| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Approved
|
08/18/2022
|
08/26/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The City will adopt the 2019 Ecology Manual July 1st, 2022. Any projects not vested (Building Permits and Subdivision Applications) and not permitted by the close of business on June 30th, shall incorporate the provisions of the 2019 Ecology Manual. [Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a DRAFT version of the City's Stormwater Facilities Agreement for review. (Note: this is not a condition of permit issuance)[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Executed and record the City's Stormwater Facilities Agreement prior to permit closeout.[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
If the current stormwater design complies with the 2019 Ecology Manual, then an acknowledgment letter from the design engineer will suffice for permit issuance. [Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise statement to reflect the wetland basin which is tributary to the detention facility. See comments in Section 7.7. [Storm Report; Pg 9 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to the grades associated with the project, provide a letter from a licensed geotechnical engineer assessing the potential for lateral flow of the infiltrated runoff and whether any lateral flow will impact the proposed conventional paving and/or existing structures. If there are concerns due to lateral flow of the infiltrated runoff, redesign accordingly. [Storm Report; Pg 14 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the pre-developed condition, there is one threshold discharge area (TDA) and subsequently one Point-of-Compliance (POC). As a result, the post-developed scenario must be addressed holistically as one POC. That is, either the entire proposed area of disturbance complies with the LID Performance Standard or List 2 applies to the whole. It is not appropriate to breakdown a given TDA into smaller portions in an effort to meet MR5 requirements. Since the LID Performance Standard cannot be met for the TDA, List 2 must be evaluated for DB-B, in addition to DB-A, and Permeable Pavement feasibility addressed since it is a higher BMP than the proposed Bioretention BMP under the Other Hard Surfaces category. (See Ecology, Vol. V, Pg 5-20 for infeasibility criteria for permeable pavement related to slope). [Storm Report; Pg 20 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Enhanced Treatment required (commercial site tributary to freshwater supporting aquatic life). [Storm Report; Pg 20 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Section 4.1.2 comment regarding lateral flow. [Storm Report; Pg 21 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Section7.5 regarding the feasibility of using Permeable Pavement before Bioretention. [Storm Report; Pg 21 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. [Storm Report; Pg 21 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please label as subbasins. [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
and replaced [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
6.83 per Basin Exhibit, but need to include wetland basin too. [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
3.05 per Basin Exhibit. [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Does not appear that this area is tributary to the Wetland. [Storm Report; Pg 27 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Does not appear that this area is tributary to the Wetland. [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM output indicates 0.15ac of lawn tributary to the wetland. Where does this occur? (regraded areas appear tributary to the parking)[Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the 100yr peak flow comparison between the Wetland Basin and the post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701). [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the contours, it does not appear that runoff from this area reaches the wetland in the post-developed condition. [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please label as Figure 3 [Storm Report; Pg 29 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the 100yr peak flow comparison between the Wetland Basin and the post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701). [Storm Report; Pg 245 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. If not bypassed, include the groundwater component that was used for the wetland analysis in the modeling of the detention facility.[Storm Report; Pg 245 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-why is the precipitation scale adjusted? This is a default setting in WWHM. [Storm Report; Pg 246 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide Gage Information [Storm Report; Pg 246 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. If not bypassed, include the groundwater component that was used for the wetland analysis in the modeling of the detention facility.[Storm Report; Pg 247 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-shouldn't mulch layer be included in the WWHM model. [Storm Report; Pg 251 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Section 2/TS-01 indicates 18 inches of gravel. [Storm Report; Pg 255 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What about the entrance road grassy swale? See comments Sheet SD-03. [Storm Report; Pg 255 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-0.5 offset per 2/TS-01 [Storm Report; Pg 255 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Comment Pg 245 regarding Wetland bypass.[Storm Report; Pg 276 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
3/TS-01 indicates 4-in mulch layer. Shouldn't that be included in the analysis? [Storm Report; Pg 277 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide screenshot of Mitigated design inputs for the bioswale. Ensure the bottom slope of the facility is accounted for. [Storm Report; Pg 277 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide Gage Information [Storm Report; Pg 297 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the Basin Map, Figure 2, it is unclear what changed in the post-developed condition that implies 0.15ac of lawn tributary to the wetland. Show on the Basin Map where this applies for Wetland F (see Basin Map Comments also) [Storm Report; Pg 299 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide underdrain sizing calcs (length and perforations) for Alignment H considering tributary area to bioswale and Ecology requirement to drain the BSM within 48 hours. [Storm Report; Pg 337 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Engr Clarify-CB1 thru CB3 will be under backwater influence during large storm events (top of riser at EL 481.51). Is there a concern for localized flooding due to the backwater condition? [Storm Report; Pg 337 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use correct approval block. (Typ. All Sheets)[Plans; Sht G-0.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use complete City Std Notes (missing original Note 15) [Plans; Sht G-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Also shown on Sheet WA-02. [Plans; Sht G-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, the 1-in drop is at the face of curb (abutting the hard surface). Revise accordingly. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, the 1-in drop is at the face of curb (abutting the hard surface). Revise accordingly. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-shouldn't mulch layer be included in the WWHM model. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout 6-in (freeboard). [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-46-in max places bottom of footing exactly at bottom of biocell. (H=0.5+1.5+0.33+1+0.5 = 45.96inches) [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide underdrain sizing calcs (length and perforations) in the storm report for Alignment H considering tributary area to bioswale and Ecology requirement to drain the BSM within 48 hours. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment, provide Construction Sequence per CS Section 501.6. Below is an example... [Plans; Sht DM-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, Sediment Traps are limited to 3ac tributary area. Clarify why the Sediment Pond BMP is not being used. [Plans; Sht DM-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment...is this not the roof drain and should be preserved? Clarify. [Plans; Sht DM-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment...was the Fire Code Official consulted to ensure that there adequate hydrants to serve the building upon removal? [Plans; Sht DM-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clearly identify the FDC, PIV, and DDCVA serving the building. [Plans; DM-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, callout a staff gauge with a prominent mark 1-ft above the bottom of the trap/pond. [Plans; Sht DM-06]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does not appear on Sht SD-07. [Plans; Sht SD-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does not appear on Sht SD-07. [Plans; Sht SD-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment, confirm callout. [Plans; Sht SD-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 477.00 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This callout should reference Std. Detail 02.01.06 Sheet SD-07. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Engr Clarify-CB1 thru CB3 will be under backwater influence during large storm events (top of riser at EL 481.51). Is there a concern for localized flooding due to the backwater condition? [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-Saddle MH? Existing In/Out inverts. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout Cross-Section of bioswale. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm callout.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-less than 12-in ponding provided. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-does there need to be erosion protection btwn the curb inlet and the bioswale? (6 Plcs) [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 480.25 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 477.00 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a x-section thru stair-gutter-sidewalk transition for clarity. (3 plcs)[Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Callout 9 is for gutter to run behind island (no gutter shown). (3 plcs)[Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-callout is for the gutter to run behind island? [Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify callout.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm callout.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 480.25 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify callout.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout Cross-Section of bioswale. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout Cross-Section of bioswale. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify that this is a Traffic Curb per Roadway Construction Note 2. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify this swale design. Is it purely conveyance? If so, how is the entrance road being treated? Is the intent to use Section 1/TS-01? Swale does not appear to be same width (11ft) as the drive aisle biocells and if it is designed solely as conveyance, then a majority of the road is not being treated. If it is intended to function as a biocell by filtering through soil mix (which would capture all of the road runoff for treatment), then shouldn't there be an underdrain to capture the treated effluent? Lastly, if the swale is intended as a treatment facility, what affect does the runoff from the wetland basin have on the swale (saturation of the BSM and Ecology requirement to drain within 24 hours). [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-is this inlet at the bottom of swale? Is it overflow? See comment below. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. If not bypassed, include the groundwater component that was used for the wetland analysis in the modeling of the detention facility.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify that this is a Traffic Curb per Roadway Construction Note 2. [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Callout 9 is for gutter to run behind island (no gutter shown).[Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-callout is for the gutter to run behind island? [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Callout 9 is for gutter to run behind island (no gutter shown).[Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does this note apply? If the referenced detail (P-540) applies, please provide. [Plans; Sht SD-06]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This is exceeded at multiple locations based on the GR sheets at the Infiltration Planters. See comments on GR sheets. [Plans; Sht SD-06]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add City Std Details: 02.01.02 // 02.01.04 // 02.01.08 // 06.01.01 // 06.01.02 // 06.01.03[Plans; Sht SD-07]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 478.50 per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 476.50 per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Only four inflow locations indicated (5 per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Inflow location per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify Callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify contours [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-is this flowline per Pt 315 note, or splash pad? This elevation indicates a 1.2ft drop from the corner (Pt 314). Based on Detail 1/SD-06 (right), max drop from depressed gutter to top of splash pad is 6in. resulting in a top of pad at El 512.5. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-02.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Using Detail 3/TS-01:Top of spash pad = 509.89+0.5+1.5+0.33+0.33 = 512.55which is higher than Pt 315.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per Pt 315 comment. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per Pt 315 comment. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per Pt 315 comment. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-02.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-02.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 499.19 and top of splash pad El 499.52 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 499.19 and top of splash pad El 499.52 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 513.41 and top of splash pad El 513.74 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.66 and top of splash pad El 505.99 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-3.5ft elevation difference in less than 12-inches? Does not work with Detail 1/SD-06.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 500.68 and top of splash pad El 501.01 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-flow direction arrow.[Plans; Sht GR-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-flow direction arrow.[Plans; Sht GR-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide spot elevations at ends of swale and every 100-ft between. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-elevation (BFC) is higher than grades to the west. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-elevation (BFC) is higher than grades to the west. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Assuming the gutter is not intended to run behind island (See comments on SD sheets), confirm that a slightly lower elevation is desired here (ponding). [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-is gutter intended to run behind island (See comments on SD sheets). Confirm gutter flow. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-if gutter does not run past, ponding at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide spot elevations at ends of swale and every 100-ft between. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a x-section thru stair-gutter-sidewalk transition for clarity. [Plans; Sht GR-15]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
From Sheet GR-02 comment: Verify-is this flowline per Pt 315 note, or splash pad? This elevation indicates a 1.2ft drop from the corner (Pt 314). Based on Detail 1/SD-06, max drop from depressed gutter to top of splash pad is 6in. resulting in a top of pad at El 512.5. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Pt 315 Comment. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Pt 315 Comment. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Pt 315 Comment. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 513.41 and top of splash pad El 513.74 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.66 and top of splash pad El 505.99 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-3.5ft elevation difference in less than 12-inches? Does not work with Detail 1/SD-06.[Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 500.68 and top of splash pad El 501.01 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 499.19 and top of splash pad El 499.52 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-see comment Sheet GR-05. [Plans; Sht GR-18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-see comment Sheet GR-05. [Plans; Sht GR-18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment Sht GR-04. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate thrust Blk'g.[Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use City Standard DI Cl 52 pipe[Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate thrust Blk'g.[Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-abandon existing main? [Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove Approval Block from Landscape Plans. Typ. all landscape sheets.[Plans; Sht LS-00]
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Approved
|
08/18/2022
|
08/26/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Per previous comments:
The existing eastern most driveway on 39th Avenue SE will be required to limit turning movements to right-in, right-out only. Signage, a raised channelization device (raised porkchop island), and striping will likely be required to assure left turns into and out of the site cannot circumvent the restriction.
Existing driveway location along 39th Ave SE does not meet current driveway separation standards (300ft for Major Arterial Roadways). This separation requirement applies to driveways located on both sides of the street. The required access restriction (right-in/right-out) will help mitigate deficient driveway spacing standards.
Currently, this intersection does not restrict left turns.
|
|
|
8/26/22 STATUS CHANGED FROM "FAILED" TO "APPROVED" BY MHIGGINSON...PER DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT, RESOLUTION OF THE 39TH ENTRANCE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT CLOSEOUT.
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
08/18/2022
|
08/18/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
08/18/2022
|
08/18/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Sheet IL-00 does not appear to match the design of the rest of the sheets. Revise Illumination plan to match the final submitted design.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Protective fence should be set back 10' from wetland edge where possible, [Civil Plan, DM-03]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Landscape plan sheets need to include utility overlays. Utilities shall not conflict with required landscaping areas. See Vegetation Management Standards manual pg. 25 for utility spacing requirements from street trees (also required for landscape trees).
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
SEPA Condition #2 Environmental Health: The rationale provided by Parametrix in their March 3, 2022 memo, for forgoing the testing requirements outlined in the SEPA MDNS issued January 18, 2022 Mitigation Requirement #2 is acceptable. Contamination at the facility known to Ecology is not located where the parking lot is proposed. In addition, groundwater in the area of known site contamination appears to be flowing away from the proposed parking lot location.
However, Toxics Cleanup Program (TCP) comments provided on the SEPA checklist are still applicable to the project. If soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during parking lot construction, Ecology must be notified by contacting the ERTS (Environmental Report Tracking System) coordinator at 360.407.6300.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Blank areas around wetland need a landscape plan, especially the western side where the existing gravel area is being removed, [Civil Plan, LS-03]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Per updated wetland rating forms dated Oct. 6, 2021, wetland F is a depressional wetland, not a slope wetland, please revise and include updated wetland rating forms in storm report, [Storm Report, Pg. 5].
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please clarify how water line is being removed from under wetland [Civil Plan, DM-03]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
08/18/2022
|
08/09/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Approved
|
08/18/2022
|
08/02/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Show F.D.C, P.I.V, and Fire Hydrant Locations, As per both P Permits below Fire Hydrants may be required.
A 26' wide fire lane is required in front of Fire Hydrants.
Existing P.I.V. is East of the building in the tree line. This needs to be addressed on the plans for code compliance.
Provide a Fire Lane / No Parking signage site plan.
Provide Auto-turn or equivalent program for Fire Apparatus maneuverability.
Notes below are the original notes not addressed.
Per previous pre-application meeting P-14-0082: Bob Fore
Show existing fire hydrant locations and a decision will be made if any need to
be added.
Fire access to hydrants and building circulation required to include fire lane
stripping
A 26’ fire lane is required in front of fire hydrants
Per previous pre-application meeting P-20-0040: David Drake
Fire hydrants will be required. Please submit a plan showing hydrant locations.
26’ Minimum fire lane widths.
Provide Auto-turn showing turning radiuses.
Resubmittal of plan required for review.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Approved
|
08/18/2022
|
08/02/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Civil & Landscape Plans Sheet 49: This tee is feeding a 2-inch irrigation service. Consider reducing size to at least an 8"x4" tee.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Civil & Landscape Plans Sheet 49: The new private water main shall be 8-inch Ductile Iron Cl 52 pipe.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Civil & Landscape Plans Sheet 49: The existing water main that will be exposed and removed could be asbestos cement (A.C.) pipe. Use caution and dispose of per State Regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Failed
|
04/11/2022
|
06/14/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This example is missing the following info: //Construct temporary construction entrance. // install silt fence // install infiltration area protection // construct permanent stormwater system and infiltration area.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This example is missing the following info: //Construct temporary construction entrance. // install silt fence // install infiltration area protection // construct permanent stormwater system and infiltration area.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The City will adopt the 2019 Ecology Manual July 1st, 2022. Any projects not vested (Building Permits and Subdivision Applications) and not permitted by the close of business on June 30th, shall incorporate the provisions of the 2019 Ecology Manual. [Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a DRAFT version of the City's Stormwater Facilities Agreement for review. (Note: this is not a condition of permit issuance)[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Executed and record the City's Stormwater Facilities Agreement prior to permit closeout.[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
If the current stormwater design complies with the 2019 Ecology Manual, then an acknowledgment letter from the design engineer will suffice for permit issuance. [Storm Report; Pg 1 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise statement to reflect the wetland basin which is tributary to the detention facility. See comments in Section 7.7. [Storm Report; Pg 9 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to the grades associated with the project, provide a letter from a licensed geotechnical engineer assessing the potential for lateral flow of the infiltrated runoff and whether any lateral flow will impact the proposed conventional paving and/or existing structures. If there are concerns due to lateral flow of the infiltrated runoff, redesign accordingly. [Storm Report; Pg 14 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the pre-developed condition, there is one threshold discharge area (TDA) and subsequently one Point-of-Compliance (POC). As a result, the post-developed scenario must be addressed holistically as one POC. That is, either the entire proposed area of disturbance complies with the LID Performance Standard or List 2 applies to the whole. It is not appropriate to breakdown a given TDA into smaller portions in an effort to meet MR5 requirements. Since the LID Performance Standard cannot be met for the TDA, List 2 must be evaluated for DB-B, in addition to DB-A, and Permeable Pavement feasibility addressed since it is a higher BMP than the proposed Bioretention BMP under the Other Hard Surfaces category. (See Ecology, Vol. V, Pg 5-20 for infeasibility criteria for permeable pavement related to slope). [Storm Report; Pg 20 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Enhanced Treatment required (commercial site tributary to freshwater supporting aquatic life). [Storm Report; Pg 20 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Section 4.1.2 comment regarding lateral flow. [Storm Report; Pg 21 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Section7.5 regarding the feasibility of using Permeable Pavement before Bioretention. [Storm Report; Pg 21 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. [Storm Report; Pg 21 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please label as subbasins. [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
and replaced [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
6.83 per Basin Exhibit, but need to include wetland basin too. [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
3.05 per Basin Exhibit. [Storm Report; Pg 23 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Does not appear that this area is tributary to the Wetland. [Storm Report; Pg 27 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Does not appear that this area is tributary to the Wetland. [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM output indicates 0.15ac of lawn tributary to the wetland. Where does this occur? (regraded areas appear tributary to the parking)[Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the 100yr peak flow comparison between the Wetland Basin and the post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701). [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the contours, it does not appear that runoff from this area reaches the wetland in the post-developed condition. [Storm Report; Pg 28 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please label as Figure 3 [Storm Report; Pg 29 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the 100yr peak flow comparison between the Wetland Basin and the post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701). [Storm Report; Pg 245 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. If not bypassed, include the groundwater component that was used for the wetland analysis in the modeling of the detention facility.[Storm Report; Pg 245 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-why is the precipitation scale adjusted? This is a default setting in WWHM. [Storm Report; Pg 246 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide Gage Information [Storm Report; Pg 246 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. If not bypassed, include the groundwater component that was used for the wetland analysis in the modeling of the detention facility.[Storm Report; Pg 247 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-shouldn't mulch layer be included in the WWHM model. [Storm Report; Pg 251 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Section 2/TS-01 indicates 18 inches of gravel. [Storm Report; Pg 255 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What about the entrance road grassy swale? See comments Sheet SD-03. [Storm Report; Pg 255 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-0.5 offset per 2/TS-01 [Storm Report; Pg 255 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Comment Pg 245 regarding Wetland bypass.[Storm Report; Pg 276 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
3/TS-01 indicates 4-in mulch layer. Shouldn't that be included in the analysis? [Storm Report; Pg 277 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide screenshot of Mitigated design inputs for the bioswale. Ensure the bottom slope of the facility is accounted for. [Storm Report; Pg 277 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide Gage Information [Storm Report; Pg 297 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the Basin Map, Figure 2, it is unclear what changed in the post-developed condition that implies 0.15ac of lawn tributary to the wetland. Show on the Basin Map where this applies for Wetland F (see Basin Map Comments also) [Storm Report; Pg 299 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide underdrain sizing calcs (length and perforations) for Alignment H considering tributary area to bioswale and Ecology requirement to drain the BSM within 48 hours. [Storm Report; Pg 337 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Engr Clarify-CB1 thru CB3 will be under backwater influence during large storm events (top of riser at EL 481.51). Is there a concern for localized flooding due to the backwater condition? [Storm Report; Pg 337 of 347]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use correct approval block. (Typ. All Sheets)[Plans; Sht G-0.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use complete City Std Notes (missing original Note 15) [Plans; Sht G-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Also shown on Sheet WA-02. [Plans; Sht G-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, the 1-in drop is at the face of curb (abutting the hard surface). Revise accordingly. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, the 1-in drop is at the face of curb (abutting the hard surface). Revise accordingly. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-shouldn't mulch layer be included in the WWHM model. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout 6-in (freeboard). [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-46-in max places bottom of footing exactly at bottom of biocell. (H=0.5+1.5+0.33+1+0.5 = 45.96inches) [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide underdrain sizing calcs (length and perforations) in the storm report for Alignment H considering tributary area to bioswale and Ecology requirement to drain the BSM within 48 hours. [Plans; Sht TS-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment, provide Construction Sequence per CS Section 501.6. Below is an example... [Plans; Sht DM-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, Sediment Traps are limited to 3ac tributary area. Clarify why the Sediment Pond BMP is not being used. [Plans; Sht DM-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment...is this not the roof drain and should be preserved? Clarify. [Plans; Sht DM-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment...was the Fire Code Official consulted to ensure that there adequate hydrants to serve the building upon removal? [Plans; Sht DM-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clearly identify the FDC, PIV, and DDCVA serving the building. [Plans; DM-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, callout a staff gauge with a prominent mark 1-ft above the bottom of the trap/pond. [Plans; Sht DM-06]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does not appear on Sht SD-07. [Plans; Sht SD-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does not appear on Sht SD-07. [Plans; Sht SD-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment, confirm callout. [Plans; Sht SD-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 477.00 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This callout should reference Std. Detail 02.01.06 Sheet SD-07. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Engr Clarify-CB1 thru CB3 will be under backwater influence during large storm events (top of riser at EL 481.51). Is there a concern for localized flooding due to the backwater condition? [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-Saddle MH? Existing In/Out inverts. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout Cross-Section of bioswale. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm callout.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-less than 12-in ponding provided. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-does there need to be erosion protection btwn the curb inlet and the bioswale? (6 Plcs) [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 480.25 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 477.00 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a x-section thru stair-gutter-sidewalk transition for clarity. (3 plcs)[Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Callout 9 is for gutter to run behind island (no gutter shown). (3 plcs)[Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-callout is for the gutter to run behind island? [Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify callout.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm callout.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Rim Elev w/ 2/TS-01 [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm invert and/or pipe slope.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 480.25 per Sht SD-09. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify callout.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout Cross-Section of bioswale. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout Cross-Section of bioswale. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add "slotted" to callout. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Storm Note 2?[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify that this is a Traffic Curb per Roadway Construction Note 2. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify this swale design. Is it purely conveyance? If so, how is the entrance road being treated? Is the intent to use Section 1/TS-01? Swale does not appear to be same width (11ft) as the drive aisle biocells and if it is designed solely as conveyance, then a majority of the road is not being treated. If it is intended to function as a biocell by filtering through soil mix (which would capture all of the road runoff for treatment), then shouldn't there be an underdrain to capture the treated effluent? Lastly, if the swale is intended as a treatment facility, what affect does the runoff from the wetland basin have on the swale (saturation of the BSM and Ecology requirement to drain within 24 hours). [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-is this inlet at the bottom of swale? Is it overflow? See comment below. [Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
In the Mitigated scenario, the Wetland Basin is tributary to the storm collection system. Per Ecology, if the Wetland Basin 100yr peak flow is greater than 50% of the project's post-development undetained flow (WWHM 701), then the runoff MUST bypass the storm facility. If less than 50% and the runoff is not bypassed, then the storm facility must be sized to account for the additional offsite inflow/runon. If not bypassed, include the groundwater component that was used for the wetland analysis in the modeling of the detention facility.[Plans; Sht SD-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify that this is a Traffic Curb per Roadway Construction Note 2. [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Callout 9 is for gutter to run behind island (no gutter shown).[Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-callout is for the gutter to run behind island? [Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Callout 9 is for gutter to run behind island (no gutter shown).[Plans; Sht SD-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise Notes per comments on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-00. [Plans; Sht SD-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does this note apply? If the referenced detail (P-540) applies, please provide. [Plans; Sht SD-06]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This is exceeded at multiple locations based on the GR sheets at the Infiltration Planters. See comments on GR sheets. [Plans; Sht SD-06]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add City Std Details: 02.01.02 // 02.01.04 // 02.01.08 // 06.01.01 // 06.01.02 // 06.01.03[Plans; Sht SD-07]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 478.50 per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-EL 476.50 per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Only four inflow locations indicated (5 per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-Inflow location per Sht SD-01. [Plans; Sht SD-09]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify Callout. [Plans; Sht SD-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify flow direction. [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify contours [Plans; Sht GR-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-is this flowline per Pt 315 note, or splash pad? This elevation indicates a 1.2ft drop from the corner (Pt 314). Based on Detail 1/SD-06 (right), max drop from depressed gutter to top of splash pad is 6in. resulting in a top of pad at El 512.5. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-02.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Using Detail 3/TS-01:Top of spash pad = 509.89+0.5+1.5+0.33+0.33 = 512.55which is higher than Pt 315.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per Pt 315 comment. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per Pt 315 comment. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per Pt 315 comment. [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
512.55 Top Pad
|
|
|
See Document Markup
506.31 Top Pad
|
|
|
See Document Markup
499.52 Top Pad
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-02.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on Sht SD-02.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 499.19 and top of splash pad El 499.52 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 499.19 and top of splash pad El 499.52 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 513.41 and top of splash pad El 513.74 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.66 and top of splash pad El 505.99 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-3.5ft elevation difference in less than 12-inches? Does not work with Detail 1/SD-06.[Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 500.68 and top of splash pad El 501.01 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-flow direction arrow.[Plans; Sht GR-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-flow direction arrow.[Plans; Sht GR-03]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide spot elevations at ends of swale and every 100-ft between. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-elevation (BFC) is higher than grades to the west. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-elevation (BFC) is higher than grades to the west. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Assuming the gutter is not intended to run behind island (See comments on SD sheets), confirm that a slightly lower elevation is desired here (ponding). [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-is gutter intended to run behind island (See comments on SD sheets). Confirm gutter flow. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-if gutter does not run past, ponding at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-04]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide spot elevations at ends of swale and every 100-ft between. [Plans; Sht GR-05]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a x-section thru stair-gutter-sidewalk transition for clarity. [Plans; Sht GR-15]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
From Sheet GR-02 comment: Verify-is this flowline per Pt 315 note, or splash pad? This elevation indicates a 1.2ft drop from the corner (Pt 314). Based on Detail 1/SD-06, max drop from depressed gutter to top of splash pad is 6in. resulting in a top of pad at El 512.5. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Pt 315 Comment. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Pt 315 Comment. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See Pt 315 Comment. [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 513.41 and top of splash pad El 513.74 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.66 and top of splash pad El 505.99 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-3.5ft elevation difference in less than 12-inches? Does not work with Detail 1/SD-06.[Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 500.68 and top of splash pad El 501.01 [Plans; Sht GR-02]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 505.98 and top of splash pad El 506.31 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-top of planter El 499.19 and top of splash pad El 499.52 [Plans; Sht GR-17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-see comment Sheet GR-05. [Plans; Sht GR-18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-see comment Sheet GR-05. [Plans; Sht GR-18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment Sht GR-04. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-0% gutter slope at this location. [Plans; Sht GR-19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate thrust Blk'g.[Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use City Standard DI Cl 52 pipe[Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate thrust Blk'g.[Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-abandon existing main? [Plans; Sht WA-01]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove Approval Block from Landscape Plans. Typ. all landscape sheets.[Plans; Sht LS-00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Failed
|
04/11/2022
|
06/07/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Sheet IL-00 does not appear to match the design of the rest of the sheets. Revise Illumination plan to match the final submitted design.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Protective fence should be set back 10' from wetland edge where possible, [Civil Plan, DM-03]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Landscape plan sheets need to include utility overlays. Utilities shall not conflict with required landscaping areas. See Vegetation Management Standards manual pg. 25 for utility spacing requirements from street trees (also required for landscape trees).
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
SEPA Condition #2 Environmental Health: The rationale provided by Parametrix in their March 3, 2022 memo, for forgoing the testing requirements outlined in the SEPA MDNS issued January 18, 2022 Mitigation Requirement #2 is acceptable. Contamination at the facility known to Ecology is not located where the parking lot is proposed. In addition, groundwater in the area of known site contamination appears to be flowing away from the proposed parking lot location.
However, Toxics Cleanup Program (TCP) comments provided on the SEPA checklist are still applicable to the project. If soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during parking lot construction, Ecology must be notified by contacting the ERTS (Environmental Report Tracking System) coordinator at 360.407.6300.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Blank areas around wetland need a landscape plan, especially the western side where the existing gravel area is being removed, [Civil Plan, LS-03]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Per updated wetland rating forms dated Oct. 6, 2021, wetland F is a depressional wetland, not a slope wetland, please revise and include updated wetland rating forms in storm report, [Storm Report, Pg. 5].
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please clarify how water line is being removed from under wetland [Civil Plan, DM-03]
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Failed
|
06/27/2022
|
06/07/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Show F.D.C, P.I.V, and Fire Hydrant Locations, As per both P Permits below Fire Hydrants may be required.
A 26' wide fire lane is required in front of Fire Hydrants.
Existing P.I.V. is East of the building in the tree line. This needs to be addressed on the plans for code compliance.
Provide a Fire Lane / No Parking signage site plan.
Provide Auto-turn or equivalent program for Fire Apparatus maneuverability.
Notes below are the original notes not addressed.
Per previous pre-application meeting P-14-0082: Bob Fore
Show existing fire hydrant locations and a decision will be made if any need to
be added.
Fire access to hydrants and building circulation required to include fire lane
stripping
A 26’ fire lane is required in front of fire hydrants
Per previous pre-application meeting P-20-0040: David Drake
Fire hydrants will be required. Please submit a plan showing hydrant locations.
26’ Minimum fire lane widths.
Provide Auto-turn showing turning radiuses.
Resubmittal of plan required for review.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Failed
|
04/11/2022
|
05/25/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Per previous comments:
The existing eastern most driveway on 39th Avenue SE will be required to limit turning movements to right-in, right-out only. Signage, a raised channelization device (raised porkchop island), and striping will likely be required to assure left turns into and out of the site cannot circumvent the restriction.
Existing driveway location along 39th Ave SE does not meet current driveway separation standards (300ft for Major Arterial Roadways). This separation requirement applies to driveways located on both sides of the street. The required access restriction (right-in/right-out) will help mitigate deficient driveway spacing standards.
Currently, this intersection does not restrict left turns.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
04/11/2022
|
04/12/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Failed
|
04/11/2022
|
04/04/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Civil & Landscape Plans Sheet 49: This tee is feeding a 2-inch irrigation service. Consider reducing size to at least an 8"x4" tee.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Civil & Landscape Plans Sheet 49: The new private water main shall be 8-inch Ductile Iron Cl 52 pipe.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Civil & Landscape Plans Sheet 49: The existing water main that will be exposed and removed could be asbestos cement (A.C.) pipe. Use caution and dispose of per State Regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
04/11/2022
|
03/22/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
VOID
|
04/11/2022
|
03/22/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Failed
|
|
09/28/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVIEW OF PLANS - PLANNING REQUEST REVISIONS
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Failed
|
|
09/27/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENG PLAN REVIEW CIVIL - 9-27-21 RETD to Engr. Resub to include 1) Storm Report; 2) Plans. Route to Eng-Planning-Traffic-Fire-Water (MH)
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Failed
|
|
09/02/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENG TRAFFIC - No Comments
|
|
Fire Review
|
Approved
|
|
08/24/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire-FCO (PLAN REVIEW) - No Comments
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Failed
|
|
07/01/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
PW WATER - No Comments
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
|
06/29/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
PW COLLECTION - No Comments
|
