Swedish-103112-response comments.pdf(..,i,r,y OFEDMONDS
IR.esponse to PLAN REVIEW (]OMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
DATE: October 3 J, 2012
TJeanie McCo.nnelt, Engineering Prograrn Manager
H,
FROMl Wade Watkinson, P.E. (NV) 206-926-0661
A
RE Application #: b1d20120661
Review No. 3 — October 25, 2012 ,Y
Project: Swedish Medical Center-
Project
enterProject Address: 21704 Highway 99
Responses to the Plan Review Comments received on October 16, 2012 are below each comment in
bold and itafic.v. ffyou have questions regarding these resimnses, please call erre at 206-926-0661.
MMORNM
1. October 25, 2012 — Thankyoufi)r rc vising the cost esti1ne pnnn
aler the coents entailed on October
Mai. Bascd qffthe approved cost esthn ate thc,1611owing bond ainouni and inspectionftes Bettye been
applied to the project., a. Bond arnotint (RDTIV, slor-ai & TESQ = $494,738.9.1
b. ln.sy)eclion Fee := $13,241,09 ($27,131.51 less $13,890.42
10/16112 -- Cost estimate was provided and is currently under review.
9/11/12 - Please provide an itemized engineers cost estimate, including units and unit prices, for both
on-site and off-site (right-of-way) improvernents, including traffic control. 'rhe City recommends use
of the King County Site Irriprovernent Bond Quantity Worksheet.
* A bond is required to be placed for all right-of-way improvenients. The amount of the bond
will be based on 120% of the City approved estimate for all right-of-way finprovernents,
The City will inform you of the appropriate bond amount after review of the cost estimate.
Bond forms can be obtained from Marie Flaffison, Permit Coordinator — 4-25-771-0220 or
Harrison(�i,)cl,edii-ioiids,wa.us
* Inspection fees for this project will be calculated at 2.2% of the 120% City approved estimate
for all irriprovements. As inspection fees were paid under the previous permit and some but
not all of the improvements were installed, it will be necessary for you to clearly outline this
with your submittal so it can be detertnined what additional inspection fees are d.UC.
NMI
3.o
sm
ENGINEERING DIVISION
October 25, 2012 comments - Review of the Drainage Report dated October 2012 and associated
drawings was completed by Stornnivater Engineer Jerry Shuster. If you have specific questions
regarding these comments please contact Jerry directly by phone at 425-771-0220 or by email at
jerry.shuster@edmor2dswa.gov
10/16/12 comments were based on review of the Drainage report and associated drawings dated
September 2012.
9111112 comments were based on review of the Drainage Report dated August 2012.
GENERAL
1. ok
2. ok
Page 4 — Runoff Treatment
1. October 25, 2012 - The memo from Wade Watkinson, P.E., dated October 18, 2012 states "Per
email from Jerry Shuster on 10/17/12 and the DOE Stor inwater Manual the treatment train shown
provides. for enhanced treatment. Please note, the e-mail did not approve the treatment train. The
text on page 5 of the Drainage Report adequately describes a treatment train approved for enhanced
treatment by the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and once
the drainage report is approved the treatment train will be approved
October 16, 2012 — ok
9/11/12 comment - ok
AE Response. Noted. No further action required.
2. ok
Page 5 — Flow Control
1. ok
Appendix D — "Raingarden & Vault Model Mitigated Scenario Raingarden
1. ok
2. ok
3. ok
Appendix E — Pond Calculations
1. ok
October 16, 2012 comments,
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. ok
2. ok
3. ok
4. ok
5. October 25, 2012 — comment partially addressed. The riser dianieters are still not specified on
Sheet C-441. The orifice sizes on Pond 2 are not acceptable (0. 4, 0.33, and 0.2 inch diameter).
Minimum orfice size is 0.5 inch diameter due to clogging (Edmonds Stormwater- Supplement,).
Please provide an alternate design for the outlet structure. Another option may be to use BMP T5.13
(Past -Construction- Quality & Depth) as specified in the Ecology Stormwater Manual in the ponds
which then can be modeled as "pasture " in WIVHM. While the runoff front the 'pasture " will not be
as low as 'forest, " a scenario exists where no orifices would be needed on the ponds and additional
detention could be provided in the vault. That way the combined ou flow from the vault, and the
ponds (at CB -11 Sheet 410) could meet the flow control standard,
Sheet 441 — Details 1 & 3 and modeling for these structures — The diameter of the riser pipes are not
specif ed but should be. For Pond 1, the modeling uses the following parameters for the outlet
structure: rectangular notched riser with a notch height of 0.5 ft and notch width of 0.0417 ft. The
bottom orifice is specified at 0.5 inches. The detail does not show a notched riser and the size of the
orifice is not specified. For Pond 2, the modeling shows a flat riser, (no notch) and 3 orifices. The
detail shows a rectangular notched riser and one bottom orifice at 0.5 inches. Please reconcile.
AE Response: Pored areas have beenn modeled as bypass area, mitigated by detention volume
within lite proposed vault. These areas have been modeled as "Pasture" per comment above,
by means of installing proposed compost amended soil per BMP T5.13 (post construction soil
quality and depth) per the 2005 DOE manual. Please see revised drainage study report and
Sheet C-400.
Note that the Detention Vault did not change. It was previously oversized due to increments of
standard precast vault components. The increase in required volume fit within the available
capacity of the vault.
6. October 25, 2012 comment partially addressed. Detail C is still not right. The modeling has u
notch height of 1.3 ft and the detail shows 1.4 ft. The arrows for the dimension "Bottom of Riser to
Outlet invert" are confusing. Please revise.
Sheet C-451, Detail C - There are measurement callouts of "2.0" and "2.8" on this detail that are
difficult to understand. Please revise.
AE Response: Riser dimensions have been adjusted per revised drainage report and reflected
on the revised plan.
SHEET C-110 — GENERAL NOTES
1. ok
2. ok
3. ok
CITY OF EDMONDS
Response to PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. ok
2. ok
3. ok
SHEET C-231— TESC DETAILS
1. ok
SHEET C-300 — PAVING & HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
1. ok
2. ok
3. ok
4. ok
5. ok
6. ok
7. ok
8. ok
9. ok
10. ok
SHEET C-330 — PAVING DETAILS
SHEET C-400 — GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
2. ok
3. ok
4. ok
5. ok
6. ok
7. ok
8. ok
9. ok
10. ok
SHEET C-410 — RAIN GARDEN PLAN
1. ok
2. ok
ENGINEERING DIVISION
SHEET C-420 — GRADING SECTIONS
1. ok
2. ok
SHEET C-430 — STORM DRAIN PROFILES
1. ok
2. ok
3. ok
4. ok
SHEET C-440 — STORM DRAIN DETAILS
1. ok
2. ok
SHEET C-441— STORK DRAIN DETAILS
1. ok
SHEET C-450 — DETENTION VAULT DETAILS
1, ok
2. ok
SHEET 0-451— DETENTION VAULT DETAILS
1. ok
SHEET C-500 — UTILITY PLAN
1, thru 16, ok
SHEET C-520 — UTILITY DETAILS
1, ok
SHEET C-522 — UTILITY DETAILS
1. ok
2. ok
SHEET C-523 — UTILITY DETAILS
1. ok