CODEPROS

Plan Review Comments

May 13, 2014

Point Ruston, LLC
Attn: Robert Fredrick
5219 North Shirley St. Suite 100
Ruston, WA 98407
Robert@pointruston.com
Re: Building Permit # RST14-1312, Buildings 9-11 Parking Garage, 5101(?) Grand Loop

PROJECT DATA:
Architect of Record:
James R. Blissett
The Design Collective
2303 West Commodore Way, Suite 205
Seattle, WA 98199
206-282-2730

Civil Engineer:
Frederick B. Brown, P.E.
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC
33400 8th Ave South, Suite 205
Federal Way, WA 98003
253-383-6113

Engineer of record:
Cary Kopczynski, P.E.
Cary Kopczynski & Company
10500 NE 8th St. Suite 800
Bellevue, WA 98004
425-455-2144

Owner/Contractor:
Point Ruston, LLC
5219 N. Shirley St., Suite 100
Ruston, WA 98407
253-752-7083

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:
NUMBER OF STORIES:

CODE EDITIONS:

Phase 1 of Parking Garage/Mixed Use Development
S-2
I-A, Sprinkled
3, plus basement
2012 International Building Code (WAC 51-50); and
2012 International Mechanical Code (WAC 51-52);
2012 Uniform Plumbing Code (WAC 51-56);
2012 Washington State Energy Code (WAC 51-11C);

Dear Mr. Fredrick,
The building design documents for the permit referenced above have been reviewed for
conformance with the locally adopted codes along with applicable Washington State amendments.
This letter contains comments related to the Building Department’s review of the project, as well as
comments from the City Engineer, City Environmental Consultant, and the City of Tacoma. However,
it does not include comments associated with the review for Zoning Code compliance, which will be
prepared separately. Please review the project data above, and the plan review comments below. It
is important that you then follow the instructions for re-submittal following the plan review comments.

CodePros, LLC

Page 1 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS:
Structural:
1.
The 2012 IBC Chapter 16, structural design sections have been updated and re-numbered in
the 2012 edition. Sheets S1.01 and S1.03 contain several inaccurate code references that should be
corrected to reference the appropriate sections to indicate compliance with the 2012 edition of the
IBC. (In particular, see IBC 1607 and its subsections.)
2.
The structural plans indicate that column loads from the future buildings above, shall be
placed on top of the concrete columns below. Are column anchor bolts stubs to be placed? How are
future column load structural connections proposed to be accommodated? If drilling and future epoxy
installations are anticipated, how will anchor rod locations be verified to not interfere with
reinforcement, or more importantly, the PT tendons? If epoxy installations are anticipated, is the
product sufficient for the anticipated loads? Regardless, please describe how the situations are
intended to be accommodated. If anchorage hardware is to be included in this phase, please provide
details and specifications, as well as a description of how such anchorage will be protected until
utilized in the future.
3.
The structural plans address minimum concrete cover of reinforcement and tendons for
structural purposes. However, as a Type 1A building, the structural components must also satisfy
minimum fire-resistive ratings as required by IBC Chapter 6, and as described in IBC Chapter 7.
Please fully describe the minimum reinforcement and tendon concrete cover required to satisfy the
fire-resistive ratings as required in IBC Section 721 for all walls, slabs, columns, etc. Please be sure
to ensure that such does not conflict with any of the structural requirements. (Details shall be
approved by both the architect of record as well as the structural engineer.)
4.
Sheet A0.40. Many of the floor, wall and roof assemblies in the proposed buildings are
located in areas that require fire-resistant rated construction in accordance with IBC Section 602 and
Tables 601 and 602. Most of the assemblies on Sheet A0.40 do not specify the minimum fire-ratings
required. In particular, Floors F2, F3, and F4 would typically require rated construction, but are shown
as non-rated. Please verify that all floor, wall and roof types show appropriate fire-resistance ratings
for their intended locations, and verify all necessary details applicable to achieving the minimum fireresistive ratings, (for example, minimum reinforcement cover, concrete thickness, etc.)
5.
Sheet A0.40. The third column of information contains roof assemblies, but is labeled as wall
assemblies. Though minor, to avoid confusion, corrections should be made. Please clarify and/or
correct.
6.
The general notes indicate that the elevated slabs and beams could be either 3000 psi or
5000 psi. Most of the calculations appear to use 5000 psi. The plans should be clarified.
7.
The plans indicate fire apparatus loading for the drive area across Level P3, and although the
overall design live load of 250 psf at the fire truck access route shown on Sheet S1.03 appears
adequate, typical outrigger loads in the range of 45 kips should also be justified. (IBC 1607.7.2)
8.
The loading conditions for the typical basement walls shown on structural calculation pages
D16-18 should be clarified. The loading should include any traffic and seismic surcharges. The design
wall thickness should be indicated for the walls on D16 and D17.

CodePros, LLC

Page 2 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 9.
Page D8 of the structural calculations appears to indicate that the PT slab thickness along
Grid K at Level 2 (misprint?) is12”. The plans indicate an 8” slab for the entire Level 2. Please clarify
or correct the discrepancy.
10.

Calculations should be provided for the typical banded tendons on Level P2.

11.
Tendon profiles that are significantly different than the typical “tendon profile key” should be
indicated on the plans. Please clarify.
12.
The plans and calculations indicate that the parking level P4 has been designed to
accommodate H20-44 loading. As many delivery vehicles are semi-truck-trailer combinations, there
is a great likelihood that semi-truck combinations will be operated on the upper deck. Typically,
HS20-44 loading criteria are used for semi’s as opposed to just H20 loading, (applicable to single axle
trucks). As they have similar axle loads, there is likely not a significant difference, however, the
engineer should justify the use of H20 as opposed to HS20, or clarify if the additional axle loads will
not make any difference structurally. Please clarify.
13.
IBC Chapter 17 requires special inspection of several portions of the building’s structural
systems. Sheet S1.01 identifies the basic special inspections required; however, not all are identified.
(For example, geo-technical special inspections in accordance with IBC 1705.6, and any epoxy
installed anchors in accordance with the epoxy manufacturer’s product evaluation reports (if proposed
to be used)). IBC 1704.3 requires a complete statement of special inspection to be provided on the
construction plans that includes the content as described in IBC Sections 1704.3.1, 1703.3.2, and
1703.3.3. IBC 1705.10 and 1705.11 require special inspections for wind and seismic resistance
systems, respectively, (assumed to be included with the general concrete, reinforcement, structural
steel, etc.) Please provide a complete statement of special inspections (schedule) identifying all
required special inspections in accordance with IBC 1704.3.
14.
IBC 1704.4 requires that each contractor responsible for the construction of the main wind- or
seismic force-resisting system, etc., shall submit a written statement of responsibility to the building
official and the property owner prior to performing work on the systems or components that require
special inspections. The contractor’s statement of responsibility shall contain acknowledgement of
awareness of the special inspection requirements contained in the statement of special inspection.
(as indentified in the comment above) As the contractor is known for this project, the statement of
contractor’s responsibility should be provided prior to permit issuance.
Architectural:
15.
Sheets A0.30, A0.31. The minimum stairway width calculations utilize a factor of .2 inches of
width per occupant. In general, exit stair width is required to be calculated with a factor of .3 inches
per occupant. An exception to IBC 1005.3.1 allows the .2 inches when the building is provided
throughout with an automatic fire sprinkler system and an emergency voice/alarm communication
system in accordance with IBC 907.5.22. While the plans identify that a sprinkler system will be
installed (design deferred), the plans do not describe the installation of an emergency voice/alarm
communication system. The fire alarm system design may be allowed as a deferred submittal, but
the scope of the system should be clearly identified on the construction plans. Please clarify and/or
correct the information.
16.
Parcel aggregation? Is a parcel aggregation being processed for this project? The building
code requires fire-resistive construction and building separations at property lines, which, for obvious
reasons would be impossible for this project with the existing parcel configuration. A single building

CodePros, LLC

Page 3 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 cannot be constructed over the multiple parcels. It is assumed that the parcels are being aggregated
to accommodate the project. Please provide documentation of parcel aggregation (or show all
appropriate building separations, etc. at all property lines). (The following comments assume parcel
aggregation, or at a minimum, boundary line adjustments to follow the perimeter of the Building 9-11
block.)
17.
Sheets A2.11 and A2.12 contain Key Note #1, which indicates “openings to future building.”
(Referenced in multiple locations on level P2-A2.11, though I do not see where it is used on P3A2.12.) The parking garage building is a Type 1A building that requires minimum 3-hour fire-resistive
exterior bearing walls in accordance with IBC Table 601, or minimum 1-hour fire-resistive non-bearing
exterior walls in accordance with IBC Table 602. Either way, the proposed openings must be
protected with fire-resistive rated assemblies in accordance with IBC requirements.
Exterior wall openings are allowed in accordance with IBC Table 705.8. At zero to less than 3 feet
however, openings are not permitted. As the future buildings and this parking structure building are
essentially on one parcel, an “imaginary line” for the purposes of determining building code
compliance, and fire-resistive separations, is assumed between the multiple buildings in accordance
with IBC 705.3. With the future proposed buildings being immediately adjacent, the exterior of the
building (in such locations) is assumed to be at zero feet from the property line, thus there may be no
openings in the exterior wall (in accordance with Table 705.8) or, the exterior wall needs to be
constructed as a fire wall in accordance with IBC 706.
(The difficulty here is that, to have openings, the new (future) buildings would typically need to be
considered as part of the same building, which would require the future buildings to also satisfy the
requirements of Type 1A construction, which I’m assuming is not the intent. So, the structures need
to satisfy requirements of separate buildings with a zero distance to the assumed/imaginary line.)
As noted above, an option to allow openings at the exterior walls (along the “imaginary” property line
is to construct the exterior walls of the parking garage (where it abuts future buildings) as “Fire-Walls”
in accordance with IBC 706. Typically, fire-walls used between two buildings on adjacent parcels also
cannot have openings because in accordance with IBC 706.1.1 “party-walls” are only allowed without
openings. However, party walls are by definition, walls located on a “lot-line”, which is defined as
being “A line dividing one lot from another.” In this instance however, it is possible to not consider the
fire-wall a party-wall because it is not a lot line. Instead, it is at an “imaginary line” on which is placed
a fire-wall to separate structures into separate buildings. Therefore, openings may be allowed
provided they satisfy the opening protective requirements of IBC 706.8 and 716.5. Note: IBC Table
706.4 - though Group S-2 (the parking garage) typically only requires a 2-hour fire-resistive assembly
to satisfy the requirements of a “fire-wall”, Group B, Group M and Group R-2 occupancies (which are
likely to be adjacent in the “future” buildings) all require at least a 3-hour fire-wall. As such, the
exterior wall of the garage, where it will be immediately adjacent to “future” buildings, shall be
constructed in accordance with the provisions of a 3-hour fire wall in accordance with IBC 706. For
openings in a 3-hour fire-wall, fire-resistive rated door assemblies shall have a minimum 3-hour fireresistive rating (or in accordance with Table 716.5 footnote a, may be a series of 2-1½ hour rated
assemblies). Please clarify and/or correct the information indicating the required fire-wall and any
opening protective devices and/or equipment.
18.
Sheets A5.30 & A5.31 (A0.40). IBC 406.5.7 requires public parking garages to satisfy the
egress provisions of IBC Chapter 10. IBC 1009.2.2 requires exit enclosures in accordance with IBC
1022. IBC 1022.2 requires shaft protection of not less than 2-hour fire-resistive construction (not less
than the floor assembly penetrated). The fire barriers shall be in accordance with IBC 707 and 713

CodePros, LLC

Page 4 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 with opening protection in accordance with IBC 716. 90 minute door assemblies are indeed noted in
the door schedule on Sheet A7.10, but there is no indication of fire-resistive wall assemblies on the
plan sheets, the expanded plan sheets, or the specific stair shaft sheets. Please clarify the fireresistive wall (and roof) information. (Note: Stair 03 and the floor opening at Grid J/14-15 are
acceptable without additional protection in accordance with IBC 510.3.)
19.
Please provide door hardware details on the door schedule on Sheet A7.10 and/or provide full
specifications for all door hardware groups.
20.
Sheet A7.10. The General Door Notes on Sheet A7.10 include some incorrect code
references. For example, in note F (the second F near the bottom… where note identification letters
are repeated) it identifies that “stairway door hardware to be per IBC 1008.1.9.10.” IBC 1008.1.9.10
specifies requirements for correctional facilities, not general exit stairway doors). Other discrepancies
exist in Notes P, Q, R, and S. Please clarify and/or correct all references.
21.
Sheet A7.10. The door schedule notes include in note 5 a reference that the doors are part of
a pressurized shaft enclosure. The mechanical plans do not include descriptions and/or identification
of any pressurization or air handling equipment. Please provide mechanical plans with full
descriptions and/or specifications of all proposed mechanical equipment.
22.
Sheets A5.30, A5.31 (A2.11, A2.12). Exit stairways 01, 02, and 04 serve floor levels both
above and below the level of exit discharge. (Stair 03 is an open stairway (4th exit-510.3-OK) where
the level of discharge is readily apparent.) In accordance with IBC 1022.8, an exit stairway shall not
continue below its level of exit discharge unless an approved barrier is provided at the level of exit
discharge to prevent persons from unintentionally continuing into levels below. Directional exit signs
shall also be provided. Please provide a swinging gate or other appropriate barrier at the level of exit
discharge for stairways 01, 02, and 04 in accordance with IBC 1022.8
23.
Sheet A5.30, A5.31, Other? IBC 1022.9 requires each stairway to be provided with signage
identifying the floor level, the terminus of the top and bottom of the stairs, and the level of the exit
discharge. Please provide details and/or specifications of the stairway signage in accordance with
IBC 1022.9.
24.
Sheet A5.31. The stair details appear to provide a solid metal riser and stair nosing profile
(with concrete filled pan construction) but no information is provided to confirm the enclosed risers,
nor is information provided to describe the shape and profile of the stair nosings. Please provide full
details and/or specifications indicating satisfaction of IBC 1009.7.5 and ICC/ANSI A117.1 Section 504
requirements.
25.
Multiple Sheets. (Architectural and Structural) There are numerous areas where the walking
surface will exceed 30 inches from the grade below, and therefore require guards in accordance with
IBC 1013, many areas of which will also need to satisfy the vehicle barrier requirements of IBC
406.4.3. (Please note that IBC 406.4.2 requires that guards be provided in accordance with IBC
406.4.3 and 1013.) The plans include general notes identifying the guard requirements, and some
specific details (such as those at the edge of P4) but details and/or specifications have not been
provided for all areas. In particular the structural plans include vehicle barriers at the ramp edges,
etc., but the vehicle barriers are dimensioned as 2’-9” which satisfy vehicle barrier requirements of
IBC 406.4.3, but not the minimum 42” guard requirements of IBC Section 1013.3. The architectural
sheets do not specifically identify the guard requirements, or how pedestrian guards will be provided
above vehicle barriers. Please provide full guard requirements and details for all permanent guards

CodePros, LLC

Page 5 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 adjacent to both vehicular ways as well as pedestrian walkways in addition to any proposed
temporary guards (such as the areas adjacent to future building locations).
26.
Sheet A0.20. In General Notes, note 27, interior finish materials should reference the
requirements of 2012 IBC Chapter 8 (in addition to the existing reference to the IFC requirements.)
Please clarify.
27.
Sheet A0.20. Under building component fire ratings, there is a note describing that a 1-hour
reduction is allowed where supporting a roof only under the general sentence of 3-HR bearing walls
interior and exterior. In accordance with IBC Table 601, footnote a, which describes the reduction, is
referenced only for interior bearing walls, not exterior bearing walls. Seemingly a minor distinction, it
can have a significant effect on construction if confused with exterior walls, which cannot be reduced.
Please clarify and/or correct the information.
28.
Sheet A0.30 & A0.31. The code plan legend identifies wall mounted and cabinet mounted fire
extinguishers, however, the plans do not appear to identify any portable fire extinguisher locations.
Please provide full details on the plan describing all portable fire extinguisher locations in accordance
with IBC 906 as well as all details and/or specifications describing the type and size of extinguishers
proposed.
29.
Sheets A0.31, A2.12, A2.22, A5.12, A5.40. The drive ramp from the north side of Parking
level P3 is shown with a slope of 5.375%. Adjacent to this drive aisle is a pedestrian walkway (exit
path) which is assumed to slope at the same grade as the adjacent drive. IBC 202 defines “Ramp” as
“a walking surface that has a running slope steeper than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5%
slope).” All (non-vehicular) ramps must be constructed in accordance with IBC Section 1010 and
ICC/ANSI A117.1 Section 405, which include handrail requirements, edge protection, landings, etc.
The walkway must therefore be constructed as a ramp, or the slope needs to be revised to not
exceed 1:20. (Other sheets also include a reference to this slope.) Please clarify and/or correct the
information to indicate compliance with IBC Sections 202 and 1010.
30.
Sheet A0.31 (&A1.10 & civil plans). The building plans include exit paths that head south
along Grid 12 (as well as south out of Stair 04) however, the code summary sheet, the architectural
site plan, nor the civil plans include an unobstructed exit discharge path to the public right-of-way
(Ruston Way). By definition, an exit discharge includes the pedestrian path from the building exits to
the public way. While the other exit paths are assumed to extend to a sidewalk along the (private)
roads, the ones to the south do not provide a discernible path to the public way. Please clarify and/or
correct.
31.
Sheet A1.10 & civil plans. Similar to the situation in the comment above, but on a larger scale,
the building exits, by definition need to be provided with exit discharge paths that terminate at a public
right-of-way. IBC 1005.4 requires that “The capacity of the means of egress required from any story
of a building shall not be reduced along the path of egress travel until arrival at the public way. IBC
1027.2 requires that “The capacity of the exit discharge shall not be less than the required discharge
capacity of the exits being served.” IBC 1027.5 requires that “The exit discharge shall provide a direct
and unobstructed access to a public way.” Because the interior roadways are not public ways, a
discernible and accessible exit path (exit discharge) needs to be provided from all exits to the public
right-of-way. As several of these exit paths will be cumulative, collecting occupant load from multiple
exits, the exit discharge to the public way needs to be sized to accommodate the full required exit
width of the story (or future story) with the greatest occupant load (as determined by IBC 1005,
including the anticipated occupant loads of additional future buildings). An analysis of the sidewalk

CodePros, LLC

Page 6 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 widths, etc. should be performed for the entire site indicating the proposed exit discharge capacities of
all proposed buildings to ensure adequate exit discharge width will be provided from all buildings to
the public right-of-way. (Such analysis will need to be referenced for future buildings that utilize the
same pathways.) The construction plans then need to clearly indicate all exit discharge paths to the
public way, and establish their maximum capacity.
32.
Sheet A5.41. Detail 1/A5.41, the ingress vehicle ramps are inconsistent with those shown on
the plan sheets A2.10, A2.11, the elevations, and Sheets S2.01 and S2.02A. In addition, Civil sheet
C4.1 identifies both vehicle exit ramps as being from level P1; and the ramps are reversed on civil
sheet C4.2. Please clarify and correct all the discrepancies.
33.
Sheet A2.23 (A0.31, A2.13, A5.11) The plan sheets and building sections are unclear as to
what is proposed between Grids 9.5 and 10, north of Grid F.5. The parking garage structure appears
to end at Grid 9.5, but the dotted line indicating the future adjacent building is located at Grid 10, then
extends east. Please clarify the proposal for this area.
34.
The mechanical ventilation system plans do not include the exhaust shaft terminations. It is
understood that at the exhaust duct locations, there will be future buildings. The mechanical exhaust
ducts will need to be extended with full fire-resistive construction to a point above, or away from the
future buildings. Please describe both the temporary termination point proposed with the garage, and
the general concept for future continuation of the fire-resistive duct shaft assemblies.
Fire Code:
35.
Fire Apparatus Access. Though the current building permit application is limited to the parking
garage, which by itself does not exceed 30 feet above grade plane, the parking garage, by itself
would not be a permissible structure under the Ruston Zoning Code. (See Planning Director
comments and analysis for specific details) Instead, my understanding is the parking garage may be
permitted only as part of a phased project that includes additional buildings and uses consistent with
the Point Ruston Master Development Plan. As such, requirements for fire apparatus access must be
considered for the project as a whole. It is not shown in the plans, but my understanding is that
(future) buildings 9a, 9b, and 11b all will exceed 30 feet in height. In accordance with IFC Appendix
D, Section D105.1 aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. IFC Section D105.2 requires
that aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Currently, the civil plans
indicate Cascade Avenue, Central Plaza/Main Street, Grand Avenue and the apparatus access
roadway along the south side of Building 9a as being less than 26 feet. Each of the fire apparatus
access roads noted shall be a minimum of 26 feet in unobstructed width in accordance with IFC
Sections D105.2, D105.3 and D105.4. Please clarify and/or correct the information.
36.
Fire Flow. With fire-walls separating the garage structure from adjacent buildings, each
building may be evaluated separately for available fire flow in accordance with IFC Appendix Section
B104.2. The parking garage building, being in excess of 295,901 square feet requires a minimum of
6000 gallons per minute of available flow for a minimum 4-hour duration in accordance with IFC Table
B105.1. However, an exception to IFC B105.2, allows a reduction in required fire flow when the
building is provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system (such as this is). The reduction must be
approved by the fire code official prior to acceptance. Please describe the available fire-flow and
provide documentation from the water purveyor certifying the availability of fire flow, including
minimum available flow, and maximum volume to accommodate duration, etc.

CodePros, LLC

Page 7 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 37.
Fire Hydrant locations. IFC Appendix Chapter C requires a minimum number of fire hydrants,
and establishes the maximum allowable spacing between fire hydrants, and also between any single
point on a fire apparatus access road to an available hydrant. The civil plans provided do not include
any fire hydrant identification. When the minimum amount of fire-flow is established (in accordance
with the comment above) the location and spacing of fire hydrants may be determined in accordance
with IFC Table C105.1. (For example, if a 50% fire flow reduction is approved under IFC B105.2, then
hydrant spacing would be 400 feet, and a maximum of 225 feet from any single point to an available
hydrant would be required in accordance with IFC Table C105.1.) Please describe all proposed fire
hydrant locations (and their available fire-flow).
38.
Fire Department Connection. Please identify the proposed location of the fire department
connection for the automatic fire sprinkler system. Please also include all required details such as
clear space around the connection, the proximity to fire hydrants, how it will be maintained in a fully
visible location, be protected from damage, and all proposed caps, signage, backflow prevention, etc.
in accordance with the provisions of IBC and IFC Sections 912.
39.
Fire Pump. Will a fire pump be required for adequate supply to the automatic fire sprinkler
system? If so, please briefly describe the fire pump requirements and provide full details of the fire
pump room in accordance with IBC Sections 908.1, 913.2.1, 913.3 and 914.2.
40.
Fire Sprinkler Riser Room. Please describe where the proposed fire sprinkler system riser will
be located, and all required information describing the riser room in accordance with IBC 901.8,
914.2, and NFPA 13 requirements.
41.
It is agreed that the fire alarm, fire standpipe, and fire sprinkler systems will all be deferred
submittals, to be constructed under separate permits reviewed and issued at a later date (before
system construction). However, early in the process it will be required to have the water supply
calculations and underground fire supply main designed to assure adequate flow is available for the
subsequent sprinkler and standpipe systems. Please provide water supply calculations prepared by a
fire protection engineer for the underground fire supply system up to the building’s fire system riser.
42.
Electrical Room. Will an electrical room be provided in the building? If so, please describe the
room and the proposed contents, identifying any necessary fire-resistive construction, and room exits
as required by IBC Chapter 10 and NFPA 70.
Plumbing:
43.
No plumbing plans have been provided. Though it is recognized that there are no plumbing
fixtures per se, the building does (assumedly) include a considerable amount of storm drainage
provisions which will include an extensive piping system serving many surface drains, trench drains,
etc. All components of such storm-drainage collection and disposal systems shall be included in the
plan set, including all details of collection, transport, treatment and termination. Please provide the
required information.
44.
No plumbing plans have been provided. The geo-technical requirements for the site include
capture and disposal of any ground-water around the perimeter and/or below the structure. Please
provide complete plumbing plans identifying all components of the perimeter collection and drainage
system including all details of collection, transport, treatment and termination.
Civil Plans:

CodePros, LLC

Page 8 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 45.
The exterior lighting for the building itself is described on the lighting sheets, however, nothing
is shown for the street and site lighting along Cascade Avenue, Central Plaza/Main Street, and Grand
Avenue. As all the streets are private drives, all exterior lighting associated with the building needs to
be fully described, and included in the Energy Code exterior lighting analysis. Please provide the
required information.
46.
The civil plans provide broad topographic information and structural elevations and typical
grades; however, specific grade information is required to indicate compliance with IBC Chapter 11
and ICC/ANSI A117.1 for required features such as accessible parking spaces, accessible access
aisles, and accessible routes of travel. Please provide all elevations and maximum grades of all
accessible features.
47.
Please provide full details, dimensions, and/or specifications for all accessible parking spaces,
van accessible spaces and access aisles indicating satisfaction of IBC Chapter 11 and ICC/ANSI
A117.1 Chapter 5 requirements, as well as all signage requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1 Section
502.7.
48.
Sheet C2.0. The overall legend box representing the perimeter of the detail of Sheet C2.1 is
not consistent with the area actually depicted on Sheet C2.0. Please clarify the discrepancy.
49.
Sheets C2.1, C2.2, C2.3 and C2.4. The civil design sheets identify many aspects of the
sanitary sewer system, storm drainage system, and water supply system as existing, but provide only
references to City of Tacoma permit numbers. If existing, please provide the City of Ruston permit
numbers that the systems were installed under and identify any approvals provided by the City of
Ruston for the system installations.
50.
Sheet C2.1. The sanitary sewer profile appears to illustrate the sanitary sewer pipe
inconsistent with the elevations of the sanitary sewer manholes identified, and inconsistent with the
flow direction of the plan view between stations 30+20 and 32+20. Please clarify and/or correct the
information.
51.
Sheet C2.2. The sanitary sewer profile appears to illustrate the sanitary sewer pipe
inconsistent with the elevations of the sanitary sewer manholes identified, and inconsistent with the
flow direction of the plan view between stations 78+80 and 81. Please clarify and/or correct the
information.
52.
Sheet C2.2. What is the sanitary sewer stub located at approximately Station 83+50 (at the
south side of the intersection of Main Street and Grand Avenue) proposed to serve? (Other stubs
shown elsewhere appear to be more understandable for future building locations, whereas this one
appears to terminate at the street edge opposite any buildings.) Please clarify.
53.
Sheet C2.3 (&C2.4). Sanitary sewer stubs for (future) buildings 11A, 11B, and 9B are
apparent on the civil plans, however, there does not appear to be a sanitary sewer connection point
for future building 9A. Where is Building 9A proposed to connect to the sanitary sewer system?
Please clarify.
54.
Sheet C3.1. At detail/section A, there are two references to a detail 3 (without a page
notation). There is no detail 3 on Sheet C3.1. What are these references to? Please clarify and/or
correct the information.
55.
Sheet C4.1. At the parking garage vehicle exits to the north, at approximately Station 79+80,
both ramp terminations are identified as serving Parking Level P1. Please clarify and/or correct the
information.

CodePros, LLC

Page 9 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 56.
Sheet C4.1. Please see comment 29 above in regard to the grade of the sidewalk going
between Main Street and the parking level P3 (between future buildings 11B and 9B). In accordance
with the IBC, the sidewalk cannot exceed a maximum slope of 5%. The architectural plans indicate
this slope to be 5.375%. Anything greater than 5% would need to be constructed in accordance with
the requirements for an accessible ramp. Please coordinate with the architect of record to revise the
sidewalk slope to not exceed 5% grade, or provide a design to include all the provisions of an
accessible ramp.
57.
Sheet C4.1. Curb elevations are provided, but no description of a raised crosswalk, or curb
ramps, etc. is/are provided for the pedestrian path perpendicular to the parking garage vehicle exit.
This sidewalk location is part of an exit path (exit discharge) that provides access to a public right-ofway, thus must be compliant with the requirements of an accessible route of travel in accordance with
ICC/ANSI A117.1. Please clarify and/or correct the information.
58.
Sheet C4.2. Curb elevations are provided, but no description of a raised crosswalk, or curb
ramps, etc. is/are provided for the pedestrian path perpendicular to the parking garage vehicle
entrance at the east side of the structure. This sidewalk location is part of an exit path (exit
discharge) that provides access to a public right-of-way, thus must be compliant with the requirements
of an accessible route of travel in accordance with ICC/ANSI A117.1. Please clarify and/or correct the
information.
59.
Sheet C4.2. Please see comment 32 above in regard to the inconsistency of information in
regard to the vehicle entrance ramp locations. On Sheet C4.2, the parking garage entrance ramps
placement (to P1 and P2) are inconsistent with the architectural and structural designs. Please clarify
and/or correct the information.
60.
Sheet C4.3. Please see comment 30 above in regard to the exit discharge path to the public
way, as well as the Zoning Code review comments. The building’s exit discharge shall provide an exit
path to the public right-of-way. An exit discharge heading south near Building Grid 12 does not
appear to be continued to the public way. Please clarify and/or correct the information.
61.
Sheet C4.0. Construction Sequence Note 1 should be amended to read “Contractor shall not
start any work prior to attending a pre-construction meeting with the City of Ruston staff.”
City Engineer Comments: Please see the attached letter dated April 30, 2014 from the City of
Ruston City Engineer Jerome Morrissette, P.E. For convenience, the 39 comments are copied and
included below as comments numbered 62 to 100.
62.
1. The submitted civil plans show proposed driveways within the Yacht Club Road right-ofway. The applicant needs to obtain a Street Excavation Permit for the driveway construction (RMC
14.08).
63.
2. Point Ruston needs to submit a concurrent approval letter from the City of Tacoma for all
proposed improvements that will be installed along and across jurisdictional lines (e.g. Grand Avenue
improvements).
64.
3. All proposed water lines (main extensions, service lines, hydrant laterals, etc.) outside of the
building footprint need to be shown on the civil plans.
65.
4. The sanitary sewer information shown on the submitted plans is inconsistent with the asbuilt information submitted by Point Ruston for City of Tacoma Work Order Number 60000022216.

CodePros, LLC

Page 10 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 The sanitary sewer information shown in plan and profile view needs to be revised to accurately show
existing and proposed conditions (e.g. alignment, etc.).
66.
5. Show the direction of flow for all existing and proposed storm and sanitary lines on all
sheets (e.g. flow arrows missing on sheet C2.3). See also Note #4.
67.
6. The Stormwater Site Plan Report of record with the City of Ruston (dated April 2, 2010,
including the revisions dated April 26, 2010) indicates groundwater at approximate Elevation 30 in the
northwest roundabout area. The submitted plans show a 28' F.F.E. near the Central Plaza between
buildings 9 & 11, and a Parking Level 1 elevation of 18'. The structural plan S3.02 shows drain pipes.
a. What is the highest groundwater elevation around Buildings 9 & 11?
b. Could the groundwater near the proposed buildings be potentially contaminated with
arsenic, lead, etc.?
c. How will contaminated groundwater be handled if encountered?
d. Will groundwater be conveyed to the storm system?
e. If the answer to 6d is yes, how much groundwater (in gpm) will be conveyed, and to
which storm lines?
68.
7. The Stormwater Site Plan Report shows that pipes downstream of the proposed Buildings 9
& 11 are 100% full during a 25YR event.
Provide additional information showing how the existing storm system downstream of Buildings 9 &
11 has sufficient capacity for the proposed Building 9 & 11 improvements.
69.
8. All existing and proposed storm and sanitary lines outside of the proposed building
footprints need to be shown on the civil plans.
70.
9. Show the flow lines for all inverted crowns in plan view for all proposed private streets and
driveways.
71.

10. Show the longitudinal slopes along all inverted crown flow lines on the fine grading plans.

72.
11. Show all catch basins on the plans (e.g. a catch basin near Sta 39+00 that is shown on
Sheet C2.3 is not shown on Sheet C2.2).
73.
12. Sheet C3.2 shows a yard drain detail. Show on the plans where yard drains are proposed
and how they will be connected to the storm system.
74.
13. Include a detail on the civil plans that shows how the trench drain for the parking level P1
and P2 entrance will be connected to the storm system. Show all pipes outside of the proposed
building footprint.
75.
14. How will the stormwater runoff from the parking level P1 & P2 exit lanes be prevented from
flowing into the garage?
76.
15. Note #1 of the Raised Crosswalk Installation Detail on Sheet C3.1 states that "drop inlets
are required on the uphill side of the raised crosswalk for drainage purposes." All required inlets need
to be shown in plan and profile view. Include a "drop inlet" detail.
77.
16. Note #2 of the Raised Crosswalk Installation Detail on Sheet C3.1 states that "driveway
shall not be located within 20' raised crosswalk". A driveway is shown within 20' of the crosswalk near
Grand Avenue Sta. 42+00 (see Sheet C4.4). Revise submittal to make notes and drawings
consistent.

CodePros, LLC

Page 11 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 78.
17.Sheet C3.5 shows a WSDOT speed bump symbol detail. Will this symbol be installed for
each raised crosswalk? If yes, include a note on the raised crosswalk detail that references the speed
bump symbol.
79.
18. Revise the section dimensions on Sheet C3.0 so that the sum of the short dimensions
equals the dimensions from the centerline to the back of sidewalk.
80.
19. Section A-A on Sheet C3.0 is inconsistent with the spot elevations shown on Sheet C4.1.
Revise plans to match proposed improvements.
81.
20. Road widths need to comply with the requirements (including but not limited to Appendix
D) of the International Fire Code (RMC 12.20.020(d)).
“Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet
(9144mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided.” (IFC Section D105.1)
“Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm),
exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portions thereof.” (IFC Section
D105.2)
a. Will the proposed roads and aisles for Buildings 9 & 11 be used in the future to meet the
access requirements for any other buildings that are part of Point Ruston’s development within
the City of Ruston?
b. If the answer to 20a is yes, will the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest
roof surface of any of these future buildings exceed 30 feet?
c. If the answer to 20b is yes, show on the plans where the future buildings that exceed 30 ft.
vertical distance will be located.
82.

21. Show stop signs and stop bars for all driveways that exit to Yacht Club Road.

83.

22. Sheet C3.5 shows speed limit and one way signs. Where will these signs be installed?

84.
23. On Sheet C1.3, revise the diagonal arrow notes from "W16-PL Diagonal Arrow" to "W167P Downward Diagonal Arrow".
85.
24. Include a detail on the civil plans that shows what is proposed under "texture pavement
per architect" (see note shown on Sheet C1.3).
86.

25. A structural section for the stamped colored crosswalks needs to be added to the details.

87.

26. Move perpendicular curb ramp detail from Sheet C3.3 to Sheet C3.0.

88.

27. Where will the parallel curb ramp Type A (shown on detail sheet C3.0) be installed?

89.
28. The ingress and egress lanes to parking levels P1 and P2 are different on the civil plans
than they are on Sheet A0.30. Clarify which lane is connected to which level.
90.
29. The plans show two parallel exit lanes from parking levels 1 and 2 connecting to Main
Street.
a. How will the exiting vehicles from these two parallel exit lanes merge with the two way traffic
on Main Street?
b. Curb Radius #4 is only 10'. Are any vehicle size restrictions proposed for the parking garage?
c. How will vehicles in the easterly garage exit lane be able to turn right onto Main Street without
encroaching onto the oncoming lane?
d. Show proposed striping and signs.
e. Which direction will vehicles that are exiting parking levels P1 and P2 be allowed to turn?

CodePros, LLC

Page 12 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 91.

30. Show the curb radii at the parking garage entrance at Grand Avenue.

92.
31. Add a note to the General Notes on Sheet C2.0 that "Any excavation within 15 feet of a
public street (as defined in Ruston Municipal Code 14.08.030) requires a Street Excavation Permit."
93.

32. Notes on Sheet C4.0 need to be project specific (e.g. note refers to Building 2A).

94.
33. Replace Construction Sequence Note #1 on Sheet C4.0 with "Contractor shall not start
any work prior to attending a pre-construction meeting with City of Ruston staff."
95.
34. Show the proposed fence (Construction Sequence Note #11 on Sheet C4.0) on the plans.
Include a fence detail.
96.
35. General Note #2 on Sheet C4.0: Insert "the Ruston City Engineer and" in the second
sentence between "...the contractor shall contact" and "a water quality specialist...."
97.

36. Add a street sweeping provision to the TESC notes on Sheet C4.0.

98.
37. The applicant needs to provide a written response how each of the items listed in this
comment letter have been addressed.
99.
38. All engineering related responses to these City Engineer comments need to be signed by
the Project Civil Engineer of record.
100. 39. Further issues may be addressed as discovered, or as changes are made to the site and
plans.
Environmental: Comments 101 to 103 below are copied (and paraphrased) from a memo dated
May 8, 2014 from Senior Environmental Geologist, Shane C. Degross of Richard Brady & Associates
Inc.:
101. GENERAL: The site plans submitted with the building permit packet do not match the building
footprints noted on the Site Plan of the Point Ruston Master Development Plan and City of Ruston
Ordnance 1264. Please provide a drawing (or multiple drawings) that illustrate the current and
proposed lateral extent of each component of the cap. It is understood that as a multi‐component cap
some of the liner will partially extend under roadways, fully extend under paths and landscaping and
abut to building foundations. Future site users should know exactly how far the liner extends under
each road, or abuts to each building footprint etc... This could be simplified in a single map or map set
that illustrates the proposed (and eventual as‐built) multi‐component cap.
102. SPECIFIC: Civil, Structural and Landscape Plan Sets: With the exception of Sheets C3.0 and
C3.1 of the Civil set, plans do not adequately illustrate the geotextile marker layer, HDPE liner or
waste soil. Please illustrate the location of the HDPE liner, marker layer and waste soil in all plan and
cross‐sectional views and detail the interface of the liner system with the building foundations,
retaining walls, sidewalks and roadways.
103. Sheet C3.1 Detail 6 illustrates the building footing sitting on slag. Sheet C4.6 states a
geotechnical engineering firm’s recommendation from a report regarding foundations placed on slag
(Womack & Associates, Inc. Geology and Geotechnical Engineering). Please provide a complete
copy of the geotechnical report referenced. [Note: a “Geo-Resources” geo-technical report dated April
17, 2013 was received by the City of Ruston on April 30, 2014.] Sheet S3.03 also referenced a
geotechnical report; presumably, it is the same one referenced in C3.1, if there are differences
between the multiple geo-technical reports, please clarify any discrepancies, and appropriately
reference the applicable requirements.

CodePros, LLC

Page 13 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 City of Tacoma Comments: Comments 104 to 108 below are copied from an e-mail dated May 6,
2014 from Mieke Hoppen, P.E., Environmental Services, City of Tacoma, with a heading of “The
following comments are based upon a quick non-comprehensive review of the plans associated with
the building permits for Building 9 and Building 11:
104. 1. Submit a Stormwater Site Plan or a revision to the approved Stormwater Site Plan that
clearly discusses the proposed development.
105. 2. On the civil sheets, clearly show which stormwater facilities and lines have been
constructed. It is the City’s understanding that portions of the stormwater system have been approved
under previous City of Ruston permits but have not been constructed.
106. 3. On the civil sheets, clearly show which lines are public and which lines are private (both
stormwater and wastewater).
107. 4. On the civil sheets, clearly show the extent of the stormwater system to its final discharge
location, clearly noting which components have been constructed to date and under which permit
these lines were permitted. If a line has not been appropriately permitted or approved please note as
such.
108.

5. Clearly show the discharge location for all footing drains.

Other:
109. In accordance with WAC 51-50-009, “All local jurisdictions shall require that space be provided
for the storage of recycled materials and solid waste for all new buildings… The storage area shall be
designed to meet the needs of the occupancy, efficiency of pickup, and shall be available to
occupants and haulers.” Obviously, the parking garage itself will not be an occupancy that generates
significant refuse, however, the future buildings will, and the storage area should be considered in the
civil, and architectural site plans, and a determination made as to how this requirement will be
satisfied upon construction of the future buildings. Please provide in the design suitable space or
spaces to accommodate screened recycling and solid waste containers and pickup areas.
110. Phasing: There are multiple “phases” of this project being proposed. Phase 1 being
construction of the parking garage prior to construction of later phases to include buildings 9A, 9B,
11A, and 11B. In addition, the garage itself is noted to have phases, where parking levels P3 and P4
will be barricaded to prevent use, while presumably wanting parking levels P1 and P2 to be opened to
use by the public. Once opened for use, are any closures anticipated to accommodate future
construction and/or building maintenance? Please clarify all of the proposed phases and provide a
complete phasing plan, to include exactly what will be constructed in what order, what is anticipated
for occupancy of what portions, and also include a timeline identifying anticipated start and
completion dates of each phase.
111. Project Valuation: On the building permit application, the project valuation was described as
$10,250,000.00. In accordance with the City of Ruston Master Permit Fee Schedule Section 1(A),
project valuation shall be established based on the full anticipated cost of the structure, but as a
minimum, the project valuation shall be determined from the most current “Square Foot Construction
Costs” table compiled by the International Code Council. The February 2014 edition establishes a
square foot cost for Construction Type 1A, Group S-2 occupancies at $99.53 per square foot of
building. At 492,118 square feet, the resultant project valuation is $48,980,504.54. Building permit
and plan review fees will be calculated based on the revised project valuation. The building plan

CodePros, LLC

Page 14 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 review paid upon submittal was based on the original claimed valuation; additional plan review fees
will be due.
Unfortunately, the building permit cannot be approved for issuance until all the issues are resolved.
It should also be noted that, though site-preparation, excavation, and EPA “cap” activity may proceed
without the building permit under the CERCLA exemption, absolutely no structural components of the
building may be constructed without the building permit being approved and issued, and subsequent
inspections of each component performed and approved by the City of Ruston Building Official. In
accordance with IBC 104.4, the building official shall make all of the required inspections. A separate
“approved agency” does not exist, as no other means of inspections have been approved or
authorized. Please be aware that if any concrete is placed as part of a structural system or
foundation without the inspection and explicit approval of the City of Ruston Building Official,
it will not be accepted as suitable as a structural component of any building.
To re-submit plans:
Please make any required corrections and/or clarifications and submit a revised electronic copy of the
plans clearly identifying all revisions.
With the plans submitted electronically, once approved, the electronic set will contain the approval
indications and will be provided to the applicant/architect in order to print a full size official “Approved
Site Copy” of the plans to be maintained on-site during construction. Electronic plans may be emailed to mbarth@codeproswa.com or instructions and passwords may be provided for me to
download the revised plans from a FTP site or similar arrangement, or they can simply be mailed on a
CD to the City or to the address below.
To aid in the timely review of the revised plans, please detail all corrections and/or revisions in a cover
letter, numbered the same as the comments above. Revisions should be marked on the sheets and
noted with a cloud surrounding them or some other method to distinguish the changes. Please also
be sure to identify if any other changes are made that are not associated with the plan review
comments.
If you have questions or concerns about the review comments, please contact me directly at
mbarth@codeproswa.com or call me at 360-801-0543.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Michael J. Barth, M.C.P.
Date: 2014.05.13 22:25:18 -07'00'

Michael J. Barth, M.C.P.
City of Ruston Building Official
CodePros, LLC
cc:Rob White, City of Ruston Planning Director
Bruce Hopkins, City of Ruston Mayor
Jerry Morrissette, City of Ruston City Engineer
Thomas Leyrer, JW Morrissette & Associates
Don Torbet, City of Ruston Fire Chief
Shane DeGross, City of Ruston Environmental Consultant
Jennifer Robertson, City of Ruston City Attorney
Judy Grams, City of Ruston City Clerk
David Johnson, City of Tacoma
Kevin Rochlin, EPA
Michael Cohen, Point Ruston
Larry Hutchinson, Point Ruston
The Design Collective
Cary Kopczynski & Company
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC

CodePros, LLC

Page 15 of 15

P.O. Box 185
Allyn, WA 98524
CodeProsWA.com

 1.51?.

us'to 11

II 

April 30, 2014

SENT VIA EMAIL

Mr. Michael Barth, Building Of?cial
City of Ruston

51 17 N. Winnifred Street

Ruston, WA 98407

RE:

RST 14-1312 Point Ruston Building Permit Application for Buildings 9 11
Submittal - Review Comments

Dear Mr. Barth,

The City Engineer's of?ce has received your request for comments to Point Ruston's Building
Permit Application for Buildings 9 11 (RST 14-1312) via email on March 31, 2014.

The applicant needs to provide additional information and clari?cation as shown below prior to
further review by the City Engineer's of?ce:

1.

The submitted civil plans show proposed driveways within the Yacht Club Road right-of-
way. The applicant needs to obtain a Street Excavation Permit for the driveway
construction (RMC 14.08).

Point Ruston needs to submit a concurrent approval letter from the City of Tacoma for all
proposed improvements that will be installed along and across jurisdictional lines g.
Grand Avenue improvements).

All proposed water lines (main extensions, service lines, hydrant laterals, etc.) outside of
the building footprint need to be shown on the civil plans.

The sanitary sewer information shown on the submitted plans is inconsistent with the as-
built information submitted by Point Ruston for City of Tacoma Work Order Number
60000022216. The sanitary sewer infonnation shown in plan and pro?le view needs to be
revised to accurately show existing and proposed conditions alignment, etc.)

Show the direction of ?ow for all existing and proposed storm and sanitary lines on all
sheets ?ow arrows missing on sheet C23). See also Note 

The Stormwater Site Plan Report of record with the City of Ruston (dated April 2, 2010,

including the revisions dated April 26, 2010) indicates groundwater at approximate
Elevation 30 in the northwest roundabout area. The submitted plans show a 28? F.F.E.

Page 1 of5

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

near the Central Plaza between buildings 9 11, and a Parking Level 1 elevation. of 18?.
The structural plan S3.02 shows drain pipes.
a. What is the highest groundwater elevation around Buildings 9 11?
b. Could the groundwater near the proposed buildings be potentially contaminated
with arsenic, lead, etc.?
c. How will contaminated groundwater be handled if encountered?
Will groundwater be conveyed to the storm system?
e. If the answer to 6d is yes, how much groundwater (in gpm) will be conveyed, and
to which storm lines?

The Stormwater Site Plan Report shows that pipes of the proposed Buildings
9 11 are 100% full during a 25YR event.

Provide additional information showing how the existing storm system of
Buildings 9 11 has suf?cient capacity for the proposed Building 9 11 improvements.

All existing and proposed storm and sanitary lines outside of the proposed building
footprints need to be shown on the civil plans.

Show the ?ow lines for all inverted crowns in plan view for all proposed private streets,
driveways, and aisles.

Show the longitudinal slopes along all inverted crown flow lines on the ?ne grading
plans.

Show all catch basins on the plans g. a catch basin near Sta 39+00 that is shown on
Sheet C2.3 is not shown on Sheet C22).

Sheet C3.2 shows a yard drain detail. Show on the plans where yard drains are proposed
and how they will be connected to the storm system.

Include a detail on the civil plans that shows how the trench drain for the parking level P1
and P2 entrance will be connected to the storm system. Show all pipes outside of the
proposed building footprint.

How will the stormwater runoff from the parking level P1 exit lane be prevented from
?owing into the garage?

Note #1 of the Raised Crosswalk Installation Detail on Sheet C3.1 states that "drop inlets
are required on the uphill side of the raised crosswalk for drainage purposes.? All
required inlets need to be shown in plan and pro?le view. Include a "drop inlet" detail.

Note #2 of the Raised Crosswalk Installation Detail on Sheet C3.1 states that "driveway
shall not be located within 20' raised crosswalk?. A driveway is shown within 20' of the
crosswalk near Grand Avenue Sta. 42+00 (see Sheet C4.4). Revise submittal to make
notes and drawings consistent.

Page 2 of5

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Sheet C3.5 shows a WSDOT speed bump symbol detail. Will this symbol be installed for
each raised crosswalk? If yes, include a note on the raised crosswalk detail that references
the speed bump symbol.

Revise the section dimensions on Sheet C3.0 so that the sum of the short dimensions
equals the dimensions from the centerline to the back of sidewalk.

Section A-A on Sheet C30 is inconsistent with the spot elevations shown on Sheet C4.1.
Revise plans to match proposed improvements.

Road widths need to comply with the requirements (including but not limited to
Appendix D) of the International Fire Code (RMC 

?Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface

exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be
provided.? (IFC Section D105.1)

?Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet
(7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion
thereof.? Section D1052)

a. Will the proposed roads and aisles for Buildings 9 1 1 be used in the future to
meet the access requirements for any other buildings that are part of Point
Ruston?s development within the City of Ruston?

b. If the answer to 20a is yes, will the vertical distance between the grade plane and
the highest roof surface of any of these future buildings exceed 30 feet?

c. If the answer to 20b is yes, show on the plans where the future buildings that
exceed the 30 ft. vertical distance will be located.

Show stop signs and stop bars for all driveways that exit to Yacht Club Road.

Sheet C35 shows speed limit and one way signs. Where will these signs be installed?

On Sheet C1.3, revise the diagonal arrow notes from Diagonal Arrow" to
Downward Diagonal Arrow".

Include a detail on the civil plans that shows what is proposed under "texture pavement
per architect? (see note shown on Sheet C1.3).

A structural section for the stamped colored crosswalks needs to be added to the details.
Move the perpendicular curb ramp detail from Sheet C3.3 to Sheet C3.0.

Where will the parallel curb ramp Type A (shown on detail sheet C3.0) be installed?

Page 3 of5

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

The ingress and egress lanes to parking levels P1 and P2 are different on the civil plans
than they are on Sheet A0.30. Clarify which lane is connected to which level.

The plans show two parallel exit lanes from parking levels 1 and 2 connecting to Main
Street.
a. How will the exiting vehicles from these two parallel exit lanes merge with the
two way traffic on Main Street?
b. Curb Radius #4 is only 10'. Are any vehicle size restrictions proposed for the
parking garage?
c. How will vehicles in the easterly garage exit lane be able to turn right onto Main
Street without encroaching onto the oncoming lane?
d. Show proposed striping and signs.
e. Which direction will vehicles that are exiting parking levels P1 and P2 be allowed
to turn?

Show the curb radii at the parking garage entrance at Grand Avenue.

Add a note to the General Notes on Sheet C2.0 that "Any excavation within 15 feet of a
public street (as defined in Ruston Municipal Code 14.08.03 0) requires a Street
Excavation Permit."

Notes on Sheet C4.0 need to be project specific note refers to Building 2A).

Replace Construction Sequence Note #1 on Sheet C4.0 with "Contractor shall not start
any work prior to attending a pie-construction meeting with City of Ruston staf 

Show the proposed fence (see Construction Sequence Note #11 on Sheet C40) on the
plans. Include a fence detail.

General Note #2 on Sheet C40: Insert "the Ruston City Engineer and? in the second
sentence between contractor shall contact? and "a water quality 

Add a street sweeping provision to the TESC notes on Sheet C40.

The applicant needs to provide a written response how each of the items listed in this
comment letter have been addressed.

All engineering related responses to these City Engineer comments need to be signed by
the Project Civil Engineer of record.

Further issues may be addressed as discovered, or as changes are made to the site and
plans.

Page 4 of 5

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely, 

 
    
 

Je ?"me W. mssette, 
of Rust City Engineer

Cc: Mayor Bruce Hopkins
Rob White, Planning Director
Jennifer Robeitson, City Attorney
Thomas Leyrer, WMA

Page 5 of5