Review Type
Outcome
Est. Completion Date
Completed
Engineering Civil Review
Approved
09/26/2024
10/04/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide MR9 information.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 281]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing and groundwater monitoring in accordance with City Standards and the criteria outlined in the previous DRT letters. (Wet season Small Scale PIT tests and wet season high groundwater elevation). Testing shall occur at the location and bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration facility.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 239]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
In an effort to keeping the civil application moving forward, and as a condition of final permit approval, the City is willing to use the Code mandated stormwater performance bond and tie the completion of the wet season testing to Final Approval of the Building Permit(s). The applicant shall either 1) acknowledge acceptance of this condition; or 2) provide the wet season testing prior to civil permit issuance.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 239]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 239]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Although this infiltration pond is relatively small, please address the concern/need for a pretreatment BMP to prevent clogging of the pond. Reference Ecology V-5.3 and III-1.2.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 239]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 239]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 239]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 194 of 239]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 196 of 239]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide a note to upgrade the pad footing(s) per Structural Plans, Detail 17/S3.0 if the existing footing crosses the watermain.
[Plans; Sheet C9 of 21]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Confirm that existing storm main is not to be relocated considering the weight of the generator and the associated surcharge loading imposed on the retaining wall footing.
[Plans; Sheet C9 of 21]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C9.
[Plans; Sheet C10 of 21]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The City does not have these geotechnical reports as part of the civil application. Please provide for review.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 21]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C13.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match IE per standards.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide spill control device per City Standard 204.9 or confirm there is an existing spill control device on the system downstream of this location.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing and groundwater monitoring in accordance with City Standards and the criteria outlined in the previous DRT letters. (Wet season Small Scale PIT tests and wet season high groundwater elevation). Testing shall occur at the location and bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration facility.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match IE per standards.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide minimum cover per standards.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide 15ft min. access width to the pond bottom.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Pipe end has potential for damage due to location at end of access road and equipment haul-in/haul-out.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment in Storm Report, Pg 11of 239 regarding pretreatment.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation that there is adequate turnaround for the typical maintenance vehicle(s) to be used to maintain the pond.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C9.
[Plans; Sheet C19 of 21]
Public Works Water Review
VOID
09/26/2024
09/19/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
09/26/2024
09/19/2024
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
09/26/2024
09/19/2024
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
09/26/2024
09/16/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
09/26/2024
09/05/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
09/26/2024
09/04/2024
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
08/12/2024
08/15/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, dated December 2020, identifies wetlands and associated wetland buffers located on the subject property. Wetland F, category IV wetland with no wetland buffer, is located near the proposed trenching. The site plan shall denote Wetland F. If the trenching goes through Wetland F, the trench shall be relocated outside of the wetland or be subject to Department of Ecology 401 permits and mitigation requirements.
Update 5/28/2024: The revised site plans do not show Wetland F.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
As noted by civil engineer comment, the concomitant agreement requires a 75- natural landscape buffer. City code allows stormwater ponds within required natural landscape buffers if compliant with Vegetation Management Standard SLD-02. As such, a landscape plan is required. The project is still subject to civil engineering comments regarding the 20-foot setback for detention ponds.
Comment Update 5/28/2024: Landscape Plan showing compliance with VMW SLD-02 is required prior to planning approving the permit.
Correction 3:
Final Landscape Plan - Submittal item Required
Comments:
Final landscape plan has not been submitted with this application. A landscape plan WITH UTILITY OVERLAY is required at this time. Please read the landscape plan submittal requirements document available on the City webpage for a list of required items to include in a final landscape plan: www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/13103
Comment Update 5/28/2024: Planning is unable to approve the civil construction permit without final landscape plans compliant with City standard.
Comment Update: 8/2/2024: Landscape plan has been submitted.
Correction 4:
Final Landscape Plan - Stormwater Facilities
Comments:
Storm water facilities, including bioretention areas, swales, and raingardens, shall be landscaped in accordance with SLD-02, contained in the Vegetation Management Standards Manual (VMS).
Correction 5:
Final Landscape Plan - Entire site landscaping
Comments:
All portions of a lot not devoted to building, future building, parking, access drives, walks, storage or accessory uses shall be landscaped with trees and shrub cover. Regarding the proposed project, only those areas within the clearing and grading limits and are disturbed will need landscaping.
Correction 6:
Final Landscape Plan - Details
Comments:
Add required landscape details to plan: Detail 01.02.08a, 01.02.07, 01.02.03, 01.02.05, 01.02.06, 01.02.08.
Correction 7:
Final Landscape Plan - Mulch Req.
Comments:
Add the following note to the civil plans, "All planting areas shall be mulched with a uniform four (4”) inch layer of organic compost mulch material or wood chips over a properly cleaned, amended and graded subsurface."
Correction 8:
Final Landscape Plan - Native Plants
Comments:
A minimum of 25 percent of the shrubs and ground covers used in projects under the requirements of the PMC and the VMS shall be native to the Puget Sound region. Please call out natives on the plant schedule for easy identification.
Correction 9:
Final Landscape Plan - Plant Quantities
Comments:
Please spec the total quantity of plants and on-center spacing for all landscape areas.
Correction 10:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req.
Comments:
Add the following note to the landscape plan, “A minimum of eight (8) inches of top soil, containing ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches (8”) except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 6 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. Installation of the eight inches (8”) of top soil, as described above, shall generally be achieved by placing five inches (5”) of imported sandy-loam top soil into planned landscape areas (sub-base scarified four inches (4”)) with a three-inch (3”) layer of compost tilled into the entire depth.”
Correction 11:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req. Cubic Yards
Comments:
Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the 8 inch minimum soil standard for all landscaped areas in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection.
Correction 12:
Final Landscape Plan - Tree protection plan
Comments:
Existing trees to be retained must be clearly marked on the final clearing and grading plan, and final landscape plan. Tree protection fencing and signage shall follow the city standard detail, see appendix 20.5. Standard detail shall be included on all plan sets with vegetation which is scheduled for retention and protection. All critical root protection zones (CRPZ) shall be shown on plan sets in diameter from the center of the tree. In determining tree CRPZ, the following standards shall be used.In establishing the extent of the Critical Root Protection Zone (CRPZ) for individual significant trees, groupings of significant trees, a stand of significant trees, or a heritage tree the following formula shall be used: Individual tree diameter (in inches) X 2, converted into feet = CRPZ, in diameter (Example: 20” tree X 2 = 40’ CRPZ diameter). The following minimum performance standards shall be used to determine the extent of allowable impacts to the CRPZ of significant trees: For significant trees, a minimum of 50 percent of the critical root zone must be preserved at natural grade, with natural ground cover. The protection zone may be irregular. The plan set shall provide a total square footage of CRPZ area and show the % of disturbance area. For heritage trees, a minimum of 75 percent of the critical root zone must be preserved at natural grade with natural ground cover. The protection zone may be irregular. The plan set shall provide a total square footage of CRPZ area and show the % of disturbance area. No cut or fill greater than four (4) inches in depth may be located closer to the tree trunk than ½ the CRPZ radius distance. (Example, 20-inch DBH tree has a 40’ CRPZ area (in diameter) - meaning no cut or fill greater than 4” in depth is allowed within 20’ of the tree trunk). No cut or fill within the distance from the tree which is three (3) times the trunk DBH is allowed. (Example, 20-inch DBH tree X 3 = 60”, meaning no cut is allowed within 60-inches of a tree which has a 20-inch diameter trunk). These criteria represent minimum standards for determining whether or not a tree may be required to be retained. Greater impacts may be allowed, provided that all design alternatives have been proven unfeasible and that a pre-conditioning and after care mitigation program is established. See section 10.1 of the VMS, and referenced appendices for more information.
Correction 13:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Permanent critical area markers are required to be installed every 50 ft around the boundary of critical area buffers for the following critical areas; wetlands, streams, landslide hazard areas. See City buffer posting details at www.cityofpuyallup.org/1591/Master-Document-List. The City will provide the buffer posting signs at no cost. Applicant is responsible for cost of post and all other materials for installation. Contact the Planning Division to order signs at Planning@puyallupwa.gov.
Signs will be required around Wetland D, E, and F. The fencing locations shall be provided on the landscape plan.
Comment Update 8/2/2024: No critical area markers provided around Wetland D, E, and F. Revise landscape plans to show marker locations around the wetlands every 50-feet.
Correction 14:
Landscaping Req.: General (VMS)
Comments:
Landscaping Requirements: PMC 20.58 outlines landscaping requirements. All portions of a lot not devoted to building, future building, parking, access drives, walks, storage or accessory uses shall be landscaped in a manner consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The City also has a companion design manual – the Vegetation Management Standards (VMS) manual – found here: www.cityofpuyallup.org/puyallupvms. Please consult both the code landscape code section and the VMS for a full list of landscape requirements.
Correction 15:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Shrub Size
Comments:
All shrubs required shall be no smaller than two (2) gallon in size at the time of planting
Correction 16:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Coniferous Tree Size
Comments:
Coniferous evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 5 to 6 feet in height.
Correction 17:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Deciduous Tree Size
Comments:
All deciduous trees shall be at least one (1”) inch in caliper, preferably 1.5” or larger, and branched with a strong, central single leader.
Correction 18:
Final Landscape Plan - Tree and utility conflicts
Comments:
To avoid conflicts between underground and overhead utilities and trees as the grow and mature, please review the VMS tree installation standards table for required distances from various utilities and improvements.
Public Works Streets Review
Approved
08/12/2024
08/08/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Approved
08/12/2024
08/02/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil Resub Sheet C19: The existing fire line to be relocated is 12-inch ductile iron not 6-inch as called out.
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
08/12/2024
08/01/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing at the location of the proposed facilities to ensure feasibility/infeasibility of implementing MR5. (NOTE: Based on the size of the project, it may be possible to meet the LID Performance Std using detention and avoid the groundwater monitoring and testing requirements.)
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 281]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-If not meeting the LID Performance Standard, then MR5 List BMPs also apply and must be supported by up-to-date hydraulic conductivity monitoring and testing to verify feasibility. Testing to occur at the location of the BMP facilities.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 281]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide MR9 information.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 281]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments in Section 2.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 281]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 281]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Revise for retaining wall side. Ensure the WWHM input accounts for the retaining wall being constructed on the longitudinal side of the detention facility.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 281]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments in Section 2.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 281]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Update reference callout.
[Storm Report; Pg 92 of 281]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Execute and record a separate Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement (using the City's form) for this scope of work, or add these stormwater facilities to the agreement for the recent parking expansion (Permit E-21-0313) and/or an agreement for the overall site.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 21]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide stamped letter that the existing watermain will not be negatively impacted by the proposed Cooler foundation loads (gravity and seismic).
[Plans; Sheet C9 of 21]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Either daylight the retaining wall footing drain at a location away from stormwater inlets or provide seasonal high groundwater information adjacent to the retaining walls to ensure groundwater is not being conveyed to the detention facility.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 21]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The provided geotech report indicates groundwater approximately 3.5ft below the surface near this location. Either daylight the retaining wall footing drain at a location away from stormwater inlets or provide seasonal high groundwater information adjacent to the retaining walls to ensure groundwater is not being conveyed to the detention facility.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout IE for the existing pipe to the west.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout IE for the existing pipes to the east and west.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout riser diameter either on this sheet or Detail 02.01.07/C17.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Stds 205.2, 48.5 min. radius.
[Plans; Sheet C15 of 21]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This elevation only provides 2ft of live storage...revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Puyallup Water Pollution Control Plant by calling 253-841-5511 to apply and obtain a pre-treatment/discharge permit which should include a discharge plan for potential pollutants being discharged to the sanitary sewer.
[Plans; Sht C18 of 21]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout "Existing".
[Plans; Sheet C18 of 21]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C9.
[Plans; Sheet C19 of 21]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing and groundwater monitoring in accordance with City Standards and the criteria outlined in the previous DRT letters. (Wet season Small Scale PIT tests and wet season high groundwater elevation). Testing shall occur at the location and bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration facility.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 239]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
In an effort to keeping the civil application moving forward, and as a condition of final permit approval, the City is willing to use the Code mandated stormwater performance bond and tie the completion of the wet season testing to Final Approval of the Building Permit(s). The applicant shall either 1) acknowledge acceptance of this condition; or 2) provide the wet season testing prior to civil permit issuance.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 239]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 239]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Although this infiltration pond is relatively small, please address the concern/need for a pretreatment BMP to prevent clogging of the pond. Reference Ecology V-5.3 and III-1.2.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 239]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 239]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 239]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 194 of 239]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment on Pg 1 of 239.
[Storm Report; Pg 196 of 239]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide a note to upgrade the pad footing(s) per Structural Plans, Detail 17/S3.0 if the existing footing crosses the watermain.
[Plans; Sheet C9 of 21]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Confirm that existing storm main is not to be relocated considering the weight of the generator and the associated surcharge loading imposed on the retaining wall footing.
[Plans; Sheet C9 of 21]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C9.
[Plans; Sheet C10 of 21]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The City does not have these geotechnical reports as part of the civil application. Please provide for review.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 21]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C13.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match IE per standards.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide spill control device per City Standard 204.9 or confirm there is an existing spill control device on the system downstream of this location.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing and groundwater monitoring in accordance with City Standards and the criteria outlined in the previous DRT letters. (Wet season Small Scale PIT tests and wet season high groundwater elevation). Testing shall occur at the location and bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration facility.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match IE per standards.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide minimum cover per standards.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide 15ft min. access width to the pond bottom.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Pipe end has potential for damage due to location at end of access road and equipment haul-in/haul-out.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment in Storm Report, Pg 11of 239 regarding pretreatment.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation that there is adequate turnaround for the typical maintenance vehicle(s) to be used to maintain the pond.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C9.
[Plans; Sheet C19 of 21]
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
08/12/2024
07/26/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
08/12/2024
07/26/2024
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
08/12/2024
07/16/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
05/29/2024
06/11/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify partial legal description with legal description associated with the recorded BLR.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See City Standards Section 2.1 for Cover Sheet layout...Vicinity Map lower right corner; North Arrow; Site address below Vicinity Map; etc.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Locate approval block adjacent to title block.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add parcel 0419034038.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Project encompasses Lots 1 thru 3...revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-same symbol, but different surface types?
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-does not agree with current parcel boundary.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Wetlands to be Protected".
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-does not agree with current parcel boundary.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show City of Puyallup ROW north of the project parcel.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Based on record drawings, there is an existing storm main and buried structure approximately as shown.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Based on record drawings, these appear to be cleanouts associated with an industrial waste line "Plant Drain" that discharged to sanitary sewer. The record drawings indicate four cleanouts.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Record drawings indicate two sewer lines at this location, a "Plant Drain" and a standard sewer main.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
"Plant Drain" per record drawings.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Record drawings indicate a storm drain approximately as shown.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify existing surface type at location of proposed improvements.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show continuation of the existing watermain.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify existing surface type at location of proposed improvements.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to the 2019 Ecology stormwater manual.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Protect wetland at all times".
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per the Concomitant Agreement, there is a 75ft buffer required around the perimeter of the property. Relocate the proposed detention facility in accordance with City Planning requirements. Excepting more stringent Planning requirements, stormwater regulations require any detention pond to be setback a minimum of 20ft from the emergency overflow elevation to a property line.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing storm drain.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing sewer main.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
"Plant Drain" per record drawings.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout City of Puyallup ROW north of the project parcel .
[Plans; Sht C4 of 18]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to the 2019 Ecology stormwater manual.
[Plans; Sheet C5 of 18]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing storm drain.
[Plans; Sheet C5 of 18]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ok to add catch basin filter sock detail.
[Plans; Sheet C6 of 18]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Confirm-shouldn't this portion of the watermain be located outside of the new cooling tower footprint?
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sheet C3 re existing utilities and existing surface types.
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sheet C3.
[Plans; Sht C8 of 18]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing utility (or proposed rerouted utility) through project area.
[Plans; Sht C8 of 18]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
"Plant Drain" per record drawings.
[Plans; Sheet C8 of 18]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing utilities (or proposed rerouted utilities) through project area.
[Plans; Sht C9 of 18]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
10in min thickness for pond access road per City Stds 205.2.
[Plans; Sheet C10 of 18]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe (from SD9 to pond) per City Stds 204.3(4).
[Plans; Sht C11 of 18]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C11 of 18]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing utility through project area.
[Plans; Sht C11 of 18]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe size.
[Plans; Sht C11 of 18]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe (from SD13 to SD14) per City Stds 204.3(4).
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C12 of 18]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide CB per City Stds 204.8(2).
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide CB per City Stds 204.8(2). (Note: Type 2 req'd based on depth).
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe sizes.
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show limits of the City of Puyallup ROW north of the project parcel.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe (from SD9 to pond) per City Stds 204.3(4).
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide CB per City Stds 204.8(2).
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe sizes.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
VERIFY-Based on available city records, the existence of this storm line cannot be verified. Please provide supporting documentation that to ensure this line is available for connection.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-Based on available city records, the existence of this storm line cannot be verified. Please provide supporting documentation that confirms the pipe alignment, size, and end conditions.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe sizes.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide 15ft min access road per City Stds 205.2.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
10in min thickness per City Stds 205.2.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Stds 205.2, slopes over 8% shall be paved.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Wetlands to be Protected".
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Separate Building Permit Required".
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout radii at access entrance.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout:
-Pond Bottom Area
-Design Water Surface Area
-Required Pond Volume
-Pond Volume Provided.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Indicate the road cross-slope to drain towards site.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe size.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 65:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe size.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 66:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match crowns per City Stds 204.8.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 67:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise-Match crowns at SD16.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 68:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide secondary inlet into the control structure per regulations.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 69:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show retaining wall for clarity.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 70:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide emergency overflow per regulations. Include sizing calcs in the storm report.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 71:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show catchpoint back to existing grade. Also, show property line and maintain a min of 5ft clearance btwn toe and PL.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 72:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout planting req'ts for the pond and cut slope.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 73:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout inlet protection.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 74:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per the Concomitant Agreement, there is a 75ft buffer required around the perimeter of the property. Relocate the proposed detention facility in accordance with City Planning requirements. Excepting more stringent Planning requirements, stormwater regulations require any detention pond to be setback a minimum of 20ft from the emergency overflow elevation to a property line.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 75:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout notch info on Riser Detail.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 18]
Correction 76:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Std Details: 06.01.02 // 06.01.03
[Plans; Sht C15 of 18]
Correction 77:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sht C3 and C7.
[Plans; Sheet C16 of 18]
Correction 78:
See Document Markup
Comments:
VERIFY-based on record drawings, this sewer was the old "Plant Drain" which likely discharged to the abandoned industrial waste line ("Masca Line") between the project site and the City's treatment plant. The Masca Line is abandoned with multiple deficiencies along its route. Confirm that the proposed blowdown connection point is tied into an existing sewer system that is currently in service.
[Plans; Sheet C16 of 18]
Correction 79:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Record drawings indicate two sewer lines at this location, a "Plant Drain" and a standard sewer main. Verify that the existing sewer is in service prior to connection.
[Plans; Sht C16 of 18]
Correction 80:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-what is the quantity and constituents contained in the blowdown waste? Depending on the makeup of the effluent, the Treatment Plant manager may have to approve the discharge prior to permit issuance.
[Plans; Sheet C16 of 18]
Correction 81:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sht C7.
[Plans; Sheet C17 of 18]
Correction 82:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Std Details: 03.01.01 // 03.02.01-2.
[Plans; Sht C18 of 18]
Correction 83:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Std Sewer Notes.
[Plans; Sht C18 of 18]
Correction 84:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The provided 2009 'Geotechnical Infiltration Testing' report is substantially out-of-date (multiple stormwater manual revisions after report date) and does not reflect hydraulical conductivity feasibility at the location of the proposed project. Unless meeting the LID Performance Standard using detention, provide up-to-date hydraulic conductivity feasibility testing in accordance with current regulations and standards.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 278]
Correction 85:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-Project is shown running through three parcels, including APN 0419034038.
[Storm Report; Pg 4 of 278]
Correction 86:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All areas disturbed that are not covered by hard surface must implement BMP T5.13. Revise accordingly.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 278]
Correction 87:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing at the location of the proposed facilities to ensure feasibility/infeasibility of implementing MR5. (NOTE: Based on the size of the project, it may be possible to meet the LID Performance Std using detention and avoid the groundwater monitoring and testing requirements.)
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 278]
Correction 88:
See Document Markup
Comments:
If not meeting the LID Performance Standard, then MR5 List BMPs also apply and must be supported by up-to-date hydraulic conductivity monitoring and testing to verify feasibility. Testing to occur at the location of the BMP facilities.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 278]
Correction 89:
See Document Markup
Comments:
and converted vegetation areas.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 90:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Also need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 91:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This is a reasonable approach, but need to ensure that the converted vegetation areas along the utility trench alignment is less than or equal to 0.06ac. If more than .06ac, include in the post-dev WWHM as pasture.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 92:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Basin Maps.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 93:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Also need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 94:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Also need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 95:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify and quantify the replaced hard surface along the trenchline.
Verify with MR6 PGHS threshold.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 96:
See Document Markup
Comments:
NOTE: For this project, the utility trenching is associated with a larger scope of work and must be accounted for as part of the overall project thresholds, i.e., the trenching is not exempt per Ecology Section 1-3.2..
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 97:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify and quantify the replaced hard surface along the trenchline. Verify with MR6 PGHS threshold.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 98:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and quantify the new hard surface area associated with the pond access.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 99:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 278]
Correction 100:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline. Also, see comments in Section 4 and on the Basin Maps.
[Storm Report; Pg 26 of 278]
Correction 101:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline. Also, see comments in Section 2, Section 4, and on the Basin Maps.
[Storm Report; Pg 27 of 278]
Correction 102:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise for retaining wall side.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 278]
Correction 103:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout notch info on Riser Detail.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 278]
Correction 104:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Pg 26 of 278.
[Storm Report; Pg 44 of 278]
Correction 105:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Pg 27 of 278.
[Storm Report; Pg 45 of 278]
Correction 106:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update reference callout.
[Storm Report; Pg 92 of 278]
Correction 107:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing at the location of the proposed facilities to ensure feasibility/infeasibility of implementing MR5. (NOTE: Based on the size of the project, it may be possible to meet the LID Performance Std using detention and avoid the groundwater monitoring and testing requirements.)
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 281]
Correction 108:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-If not meeting the LID Performance Standard, then MR5 List BMPs also apply and must be supported by up-to-date hydraulic conductivity monitoring and testing to verify feasibility. Testing to occur at the location of the BMP facilities.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 281]
Correction 109:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide MR9 information.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 281]
Correction 110:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments in Section 2.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 281]
Correction 111:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 281]
Correction 112:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Revise for retaining wall side. Ensure the WWHM input accounts for the retaining wall being constructed on the longitudinal side of the detention facility.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 281]
Correction 113:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments in Section 2.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 281]
Correction 114:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Update reference callout.
[Storm Report; Pg 92 of 281]
Correction 115:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Execute and record a separate Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement (using the City's form) for this scope of work, or add these stormwater facilities to the agreement for the recent parking expansion (Permit E-21-0313) and/or an agreement for the overall site.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 21]
Correction 116:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide stamped letter that the existing watermain will not be negatively impacted by the proposed Cooler foundation loads (gravity and seismic).
[Plans; Sheet C9 of 21]
Correction 117:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Either daylight the retaining wall footing drain at a location away from stormwater inlets or provide seasonal high groundwater information adjacent to the retaining walls to ensure groundwater is not being conveyed to the detention facility.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 21]
Correction 118:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The provided geotech report indicates groundwater approximately 3.5ft below the surface near this location. Either daylight the retaining wall footing drain at a location away from stormwater inlets or provide seasonal high groundwater information adjacent to the retaining walls to ensure groundwater is not being conveyed to the detention facility.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 119:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout IE for the existing pipe to the west.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 120:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout IE for the existing pipes to the east and west.
[Plans; Sht C14 of 21]
Correction 121:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout riser diameter either on this sheet or Detail 02.01.07/C17.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 122:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Stds 205.2, 48.5 min. radius.
[Plans; Sheet C15 of 21]
Correction 123:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 124:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This elevation only provides 2ft of live storage...revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 21]
Correction 125:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Puyallup Water Pollution Control Plant by calling 253-841-5511 to apply and obtain a pre-treatment/discharge permit which should include a discharge plan for potential pollutants being discharged to the sanitary sewer.
[Plans; Sht C18 of 21]
Correction 126:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout "Existing".
[Plans; Sheet C18 of 21]
Correction 127:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comment Sheet C9.
[Plans; Sheet C19 of 21]
Public Works Streets Review
Approved
05/29/2024
05/29/2024
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Failed
05/29/2024
05/29/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, dated December 2020, identifies wetlands and associated wetland buffers located on the subject property. Wetland F, category IV wetland with no wetland buffer, is located near the proposed trenching. The site plan shall denote Wetland F. If the trenching goes through Wetland F, the trench shall be relocated outside of the wetland or be subject to Department of Ecology 401 permits and mitigation requirements.
Update 5/28/2024: The revised site plans do not show Wetland F
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
As noted by civil engineer comment, the concomitant agreement requires a 75- natural landscape buffer. City code allows stormwater ponds within required natural landscape buffers if compliant with Vegetation Management Standard SLD-02. As such, a landscape plan is required. The project is still subject to civil engineering comments regarding the 20-foot setback for detention ponds.
Comment Update 5/28/2024: Landscape Plan showing compliance with VMW SLD-02 is required prior to planning approving the permit.
Correction 3:
Final Landscape Plan - Submittal item Required
Comments:
Final landscape plan has not been submitted with this application. A landscape plan WITH UTILITY OVERLAY is required at this time. Please read the landscape plan submittal requirements document available on the City webpage for a list of required items to include in a final landscape plan: www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/13103
Comment Update 5/28/2024: Planning is unable to approve the civil construction permit without final landscape plans compliant with City standard.
Correction 4:
Final Landscape Plan - Stormwater Facilities
Comments:
Storm water facilities, including bioretention areas, swales, and raingardens, shall be landscaped in accordance with SLD-02, contained in the Vegetation Management Standards Manual (VMS).
Correction 5:
Final Landscape Plan - Entire site landscaping
Comments:
All portions of a lot not devoted to building, future building, parking, access drives, walks, storage or accessory uses shall be landscaped with trees and shrub cover. Regarding the proposed project, only those areas within the clearing and grading limits and are disturbed will need landscaping.
Correction 6:
Final Landscape Plan - Details
Comments:
Add required landscape details to plan: Detail 01.02.08a, 01.02.07, 01.02.03, 01.02.05, 01.02.06, 01.02.08.
Correction 7:
Final Landscape Plan - Mulch Req.
Comments:
Add the following note to the civil plans, "All planting areas shall be mulched with a uniform four (4”) inch layer of organic compost mulch material or wood chips over a properly cleaned, amended and graded subsurface."
Correction 8:
Final Landscape Plan - Native Plants
Comments:
A minimum of 25 percent of the shrubs and ground covers used in projects under the requirements of the PMC and the VMS shall be native to the Puget Sound region. Please call out natives on the plant schedule for easy identification.
Correction 9:
Final Landscape Plan - Plant Quantities
Comments:
Please spec the total quantity of plants and on-center spacing for all landscape areas.
Correction 10:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req.
Comments:
Add the following note to the landscape plan, “A minimum of eight (8) inches of top soil, containing ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches (8”) except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 6 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. Installation of the eight inches (8”) of top soil, as described above, shall generally be achieved by placing five inches (5”) of imported sandy-loam top soil into planned landscape areas (sub-base scarified four inches (4”)) with a three-inch (3”) layer of compost tilled into the entire depth.”
Correction 11:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req. Cubic Yards
Comments:
Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the 8 inch minimum soil standard for all landscaped areas in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection.
Correction 12:
Final Landscape Plan - Tree protection plan
Comments:
Existing trees to be retained must be clearly marked on the final clearing and grading plan, and final landscape plan. Tree protection fencing and signage shall follow the city standard detail, see appendix 20.5. Standard detail shall be included on all plan sets with vegetation which is scheduled for retention and protection. All critical root protection zones (CRPZ) shall be shown on plan sets in diameter from the center of the tree. In determining tree CRPZ, the following standards shall be used.In establishing the extent of the Critical Root Protection Zone (CRPZ) for individual significant trees, groupings of significant trees, a stand of significant trees, or a heritage tree the following formula shall be used: Individual tree diameter (in inches) X 2, converted into feet = CRPZ, in diameter (Example: 20” tree X 2 = 40’ CRPZ diameter). The following minimum performance standards shall be used to determine the extent of allowable impacts to the CRPZ of significant trees: For significant trees, a minimum of 50 percent of the critical root zone must be preserved at natural grade, with natural ground cover. The protection zone may be irregular. The plan set shall provide a total square footage of CRPZ area and show the % of disturbance area. For heritage trees, a minimum of 75 percent of the critical root zone must be preserved at natural grade with natural ground cover. The protection zone may be irregular. The plan set shall provide a total square footage of CRPZ area and show the % of disturbance area. No cut or fill greater than four (4) inches in depth may be located closer to the tree trunk than ½ the CRPZ radius distance. (Example, 20-inch DBH tree has a 40’ CRPZ area (in diameter) - meaning no cut or fill greater than 4” in depth is allowed within 20’ of the tree trunk). No cut or fill within the distance from the tree which is three (3) times the trunk DBH is allowed. (Example, 20-inch DBH tree X 3 = 60”, meaning no cut is allowed within 60-inches of a tree which has a 20-inch diameter trunk). These criteria represent minimum standards for determining whether or not a tree may be required to be retained. Greater impacts may be allowed, provided that all design alternatives have been proven unfeasible and that a pre-conditioning and after care mitigation program is established. See section 10.1 of the VMS, and referenced appendices for more information.
Correction 13:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Permanent critical area markers are required to be installed every 50 ft around the boundary of critical area buffers for the following critical areas; wetlands, streams, landslide hazard areas. See City buffer posting details at www.cityofpuyallup.org/1591/Master-Document-List. The City will provide the buffer posting signs at no cost. Applicant is responsible for cost of post and all other materials for installation. Contact the Planning Division to order signs at Planning@puyallupwa.gov.
Signs will be required around Wetland D, E, and F. The fencing locations shall be provided on the landscape plan.
Correction 14:
Landscaping Req.: General (VMS)
Comments:
Landscaping Requirements: PMC 20.58 outlines landscaping requirements. All portions of a lot not devoted to building, future building, parking, access drives, walks, storage or accessory uses shall be landscaped in a manner consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The City also has a companion design manual – the Vegetation Management Standards (VMS) manual – found here: www.cityofpuyallup.org/puyallupvms. Please consult both the code landscape code section and the VMS for a full list of landscape requirements.
Correction 15:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Shrub Size
Comments:
All shrubs required shall be no smaller than two (2) gallon in size at the time of planting
Correction 16:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Coniferous Tree Size
Comments:
Coniferous evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 5 to 6 feet in height.
Correction 17:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Deciduous Tree Size
Comments:
All deciduous trees shall be at least one (1”) inch in caliper, preferably 1.5” or larger, and branched with a strong, central single leader.
Correction 18:
Final Landscape Plan - Tree and utility conflicts
Comments:
To avoid conflicts between underground and overhead utilities and trees as the grow and mature, please review the VMS tree installation standards table for required distances from various utilities and improvements.
Public Works Water Review
Failed
05/29/2024
05/21/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil Resub Sheet C19: The existing fire line to be relocated is 12-inch ductile iron not 6-inch as called out.
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
05/29/2024
05/13/2024
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
05/29/2024
05/06/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
05/29/2024
05/01/2024
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Failed
04/10/2024
03/11/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, dated December 2020, identifies wetlands and associated wetland buffers located on the subject property. Wetland F, category IV wetland with no wetland buffer, is located near the proposed trenching. The site plan shall denote Wetland F. If the trenching goes through Wetland F, the trench shall be relocated outside of the wetland or be subject to Department of Ecology 401 permits and mitigation requirements.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
As noted by civil engineer comment, the concomitant agreement requires a 75- natural landscape buffer. City code allows stormwater ponds within required natural landscape buffers if compliant with Vegetation Management Standard SLD-02. As such, a landscape plan is required. The project is still subject to civil engineering comments regarding the 20-foot setback for detention ponds.
Correction 3:
Final Landscape Plan - Submittal item Required
Comments:
Final landscape plan has not been submitted with this application. A landscape plan WITH UTILITY OVERLAY is required at this time. Please read the landscape plan submittal requirements document available on the City webpage for a list of required items to include in a final landscape plan: www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/13103
Correction 4:
Final Landscape Plan - Stormwater Facilities
Comments:
Storm water facilities, including bioretention areas, swales, and raingardens, shall be landscaped in accordance with SLD-02, contained in the Vegetation Management Standards Manual (VMS).
Correction 5:
Final Landscape Plan - Entire site landscaping
Comments:
All portions of a lot not devoted to building, future building, parking, access drives, walks, storage or accessory uses shall be landscaped with trees and shrub cover. Regarding the proposed project, only those areas within the clearing and grading limits and are disturbed will need landscaping.
Correction 6:
Final Landscape Plan - Landscape Types
Comments:
The City's Vegetation Management Standards Manual (VMS) outlines specific treatment “types” that are required to be adhered to, dependent upon the yard area the landscaping is located within. See the VMS, sections 13 and 14 for full details. The VMS can be downloaded here: https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/puyallupvms
Correction 7:
Final Landscape Plan - Details
Comments:
Add required landscape details to plan: Detail 01.02.08a, 01.02.07, 01.02.03, 01.02.05, 01.02.06, 01.02.08.
Correction 8:
Final Landscape Plan - Mulch Req.
Comments:
Add the following note to the civil plans, "All planting areas shall be mulched with a uniform four (4”) inch layer of organic compost mulch material or wood chips over a properly cleaned, amended and graded subsurface."
Correction 9:
Final Landscape Plan - Native Plants
Comments:
A minimum of 25 percent of the shrubs and ground covers used in projects under the requirements of the PMC and the VMS shall be native to the Puget Sound region. Please call out natives on the plant schedule for easy identification.
Correction 10:
Final Landscape Plan - Plant Quantities
Comments:
Please spec the total quantity of plants and on-center spacing for all landscape areas.
Correction 11:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req.
Comments:
Add the following note to the landscape plan, “A minimum of eight (8) inches of top soil, containing ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches (8”) except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 6 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. Installation of the eight inches (8”) of top soil, as described above, shall generally be achieved by placing five inches (5”) of imported sandy-loam top soil into planned landscape areas (sub-base scarified four inches (4”)) with a three-inch (3”) layer of compost tilled into the entire depth.”
Correction 12:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req. Cubic Yards
Comments:
Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the 8 inch minimum soil standard for all landscaped areas in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection.
Correction 13:
Final Landscape Plan - Tree protection plan
Comments:
Existing trees to be retained must be clearly marked on the final clearing and grading plan, and final landscape plan. Tree protection fencing and signage shall follow the city standard detail, see appendix 20.5. Standard detail shall be included on all plan sets with vegetation which is scheduled for retention and protection. All critical root protection zones (CRPZ) shall be shown on plan sets in diameter from the center of the tree. In determining tree CRPZ, the following standards shall be used.In establishing the extent of the Critical Root Protection Zone (CRPZ) for individual significant trees, groupings of significant trees, a stand of significant trees, or a heritage tree the following formula shall be used: Individual tree diameter (in inches) X 2, converted into feet = CRPZ, in diameter (Example: 20” tree X 2 = 40’ CRPZ diameter). The following minimum performance standards shall be used to determine the extent of allowable impacts to the CRPZ of significant trees: For significant trees, a minimum of 50 percent of the critical root zone must be preserved at natural grade, with natural ground cover. The protection zone may be irregular. The plan set shall provide a total square footage of CRPZ area and show the % of disturbance area. For heritage trees, a minimum of 75 percent of the critical root zone must be preserved at natural grade with natural ground cover. The protection zone may be irregular. The plan set shall provide a total square footage of CRPZ area and show the % of disturbance area. No cut or fill greater than four (4) inches in depth may be located closer to the tree trunk than ½ the CRPZ radius distance. (Example, 20-inch DBH tree has a 40’ CRPZ area (in diameter) - meaning no cut or fill greater than 4” in depth is allowed within 20’ of the tree trunk). No cut or fill within the distance from the tree which is three (3) times the trunk DBH is allowed. (Example, 20-inch DBH tree X 3 = 60”, meaning no cut is allowed within 60-inches of a tree which has a 20-inch diameter trunk). These criteria represent minimum standards for determining whether or not a tree may be required to be retained. Greater impacts may be allowed, provided that all design alternatives have been proven unfeasible and that a pre-conditioning and after care mitigation program is established. See section 10.1 of the VMS, and referenced appendices for more information.
Correction 14:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Permanent critical area markers are required to be installed every 50 ft around the boundary of critical area buffers for the following critical areas; wetlands, streams, landslide hazard areas. See City buffer posting details at www.cityofpuyallup.org/1591/Master-Document-List. The City will provide the buffer posting signs at no cost. Applicant is responsible for cost of post and all other materials for installation. Contact the Planning Division to order signs at Planning@puyallupwa.gov.
Signs will be required around Wetland D, E, and F. The fencing locations shall be provided on the landscape plan.
Correction 15:
Landscaping Req.: General (VMS)
Comments:
Landscaping Requirements: PMC 20.58 outlines landscaping requirements. All portions of a lot not devoted to building, future building, parking, access drives, walks, storage or accessory uses shall be landscaped in a manner consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The City also has a companion design manual – the Vegetation Management Standards (VMS) manual – found here: www.cityofpuyallup.org/puyallupvms. Please consult both the code landscape code section and the VMS for a full list of landscape requirements.
Correction 16:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Shrub Size
Comments:
All shrubs required shall be no smaller than two (2) gallon in size at the time of planting
Correction 17:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Coniferous Tree Size
Comments:
Coniferous evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 5 to 6 feet in height.
Correction 18:
Final Landscape Plan - Min Deciduous Tree Size
Comments:
All deciduous trees shall be at least one (1”) inch in caliper, preferably 1.5” or larger, and branched with a strong, central single leader.
Correction 19:
Final Landscape Plan - Tree and utility conflicts
Comments:
To avoid conflicts between underground and overhead utilities and trees as the grow and mature, please review the VMS tree installation standards table for required distances from various utilities and improvements.
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
04/10/2024
03/08/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Streets Review
Approved
04/10/2024
03/07/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Approved
04/10/2024
03/07/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
04/10/2024
03/07/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
04/10/2024
03/07/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify partial legal description with legal description associated with the recorded BLR.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See City Standards Section 2.1 for Cover Sheet layout...Vicinity Map lower right corner; North Arrow; Site address below Vicinity Map; etc.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Locate approval block adjacent to title block.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add parcel 0419034038.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Project encompasses Lots 1 thru 3...revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-same symbol, but different surface types?
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-does not agree with current parcel boundary.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Wetlands to be Protected".
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-does not agree with current parcel boundary.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show City of Puyallup ROW north of the project parcel.
[Plans; Sht C1 of 18]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Based on record drawings, there is an existing storm main and buried structure approximately as shown.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Based on record drawings, these appear to be cleanouts associated with an industrial waste line "Plant Drain" that discharged to sanitary sewer. The record drawings indicate four cleanouts.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Record drawings indicate two sewer lines at this location, a "Plant Drain" and a standard sewer main.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
"Plant Drain" per record drawings.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Record drawings indicate a storm drain approximately as shown.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify existing surface type at location of proposed improvements.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show continuation of the existing watermain.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify existing surface type at location of proposed improvements.
[Plans; Sht C3 of 18]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to the 2019 Ecology stormwater manual.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Protect wetland at all times".
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per the Concomitant Agreement, there is a 75ft buffer required around the perimeter of the property. Relocate the proposed detention facility in accordance with City Planning requirements. Excepting more stringent Planning requirements, stormwater regulations require any detention pond to be setback a minimum of 20ft from the emergency overflow elevation to a property line.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing storm drain.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing sewer main.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
"Plant Drain" per record drawings.
[Plans; Sheet C4 of 18]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout City of Puyallup ROW north of the project parcel .
[Plans; Sht C4 of 18]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to the 2019 Ecology stormwater manual.
[Plans; Sheet C5 of 18]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing storm drain.
[Plans; Sheet C5 of 18]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ok to add catch basin filter sock detail.
[Plans; Sheet C6 of 18]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Confirm-shouldn't this portion of the watermain be located outside of the new cooling tower footprint?
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sheet C3 re existing utilities and existing surface types.
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C7 of 18]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sheet C3.
[Plans; Sht C8 of 18]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing utility (or proposed rerouted utility) through project area.
[Plans; Sht C8 of 18]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
"Plant Drain" per record drawings.
[Plans; Sheet C8 of 18]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing utilities (or proposed rerouted utilities) through project area.
[Plans; Sht C9 of 18]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
10in min thickness for pond access road per City Stds 205.2.
[Plans; Sheet C10 of 18]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe (from SD9 to pond) per City Stds 204.3(4).
[Plans; Sht C11 of 18]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C11 of 18]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing utility through project area.
[Plans; Sht C11 of 18]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe size.
[Plans; Sht C11 of 18]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe (from SD13 to SD14) per City Stds 204.3(4).
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Relocate existing storm drain outside of proposed project footprint.
[Plans; Sheet C12 of 18]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide CB per City Stds 204.8(2).
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide CB per City Stds 204.8(2). (Note: Type 2 req'd based on depth).
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe sizes.
[Plans; Sht C12 of 18]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show limits of the City of Puyallup ROW north of the project parcel.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe (from SD9 to pond) per City Stds 204.3(4).
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide CB per City Stds 204.8(2).
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe sizes.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
VERIFY-Based on available city records, the existence of this storm line cannot be verified. Please provide supporting documentation that to ensure this line is available for connection.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-Based on available city records, the existence of this storm line cannot be verified. Please provide supporting documentation that confirms the pipe alignment, size, and end conditions.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe sizes.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide 15ft min access road per City Stds 205.2.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
10in min thickness per City Stds 205.2.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Stds 205.2, slopes over 8% shall be paved.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Wetlands to be Protected".
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise to 8in pipe.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Note: "Separate Building Permit Required".
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout radii at access entrance.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout:
-Pond Bottom Area
-Design Water Surface Area
-Required Pond Volume
-Pond Volume Provided.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Indicate the road cross-slope to drain towards site.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe size.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 65:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise pipe size.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 66:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match crowns per City Stds 204.8.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 67:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise-Match crowns at SD16.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 68:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide secondary inlet into the control structure per regulations.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 69:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show retaining wall for clarity.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 70:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide emergency overflow per regulations. Include sizing calcs in the storm report.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 71:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show catchpoint back to existing grade. Also, show property line and maintain a min of 5ft clearance btwn toe and PL.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 72:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout planting req'ts for the pond and cut slope.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 73:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout inlet protection.
[Plans; Sht C13 of 18]
Correction 74:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per the Concomitant Agreement, there is a 75ft buffer required around the perimeter of the property. Relocate the proposed detention facility in accordance with City Planning requirements. Excepting more stringent Planning requirements, stormwater regulations require any detention pond to be setback a minimum of 20ft from the emergency overflow elevation to a property line.
[Plans; Sheet C13 of 18]
Correction 75:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout notch info on Riser Detail.
[Plans; Sht C15 of 18]
Correction 76:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Std Details: 06.01.02 // 06.01.03
[Plans; Sht C15 of 18]
Correction 77:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sht C3 and C7.
[Plans; Sheet C16 of 18]
Correction 78:
See Document Markup
Comments:
VERIFY-based on record drawings, this sewer was the old "Plant Drain" which likely discharged to the abandoned industrial waste line ("Masca Line") between the project site and the City's treatment plant. The Masca Line is abandoned with multiple deficiencies along its route. Confirm that the proposed blowdown connection point is tied into an existing sewer system that is currently in service.
[Plans; Sheet C16 of 18]
Correction 79:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Record drawings indicate two sewer lines at this location, a "Plant Drain" and a standard sewer main. Verify that the existing sewer is in service prior to connection.
[Plans; Sht C16 of 18]
Correction 80:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-what is the quantity and constituents contained in the blowdown waste? Depending on the makeup of the effluent, the Treatment Plant manager may have to approve the discharge prior to permit issuance.
[Plans; Sheet C16 of 18]
Correction 81:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Sht C7.
[Plans; Sheet C17 of 18]
Correction 82:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Std Details: 03.01.01 // 03.02.01-2.
[Plans; Sht C18 of 18]
Correction 83:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Std Sewer Notes.
[Plans; Sht C18 of 18]
Correction 84:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The provided 2009 'Geotechnical Infiltration Testing' report is substantially out-of-date (multiple stormwater manual revisions after report date) and does not reflect hydraulical conductivity feasibility at the location of the proposed project. Unless meeting the LID Performance Standard using detention, provide up-to-date hydraulic conductivity feasibility testing in accordance with current regulations and standards.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 278]
Correction 85:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-Project is shown running through three parcels, including APN 0419034038.
[Storm Report; Pg 4 of 278]
Correction 86:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All areas disturbed that are not covered by hard surface must implement BMP T5.13. Revise accordingly.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 278]
Correction 87:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide up-to-date wet season hydraulic conductivity testing at the location of the proposed facilities to ensure feasibility/infeasibility of implementing MR5. (NOTE: Based on the size of the project, it may be possible to meet the LID Performance Std using detention and avoid the groundwater monitoring and testing requirements.)
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 278]
Correction 88:
See Document Markup
Comments:
If not meeting the LID Performance Standard, then MR5 List BMPs also apply and must be supported by up-to-date hydraulic conductivity monitoring and testing to verify feasibility. Testing to occur at the location of the BMP facilities.
[Storm Report; Pg 6 of 278]
Correction 89:
See Document Markup
Comments:
and converted vegetation areas.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 90:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Also need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 91:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This is a reasonable approach, but need to ensure that the converted vegetation areas along the utility trench alignment is less than or equal to 0.06ac. If more than .06ac, include in the post-dev WWHM as pasture.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 92:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Basin Maps.
[Storm Report; Pg 11 of 278]
Correction 93:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Also need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 94:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Also need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 95:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify and quantify the replaced hard surface along the trenchline.
Verify with MR6 PGHS threshold.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 96:
See Document Markup
Comments:
NOTE: For this project, the utility trenching is associated with a larger scope of work and must be accounted for as part of the overall project thresholds, i.e., the trenching is not exempt per Ecology Section 1-3.2..
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 97:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Identify and quantify the replaced hard surface along the trenchline. Verify with MR6 PGHS threshold.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 98:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and quantify the new hard surface area associated with the pond access.
[Storm Report; Pg 22 of 278]
Correction 99:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide geotechnical wet season high groundwater elevation at location of the proposed pond. If groundwater is above the elevation of the pond bottom, specify liner criteria.
[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 278]
Correction 100:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline. Also, see comments in Section 4 and on the Basin Maps.
[Storm Report; Pg 26 of 278]
Correction 101:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Need to account for converted vegetation areas along the trenchline. Also, see comments in Section 2, Section 4, and on the Basin Maps.
[Storm Report; Pg 27 of 278]
Correction 102:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise for retaining wall side.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 278]
Correction 103:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout notch info on Riser Detail.
[Storm Report; Pg 29 of 278]
Correction 104:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Pg 26 of 278.
[Storm Report; Pg 44 of 278]
Correction 105:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See comments on Pg 27 of 278.
[Storm Report; Pg 45 of 278]
Correction 106:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update reference callout.
[Storm Report; Pg 92 of 278]
Fire Review
Approved
04/10/2024
03/07/2024
Reviewer: