Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
05/28/2024
|
05/31/2024
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify the color coding.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 10 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"under SR512 and in line with 14th Ave SW"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 28 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Additional clarificaton is needed here...the City's State Highway basin discharges to a conveyance system located within the SR512 right-of-way and is under WSDOT jurisdiction. There are two individual approved drainage manuals that will apply to the MGSH project, i.e., the 2019 Ecology Manual (City jurisdiction) and the 2019 Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT jurisdiction).
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"comply with"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"and downstream analyses"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"within each jurisdiction's approved manual as applicable."
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please re-phrase: "However, the City of Puyallup is hesitant to allow sanitary sewer flows to be conveyed out-of-basin unless warranted and supported by a sewer study." or similar language.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 57 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
and/or the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual as applicable
[Mstr Plan; Pg 57 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...no utilities (water and storm) are shown within the roadway on Figure III-G.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 59 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"and the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual as applicable"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 74 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
WSDOT instead of State
[Mstr Plan; Pg 74 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
rotate text to be consistent.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 77 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove the three conditions (from the prior review) from the exhibit.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please correct Boring callout as noted.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 99 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise-"identified as being governed by a 1970 WSDOT-City interlocal agreement that limited city stormwater releases to the line."
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-perhaps "therefore, the whole project area must provide flow control." or something similar.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
This paragraph is missing half of the information that was included on the prior submittal. Please restore the missing information.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
No Comments
|
05/28/2024
|
05/31/2024
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
FEBRUARY, 2024 COMMENT: On page 17, 57, 72, under volcanic hazard area discussions, please add additional context and quotations from the USGS correspondence letter regarding the anticipated lahar elevation estimates as provided by USGS engineers/geologists. This will give context to this issue since the GIS layer elevation does not match the notes from USGS.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
On page 41, the Master Plan states "At full build-out in 2034, the multi-phase 2022 Master Plan calls for (...)". This should be corrected to state full build out at 2043 (for consistent with the phasing section of the Master Plan) and the document will be the 2024 Master Plan (reflecting the anticipated adoption year date).
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PHASING: Table III-A, page 44: In phase 2, its noted there will be a parking structure (PS2). Is PS2 the "Parking deck - 'T' " on the full build out site plan (III-A)? Will this be grouped with MOB A? If so, for clarity, can the table and the diagram be labeled the same for the parking structure and note that the parking structure in phase 2 is planned to be built concurrent with the MOB A?
PHASING: The narrative of the document reads like the 3rd St expansion and Central Support Tower would be separate projects. If so, can one be labeled as phase 5? Or phase 4a and 4b?
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PARKING: Thank you for clarifying that 3,352 total stalls are to be provided on site at the end of the project - please clarify this total in the Master Plan, it cannot be located. Table III-I is understandable, but complicated, and its not clear how many stalls are expected in each phase's parking structure. We still need an additional table or narrative explaining the anticipated number of parking stalls related to each of the build out structures. For example, will all of the 610 cumulative stalls for phases 1A and 1B be provided just in the PCT parking garage in phase 1? Will all of the 646 MOB parking stalls be provided in the future parking deck at the time that phase 2 is built, or will there be phases to the garage levels to support each MOB expansion?
PARKING: Jacobs is completing the parking impact analysis in the EIS. The parking analysis is not accounting for 230 new beds in the new Care Tower, it appears to only account for 200. The other concern is no parking being provided for the 120K square feet of floor area for the Support Tower and 3rd Street Dally Tower expansion. Based on our understanding of those proposed structures and uses, parking would typically be required for those uses and building area - its likely the ITE parking manual will also contain a parking ratio for those uses/buildings. PMC 20.88.030 (1)(f) requires the Master Plan demonstrate adequate parking as to not cause adverse impacts to surrounding streets and areas, which will be evaluated in the Master Plan. The project may be conditioned to be required to provide the CTR program options on pages 70-71, including other options, such as fee-for-parking for employee trips to further provide disincentive for SOV trips. Other notes will come from Jacob's analysis.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PMC 20.43.020-2 adopts development standards for Master Plan areas in the MED zone into code. Staff is proposing some clarifications in that code section to align with the Master Plan and will provide that with these notes.
|
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
05/28/2024
|
05/29/2024
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Comments
|
05/28/2024
|
05/28/2024
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Based on a comment from Central Pierce Fire & Rescue, the Ambulance bays are inadequate to handle the current level of emergency vehicle traffic. Provide a larger ambulance bay considering the amount of more patients the hospital will be taking in and consider the population is rising. This is a concern for all responding agencies and will need to be code compliant for fire apparatus turning radiuses and angle of inclination.
2. Consider in design, the Ed Lobby cannot encroach into fire lane. Fire lane should be a minimum of 26’ clear width for fire access. Fire apparatus turning radius need to be maintained and may be affected by item 1.
3. Auto-turn or equivalent program will be required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radius in all areas.
4. Future support tower is encroaching in a specific fire access area. This will cut off required fire access and not be allowed without adequate accommodations.
5. 5th street headed into 14th Ave SE needs a fire truck turn around.
6. 7th Street extension needs to be less than 10% grade.
7. 7TH Street extension will need a fire apparatus lane onto 14th Ave se. This requirement will allow existing facility building fire access along with the Proposed parking deck, and Future parking deck.
8. A fire hydrant will be required on 7th St Se.
9. Fire access will be required between the medical office building, Proposed parking deck, Future parking deck, and Future Medical office building. It looks that an access road could be created off 5th St SE
10. Dry standpipes will be required in all parking garages and retrofitted in existing.
11. With the high risk of shadowing other buildings for emergency radio, before construction begins a radio survey will need to be done inside and around surrounding buildings to serve as a benchmark for existing radio coverage, this benchmarking report shall include recommendations for mitigation. Near completion of construction of the new tower a comparison survey will be required to see if there was any negative impact to the surrounding areas. If radio coverage within the nearby buildings has been reduced beyond an unusable level, the loss will need to be mitigated by MultiCare. A certified radio contractor shall propose to the City how large of an area will need to be tested. The qualified contractor will provide the owner and City a report with conclusions and recommendations for code compliance. Based on their recommendations the City will have our third party consultant review for compliance.
12. The emergency radio system needs to be updated to allow surrounding agencies to have radio coverage throughout the campus. Pierce County Sherriff
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Corrections not complete.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
City of Puyallup requirements
Based on the meeting on 1/18/24 the following items were discussed. Please provide a code compliant path forward with the following responses.
1. Item # 1 Provide a comprehensive operational plan for the ambulance bays that meet the regional needs for EMS and PD. This request is a correlation between all fire and PD jurisdictions represented by CPFR and Puyallup PD. Documentation and photos have been provided by CPFR of the overcrowding currently with the ambulance bays.
2. Correction Response Letter: Items # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are addressed as follows. Each of these items will need to be compliant with the adopted code version of the IFC Appendix D. Based on current outlook, the 2021 Washington State codes will most likely be utilized. These code detailed items require acknowledgment and will need to be reflected on a site plan to move forward.
3. Item # 8 will be accepted as acknowledged.
4. Item # 10 If fire access is maintained per the IFC, this will not be a requirement. If access is changed based on the emergency layout this will be a requirement. Current plans provided by Multicare are going to change. This item will be reviewed again based on a new layout.
5. Item # 11 with the city adoption of IBC and IFC, section 510 compliance will be required. Please provide a response acknowledging compliance.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. 7 th St SE between 23rd Ave SE and 15th Ave SE is one of the main routes into the hospital, and will increase significantly in traffic volume with the planned extension. The existing portion is too narrow with no place for traffic to cede the right-of-way to emergency vehicles. It is also extremely uneven which necessitates a massive reduction in speed to ensure proper patient care in the back of medic units transporting to the hospital. Improvements need to be made to address these deficiencies.
a. Response: This improvement is not part of the proposed Master Plan. We observe that the existing stretch of right of way is narrow, with many surrounding residential homes close to the street. MGSH is concerned with the feasibility, nexus, and proportionality of this request as it is a significant request and MGSH has no condemnation authority. More detail will need to be provided by the City to understand the scope of this request, and whether it is justified under the SEPA rules. Further, we observe that the improvement is listed as a project in the City’s 20- year CIP.
b. CPFR Response: This item was not discussed at the meeting, and CPFR’s concerns still stand. With increased emergency unit response traffic (coupled with additional routine traffic for the larger-capacity campus) that will be traveling this path as one of the main accesses to the hospital campus, it remains a weak point in the infrastructure that merits attention.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
2. The existing ambulance bay is inadequate to handle the current level of emergency vehicle traffic. We often have all ambulance stalls filled, with additional units lined up in the ambulance bay approach. We would like to see an expansion of the ambulance bay with additional parking stalls that also addresses the police parking that interferes with egress. The police parking needs to be maintained in the vicinity, but reconfigured or relocated.
a. Response: The Master Plan does not include any proposed expansion of the existing Ambulance Bays. MGSH and the City are coordinating a meeting with Central Pierce Fire & Rescue, the City, and the Policy Department onsite for early January 2024 to discuss the Ambulance Bay comments further. MGSH has deployed operational changes to Ambulance Bay management in the last few months that are anticipated to alleviate concerns. If Central Pierce Fire & Rescue concerns remain following the meeting and further discussion, then additional operational or physical changes could be considered as mitigation measures if supported by the City’s adopted policies and the SEPA Rules.
b. CPFR Response: At the meeting, it was shared that one operational change had been made by MGSH in the form of redirecting private ambulances to the old ER entrance for the pickup of interfacility transfers that originate from the patients housed in that tower. It was clarified that all private ambulance drop-offs are still made at the ED utilizing the existing ambulance bay. Additional pending operational changes were mentioned that have not yet been implemented, including the use of the OB pickup area for interfacility transfers, conversion of some ADA parking to PD parking to alleviate congestion, and betterment/streamlining of patient processing and throughput to reduce the wait time of medic units passing off patient care to the ED. CPFR agrees wholeheartedly that the successful execution of these measures will relieve some of the congestion, but this is not a problem that has cropped up in just the last couple months. The improperly sized ambulance bay has been a point of congestion for many years, and has progressively gotten worse as the emergency call volume has increased. Since 2010, the call volume has more than doubled from ~16,500 calls per year to in excess of 37,000 calls for the same number of stations. In response to the growth of the community and the shift in approach to healthcare, CPFR has already added two (2) additional medic units into the system (M68 and M62) in the past 18 months, and will be adding three (3) more within the next 18 months (M66, M74* and M75* - number designations are subject to change). This does not account for any additional medic units in the surrounding fire districts (Graham, East Pierce, Orting) that also count on MGSH as their primary transport location. Given those factors, and the projected population growth of the area, CPFR would like to see an expansion of the ambulance bay capacity, along with the restoration of access to the main entrance of the ED where less acute patients can be dropped off more efficiently. Additionally, information was presented by PPD about the various agencies that transport detained patients to the ER and how much parking is needed for the transfer of just one patient due to manpower requirements. With the current configuration, police parking exacerbates the gridlock in the ambulance bay, and affects police access to the ER. The idea of converting the ADA parking into police parking is one approach, but must comply with proximity rules dictated by the city’s municipal code for disabled parking. In short, CPFR asserts a redesign and expansion of the ambulance bay should be a priority of the campus master plan in order to accommodate the needs of our community and the operational needs of emergency services.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
3. Provide a minimum of two dedicated parking stalls for fire department engine apparatus that respond to the hospital to retrieve personnel involved in emergency patient case. Currently, emergency rigs park along 3d St SE and partially block the right-of-way creating an additional hazard.
a. Response: MGSH proposes to discuss this comment with the City, Police Department, and Pierce County Fire & Rescue during the onsite meeting. Additional response will be provided following that meeting. 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, Washington 98101 www.perkinswill.com
b. CPFR Response: Engines and Ladder Trucks will respond to the hospital in order to retrieve personnel that ride in with the medic unit on critical calls when additional manpower is needed for patient care. Currently, the parking options for those apparatus cause two-lane roads to be reduced to one with limited visibility, and blind spots for pedestrians crossing the street. One proposed solution to this issue is to eliminate the parking on the west side of 3rd ST SE and convert it into a Fire Lane for at least two rigs. Other longer-term options that were proposed include the elimination of the green space along the front of the ED parking garage – if rated storm vaults were used for water runoff and the area was paved and designated for fire department use, it would provide the needed parking capacity for fire department apparatus. If enough area were converted to drivable surface, it may also accommodate the police traffic previously mentioned.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
4. The expansion of the ER waiting room will eliminate access and turnaround for fire apparatus. This must be mitigated to maintain clear width for fire access.
a. Response: Comment acknowledged. MGSH will address minimum fire lane width during detailed building and site design and permitting.
b. CPFR Response: Per discussion at the meeting, the area in front of the ER will be modified in order to comply with the fire code and allow for the necessary fire apparatus access and turning radii.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
5. The future support tower appears to encroach/eliminate an existing fire access area. Accommodations must be made to ensure fire access.
a. Response: Comment acknowledged. MGSH will address alternative fire access during detailed building and site design and permitting.
b. CPFR Response: The MGSH master plan architect/designer was tasked with ensuring the necessary changes were made to provide the FD with required accesses (maybe even a tunnel for extended hose lays) and turn-around points in accordance with the IFC and PMC.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
6. With limited access for fire apparatus to the parking garages, dry standpipes need to be installed to ensure efficient water supply for fire suppression activities.
a. Response: Comment acknowledged. Dry standpipes are anticipated in all new parking garages.
b. CPFR Response: N/A.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Based on a comment from Central Pierce Fire & rescue, the Ambulance bays are inadequate to handle the current level of emergency vehicle traffic. Provide a larger ambulance bay considering the amount of more patients the hospital will be taking in and consider the population rising. This is a concern for all responding agencies and will need to be code compliant for fire apparatus turning radiuses and angle of inclination.
Response: A study of potential refinements to the existing Ambulance Bay was presented to City and Pierce Fire & Rescue representatives on April 8, 2024. Several alternatives were discussed, and feedback solicited. We are currently refining the suggested “preferred option” and will provide it shortly by follow-up transmission. The preferred option discussed at the meeting would include:
(a) removal of police parking spaces from the ambulance bay and relocation near the main entry,
(b) reconfiguration of parking for angled spaces,
(c) the addition of a parallel ambulance parking space on the east side of the bay,
(d) adjustment of the exiting curb bulb to make turning movements easier,
(e) creation of two to three additional ambulance “queuing” spaces before the bay entry, and
(f) exploration of feasibility for potential non-structural awning or other weather protection measure for the reconfigured ambulance parking spaces in the bays. In addition, along the West side of 3rd Street the public parking would be restriped and restricted for Fire Parking. Last, MGSH is also implementing operational changes that are expected to increase patient through-put in the ED and will assist in resolving congestion issues. A summary of those operational changes is provided with this submittal.
• Response to response: This item is a highly critical piece to move forward and needs to be addressed before the 3rd street expansion of 30k sqft is looked at.
2. Consider in design, the ED Lobby cannot encroach into fire lane. Fire lane should be a minimum of 26’ clear width for fire access. Fire apparatus turning radius need to be maintained and may be affected by item 1.
Response: See attached fire access plan showing a 26’ minimum clear width for fire access will still be maintained with the expansion of the ED Lobby.
• Response to response: The Auto Turn is in adequate and shows multiple areas of running over curbs that could potentially hit a bystander. With this expansion, it clearly shows that curb, gutter, parking strips, and possibly sidewalk will need to be altered to accommodate proper fire access and turning radius.
3. Auto-turn or equivalent program, will be required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radius in all areas.
Response: See attached fire access plan showing auto turn in all areas of the proposed Master Plan. The exhibit demonstrates that the fire apparatus will be able to access all the proposed Master Plan facilities. Where needed, turnarounds are provided. We have also located existing and conceptual locations for fire hydrants on the site. These locations will need to be confirmed during final design and permitting of each structure.
• Response to response: Based on the newest site plan, considering access to building, topography, and fire operational concerns the following need to be addressed.
o Show egress into the parking garages, are they a one way in and out or one entrance?
o The fire truck “T” at the Eastside of 5th St Se needs to be a cul-de-sac for proper access.
o The fire truck “T” at the end of 14th Ave SE needs to be extended as close as possible to 15th Ave SE. MOB B will require two points of access to be within 15-30’ from the apparatus road. With 15th Ave. SE being elevated this will not be considered a point of access per the IFC.
o The new fire lanes will be required to be a 26’ unobstructed width. No parking signs will be required along with fire lane paint and stenciling. If there is a desire for parking on these access roads, the roads will be required be widen. What are the plans for the access roads per the IFC.
4. Future support tower is encroaching in a specific fire access area. This will cut off required fire access and not be allowed without adequate accommodations.
Response: There is a large slope between the proposed Support Tower and the existing building to the North, limiting vehicular access to this area. It was discussed with the City and Pierce Fire & Rescue that ladder truck. Access to this area is not needed, however, the design of this area will be required to provide accommodations and mitigation measures that will be refined further during final building design and building permitting.
• Response to response: This is a very critical item. Provide a comprehensive plan showing all Exiting around the CST building that currently use this sloped area as evacuation. An understanding of this area needs to be determined now to avoid future code conflicts.
5. 5th street headed into 14th Ave SE needs a fire truck turn around.
Response: See attached fire access plan showing auto turn in this area of the proposed Master Plan.
• Response to response: A new plan was uploaded and changed this comment. Please refer to item #3 in the Auto turn section for requirements. This plan differs from the previous revision.
6. 7th Street extension needs to be less than 10% grade.
Response: It is not possible for the 7th street extension to have less than 10% grade between 15th and 13th. The documents provided in the EIS submittal show that based on the elevation difference between 15th and 13th, the slope of the road exceeds 10%. The 7th Street extension is not a Master Plan proposal but a potential traffic mitigation measure. The significant grade of this extension is a feature that warrants discussion related to its effectiveness as a potential traffic mitigation measure.
• Response to response: This is still seen as an operational need but based on the traffic study this is no longer a requirement from City engineers. This comment will be addressed at a latter date.
7. 7th Street extension will need a fire apparatus lane onto 14th Ave SE. This requirement will allow existing facility building fire access along with the Proposed parking deck, and Future parking deck.
Response: See attached fire access plan showing auto turn in all areas of the proposed Master Plan.
• Response to response: See item #6 comment that addressing 7TH Street.
8. A fire hydrant will be required on 7th St SE.
Response: Comment acknowledged. A fire hydrant is shown on the attached fire access map. All new fire hydrant locations will be confirmed as part of future civil permits.
• Response to response: See item #6 comment that addressing 7TH Street.
9. Fire access will be required between the medical office building, Proposed parking deck, future parking deck, and Future Medical office building. It looks that an access road could be created off 5th St SE.
Response: See attached fire access plan showing auto turn in this area of the proposed Master Plan.
• Response to response: A new plan was uploaded and changed this comment. Please refer to item #3 in the Auto turn section for requirements.
10. Dry standpipes will be required in all parking garages and retrofitted in existing.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Dry standpipes are anticipated in all new parking garages. The Master Plan does not contemplate, and we are not aware of a legal requirement to retrofit existing garages.
• Response to response: The retrofit was an ask from CPFR. If MultiCare has chosen not to update the parking garage for the operational life safety aspect, then the above answer will be documented and moved forward.
11. With the high risk of shadowing other buildings for emergency radio, before construction begins, a radio survey will need to be done inside and around surrounding buildings to serve as a benchmark for existing radio coverage, this benchmarking report shall include recommendations for mitigation. Near completion of construction of the new tower a comparison survey will be required to see if there was any negative impact to the surrounding areas. If radio coverage within the nearby buildings has been reduced beyond an unusable level, the loss will need to be mitigated by MultiCare. A certified radio contractor shall propose to the City how large of an area will need to be tested. The qualified contractor will provide the owner and City a report with conclusions and recommendations for code compliance. Based on their recommendations the city will have our third-party consultant review for compliance.
Response: MultiCare’s new tower at Good Sam Patient care tower will be capable of extending the emergency responder radio coverage from its main headend in the Dally Tower without any additional impact to the radio system. It was designed for expansion and will be expected to provide seamless communication to our first responders radios meeting WA State and local codes. There should be little concern for impacting radio coverage in addition as the immediate shadow cast outside by the new tower would be covered by our existing DAS.
• Response to response: This is a requirement for a licensed Radio company to provide a report of existing buildings that could be shadowed by the new tower. The concern is for emergency responder radio coverage in existing buildings in the area. GSH will automatically be required to be code compliant for existing and new structures on their campus with section 510 of the IFC.
12. The emergency radio system needs to be updated to allow surrounding agencies to have radio coverage throughout the campus. Pierce County Sherriff.
Response: See Response #11. We understand Pierce County Sheriff should be able to use the existing radio system.
• Response to response: We will need a response from a licensed Radio company stating the current system is in compliance.
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
05/28/2024
|
05/21/2024
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
See Traffic Dept conditions.
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Comments
|
02/01/2024
|
02/28/2024
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Provide a detailed response to each of the following items:
Provide a detailed summary of Puyallup's comprehensive plan as it relates to the surrounding campus area. For example, Puyallup's comprehensive plan identifies 15th Ave SE and 7th St SE as bicycle priority networks. How will the Hospital accommodate these improvements.
The requirement for the 7th St SE connection will not be based solely on the traffic analysis. This connection may also be necessary to provide EV access for proposed buildings. This connection is also identified in our comprehensive plan to provide non-motorized connectivity.
As part of the traffic analysis, the previous TIA will be reviewed. Does the applicant have design documents from 2007 that were used to determine the alignment of the 7th St SE connection per ordinance #2900?
Regarding the existing offset of 7th Street SE at 15th, the Hospital's design would be required to mitigate the skewed approach. Per ordinance #2900, Good Samaritan Hospital will be not be required to procure additional 7th St SE ROW. However, additional ROW dedication may be required to facilitate modification to design per City code.
Entire site will be required to complete a comprehensive lighting analysis to ensure ANSI/IES RP-8 compliance.
Entire site will be required to complete a comprehensive analysis of existing frontage improvements. Non-standard existing frontage (narrow sidewalk, lack of planter strips/street trees, City standard streetlighting, etc.) must be identified.
15th Ave SE, 13th Ave SE, 3rd St SE, 7th St SE are all designated as a Major Collectors. City standards (Section 101.10.1) require minimum spacing of 150 feet from the intersection & driveways measured between closest edges of the driveway.
-Per City standards, commercial driveways must be aligned with intersections/driveways across the street.
-Access restrictions may be necessary if City Standards are not met.
AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle that would access the site. Curb radii and entrance dimensions shall be increased as necessary to allow vehicles to access the site without encroaching into adjacent lanes of traffic.
City standard commercial driveway shall be required along frontage. Minimum commercial driveway width is 30ft with 35ft radius.
All roadways serving campus (internal/external) must meet MUTCD/AASHTO requirements for signage, striping, pavement markings, geometry, barricades, railing, sight distance, speeds, etc. A comprehensive analysis will be required throughout campus area. For example, the internal intersection of 14th Ave SE/5th St SE does not meet any nationally accredited standards and will require significant mitigation.
The south side of 13th Ave SE shall be improved with City standard frontage improvements. All on-street parking shall be removed to facilitate improvements (between 3rd St SE & 7th St SE) . Curb alignment will be continuous on the south side a must be offset from buildings to maintain 24ft wide roadway. Existing marked crosswalks do not meet current standards and must be consolidated. Sight distance deficiencies existing along 13th Ave driveways/pedestrian crossings. Streetlighting will be required along this segment as well. Applicant will be required to propose mitigation.
The north side of 13th Ave has gaps in ADA accessible pathways. Mitigation will be required to meet standards.
Sight distance analysis (ESD & SSD) will be required for intersections and roadway segments serving site.
Comprehensive analysis of existing/proposed non-motorized ADA/PROWAG compliance (on-site & off-site) will be required. Evaluate existing non-motorized facilities. This will include on/off site facilities near Hospital. To minimize conflict points with at-grade crossings, the City will require the applicant to study pedestrian bridges to connect buildings/parking structures.
Transit facilities are located along S Meridian. Mitigation will be required to expand/improve non-motorized facilities between Campus and S Meridian transit facilities.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
See Traffic Dept conditions.
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Comments
|
02/01/2024
|
02/14/2024
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This zone is called RM-20, please correct reference [planning comment, master plan doc, page 14 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please describe how the houses are being used [planning comment, master plan doc, page 14 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Briefly describe the relationship of the 2007 master plan with the 2003 master plan. This is a global comment throughout the document (anywhere the 2007 approval is mentioned) [planning comment, master plan doc, page 41 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
The FEIS will need to be an appendix to the final approved master plan [planning comment, master plan doc, page 41 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a short description of what the Supply Tower would be it terms of interior space and uses. Is this all admin. offices to support in patient beds? Also, in other parts of this document its called the Central Support Tower - which is correct? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 43 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a short description of the Dally Tower expansion in terms of interior space and uses [planning comment, master plan doc, page 44 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please specify the maximum height of the Dally Tower in numerical feet based on PMC measurements for commercial development structure height [planning comment, master plan doc, page 47 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
7th is labeled as a bike lane corridor connection in the city's Active Transportation plan. It would seem more like 11 foot drive lanes with 5 foot bike lane and a 2 foot striped buffer (18 feet each way) would make the most sense [planning comment, master plan doc, page 56 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify how the additional expansions don't require parking. PMC would require parking for the support tower and Dally tower expansions if code were applied. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 64 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
10 percent of 1,450 would equal 1,595 stalls. Please clarify how the 1,650 is determined [planning comment, master plan doc, page 65 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Table III-I needs to be modified to demonstrate total parking stalls (existing + new) to demonstrate compliance with PMC 20.88.030 (1)(F), and what parking # will be tied to each building and/or phase. This is needed so the planner can verify the number of parking stalls needed to tie back to each building permit. Please also remove the term Up To and simplify this table with a max # of stalls. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 67 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Is the net total parking needed for the entire campus at full build 1,494 plus 1,650, equaling 3,144? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 67 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
This section needs to define how the project new construction will (or is proposing to deviate from) the applicable design review code (PMC 20.26.300) [planning comment, master plan doc, page 46 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will need to update language once FEIS is complete [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Table III-A states 2043 full build date. Is the build horizon year 2043 (20 year master plan)? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please clarify that all setback yards will be landscaped. We will also want to review the Type IV parking lot landscaping requirements as they are substantially different than 2007 and will effect parking count due to design requirements for landscape islands. Surface lot on SE corner of 5th and 14th currently meets type IV standards [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Code contains heights based on elevations. Applicant should carefully review and consider going with an overall vertical height measurement from finished grade of each building. Staff recommends this approach. Staff anticipates modifying 20.43.020-2 to accommodate. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will the large open space plaza currently SE of the Dally Tower be replicated or replaced after the new patient care tower is installed? That plaza is a significant feature of the campus open space and its not clear if that will be replaced [planning comment, master plan doc, page 81 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will MultiCare meet existing MED code allowances for sign area and size or is there a proposal to exceed those standards [planning comment, master plan doc, page 77]
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning staff sent this section through Legal review. This comment will need to be corrected for accuracy of what vests under a Master Plan. Development regulations specifically adopted in PMC 20.43.020-1 that are different from base zoning will apply for the build out of the Master Plan. Further discussion with the applicant is necessary to clarify this statement for accuracy. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 85 ]
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
NOVEMBER 02, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT [PLANNING]: In the first review, we itemized a series of questions and comments, mainly through mark ups on the Master Plan document with identifying page numbers throughout. In reviewing the resubmitted Master Plan document it does not appear that there is a response to comment letter or any corresponding corrections made to the Master Plan in response to our 05/01/23 review letter notes. When resubmitting, please provide an itemized response to comment letter with associated track changes version of the Master Plan document. If you have questions about my comments prior to resubmitting, please reach out to me directly.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
FEBRUARY, 2024 COMMENT: On page 17, 57, 72, under volcanic hazard area discussions, please add additional context and quotations from the USGS correspondence letter regarding the anticipated lahar elevation estimates as provided by USGS engineers/geologists. This will give context to this issue since the GIS layer elevation does not match the notes from USGS.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
On page 41, the Master Plan states "At full build-out in 2034, the multi-phase 2022 Master Plan calls for (...)". This should be corrected to state full build out at 2043 (for consistent with the phasing section of the Master Plan) and the document will be the 2024 Master Plan (reflecting the anticipated adoption year date).
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PHASING: Table III-A, page 44: In phase 2, its noted there will be a parking structure (PS2). Is PS2 the "Parking deck - 'T' " on the full build out site plan (III-A)? Will this be grouped with MOB A? If so, for clarity, can the table and the diagram be labeled the same for the parking structure and note that the parking structure in phase 2 is planned to be built concurrent with the MOB A?
PHASING: The narrative of the document reads like the 3rd St expansion and Central Support Tower would be separate projects. If so, can one be labeled as phase 5? Or phase 4a and 4b?
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PARKING: Thank you for clarifying that 3,352 total stalls are to be provided on site at the end of the project - please clarify this total in the Master Plan, it cannot be located. Table III-I is understandable, but complicated, and its not clear how many stalls are expected in each phase's parking structure. We still need an additional table or narrative explaining the anticipated number of parking stalls related to each of the build out structures. For example, will all of the 610 cumulative stalls for phases 1A and 1B be provided just in the PCT parking garage in phase 1? Will all of the 646 MOB parking stalls be provided in the future parking deck at the time that phase 2 is built, or will there be phases to the garage levels to support each MOB expansion?
PARKING: Jacobs is completing the parking impact analysis in the EIS. The parking analysis is not accounting for 230 new beds in the new Care Tower, it appears to only account for 200. The other concern is no parking being provided for the 120K square feet of floor area for the Support Tower and 3rd Street Dally Tower expansion. Based on our understanding of those proposed structures and uses, parking would typically be required for those uses and building area - its likely the ITE parking manual will also contain a parking ratio for those uses/buildings. PMC 20.88.030 (1)(f) requires the Master Plan demonstrate adequate parking as to not cause adverse impacts to surrounding streets and areas, which will be evaluated in the Master Plan. The project may be conditioned to be required to provide the CTR program options on pages 70-71, including other options, such as fee-for-parking for employee trips to further provide disincentive for SOV trips. Other notes will come from Jacob's analysis.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PMC 20.43.020-2 adopts development standards for Master Plan areas in the MED zone into code. Staff is proposing some clarifications in that code section to align with the Master Plan and will provide that with these notes.
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Comments
|
02/01/2024
|
02/02/2024
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Acknowledged by the applicant:
Building permit reviews are subject to the applicable codes at the time of complete building permit application.
Complete building permit submittals include applications, architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, energy code, and related submittals for constructability.
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
02/01/2024
|
02/01/2024
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The applicant shall “acknowledge” the engineering CONDITIONS described later in this letter prior to final approval of the Master Plan.
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 227 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Verify Callout (Fig II-O?)
[Master Plan; Pg 230 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Verify statement (higher elevation at south end)
[Master Plan; Pg 230 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-The City will not allow sewer flows to be conveyed out-of-basin.
[Master Plan; Pg 255 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-"northern"
[Master Plan; Pg 256 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-"southern"
[Master Plan; Pg 256 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legibility.
[Master Plan; Pg 258 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 272 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legibility.
[Master Plan; Pg 273 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide legible exhibit.
[Master Plan; Pg 338 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide legible exhibit.
[Master Plan; Pg 343 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify the color coding.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 10 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"under SR512 and in line with 14th Ave SW"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 28 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Additional clarificaton is needed here...the City's State Highway basin discharges to a conveyance system located within the SR512 right-of-way and is under WSDOT jurisdiction. There are two individual approved drainage manuals that will apply to the MGSH project, i.e., the 2019 Ecology Manual (City jurisdiction) and the 2019 Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT jurisdiction).
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"comply with"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"and downstream analyses"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"within each jurisdiction's approved manual as applicable."
[Mstr Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please re-phrase: "However, the City of Puyallup is hesitant to allow sanitary sewer flows to be conveyed out-of-basin unless warranted and supported by a sewer study." or similar language.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 57 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
and/or the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual as applicable
[Mstr Plan; Pg 57 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...no utilities (water and storm) are shown within the roadway on Figure III-G.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 59 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
"and the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual as applicable"
[Mstr Plan; Pg 74 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
WSDOT instead of State
[Mstr Plan; Pg 74 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
rotate text to be consistent.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 77 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove the three conditions (from the prior review) from the exhibit.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please correct Boring callout as noted.
[Mstr Plan; Pg 99 of 145]
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Comments
|
02/01/2024
|
01/30/2024
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Based on a comment from Central Pierce Fire & Rescue, the Ambulance bays are inadequate to handle the current level of emergency vehicle traffic. Provide a larger ambulance bay considering the amount of more patients the hospital will be taking in and consider the population is rising. This is a concern for all responding agencies and will need to be code compliant for fire apparatus turning radiuses and angle of inclination.
2. Consider in design, the Ed Lobby cannot encroach into fire lane. Fire lane should be a minimum of 26’ clear width for fire access. Fire apparatus turning radius need to be maintained and may be affected by item 1.
3. Auto-turn or equivalent program will be required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radius in all areas.
4. Future support tower is encroaching in a specific fire access area. This will cut off required fire access and not be allowed without adequate accommodations.
5. 5th street headed into 14th Ave SE needs a fire truck turn around.
6. 7th Street extension needs to be less than 10% grade.
7. 7TH Street extension will need a fire apparatus lane onto 14th Ave se. This requirement will allow existing facility building fire access along with the Proposed parking deck, and Future parking deck.
8. A fire hydrant will be required on 7th St Se.
9. Fire access will be required between the medical office building, Proposed parking deck, Future parking deck, and Future Medical office building. It looks that an access road could be created off 5th St SE
10. Dry standpipes will be required in all parking garages and retrofitted in existing.
11. With the high risk of shadowing other buildings for emergency radio, before construction begins a radio survey will need to be done inside and around surrounding buildings to serve as a benchmark for existing radio coverage, this benchmarking report shall include recommendations for mitigation. Near completion of construction of the new tower a comparison survey will be required to see if there was any negative impact to the surrounding areas. If radio coverage within the nearby buildings has been reduced beyond an unusable level, the loss will need to be mitigated by MultiCare. A certified radio contractor shall propose to the City how large of an area will need to be tested. The qualified contractor will provide the owner and City a report with conclusions and recommendations for code compliance. Based on their recommendations the City will have our third party consultant review for compliance.
12. The emergency radio system needs to be updated to allow surrounding agencies to have radio coverage throughout the campus. Pierce County Sherriff
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Corrections not complete.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
City of Puyallup requirements
Based on the meeting on 1/18/24 the following items were discussed. Please provide a code compliant path forward with the following responses.
1. Item # 1 Provide a comprehensive operational plan for the ambulance bays that meet the regional needs for EMS and PD. This request is a correlation between all fire and PD jurisdictions represented by CPFR and Puyallup PD. Documentation and photos have been provided by CPFR of the overcrowding currently with the ambulance bays.
2. Correction Response Letter: Items # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are addressed as follows. Each of these items will need to be compliant with the adopted code version of the IFC Appendix D. Based on current outlook, the 2021 Washington State codes will most likely be utilized. These code detailed items require acknowledgment and will need to be reflected on a site plan to move forward.
3. Item # 8 will be accepted as acknowledged.
4. Item # 10 If fire access is maintained per the IFC, this will not be a requirement. If access is changed based on the emergency layout this will be a requirement. Current plans provided by Multicare are going to change. This item will be reviewed again based on a new layout.
5. Item # 11 with the city adoption of IBC and IFC, section 510 compliance will be required. Please provide a response acknowledging compliance.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. 7 th St SE between 23rd Ave SE and 15th Ave SE is one of the main routes into the hospital, and will increase significantly in traffic volume with the planned extension. The existing portion is too narrow with no place for traffic to cede the right-of-way to emergency vehicles. It is also extremely uneven which necessitates a massive reduction in speed to ensure proper patient care in the back of medic units transporting to the hospital. Improvements need to be made to address these deficiencies.
a. Response: This improvement is not part of the proposed Master Plan. We observe that the existing stretch of right of way is narrow, with many surrounding residential homes close to the street. MGSH is concerned with the feasibility, nexus, and proportionality of this request as it is a significant request and MGSH has no condemnation authority. More detail will need to be provided by the City to understand the scope of this request, and whether it is justified under the SEPA rules. Further, we observe that the improvement is listed as a project in the City’s 20- year CIP.
b. CPFR Response: This item was not discussed at the meeting, and CPFR’s concerns still stand. With increased emergency unit response traffic (coupled with additional routine traffic for the larger-capacity campus) that will be traveling this path as one of the main accesses to the hospital campus, it remains a weak point in the infrastructure that merits attention.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
2. The existing ambulance bay is inadequate to handle the current level of emergency vehicle traffic. We often have all ambulance stalls filled, with additional units lined up in the ambulance bay approach. We would like to see an expansion of the ambulance bay with additional parking stalls that also addresses the police parking that interferes with egress. The police parking needs to be maintained in the vicinity, but reconfigured or relocated.
a. Response: The Master Plan does not include any proposed expansion of the existing Ambulance Bays. MGSH and the City are coordinating a meeting with Central Pierce Fire & Rescue, the City, and the Policy Department onsite for early January 2024 to discuss the Ambulance Bay comments further. MGSH has deployed operational changes to Ambulance Bay management in the last few months that are anticipated to alleviate concerns. If Central Pierce Fire & Rescue concerns remain following the meeting and further discussion, then additional operational or physical changes could be considered as mitigation measures if supported by the City’s adopted policies and the SEPA Rules.
b. CPFR Response: At the meeting, it was shared that one operational change had been made by MGSH in the form of redirecting private ambulances to the old ER entrance for the pickup of interfacility transfers that originate from the patients housed in that tower. It was clarified that all private ambulance drop-offs are still made at the ED utilizing the existing ambulance bay. Additional pending operational changes were mentioned that have not yet been implemented, including the use of the OB pickup area for interfacility transfers, conversion of some ADA parking to PD parking to alleviate congestion, and betterment/streamlining of patient processing and throughput to reduce the wait time of medic units passing off patient care to the ED. CPFR agrees wholeheartedly that the successful execution of these measures will relieve some of the congestion, but this is not a problem that has cropped up in just the last couple months. The improperly sized ambulance bay has been a point of congestion for many years, and has progressively gotten worse as the emergency call volume has increased. Since 2010, the call volume has more than doubled from ~16,500 calls per year to in excess of 37,000 calls for the same number of stations. In response to the growth of the community and the shift in approach to healthcare, CPFR has already added two (2) additional medic units into the system (M68 and M62) in the past 18 months, and will be adding three (3) more within the next 18 months (M66, M74* and M75* - number designations are subject to change). This does not account for any additional medic units in the surrounding fire districts (Graham, East Pierce, Orting) that also count on MGSH as their primary transport location. Given those factors, and the projected population growth of the area, CPFR would like to see an expansion of the ambulance bay capacity, along with the restoration of access to the main entrance of the ED where less acute patients can be dropped off more efficiently. Additionally, information was presented by PPD about the various agencies that transport detained patients to the ER and how much parking is needed for the transfer of just one patient due to manpower requirements. With the current configuration, police parking exacerbates the gridlock in the ambulance bay, and affects police access to the ER. The idea of converting the ADA parking into police parking is one approach, but must comply with proximity rules dictated by the city’s municipal code for disabled parking. In short, CPFR asserts a redesign and expansion of the ambulance bay should be a priority of the campus master plan in order to accommodate the needs of our community and the operational needs of emergency services.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
3. Provide a minimum of two dedicated parking stalls for fire department engine apparatus that respond to the hospital to retrieve personnel involved in emergency patient case. Currently, emergency rigs park along 3d St SE and partially block the right-of-way creating an additional hazard.
a. Response: MGSH proposes to discuss this comment with the City, Police Department, and Pierce County Fire & Rescue during the onsite meeting. Additional response will be provided following that meeting. 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, Washington 98101 www.perkinswill.com
b. CPFR Response: Engines and Ladder Trucks will respond to the hospital in order to retrieve personnel that ride in with the medic unit on critical calls when additional manpower is needed for patient care. Currently, the parking options for those apparatus cause two-lane roads to be reduced to one with limited visibility, and blind spots for pedestrians crossing the street. One proposed solution to this issue is to eliminate the parking on the west side of 3rd ST SE and convert it into a Fire Lane for at least two rigs. Other longer-term options that were proposed include the elimination of the green space along the front of the ED parking garage – if rated storm vaults were used for water runoff and the area was paved and designated for fire department use, it would provide the needed parking capacity for fire department apparatus. If enough area were converted to drivable surface, it may also accommodate the police traffic previously mentioned.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
4. The expansion of the ER waiting room will eliminate access and turnaround for fire apparatus. This must be mitigated to maintain clear width for fire access.
a. Response: Comment acknowledged. MGSH will address minimum fire lane width during detailed building and site design and permitting.
b. CPFR Response: Per discussion at the meeting, the area in front of the ER will be modified in order to comply with the fire code and allow for the necessary fire apparatus access and turning radii.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
5. The future support tower appears to encroach/eliminate an existing fire access area. Accommodations must be made to ensure fire access.
a. Response: Comment acknowledged. MGSH will address alternative fire access during detailed building and site design and permitting.
b. CPFR Response: The MGSH master plan architect/designer was tasked with ensuring the necessary changes were made to provide the FD with required accesses (maybe even a tunnel for extended hose lays) and turn-around points in accordance with the IFC and PMC.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
6. With limited access for fire apparatus to the parking garages, dry standpipes need to be installed to ensure efficient water supply for fire suppression activities.
a. Response: Comment acknowledged. Dry standpipes are anticipated in all new parking garages.
b. CPFR Response: N/A.
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Comments
|
11/03/2023
|
11/20/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Building permit reviews are subject to the applicable codes at the time of complete building permit application.
Complete building permit submittals include applications, architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, energy code, and related submittals for constructability.
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
11/03/2023
|
11/15/2023
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify Callout (Fig II-O?)
[Master Plan; Pg 32 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify statement (higher elevation at south end)
[Master Plan; Pg 32 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
It is very unlikely that the City will allow sewer flows to be conveyed out-of-basin.
[Master Plan; Pg 57 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Publicly owned storm facilities shall be located either in ROW or a separate dedicated tract.
[Master Plan; Pg 58 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
northern
[Master Plan; Pg 58 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
southern
[Master Plan; Pg 58 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 74 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
The stormwater design shall comply with both the City's and WSDOT's individual jurisdictional permitting requirements and adopted stormwater regulations. This may require separate stormwater modeling to ensure compliance with each jurisdiction's specific requirements.
[Master Plan; Pg 76 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
At the time of civil application, the applicant shall provide a downstream analysis of the Clarks Creek basin conveyance system in accordance with the Ecology Manual Section I-3.5.3; and a downstream analysis of the State Highway Basin conveyance system in accordance with WSDOT's requirements.
[Master Plan; Pg 76 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, private stormwater facilities shall be setback 20-ft minimum from property lines and structures. Setback area shall not exceed 5% cross-slope.
[Master Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, public stormwater facilities shall be setback 20-ft minimum from property lines and structures. Maintain 20-ft setback between retaining walls and the Emergency Overflow Elevation. Setback area shall not exceed 5% cross-slope.
[Master Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Public stormwater facilities shall be located within a tract or easement granted to the City.
[Master Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The applicant shall “acknowledge” the engineering CONDITIONS described later in this letter prior to final approval of the Master Plan.
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 227 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Verify Callout (Fig II-O?)
[Master Plan; Pg 230 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Verify statement (higher elevation at south end)
[Master Plan; Pg 230 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-The City will not allow sewer flows to be conveyed out-of-basin.
[Master Plan; Pg 255 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-"northern"
[Master Plan; Pg 256 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-"southern"
[Master Plan; Pg 256 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legibility.
[Master Plan; Pg 258 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
PER PRIOR COMMENT-Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 272 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legibility.
[Master Plan; Pg 273 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide legible exhibit.
[Master Plan; Pg 338 of 343]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide legible exhibit.
[Master Plan; Pg 343 of 343]
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Comments
|
11/03/2023
|
11/06/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Provide a detailed response to each of the following items:
Provide a detailed summary of Puyallup's comprehensive plan as it relates to the surrounding campus area. For example, Puyallup's comprehensive plan identifies 15th Ave SE and 7th St SE as bicycle priority networks. How will the Hospital accommodate these improvements.
The requirement for the 7th St SE connection will not be based solely on the traffic analysis. This connection may also be necessary to provide EV access for proposed buildings. This connection is also identified in our comprehensive plan to provide non-motorized connectivity.
As part of the traffic analysis, the previous TIA will be reviewed. Does the applicant have design documents from 2007 that were used to determine the alignment of the 7th St SE connection per ordinance #2900?
Regarding the existing offset of 7th Street SE at 15th, the Hospital's design would be required to mitigate the skewed approach. Per ordinance #2900, Good Samaritan Hospital will be not be required to procure additional 7th St SE ROW. However, additional ROW dedication may be required to facilitate modification to design per City code.
Entire site will be required to complete a comprehensive lighting analysis to ensure ANSI/IES RP-8 compliance.
Entire site will be required to complete a comprehensive analysis of existing frontage improvements. Non-standard existing frontage (narrow sidewalk, lack of planter strips/street trees, City standard streetlighting, etc.) must be identified.
15th Ave SE, 13th Ave SE, 3rd St SE, 7th St SE are all designated as a Major Collectors. City standards (Section 101.10.1) require minimum spacing of 150 feet from the intersection & driveways measured between closest edges of the driveway.
-Per City standards, commercial driveways must be aligned with intersections/driveways across the street.
-Access restrictions may be necessary if City Standards are not met.
AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle that would access the site. Curb radii and entrance dimensions shall be increased as necessary to allow vehicles to access the site without encroaching into adjacent lanes of traffic.
City standard commercial driveway shall be required along frontage. Minimum commercial driveway width is 30ft with 35ft radius.
All roadways serving campus (internal/external) must meet MUTCD/AASHTO requirements for signage, striping, pavement markings, geometry, barricades, railing, sight distance, speeds, etc. A comprehensive analysis will be required throughout campus area. For example, the internal intersection of 14th Ave SE/5th St SE does not meet any nationally accredited standards and will require significant mitigation.
The south side of 13th Ave SE shall be improved with City standard frontage improvements. All on-street parking shall be removed to facilitate improvements (between 3rd St SE & 7th St SE) . Curb alignment will be continuous on the south side a must be offset from buildings to maintain 24ft wide roadway. Existing marked crosswalks do not meet current standards and must be consolidated. Sight distance deficiencies existing along 13th Ave driveways/pedestrian crossings. Streetlighting will be required along this segment as well. Applicant will be required to propose mitigation.
The north side of 13th Ave has gaps in ADA accessible pathways. Mitigation will be required to meet standards.
Sight distance analysis (ESD & SSD) will be required for intersections and roadway segments serving site.
Comprehensive analysis of existing/proposed non-motorized ADA/PROWAG compliance (on-site & off-site) will be required. Evaluate existing non-motorized facilities. This will include on/off site facilities near Hospital. To minimize conflict points with at-grade crossings, the City will require the applicant to study pedestrian bridges to connect buildings/parking structures.
Transit facilities are located along S Meridian. Mitigation will be required to expand/improve non-motorized facilities between Campus and S Meridian transit facilities.
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Comments
|
11/03/2023
|
11/02/2023
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This zone is called RM-20, please correct reference [planning comment, master plan doc, page 14 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please describe how the houses are being used [planning comment, master plan doc, page 14 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Briefly describe the relationship of the 2007 master plan with the 2003 master plan. This is a global comment throughout the document (anywhere the 2007 approval is mentioned) [planning comment, master plan doc, page 41 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
The FEIS will need to be an appendix to the final approved master plan [planning comment, master plan doc, page 41 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a short description of what the Supply Tower would be it terms of interior space and uses. Is this all admin. offices to support in patient beds? Also, in other parts of this document its called the Central Support Tower - which is correct? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 43 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a short description of the Dally Tower expansion in terms of interior space and uses [planning comment, master plan doc, page 44 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please specify the maximum height of the Dally Tower in numerical feet based on PMC measurements for commercial development structure height [planning comment, master plan doc, page 47 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
7th is labeled as a bike lane corridor connection in the city's Active Transportation plan. It would seem more like 11 foot drive lanes with 5 foot bike lane and a 2 foot striped buffer (18 feet each way) would make the most sense [planning comment, master plan doc, page 56 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify how the additional expansions don't require parking. PMC would require parking for the support tower and Dally tower expansions if code were applied. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 64 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
10 percent of 1,450 would equal 1,595 stalls. Please clarify how the 1,650 is determined [planning comment, master plan doc, page 65 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Table III-I needs to be modified to demonstrate total parking stalls (existing + new) to demonstrate compliance with PMC 20.88.030 (1)(F), and what parking # will be tied to each building and/or phase. This is needed so the planner can verify the number of parking stalls needed to tie back to each building permit. Please also remove the term Up To and simplify this table with a max # of stalls. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 67 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Is the net total parking needed for the entire campus at full build 1,494 plus 1,650, equaling 3,144? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 67 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
This section needs to define how the project new construction will (or is proposing to deviate from) the applicable design review code (PMC 20.26.300) [planning comment, master plan doc, page 46 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will need to update language once FEIS is complete [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Table III-A states 2043 full build date. Is the build horizon year 2043 (20 year master plan)? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please clarify that all setback yards will be landscaped. We will also want to review the Type IV parking lot landscaping requirements as they are substantially different than 2007 and will effect parking count due to design requirements for landscape islands. Surface lot on SE corner of 5th and 14th currently meets type IV standards [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Code contains heights based on elevations. Applicant should carefully review and consider going with an overall vertical height measurement from finished grade of each building. Staff recommends this approach. Staff anticipates modifying 20.43.020-2 to accommodate. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will the large open space plaza currently SE of the Dally Tower be replicated or replaced after the new patient care tower is installed? That plaza is a significant feature of the campus open space and its not clear if that will be replaced [planning comment, master plan doc, page 81 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will MultiCare meet existing MED code allowances for sign area and size or is there a proposal to exceed those standards [planning comment, master plan doc, page 77]
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning staff sent this section through Legal review. This comment will need to be corrected for accuracy of what vests under a Master Plan. Development regulations specifically adopted in PMC 20.43.020-1 that are different from base zoning will apply for the build out of the Master Plan. Further discussion with the applicant is necessary to clarify this statement for accuracy. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 85 ]
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
NOVEMBER 02, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT [PLANNING]: In the first review, we itemized a series of questions and comments, mainly through mark ups on the Master Plan document with identifying page numbers throughout. In reviewing the resubmitted Master Plan document it does not appear that there is a response to comment letter or any corresponding corrections made to the Master Plan in response to our 05/01/23 review letter notes. When resubmitting, please provide an itemized response to comment letter with associated track changes version of the Master Plan document. If you have questions about my comments prior to resubmitting, please reach out to me directly.
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Comments
|
11/03/2023
|
11/01/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Based on a comment from Central Pierce Fire & Rescue, the Ambulance bays are inadequate to handle the current level of emergency vehicle traffic. Provide a larger ambulance bay considering the amount of more patients the hospital will be taking in and consider the population is rising. This is a concern for all responding agencies and will need to be code compliant for fire apparatus turning radiuses and angle of inclination.
2. Consider in design, the Ed Lobby cannot encroach into fire lane. Fire lane should be a minimum of 26’ clear width for fire access. Fire apparatus turning radius need to be maintained and may be affected by item 1.
3. Auto-turn or equivalent program will be required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radius in all areas.
4. Future support tower is encroaching in a specific fire access area. This will cut off required fire access and not be allowed without adequate accommodations.
5. 5th street headed into 14th Ave SE needs a fire truck turn around.
6. 7th Street extension needs to be less than 10% grade.
7. 7TH Street extension will need a fire apparatus lane onto 14th Ave se. This requirement will allow existing facility building fire access along with the Proposed parking deck, and Future parking deck.
8. A fire hydrant will be required on 7th St Se.
9. Fire access will be required between the medical office building, Proposed parking deck, Future parking deck, and Future Medical office building. It looks that an access road could be created off 5th St SE
10. Dry standpipes will be required in all parking garages and retrofitted in existing.
11. With the high risk of shadowing other buildings for emergency radio, before construction begins a radio survey will need to be done inside and around surrounding buildings to serve as a benchmark for existing radio coverage, this benchmarking report shall include recommendations for mitigation. Near completion of construction of the new tower a comparison survey will be required to see if there was any negative impact to the surrounding areas. If radio coverage within the nearby buildings has been reduced beyond an unusable level, the loss will need to be mitigated by MultiCare. A certified radio contractor shall propose to the City how large of an area will need to be tested. The qualified contractor will provide the owner and City a report with conclusions and recommendations for code compliance. Based on their recommendations the City will have our third party consultant review for compliance.
12. The emergency radio system needs to be updated to allow surrounding agencies to have radio coverage throughout the campus. Pierce County Sherriff
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Corrections not complete.
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/12/2023
|
04/25/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Provide a detailed summary of Puyallup's comprehensive plan as it relates to the surrounding campus area. For example, Puyallup's comprehensive plan identifies 15th Ave SE and 7th St SE as bicycle priority networks. How will the Hospital accommodate these improvements.
The requirement for the 7th St SE connection will not be based solely on the traffic analysis. This connection may also be necessary to provide EV access for proposed buildings. This connection is also identified in our comprehensive plan to provide non-motorized connectivity.
As part of the traffic analysis, the previous TIA will be reviewed. Does the applicant have design documents from 2007 that were used to determine the alignment of the 7th St SE connection per ordinance #2900?
Regarding the existing offset of 7th Street SE at 15th, the Hospital's design would be required to mitigate the skewed approach. Per ordinance #2900, Good Samaritan Hospital will be not be required to procure additional 7th St SE ROW. However, additional ROW dedication may be required to facilitate modification to design per City code.
Entire site will be required to complete a comprehensive lighting analysis to ensure ANSI/IES RP-8 compliance.
Entire site will be required to complete a comprehensive analysis of existing frontage improvements. Non-standard existing frontage (narrow sidewalk, lack of planter strips/street trees, City standard streetlighting, etc.) must be identified.
15th Ave SE, 13th Ave SE, 3rd St SE, 7th St SE are all designated as a Major Collectors. City standards (Section 101.10.1) require minimum spacing of 150 feet from the intersection & driveways measured between closest edges of the driveway.
-Per City standards, commercial driveways must be aligned with intersections/driveways across the street.
-Access restrictions may be necessary if City Standards are not met.
AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle that would access the site. Curb radii and entrance dimensions shall be increased as necessary to allow vehicles to access the site without encroaching into adjacent lanes of traffic.
City standard commercial driveway shall be required along frontage. Minimum commercial driveway width is 30ft with 35ft radius.
All roadways serving campus (internal/external) must meet MUTCD/AASHTO requirements for signage, striping, pavement markings, geometry, barricades, railing, sight distance, speeds, etc. A comprehensive analysis will be required throughout campus area. For example, the internal intersection of 14th Ave SE/5th St SE does not meet any nationally accredited standards and will require significant mitigation.
The south side of 13th Ave SE shall be improved with City standard frontage improvements. All on-street parking shall be removed to facilitate improvements (between 3rd St SE & 7th St SE) . Curb alignment will be continuous on the south side a must be offset from buildings to maintain 24ft wide roadway. Existing marked crosswalks do not meet current standards and must be consolidated. Sight distance deficiencies existing along 13th Ave driveways/pedestrian crossings. Streetlighting will be required along this segment as well. Applicant will be required to propose mitigation.
The north side of 13th Ave has gaps in ADA accessible pathways. Mitigation will be required to meet standards.
Sight distance analysis (ESD & SSD) will be required for intersections and roadway segments serving site.
Comprehensive analysis of existing/proposed non-motorized ADA/PROWAG compliance (on-site & off-site) will be required. Evaluate existing non-motorized facilities. This will include on/off site facilities near Hospital. To minimize conflict points with at-grade crossings, the City will require the applicant to study pedestrian bridges to connect buildings/parking structures.
Transit facilities are located along S Meridian. Mitigation will be required to expand/improve non-motorized facilities between Campus and S Meridian transit facilities.
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/12/2023
|
04/24/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Building permit reviews are subject to the applicable codes at the time of complete building permit application.
Complete building permit submittals include applications, architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, energy code, and related submittals for constructability.
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/12/2023
|
04/11/2023
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This zone is called RM-20, please correct reference [planning comment, master plan doc, page 14 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please describe how the houses are being used [planning comment, master plan doc, page 14 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Briefly describe the relationship of the 2007 master plan with the 2003 master plan. This is a global comment throughout the document (anywhere the 2007 approval is mentioned) [planning comment, master plan doc, page 41 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
The FEIS will need to be an appendix to the final approved master plan [planning comment, master plan doc, page 41 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a short description of what the Supply Tower would be it terms of interior space and uses. Is this all admin. offices to support in patient beds? Also, in other parts of this document its called the Central Support Tower - which is correct? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 43 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide a short description of the Dally Tower expansion in terms of interior space and uses [planning comment, master plan doc, page 44 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please specify the maximum height of the Dally Tower in numerical feet based on PMC measurements for commercial development structure height [planning comment, master plan doc, page 47 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
7th is labeled as a bike lane corridor connection in the city's Active Transportation plan. It would seem more like 11 foot drive lanes with 5 foot bike lane and a 2 foot striped buffer (18 feet each way) would make the most sense [planning comment, master plan doc, page 56 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify how the additional expansions don't require parking. PMC would require parking for the support tower and Dally tower expansions if code were applied. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 64 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
10 percent of 1,450 would equal 1,595 stalls. Please clarify how the 1,650 is determined [planning comment, master plan doc, page 65 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Table III-I needs to be modified to demonstrate total parking stalls (existing + new) to demonstrate compliance with PMC 20.88.030 (1)(F), and what parking # will be tied to each building and/or phase. This is needed so the planner can verify the number of parking stalls needed to tie back to each building permit. Please also remove the term Up To and simplify this table with a max # of stalls. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 67 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Is the net total parking needed for the entire campus at full build 1,494 plus 1,650, equaling 3,144? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 67 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
This section needs to define how the project new construction will (or is proposing to deviate from) the applicable design review code (PMC 20.26.300) [planning comment, master plan doc, page 46 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will need to update language once FEIS is complete [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Table III-A states 2043 full build date. Is the build horizon year 2043 (20 year master plan)? [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please clarify that all setback yards will be landscaped. We will also want to review the Type IV parking lot landscaping requirements as they are substantially different than 2007 and will effect parking count due to design requirements for landscape islands. Surface lot on SE corner of 5th and 14th currently meets type IV standards [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Code contains heights based on elevations. Applicant should carefully review and consider going with an overall vertical height measurement from finished grade of each building. Staff recommends this approach. Staff anticipates modifying 20.43.020-2 to accommodate. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 80 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will the large open space plaza currently SE of the Dally Tower be replicated or replaced after the new patient care tower is installed? That plaza is a significant feature of the campus open space and its not clear if that will be replaced [planning comment, master plan doc, page 81 ]
|
|
See Document Markup
Will MultiCare meet existing MED code allowances for sign area and size or is there a proposal to exceed those standards [planning comment, master plan doc, page 77]
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning staff sent this section through Legal review. This comment will need to be corrected for accuracy of what vests under a Master Plan. Development regulations specifically adopted in PMC 20.43.020-1 that are different from base zoning will apply for the build out of the Master Plan. Further discussion with the applicant is necessary to clarify this statement for accuracy. [planning comment, master plan doc, page 85 ]
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/12/2023
|
04/11/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Based on a comment from Central Pierce Fire & Rescue, the Ambulance bays are inadequate to handle the current level of emergency vehicle traffic. Provide a larger ambulance bay considering the amount of more patients the hospital will be taking in and consider the population is rising. This is a concern for all responding agencies and will need to be code compliant for fire apparatus turning radiuses and angle of inclination.
2. Consider in design, the ER Lobby cannot encroach into fire lane. Fire lane should be a minimum of 26’ clear width for fire access. Fire apparatus turning radius need to be maintained and may be affected by item 1.
3. Auto-turn or equivalent program will be required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radius in all areas.
4. Future support tower is encroaching in a specific fire access area. This will cut off required fire access and not be allowed without adequate accommodations.
5. 5th street headed into 14th Ave SE needs a fire truck turn around.
6. 7th Street extension needs to be less than 10% grade.
7. 7TH Street extension will need a fire apparatus lane onto 14th Ave se. This requirement will allow existing facility building fire access along with the Proposed parking deck, and Future parking deck.
8. A fire hydrant will be required on 7th St Se.
9. Fire access will be required between the medical office building, Proposed parking deck, Future parking deck, and Future Medical office building. It looks that an access road could be created off 5th St SE
10. Dry standpipes will be required in all parking garages and retrofitted in existing.
11. With the high risk of shadowing other buildings for emergency radio, before construction begins a radio survey will need to be done inside and around surrounding buildings to serve as a benchmark for existing radio coverage, this benchmarking report shall include recommendations for mitigation. Near completion of construction of the new tower a comparison survey will be required to see if there was any negative impact to the surrounding areas. If radio coverage within the nearby buildings has been reduced beyond an unusable level, the loss will need to be mitigated by MultiCare. A certified radio contractor shall propose to the City how large of an area will need to be tested. The qualified contractor will provide the owner and City a report with conclusions and recommendations for code compliance. Based on their recommendations the City will have our third party consultant review for compliance.
12. The emergency radio system needs to be updated to allow surrounding agencies to have radio coverage throughout the campus. Pierce County Sherriff
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/12/2023
|
04/07/2023
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 29 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify Callout (Fig II-O?)
[Master Plan; Pg 32 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify statement (higher elevation at south end)
[Master Plan; Pg 32 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
It is very unlikely that the City will allow sewer flows to be conveyed out-of-basin.
[Master Plan; Pg 57 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Publicly owned storm facilities shall be located either in ROW or a separate dedicated tract.
[Master Plan; Pg 58 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
northern
[Master Plan; Pg 58 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
southern
[Master Plan; Pg 58 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Puyallup River
[Master Plan; Pg 74 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
The stormwater design shall comply with both the City's and WSDOT's individual jurisdictional permitting requirements and adopted stormwater regulations. This may require separate stormwater modeling to ensure compliance with each jurisdiction's specific requirements.
[Master Plan; Pg 76 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
At the time of civil application, the applicant shall provide a downstream analysis of the Clarks Creek basin conveyance system in accordance with the Ecology Manual Section I-3.5.3; and a downstream analysis of the State Highway Basin conveyance system in accordance with WSDOT's requirements.
[Master Plan; Pg 76 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, private stormwater facilities shall be setback 20-ft minimum from property lines and structures. Setback area shall not exceed 5% cross-slope.
[Master Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, public stormwater facilities shall be setback 20-ft minimum from property lines and structures. Maintain 20-ft setback between retaining walls and the Emergency Overflow Elevation. Setback area shall not exceed 5% cross-slope.
[Master Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
See Document Markup
Public stormwater facilities shall be located within a tract or easement granted to the City.
[Master Plan; Pg 78 of 145]
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The applicant shall “acknowledge” the engineering CONDITIONS described later in this letter prior to final approval of the Master Plan.
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Pending
|
09/25/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Pending
|
09/25/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Pending
|
09/25/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Pending
|
09/25/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Pending
|
09/25/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|