CITY OF PUYALLUP PERMITTING PORTAL

Other/Miscellaneous

In previous correspondence, it was agreed that a consistency memo for critical area would be submitted with the shoreline substantial development application to summarize impacts and proposed mitigation within city limits and would include attachments for project wide wetland and stream report and mitigation plans. Please include this consistency memo in your re-submittal.

Other/Miscellaneous

Please submit Section 106 SHPO concurrence documentation for the Stage 2 Project Cultural Resources Survey for previously unsurveyed areas of the area of potential effects as noted would be included in your response to SMP Chapter 5 - B.2.

Other/Miscellaneous

Please update the conceptual landscape plan to include a notation that the landscaping coverage must be established with 65% native vegetation between permitted uses/structures and the OHWM to the extent feasible so that at construction, the requirement is not lost. If possible, please provide a more detailed draft landscape plan.

Other/Miscellaneous

For Levee Road realignment/shifting of the SUP crossing, choose to either : 1. Submit both Levee Road realignment options in your re-submittal. a. You can try to account for the worst case scenario (proposal with the presumed most impacts) in your re-submittal. If you need to show both options, that is okay, but we would need you to encapsulate the impacts for both, include figures that show where the shoreline is in relation to the proposed realignment options, and include a letter regarding how both would operate & affect the SUP as well as when you would expect either option to be constructed. 2. We can continue with our review of the existing shoreline application with your added conduit modification and when you are ready, come back and apply for a new SSDP permit with the realignment option WSDOT has decided to move forward with. a. The new application would need to address how it affects the approved SSDP scope of work, etc.

See Document Markup

In a comment response letter, please address how this permanently impacted buffer will be mitigated/addressed. If this has been addressed in one of the mitigation reports, please cite this section in your response [JARPA excerpts, project impact plan view]

Other/Miscellaneous

Please attach the e-mail dated June 24, June 27, and July 5, 2022 between the City of Puyallup Planning department and Ecology shoreline representative that includes the agreement that the proposed drainage improvements are considered an ancillary element of the transportation use as referenced in the SMP Consistency Letter Chapter 7 (O.3.b.).

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 4, Section C 2.1 Public Access (k) states: "Incorporate signage and informational kiosks into public access locations, where appropriate, to enhance public education and appreciation of shoreline ecology and areas of historic or cultural significance." In addition to providing wayfinding signs, please include a proposal to provide at least one public education sign along the SUP that provides information about the river and/or shoreline.

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 7, Section 7.H.3. (a) states: "Filling, grading, and excavation is allowed in the Puyallup River Urban Conservancy and the Clarks Creek Urban Conservancy environments only in association with a permitted use. Filling, grading, and excavation is prohibited in the Natural environment. Fill waterward of the OHWM shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use permit. Where allowed, filling, grading and excavation shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the development and shall cause no impacts to ecological functions, including protection of channel migration processes" In your response, you states that no fill will be placed waterward of the OHWM. The figure in the floodplain impacts & mitigation report (pg. 19) does not show where the OHWM is. In order to help staff confirm that this is factual, please submit a figure that displays the OHWM and where fill is being placed.

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 7, Section K.2 (a-d) addresses Restoration Policies. Staff is unable to adequately address the proposed mitigation addressed in this section without the critical area consistency memo. In addition to submitting a critical area consistency memo, please also address what the mitigation addressed in this section is referring to to assist with clarification. The response to this section was that it is N/A. Based on this response, I assume that no mitigation is necessary within the shoreline jurisdiction area because no impacts will be within the shoreline jurisdiction area? The stormwater outfall is within the shoreline area - how is this being addressed in this section?

Other/Miscellaneous

In response to Chapter 7, Section L.3 (c), you state that the design-build contractor that will be hired will be required to provide a final geotechnical documentation package and final design consistent with WSDOTs Geotech Design Manual and that it will include provisions of development associated with steep slopes. Will this be addressed in the Critical Area Consistency Memo? Or will this documentation be provided in future permitting to assist with addressing the compliance with shoreline stabilization requirements per the SMP?

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 7, Section L.3 (f) states: "Trees and vegetation shading streams and rivers shall be retained or replanted when shoreline stabilization is placed or replaced." In your response, you state that trees and vegetation shading the Puyallup River will be retained to the greatest extent possible in the outfall replacement area. Please provide a draft plan of what trees are proposed to be removed/retained/replanted wtihin the outfall area.

See Document Markup

Possible improvements near Levee Rd may exceed the blue impact area as shown here. Since the final design of this intersection and build-out of the Shared Use Path are currently unknown, the shoreline permit should include these areas. Additionally, the City wants the design builder to have the ability to pursue these options if feasible. (1) Shift Levee/Levee intersection farther east (2) Replace Levee/Levee intersection with a roundabout. (3) Provide a grade separated under-crossing at Levee Rd (City Preference and consistency with WSDOT Target Zero safety goals & strategies)) [Att_3_VicinityMap_SitePlans]

See Document Markup

Will there be adequate conduit installed on underside of bridge to facilitate future signal interconnect? I believe WSDOT was looking at feasibility/cost even though the traffic analysis showed there would be challenges integrating current WSDOT & Puyallup systems together. [Att_3_VicinityMap_SitePlans]

See Document Markup

WSDOT Response: WSDOT has provided a project update to include potential Levee Road realignment options (1) and (2). WSDOT will not be moving forward with Option (3) “Provide a grade separated under-crossing at Levee Rd” due to design and permitting challenges, complications associated with modifying the existing 100-year old levee system, and potential flood risks created by a hydraulic opening in the levee. See also response to City Comment #5. ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????????? ???? ??? ????????? ?????????????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????????? ???????? ??????? ? ??????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????????? ??????? [Att_3_Updated_VicinityMap_SitePlans]

Other/Miscellaneous

LEVEE AND OUTFALL • Provide approval/acknowledgment from Pierce County for the work occurring adjacent to, or within the limits of the existing levee system.

Other/Miscellaneous

In previous correspondence, it was agreed that a consistency memo for critical area would be submitted with the shoreline substantial development application to summarize impacts and proposed mitigation within city limits and would include attachments for project wide wetland and stream report and mitigation plans. Please include this consistency memo in your re-submittal.

Other/Miscellaneous

Please submit Section 106 SHPO concurrence documentation for the Stage 2 Project Cultural Resources Survey for previously unsurveyed areas of the area of potential effects as noted would be included in your response to SMP Chapter 5 - B.2.

Other/Miscellaneous

Please update the conceptual landscape plan to include a notation that the landscaping coverage must be established with 65% native vegetation between permitted uses/structures and the OHWM to the extent feasible so that at construction, the requirement is not lost. If possible, please provide a more detailed draft landscape plan.

Other/Miscellaneous

For Levee Road realignment/shifting of the SUP crossing, choose to either : 1. Submit both Levee Road realignment options in your re-submittal. a. You can try to account for the worst case scenario (proposal with the presumed most impacts) in your re-submittal. If you need to show both options, that is okay, but we would need you to encapsulate the impacts for both, include figures that show where the shoreline is in relation to the proposed realignment options, and include a letter regarding how both would operate & affect the SUP as well as when you would expect either option to be constructed. 2. We can continue with our review of the existing shoreline application with your added conduit modification and when you are ready, come back and apply for a new SSDP permit with the realignment option WSDOT has decided to move forward with. a. The new application would need to address how it affects the approved SSDP scope of work, etc.

See Document Markup

In a comment response letter, please address how this permanently impacted buffer will be mitigated/addressed. If this has been addressed in one of the mitigation reports, please cite this section in your response [JARPA excerpts, project impact plan view]

Other/Miscellaneous

Please attach the e-mail dated June 24, June 27, and July 5, 2022 between the City of Puyallup Planning department and Ecology shoreline representative that includes the agreement that the proposed drainage improvements are considered an ancillary element of the transportation use as referenced in the SMP Consistency Letter Chapter 7 (O.3.b.).

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 4, Section C 2.1 Public Access (k) states: "Incorporate signage and informational kiosks into public access locations, where appropriate, to enhance public education and appreciation of shoreline ecology and areas of historic or cultural significance." In addition to providing wayfinding signs, please include a proposal to provide at least one public education sign along the SUP that provides information about the river and/or shoreline.

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 7, Section 7.H.3. (a) states: "Filling, grading, and excavation is allowed in the Puyallup River Urban Conservancy and the Clarks Creek Urban Conservancy environments only in association with a permitted use. Filling, grading, and excavation is prohibited in the Natural environment. Fill waterward of the OHWM shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use permit. Where allowed, filling, grading and excavation shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the development and shall cause no impacts to ecological functions, including protection of channel migration processes" In your response, you states that no fill will be placed waterward of the OHWM. The figure in the floodplain impacts & mitigation report (pg. 19) does not show where the OHWM is. In order to help staff confirm that this is factual, please submit a figure that displays the OHWM and where fill is being placed.

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 7, Section K.2 (a-d) addresses Restoration Policies. Staff is unable to adequately address the proposed mitigation addressed in this section without the critical area consistency memo. In addition to submitting a critical area consistency memo, please also address what the mitigation addressed in this section is referring to to assist with clarification. The response to this section was that it is N/A. Based on this response, I assume that no mitigation is necessary within the shoreline jurisdiction area because no impacts will be within the shoreline jurisdiction area? The stormwater outfall is within the shoreline area - how is this being addressed in this section?

Other/Miscellaneous

In response to Chapter 7, Section L.3 (c), you state that the design-build contractor that will be hired will be required to provide a final geotechnical documentation package and final design consistent with WSDOTs Geotech Design Manual and that it will include provisions of development associated with steep slopes. Will this be addressed in the Critical Area Consistency Memo? Or will this documentation be provided in future permitting to assist with addressing the compliance with shoreline stabilization requirements per the SMP?

Other/Miscellaneous

Chapter 7, Section L.3 (f) states: "Trees and vegetation shading streams and rivers shall be retained or replanted when shoreline stabilization is placed or replaced." In your response, you state that trees and vegetation shading the Puyallup River will be retained to the greatest extent possible in the outfall replacement area. Please provide a draft plan of what trees are proposed to be removed/retained/replanted wtihin the outfall area.

See Document Markup

Possible improvements near Levee Rd may exceed the blue impact area as shown here. Since the final design of this intersection and build-out of the Shared Use Path are currently unknown, the shoreline permit should include these areas. Additionally, the City wants the design builder to have the ability to pursue these options if feasible. (1) Shift Levee/Levee intersection farther east (2) Replace Levee/Levee intersection with a roundabout. (3) Provide a grade separated under-crossing at Levee Rd (City Preference and consistency with WSDOT Target Zero safety goals & strategies)) [Att_3_VicinityMap_SitePlans]

See Document Markup

Will there be adequate conduit installed on underside of bridge to facilitate future signal interconnect? I believe WSDOT was looking at feasibility/cost even though the traffic analysis showed there would be challenges integrating current WSDOT & Puyallup systems together. [Att_3_VicinityMap_SitePlans]

See Document Markup

See Document Markup

See Document Markup

Other/Miscellaneous

LEVEE AND OUTFALL • Provide approval/acknowledgment from Pierce County for the work occurring adjacent to, or within the limits of the existing levee system.