mailed 4-1-14

Matt Phone #: ###-####. Will be ok for perm occ. once zoning and public works signs perm.

Trash enclosure location inside building and rolled out onto concrete pad for pickup ok with Public Works.

life safety passed

Bond in place for Drop inlet filters. Jason Taylor ###-####

Met with Matt on site. Fire extinguishers in shop area are in good location. Sprinkler riser still needs data sheet and bird cage on head. breaker for FA needs a red tamper guard. Everything else looks ok.

OK per DRH13-00252

per plans and ISPC

Design Review modification not yet approved. 7/30/13 JGW

Spoke with Mary Fromke. She indicated that only sprinkler monitoring was required. I said as long it meets code I was OK with it. She also said that the electrical pe was only for the electrical work not the fire alarm work. The engineer works at her company. I said as long as he was ok with it that a drawing submitted be her straight to the City was ok.

Requests early - Dane Phone #: ###-####. Ok pending special inspection.

Redlined notes on future restrooms and approved revisions. JCM

1st Review Completed 05/21/2013 JCM

Failed - Plan Check, ESC, Fire

John Menard

Revised ESC pages submitted via email

1. The tables describing the discharge information in Section 2.2 must list Five Mile Creek as a receiving water. Even though you will have BMPs in place to protect the adjacent water body from receiving runoff, there is still a potential. This section describes any potential receiving waters. The difference between having a potential to discharge versus actually having a direct connection where dewatering and/or runoff discharges deliberately to a water body is a set of more proscriptive requirements. In the circumstance of a direct discharge, turbidity monitoring is required twice daily, inspection frequencies are required weekly and after a rain event, and the stabilization timeframe is more strict. Since your site now only has the potential, these more proscriptive requirements do not apply. But the DEQ Boise Regional Office will still need to be notified of this potential because this segment of Five Mile Creek is impaired for sediment. The contact at the DEQ Regional Office here in Boise is Lance Holloway, ###-####. Per the most current Integrated Report from DEQ, there has not yet been a TMDL assigned. Lance will know if one has been issued since the report was published. You can also ask Lance if it is considered a high quality water body (Tier 2 or 2.5) in order to complete Table 2.5.
2. If any dewatering to the ACHD ROW will occur as described in section 2.5, the project must obtain a dewatering permit from the ACHD. A dewatering permit is not required for stormwater runoff. The contact for this is Evan Jenkins, ###-####.
3. For compliance with the federal permit, you will need to checkmark one of the boxes in section 4.1 for a buffer compliance alternative. The reference in the CGP, Appendix G, section 1.1 refers to stormwater conveyance swales already constructed. The new conveyance swale to be constructed for this project is considered part of construction disturbance. Note that this is a federal requirement and not a City requirement so failure to incorporate this into your plan will not delay City permitting but could result in EPA violations if audited.
4. For compliance with the federal permit, Section 8 certification must be signed by an officer of the owner of the project. It should be signed by the same person who will sign the Notice of Intent. See CGP, Appendix I, section 1.11. Note that this is a federal requirement and not a City requirement so failure to incorporate this into your plan will not delay City permitting but could result in potential EPA violations if audited.

Lastly, because of the environmental sensitivity of the project’s location, I will be asking for a pre-construction meeting with the owner and operators prior to construction. I will also be requiring an Erosion Control Site Preparation inspection for each phase. The site prep inspection must be requested by the Responsible Person after all the initial ESC BMPs have been installed but prior to grading activities. I will attach this notification to the final approved plan.

E-mailed the architect a copy of the structural review requesing revisions. JCM

Receieved a cover transmittal, 2 copies of Drainage report, 2 copies of O & M Report, 1 copy of Engineering "No Rise" Certification, 1 copy of Geotech report Addendum #1, 5 copies of sheets C-1.0, C-2.0, C-3.0 inserted into plans and given back to John Menard

Per plan and 2009 ISPC.

1. The site currently has a direct discharge to Five Mile Creek. This stretch of the creek is impaired for sediment which is the primary pollutant of concern in construction stormwater runoff. The proximity to the creek makes this project environmentally sensitive and additional BMPs must be in place as a result. Additionally, because the site is over an acre, it is also subject to federal permitting requirements. Please note that the Erosion Control Plan submitted to the City does not meet the EPA SWPPP requirements per section 7 of the CGP. For your reference, attached is a copy of the EPA audit checklist that I received from the local EPA compliance inspector. Pages 2-6 include a brief checklist for the SWPPP requirements.
2. As we discussed on the phone today, your preferred method to address my initial concerns about the environmental sensitivity of the project is to eliminate the discharge to Five Mile Creek thru grading techniques and/or an earthern berm. I agree that by eliminating the discharge point(s), you reduce your risk. Please include stabilization specifications for the back side of the earthern berm. A perimeter control must also be in place until it is stabilized. Please revise the narrative to include these BMPs and revise the sequence of events to reflect the scheduling required to make this BMP effective. Please include any other BMPs that may be necessary. Please understand that if a direct discharge has the potential to occur at any point during construction, your plan must include measures for increased inspection frequency, turbidity monitoring, and completion of stabilization within 7 days for that area during that timeframe.
3. Include details on the map or as an attachment to the narrative for ALL proscribed BMPs. This includes but is not limited to silt fence, concrete washout, construction entrance, earthern berm, erosion control blankets and mats, fiber wattles, drop inlet protection, ect.
4. Please include BMPs to protect the new stormwater infrastructure after it is built if construction will still be occurring in the area. This will include the swale and all associated drop inlets. BMPs should include both structural BMPs and, as you mentioned on the phone, scheduling the swale work to be completed in one continuous phase over the course of 1-2 days.
5. Material staging, washout pits, waste management sites, ect must all occur at least 50 from any storm drain inlets and water bodies, including the wetland area.
6. Please provide notification to the owner and operator of their duty to file an NOI with the EPA in the narrative.
7. Your plan references a demolition on pages 2 and 3. I think this is a typo; please correct.

needs revisions

Drainage plans show development in the floodway zone of Fivemile Creek. Development in the floodway is not permitted without obtaining a Variance from the Floodplain Ordinance. Variance request has been submitted and is under review. Action on Variance application will be taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission on May 6, 2013. Jim Wyllie (###-####)

On 4/16 applicant was notified by JCM they need to submit metal building structural calcs and full size metal building engineered plans; on 4/19 JCM ok'd to start routing without metal building info.

Lot 11, Block 2 of Vic Park Subdivision No. 2