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
6.2 Source Control BMPs
It is anticipated that the following pollutants will be generated at this site:
Sediment: Landscape areas and roof-tops are expected to be common sources of sediment due to
erosion and wear.
Nutrients: Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus and other compounds can be anticipated to be
generated by or founding organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage and sediment.
Metals: Potential sources of trace metals (copper, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc) include
motor vehicles, re-roofing and hardscape/construction materials, and chemicals.
Pesticides: Sources of pesticides include household bug spray, weed killers and other household
sources.
Trash and Debris: These sources include common litter, biodegradable organic matter such as
leaves, grass cuttings and food wastes from landscaped areas and homeowners.
Based on these anticipated pollutants and operational activities at the site the following Table 6-1
summarizes the Source Control BMPs to be installed and/or implemented onsite.
May 13, 2013 Page 13
[1
S
[I
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE 6-1 Stormwater Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist
How to use this worksheet.
Review Column 1 and identify which of these potential sources of stormwater pollutants apply to your site. Check the box that
applies.
Review Column 2 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable BMPs in your project-specific SUSMP drawings.
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 2 3 4
Potential Sources of Runoff Permanent Controls-show on Permanent Controls-List in Operational BMPs-Include in SUSMP
Pollutants SUSMP drawings SUSMP Table and Narrative Table and Narrative
A. On-site storm drain Z Location of inlets. Z Mark all inlets with the Z Maintain and periodically repaint
inlets words No Dumping! or replace inlet markings
Drains to Creek" or similar.
Provide stormwater pollution
prevention information to new site
owners, lessees, or operators.
See applicable operational BMPs
in Fact Sheet SC-44, "Drainage
System Maintenance," in CASQA
Stormwater Quality Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Include the following in lease
agreements: "Tenant shall not
allow anyone to discharge
anything to storm drains or to
store or deposit materials so as to
create potential discharge to
storm drains."
D2. Landscape! outdoor Manage landscape and Z Monthly during regular
pesticide use irrigation procedures and maintenance.
management of use of
fertilizers and pesticides.
G. Refuse Areas
N. Fire Sprinkler Test
Water
P. Parking Lots and
Sidewalks
May 13,2013 Page 14
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
6.3 Treatment Control BMPs
Given below is the basis of selection of use of flow through planters and bioretention with vault as BMPs
and the related calculations.
6.3.1 Selection
Various BMPs including modular wetland system, urban green biofilter and wetlands/wetponds were
considered for the facility but not found feasible because of the following reasons.
The natural terrain is not suitable for wetlands. Also the existing ground is not suitable for it.
Bioretention facilities, settling basins and higher-rate biofilters were not considered suitable for the
site due to the high density land use and development leaving unsuitable amount of area for such
BMPs.
Table 6-2 provides a general comparison of how various types of treatment facilities perform for each
group of pollutants. The pollutants for the proposed project are identified in Section 5.
TABLE 6-2 Groups of Pollutants and Relative Effectiveness of Treatment Facilities.
Bioretention Settling Wet Ponds Flow I Higher- I Trash Racks I
Facilities Basins and Through Media Higher-Rate Rate Media & Hydro I Vegetated
(LID) (Dry Ponds) Constructed Planters Filters Biofilters Filters I -dynamic I Swales
Wetlands (LID) i Devices
Pollutant of Concern: Coarse sediment and trash
High I High High I High I High High High High High
Pollutant of Concern: Pollutants that tend to associate with fine particles during treatment
High High High High High Medium Medium Low Medium
Pollutant of Concern: Pollutants that tend to be dissolved following treatment
Medium Low Medium High Low Low Low Low Low
Based on this, the following facility has been selected for the proposed project:
Bioretention with vault and flow through planters were selected for the project because not only do
they conform to LID requirements; they also allow reduction of volume and peak flows and filtering
of pollutants. Impermeable liners will not allow recharge. The Geotechnical report included as
Appendix C of this report indicates that the ground water is 10 feet or greater below any BMPs.
6.3.2 Design and Sizing
The selected BMP will provide adequate treatment. Calculations for selected BMP are included in
Appendix F.
May 13, 2013 Page 15
L]
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
7.0 PROJECT PLAN(s) & BMP LOCATION MAP
A BMP map included as Appendix A, illustrates the BMPs that will be implemented as described in Section
6 of this Storm Water Management Plan.
C
May 13, 2013 Page 16
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
0 8.0 BMP MAINTENANCE
8.1 Facility Ownership & Maintenance Agreements
The following individual(s)/organization will own the facilities, including all structural and non-structural
BMPs, and are responsible for maintenance in perpetuity:
TMS Jerez Investments, LLC
19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, CA 92603
Contact Person: Tony Sfreddo
951.801 .0888
8.2 Operations, Maintenance and Inspection
8.2.1 Typical Maintenance Requirements
Flow-Through Planters: Inspect plants and structural components periodically. Maintenance is similar
for all container plantings. Other maintenance needs may include removing sediment, cleaning and
repairing pipes, and maintaining proper drainage. Downspouts, curb cuts, and other features where
debris may obstruct flow must be inspected and cleaned periodically.
Bioretention with Vault: Periodic scheduled inspections with a specified checklist, and inspections after
major rainfall events, to check for obstructions/damage and to remove debris/trash. Mowing on a
regular basis to prevent erosion or aesthetic problems. Limited use of fertilizers and pesticides in and
around the bioretention with vault to minimize entry into bioretention with vault and subsequent
downstream waters. Removal of any trash, etc. causing obstructions at the inlet, outlet, orifice or trash
rack during periodic inspections and especially after every runoff producing rainfall event. General
pickup of trash in and around the bioretention with vault during all inspections.
8.2.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan
An O&M Plan is included in the SWMP, refer to Table 8-1 on page 19.
8.2.3 Project BMP Verification
The applicant's Engineer of Record must verify through inspection of the site that the BMPs have been
constructed and implemented as proposed in the approved SWMP. The inspection must be conducted
and City approval must be obtained prior to granting a certificate of occupancy. This approval may be
verified through signatures on the as-built plans, specifically on the BMP sheet.
8.2.4 Annual BMP Operation and Maintenance Verification
The BMP owner must verify annually that the O&M Plan is being implemented by submitting a self-
certification statement to the City. The verification must include a record of inspection of the BMPs
prior to the rainy season (October 1st of each year).
May 13,2013 Page 17
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
"I certify that, as owner of the property described herein, I have read and understand the requirements
of this Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and that I am responsible for ensuring that all storm
water treatment measures described within said SWMP will be properly implemented, monitored and
maintained."
Date
a limited lability c pany
S
May 13,2013 Page 18
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE 8-1 Operation and Maintenance Plan
BMP BMP Name Implementation, Maintenance, and Person or Entity
Applicable? and BMP Implementation, Inspection Frequency with Operation &
Yes/No Maintenance, and and Schedule Maintenance
Inspection Procedures Responsibility
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Yes NI. Education for HOA will insure that all homeowners will be given a copy La Costa Vista HOA
Property Owners, of the recorded CC&Rs, which will contain a section
Tenants and Occupants outlining the environmental awareness education
materials. The HOA will establish requirements for the
implementation of a community awareness program that
informs home buyers of the impacts of dumping oil,
paints, solvents or other harmful chemicals into the storm
drain; the proper use and management of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping and
gardening practices; the impacts of littering and improper
watering. Environmental awareness education materials
will be provided to all property owners/tenants.
Yes Activity Restriction Within the CC&Rs language will be included to identify La Costa Vista HOA
surface water quality protection required by HOA.
Surface water quality activities will also be conducted in
conformance with the SWMP as it relates to the handling
and disposal of contaminants.
Yes Common Area Monthly during regular maintenance, manage La Costa Vista HOA
Landscape Management landscaping in accordance with Carlsbad Landscape
Manual and with management guidelines for use of
fertilizers and pesticides.
Yes BMP Maintenance Inspect prior to rain season, October 1St. Actual La Costa Vista HOA
maintenance intervals to be established once system
has been in operation and the rate of silt and/or debris
accumulated can be qualified.
No Title 22 CCR Not applicable to the project.
Compliance
No Spill Contingency Not applicable to the project.
Plan
No Underground Storage Not applicable to the project.
Tank Compliance
No Hazardous Materials Not applicable to the project.
Disclosure Compliance
No NIO. Uniform Fire Code Not applicable to the project.
Implementation
Yes Nil. Common Area Litter Weekly sweeping and trash pick within landscape areas La Costa Vista HOA
Control and outside walkways
May 13, 2013 Page 19
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
BMP BMP Name Implementation, Maintenance, and Person or Entity
Applicable? and BMP Implementation, Inspection Frequency with Operation &
Yes/No Maintenance, and and Schedule Maintenance
Inspection Procedures Responsibility
Yes Employee Training HOA through in-house seminars will provide monthly La Costa Vista HOA
training for both maintenance personnel and employees.
HOA shall be responsible for providing
homeowners/tenants with educational materials
regarding the impact of dumping oil, paints, solvents or
other potentially harmful chemicals into storm drains; the
proper use of fertilizer and pesticides in landscaping
maintenance practices; and the impacts of littering and
improper waste disposal.
No Housekeeping of Not applicable to the project.
Loading Docks
Yes Common Area Catch Once a month to clean debris and silt of basins. La Costa Vista HOA
Basin Inspection Intensified around October jst of each year prior to "first
flush storm.
Yes Street Sweeping Vacuum cleaning once a year. La Costa Vista HOA
Private Streets and
Parking Lots
No N17. Retail Gasoline Not applicable to the project.
Outlets
Structural Source Control BMPs
Yes Provide Storm Drain Once every three months inspect for re-stenciling needs La Costa Vista HOA
System Stenciling and and re-stencil as necessary.
Signage
No Design and Construct Not applicable to the project.
Outdoor Material Storage
Areas to Reduce
Pollutant Introduction
No Design and Construct Not applicable to the project.
Trash and Waste Storage
Areas to Reduce
Pollutant Introduction
Yes Use Efficient Irrigation Once a week in conjunction with maintenance activities. La Costa Vista HOA
Systems & Landscape Verify runoff minimizing landscape design continues to
D Design function by checking that water sensors are functioning
properly, irrigation heads are adjusted properly to
eliminate overspray to hardscape, and to verify that
irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in
accordance with water demands, given time of year,
weather, and day or night temperatures.
No Protect Slopes and Not applicable to the project.
Channels and Provide
Energy Dissipation
May 13, 2013 Page 20
La Costa Vista - Storm Water Management Plan
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name
and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance, and
Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency
and Schedule
Person or Entity
with Operation &
Maintenance
Responsibility
No Loading Docks Not applicable to the project.
No Maintenance Bays Not applicable to the project.
No Vehicle Wash Areas Not applicable to the project.
No Outdoor Processing
Areas
Not applicable to the project.
No Equipment Wash Areas Not applicable to the project.
No Fueling Areas Not applicable to the project.
No Hillside Landscaping Not applicable to the project.
No Wash Water Controls for
Food Preparation Areas
Not applicable to the project.
No Community Car Wash
Racks
Not applicable to the project.
Treatment Control BMPs
Yes Treatment Control BMP
Permeable Payers and
Flow Through Planters
Permeable Payers: Periodic clearing and vacuum
cleaning, once a year.
Flow Through Planters: 1 t 4 times a year determined
by accumulation of sediments.
La Costa Vista HOA
Yes Bioretention Twice annually or after heavy rain events. La Costa Vista HOA
May 13, 2013 Page 21
APPENDIX A
r]'1IJJfl
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
HIGHWAY 7 _---
CITY OF VISTA
L( CITY OF
SAN MARCOS
PROJECT &I LOCATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
10 0 5 10 20
\\\\\
IN FEET)
\ 1 inch = 10 ft.
NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF ENCINITAS '
VICINITY MAP
\
f /
N
\; L
CIV
\\\
---- /i_J___J*
-- \
It
2:)
rn H
\
to I H
BMP TABLE
BMP ID# BMP TYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S INSPECTION
FREQUENCY
MAINTENANCE
FREQUENCY
CONSTRUCTION
SIGN OFF
TREATMENT CONTROL
FLOW THROUGH
PLANTER AREAS , TC-32 1392 SF DWG 477-7A 2 ONCE A YEAR PRIOR TO RAINY SEASON AND
BEFORE AND AFTER STORM
BIORETEN11ON
AREA E= TC-32 160 SF DWG 477-7A 2 INSPECT
PERIODICALLY AFTER
MAJOR STORM FOR
DAMAGES
PRIOR TO WET SEASON
AS NEEDED
LOW IMPACT DESIGN_(L.I.D.)
PERMEABLE
INTERLOCKING
CONC. PAVERS
MANF. BY
TC-1O 4634 SF DWG 477-7A
UNIECOSTONE
2 ONCE YEAR PERIODIC CLEANING AND
VACCUM CLEANING THE
SURFACE ATLEAST ONCE
A YEAR
,-
L)
SELF-TREATING
FILTRATION _______
SD-10
CHECK
PERIODICALLY FOR
STANDING WATER
AS NEEDED
SOURCE CONTROL
tm CATCH BASIN
STENCILING 111111111111 SD-13 2 EA. DWG 477-4A 2 ONCE EVERY THREE
MONTHS
PERIODIC CLEANING ONCE
EVERY THREE MONTHS
,- COMMON AREA
EFFICIENT IRR. _______
SD-12 CHECK
STANDING WATER
PERIODICALLY FOR
AS NEEDED
ROOF DRAINS 0 SD-1 160 SE DWG 477-7A 2 AS NEEDED PRIOR TO RAINY SEASON AND
BEFORE AND AFTER STORM
SWMP NO. CT-11-02 (SWMP 13-04)
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT: YES ____NO
RECORDATION NO.______________
PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE:
NAME: -............TMS DEVELOPMENT1LC. CONTACT: TONY SFREDDO
ADDRESS:
BMP NOTES:
THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS.
NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR
APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER.
NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES
WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER.
NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF
HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION
AND INSTALLATION.
PLAN PREPARED BY:
NAME: SURENDER DEWAN
COMPANY: DMS CONSULTANTS. INC.
ADDRESS: 12371 LENS ST.. SUITE 203
GARDEN GROVE. CA 92840
PHONE NO.: 714-740-8840 CERTIFICATION:R.C.E. 34559
VERIFIED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEETS
1 [ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT of 1
BMP SITE PLAN FOR:
JEREZ TOWNHOMES
7500 JEREZ COURT, CARLSBAD, CA, 92008
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED: GLEN K. VAN PESKI
9 NO. 34559
.' Exp.9/30/13
OF CM.
TY ENGINEER PE 41204 EXPIRES 3/31/13 DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DWN BY: NC II PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO.
CHKD BY: CT-11-02 477-7A RVWD BY: I
CONSULTANTS, INC.
CIVIL G I N E E R S
12371 Iewts St. p Garden Grove 40 P. 714-740-8840 F. 714-740-8842 DATE INITIAL
"7A ~2 ..._- ENGINEER OF WORK
SURENDER . DEWAN RCE 3 EXP. 9/30/13
DATE INITiAL DATE INITIAL
OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL
-- - --------- ------------ ------------ ------------------ ------ - ____ __- ------..--- --- .--------- ----------. .---------- --------,
-------- ----- -----__ __i----"
BMP2
- - 4
v
Ain
I.
.
AMP
. O . . , , -. • MAN -l
WAF
V
A
P1
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
HIGH WAYSLS.00.,Z
CITY OF VISTA
LEGEND/AREA_TABLE
AREAS (IN ACRES) _________ TOTAL AREA • SYMBOL SURFACE
Al A2 A3 A4 A5 (ACRE)
LANDSCAPE: 0.013 0.008 0.007 0.004 0.038 0.07 Acres SELF-TREATING
PATIOS:
CONCRETE 0.02 0.012 N/A N/A 0.01 0.042 Acres
OR ASPHALT
ROOFS:
I ROOFS 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.018 0.065 0.153 Acres
DRIVEWAYS,
SIDEWALKS AND 0.004 N/A 0.026 N/A 0.115 0.145 Acres
ROADWAYS:
CONCRETE
OR ASPHALT
~x
- \/_L
"' A) 'I' - \/\',\,I\/\I'\/ / - // /1 /. • L
__ /7 • :.'.l.. . . \/ \/ \ / / * 7' / .
*•
0.0 5
/ \/ \/ \/ ' ' \'• \/ . / 5/ 111310RETENTION " 5" "/ "-'" '"" / 'S'/ " - /
'/. .5..
+\VAULT) r .i
_____ \.' \/ . / /. . • • * -
__ / >\ . • +. 5 \
* - * * * *
\./ \/ ' / '5' ..,/ 5',,, .•./ 'S
* *
S - •* S • S S + • * • S S •
• - - \_
GRAPHIC SCALE
/ \,/ ''' / 1 \/ / / S • • * *• '• • / ... . ! \ N- \/ \ / + • / * • •
. \ 10 0 5 10 20
* * * * / \,,,/ 'S.,,,,/ ' /' \, / \ ' \,,,_/ 'S ,' ',,,/ . . • * +
* S * S * • * . \/ \/ \,,/ N' '5 / / \,,, \/ \ -rn / - •••. . . . .
/ \/ \/ \/ \.' \7 -:' .. .. . • • ____________________________________________ / \. \/\/\/ I ' T . -' \ (IN FEET)
/ /// F. * : -: .• '. . : \ - ___ 1 inch = 10 ft.
N' N N" N/ '5/ . 'S' N' \/ N' / / . •/. '\/ N/ N . • \ \ 1
0.07
'5.,,..'
A '1I •
•
-L
\/ \/ \/ \/ \ ' N'. \/ N' N" • • • / '" '' .. N' . , - -/- / / \/ \/ NI N * * * . . ( -. \ _•• ''N' /\i \"\/N' / '//5/N'N''\/'\/\/N- •• •/ \/\/j\/\//....'.. \.- • N' N' N' \.' \J N' N' N' 'S •' / N' \/ \/ \/ N' N' \/ N' N' N' N' N' N' N' * . * *? V N' N' '1/ 'N' - I, • * • -, '. • J/I N
'/ \/ \/ \/ . '5/ 'V \/ / \' . * 15/ IN/ \/ N/ \/ N' N' N' / A// / N' N' N' \/ N' \ • - .j / \/ \/ 5'! N' I. * * / -' - N' * -.--------- N' N' N' * - . o .7 \/ N-',/ N' / . * * . I.. .7) N' N' N' N" • ' N' N' N' N' (- **. .. /
N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' '5 /N' N .... N '\/ \/ N' N' N' N' N' N' N'N'/\/\, ' N' \" N' N' N' N' N' N' N'N'N'N' N"S ' \/ N' N' N' N' N/N'
N'\/N'N' -, \' '\/NV \V N/ W.,N' N- ''N' .5/ P P0 C N' N' N'--- N'
'N'5'., 5/ -/ N' ' \/\ i
N' N' N' / \/ N' \/ N' // \ / 'S is 'S •• - - ''5 \/ N' \, •- N' \/ \/\ /'5 "5/ •,' 'S 'S 'S N' N' - ./ / -' - - \/ N' N' N' N' N' -' -
\/ N' 'IV l N' ' "5 -' ". >5/ ' \/ 'S / - , • , * . -. N' \ '' \/N-' ( / N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N'. N' N' / N' N • / / / . - - . * . • . * . * * * * * • • • • - - • • N' N' \/ \/ N' N' ' N' ./ 5', / N' N' N' / / . +
. .
• * S * - * -. * **•* •
.. N'' / 5' / / 'S / 'S ' 'S '55/ / N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' \/ N' N' N' N' N'
IQ
A3 13mp 1 LL
/ / . ----------
- . S •- - -. - -- - - . N' 'N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' '5/ \/ N' N' N' N' N- fl • / . - ... -.•. - , * - N' \/ N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' \/ N' N' N' N' N' N' N' f ___ - - - - - - - - . . •- . - . . .. . I, • -5/' / \/ N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' \/ N' N' N' N' N' \ N' N' N' \/ N' '5 ' \/ 'S - - - -
7
777777777777777777777777777777 0.01 \ \ \\\ \ I I
A
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA(DMA) SUMMARY DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA(DMA) SUMMARY
1 1 ----•-- I_
DRAINAGE
----- I ---- •- 1 _-5_5_- -----5-----
AREA
- ---- - ____1
CITY OF
SAN MARCOS
PROJECT
PACIFIC
OCEAN
CITY. OF ENCINITAS
VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE
ID TYPE BMP ID DESCRIPTION AREA POST SURFACE TY E TYPE POST SURFACE TYPE DRAINAGE SOIL SLOPE
25624 DRAINS TO LID BIVIP 1 LANDSCAPE 0.013 PERVIOUS (PRE) LANDSCAPING TYPE C FLAT SLOPE 25636 DRAINS TO LID BMP 5 LANDSCAPE 0.038 PERVIOUS (PRE) LANDSCAPING TYPE C FLAT SLOPE
SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 5%) SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 57.)
25625 DRAINS TO LID BmP 1 PATIOS 0.02 PERVIOUS (PRE) CONCRETE TYPE C FLAT SLOPE 25637 DRAINS TO LID BMP 5 PATIOS 0.01 PERVIOUS (PRE) CONCRETE TYPE C FLAT SLOPE
OR ASPHALT SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 57.) OR ASPHALT SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 57.)
ROOFS 25626 DRAINS TO LID BMP 1 ROOFS 0.03 PERVIOUS (PRE) ROOFS TYPE C FLAT SLOPE 25638 DRAINS TO LID BIVIP 5 ROOFS 0.065 PERVIOUS (PRE) TYPE C FLAT SLOPE
SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 5%) SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 570
25627 DRAINS TO LID BMP 1 DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK, 0.004 PERVIOUS (PRE) CONCRETE TYPE C FLAT SLOPE 25639 DRAINS TO LID BMP 5 DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK, 0.115 PERVIOUS (PRE) PERVIOUS CONCRETE TYPE C FLAT SLOPE
ETC. OR ASPHALT SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 57.) ETC. OR ASPHALT SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 5%) -
25628 DRAINS TO LID BMP 2 LANDSCAPE 0.008 PERVIOUS (PRE) LANDSCAPING TYPE C -- -
FLAT SLOPE -;
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME: JEREZ CT
PROJECT APPLICANT: TMS DEVELOPMENT LLC
JURISDICTION: CITY OF CARLSBAD
PARCEL (APN): 216-290-09
HYDROLOGIC UNIT: CARLSBAD
COMPLIANCE BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN NAME: BASIN 1-OVERALL
RECEIVING WATER: -
RAINFALL BASIN: OCEANSIDE
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 13.3
PROJECT BASIN AREA (ACRES) 0.41
WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) -
SCCWRP LATERAL CHANNEL SUSCEPTIBILITY (H,M,L): -
SCCWRP VERTIFICAL CHANNEL SUSCEPTIBILITY (H,M,L): -
OVERALL CHANNEL SUSCEPTIBILITY (H.M.L): HIGH
LOWER FLOW THRESHOLD (% OF 2-YEAR FLOW): 0.10
I I I I Cl flW INIIII T1?ATIflM I (I CCC TI-4AM '.°Z' I LT! III IIJ1 IISdI II Ir%J. /f 0/
25629 DRAINS TO LID BMP 2 PATIOS 0.012 PERVIOUS (PRE) CONCRETE
OR ASPHALT
TYPE C
SLOW INFILTRATION
FLAT SLOPE
(LESS THAN 57.)
25630 DRAINS TO LID BMP 2 ROOFS 0.03 PERVIOUS (PRE) ROOFS TYPE C
SLOW INFILTRATION
FLAT SLOPE
(LESS THAN 57.)
• 25631 DRAINS TO LID - BMP 3 LANDSCAPE • - 0.007 PERVIOUS (PRE) LANDSCAPING TYPE C
SLOW INFILTRATION
FLAT SLOPE
(LESS THAN 5%)
25632 DRAINS TO LID BMP 3 ROOFS 0.01 PERVIOUS (PRE) ROOFS TYPE C
SLOW INFILTRATION
FLAT SLOPE
(LESS THAN 5%)
LID SIZER SUMMARY
BMP ID TYPE DESCRIP11ON PLAN AREA (SQFT)
(MIN. REQ.)
PLAN AREA (SQFT)
(PROVIDED)
VOLUME 1 (CFT)
(MIN. REQ.)
VOLUME 1 (CFT)
(PROVIDED)
VOLUME 2 (CFT)
(MIN. REQ.)
VOLUME 2 (CFT)
(PROVIDED)
ORIFICE FLOW (CFS) ORIFICE SIZE (INCHES)
BMP 1 FLOW THROUGH PLANTER FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 441 482 367 400 - 264 289 0.001 0.10
BMP 2 FLOW THROUGH PLANTER FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 413 415 344 345 - 248 249 0.000 0.10
BMP 3 FLOW THROUGH PLANTER FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 110 117 91 97 66 70 0.000 - - 0.10
BMP 4 FLOW THROUGH PLANTER FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 152 187 126 155 91 112 0.000 0.00
BMP 5 BIORETENTION + VAULT BIORETENTION 157 378 1022 1050 - - 0.003 0.20
25633 DRAINS TO LID BMP 3 DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK,
ETC.
0.026 PERVIOUS (PRE) PERVIOUS CONCRETE
OR ASPHALT
TYPE C
SLOW INFILTRATION
FLAT SLOPE
(LESS THAN 5%)
-• 25634 DRAINS TO LID BMP 4 LANDSCAPE 0.004 PERVIOUS (PRE) LANDSCAPING TYPE C FLAT SLOPE
-.
NO. 34559 J
.\ Exp.9/30/1 3
- SLOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 5%
TYPE C FLAT SLOPE
LOW INFILTRATION (LESS THAN 5%)
25635 DRAINS TO LID BMP 4 ROOFS 0.018 PERVIOUS (PRE) ROOFS
PREPARED BY: APWA BMP PLAN FOR:
CONSULTANTS, INC. I JEREZ TOWNHOMES I
C I V I ___ I N E E R S 7500 JEREZ COURT, CARLSBAD, CA, 92008 I 12371 Lewis St #203 rden Grove CA 284 P 714-740-8840 F. 714-740-8842
SURENDER E . 9/30/13 I DA 04/09/13 SHEET 1 OF 1
. S S
APPENDIX B
Grading Plan
S S S
APPENDIX C
Soils Report
STRATA—TECH, I N C -
SEOCDNSULTANTS FAX 714-521-2552
7372 Walnut Avenue, Unit F.Buena Park, California 90620
February 19, 2011 W.O. 263810
Tony Sfredo
21 Wooderest
Irvine, California, 92603
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed
Multi Family Residential Development, 7500 Jerez
Court, 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 underlying the site and to provide recommendations for the design of foundations,
pavements and underground improvements.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of approximately 7 attached
town homes of wood-framed construction with parking and landscaping.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of the study was to obtain subsurface information within the project site area and to
provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed development and included the following:
A cursory reconnaissance of the site and surrounding areas.
Excavation of exploratory geotechnical test pits to determine the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions.
Collection of representative bulk and/or undisturbed soil samples for laboratory analysis.
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.
Preparation of this report presenting results of our investigation and recommendations for the
proposed development.
TFATA—TG H , I N C
EODONSULTANTS
Tony Sfredo 2 W.O.263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
February 19. 2011
SITE CONDITiONS
The 115 by 150 foot rectangular lot is located on the western side of the Jerez Court Cul de sac.
The site is shown on the attached vicinity Map, Plate No. 1. Two story wood frame dwellings exist
both north and south of the site. A golf course exists on grade adjacent to the western property line
It is our understanding that the new homes will be set back at least 5-feet from the property line.
Site configuration is further illustrated on the Site Plan, Plate 2.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on January 19, 2011, consisting of excavating two ba
c
k
h
o
e
test pits. The locations are shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As the excavation pro
g
r
e
s
s
e
d
,
personnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured representa
t
i
v
e
samples for laboratory testing. Test Pit #2 was extended to 10-feet to confirm the l
a
c
k
o
f
. groundwater at 10-feet.
Description of the soils encountered are presented on the attached Test Pit Logs. The
d
a
t
a
presented on these 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 conditions at other locations and times.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth materials encountered within the exploratory test pits were visually logged
b
y
a
representative from STRATA-TECH, Inc. The materials were classified as artificial fill and native
soils.
Native soils consisted of a silty residual sandy soil to a maximum depth explored of 10 feet in test
pit 2. Groundwater was not encountered in any of our geotechnical pits.
SEIsMI:CITY
Southern California is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to strong earthquakes c
a
n
occur on numerous faults. The United States Geological Survey, California Division of Mine
s
a
n
d
Geology, private consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in
Southern California for several decades. The purpose of the code seismic design parameters is to
prevent collapse during strong ground shaking. Cosmetic damage should be expected.
STT?—TC 11,1 t1 C -
0 E PC o N S U LTA N TS
Tony Sfredo W. 0. 263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation February 19. 2011
The principal seismic hazard to the subject property and proposed project is strong ground shaking
from earthquakes produced by local faults. Secondary effects such as surface rupture, lurching, or
flooding are not considered probable.
SEISMIC DESIGN VALUES
NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions Site Class D - Fa = 1.05 ,Fv = 1.57
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and SI = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Ss= 1.14 Si0.43 Sa=.79
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoint,
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 grading plans.
It is recommended that the proposed structures be entirely supported by compacted fill.
A minimum 2-foot thick compacted fill blanket below the bottom of the footings is
recommended. The over excavation requirement is 2 foot below footings, or 4 feet deep for 2 foot
footings. If the pad grade is cut, then the bottom will have to be deeper
For other minor structures such as property line walls or retaining walls less than 4 feet high,
competent native soils or compacted fill may be used for structural support.
PROPOSED GRADING
Grading plans were not available at the time our work was performed. It is assumed that
proposed grades will not differ significantly from existing grades. The following
recommendations are subject to change based on review of final grading plans.
GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Removal and recompaction of existing fill and loose native soils will be required to provide
adequate support for foundations and slabs on grade. The depth of removal shall be 1 foot below
the bottom of the footings, which is estimated to be at least 3 feet below existing grade. The
over excavation requirement is 1 foot below footings, or 3 feet deep for 2 foot footings. If the
0 pad grade is cut, then the bottom will have to be deeper
rr-mc i - i, I P4 4,—
E EDCPNSULTANTS
Tony Sfredo W. 0.263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Febmarq 19.2011
Earthwork for foundation support shall include the entire building pad and shall extend a
minimum of 5 feet outside exterior footing lines where feasible or to property line. Care shall be
exercised not to undermine hardscape, walls, or pavements that are located on adjacent
properties. If removals extend to off site structures or concrete block perimeter walls that are
located within 4-feet from the bottom excavation, then slot cutting or shoring will be required.
The exposed excavation bottom shall be observed and approved by STRATA-TECH, Inc. and
the City's grading inspector prior to processing. Dependent on field observations, removals may
be adjusted up or down. Subsequent to approval of the excavation bottom, the area shall be
scarified 6 inches, moisture conditioned as needed, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction.
Fill soils shall be placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned as needed, and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. This process shall be utilized to
finish grade.
Grading for hardscape areas shall consist of removal and recompaction of soft surficial soils.
Removal depths are estimated at I to 2 feet Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with
previously specified methods.
Grading and/or foundation plans shall be reviewed by the soil engineer. All recommendations are
subject to modification upon review of such plans.
FOUNDATIONS ON COMPACTED FiLL
The proposed building may be supported by continuous spread and isolated footings placed a
minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade utilizing an allowable bearing value of
2,000 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for
total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code.
Type
Minimum
Depth
(inches)
Minimum
Width
(inches)
Bearing
Value
(psf)
Increase Maximum
(f) (psf7ft)
Width Depth
(psf'fi)
Continuous - 24 12 2000 180 440 3500
Interior Pad 18 24 2000 180 440 3500
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.
WE
H , U N
0 CONSULTANTS
Tony Sfredo W. 0.263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation February 19.2011
Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc. prior to
placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil
conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended.
FOUNDATIONS ON COMPETENT NATIVE SOILS - for Minor Structures
Minor structures may be supported by continuous spread footings placed a minimum depth of
24 inches below lowest adjacent grade and 12-inches into natural soil utilizing an allowable
bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be
increased 1/3 for total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code.
Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc. prior to
placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil conditions
are exposed, mitigation will be recommended.
LATERAL DESIGN
Lateral restraint at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead
load and a coefficient of friction of .30. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used
to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the
rate of 300 pounds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot,
may be used for 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 values given above.
RETAINING WALLS
Unrestrained walls up to 5-feet in height retaining drained earth may be designed for the following:
Surface Slope of Retained Material
Horizontal to Vertical
Equivalent Fluid Pressure Pounds
Per Cubic Foot
Level 30
5tol 32
4tol 35
3to1 38
2to1 43
These values include 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 prevent excessive pressure. Retaining walls should include subdrains consisting of 4-inch,
SCH 40 or SDR 35 perforated pipe surrounded by 1 cubic foot per lineal foot of crushed rock. All
wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
SPE 0 C 0 N S U L T A N T S
TonySfredo 6 W. 0.263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation February 19. 2011
All retaining structures should include appropriate allowances for anticipated surcharge loading,
where applicable. In this regard, a uniformly distributed horizontal load equal to one-half the
vertical surcharge shall be applied when the surcharge is within a horizontal distance equal to the
wall height.
Retaining wall footing excavations shall be founded entirely in competent native soils or
compacted fill. Footing bottoms shall be observed by a representative of STRATA-TECH, Inc., to
verify competent conditions.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Results of expansion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a low expansion potential.
SETTLEMENT . The maximum total post-construction settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch.
Differential settlements are expected to be less than 1/2 inch, measured between adjacent structural
elements.
SUBSIDENCE & SHRINKAGE
Subsidence over the site during grading is anticipated to be on the order of .5 feet. Shrinkage of
reworked materials should be in the range of 10 to 15 percent.
FLOOR SLABS
The surface soils are non-plastic with low expansion potential.
Where concrete slabs on grade are utilized, the slab shall be supported on at least 1 foot of
engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Slabs should be at
least 4 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of no. 3 bars 24 inches on center both ways.
The soil should be kept moist prior to casting the slab. However, if the soils at grade become
disturbed during construction, they should be brought to approximately optimum moisture content
and rolled to a firm, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete.
In areas where a moisture sensitive floor covering will be used, a vapor barrier consisting of a
plastic film (6 ml polyvinyl chloride or equivalent) should be used. The vapor barrier should be
properly lapped and sealed. Since the vapor barrier will prevent moisture from draining from fresh
STFATA—TEC H , I N C.
0 EOCONSULTANTS
Tony Sfredo W. 0. 263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation February 19. 201
concrete, a better concrete finish can usually be obtained if at least 2 inches of wet sand is spread
over the vapor barrier prior to placement of concrete.
UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS
All utility line backfihls, both interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction and shall require testing at a maximum of 2-foot vertical intervals.
HARD SCAPE AND SLABS
Hardscape and slab subgrade areas shall exhibit a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction to a
depth of at least 1 foot. Deeper removal and recompaction may be required if unacceptable
conditions are encountered. These areas require testing just prior to placing concrete.
STORM WATER INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Two Hand Dug test pits were excavated at 3-foot elevation, in the bottom of the back hoe test pits.
The diameter of the test hole was 6-inches.
The lower depth of the pit exposed a natural soil layer of very dense brown sandy silt. The
percolation test was performed by siphoning a 5-gallon water bottle into the hand-dug hole. The
water level was kept at 5 to 6 inches in depth for a period of four hours. At the end of four hours,
the time for the water to drop from the 6th to the 5th inch was measured. This value was 105
minutes for both holes.
The percolation rate can be expected to perform at the tested rate over a short period of time with
clean water flowing 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.
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be planned for the site. Drainage should be directed away from structures
via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas.
Unlined fiowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constructed against the perimeter of the
structure. If such 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
kept to a minimum.
This report is issued 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
I N -
E CD N SULTAN TS
Tony Sfredo W. 0. 263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation February 19. 2011
steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in
the field.
ENGINEERING CONSULTATION, TESTING & OBSERVATION
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.
Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by this office prior to commencement of grading
so that appropriate recommendations, if needed, can be made.
Areas to receive fill should be inspected when unsuitable materials have been removed and prior to
placement of fill, and fill should be observed and tested for compaction as it is placed.
AGENCY REVIEW
All soil, geologic and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and
approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency (s) can
dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the
proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable.
Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information
could be required and will be charged on a time and materials basis.
LIMITATIONS
This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that
the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory
excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of
the proposed construction, 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 profession at this time.
In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may
exist. Any deviation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to
the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendations can be
made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project.
If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing
information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the
finished plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would
be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed
development for more than a year, or changes in ownership.
5 TRTA—TEC H , I N C
EOCONSULTANTS
Tony Sfredo W. 0. 263810
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Februn 19.2011
This report is issued 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 Architects and 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 the field.
This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you.
2
Roland Acuna
Principal
Enclosures:
Larry,
RCE 46606
Plate 1: Vicinity Map
Plate 2: Site Plan and Boring Location Map
Test Pit Logs
Appendix A: Laboratory Results and Engineering Calculations
Appendix B: Specifications for Grading
0
STRATA-TEC H , J N C
0 E Q C D N S U L T A N T B
APPENDIX A
This appendix contains a description of the field investigation, laboratory testing procedures and
results, site plan, and exploratory logs.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on January 19, 2011, consisting of the excavation of two
exploratory trenches at locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavation
progressed, personnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured
representative samples for laboratory testing.
Sample Retrieval- Backhoe
Undisturbed samples of earth materials were obtained at frequent intervals by driving a thin-
walled steel sampler by the hydraulic action of the backhoe bucket. The material was retained in
brass rings of 2.41 inches inside diameter and 1.00 inch height. The central portion of the sample
was in close-fitting, watertight containers for transportation to the laboratory.
Descriptions of the soils encountered are presented on the attached boring Logs. The data
presented on these 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 conditions at other locations and times.
Laboratory Testing
Field samples were examined in the laboratory and a testing program was then established to
develop data for preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions.
Moisture Density
Field moisture content and dry density were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples.
The dry density was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture content was determined as
a percentage of the dry soil weight. The results of the tests are shown in the test results section of
this appendix.
Compaction Character
Compaction tests were performed on bulk sample of the existing soil in accordance with ASTM
D1557-07. The results of the tests are shown in the test results section of this appendix.
Shear Strength . The ultimate shear strengths of the soil, remolded soil, highly weathered bedrock and bedrock was
determined by performing direct shear tests. The tests were performed in a strain-controlled
W E D C 0 N S U L T A N T S
machine manufactured by GeoMatic. The rate of deformation was 0.005 inches per minute.
Samples were sheared under varying confining pressure, as shown on the "Shear Test Diagrams".
The samples indicated as saturated were artificially saturated in the laboratory and were shea
r
under submerged conditions. The results of tests are based on 80 percent peak strength or ultimate
strength, whichever is lower, and are attached. In addition, a shear was performed on an uppe
r
layer sample remolded to 90-percent of the laboratory standard with low confining pressure.
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture (ASTM:D4557-07J
Trench Depth in Feet Maximum Density
(pcf)
Optimum Moisture
(%)
2 1-3 126 11.0
In-Situ Dry Density! Moisture
Trench Depth in Feet Dry Density
(pcI)
Moisture
(%)
1 3.5 113.0 14.01
2 3 108.1 12.0
Direct Shear
Trench Depth in Feet Cohesion Angle of Internal
(psf) Friction (degrees)
2 2 200 30
0
S ACTIVE RETAINING WALL PRESSURE
H= 5ft
Hc= 2 f
25 = 53.1
F.S. = 2.00
YJ0rn 130 pcf
C= 200psf
;? 30° V-:l-cM
L
Free Body Diagram
25 adX b
PA
0.13 kef
0.2 ksf
PA
25°45°+ 12 W=a+b
Cm=C/F.S.= 0.1ksf
X"m = tan" (tan x" I F.S.) 16.1 degrees D =
(H-He) tan (90°-G)=2.26ft
L=((H-He)2 +D 2 )2 = 3.76 ft
I. Q3kipsILF
a=CmLsin(900+)Im )/sin(S3.x*m )= 0.6kipsILF
b = W-a= 0.43 kips/LF
PA = b tan (25 )e"m ) = 0.32 kips/LF
DesignEFP = 2PNH2= 25.6 pcf Use 26 pcf (30 mm.)
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 75
. 00 Jerez Court Work Order 262310
Carlsbad, California
STRATA - TECH, INC.
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
Reference: "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice", Terzaghi and Peck, 1967
pages 222 and 223.
Bearing Material: compacted fill
Properties:
Wet Density (g) 130 pcf
Cohesion (C) 200 psf
Angle of Friction (x") 30 degrees
Footing Depth (D) = 2 feet
Footing Width (B) = 1.0 foot
Factor of Safety = 3.0
Calculations - Ultimate Bearing Capacity
from figure 33.4 on page 222
Nc= 30.14 Nq= 18.4 N" = 22.4
Qu = 1.2 C N + VJO D Nq + 0.4 >)o B N (Square Footing) =
1.2*200*30.14+ 130*2*18.4 + 0.4*130*1 *22.4
= 7233 +4784+1164=13181 psf Allowable
Bearing Capacity for Square Footing
Qji= QuIF.S. = 4393 psf
Use 1500 psf (Settlement Control)
= 1.0 C N + >)O D Nq + 0.5 >)o B N (Continuous Footing)
= 1.0*200*30.14+ 130*2* 18.4 + 0.5*130*1 *22.4
= 6028 + 4784 + 1456 = 12268 psf Allowable
Bearing Capacity for Continuous Footing
0.N= QU/F.S. = 4089 psf
Use 1500 psf (Settlement Control)
Increases: 440 psf I ft in depth over 2 feet 0
psf / ft in depth over 1 foot
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 262310
7500 Jerez Court
Carlsbad, California
STRATA - TECH, INC.
STFATA—TEC H , I N C
0 E Q C D N S U L T A N T S
APPENDIX B
SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
SITE CLEARING
All existing vegetation shall be stripped and hauled from the site.
PREPARATION
After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed
until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to a proper moisture content and compacted to
not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557-02 (5
layers - 25 blows per layer; 10 lb. hammer dropped 18"; 4" diameter mold).
MA TERJALS
On-site materials may be used for fill, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the
Soils Engineer and may be obtained from the excavation of banks, borrow pits or any other
approved source. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious
substances and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension.
PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIALS
Where natural slopes exceed five horizontal to one vertical, the exposed bedrock shall be benched
prior to placing fill.
The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed 6
inches hi thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the
spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture of each layer.
Where moisture of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, water shall
he added until the moisture content is as required to ensure thorough bonding and thorough
compaction.
Where moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, the
fill materials shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is
as specified.
After each layer 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- 15 57-02 (5 layers -
25 blows per layer; 10 lbs. hammer dropped 18 inches; 4" diameter mold) or other density tests
which will attain equivalent results.
0
STIATA—TEC H , I N C
EDCDNSULTANTS
Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot roller, multi-wheel pneumatic tire roller or other types of
acceptable rollers.
Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.
Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of
each layer shall be continuous over the entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to
ensure that the desired density has been obtained. The final surface of the lot areas to receive slabs
on grade should be rolled to a dense, smooth surface.
The outside of all fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable
equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until the outer 9 inches of the slope is at
least 90 percent compacted. Compacting of the slopes may be progressively in increments of 3 feet
to 5 feet of fill height as the fill is brought to grade, or after the fill is brought to its total height.
Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill.
Density tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed 2 feet of fill height provided all layers are
tested. Where the sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches
and density readings shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When
these readings indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion there is below the required 90
percent density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been
obtained.
The grading specifications should be a part of the project specifications. The
Soil Engineer shall review the grading plans prior to grading.
INSPECTION
The Soil Engineer shall provide continuous supervision of the site clearing and grading operation
so that he can verify the grading was done in accordance with the accepted plans and
specifications.
SEASONAL LIMITATIONS
No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When
work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the field tests by the
Soils Engineer indicate the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified.
EXPANSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS
Whenever expansive soil conditions are encountered, the moisture content of the fill or
recompacted soil shall be as recommended in the expansive soil recommendations included
herewith.
0
. . .
APPENDIX 0
Hydrology Study
Hydrology Study
La Costa Vista
Project No. CT 11-02
Carlsbad, California
(Dwg No. 477-7A)
Prepared For:
TMS, JEREZ INVESTMENTS, LLC
19196 Sierra Isabelle
Irvine, California 92603
Prepared By:
Surender Dewan, P.E.
DMS Consultants, Inc.
12371 Lewis Street, Suite 203
Garden Grove, California 92840
714.740.8840
June 06, 2013
-D,MS
CONSULTANTS, INC.
C1VtL ENGINEERS . 11 Page
JEREZ COURT
CARLSBAD
Site Description
The proposed project is located in the City of Carlsbad at the terminus of Jerez Court @ 7500 Jerez Court
on a 0.41 acre site.
The proposed project is a 7-unit airspace condominium project.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine the total runoff generated for a storm of six (6) hour duration
for one hundred (100) year frequency and design an infiltration system to store the increase in volume
of runoff between the pre and post runoff condition.
11
0 2IPage
Section 1.0 100 Year Hydrology Calculations
1.1 Rainfall
The 100 year 6 hr 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. OCEANSIDE
1.1.2 Proposed Condition Rainfall
The total 100 year storm depth for the CARLSBAD
proposed condition was calculated by c.p ..
subtracting the Water Quality Depth (see
below) from the 100 year storm from the Manual.
Figure 1 100 Year 6hr Isopluvials
1.2 Soil Type
The hydrologic soil type for the area of the proposed tract is listed as "C" 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) APO
1.3.1 Existing Condition Tc
The lot currently drains via overland flow,
to the southeast with an average pe of
2%. The initital ime o::a
h
i
: CARL S BAD
was estimated using Table 3-2 of the \ Hydrology Manual (See attached Table 3-2).
The Tt for the rest of the flow distance
was estimated using Manning's Figure 2 Soil Type
equation 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. These values were entered into an Excel spreadsheet that
calculates the Tc and the corresponding I per the equation on Section 3 page 7 of 26.
1.3.2 Proposed Condition Tc
In the proposed condition the lots drain to a concrete swale in the center of the tract which
conveys the flows via inlet to onsite landscape areas. The initial Ti was estimated using Table 3-2
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 = OJA and assuming the pipe will be flowing
full. These values were entered into an Excel spreadsheet that calculates the Tc and the
corresponding I per the equation on Section 3 page 7 of 26.
1.3.3 Conclusion
Table A gives the pre and post project runoff for the four subareas on the site.The 100 year 6 hr
flow rate in the existing condition is 0.46 cfs and the proposed flow rate is 1.27 cfs for an
increase from the site of 0.81 cfs.
Hydraulic Evaluation Summary - TABLE A
Subarea Pre-Project Post-Project
C I A 0 C I A Q Difference
(in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs)
A 0.30 3.15 0.070 0.07 0.69 3.87 0.070 0.19 0.12
B 0.30 3.77 0.050 0.06 0.69 3.77 0.050 0.15 0.09
C 0.30 3.27 0.130 0.13 0.69 4.33 0.130 0.39 0.26
D 0.30 3.36 0.210 0.21 0.69 3.81 0.210 0.55 0.34
Total 0.46 1 1.27 0.81
41 Page
S
100 Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhomes Area A
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 3049.2 sf
Soil Group C
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.30
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.69
Pre Project Ti 10.90 mm
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.100 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.34 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 7.31 mm
Tc=Ti+Tt 18.21 mm
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.15 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.07 cfs
Post Project Ti 5.10 mm
Length 120.00 ft
Slope 0.095 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.086 ft
Swale Velocity 0.52 ft/sec
SwaleTt 3.88 mm
Tc 8.98 mm
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 2.14 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.87 in/hr
Graded Area 3049.20 ftA2
100 Year flow rate 0.19 cfs
0
:ii
100 Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhomes Area B
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 2178 sf
Soil Group C
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.30
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.69
Pre Project li 10.90 mm
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.059 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.86 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 2.89 mm
Tc=Ti+Tt 13.79 mm
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.77 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.06 cfs
Post Pro iect 1UU year bnr KU non
Post Project Ti 5.10 mm
Length 78.00 ft
Slope 0.015 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale N 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.078 ft
Swale Velocity 0.48 ft/sec
SwaleTt 2.69 mm
Ic 7.79 mm
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 2.14 in
loo year 6hr intensity 4.24 in/hr
Graded Area 2178.00 ft"2
100 Year flow rate 0.15 cfs
0
n
100 Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhomes Area C
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 5662.8 sf
Soil Group C
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.30
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "Ce 0.69
I're Proiect iuu year bnr Kunort
Pre Project Ti 10.90 mm
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.126 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.40 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 6.27 mm
Tc=Ti+Tt 17.17 mm
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.27 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.13 cfs
Post Proiect 100 year 6hr Runoff
Post Project Ti 5.10 mm
Length 90.00 ft
Slope 0.009 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale N 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.155 ft
Swale Velocity 0.62 ft/sec
SwaleTt 2.44 mm
Tc 7.54 mm
loo year 6hrDepth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hrDepth 2.14 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 4.33 in/hr
Graded Area 5662.80 ft"2
100 Year flow rate 0.39 cfs
0
S
S
100 Year Hydrology Calculations for Jerez Townhomes Area D
Site Data Value Units
Graded Area 9147.6 sf
Soil Group c
Pre Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.3
Post Project Project Runnoff Coefficient "C" 0.69
Pre Proiect 100 year 6hr Runoff
Pre Project Ti 10.90 mm
Earth Swale Length 150.00 ft
Earth Slope 0.02320 percent
Earth Swale Z 20.00
Earth Swale N 0.025
Earth Swale Flow Depth 0.152 ft
Earth Swale Velocity 0.45 ft/sec
Earth Swale Tt 5.53 mm
Tc=Ti+Tt 16.43 mm
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.36 in/hr
100 Year flow rate 0.21 cfs
Post Project Ti 5.10 mm
Length 164.00 ft
Slope 0.009 percent
Swale Z 50.00
Swale 0.02
Swale Flow Depth 0.155 ft
Swale Velocity 0.67 ft/sec
SwaleTt 4.07 mm
Tc 9.17 mm
100 year 6 hr Depth 2.75 in
Infiltration Depth (See Storm Water Calculations) 0.61 in
Effective 100 6hr Depth 2.14 in
100 year 6 hr intensity 3.81 in/hr
Graded Area 9147.60 ft"2
100 Year flow rate 0.55 cfs
0
S
Hydraulic Evaluation Summary
Subarea Preproject Post Project
C I A Q C I A Q Difference
(in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs)
A 0.30 3.15 0.070 0.07 0.69 3.87 0.070 0.19 0.12
B 0.30 3.77 0.050 0.06 0.69 3.77 0.050 0.15 0.09
C 0.30 3.27 0.130 0.13 0.69 4.33 0.130 0.39 0.26
D 0.30 3.36 0.210 0.21 0.69 3.81 0.210 0.55 0.34
Total 0.46 1.27 1 0.81
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(ATTACHMENTS)
Table 3.1 and Table 3.2
0
Vodistuibed Natural Terrain (Natural)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Low Deosity Resid4itil DR)
Me4iiimDensty RMidelnial (MDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR.)
Mediosn Density Residential (MDR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
High DensityR deorial (}tDR)
Cmbdnstriat (N. Corn)
Con cialllnthssiiisl (0. Corn)
Colhtdtsitiet (Q.P. Co)
Consacercial!lndustriat (Limited 1)
Comm a dnstriat (General 1)
Permanent Open Space
Residential. 1.0 DUIA or less
RestkntiaL 2.0 DUJA or less
Rdetis, 29 DIJJA or less
Residential, 4.3 DUIA or less
Residential. 7.3 DUIA or less
Residential. 10.9 DUIA or less
Reesslial, 14.5 DUIA or less
Residential, 24.0 DUIA or less
Residential 43.0 DU!A or less
Neihboxbood Commercial
General Conmicerial
Office Pro ssontd/C.om erciel
Limited Industrial
General Industrial
S S S
San Diego Cotnty Hydrology Manual Section: 3
Date: Thue 2003 6 of 26
Table 3-11
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR L'RBAN AREAS
Land Use RnoffCoefticieit 'C
Soil Tpc
NRCS Elements Cototy Elcl=1114 04 IMPE& A B C 1)
0' 0.20 0:25 0.0 0.35
10 0.27 32 0.36 0.41
20 C Undeveloped 0.42 0.46
25 0.38 041 0.45 0,49
30 0.41 045 0.48 0.52
40 0.4.8 Oil 0.54 0.37
45 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.60
50 0.55 0:58 060 0,63
65 0.66 0:6 0.69 0.71
80 016 017 0.78 0.79
so [ C developed I 0. 7S 0.79
85 0.80 0:80 0.8.1 0.82
90 0.83 0:84 0,84 0,85
90 0.83 014 0.84 0.85
95 087 0.87 0.87 0.87
The sa1nes associated with 0% imper'iots may be used for direct calculation of the nnoff coefficient as described in Section 312 (repmSealing use pervious nuoff
coefficient. Cp, for the soil type), or for areas that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. Justification must be given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g- the area
is located in Clevelend'Nationat Forest).
DUIA - dwelling units per acre
RCS National Resources Conservation Service
3-6
C
Table 3-2 Undeveloped Tt
MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW VNGTH (Li)
& INITIAL TIME OF CONCEN/tRATION (T1)
Element* DU/
Acre
5% 1% 2 3 50/0%
LM, I Ti LM I Tj I LMJLM I T1 ILMTiILM I T
Natural ____
1 506P70 50 11.5 85
6.9
LDR 10.0
010.9 100
100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4
LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 1001 5.8
LDR 2.9 50 103 70 10 85 8.8 95 De
V71.T-T~-~ MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 33
MDR 1 7.3 1 50 1 9.2 1 65 1 8.4 80 7-41 9ZI 7.0 100 60 1100 1 4.8
MDR 1 10.9 1 50 1 8.7 1 65 1 7.91 80 6.9 90 6.4 1 100 5.7 1 100 1 4.5
MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6. 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 4.3
HDR,24 50 1 6.7 65 1 6.11 75 1 .1 90 4.9 95 43 100 3.5
HDR 43 50 1 5.3 1 65 1 4.7 75 1 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 1 21
N. Corn 1 .31 601 4.51 75 1 4.0 :951 3.81 95 3-41 1001 2.7
G. Corn 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 I 3.6 85 3.4 1 901 2.91 1.00 1 2.4
O.P./Com 1 50 1 4.2 1 70 1 3-11 801 2.91 901 2.6 100 2.2
Limited I. 1 50 1 4.21 601 3.71 70 1 3.11 80 2-91 90 2-61 100 2.2
Geeia1I. __ 50 3.7601 3.21 70123 80 2.6 90 2.3 1.001 1-9
"See Table 3-1 for more. detailed description
0
INTENSITY-DURATION DESIGN CHART
[I
Figure 3-1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii; COVATION
P = 6-Hour Precipitation (in)
Intensity (irdhr)
IIIIIIIIIIlIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIHhIItIIIIIUIII5IIIIIII1!IIIIIIII!
uu.uIu,uululr IIII.....hI..uI .IIuII,11111111w4 . ........uu...Il..III.. uI.II.fIIIlII:IIII.t..hIII.l IIuIIII1IIIlIIIM ...UU..I,I.Ill.uIIlI7
uI.uI,rIIIII,: IiIiUU UIIIuDI IIIIIIIIIII!IIIHi .......Iu..uI.uIb.Il•. uI.,Il94IlI,. IIII..I.IIIu.I uIluIIIuuIflhIuI.,. .......I...uuluI.h,,.• u.I.lII IIIIuJIIII9il uuIIuIIlIn:FlIII•I•uIIIIII .iiuiuuiiuuou:i........uI IululullulIll luIlulIilIlil,lllIIIIIIIIIlI IIIlllIllIIlIim)....u..uuuIlululIIlII•lIt• lTlllIiIlllilllillllllllll uiilliillluliulilr....uu...a..IuulIuluI1II
11111111111 IiIIIluI.IIIllltl lIIIliLllIlIII1lJlIIUIlIIIlIIilIIlII.lIIn IlIlIllIllIll! ItlIllIllIflIl iiiiinuiiiiiiiiu•••iiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiii
IInuiIIuIIiI!luIi:.IiIIIIIIIIlInhIlIIIIIliIRIu.IuIuiIIlIuuIIuIuILlIli
Directions for Appllcatlon:
From precipitation mapsdelermine 6 hr and 24 1w amounts
for the selected frequency. These ms are included in the
County Hydrology Manual (ID, 50, and 100'rmaps Included
In the Design and Procedure MOOUSI).
Adjust 6 hr precipitation Cut necessary) so that it is within
the range 0145% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (not
2t391i031316 to Desert)
Plot 6 hr predpitehion on the right side of the chart.
Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines.
This line is the intensity-duration curye, for the location
being analyzed.
Appeestlon Fofm
Selected frequency - year
PO P24 %t21 P24
(C) Adjusted Pt21 = _in.
(d) t5 _rrin.
(a) I = iflihr.
Note: This chart replaces the InteneltyDuratIon.Fr8ier9cy
curves used sOnca 196&
trill t 3 3,5 4 451
1r.-I I inn
2.62 0.15
359 52.I,591750922
3,I5 424 5.300,20
0.54 91
0.54
86 9317 445
7.42 0.45 10.5) LOs
9551
1272
- I
15
I.95l253
1.30
3.374.2fl0.055.90
1.95 2.553.211559!454
0.74 7.590.429.57
0.19 S54.6,I9713.7.70
t011
- 2 lee 100 '15 29515535 771 4901 5.39 5935.19
20
30,01140 0.93 13 173...429L467_.5'3 2.60.290 532 1 8Thr 4,15 5.56 4.96
4 0891
129 1.59j2.07
COI 35 1.79 2.07!2..111276 3151 545_375f4 13
S 000.1050 0.53
1.15 9.65
0.50 1.06l i.3 s.61.0.921102
9.15 0.09 0.39IL*t7tt) 505
9.50' l.65Th.12 5.59 2.6S 24218.19 123140 I63h84 0.od,2231245
I 359
6
95
041
o3s 531045i051)
0 390,02' 052
902 1.19 361 - 1! 1' 29
035 326
0.14'S 073
0.229310934.05*
096 Ins I.15 922 1.67 9.62
175959.104 19 IS 1.31 14411.57 1.79
093 079 0.97 056 1.0*119
W. 0.66 0750.9S 0.94 103,1.18
05D'058-06710.7 51(154 092I0*
135
34 39 0990.39 059 091
029031,09?
S
10.0
9.0
9.0
7.0
6.0
P0URE
Intensity-Dursitoin Design Chart - Template H-'
S
I
LEGEND
(819100 00(107 —"-247,.--- _/—_ *400020882(81*1
£6006 COIl_I
(8192820 (22V*104S /', IT TOP if 8412*11081*0. r(I 10*9(001920 C.T.2804(2(28106
4400810 LIt
,,, 18 lOP 0 82*1
.4_ 0*108810 a ace.c
4810010108*1 882(4 S 8220810
8100101*14 8100*2 Z IF 800801010
(8221. 18421902*8(1 00 . MOOT
IC. 440010024640(01-Gfl 814* 8*400 0404
106(1(41100(0141000
'
. . .
I
0.15 CFS
BENCHMARK
\\'\
II III 'I
UNIT
hhI1\
\)I\ 4
\L :1 B \UNIT
005
uNIT 2
0.07
\\ \I
UNIT 1
I I'
I I.
L—.—.--
100
AREA A
74
2
GARAGE
TGARAGE
UNIT
10
_______
0702CE UNITS
CA CARACE
__ ;
CE Jl 1000CC H 1 I - - - -
:22
PR JECT
LOCATION
PACIFIC
OC
CITY or Ducim As
VICINITY MAP
NOTES
I THIS 15 42 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN OF 9 1001271000
CONDOMINIUM. THE NO. OF 08011420 02815 IS SEVEN (7).
2 81108 SERVICES AND SENOR 101011*15 10 BE INSTALLED
AS P7*11 DI THIS DEVELOPMENT
C PROPOSED 000 PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PER CITY 45* ORDINANCES, ALL EXISTING ON 5210 TREES 20 RE REMOVED
20
. 4. 66100: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
51 01400 011 DI 08015870
= 0.55 CFS \ 17 504001: CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL 04511101
\ 100 2 7, P70102000 COVENANTS, HOMEOWNERS 05510250295
AREA 0 a TRASH ENCOOSURE oocoo 00 SITE
.
It,
ADDRESS
10460462 00491. 10*52880.0* 824*0
\\m i .
ASSESSORS PARCEL
\ I I 216-290-09
N
N' '"• I
NOTE: THIS IS A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF A CONDOMINIUM PTISCRCIA0 DEFINED MI SECTION I3500FI00 CIVIL CODE OF THE 51810 OF CALIFORNIA. ONE PROJECT CONTAINS A
8901*2* OF 7 AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
GRAPHIC SCA I .
1*00 7*00 [)S2027' ICR
plC 10020 *72)
0.39 CFS 00
AREA C
(
AREA A TRAVEL LENGTH : 120 AREA).: 0.07 ACRES
AREA B TRAVEL LENGTH : 78' AREA 0.05 ACRES
AREA C TRAVEL LENGTH : 90' AREA : 0.07 ACRES
AREA D TRAVEL LENGTH : 164' AREA 0.21 ACRES
045 0)00 SOURCE ON COlIC. CURB $042117 ROE OF
OR CE 280220 2006 MARK 029 LA COSTA RD. 00 24051
OF EL CA9RINO REAL
ELEV. 17.770 (DAIUIEU.CC. & 0.0)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 365 OF LA COSTA 5220112 290 NO. 52 82 VIE C0U91'l
OF SAN 0(008. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. NCC000MIC 10 MAP
THEREOF NO. 0600. VIED 0* THE OFOCE or IRE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. 864CR 10. 1970,
BE000TCH AND HAUG ARCHITECTS I TMS DEVELOPMENT LLC ANTHONY MARK SFREDDO
3450 E. SPRING ST., #118 32 SYLVAN 32 SYLVAN 1000 BEACH, CA —90800 IRVINE. CA 92603 IRVINE, CA 92603 Tel : 562-980-1274 REVISION DESCRIPTION
JEREZ TOWNHOMES
7500 £REZ COURT. CARLSBAD. CA. 92008
Diameter, D= 0.5
Flow, Q= 0.55
Manning's coeff., N= 0.013
Area, A= 0.19635
Hydraulic radius, R= 0.125
Z= 1.486
Wetted perimeter, WP= 1.5708
Friction slope,
@Full capacity
Sf= 0.009541625
CALCULATIONS FOR 6" STORM DRAIN PIPE
(Drains to Bioretention area with vault)
Input Parameters
HGL @ outlet 40.05
Length of Pipe 53
HGL @inlet 40.56
Top of Grate elevation @ Inlet = 40.80
HGL @ inlet < Top of Grate elevation =>OK
fl
. . .
APPENDIX E
Permeable Payers
r
Concrete 1'avement
UNI-GROUP U.S.A.
Manufacturers of UN! Paving Stones
..—
.,
:.:.
' '•j' : 1 I
jor
we r.. -
_____ I
./ d -•
_—A -
4_ I
•• •
DEVELOPMENT, IMPERVIOUS COVER \\
IMPACTS OF STORMWATER RUNOFI
With ever-increasing levels of development, natural
open land is rapidly being replaced with impervious SHT11RCS
such as asphalt roadways, parking lots, and buildings. As a
result, the management of increased levels of stormwater
runoff and its impact on the environment has become a
major issue for all levels of govern ment throughout the
country. Numerous studies indicate that stormwater runoff
is the primary source of pollutants found in surface waters
and contains a toxic combination of oils, pesticides, metals,
nutrients, and sediments. Additionally, research has shown
that once a watershed reaches just I 09/o impervious cover,
water resources are negatively impacted.
In the early I990s,
the United States
nvironmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA)
stablished the National
Pollutant Discharge
NPDES) stormwater
- regulations to comply
with the requirements
of the Clean Water Act.
Compliance with
5rormu'arc'r Inlet 1), 1 i I / II federal, state, and local
stormwater programs involves the use of "best management
practices" (BMPs) to manage and control stormwater runoff.
Effective management of stormwater runoff offers a number
of benefits, including improved quality of surface waters,
protection of wetland and aquatic ecosystems, conservation
of water resources, and flood mitigation. The EPA recom-
mends approaches that integrate control of stormwater and
protection of natural systems.
In 1999 and 2001, the International City/County
Managers Association (ICMA) and EPA released the frame-
work for "Smart Growth" policies that communities around
the country could adopt to meet environmental, communi-
ty and economic goals. Simultaneously, organizations such
as the Low Impact Development Center and the Center for
Watershed Protection began advocating low impact develop-
ment (LID) as a way to preserve and protect the nations
water resources. They promote comprehensive land planning
and engineering design, watershed planning and restoration,
and stormwater management approaches that protect water
resources and attempt to maintain pre-existing hydrologic
site conditions. Their goal is to achieve superior environ-
mental protection, while still allowing for development.
The EPA began working with these organizations in
2006 to promote the use of LID and Smart Growth as a
way to manage stormwater runoff. The goal is to protect
water resources at the regional level by encouraging states
and municipalities to implement policies that consider both
growth and conservation simultaneously. These approaches
are quickly gaining favor across the co untr and are being
incorporated into local development regulations to help
meet stormwater runoff requirements and provide more
livable, sustainable communities for residents. One of the
ilk-
r••'7
Private Residence Re/idence - .Vrnnga;isete. RI
primary goals of LID design is to reduce runoff volume by
infiltrating rainwater on site and to find beneficial uses for
the water as opposed to utilizing storm drains. LID objec-
tives include the reduction of impervious cover, preservation
of natural landscape features, and the maximization of in-
filtration opportunities. Infiltration helps recharge ground-
water, reduces urban heat island effects, and reduces down-
stream erosion and flooding. This allows development to
occur with much less environmental impact.
In addition. "green building" programs are gaining in
popularity. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) green building assessment system, devel-
oped by the U.S. Green Building Council, has been adopted
by a number of cities and states that now require municipal
buildings to meet LEED' certification standards. Also, the
National Association of Home Builders (NAH B) has released
a comprehensive gtude on green building that promotes
mixed-use developments, cluster housing, green technologies
and materials, and alternative stormwater approaches.
UNI ECO-STONE. THE SOLUTION TO
STORMWATER RUNOFF PROBLEMS
Permeable interlocking concrete
Pavements (PICPs) are becoming
increasingly popular as more
cities and states are faced with
meeting stormwater runoff
regulations, increased
impervious cover restrictions, a nr
hlh1 i
the adoption of LID or LEED" practlrcs.
Eco-Stone' is a permeable interlocking concrete
pavement system that mitigates stormwater runoff through
infiltration. This allows for reduction of volume and peak
flows, improved water quality, filtering of pollutants, miti-
gation of downstream flooding, and recharge of ground-
water. Eco-Stone' is a true interlocking paver that offers the
structural support, durability, and beauty of traditional
concrete payers, combined with the environmental benefit
of permeability. The permeability is achieved through the
drainage openings created by its notched design. Measure-
ments of a typical UNI Eco-Stone paver and physical
characteristics are shown in Figure I
Physical Characteristics
Height/Thickness 3 1/8 = 80mm
Width 41/2 = 115mm
Length 9 = 230mm
Payers per sq ft = 3.55
Percentage of drainage void area per sq ft = 12.18%
Composition and Manufacture
Minimum compressive stength - 8000ps1
Maximum water absorption - 5% ro'/
Meets or exceeds ASTM C-936
and freeze-thaw testing per D section 8 of ASTM 0-67.
Figure 1
The drainage openings in an Eco-Stone permeable
pavement are created when the payers are installed (Figure 2)
This is what distinguishes Ecu-Stone' permeable payers
from traditional interlocking concrete payers. The drainage
openings are filled with a dean, hard crushed aggregate that
is highly permeable, allowing for rapid infiltration of
stormwater (ligti rc 3).
Figure 2 Figure 3
ECO-STONE' PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AS
AN EPA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
'l'he EPA encourages "system building" to allow for the
use of agpropriate site-specific practices that will achieve the
minimum measures under Phase II of NPDES. Governing
authorities must develop and implement strategies that
include a combination of structural and/or non-structural
BM Ps appropriate for their communities. Structural
practices include storage practices, filtration practices, and
infiltration practices that capture runoff and rely on infil-
tration through a porous medium for pollutant reduction.
Infiltration BM Ps include detention ponds, green roofs,
hioswales, infiltration trenches, and permeable pavements.
Non-structural practices are preventative actions that involve
management and source controls. Many states and munici-
palities have incorporated the EPA regulations into their
stormwater design and BMP manuals as they attempt to
deal with srormwater runoff, increased impervious CM Cr,
and over-taxed drainage and sewer systems.
PICPs are considered structural BM Ps under infiltration
practices. From an engineering viewpoint, permeable pave-
ments are infiltration trenches with paving on top that
supports pedestrian and vehicular traffic. By combining
infiltra:ion and retention, Eco-Stone permeable intc:'-
locking concrete pavement offers numerous benefits over
other types of structural systems. Permeable pavemen:s also
work well in conjLlnction with other recommended BMF
practices such as swales, hioretention areas, and rain gardens.
ECO-STONE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AND
LID, LEED AND GREEN BUILDING
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
LID has emerged as an attractive approach to controlling
stormwater pollution and protecting watersheds. With
reduct:on of impervious surfaces a major tenant of ED,
permeable and porous pavements, such as Eco-Stone',
listed as one of the ten most common LID practices. 'l'he
use of site-scale technologies, such as PJCPs that control
runoff close to the source, closely mirror the natural orocess
of rainwater falling onto undeveloped areas and infiltrating
into the earth. With many areas of the country experiencing
water shortages and increasing water pollution, LID and
Smart Growth approaches will not only help alleviate these
problems, but also create cities that are more energy efficient,
environmentally sustainable, and cost effective.
— I. '•
00
1 .
IL'
WA -
- ---- - -
Sberu.'ood ls/aiid State Rir' - tk r. -
The LEED° green hui Id ng asscssnscn t s stern has hc-
come popular with the North American design
community since its inceptio i in 1998. This voluntary
building s'stem for rating fleN and existing commercial,
itistitutional, and high-rhe residential huildiags, evaluates
environmental performance I m a "whole building" perspec-
tive over the projects life cvck. New green design standards
are being considered for neigF horhood design and residential
I ornes as well. The mini muri number of points or credits
f.r a project to he LEED' cc ti6ed is 26, though silver (33-
38 points), gold (39-51 Point 4, and platinuri (52-69 points)
ratings also are available.
UNI Eco-Stone permeable pavements may qualify for
up to 14 points under the Sutainable Sites (SS), Material
and Resources (MR), and Tnt ovation and Design Process
(ID) credits. While traditional concrete payers also may
quality under some of the credits, PICT can earn IEED
points via Sustainable Sites surniwater management credits
by meeting water quality and runoff treatment criteria.
For years, most home bu Iders and developers were
wary- of green building practices. However, with impervious
caver restrictions and the increasing costs of energy now
Ix-ginning to Impact residential projects, the NAH B is
eacouraging the use of green' products in single and multi-
family developments. Eeo-Stcne permeable pavement
otters an attractive Solution 0 impervious cover restrictions.
ECO-STONE AND MUNICIPAL STORM-
WlER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
.\ lunicipal regulations for managing storrnwater runoff
vary .00055 the cotintry. Water quality and/or quantity may
he regulated, with criteria for reducing water pollutants such
as nitrogen, phosphorous, nitrates, metals, and sediment.
Many municipalities now restrict the amount of impervious
surfaces for virtually all types of construction, including
private residences. Thousands of municipalities have created
stormwater utilities to fund the increasing costs of managing
stormwater. These fees vary, but are usually based on runoff
volumes and impervious cover.
-
. - -: - - — — -. c.-•'-
/ All -iOft—
Regional authorities, counties, and municipalities use a
number of design goals for managing storniwater runoff:
Limit impervious cover to reduce stormwater runoff
and pollutants from developments
Capture the entire stormwater voltime so there is
zero discharge from the drainage area
Capture and treat stormwater runoff to remove a
stated percentage of pollutants
Capture and treat it fixed volume of runoff, typically
0.75-1.5 in. (18-40 mm), which usually contains the
highest level of pollutants
Maintain runoff voltinies generated by development
at or near pre-development levels
Maintain groundwater recharge rates to sustain
stream flows and ecosystems and recharge aquifers
Irco-Stone permeable interlocking concrete pavements
may oiler soltitions for attaining all of these goals. PICP can
reduce runoff volumes and flows and recharge groundwater.
It also can filter Pollutants with removal rates of tip to 95%
total stispended solids, 700,j) total phosphorous. 5 1 % total
nitrogen, and 99% zinc. Reduction of runoff also may offer
property owners reductions in stormwater utility fees.
U1NILCO-SIOMi PAVtML1 SiS!L\i
Eco-Stone is an attractive pavement that can he used
for residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational
pedestrian and vehicular applications. It can he used for
parking lots, driveways, overflow parking, emergency lanes,
boat ramps, walkways, low-speed roadways, and storage
facilities. Permeable or porous pavements should not be used
for any site classified as a stonnwater hotspor (anywhere there
isrik of stormwater contaminating groundwater). This
includes fueling and maintenance stations, areas where
hazardous materials or chemicals are stored, or land uses
that drain pesticides/ fertilizers onto permeable pavements.
UN! Eco_Stone n permeable pavements are a site-scale
infiltration technology that is ideal for meeting the EPA's
N PDES regulations. LID and Smart Growth objectives,
LEED certification, municipal and regional impervious
cover restrictions, and green building requirements.
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
Reduces nonpoint source pollutants in stormwater,
thereby mitigating impact on surrounding surface
waters, and may lessen or eliminate downstream
flooding and streambank erosion
Allows better land-use planning and more efficient
use of available land for greater economic value,
especially in high-density, urban areas
May decrease project costs by reducing or elimina
ing 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 surrounding surface waters
Examples of pollutant removal and infiltration rates for
Eco-Stone" are shown in 'I'ables I and 2. This data is from
ths' (nd vi ('()\(' I 'rh,ni \X'aicrshcd P"s 2001 \nnil ii
'I
tuvilitci it,- vii this I I\ eetioii .3 1'1 Nauonai (viii
Project. It should he noted that these infiltration rena
were achieved using a dense-graded base. Even highet
infiltration rates would be expected with open-graded H.
Test and Year Asphalt Eco-Stone
in./ht (cm/hr)
Crushed Stone
in./hr (cm/hr)
Single Ring Infiltrometer 0 7.7 (19.6) 7.3 (18.5) test 2002
Single Ring Intiltrometer 0 6(15.3) 5(12.7) test 2003
Flowing Infiltration 0 8,1 (20.7) 2.4 (6) test 2003
'able I ili'era''e ln/i/tnurion vices /born asphalt, L'in'
/015/an ('ore Urban \t'oreri/,ed I'
Variable Asphalt Ecu-Stone
Pavement
Crushed
Stone
Runoff depth, mm 1.8 a 0.5 b 0.04 c
Total suspended solids, mg/I 47.8 a 15.8 b 33.7 a 1
Nitrate nitrogen, mg/I 0.6 a 0.2 b 0.3 ab
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/I 0.18 a 0.05 b 0.11 a
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen. mg/I 8.0 a 0,7 b 1.6 all
Total phosphorous. mg/I 0.244 a 0.162 b 0.155 b
Copper, ug/I 18 a 6 b 16 a
Lead,ug/l 6 a 2 b 3 b
Zinc, ug/l 87 u 25 b 57 ab
'table 2. I/eon u'1'ek4' pollutant concentration ,'i srs"nin ,iter
/rom asphalt, I'i'wS'tone ' and 'rushed r
Ii I,'i .'I' i,oialdc, in, ///'z 'd /,
usIRUC1ION (.W!DLL!Ni
UNI-GROUP U.S.A. offers design j"nii 's
variety of tools for designing Eco-Stone' permeable
ments. Research on Eco-Stone"'has been conducted at vi..
universities such as 'I'exas A&M, University of/ashingur
and Guelph University, and ongoing pollution monitori I
is being conducted at EPA Section 319 National Moniuii
Program sites Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project in
Connecticut and Morton Arboretum in Illinois. We off'c
design manuals, case studies, and Lockpave'° Pro structur,,]
interlocking pavement design software, with PC-SWMM
PP' for hydraulic design of Eco-Stone permeable pave
merits. Eco-Stone is featured in the book Porous Pavenu
by Bruce Ferguson, a national authority on stormwater
infiltration. And, as members of the Interlocking Concrete
Pavement Institute, we can offer additional design and
reference information, such as I CPI 's Permeable Inter/oil,
Concrete Pavements manual, Tech Specs' and CAD files.
It is recommended that a qualified civil engineer 'is it I
knowledge in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted foi'
applications using permeable interlocking concrete pavcri r
to ensure desired results. Information provided is intends I
for use by professional designers and is not a substitute
engineering skill or judgement. It is not intended to repl
the services of experienced, professional engineers.
Design Options = Full, Partial and No ExfIltration
Leo-Stone' pavements can be designed with full, partial,
or no exhltration into the soil subgrade. Optimal installa-
tion is infiltration through the base aggregate, with complete
exflltration into a permeable subgrade. This allows for not
only runoff and pollutant reduction, but also groundwater
recharge. For full exfiltration tinder vehicular loads, the
minimum soil infiltration rate is typically 0.52 in/hr (3.-
106 rn/see). Where soil conditions limit the amount of
infiltration and only partial exfiltration can he achieved,
some of the water may need to be drained by perforated pipe.
Where soils have extremely low or no permeability, or con-
ditions such as high water tables, poor soil strength, or over
aquifers where there isn't sufficient depth of the soil to filter
pollutants, no exfIltrarion should occur. An impermeable
liner is often used and perforated pipe is installed to drain
all stored water to an outfall pipe. This design still allows for
infiltration of stormwater and some filtering of pollutants
and slows peak rates and volumes, so it still can be beneficial
for managing stormwater. For extreme rainfall events, any
overflows can be controlled via perimeter drainage to hio-
relent on ,flL'.is, rasscd swales or storm sewer i flirts.
Infiltration Rate Design
Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically
designed to infiltrate frequent, short duration storms, which
make up 75-850% of' rainstorms in North America. It also
may be possible to manage runoff volumes from larger
storms through engineering design and the use of comple-
mentary BMPs, such as hio-retention areas and swales.
One of the most common misconceptions when design-
ing or approving PICP is the assumption that the amount
or percentage of open surface area of the pavement is equal
to the percentage of perviousness. For example, a designer
or municipal agency might incorrectly assume that a 15%
open area is only 15% pervious. '[he permeability and
amount of infiltration are dependent on the infiltration rates
of the aggregates used for the joint and drainage openings,
the bedding layer, and the base and subbase (if used). Com-
pared to soils, the materials used in F.co-Stone" permeable
pavements have very high infiltration rates - from 500
in/hr (over 10 1 rn/see) to over 2000 in./hr (over 10 to 10
rn/see). This is much more pervious than existing site soils.
'iirtt,' Resident e - lIinneapoIis. A.1A1
Though initial infiltration rates are very high, it is
important to consider /ifi'time design infiltration of the
cntire pavement cross-section, including the soil suhgrad
when designing PICPs. Based on research conducted to
date, a conservative design rate of 3 in/hr (2.1 x 10 m/sec)
can be used as the basis for the design surface infiltration
'ate over a 20-year pavement life.
A number of design methods may be used for sizing of
'.he open-graded base (see references). For designers who use
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve num-
bers in determining runoff calculations, the curve number
ror PICP can he estimated at 40, assuming a life-time design
infiltration rate of3 in/hr (75mm/hr) with an initial abstrac-
tion of 0.2 (applies to NRCS group A soils). Other design
professionals may use coefficient of runoff (C) for peak
runoff calculations. For the design life of permeable inter-
locking concrete pavement, C can he estimated with the
hollowing formula: C = I - Design infiltration rate. in./hr - 1,
where I = design rainfall intensity in inches per hour.
Construction Materials and General Installation
It is preferable that site soils not he compacted if
structural strength is suitable, as compaction reduces infiltra-
tion rates. Low CBR soils (<4%) may require compaction
and/or stabilization for vehicular traffic applications. Drains
also would typically he required for low CBR soils. If soils
must he compacted, the reduced infiltration rates should he
factored into the design. Permeable and porous pavements
should not exceed 5% slope for maximum infiltration.
c;oodbys Marina - Ji .,flZ'?I/,'. II
Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically
built over open-graded aggregate bases consisting of washed,
hard, crushed stone, though a variety of aggregate materials,
including dense-graded, may he used depending on project
parameters. Typically, stone materials should have less than
I % fines passing the No. 200 sieve.
Current industry recommendations include a subbase of
open-graded aggregate (typically AS1'M No. 2 or equivalent)
at a minimum thickness of 6 in. (150mm) for pedestrian
applications and 8 in. (200mm) for vehicular applications.
This makes it easier for contractors to install the base materi-
als. A base layer of open-graded aggregate (typically ASI'M
No. 57 or equivalent) is installed over the subbase. This
helps meet filter criteria between the layers. The recommend-
ed thickness for this layer is 4 in. (100mm). It may be pos-
sible, however, to use a single material for the base and
subbase depending on project design parameters and con-
tractor experience. Open-graded materials described here
typically have a water storage void space between the aggre-
(lates of between 30-40%, which maximizes storage of in-
filtrated stormwater.
rip NO S AGGREGATE N OPENINGS
I ECOSTONE PAVERS MIS 3 I,W(80.,w.,)THICK
CUR EDGE RESTRAINT WITH CUTOUTS
FOR outRrI.Ow DRAINAGE ICURB SI-IONS)
BEDDING COURSE
"2 TO 2)401050MM) TRICK
TOP TOO 8ACGFIDGATE)
4(OOMM) THICK iTVP 140 57 STONE)
OPEN-GRADED BASE
1115 6 150 MM) T#RCKIIVP 140 2510140)
)IBBA8E
4IOJtLAL GEOTEXIILO 074 SOITOMRMO
101 S Or OPt H-GRADED 5*50
205 SUSSRTLTE ZERO SCOPE
Figure 4 - iiipicai Cross-Section oJitn Scu.Stone i'ermeabio' i'aven,ent
ho/i Luf-lirration
For the bedding layer, material equivalent to ASTM
No. 8 stone is recommended. This same material is used to
fill the drainage openings and joints. If desired, material
equivalent to No. 9, 10 or 89 stone also may he used to fill
the smaller joints between the payers. Bedding and jointing
sand used in the construction of traditional interlocking
concrete pavements should not be used for PICP
I 4OEi ON
ft
A,
Private Resulene Danvers. ti. 1
oot of
Webster
-
I/u' College school o/'bitcr (lit- sr. L,0/.,, ui
UNI Eco_StoneiI1 can he mechanic-Illy installcd and
trafficked immediately after fina1 compi ction, unlike other
types of porous pavements. It has been .ised succcssfullv for
many years throughout North America aric can withstand
repeated fi'eeze/thaw in northern climas cue to adequate
space for ice to expand within the open-graded base. PICP
can he snow plowed, and because water dots not stand on
the surface, it may reduce ice slipping Fizards. Winter
sanding is not recommended on PTCPs. Permeable inter-
locking concrete pavement conforms to current ADA
requirerncnts that surfaces he firm, stab e, rnd slip resistant.
If the openings in the surface are not desirable, solid payers
can he installed in areas used by disableJ persons.
Maintenance
All permeable pavements require periodic cleaning to
maintain infiltration, and care must he :-,.ken to keep sedi-
ment off the pavement during and after construction. Studies
and field experience have shown that v.ium-type street
cleaning equipment is most effective foi removing sediment
from the openings to regenerate infiltration. Vacuum settings
may require adjustmcnt to prevent the uptake of aggregate
ii the pavement openings and joints. Tie surtisce should be
dry when cleaning. Replenishment of j( mt and opening
aggregate can he done, if needed, at the time of cleaning.
The frec1uencv of cleaning is dependent on traffic levels. t is
,'enerally recommended to vacuum the aavement surface at
east once or twice a year, though some low-use pavements
may not need cleaning as often. As streEt cleaning is a BMP
.inder EPA guidelines, this also satisfies other criteria in a
comprehensive stormwater managenien program.
If properly constructed and nia:nta tied, PICP should
provide a service life of 20 to 25 years. Like our traditional
:nterlocking concrete payers, Eco_Stone may he taken tip
and reinstated if underground repairs ar needed. If at the
end of its design life the pavement no longer infiltrates the
required amount of stormwater runoffi PICP is the only
type of permeable pavement that can he taken up, the base
materials removed and replaced, and the payers reinstalled.
"•t___,.
.iLm
jlotto,i Arborenirn - / )uIige (.outi. It. -
In addition, Ecoloc" is undergoing an evaluation at
Seneca College in Ontario fhr the Ibronto and Region
Conservation Authority to study permeable interlocking
concrete pavement performance in cold climates conditions.
Please check with your local UNI " manufacturer for
availability of Ecolocs in your area. Please visit our website
www.uni-groupusa.org for updated information, design
references and research, a list of manufacturers, and more.
r:A
s*-
REFERENCES & RESOURCES
Ann;in/ Rs-1on-t - Jordan (oe 1,4-ban fXaten/,ee/ .Section -3/9 National
ft/oentoring Program Project, University of ( onnecticui. 2003
I ''II lcco-.Srnie Design Guide and Rusesm/i Summary
l.ockjnive Pro structural design software with P(-.SWAIM PP hydraulu
deszyfl so/fir ire
Porou.s I9temrnrs - Bruce K. Ferguson. CIO I Press, 2005
Permeable lnw,Iork,nc,' Concrete Pavements I nierlocku rig ( tint rere I'aveinent
Institute, 2006
il special thsinb you to the Interlocking (one rite Pavement Institute Jhr USC 0/Some
project photos.
1-row cover photos: I-so-Stone - f'r,vslte Res,aiense (s/pc (d A-/cl and
fcolos - 11 isonorcbi,,d Strict I'roject - Portland, OR
UN I Ito-Stone and tN I It_nbc' are registered trademark, of F. son i.angsdortf L uc.
lid.. I ,uledoo. Ontario. I lanada
"5006 SoP I\I (,K(11 11 I 5 i i-'. 5. Is_s
UN! ECOLOC HEAVY-DUTY PERMEABLE
INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Ecolo: features all the same attributes and features of
oi: r Ecu-Stone permeable p.o ci \\it h t hc AddCd huicfit
supporting industrial loads.
can he used together with
ut r industrial traditional -
n:erlocking paver, UN!-
Anchorlock to provide _.
design prefessionals with the
pavernent areas with
>_ , 2,
permeable areas.
Like Ecu-Stone , Ecoluc features funnel-shaped
oTenings that facilitate the infiltration of stormwater runoff
Physical characteristics are described in Figure 5.
Physical Characteristics
Height/Thickness 3 1/8 = 80mm
Width 8 7/8 = 225mm
Length 8 7/8 = 225mm
Pavers per sq ft = 2.41
Percentage of drainage void area per sq ft = 12.18%
Composition and Manufacture
Minimum compressive strength -
8000p5i
Maximum water absorption - 5% 8 Meets or exceeds ASTM C-936
and freeze-thaw testing per
section 8 of ASTM 0-67.
Figure 5
Ecoloc can be mechanically installed and is ideal for
larger-scalc projects such as parking lots, roadways, storage
al-d depot areas, and ports Over 173,000 sf of Ecoloc was
L 'd for a i EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Permit
Project at Morton
Arboretum in Illinois.
It also is in use at a test
I te located at Howland
the ,:.tt of New Yo
ial
rk/New 10 let sey that is subjected
to heavy, containerized
loads, port forklifts and
- - .•. cargo carriers. Another
30,000 sf of F coloc
was instilled it the List
-'.. ( ssillimburs Co
5 -- . Commuter lrain
.s
. . /,
Station parking lot in
..
'. c - Newmarket, Ontario.
UNI-GROUP U.S.A. - National Headquarters Office
4362 Northl.uke Blvd, • Suite 204 Palm Beach Gardens, Ft 33410
(561) 626-4666 • FAX (561) 627.6-403 • 1-800-82-1864
wsyss. uni-groupusa.org . E-mail: I oIQiirti groupus.u.org
APPENDIX F
Calculations
iCU1L 1'.CSU1L
I Ji
o o a
Project Summary
Project Name JEREZ CT
Project Applicant TMS DEVELOPMENT LLC
Jurisdiction City of Carlsbad
Parcel (APN) 216-290-09
Hydrologic Unit Carlsbad
Compliance Basin Summary
Basin Name: BASIN 1-OVERALL
Receiving Water: JEREZ CT
Rainfall Basin Oceanside
Mean Annual Precipitation (Inches) 13.3
Project Basin Area (acres): 0.41
Watershed Area (acres): 0.00
SCCWRP Lateral Channel Susceptiblity (H, M, L):
SCCWRP Vertifical Channel Susceptibilty (H, M, L):
Overall Channel Susceptibility (H, M, L): HIGH
Lower Flow Threshold (% of 2-Year Flow): 0.1
Drainage Management Area Summary
ID Type BMP ID Description Area (ac) Pre-Project Cover Post Surface Type Drainage Soil Slope
25624 Drains to LID BMP I LANDSCAPE 0.01 Pervious (Pre) Landscaping Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less
25625 Drains to LID BMP 1 PATIOS 0.02 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less
25626 Drains to LID BMP I ROOFS 002 Pervious (Pre) Roofs Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less
25627 Drains to LID BMP 1 DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, ETC 000 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat :slope (less
25628 Drains to LID BMP 2 LANDSCAPE 0.00 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less
25629 Drains to LID BMP 2 PATIOS 0.01 Pervious (Pre) Concrete or asphalt Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less
25630 Drains to LID BMP 2 ROOFS 0.03 Pervious (Pre) Roots Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less
25631 Drains to LID BMP 3 LANDSCAPE 0.00 Pervious (Pre) Landscaping Type C (slow infiltration) Flat- slope (less
25632 Drains to LID BMP 3 ROOFS 0.01 Pervious (Pre) Roofs Type C (slow infiltration) Flat - slope (less
http://uknow.brwncald.corn/wastewater/Toolkits/Watershed/SiteToolkit/ReportResult.aspx?pid= 13861 7&bidSDC-000 I &sicnu. -. 4/9/2013
rl
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious (Pre)
Pervious concrete or asphalt
Landscaping
Roofs
Landscaping
Concrete or asphalt
Roofs
Pervious concrete or asphalt
Type C (slow infiltration)
Type C (slow infiltration)
Type C (slow infiltration)
Type C (slow infiltration)
Type C (slow infiltration)
Type C (slow infiltration)
Type C (slow Infiltration)
Flat - slope (less
Flat - slope (less
Flat - Slope (less
Flat - slope (less
Flat - slope (less
Flat - slope (less
Flat - slope (less
DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK, ETC 0.02
LANDSCAPE 0.00
ROOFS 0.01
LANDSCAPE 0.03
PATIOS 0.01
ROOFS 0.06
DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK, ETC 0.11
1c1Jo1.L 1wsulL
25633 Drains to LID BMP 3
25634 Drains to LID BMP 4
25635 Drains to LID BMP 4
25636 Drains to LID BMP 5
25637 Drains to LID BMP 5
25638 Drains to LID BMP 5
25639 Drains to LID BMP 5
LID Facility Summary
BMP ID Type Description Plan Area (sqft) Volume 1(cft) Volume 2(cft) Orifice Flow (cfs) Orifice Size (inch)
BMP 1 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 441 367 264 0.001 0.1
BMP 2 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 413 344 248 0.000 0.1
BMP 3 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 110 91 68 0.000 0.1
BMP4 Flow-Through Planter FLOW THROUGH PLANTER 152 126 91 0.000 0.0
BMP 5 Bioretention + Vault BIORETENTION 157 1022 0.00 0.003 0.2
http://uknow.brwncald.com/wastewater/TooIkits/Watershed/S iteToolkit/ReportResult. aspx?pid= 13861 7&bidSDC-000 1 &sicnu... 4/9/2013