Review Type
Outcome
Est. Completion Date
Completed
Engineering Civil Review
Approved
02/07/2025
02/05/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout root barrier for any trees or woody plantings within 3ft of an underground utility (Typ).
[Landscape Plans; Pg L1.1 of 7]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior correspondence with AHBL, release rates of the existing storm pond (serving the upstream Absher property) shall be maintained between the 10yr and 100yr mitigated flow rates. See MHigginson email dated 10-02-24. Provide TESC riser and storage criteria for the contractor's use while the existing storm pond is being replaced.
[Storm Report; Pg 499 of 564]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior correspondence with AHBL, release rates of the existing storm pond (serving the upstream Absher property) shall be maintained between the 10yr and 100yr mitigated flow rates. See MHigginson email dated 10-02-24. Provide TESC riser and storage criteria for the contractor's use while the existing storm pond is being replaced.
[Plans; Sht C1.01 of 30]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
If check valve not desired by WDFW, provide trash rack per City Stds 204.12(1). (Assuming the outlet is not fully encased in the rock, and/or the outlet will be exposed over time).
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from WDFW that check valves should/should not be used (AHBL's response/concerns acknowledged).
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify whether a structure should be added near the pipe inlet for ease of maintenance.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-South?
[Plans; Sheet C4.02 of 30]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-North?
[Plans; Sheet C4.02 of 30]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
If check valve not desired by WDFW, provide trash rack per City Stds 204.12(1). (Assuming the outlet is not fully encased in the rock, and/or the outlet will be exposed over time).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from WDFW that check valves should/should not be used (AHBL's response/concerns acknowledged).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-South?
[Plans; Sheet C4.12 of 30]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-"Notes should also reflect pervious concrete sidewalks with integral curb per Shts C2.01 and C2.02." These notes indicate conventional concrete placement. At a minimum, pervious pavement details should reflect the APWA GSPs created for pervious...see example right.
[Plans; C2.10 of 30]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C3.01 of 30]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C3.02 of 30]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standards 204.12 requires check valves on outfalls discharging to streams. Confirm with WDFW that check valves should/should not be used and provide supporting documentation (email, letter, HPA condition, etc.).
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Retaining wall under separate permit."
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
As mentioned in the Storm Report (Pg 419 of 564), it may be possible to reduce the Biopod size using WWHM.
[Plans; C4.02 of 30]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upon further consideration, remove trash rack callout at this location (8in pipe and conveys stream).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standards 204.12 requires check valves on outfalls discharging to streams. Confirm with WDFW that check valves should/should not be used and provide supporting documentation (email, letter, HPA condition, etc.).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-Inlet IE does not agree w pipe slope btwn CB45 and WQ8.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location. (CB46?)
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Retaining wall under separate permit."
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
SDCO#F3 info missing from structure table.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout "Control Structure" on plan.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 30]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please add "Phase 1".
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 30]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-"Detail to the right"? (4/C4.03?)
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.5" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-68.63? (physical elevation of the orifice in the sump).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (El. 71.83?).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (El. 72.37?).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.875" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.875" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-76.83 per CB46.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-CB46?
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate with revised orifice sizing-see comments in Storm Report (Pg 429 of 564).
[Plans; Sht C4.14 of 30]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C5.01 of 30]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C5.01 of 30]
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
02/07/2025
02/04/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Approved
02/07/2025
01/22/2025
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
02/07/2025
01/13/2025
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
02/07/2025
01/13/2025
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
02/07/2025
01/10/2025
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
02/07/2025
01/10/2025
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
12/20/2024
12/23/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Please show the existing combined detention/wetpond facility serving the offsite properties to the south.
[Storm Report; Pg 15 of 564]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Although it is conservative to use the SBUH flow rate (1.25cfs) from the CES report, the Biopod facility might be reduced using WWHM WQ analysis for the Absher properties and the CES post-developed basin surface areas (Note: due to mixing of polluted and non-polluted runoff from the Absher property, all of the runoff generated from the WQ storm event must be treated).
[Storm Report; Pg 419 of 564]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upon resizing of the orifice sizes to match existing release rates, coordinate with callouts on Sheet C4.10.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 of 564]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Recalculate values for units (area of orifice used in these flow values was in square inches rather than square feet).
[Storm Report; Pg 429 of 564]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upon initial evaluation, it appears that a two orifice riser would likely correspond with the stage-storage-discharge values of the original facility.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 of 564]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-"Notes should also reflect pervious concrete sidewalks with integral curb per Shts C2.01 and C2.02." These notes indicate conventional concrete placement. At a minimum, pervious pavement details should reflect the APWA GSPs created for pervious...see example right.
[Plans; C2.10 of 30]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C3.01 of 30]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C3.02 of 30]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standards 204.12 requires check valves on outfalls discharging to streams. Confirm with WDFW that check valves should/should not be used and provide supporting documentation (email, letter, HPA condition, etc.).
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Retaining wall under separate permit."
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
As mentioned in the Storm Report (Pg 419 of 564), it may be possible to reduce the Biopod size using WWHM.
[Plans; C4.02 of 30]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upon further consideration, remove trash rack callout at this location (8in pipe and conveys stream).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standards 204.12 requires check valves on outfalls discharging to streams. Confirm with WDFW that check valves should/should not be used and provide supporting documentation (email, letter, HPA condition, etc.).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-Inlet IE does not agree w pipe slope btwn CB45 and WQ8.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location. (CB46?)
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Retaining wall under separate permit."
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
SDCO#F3 info missing from structure table.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout "Control Structure" on plan.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 30]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please add "Phase 1".
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 30]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-"Detail to the right"? (4/C4.03?)
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.5" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-68.63? (physical elevation of the orifice in the sump).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (El. 71.83?).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (El. 72.37?).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.875" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.875" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-76.83 per CB46.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-CB46?
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate with revised orifice sizing-see comments in Storm Report (Pg 429 of 564).
[Plans; Sht C4.14 of 30]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C5.01 of 30]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C5.01 of 30]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout root barrier for any trees or woody plantings within 3ft of an underground utility (Typ).
[Landscape Plans; Pg L1.1 of 7]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior correspondence with AHBL, release rates of the existing storm pond (serving the upstream Absher property) shall be maintained between the 10yr and 100yr mitigated flow rates. See MHigginson email dated 10-02-24. Provide TESC riser and storage criteria for the contractor's use while the existing storm pond is being replaced.
[Storm Report; Pg 499 of 564]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior correspondence with AHBL, release rates of the existing storm pond (serving the upstream Absher property) shall be maintained between the 10yr and 100yr mitigated flow rates. See MHigginson email dated 10-02-24. Provide TESC riser and storage criteria for the contractor's use while the existing storm pond is being replaced.
[Plans; Sht C1.01 of 30]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
If check valve not desired by WDFW, provide trash rack per City Stds 204.12(1). (Assuming the outlet is not fully encased in the rock, and/or the outlet will be exposed over time).
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from WDFW that check valves should/should not be used (AHBL's response/concerns acknowledged).
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify whether a structure should be added near the pipe inlet for ease of maintenance.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-South?
[Plans; Sheet C4.02 of 30]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-North?
[Plans; Sheet C4.02 of 30]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
If check valve not desired by WDFW, provide trash rack per City Stds 204.12(1). (Assuming the outlet is not fully encased in the rock, and/or the outlet will be exposed over time).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from WDFW that check valves should/should not be used (AHBL's response/concerns acknowledged).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-South?
[Plans; Sheet C4.12 of 30]
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
12/20/2024
12/23/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
12/20/2024
12/11/2024
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
12/20/2024
12/10/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Approved
12/20/2024
12/03/2024
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
12/20/2024
12/03/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
12/20/2024
12/02/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
11/01/2024
10/31/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
-Prior to Occupancy, provide an executed copy of an easement or agreement allowing the properties to the south of the project to discharge into R-Tank 4 on the East Town Crossing property.
-The easement or agreement shall clearly identify the entity responsible for maintenance of R-Tank 4, water quality facilities, and associated conveyance system.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 564]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add discussion about replacing the existing combined detention/wetpond facility serving the offsite properties to the south.
[Storm Report; Pg 7 of 564]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Where is this shown in the project documents? PH1 Onsite indicates a temp outlet with pumping and references a fish screen. PH2 CFG indicates the control structure, 12in pipe outlet, but no riser information, no fish screen callout, and no Mirafi wrapped channel. There is a TESC outlet protection detail, but nothing shown for the permanent installation. This set of plans does not show the PH1 outfall at all. Please clarify.
[Storm Report; Pg 7 of 564]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on Page 419 of 564.
[Storm Report; Pg 8 of 564]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please show the existing combined detention/wetpond facility serving the offsite properties to the south.
[Storm Report; Pg 15 of 564]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
At time of closeout, the final O&M manual shall use the BMP descriptions and maintenance criteria from the "City of Puyallup Site Management Plan for Stormwater Operations and Maintenance."
[Storm Report; Pg 240 of 564]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Since the proposed WQ biopods are based on flow capacity rather than volume, the City would accept sizing the WQ facility using WWHM and the post-developed conditions of the original "2004 Shaw Road Development". This likely will reduce the quantity of biopods needed for compliance.
[Storm Report; Pg 419 of 564]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on planset, Sht C4.02.
[Storm Report; Pg 419 of 564]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise-min. orifice size is 0.5in.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 pf 564]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upsize outlet pipe to 12in per City Stds and riser to match.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 pf 564]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Typo? (0.5?)
[Storm Report; Pg 429 pf 564]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Do not place trees or woody plantings on the R-Tank detention systems or withing 10ft of underground utilities.
[Landscape Plans; Pg L1.0 of 7]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note restricting construction access to Shaw Road for the duration of the project.
[Plans; C1.10 of 28]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRGR20240491".
[Plans; C2.01 of 28]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRCCP20240569".
[Plans; C2.01 of 28]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify Keynote.
[Plans; C2.02 of 28]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Notes should also reflect pervious concrete sidewalks with integral curb per Shts C2.01 and C2.02.
[Plans; C2.10 of 28]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Subragde preparation shall meet APWA GSP 2-06.3(3) Subgrade for Permeable Pavements".
[Plans; C2.10 of 28]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRGR20240491".
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRCCP20240569".
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout TW/BW elevations at endpoints and 25ft oc max.
[Plans; Sht C3.01 of 28]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Walls are not allowed within the ROW without an approved AMR. If the walls cannot be eliminated, submit an AMR for City Engineer review and approval.
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRGR20240491".
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Grading in this area should be directed towards the CB. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C3.01 of 28]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use Type 2 due to depth.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match crowns per City Stds.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please callout Rim and IE in Structure Table.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Readability.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Standards 204.4 provide 1ft min cover.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Standards 204.4 1ft min cover required. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please callout Rim and IE in Structure Table.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-which permit application indicates the culvert wing wall design, wall details, and outfall pad details? (Note: If the existing culvert pipe end will be exposed, city standards require a trash rack).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
12in pipe req'd per City Standards.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify with Detail 1/C4.13.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify Callout (4/C4.10?).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
0.5% min slope per City Stds. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
-Since the proposed WQ biopods are based on flow capacity rather than volume, the City would accept sizing the WQ facility using WWHM and the post-developed conditions of the original "2004 Shaw Road Development". This likely will reduce the quantity of biopods needed for compliance.
- This WQ configuration raises concerns due to the liklihood of the biopods closest to SDCB45 clogging much sooner than the biopods further away from the CB resulting in an unequal and reduced treatment benefit. Similarly, the biopods closest to SDCB45 will receive different flow rate(s) than those further away resulting in an unequal and/or reduced treatment benefit.
-If the above configuration will be the final design, provide a letter from the manufacturer certifying that the proposed design will provide the hydraulic loading rate necessary to treat the incoming water quality design flow rate at SDCB45.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use Type 2 due to depth.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match crowns per City Stds.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
0.5% min slope per City Stds. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and indicate 25yr WSE for the stream. Ensure no backwater affect for the 25yr conveyance design storm.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
12in pipe req'd per City Standards.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See outfall comment on Sht C4.02.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on Sht C4.02.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide SDCB45 info.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify detail callout (4?)
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please label as existing.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-SDCB#43?
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add City Standard Details:
02.01.05 // 02.01.08 // 02.01.09 // 02.02.03 // 06.01.01 // 06.01.02 // 06.01.03
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use 12in pipe per City Standards.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Min orifice size is 0.5.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upsize to match outlet pipe.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify IE with Sht C4.01 and C4.03.
[Plans; Sht C4.11 of 28]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on Sht C4.02.
[Plans; Sht C4.12 of 28]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CALLOUT-manufactured 30mil (min) impermeable liner to prevent groundwater intrusion.
[Plans; Sht C4.13 of 28]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The required 6inch sediment storarge should be above the stone base layer (but below the detention volume). This was inadvertantly missed on Phase 1, but should be corrected on Phase 2. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.13 of 28]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify pipe slope with IE callouts.
[Plans; Sht C5.01of 28]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Readability.
[Plans; Sht C5.01of 28]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add City Standard Details:
06.01.01 // 06.01.02 // 06.01.03
[Plans; Sht C5.10 of 28]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout a 6in tee for the side sewer connection out of the CB.
[Plans; Sht C5.10 of 28]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout separation between hydrant and FDC (15' max/10' min).
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout 3ft clear all around the hydrant and FDC.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout DDCVA and PIV.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show DCVA.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 65:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delete.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 66:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delete.
[Plans; Sht C6.02 of 28]
Correction 67:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show DCVA.
[Plans; Sht C6.02 of 28]
Correction 68:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add City Standard Detail:
06.01.01
[Plans; Sht C6.10 of 28]
Correction 69:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delete.
[Plans; Sht C6.11 of 28]
Correction 70:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-Please show the existing combined detention/wetpond facility serving the offsite properties to the south.
[Storm Report; Pg 15 of 564]
Correction 71:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Although it is conservative to use the SBUH flow rate (1.25cfs) from the CES report, the Biopod facility might be reduced using WWHM WQ analysis for the Absher properties and the CES post-developed basin surface areas (Note: due to mixing of polluted and non-polluted runoff from the Absher property, all of the runoff generated from the WQ storm event must be treated).
[Storm Report; Pg 419 of 564]
Correction 72:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upon resizing of the orifice sizes to match existing release rates, coordinate with callouts on Sheet C4.10.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 of 564]
Correction 73:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Recalculate values for units (area of orifice used in these flow values was in square inches rather than square feet).
[Storm Report; Pg 429 of 564]
Correction 74:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upon initial evaluation, it appears that a two orifice riser would likely correspond with the stage-storage-discharge values of the original facility.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 of 564]
Correction 75:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per prior comment-"Notes should also reflect pervious concrete sidewalks with integral curb per Shts C2.01 and C2.02." These notes indicate conventional concrete placement. At a minimum, pervious pavement details should reflect the APWA GSPs created for pervious...see example right.
[Plans; C2.10 of 30]
Correction 76:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C3.01 of 30]
Correction 77:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C3.02 of 30]
Correction 78:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standards 204.12 requires check valves on outfalls discharging to streams. Confirm with WDFW that check valves should/should not be used and provide supporting documentation (email, letter, HPA condition, etc.).
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 79:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Retaining wall under separate permit."
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 80:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 30]
Correction 81:
See Document Markup
Comments:
As mentioned in the Storm Report (Pg 419 of 564), it may be possible to reduce the Biopod size using WWHM.
[Plans; C4.02 of 30]
Correction 82:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upon further consideration, remove trash rack callout at this location (8in pipe and conveys stream).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 83:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standards 204.12 requires check valves on outfalls discharging to streams. Confirm with WDFW that check valves should/should not be used and provide supporting documentation (email, letter, HPA condition, etc.).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 84:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-Inlet IE does not agree w pipe slope btwn CB45 and WQ8.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 85:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location. (CB46?)
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 86:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 87:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Retaining wall under separate permit."
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 88:
See Document Markup
Comments:
SDCO#F3 info missing from structure table.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 89:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout "Control Structure" on plan.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 90:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 30]
Correction 91:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 30]
Correction 92:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please add "Phase 1".
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 30]
Correction 93:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-"Detail to the right"? (4/C4.03?)
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 94:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 95:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-callout location.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 96:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout pipe IE.
[Plans; Sht C4.04 of 30]
Correction 97:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.5" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 98:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-68.63? (physical elevation of the orifice in the sump).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 99:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (El. 71.83?).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 100:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (El. 72.37?).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 101:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.875" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 102:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coord. w Storm Report (0.875" dia noted).
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 103:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-76.83 per CB46.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 104:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-CB46?
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 30]
Correction 105:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate with revised orifice sizing-see comments in Storm Report (Pg 429 of 564).
[Plans; Sht C4.14 of 30]
Correction 106:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C5.01 of 30]
Correction 107:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Coordinate phasing delineation with Sheet C1.01.
[Plans; Sht C5.01 of 30]
Correction 108:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout root barrier for any trees or woody plantings within 3ft of an underground utility (Typ).
[Landscape Plans; Pg L1.1 of 7]
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
11/01/2024
10/31/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
11/01/2024
10/30/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Approved
11/01/2024
10/24/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil C6.01: Show and call out the DCVA downstream of 2-inch water meter.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil C6.02: Show and call out the DCVA downstream of 2-inch water meter.
Planning Review
Approved
11/01/2024
10/22/2024
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
11/01/2024
10/15/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
11/01/2024
10/14/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
07/22/2024
07/26/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
-Prior to Occupancy, provide an executed copy of an easement or agreement allowing the properties to the south of the project to discharge into R-Tank 4 on the East Town Crossing property.
-The easement or agreement shall clearly identify the entity responsible for maintenance of R-Tank 4, water quality facilities, and associated conveyance system.
[Storm Report; Pg 1 of 564]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add discussion about replacing the existing combined detention/wetpond facility serving the offsite properties to the south.
[Storm Report; Pg 7 of 564]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Where is this shown in the project documents? PH1 Onsite indicates a temp outlet with pumping and references a fish screen. PH2 CFG indicates the control structure, 12in pipe outlet, but no riser information, no fish screen callout, and no Mirafi wrapped channel. There is a TESC outlet protection detail, but nothing shown for the permanent installation. This set of plans does not show the PH1 outfall at all. Please clarify.
[Storm Report; Pg 7 of 564]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on Page 419 of 564.
[Storm Report; Pg 8 of 564]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please show the existing combined detention/wetpond facility serving the offsite properties to the south.
[Storm Report; Pg 15 of 564]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
At time of closeout, the final O&M manual shall use the BMP descriptions and maintenance criteria from the "City of Puyallup Site Management Plan for Stormwater Operations and Maintenance."
[Storm Report; Pg 240 of 564]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Since the proposed WQ biopods are based on flow capacity rather than volume, the City would accept sizing the WQ facility using WWHM and the post-developed conditions of the original "2004 Shaw Road Development". This likely will reduce the quantity of biopods needed for compliance.
[Storm Report; Pg 419 of 564]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on planset, Sht C4.02.
[Storm Report; Pg 419 of 564]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise-min. orifice size is 0.5in.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 pf 564]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upsize outlet pipe to 12in per City Stds and riser to match.
[Storm Report; Pg 429 pf 564]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Typo? (0.5?)
[Storm Report; Pg 429 pf 564]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Do not place trees or woody plantings on the R-Tank detention systems or withing 10ft of underground utilities.
[Landscape Plans; Pg L1.0 of 7]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note restricting construction access to Shaw Road for the duration of the project.
[Plans; C1.10 of 28]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRGR20240491".
[Plans; C2.01 of 28]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRCCP20240569".
[Plans; C2.01 of 28]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify Keynote.
[Plans; C2.02 of 28]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Notes should also reflect pervious concrete sidewalks with integral curb per Shts C2.01 and C2.02.
[Plans; C2.10 of 28]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add note: "Subragde preparation shall meet APWA GSP 2-06.3(3) Subgrade for Permeable Pavements".
[Plans; C2.10 of 28]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRGR20240491".
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRCCP20240569".
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout TW/BW elevations at endpoints and 25ft oc max.
[Plans; Sht C3.01 of 28]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Walls are not allowed within the ROW without an approved AMR. If the walls cannot be eliminated, submit an AMR for City Engineer review and approval.
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add: "See PRGR20240491".
[Plans; C3.01 of 28]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Grading in this area should be directed towards the CB. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C3.01 of 28]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use Type 2 due to depth.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match crowns per City Stds.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please callout Rim and IE in Structure Table.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Readability.
[Plans; Sht C4.01 of 28]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Standards 204.4 provide 1ft min cover.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per City Standards 204.4 1ft min cover required. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please callout Rim and IE in Structure Table.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Clarify-which permit application indicates the culvert wing wall design, wall details, and outfall pad details? (Note: If the existing culvert pipe end will be exposed, city standards require a trash rack).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
12in pipe req'd per City Standards.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify with Detail 1/C4.13.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify Callout (4/C4.10?).
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
0.5% min slope per City Stds. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
-Since the proposed WQ biopods are based on flow capacity rather than volume, the City would accept sizing the WQ facility using WWHM and the post-developed conditions of the original "2004 Shaw Road Development". This likely will reduce the quantity of biopods needed for compliance.
- This WQ configuration raises concerns due to the liklihood of the biopods closest to SDCB45 clogging much sooner than the biopods further away from the CB resulting in an unequal and reduced treatment benefit. Similarly, the biopods closest to SDCB45 will receive different flow rate(s) than those further away resulting in an unequal and/or reduced treatment benefit.
-If the above configuration will be the final design, provide a letter from the manufacturer certifying that the proposed design will provide the hydraulic loading rate necessary to treat the incoming water quality design flow rate at SDCB45.
[Plans; Sht C4.02 of 28]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use Type 2 due to depth.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Match crowns per City Stds.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
0.5% min slope per City Stds. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and indicate 25yr WSE for the stream. Ensure no backwater affect for the 25yr conveyance design storm.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
12in pipe req'd per City Standards.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See outfall comment on Sht C4.02.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on Sht C4.02.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide SDCB45 info.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify detail callout (4?)
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please label as existing.
[Plans; Sht C4.03 of 28]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify-SDCB#43?
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add City Standard Details:
02.01.05 // 02.01.08 // 02.01.09 // 02.02.03 // 06.01.01 // 06.01.02 // 06.01.03
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use 12in pipe per City Standards.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Min orifice size is 0.5.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Upsize to match outlet pipe.
[Plans; Sht C4.10 of 28]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify IE with Sht C4.01 and C4.03.
[Plans; Sht C4.11 of 28]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
See WQ comments on Sht C4.02.
[Plans; Sht C4.12 of 28]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
CALLOUT-manufactured 30mil (min) impermeable liner to prevent groundwater intrusion.
[Plans; Sht C4.13 of 28]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The required 6inch sediment storarge should be above the stone base layer (but below the detention volume). This was inadvertantly missed on Phase 1, but should be corrected on Phase 2. Revise accordingly.
[Plans; Sht C4.13 of 28]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify pipe slope with IE callouts.
[Plans; Sht C5.01of 28]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Readability.
[Plans; Sht C5.01of 28]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add City Standard Details:
06.01.01 // 06.01.02 // 06.01.03
[Plans; Sht C5.10 of 28]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout a 6in tee for the side sewer connection out of the CB.
[Plans; Sht C5.10 of 28]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout separation between hydrant and FDC (15' max/10' min).
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout 3ft clear all around the hydrant and FDC.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout DDCVA and PIV.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show DCVA.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 65:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delete.
[Plans; Sht C6.01 of 28]
Correction 66:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delete.
[Plans; Sht C6.02 of 28]
Correction 67:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout and show DCVA.
[Plans; Sht C6.02 of 28]
Correction 68:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add City Standard Detail:
06.01.01
[Plans; Sht C6.10 of 28]
Correction 69:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delete.
[Plans; Sht C6.11 of 28]
Public Works Streets Review
Approved
07/22/2024
07/24/2024
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
07/22/2024
07/19/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
Failed
07/22/2024
07/16/2024
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil C6.01: Show and call out the DCVA downstream of 2-inch water meter.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Civil C6.02: Show and call out the DCVA downstream of 2-inch water meter.
Fire Review
Approved
07/22/2024
07/16/2024
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
07/22/2024
06/25/2024
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Approved
07/22/2024
06/25/2024
Reviewer: