Laserfiche WebLink
Email: SFandleraeverettwa.gov <br /> 7-4 MAW WNW, <br /> The Permit Services Counter is located on the 2nd Floor. <br /> Hours of Operation: Monday-Friday 7:30am-12:oopm and 1:oopm-4:oopm. <br /> All emails, and attachments, sent to and from City of Everett are public <br /> records and may be subject to public disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. <br /> From: Bryan Hawkins [mailto:bhawkins(a�hwageo.com] <br /> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:39 PM <br /> To: Sabrina Fandler <br /> Cc: Donald Huling <br /> Subject: RE: 3301 Seaway Blvd - Peer Review <br /> Hi Sabrina, <br /> Sounds good. Regarding their comments, I have the following: <br /> Comment#1:Their comment acknowledges that the liner can leak.There is no way to ensure that a large leakage event <br /> would never occur. I would recommend sticking to the setbacks per your SWMM unless they can provide some <br /> evidence/results that show a setback reduction will not be detrimental to the slope. Given your required setback of the <br /> height of slope(90-100 feet), I would not allow the pond to be located directly at the top of the slope. <br /> Comment#2:This comment will be addressed with the minimum required setback as specified in the SWMM. Their <br /> geotech report never mentions the SWMM or the required setback, so this minimum required seTback_should be <br /> _.addressed by the design engineer. Your requirements state..that"The geotechnical report may recommend a reduced <br /> setback, but in no case shall the setback be less than the vertical height of the slope.' This is pretty clear and does not <br /> allow for a setback reduction less than height of slope. <br /> Comment#3: Given the foundation pad will bear 3 feet below ground surface (at the face of the wall),this should be <br /> adequate to protect from shallow sliding in front of the wall. However,the areas in front of walls along the tops of <br /> slopes should be checked periodically for sliding/erosion,and corrective measures taken if this is observed. <br /> Comment#4:The recommended values for structural coefficient of HMA varies considerable. City of Seattle (being <br /> somewhat conservative) uses a value of 0.39.Typical values range from 0.4 to 0.44. WSDOT has an extremely stringent <br /> set of specifications for HMA production and testing that will likely not be followed for this project, hence the use of <br /> WSDOT values is probably not applicable. Also, regarding the subgrade modulus, using a high value may be appropriate <br /> if the paving occurs during a dry period and the subgrade is prepared appropriately, but this is not always the case,and <br /> some of the materials will be fill, so using a high value does not seem warranted.The values they use are not entirely <br /> unreasonable, but do not consider that construction is sometimes less than ideal and reflect a relatively unconservative <br /> design. It is their pavement,as stated, but they should be aware that premature deterioration of pavements may be <br /> likely using such a thin section for heavy traffic(I have never seen only 3 inches of HMA recommended in a heavy vehicle <br /> environment). <br /> Let me know if you have any other questions or comments. <br /> Thanks! <br /> Bryan <br /> Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E. <br /> Senior Geotechnical Engineer <br /> gal I tivaGEMasias IMG <br /> t"21312 30 Drive SE,Suite 110 <br /> � 2 <br />