My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3301 SEAWAY BLVD WHOLE SITE 2025-10-30
>
Address Records
>
SEAWAY BLVD
>
3301
>
WHOLE SITE
>
3301 SEAWAY BLVD WHOLE SITE 2025-10-30
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2025 8:09:23 AM
Creation date
6/4/2019 9:20:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
SEAWAY BLVD
Street Number
3301
Tenant Name
WHOLE SITE
Imported From Microfiche
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
403
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PUBLIC WORKS <br />ii. On sheet C5, there are several leaders pointing to infrastructure but the callout is <br />outside of the viewport (along the entire east edge). Please bring these items into <br />view for the next submittal. <br />iii. On sheets C5 & C6, the limit line for the Native Growth Protection Area needs to <br />be much more clearly visible. It is currently blending in with the existing <br />contours. Although when you shade back the contours it might show up more, <br />having a distinct line type that is bolder and has a pattern would be ideal. No <br />proposed work should be located in this area. <br />2. The comments below were generated from this project's Stormwater Reviewer. If you have any <br />questions regarding these comments, please contact Jane Zimmerman with the City of Everett <br />Public Works Department (425-257-8885 or JZimmerman(&everettwa. og_v). <br />a. Comments below emailed to applicant on 7/13/2016. <br />i. Please see the first attachment for the general design criteria from the City's 2010 <br />SWMM (Chapter 2, Volume III) that have not yet been met for the design of the <br />stormwater control pond on this site. I have printed out the appropriate pages <br />and highlighted the criteria that haven't been met. In my opinion, the City's <br />general design criteria for flow control and treatment 13MPs are the least <br />stringent criteria that must be met to ensure the safety of the stormwater control <br />facility at this location. <br />ii. Please see the second attachment for the criteria in the Planned Action <br />Determination that haven't been met at this time. Of particular importance for <br />this site is the construction management plan. I briefly reviewed the SWPPP that <br />was included in the drainage report and it isn't adequate to address the conditions <br />in the PAD, particularly with respect to implementing the recommendations in <br />the geotechnical report and the provision of a construction phasing plan. It also <br />includes an incorrect description of the proposed construction activities in <br />Section 2.2. On this site, the stormwater detention pond is proposed to serve as <br />the project's sediment control pond. However, requirement #18 prohibits <br />exfiltration from the pond during all phases of construction. How and when will <br />the pond be built and, in particular, lined to prevent exfiltration from the pond? <br />How much clearing will be allowed before this critical facility is constructed? <br />Will the site be cleared and graded all at once? How will the slopes of the pond <br />be protected during clearing and grading? These and additional questions must be <br />answered. <br />iii. I have also reviewed the latest geotechnical report. It appears to me that the only <br />things that were changed from the draft were the cover letter, the project <br />description, and the Exploration Location Plan map, which shows an updated <br />sight plan. However, as last time, neither the project description nor the site plan <br />accurately match the current site plan in the area of the pond... Given the <br />coordination issues that naturally exist when the geotechnical engineer has to <br />approve the final construction plans, I would highly recommend that the <br />responsible geotechnical engineer be required to actually stamp and sign the <br />age 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.