1 / 18

LID TREATMENT CASE STUDY BRANSTEN ROAD, SAN CARLOS

LID TREATMENT CASE STUDY BRANSTEN ROAD, SAN CARLOS. Analette Ochoa, P.E., QSD/P, ToR, WRECO May 22, 2013. LID Treatment Case Study- Bransten Road. Project Description Conceptual Design with Three Alternatives Design Parameters- MEP vs. C.3 Challenges. Project Description.

hedda
Download Presentation

LID TREATMENT CASE STUDY BRANSTEN ROAD, SAN CARLOS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LID TREATMENT CASE STUDY BRANSTEN ROAD, SAN CARLOS Analette Ochoa, P.E., QSD/P, ToR, WRECO May 22, 2013

  2. LID Treatment Case Study-Bransten Road • Project Description • Conceptual Design with Three Alternatives • Design Parameters- MEP vs. C.3 • Challenges

  3. Project Description • Clean Watersheds for a Clean Bay (CW4CB) • Industrial Site • Location chosen to evaluate potential PCB load reductions • 977 Bransten Road – “Hot Spot” San Carlos Industrial Road Bransten Road Old County Road

  4. Treatment BMP Concept • Considered Three Treatment Alternatives • Both sides • Underground treatment/ maximize parking • At hot spots

  5. Treatment BMP Concept – Alternative 1 and 3

  6. Treatment BMP Concept – Alternative 2

  7. Treatment BMP Concept • Alternative 3 chosen for cost-effectiveness

  8. Treatment BMP Concept • Watershed Map 15.6 ac

  9. Treatment BMP Concept • $$ Utilities/Potholing • Cost effectiveness comparison: $/sq ft of treatment • Public meetings: Input from property owners

  10. Design Parameters • 9 Bioretention Swales in Bulb-outs

  11. Design Parameters - MEP • Need for parking vs. need for WQ improvements • Roadway watershed vs. off-site • Reduced width from 8’ to 6’ to avoid gas line conflict • Underdrain vs. no underdrains • 18” vs. 12” deep bioretention soil • Temporary vs. permanent irrigation

  12. Special Design Parameters • 16” deep curb - stability analysis against overturning or sliding • Impermeable liner -protection of roadway and utilities • Bulb-out Radii - • Consideration for trash/sediment accumulation • Industrial site - Truck turning radius • Irrigation Ordinance - low flow sustainable design • Planting - smaller trees due to utility conflicts

  13. Challenges • Utility conflicts • Urban Area • Water Main • Sewer • PG&E Gas • Design considerations • Impermeable liner • Deeper curb on roadway side • Concerns with differential settlement

  14. Challenges • Soils • 8 borings • HSG D • Hazardous soils • Groundwater 5.5- 7.5 ft

  15. Challenges • Flat area - Minimum hydraulic head, no drainage system • Underdrain vs. no underdrain • Planting of trees

  16. Summary of Bioretention Areas • Conceptual: 43 parking spaces and 6,920 sq ft of bioretention area, and 3.57 ac (155,700 sq ft) of treatment • Final: 40 parking spaces and 4,540 sq ft of bioretention area, and max 2.61 ac (113,491 sq ft) of treatment

  17. Bransten Road - Lessons Learned • Coordinate with utility companies early • Inform utilities of project goals (compaction) • Obtain schedule for review/comment period • Pothole • Understanding planting goals with utility clearances (overhead/underground) • Hold public meetings to get approval from adjacent property owners or companies for parking needs

  18. QUESTIONS

More Related