Review Type
Outcome
Est. Completion Date
Completed
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
12/01/2025
11/26/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Ecology defines sports fields (artificial and natural) as Pollution Generating Pervious Surface. However the underdrain collection and subsequent detention of the field run off makes this system an impervious surface. Provide details that this specific type of installation is not pollution generating or details of how the project will achieve enhanced water quality standards for the collected field run off.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Findings of fact:
-This project is opting to attempt the Demonstrative Approach to stormwater management, specifically water quality, which is allowed under Vol I-1.6.
-According to the Manual: both the Presumptive and Demonstrative approaches are based on best available science and result from existing Federal and State laws that require stormwater treatment systems to be properly designed, constructed, maintained and operated to:
1. Prevent pollution of state waters and protect water quality, including compliance with state Water Quality Standards.
2. Satisfy state requirements for all known available and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART) of wastes prior to discharge to waters of the State.
3. Satisfy the federal technology based treatment requirements under 40 CFR part 125.3.
In order to achieve this the PROJECT CLAIMS that:
-Project will avoid materials that are pollutant sources such as those that leach significant copper and zinc or promote suspension of solids.
-Project will avoid erodibility and filtering in solids
-Project will provide settling volume
-Project will provide floatables retention
CITY RESPONSE:
-Submittal did not include product specific information to demonstrate the absence of pollutant sources of concern.
-Manufacturer technical documentation is vague and submitted studies do not pertain directly to the proposed field. Only two of the studies pertain to run off and they are both one time samples from decades ago on the east coast. One of these studies was conducted on crumb rubber and the other is a generic ‘artificial turf field.’ We need to know how your specific system is going to perform against the State and Federal Standards.
-The Artificial Turf Study submitted is irrelevant as it describes only crumb rubber applications. In addition, the study found elevated levels of pH in some samples and that heavy metals in some fields exceeded the acute aquatic life criteria and were defined as 'toxic'. Zinc was reported as present in concentrations orders of magnitude greater than other metals.
-Simply stating that the fabric and infill materials function like a sand filter is not part of the Demonstrative Process.
-Settling volume not provided. Provide calculations based on current design to illustrate settling volumes.
-A standard outlet will prevent floatables from leaving the system, however standard design elements are not emerging technologies or alternative BMPs and are not considered mitigation or part of the Demonstrative Process.
Correction 3:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
-Testing Plan
This submittal has not provided adequate supporting data to determine whether or not the alternative approach is protective of water quality and satisfies state and federal water quality laws.
The project requests that a sampling program be instituted in order to show that after construction the field will conform to the water quality standards. This approach assumes the city has the resources and the motivation to monitor a (possible) multi-year sampling program. And then should the samples not conform, the project would like to then retrofit the field under the presumptive approach to stormwater mitigation, but the city asks: If that is possible, why not just design the retro-fit now? The manual warns that the Demonstrative Approach can be more arduous and time consuming. Knowing this it may be in the best interest for the project to consider all types of mechanical treatment devices in order to keep with the project schedule.
The testing plan submitted is not tailored for this type of project and mitigation strategy. The guidance provided for monitoring under the TAPE program may be more appropriate, but the city has serious concerns about allowing the field to be built and operated with little to no baseline data. There could be months or years of operation that may be polluting local water sources while more testing and progressive mitigation measures are installed.
Correction 4:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Overall the project has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agency that the design/plan will conform with state and federal constituent levels. The following statement sums up what we would require, and this report/project has not achieved this.
“The documentation for the demonstrative approach is a site-specific analysis that demonstrates that the proposed discharge will comply with ground water quality standards.”
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
12/01/2025
11/24/2025
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
12/01/2025
11/20/2025
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
12/01/2025
11/18/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Approved
12/01/2025
11/18/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
12/01/2025
11/18/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
12/01/2025
11/18/2025
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
06/12/2025
06/12/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Will concrete curbing be replaced? Instructions to contractor not found. Correction response says see LA, but concrete work should be on the civil plans. Call out restoration and include applicable details and notes. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C12]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove extraneous, incorrect north arrow.[STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 14/204]
Correction 3:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include the approximately 180 feet of 48" storm pipe.
Correction 4:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include RPBA in estimate.
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Control structure should be in private structure and not along the bypass. Consider moving SDMH 1A to the indicated position just outside of the detention structure and rerouting the piping as indicated or alternative design that removes CS from public line. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C5
Correction 6:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
The elevations for this project are not matching the citys GIS similar to the portable project. Check all elevations and datum conversions and match what is shown in well established GIS. PublicGIS shows no contours under 60. Puyallup GIS shows contours that are 3 to 4 feet different than what is on the plans. The city only accepts projects in NAVD88
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The City is concerned about the utility separation and slopes in this area. Draw the pipe as 48 inches wide and consider providing sewer infrastructure elevations on plans, Wall appears to touch the manholes - provide final locations and separation. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C5]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sheet C5 says the Rim is at elevation 62. The profile says 63.35. Reconcile. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C10]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Inspection verification of pond capacity shall be performed to verify original capacity is available. Should maintenance be required it shall be done as part of this project. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 10/197]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The City of Puyallup does not provide power utility. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 10/197]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix text overlap. Provide elevations for sewer installation. [CIVIL PLANS,Sheet C12]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Section cut indicator line found on C7 and C8, remove labels from this sheet. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C12]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This is shown incorrectly. CB #107 and these 10 inch pipes are south of the detention structure. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C9]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Indicate on plans where sampling connection shall be located. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C14]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Cannot 'splash' water across pedestrian path. Roof run off routing not shown on plans. Provide compliant drainage path. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 16/197]
Correction 16:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Ecology defines sports fields (artificail and natural) as Pollution Generating Pervious Surface. However the underdrain collection and subsequent detention of the field run off makes this system an impervious surface. Provide details that this specific type of installation is not pollution generating or details of how the project will acheive basic water quality standards for the collected field run off.
Fire Review
Approved
06/12/2025
06/09/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Approved
06/12/2025
06/05/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
06/12/2025
06/04/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
06/12/2025
06/04/2025
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
06/12/2025
06/02/2025
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
06/12/2025
05/29/2025
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
01/03/2025
01/23/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This pipe should not connect new interceptor loop to existing drainage and should probably be removed. All drainage that enters the new interceptor loop shall be conveyed through proposed detention structure in north end zone. Old interceptor loop should be called out and there should be direction, i.e. abandon in place or remove. It is difficult to tell where the existing pipes and CBs are. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet L3.0]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This sheet is showing the old drainage design. Update this and all sheets to the newest design layers. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet L7.0]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Will concrete curbing be replaced? Instructions to contractor not found. Correction response says see LA, but concrete work should be on the civil plans. Call out restoration and include applicable details and notes. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C12]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show YDs on profile. IEs of 10" PVC pipes are the same as max water surface in tank. Clarify YD locations and inlet configuration. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C5]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is the IE 18" on a 12" pipe? [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C5]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CSWPPP and other documents still say 4500 cut and 4500 fill. Reconcile cut and fill numbers throughout. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C2]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
#s 3, 7, 8, and 9 not used. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C1]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show alarm panel location. See #s 3 and 4 of City Standard Detail 04.05.03. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C12]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Should this be a solid lid to keep sand out of it? What surface flows are going into this YD? [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C6]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
There are 2 CBs labeled as #105 and another one with no label or info. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C6]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Are these CBs part of the design? If so, they require labels. If not is pipe required in this area? [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C5]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Landscape plans show 3 gate valves here. Clarify number and location of valves and make consistent across plans and in Engineering Cost Breakdown Fee Calculation. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C12]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove extraneous, incorrect north arrow.[STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 14/204]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Detention structure is 145 x 38 feet=5510 sq ft. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 38/204]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify this dimension. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 38/204]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Should device number 3 have a higher elevation than device number 2? 21.67? [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 39/204]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill out when known. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 47/204]
Correction 18:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include the 84" Type 2 storm sewer manholes.
Correction 19:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Plans show 1342 lineal feet of 10" storm pipe. If the price is different than the 12" put it on a miscellaneous line with the correct price and quantity.
Correction 20:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include the approximately 180 feet of 48" storm pipe.
Correction 21:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Plans show at least 9 Type 1 catch basins.
Correction 22:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include RPBA in estimate.
Correction 23:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Plans say 385 lineal feet of 2" pressure line. The number in the estimate (543) is more accurate. Revise the label on Sheet C12 or clarify.
Correction 24:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Some notes were cut off in the pdf of the estimate. If an item does not fit into a pre-populated line then put it on a MISC ITEMS line and provide a reasonable unit price.
Correction 25:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
IMPORTANT COMMENT ABOUT THE STORM BYPASS AND PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: In and around existing manhole #31 there is a large amount of inflow and infiltration (I&I). We note that if the effluent pipe from the detention structure were directly routed to this existing manhole that the project, if able to retain and rehab the existing MH#31, may be able to purchase and install up to two less 84 inch manholes through connecting the detention structure directly to MH#31 and then connect MH#31 directly to proposed SDMH2A. This would require rehab of MH#31 and the remaing pipes and the penetrations into the manhole causing the I&I. The grout will require rehab and lining may be necessary. This seems like it would be preferable to the proposed purchase and installation of four 84 inch manholes (versus 2).
The pump that is downstream of this bypass system is old and at times overwhelmed by the amount of run-off directed to it. Patching up the I&I problems in the existing system as we add new components will go a long way toward relieving pressure on the system and create a win-win situation.
In addition, the existing 20 foot easement for this storm bypass line will need to be adjusted around the new alignment and recorded. Our current standards require a 40 foot wide easement for access to public utilities. Considering the site restrictions (existing and proposed) and the potential to work together to reroute this portion of the storm bypass, we would be very likely to approve the realigned easement at the current width of 20 feet. The new proposed easement alignment shall be shown on the next submittal.
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill in estimated cut and fill totals [Civil Drawings, Sheet C1]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Indicate location for construction entrance or method of track out control. If temporary construction entrance is not to be used then remove City Standard Detail 05.01.01 [Civil Drawings, Sheet C1]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise leader layers [Civil Drawing, Sheet C2]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Number the City Standard Details to correspond with reference bubbles [Civil Drawing, Sheet C3]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Where are walls relocated from? Provide details. If walls are over 4 feet in height a Building Permit must be applied for structural review [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix text overlap. Bubble not filled. City requests more information about rubberized CB lids. These are not in our standards [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show new outlet to pond. Protect from erosion with rock lining, rip-rap, or bio-stabilization [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Are these storm pipes? Revise line type [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove leader or clarify [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill reference bubble or remove [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify where and how storm lines terminate [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is roof drainage attached to storm system? Show details of roof leaders and connection to drainage system. [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide this report. Staff cannot locate it in the 2008 files. [Drainage Report, Page 1]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix leader. [Drainage Report, Page 10]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Cite source for this credit. [Drainage Report, Page 25]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Plans say max water surface for end zone is 61.19. Clarify or revise [Drainage report, MGS Project Report, Page 3]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Control structure should be in private structure and not along the bypass. Consider moving SDMH 1A to the indicated position just outside of the detention structure and rerouting the piping as indicated or alternative design that removes CS from public line. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C5
Correction 43:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
The elevations for this project are not matching the citys GIS similar to the portable project. Check all elevations and datum conversions and match what is shown in well established GIS. PublicGIS shows no contours under 60. Puyallup GIS shows contours that are 3 to 4 feet different than what is on the plans. The city only accepts projects in NAVD88
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The City is concerned about the utility separation and slopes in this area. Draw the pipe as 48 inches wide and consider providing sewer infrastructure elevations on plans, Wall appears to touch the manholes - provide final locations and separation. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C5]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sheet C5 says the Rim is at elevation 62. The profile says 63.35. Reconcile. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C10]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Inspection verification of pond capacity shall be performed to verify original capacity is available. Should maintenance be required it shall be done as part of this project. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 10/197]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The City of Puyallup does not provide power utility. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 10/197]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix text overlap. Provide elevations for sewer installation. [CIVIL PLANS,Sheet C12]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Section cut indicator line found on C7 and C8, remove labels from this sheet. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C12]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This is shown incorrectly. CB #107 and these 10 inch pipes are south of the detention structure. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C9]
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Indicate on plans where sampling connection shall be located. [CIVIL PLANS, Sheet C14]
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Cannot 'splash' water across pedestrian path. Roof run off routing not shown on plans. Provide compliant drainage path. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 16/197]
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
01/03/2025
12/27/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
01/03/2025
12/27/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
01/03/2025
12/19/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Currently, 25th St SE restricts on-street parking on both sides. Please verify on-site parking (via 21st Street SE) will be open/available to the public during sporting events. It's important that visitors to this facility are not parking illegally along 25th Street SE. Include on-site signage (near 25th St SE) that directs visitors to on-site parking lot from 21st Street SE.
Public Works Water Review
Approved
01/03/2025
12/18/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil Resub Sheet C12: Call out and show 2-inch gate valve at water main tap location.
Fire Review
Approved
01/03/2025
12/10/2024
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
01/03/2025
12/10/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide documentation that the project lighting will comply with all mitigation measures in the March 24, 2009 SEPA MDNS regarding lighting operation, glare/spill and height limitations. Provide a letter from designer or architect itemizing compliance for each condition. Also confirm all outdoor activities will end by 10pm per SEPA mitigation for Noise/Environmental Health - this will require a letter from the school administration.
DECEMBER 2023 UPDATE: Please provide confirmation letter from the school. Provide photo metric details on this permit or future submittal associated with the lighting.
Correction 2:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Plan sheets regarding lighting fixtures state poles will be 80' in height. Per previous SEPA, poles are limited to 70'. Please revise. Also, the lighting poles cannot be permitted under a civil permit - where is the building permit submittal? Is there a permit or details for the scoreboard system?
DECEMBER 2023 UPDATE: Applicant references permit PRCA20220482 as where the pole and score board permit details are located; PRCA20220482 is a permit for the greenhouse building at Step-by-Step. Please revise response.
Correction 3:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Perimeter landscaping shall meet PMC 20.26.500 code for understory shrubs and trees (size, on center placement, etc.), along with an opaque fence. Please revise sheet L6.0 to add plant materials and fencing.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PMC 20.26.500 requires a "wood opaque fence". Please revise. [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PMC 20.26.500 requires a "wood opaque fence". Please revise. [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is this a new storm drain near existing trees?
Please address with arborist assessment of existing vegetation along perimeter areas and provide tree protection plan. [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PMC 20.26.500 requires three gallon evergreen shrub species only. Adjust shrub mix to provide additional evergreen plant materials. RFC is a deciduous native and does not meet code requirements [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Storm pond is not landscaped in accordance with city standards. This appears to be a temp sedimentation pond and there appears to be an addition of a swale on the S SW corner; restoration of this disturbed and modified areas must meet design standard SLD-02 in the city's Vegetation Management Standards manual. Please revised landscape sheets to provide plant material [landscape sheets L6.0}
Engineering Traffic Review
Failed
01/02/2024
01/03/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Per the CUP & SEPA conditions, pedestrian improvements were required on 25th St SE (raised pedestrian crossing with actuated flashing beacon). Please show these improvements with your next submittal.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Currently, 25th St SE restricts on-street parking on both sides. Please verify on-site parking (via 21st Street SE) will be open/available to the public during sporting events. It's important that visitors to this facility are not parking illegally along 25th Street SE. Include on-site signage (near 25th St SE) that directs visitors to on-site parking lot from 21st Street SE.
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
01/02/2024
01/03/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The existing 48-inch stormwater pipe, pertinent structures and recorded easement (9611260290) is not shown. It appears as if it may be mis-marked with this water main. It extends from 25th St SE through the parcel to 21st St SE. [CCS-TF Civil-Drawing-Combined; Sheet L2.0]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Buried Type II CB verified by CoP TV inspection. [CCS-TF Civil-Drawing-Combined; Sheet L2.0]
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
01/02/2024
12/29/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include SWPPP and other reports listed as Appendices in the final drainage report. Combine as one document.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide this report. Staff cannot locate it in the 2008 files. [Drainage Report, Page 1]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix leader. [Drainage Report, Page 10]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Cite source for this credit. [Drainage Report, Page 25]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Plans say max water surface for end zone is 61.19. Clarify or revise [Drainage report, MGS Project Report, Page 3]
Correction 6:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include City of Puyallup Sewer Standard Notes on plans.
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill in estimated cut and fill totals [Civil Drawings, Sheet C1]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Indicate location for construction entrance or method of track out control. If temporary construction entrance is not to be used then remove City Standard Detail 05.01.01 [Civil Drawings, Sheet C1]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise leader layers [Civil Drawing, Sheet C2]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Number the City Standard Details to correspond with reference bubbles [Civil Drawing, Sheet C3]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Where are walls relocated from? Provide details. If walls are over 4 feet in height a Building Permit must be applied for structural review [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix text overlap. Bubble not filled. City requests more information about rubberized CB lids. These are not in our standards [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show new outlet to pond. Protect from erosion with rock lining, rip-rap, or bio-stabilization [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Are these storm pipes? Revise line type [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove leader or clarify [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill reference bubble or remove [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify where and how storm lines terminate [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify where this is in the design [Civil Drawings, Sheet C7]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix text overlap and cut off notes [Civil Drawings, Sheet C9]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Check clearances where storm crosses sewer (typ).12 inch min above and 18 inch min below [Civil Drawings, Sheet C9]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify existence of this water line. Operations believes this is actually a large storm pipe [Civil Drawings, Sheet C9]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Grinder Pump shall be Model #2010. Revise or justify. See City Detail 04.05.06 [Civil Drawings, Sheet C10]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is roof drainage attached to storm system? Show details of roof leaders and connection to drainage system. [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Standard Detail 02.01.08 - Flow Control Manhole Notes. [Civil Drawings, Sheet C6]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This pipe should not connect new interceptor loop to existing drainage and should probably be removed. All drainage that enters the new interceptor loop shall be conveyed through proposed detention structure in north end zone. Old interceptor loop should be called out and there should be direction, i.e. abandon in place or remove. It is difficult to tell where the existing pipes and CBs are. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet L3.0]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This sheet is showing the old drainage design. Update this and all sheets to the newest design layers. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet L7.0]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Will concrete curbing be replaced? Instructions to contractor not found. What is the proposed material in between the new track and the new field where the catch basins will be placed? [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C2]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show YDs on profile. IEs of 10" PVC pipes are the same as max water surface in tank. Clarify YD locations and inlet configuration. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C5]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is the IE 18" on a 12" pipe? [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C5]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CSWPPP and other documents still say 4500 cut and 4500 fill. Reconcile cut and fill numbers throughout. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C2]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
#s 3, 7, 8, and 9 not used. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C1]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show alarm panel location. See #s 3 and 4 of City Standard Detail 04.05.03. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C12]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Should this be a solid lid to keep sand out of it? What surface flows are going into this YD? [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C6]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
There are 2 CBs labeled as #105 and another one with no label or info. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C6]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Are these CBs part of the design? If so, they require labels. If not is pipe required in this area? [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C5]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Landscape plans show 3 gate valves here. Clarify number and location of valves and make consistent across plans and in Engineering Cost Breakdown Fee Calculation. [CIVIL PLANS - RESUB, Sheet C12]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove extraneous north arrow.[STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT, Page 14/204]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Detention structure is 145 x 38 feet=5510 sq ft. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 38/204]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify this dimension. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 38/204]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Should device number 3 have a higher elevation than device number 2? 21.67? [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 39/204]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill out when known. [STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT - RESUB, Page 47/204]
Correction 42:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include the 84" Type 2 storm sewer manholes.
Correction 43:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Plans show 1342 lineal feet of 10" storm pipe. If the price is different than the 12" put it on a miscellaneous line with the correct price and quantity.
Correction 44:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include the approximately 180 feet of 48" storm pipe.
Correction 45:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Plans show at least 9 Type 1 catch basins.
Correction 46:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Include RPBA in estimate.
Correction 47:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Plans say 385 lineal feet of 2" pressure line. The number in the estimate (543) is more accurate. Revise the label on Sheet C12 or clarify.
Correction 48:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN FEE CALCULATION - Some notes were cut off in the pdf of the estimate. If an item does not fit into a pre-populated line then put it on a MISC ITEMS line and provide a reasonable unit price.
Correction 49:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
IMPORTANT COMMENT ABOUT THE STORM BYPASS AND PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: In and around existing manhole #31 there is a large amount of inflow and infiltration (I&I). We note that if the effluent pipe from the detention structure were directly routed to this existing manhole that the project, if able to retain and rehab the existing MH#31, may be able to purchase and install up to two less 84 inch manholes through connecting the detention structure directly to MH#31 and then connect MH#31 directly to proposed SDMH2A. This would require rehab of MH#31 and the remaing pipes and the penetrations into the manhole causing the I&I. The grout will require rehab and lining may be necessary. This seems like it would be preferable to the proposed purchase and installation of four 84 inch manholes (versus 2).
The pump that is downstream of this bypass system is old and at times overwhelmed by the amount of run-off directed to it. Patching up the I&I problems in the existing system as we add new components will go a long way toward relieving pressure on the system and create a win-win situation.
In addition, the existing 20 foot easement for this storm bypass line will need to be adjusted around the new alignment and recorded. Our current standards require a 40 foot wide easement for access to public utilities. Considering the site restrictions (existing and proposed) and the potential to work together to reroute this portion of the storm bypass, we would be very likely to approve the realigned easement at the current width of 20 feet. The new proposed easement alignment shall be shown on the next submittal.
Planning Review
Failed
01/02/2024
12/29/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide documentation that the project lighting will comply with all mitigation measures in the March 24, 2009 SEPA MDNS regarding lighting operation, glare/spill and height limitations. Provide a letter from designer or architect itemizing compliance for each condition. Also confirm all outdoor activities will end by 10pm per SEPA mitigation for Noise/Environmental Health - this will require a letter from the school administration.
DECEMBER 2023 UPDATE: Please provide confirmation letter from the school. Provide photo metric details on this permit or future submittal associated with the lighting.
Correction 2:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Prior to approval, the applicant shall (per 02/08/22 email from Katie Baker): "Cascade Christian Schools send a letter to property owners adjacent to and across the street from the school property. The purpose of this letter is to let them know that the CUP will expire as of March 31, 2022, and any additions after this current permit cycle will required a new CUP. The letter should also include a description of the projects anticipated in this final permit cycle – including the addition to the gym/junior high building, field improvements and lighting, and addition to the administrative building."
DECEMBER 2023 UPDATE: Thank you for acknowledging this will be completed; please coordinate with city staff prior to mailing out notice and provide confirmation once sent out.
Correction 3:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Plan sheets regarding lighting fixtures state poles will be 80' in height. Per previous SEPA, poles are limited to 70'. Please revise. Also, the lighting poles cannot be permitted under a civil permit - where is the building permit submittal? Is there a permit or details for the scoreboard system?
DECEMBER 2023 UPDATE: Applicant references permit PRCA20220482 as where the pole and score board permit details are located; PRCA20220482 is a permit for the greenhouse building at Step-by-Step. Please revise response.
Correction 4:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Perimeter landscaping shall meet PMC 20.26.500 code for understory shrubs and trees (size, on center placement, etc.), along with an opaque fence. Please revise sheet L6.0 to add plant materials and fencing.
Correction 5:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please provide street improvement plans to 25th Street SE meet the SEPA conditions for P-08-0016. See conditions 2. (A - H) in the March 24, 2009 SEPA MDNS.
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
New track area encroaching into 30' buffer. Provide documentation of CUP and/or variance allowing a reduced landscape buffer [landscape sheets, L4.0]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
New track area encroaching into 30' buffer. Provide documentation of CUP and/or variance allowing a reduced landscape buffer [landscape sheets, L4.0]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All perimeter buffers need to be 30' unless other wise provided on CUP or variance approvals previously [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PMC 20.26.500 requires a "wood opaque fence". Please revise. [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PMC 20.26.500 requires a "wood opaque fence". Please revise. [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is this a new storm drain near existing trees?
Please address with arborist assessment of existing vegetation along perimeter areas and provide tree protection plan. [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PMC 20.26.500 requires three gallon evergreen shrub species only. Adjust shrub mix to provide additional evergreen plant materials. RFC is a deciduous native and does not meet code requirements [landscape sheets, L6.0]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Storm pond is not landscaped in accordance with city standards. This appears to be a temp sedimentation pond and there appears to be an addition of a swale on the S SW corner; restoration of this disturbed and modified areas must meet design standard SLD-02 in the city's Vegetation Management Standards manual. Please revised landscape sheets to provide plant material [landscape sheets L6.0}
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
01/02/2024
12/29/2023
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Failed
01/02/2024
12/27/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C9: This is new construction. No wet taps needed. Looking at what is drawn, install 1 - 10" x 4" Fl tee, 2 - 10" GVs Fl x MJ, 1 - 4" Flange with 2" threaded outlet, 1 - 2" x 4" brass nipple, 1 - 2" threaded GV.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C9: Normally water service meters should be placed in City ROW, but since all other water services for this parcel are on private property this will be allowed. Please note that this water service is private and is property owners responsibility to maintain. The only thing owned by the City is the water meter and radio sending unit (MXU), which is purchased and installed by the contractor. Install an above ground RPBA 3-feet behind the proposed meter. If irrigation will also be used through this water service, create a irrigation tee between the meter and RPBA and protect that tee with a DCVA.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C11: Remove this City Standard detail. It is not needed for this project.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C11: Add City Standard details 03.04.01 and 03.04.02 to this plan set.
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil Resub Sheet C12: Call out and show 2-inch gate valve at water main tap location.
Fire Review
Approved
01/02/2024
12/06/2023
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Failed
05/16/2022
05/26/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C9: This is new construction. No wet taps needed. Looking at what is drawn, install 1 - 10" x 4" Fl tee, 2 - 10" GVs Fl x MJ, 1 - 4" Flange with 2" threaded outlet, 1 - 2" x 4" brass nipple, 1 - 2" threaded GV.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C9: Normally water service meters should be placed in City ROW, but since all other water services for this parcel are on private property this will be allowed. Please note that this water service is private and is property owners responsibility to maintain. The only thing owned by the City is the water meter and radio sending unit (MXU), which is purchased and installed by the contractor. Install an above ground RPBA 3-feet behind the proposed meter. If irrigation will also be used through this water service, create a irrigation tee between the meter and RPBA and protect that tee with a DCVA.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C11: Remove this City Standard detail. It is not needed for this project.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CCS-TF Civil-Drawing Sheet C11: Add City Standard details 03.04.01 and 03.04.02 to this plan set.
Engineering Traffic Review
Failed
05/16/2022
05/25/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Per the CUP & SEPA conditions, pedestrian improvements were required on 25th St SE (raised pedestrian crossing with actuated flashing beacon). Please show these improvements with your next submittal.
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
05/16/2022
05/23/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include SWPPP and other reports listed as Appendices in the final drainage report. Combine as one document.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide this report. Staff cannot locate it in the 2008 files. [Drainage Report, Page 1]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix leader. [Drainage Report, Page 10]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Cite source for this credit. [Drainage Report, Page 25]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Plans say max water surface for end zone is 61.19. Clarify or revise [Drainage report, MGS Project Report, Page 3]
Correction 6:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include City of Puyallup Sewer Standard Notes on plans.
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill in estimated cut and fill totals [Civil Drawings, Sheet C1]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Indicate location for construction entrance or method of track out control. If temporary construction entrance is not to be used then remove City Standard Detail 05.01.01 [Civil Drawings, Sheet C1]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise leader layers [Civil Drawing, Sheet C2]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Number the City Standard Details to correspond with reference bubbles [Civil Drawing, Sheet C3]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Where are walls relocated from? Provide details. If walls are over 4 feet in height a Building Permit must be applied for structural review [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix text overlap. Bubble not filled. City requests more information about rubberized CB lids. These are not in our standards [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show new outlet to pond. Protect from erosion with rock lining, rip-rap, or bio-stabilization [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Are these storm pipes? Revise line type [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove leader or clarify [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fill reference bubble or remove [Civil Drawing, Sheet C5
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify where and how storm lines terminate [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify where this is in the design [Civil Drawings, Sheet C7]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fix text overlap and cut off notes [Civil Drawings, Sheet C9]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Check clearances where storm crosses sewer (typ).12 inch min above and 18 inch min below [Civil Drawings, Sheet C9]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify existence of this water line. Operations believes this is actually a large storm pipe [Civil Drawings, Sheet C9]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Grinder Pump shall be Model #2010. Revise or justify. See City Detail 04.05.06 [Civil Drawings, Sheet C10]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is roof drainage attached to storm system? Show details of roof leaders and connection to drainage system. [Civil Drawings, Sheet C5]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Standard Detail 02.01.08 - Flow Control Manhole Notes. [Civil Drawings, Sheet C6]
Public Works Collection Review
Failed
05/16/2022
05/23/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The existing 48-inch stormwater pipe, pertinent structures and recorded easement (9611260290) is not shown. It appears as if it may be mis-marked with this water main. It extends from 25th St SE through the parcel to 21st St SE. [CCS-TF Civil-Drawing-Combined; Sheet L2.0]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Buried Type II CB verified by CoP TV inspection. [CCS-TF Civil-Drawing-Combined; Sheet L2.0]
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
05/16/2022
05/17/2022
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
05/16/2022
05/17/2022
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Failed
05/16/2022
05/16/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide documentation that the project lighting will comply with all mitigation measures in the March 24, 2009 SEPA MDNS regarding lighting operation, glare/spill and height limitations. Provide a letter from designer or architect itemizing compliance for each condition. Also confirm all outdoor activities will end by 10pm per SEPA mitigation for Noise/Environmental Health - this will require a letter from the school administration.
Correction 2:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Prior to approval, the applicant shall (per 02/08/22 email from Katie Baker): "Cascade Christian Schools send a letter to property owners adjacent to and across the street from the school property. The purpose of this letter is to let them know that the CUP will expire as of March 31, 2022, and any additions after this current permit cycle will required a new CUP. The letter should also include a description of the projects anticipated in this final permit cycle – including the addition to the gym/junior high building, field improvements and lighting, and addition to the administrative building."
Correction 3:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Plan sheets regarding lighting fixtures state poles will be 80' in height. Per previous SEPA, poles are limited to 70'. Please revise. Also, the lighting poles cannot be permitted under a civil permit - where is the building permit submittal? Is there a permit or details for the scoreboard system?
Correction 4:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Perimeter landscaping shall meet PMC 20.26.500 code for understory shrubs and trees (size, on center placement, etc.), along with an opaque fence. Please revise sheet L6.0 to add plant materials and fencing.
Correction 5:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please provide street improvement plans to 25th Street SE meet the SEPA conditions for P-08-0016. See conditions 2. (A - H) in the March 24, 2009 SEPA MDNS.
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
New track area encroaching into 30' buffer. Provide documentation of CUP and/or variance allowing a reduced landscape buffer [landscape sheets, L4.0]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
New track area encroaching into 30' buffer. Provide documentation of CUP and/or variance allowing a reduced landscape buffer [landscape sheets, L4.0]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All perimeter buffers need to be 30' unless other wise provided on CUP or variance approvals previously [landscape sheets, L6.0]