From: Huffman, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:35 AM
To: Broadnax, T.C.; Lauzier, Mark; Pauli, Elizabeth (Legal); Duggan, Jim; Cherullo, Andy
Cc: Kingsolver, Kurtis
Subject: FW: Pt Ruston -Accomodations
Importance: High

Attached is a detailed list (too detailed likely) of the past issues/solutions and current items still
outstanding for PT. Ruston. I share this with you for information purposes only since I believe it
accurately depicts our best efforts to work with this developer and the amount of time, will and energy
that process has been for staff.

Pt. Ruston Development
Overview
Pt. Ruston Development (PRD) is a large complex development project, 82 acres in size, with new and
proposed $1.2 billion residential and retail development project on a superfund site. This project is a
multi-jurisdictional site (City of Tacoma, City of Ruston, and EPA), with reviews and inspections for
building permits, shoreline permits, Environmental Impact Statement, , Waterwalk construction/City
purchase, as well as ROW/Site development including roads/sidewalks, utility infrastructure LID, and
other infrastructure.
To date over 100 million in building construction valuation is complete or under construction and almost
$1 million has been received in building related permit fee and almost $700,000 in right-of-way related
work orders. While this is significant, the effort to date exceeds the revenues received due to workaround efforts.
The PRD is partially complete and to date the list below outlines notable workarounds and steps taken
by the City to keep the project moving forward. While it is customary for Planning and Development
Services (PDS) to work with customers to attain success, the implication of on-going and unusually
complex workarounds is that the current financial component of the relationship is not sustainable
through completion; as the PRD project moves forward, adjustments are needed. The work-around list
is a strong indication of a development management approach that has caused inefficiencies and
duplication of efforts for City review and inspection.
A notable source of the challenges for the City of Tacoma was the belief by the developers that EPA
approval includes any aspect of the structures considered part of the environmental cap. A recent letter
from EPA has stated that their approval is limited to the environmental aspects of the cap approval;
therefore, the structures and other infrastructure development must comply with the City’s
development regulations and permits for such work must be obtained accordingly.
Options for consideration include all or parts of the following:
1) All development work will be permitted prior to construction, no exceptions.
2) PRD designates a single point of contact to complement a PDS Customer Steward
3) PRD pays for a staff person at PDS to act as a permit coordinator.

 4)
5)
6)

PDS tracks all costs against periodic deposits to maintain a balance of risk.
PDS provides services limited to fees paid, i.e. - complete non-phased submittals required prior
to review, two reviews, etc.
PRD provides a true-up payment to City to acknowledge imbalance of financial impacts to date.

Work-around items
Permit Coordination
 Provided permit coordination services through consulting contract (Shannon @ Parametrix) and
through PDS staff (David Johnson).
Permit Routing/Intake/Payments
 Separation of foundation/shell/tenant improvement permits to expedite permitting process.
 Allowing phased payments of permit fees
 Refunding portions of permit fees for canceled permits to apply to new building permits
 For phasing of permits, Permit Specialist would pulled the drawings out of full permit set
(normally, we would require submittal of a separate set of plans)
Permit Review/Issuance
 Accommodating a split of building 2A into 2A west and east, so that they could get started on
construction of half the building while their shoreline permits were still pending.
 Allowing 1A to be used for theater/residential use when it was not specifically called out in
FSEIS. 1A was originally going to be retail/residential with 240 associated parking spaces.
 Allowing 1A and 1B footprints to be combined so that the theater building could be
larger. Resulted in 1B townhomes/residential units being “attached” to 1A.
 Separation of Shoreline Permits into an (a) and (b) so that Conditional Use requests would not
hold up approvals for the rest of the site.
 Approval of a general site-wide sign variance for greater flexibility throughout the site, rather
than requiring more specific sign variances on a per sign basis.
 Flexibility of parking requirements for 1A through phased occupancy agreement.
 Time-consuming City reviews after permit issuance due to variations/alterations from City
approved drawings.
 City staff effectively have to manage threshold triggers from the EIS. Pt. Ruston has not been
proactive about managing this themselves. Frequently plans are submitted with errors
regarding building footprint/setbacks/etc.
 TFD allowed the Waterwalk to also serve as a fire lane and a walkway; a dual-use lane. TFD did
not require additional fire hydrants to be installed along the entire length of the fire
lane/Waterwalk because hydrants along the interior access roads were determined to be
sufficient.
 TFD granted hose drag distance increases to allow shorter fire lane access lanes to the
structures at Point Ruston. The granting of hose drag increases is not required by the Fire Code
but is allowed for fully sprinklered buildings. TFD allowed the hose drag distance increases
which is an advantage to the owner/developer.
 FSEIS notes a bike lane to be installed along Ruston Way. Request came to remove the two bike
lanes from Ruston Way and install a 14’ wide Multi Use Path (MUP) instead of a 5’ sidewalk.

 





After approval of the 14’ MUP along the North East side of Ruston Way, PR later requested to go
from a 14’ MUP to a 10’ MUP. This request was to install FIBAR (shredded wood) along the 2’
shoulders of the MUP.
Request came from Point Ruston to have the now approved 10’ MUP meander instead of
parallel the curb & gutter along Ruston Way. This work was done without a revision; contraction
was allowed to curve the MUP as meandering.
Per the request of Point Ruston, the sheet showing the filling of the Ruston Way tunnel was
removed from the plan set. City of Ruston disagreed with the removal but it was determined
that the filling of the tunnel was not part of the LID. The removal was allowed.
The Waterwalk plans were allowed to be done per one permit (A Work Order) instead of
individual building permits and an onsite Fill & Grade permit. Building permits would have been
required for the Trellis, Ferry Footings and Grand Plaza due to their structural requirements.
The level Spreaders for the Point Ruston buildings were allowed to be removed from the
Waterwalk plans and made part of each building permit as they are to be constructed.

Inspections/Building Occupancy
 Where work was conducted without permits, allowance of signed stamped letters from design
professional or special inspector in lieu of the required City inspection.
 Phased occupancy allowed for buildings still in construction on a floor-by-floor basis. This
requires conditions and inspections for Fire, buildings, land use, site development, TPU. The
small fee for this permit does not pay for all the work associated with issuance of a TCO.
o TFD in conjunction and partnership with PDS allowed Point Ruston to phase building
occupancy in Buildings 2A, 2B East, and 2B West. TFD made sure all fire and life safety
issues were met prior to approving the TCOs. This process allowed Point Ruston to
begin renting/selling/leasing units and spaces.
 TFD allowed the Waterwalk to also serve as a fire lane and a walkway; a dual-use lane. TFD did
not require additional fire hydrants to be installed along the entire length of the fire
lane/Waterwalk because hydrants along the interior access roads were determined to be
sufficient.
 Hold as One agreement being allowed to permit shared utilities and openings of buildings on
separate parcels. City working w/Pt Ruston to condition the agreement, and the Hold as One is
in the final review process.
o As Pt Ruston had recorded a boundary line adjustment (BLA) that created a property
line between buildings 2A and 2B, the property line in effect created two non-code
compliant structures (2A and 2B). Also, there are encroachments over the property line
and a shared fire sprinkler system. The Hold as One agreement was an alternative
approach to remedy this issue that was created. This is not a standard process but only
utilized to remedy situations that were either inadvertently created or there are no
other reasonable options available.
 TFD allowed the use of a temporary liquid propane gas (LPG) distribution system to provide gas
service to the common areas in Building 2A. Since Point Ruston did not specifically address the
installation of LPG pipelines in the FSEIS as required by law, the system was deemed temporary
until a permanent permitted solution could be completed by Point Ruston. If Point Ruston
intends to utilize LPG as a permanent system, modifications to the FSEIS will be necessary as will
other TFD approvals/permits.

 













Point Ruston installed a LPG distribution line to building 2B without a permit from TFD. TFD
provided Point Ruston with an alternative work plan approach that would allow temporary use
of this LPG system in lieu of completely reconstructing the line to allow for visual inspections by
TFD. The requirement was to submit a certification letter from a licensed professional engineer
(PE) that stated the LPG system was designed, installed and tested to the requirements of the
2012 International Fire Code (IFC) and NFPA 58 Liquid Petroleum Gas Code, 2011 edition. Point
Ruston submitted the certification letter and TFD allowed the continued use of the system on a
temporary basis.
Modifications allowed for pipe material that did not meet plans/specifications for Storm Sewer
LID
Request to allow “UniBell” testing of storm/sanitary pipe instead of WSDOT low pressure air
testing of pipe allowed per revision request for storm pipe installed
The curb & gutter for Ruston Way was installed during freezing weather conditions. The newly
poured curb was not properly installed per WSDOT SPECS:
o The pour was done in freezing weather.
o The covering “blankets” over the new concrete curb done, some areas receiving some
straw.
Cores of the newly poured concrete curb where done by a lab to insure proper strength.
The COT did not stop pouring in freezing weather and looked to find a way to accept the curb &
gutter.
The first lift of asphalt placed on Ruston Way did not meet minimum compaction requirements.
The first lift was allowed with the stipulation that the second needed to meet WSDOT SPEC at all
testing locations and did.
Brick Pavers installed in Roundabouts, splitter islands and planter strip without an approved
design showing that the pavers meet the minimum structural requirements per the City of
Tacoma.
The City of Tacoma was not informed of a one foot bust in plan grades and actual invert
elevation (IE) of the Sanitary Sewer MH. Point Ruston continued to install pipe and later
submitted the revision. Revision was reviewed and eventually approved; PR was not issued a
stop work notice.
City of Tacoma Inspection staff (PDS & SDG) could not inspect work as it was completed along
the Waterwalk without approved plans. As PR continued to build out components of the
Waterwalk, Tacoma Staff could only observe, document and photograph work being done.
Contractor would ask for direction/approval but staff could not respond without approved
plans. Work was allowed to continue without approved plans.
Trees planted along the Waterwalk did not meet EPA’s approval and had to be reinstalled. EPA
approved “Biobarrier” to be installed around the roots of all the trees. Point Ruston did not
submit a plan set for the revision to the COT for this work. The trees were replanted with
Biobarrier that did not meet the manufacturer’s requirements. The trees had to be dug up and
the Biobarrier material installed correctly. The COT did not stop work but coordinated for tree
placement.

Enforcement
 Point Ruston started work on the Waterwalk without approved plans from the City of Tacoma.
Per the email from Kevin Rochlin (EPA) 6/29/2012, he notes that the EPA has not approved the
design for the Waterwalk because the EPA is waiting for comments from the City of Tacoma. Per
the email from Kevin Rochlin to the COT 7/3/2012, Point Ruston was informed that they are

 

proceeding at their own risk because plan are not approved by the COT. PR claims that they are
except from jurisdictional review and inspection because of CERCLA. Per the letter from Kevin
Rochlin (EPA) 12/1/2014 to Point Ruston, PR is required to get local jurisdictional approval
(approved plans) and the CERCLA does not make them except from those permit requirements.
Point Ruston installed a driveway for parking for Ferry Boat access. The parking area was signed
by point Ruston as “PRIVATE PROPERTY PARKING” when in fact the site is Ruston Way Rights of
Way. PR removed the signs per the request of the COT. The parking area is not approved per
the Shoreline permit; the parking area will remain even though it is not part of the Shoreline
Permit.