Public Review Comments
1
2
Chapter No, Page No
Comment
Responses
General
The list of tables and figures in the TOC is not complete
General
Please review document for consistent use of capitalization (e.g. low impact development,
waters of the state and step #)
Some of the photos have no sources or location listed, please double check and revise as
needed.
The list of tables and figures has been revised to include
all table and figures from the fact sheets.
The document has now been reviewed for consistent use
of capitalization.
Sources have been added where available, and when not
available, "source unknown" has been added.
General
Add captions to every photo with some type of description of what is being looked at.
Captions have now been added for all photos.
General
The headings and sub-headings within the chapters and fact sheers should be bolded or
Suggested formatting edits have been incorporated.
colored.
Make the footer consistent – some pages have the page # on left with text and date on right Suggested formatting edits have been incorporated.
while others are opposite that format (see Chapter 5 for numerous examples).
General
3
4
5
General
6
7
8
General
The contrast of the 2007 design/layout is easier on the eyes. This presentation blends
together too much.
Delete all references to South Placer areas
Formatting edits made to address comment.
General
There is no mention of a SWPPP in the document either in definitions or on page 3-13. On
page 3-13, under Step 11. Construct, it seems that what is being described is the SWPPP. Rather than refer to the manual, an approved project SWPPP for projects greater than 1
acre (which most are), will stipulate measures to be implemented and the responsibility of
the developer or owner to educate construction personnel. The SWPP is required to be onsite during construction. It seems that a reference to a SWPPP should be included in this
document.
This manual is specific to post construction stormwater
quality measures. Step 11 on page 3-13 discusses the
importance of ensuring that the post construction
measures are constructed and installed properly.
Construction related measures and SWPPP requirements
are included in other manuals- check with the local
permitting agency.
Glossary
Dry well definition is any hole deeper than its circumference. The difference may be
inconsequential with regards to the Manual but might impact day to day project acceptance
(e.g. a cylindrical typical dry well feature 2-feet across could not be much more than 6-feet
deep while a more trench-like separated sidewalk feature of the same width could be
significantly deeper).
Illicit Discharge – change to: ‘ … and discharges authorized by the State and/or Regional
Water Board.’
Infiltration – remove ‘downward’ and ‘surface of the’
(MS4) – technically correct but in California shouldn’t this be, ‘…discharges to Waters of the
State’?– see also the definition for NPDES Muni SW Permit (which refers to ‘waters of the
state’ [which I believe is missing some capitalization])
Open Space – add, ‘but is not limited to’ after includes
Comment addressed, Dry Well fact sheet has now been
deleted.
General
9
10
11
12
Glossary
Glossary
Glossary
13
14
Glossary
All references to South Placer have now been deleted.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
No change, exiting definition is consistent with the one in
the MS4 Permit
Suggested edits incorporated
Glossary
Suggested edits incorporated
Glossary, Page X
Regional Water Quality Control Board –this might be a good place to define ‘Regional Water
Board’ as the Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5) for use throughout the document. Perhaps
just modify the last sentence to, … Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5; aka: the Regional Water
Board).
Retail Gasoline Outlet – change ‘gasoline’ to ‘motor vehicle fuels’
Urban Runoff – modify to, ‘means any runoff from urbanized areas that enters the MS4
including…’
Why is “land subdivision” defined as “new development”?
Chapter 1, Table 1-2
Chapter 1, Table 1-2
Auto Repair Shops – move SIC 5541 to Retail Gasoline Outlets
Retail Gasoline Outlets – add SIC 5541 and change ‘gasoline’ to ‘motor vehicle fuels’
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 1, Table 1-2
Commercial and Light Industrial – add ‘Kennels’ and ‘Equipment Rental Facilities’
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 1, Page 1-3
Add a specific department for the City of Rancho Cordova under "Agency Collaboration".
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 2, Page 2-2
Chapter 2, Page 2-3
Chapter 2, Page 2-4
Chapter 2, Page 2-5
Chapter 2, Page 2-5
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
(Lay Out … bullets) – consider adding a bullet: When possible, avoid compacting soil in open
and/or landscape areas.
(Reduce Runoff…) add ‘(LID)’ after the first use of low impact development. Consider use of
‘LID’ instead of ‘low impact development’ or mixing it up to get the reader used to the
acronym thereafter.
(Minimize Imperv…) – Consider modifying the final sentence to include permeable
pavements and pavers in the list of substitution option for pavement.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Language added
Chapter 2, Page 2-6
Chapter 2, Page 2-8
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Shouldn’t we include our HMP either as a reference or additional resource?
Suggested edits incorporated
Reference to HMP has now been added.
Chapter 3, General
Seems like we keep circling back to check with your permitting agency before X. Can we
include an Appendix, Web-links or ??? that contains the special forms?
Appendix A includes suggested submittal requirements.
Each Permitting agency has its own entitlement and
submittal process, so developing one form that works for
all agencies is challenging
Chapter 3, Page 3-1
Chapter 3, Page 3-2
Chapter 3, Table 3-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Remove Dry Well from the Table
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
15
16
17
Glossary
Glossary
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Chapter 2, Page 2-5
28
Chapter 2, Page 2-6
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
No change, exiting definition is consistent with the one in
the MS4 Permit and will not be revised for consistency.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
36
Chapter 3, Table 3-2
Residential Column- Porous Pavement row: reference to the wrong footnote, should be
footnote (e) and not (g)
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Error corrected
Chapter 3, Page 3-4
footnote "h" for Single Family Residential is not obvious enough to indicate there are also
requirements for SFR<20 acres. Suggest adding a category specifically for SFR < 20 acres
Specific categories for SFR>20 gross acres and SFR > 1
acre impervious are now provided.
Chapter 3, Page 3-5
Table 3-2, the table states that Dry Wells are Not Applicable to the Streets/Roads category.
However, with pre-treatment it seems that dry wells, in some cases, could be a viable
option.
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
The Dry Well fact sheet will be deleted. There's concern
among the Permittees about Dry Well regulations.
Chapter 3, Page 3-4
37
38
39
Chapter 3, Page 3-5
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
In the list of Control Measures, edit "Detention Basin" to the same name as used in the fact Suggested edits incorporated
sheet "Water Quality Detention Basin". The inconsistency could be confusing.
Chapter 3, Pages 5,6,&7
Table 3-2, the measures listed in the table and the fact sheets for each measures included in The measures are now listed in the same order.
Chapter 5 should be in the same order.
Figure 3-1, Footnote 4. Unclear what the term "priority project" is referring to. Footnote
The term "Priority" added to tables 3-2 and 1-2
refers back to Table 3-2 which does not include the term priority project.
Chapter 3, Page 7
Chapter 3, Page 7, Figure 3-1 Figure 3-1, Footnote 3 should be deleted and included with the other acronym definitions
listed to the left of the footnotes.
Chapter 3, Page 7, Figure 3-1 Figure 3-1, In general the decision tree is not easy to use because of the cross-references
required to understand it. Recommend expanding upon the text and reducing the number
footnotes requiring cross-reference.
Chapter 3, Page 7, Figure 3-1 Bad resolution, footnotes are not legible
Figure 3-1 has been revised and this comment is no
longer applicable.
Figure 3-1 has been revised to be easier to use and
understand. Footnotes have now been incorporated into
the figure.
Figure 3-1 has been revised and now has better
resolution.
No change. The language directs the applicant to evaluate
the best available options. The cost and look of the
proposed measures are important factors in selecting
them.
No change. The language directs the applicant to evaluate
the best available options. Bullet 3 suggests that the
applicant should seek to integrate LID measures
throughout the site design as much as possible; while the
bullet on page 3-3 actually specifies what the LID
requirements are.
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 3, Page 3-8
Fourth bullet on page, recommend striking cost effective and aesthetically pleasing. Often
times neither is viable and the language limits flexibility when selecting/designing BMPs.
Chapter 3, Page 3-8
Step 3, in-general concerned with the language in Step 3. Often times specific sentences are
taken out of context and are enforced in a manner that is not consistent with the manual in
its entirety. Recommend defining actual requirements rather than including generalized
statements, such as: "Seek to integrate LID measures throughout the site". In this example,
replace with language previously utilized on Page 3-3, bullet 3.
Chapter 3, Page 3-9
Step 5. The first sentence should read, determine if hydromodification control measures are
required.
remove Dry wells from the bullet-list
Suggested edits incorporated
48
50
No change, the measures listed in this table each have a
fact sheet later in the manual. Trees are already covered
in the Interceptor Tree fact sheet.
Chapter 3, Page 3-5
47
49
No change, the measures listed in this table each have a
fact sheet later in the manual. Trees are already covered
in the Interceptor Tree fact sheet.
Chapter 3, Page 3-10
51
Chapter 3, Page 3-10
Step 11; second paragraph – Do we want permitting agency staff to be responsible for the
proper installation or the design engineer?
Language revised
Chapter 4, Page 1
Recommend listing the exempted non-stormwater discharges.
Exempted non-stormwater discharges listed in the
County Stormwater Ordinance have now been listed.
Chapter 4, Page EI-1
The Efficient Irrigation Fact Sheet contains requirements that are not applicable to project
design. Recommend revising the fact sheet to only include actual design requirements
(similar to the other fact sheets). Additionally, the term drought tolerant vegetation is very
vague and could be misconstrued in many ways. Recommend clarifying.
Additional information and clarification has now been
provided in this fact sheet.
Chapter 4, Page EI-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Chapter 4, Page EI-3
Please make the Footer consistent with the rest of the document
Suggested edits that were relevant to efficient irrigation
have been incorporated. Two of the suggestions were
not applicable.
The footer has now been revised to be consistent with
the rest of the document.
Chapter 4, Page L 1-3
The landscaping fact sheet is very generalized. Recommend identifying which (if any) of the Additional information and clarification has now been
generalized statements are actual design requirements (similar to the other fact sheets).
provided in this fact sheet.
Chapter 4, Page L-1
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggestion regarding organic wood mulch has been
incorporated. We did not add language that would
suggest that annual soils' tests are required, since that
would be overly prescriptive and burdensome.
Chapter 4, Page L-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Most of the suggested edits were incorporated. We did
not add language that was not consistent with the "riverfriendly" principles upon which this section is based.
Chapter 4, Page L-2
Chapter 4, Page L-3
Protect water & air quality – remove, ‘and herbicides’
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
"Herbicides" has now been removed.
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 4, Page WA-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Chapter 4, Page WA-3
62
Chapter 4, Fueling Area
63
No change, tree canopies are not an approved cover for
wash areas.
Drainage – Cover not feasible: Can we add that connection to the storm drain system (after No, suggested option is not allowed
the diversion valve) be through a treatment BMP (that will require annual
inspection/maintenance)?
Label drains within the facility by paint/stencil, sign, or marker to indicate whether they flow No change, implementation of suggested requirement
to an oil/water separator, sanitary sewer, or stormwater drain.
will be challenging
64
65
66
67
68
69
Chapter 4, Fueling Area,
table FA-1
Chapter 4, Fueling Area,
table FA-1
Chapter 4, Fueling Area,
table FA-1
Paving: delete "check with local permitting agency on dimensions of this pavement for your Suggested edits incorporated
project site".
Grading/Drainage: why do we require the fueling area pad to be flat? Other manual ask for 2- Language revised
4% slope to prevent ponding. Consider revising.
Connections to Sanitary Systems: replace requirement for spill control manhole option with No change, spill control manhole may still be required
oil separator to be consistent with other source control fact sheets.
Chapter 4, Page OS-1
fix/embed link at bottom of page
Link has been fixed
Chapter 4, Page OW-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, tree canopies are not an approved cover for
outdoor work areas.
Chapter 5
Delete the Dry Well Fact Sheet (DW-1 – DW-9)
Chapter 5, DW
Seems that dry wells can be applicable to more project types than just SFR.
Chapter 5, Page 5-1
There is a typo in the last paragraph
The Dry Well fact sheet has now been removed from the
manual.
Dry Wells will only be allowed for disconnection of roof
drains. There's concern among the Permittees about Dry
Well regulations.
The typo in the last paragraph has now been revised.
70
71
72
73
74
Chapter 5, Page 5-2, Table 5- Why are the runoff reduction BMPs listed under hydromodification and treatment? These
Suggested edits incorporated into revised table
1
can help reduce the volume, but not used as standalone mitigation. Use different symbol??
Chapter 5, Page 5-2, Table 51
Chapter 5, Page 5-2, Table 51
The measures listed in the tables 5-1 & 3-2 and the fact-sheets should all be listed in the
same order for consistency.
Under Control Measures, edit "Detention Basin" to match heading in fact sheet ("Water
Quality Detention Basin"). The term "detention basin" is used in drainage design standards
for flood control so the distinction and consistency is necessary.
Chapter 5, Page 5-2
One of the approved proprietary devices (bio filter) is advertised as LID. Would we allow LID Clarifying language has been added to Page 5-1 indicating
credit for that device and if so should it be listed?
that proprietary devices can only receive LID credit if they
can demonstrate volume reduction through custom
calculations.
2nd bullet: suggest adding to the end of that bullet", as determined in 2011 when the HMP The HMP has not been approved yet. The developable
was completed."
area calculations included in Chapter 3 of the HMP were
conducted in 2010 based on the latest land use data from
each of the agencies in the Sacramento Region.
75
Chapter 5, Page 5-3
76
Chapter 5, Page 5-4
77
The measures are now listed in the same order.
Suggested edits incorporated into revised table
Priority Projects - The manual refers to priority projects listed in Table 1-2 but it is unclear as The term "Priority" added to tables 3-2 and 1-2
to whether or not all projects in the table are considered priority or if it refers to specific
comments. Same comment as previous comment for Table 3-2. IF the intent is that all of the
listed projects are "priority projects" then the tables should be labeled as such.
78
Chapter 5, Page 5-4
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Chapter 5, Page 5-5
Unclear as to why a site has to be located within a 1/2 mile of a transit stop in order to be
an infill project. Recommend striking.
79
80
81
Chapter 5, Page 5-6, Figure 5- Need to add a footnote or ??? that LID is applicable even when a project is exempt from
1
HMP
Chapter 5, Page 5-10
First paragraph; last sentence – ‘…(0.25 Q2) should be used.’ Change should to must.
No change, this is a Figure from the HMP so it will not be
edited for consistency
Language revised
Chapter 5, Page 5-11
Last paragraph. Please clarify how a master planned community would be evaluated. It
appears that the paragraph is implying that compliance with LID requirements would be
evaluated at the improvement plan level. However, when a drainage analysis is completed,
it is typically completed for the entire master planned area. Recommend allowing for the
flexibility to evaluate LID requirements at the master plan level.
Language has been added to the LID principles section
stating that LID requirements must be met at the master
plan stage as well as with the development of each
individual project.
Chapter 5, Page 5-12
Disconnection of…; First paragraph; third sentence – ‘Impervious areas can be….., or into a
dry well.’ Delete ‘or into a drywell’ (and then fix sentence construction).
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 5, Page 5-12
Chapter 5, Page 5-12
Chapter 5, Page 5-13
Dry Wells – delete this section
Suggested edits incorporated
Dry Wells paragraph: typo on 2nd line
Section has been deleted, no edits necessary.
Calculation at bottom of page missing. Equation does not show when documents is printed. The equation now prints correctly. We have noticed
some variation in the printing and we recommend that
the County confirm the printing again after final
formatting.
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Detailed technical information regarding interceptor trees
is included in the fact sheet and in Appendix D.
Therefore, technical suggestions regarding trees were not
added to Chapter 5. Organic mulch not added as a
separate runoff management approach. Mulch is already
discussed in the Landscaping and Compost Amended Soil
fact sheets.
82
83
84
85
86
Chapter 5, Page 5-13
87
Chapter 5, Page 5-14
88
89
Chapter 5, Page 5-14
Chapter 5, Page 5-15
90
91
No change, the criteria for "approved projects" come
directly from the HMP.
Proximity to transit stops is one of the criteria for being
an infill project. This language is taken directly from the
HMP. For consistency, it will remain.
Chapter 5, Page 5-16
Suggest adding at the end of each control measure description "Reference fact sheet for
Fact sheet references have now been added.
further detail." If there is not a fact sheet for Capture and Reuse, state there is no fact sheet
at this time and the use and/or design of such will be considered on a case by cases basis by
the permitting agency.
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, the section is this chapter correspond to fact
sheet later in the manual. Mulch is discussed in the
Landscaping and Compost Amended Soil fact sheets.
5th line under "What amount of stormwater runoff…"; delete first word "runoff"
Language revised
Chapter 5, Page 5-18
When proposing to use an “accepted proprietary device”, why does the applicant have to
These requirements come directly from the Partnership's
show detailed drawings of the device and associated appurtenances? Wouldn’t “accepted” website (beriverfrientdly.net). Although the Partnership
be synonymous with “standard”?
has approved certain devices, project specific design
information is needed for plan approval and for
construction. There are currently no regional standard
drawings for these devices. Please also note that
"Accepted" is not synonymous with "standard"; the later
refers to the device standard drawings supplied by the
manufacturer.
Chapter 5, Page AD-1,
Alternative Driveways
Can we add reinforced grass pavement (“grasscrete”) to the list? (see DP-4)
No change, the alternative driveways fact sheet already
references the porous pavement and disconnected
pavement fact sheets which list grasscrete as a potential
option. There is no comprehensive list of BMPs for
alternative driveways.
Chapter 5, Page AD-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, suggested edit is not relevant to maintenance
for alternative driveways.
Chapter 5, Page CWB-1
Why limit the shed area tributary to a wetland basin at 100 acres max. rather than make the The 100 acre threshold has been revised to match the
size and area of the basin a function of the tributary shed and associated WQV to be
Water Quality Detention Basin fact sheet.
treated?
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, planting trees on the side slopes of the basin
is not a design requirement.
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, although language was added to the fact
sheet allowing trees and shrubs (where appropriate), they
are not a critical design parameter and will not be added
to Figure CWB-1. The purpose and benefit of trees and
shrubs is well documented throughout the manual.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Chapter 5, Page CWB-5
Chapter 5, Page CWB-8
Chapter 5, Page CWB-9
Chapter 5, Page CWB-10
99
100
101
Chapter 5, Page CWB-12
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, planting trees on the side slopes of the basin
is not a design requirement.
Chapter 5, Page IB-3
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Chapter 5, Page IB-4
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, trees are not a critical siting issue for
infiltration basins.
No change, trees are considered part of the "vegetation"
parameter already included in the table.
Chapter 5, Page IB-6
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
102
103
Suggested edits incorporated into Step 10 - Select
Vegetation.
Chapter 5, Page IB-7
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Chapter 5, Page IB-8
Chapter 5, Page IB-8
Chapter 5, Page IB-9
Chapter 5, Page IB-10
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Long-Term Maint; Two things of note: Capitalization of ‘Term’ should be consistent
throughout document (see DRD-8 conflict and IT-6 for conformance). We do not want to
reference that which is necessary in South Placer.
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Chapter 5, Page CAS-1
Consider adding a standard detail- cross section view
A detail has been added showing a cross section view.
Chapter 5, Page CAS-1
Chapter 5, Page CAS-1
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Is there a better picture for Compost Amended Soil? It looks like a bank restoration project
with no real LID applicability.
Limitations: in previous meetings we discussed having this BMP as the main option for use
within separated sidewalks, but bullet 3 under Limitations seems to indicate otherwise.
Clarify?
Suggested edits incorporated
This is the best picture available at this time.
Chapter 5, Page CAS-3
Design criteria: need to point users to where to find the volumetric runoff coefficient
(maybe add a table to appendix E).
Chapter 5, Page CAS-3
Chapter 5, Page CAS-4
Chapter 5, Page CAS-5
Chapter 5, Page CAS-7
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
A table has now been added to this fact sheet specifying
volumetric runoff coefficient based on percent
impervious.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
No change, although mulch is recommended, it is not
considered a design parameter.
Chapter 5, Page DRD-2
Chapter 5, Page DRD-2
Maintenance Recs; second bullet – delete ‘dry well’/use a different example
Suggested edits incorporated
Planning…; last bullet on page – ‘Consider using dry wells or dispersal …’ delete ‘dry wells or’ Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 5, Table DRD-2
Chapter 5, Table DRD-2
Chapter 5, Table DRD-3
Chapter 5, Table DRD-3
Chapter 5, Page DRD-3
Chapter 5, Page DRD-6
Chapter 5, Page DRD-8
Chapter 5, Page DRD-8
Delete, ‘and Dry Well’
Delete Dry Well Only section
Delete, ‘and Dry Well’
Replacement – delete ‘dry well – 30 years’
Variations; first sentence – delete, ‘and 4) drywell’
Dry Well – Remove this section
Dispersal Trench and Dry Well – delete ‘and Dry Well’
Long-term Maint…; first sentence – delete, ‘and dry well’
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Revisions made per SSQP meeting discussion.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 5, Page DB-1
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, trees are not a critical siting issue for water
quality detention basins.
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Chapter 5, Page CAS-2
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
No change, trees are not a critical design parameter and
will not be added to Figure IB-1. The purpose and benefit
of trees and shrubs is well documented throughout the
manual.
Suggested edits incorporated
Capitalization has now been updated and the reference
to South Placer has now been deleted.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
The information from bullet 3 has now been moved to
the "advantages" section with the caveat that there must
be concurrence from the project geotech.
Chapter 5, Page DB-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, the presence of existing trees is not
considered a limitation for use of detention basins.
Chapter 5, page DB-2
Chapter 5, Page DB-3
Chapter 5, Tables DB-3 and
4
Photo is on Bilby Road not Sheldon Road
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Please verify that the suggested plants are native species.
The photo reference has now been updated.
Suggested edits incorporated
We have verified that the suggested plants are native
species. Please note that Tables 3 and 4 are intended
only to be potential options for consideration, and that
actual plant selection should be made by the landscape
architect based on project specific conditions.
129
130
131
132
133
136
137
138
139
Chapter 5, Page DB-17
Chapter 5, Page DB-19
Chapter 5, Page DB-21
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Fix figure DB-5 – 6” Curb callout on Elevation detail is pointing to wrong spot.
Suggested edits incorporated
The reference to 0.4 has now been removed to avoid
confusion.
A note has been added prior to the tables clarifying that
the tables are not comprehensive and that other plants
may also be suitable.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
The 6" curb callout has now been revised.
Chapter 5, Page DB-25
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
140
Chapter 5, Page DP-6
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
141
142
Chapter 5, Page SP-5
Chapter 5, Page SP-6
Chapter 5, Page SP-7
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
No change, large trees and shrubs are not necessary
design elements. In addition, some local agencies do not
allow the placement of shade trees in stormwater
planters. The figure already shows smaller vegetation.
134
Chapter 5, Page DB-5
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Chapter 5, Pages DB-011/DB- There’s an inconsistency in the noted gravel bed design porosity. It’s noted as both 0.3 and
12
0.4.
Chapter 5, Page DB-15
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
135
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Chapter 5, Page SP-7 and SP- Fix Callout saying 9-inch ASSHTO #8 to say AASHTO #8. Also add space between Gravel
8
Layer on the same callout.
Chapter 5, Page SP-9
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
The callouts have now been revised as requested.
Chapter 5, Page VFS-x
Chapter 5, Page VFS-6
All pages have wrong footer
Same as IB-8 (above)
The footer has now been updated on all pages.
Capitalization has now been updated and the reference
to South Placer has now been deleted.
Chapter 5, Page VS-4
Chapter 5, Page VS-6
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Chapter 5, Page VS-10
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change. The intent of this section is for the applicant
to describe which vegetation will be the main cover,
which is necessary for the treatment function of the
swale.
Chapter 5, Page INT-1
Chapter 5, Page INT-2
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Chapter 5, Page INT-3
Chapter 5, Page INT-5
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
The design criteria call for #15 containers. We find that these larger containers are more
likely to have kinked or circling root problems and are not locked in to that size. #7 or 10 is
fine with Urban Forestry. A larger container may be acceptable, dependent on the grower.
Suggested edits incorporated
Most suggestions have been incorporated. Information
that was cited from another source has not been edited
based upon these comments.
Suggested edits incorporated
The text has been updated to allow flexibility in the
container size with local agency approval.
Chapter 5, Page INT-5
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
The text has been updated to allow flexibility in the
container size with local agency approval. Location
criteria edited for additional clarification.
Chapter 5, Page INT-6
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
Page US-1
Is that really a picture of underground storage? Seems rather small. I will try to get a better Elk Grove provided better photo of underground storage
picture.
installation. The picture has now been replaced.
Chapter 6
Please rename chapter to "Green Streets". We don't want to limit the use of these design
guidelines to municipal projects only. Reflect the name change throughout the document as
needed.
These applications should not be used in the combined system since the water is already
being treated
Is this supposed to be a standard that will be used on all new street designs? Currently,
every street typical section has a planter area. We need to be clear on specific areas and/or
streets this application will be used.
The chapter name has now been update to "Green
Streets".
Chapter 6
We need standard construction specifications and details for these treatment areas.
Chapter 6
Throughout Chapter 6, with the exception of pervious pavement, little or no mention is
made of maintenance constraints on stormwater elements that are placed within the public
right-of-way.
References to other facts sheets have been added for
construction specifications and details.
Language added in the O&M section
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
160
161
162
These measures may still be used in combined system
areas to reduce the runoff from the site.
This is an option for any/all streets. As stated in the
applicability section, it is primarily intended for use on
priority projects (5 acres or more of impervious roadway).
It is not specifically required for use on any particular
type of project, although for some projects, green street
principles may be the only feasible BMPs. The revised
Figure 3-1 shows the applicability of green street criteria
for development projects.
163
Chapter 6
Required maintenance of these elements in the right-of-way needs to be discussed much
further. Frontage elements and especially medians.
These systems must not be installed in the public right-of-way unless there is a funding
mechanism(CFD or AD) established to pay for maintenance in perpetuity.
Language added in the O&M section
Chapter 6
The sample maintenance agreements that are referenced in the manual appear to be only
for “on-site” installations. What about right-of-way??
These agreements are project specific and based on the
proposed design. Language added in the O&M section.
Chapter 6, Page 6-2
Chapter 6, Page 6-3
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
No change, significant efforts has already been made to
find local, high-quality, and relevant photos. Also, trees
are not required design elements of bioretention within
sidewalk planters.
Chapter 6, Page 6-4
Chapter 6, Page 6-5
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Suggested edits incorporated
Photo caption updated to reference Fair Oaks instead of
City of Folsom. The bullet point regarding the cost of
pervious paving has been revised, but it still indicates that
it is more expensive than traditional pavement.
Chapter 6, Page 6-6
Chapter 6, Page 6-6
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Page 6-6; Sizing of…; first bullet – add ‘(not including overlays or routine maintenance)’
after, ‘…or replaced impervious surface
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
Appendix A
Recommend turning Figure 3-1 into a form that can be filled out.
Figure 3-1 has been revised based on other comments
and subsequent coordination with the County. It will
remain a figure as opposed to a form.
Appendix B
The sample maintenance agreements are not provided.
Appendix B
Is there a sample maintenance and operation plan or a standard format for the plan?
Sample maintenance agreements submitted to RBF for
inclusion in App B.
The maintenance and operation plan is based on the
proposed measures. Sample submitted to RBF for
inclusion in App B.
Chapter 6
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
Language added in the O&M section
Appendix B, Page B-1
The page states that the County will require maintenance agreements signed by the
property owners for things such as separated sidewalks and disconnected downspouts, i.e.
features common to virtually all residential development projects we design. Not only does
this seem excessive, but I also wonder how such maintenance of the separated landscape
strip and residential side yard swales would be enforced (and by whom)?
Partnership agrees with comments, revisions proposed to
Appendix B.
RBF has added
underground storage back to the list. The intent was to
correlate the list with structural treatment control BMPs
listed in Table 5-1, per the MS4 Permit. Although
underground storage is not a treatment control BMP, it
has been added to the list since it is a structural BMP.
Underground storage is also of increased concern since
they typically manage large drainage areas, and BMP
failure (due to a lack of adequate maintenance) can have
a significant impact on hydromodification mitigation.
Appendix D-3, page 4
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
No change, the previous version of the manual has the
trees listed alphabetically by common name, and we have
maintained that format for consistency.
Appendix D-3, page 5
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Edits to shape and height have been incorporated. No
changes were made to the trees that are listed since this
is a specific list of qualifying interceptor trees.
Appendix D-3, page 6
Appendix D-3, page 8
Appendix D-3, page 3
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
See City of Folsom Arborist redline
Runoff Reduction Credit for existing interceptor trees calls for measuring within the
“dripline”. Dripline is a poor indicator for a variety of reasons, including subduction by
adjacent more dominant trees, irregular crown shapes, leaning trees, etc. Urban Forestry
would call for an average of the longest and shortest edge of the crown, or longest and
shortest lateral limbs.
Suggested edits incorporated
Suggested edits incorporated
"Dripline" is a more practical measurement metric for
interceptor trees and is adequate for determination of
the runoff reduction credit.
175
176
177
178
179
180