Laserfiche WebLink
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 />