HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.33 MINING STOCK PKWY.0093-2020-BRES (5)Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9
Burlingame Phase III - COA Permit Comment Response 2 - Engineering - 02-12-2021
* The following matrix are the Engineering COA Permit Comments 2 per the Permit drawings dated 12-11-2020. The comments are organized per department review and contain the original comment information along with design team
response and the design team member responsible for the response.
Engineering Comments - PJM Reviewer - 359 Design
File Page Parties Notes Design Team Member Design Team Response Date Complete
E-P2.1 90.Civil Plans.20201211.pdf 6 Civil Sheet C6.02 calls out the storm pipe from
where RG-5B was proposed to RG-4B is to be
removed and the drainage report calls out a
swale and drain chases to be installed to route
runoff from basin 5B to rain garden RG-4B.
The grading plan and the storm plans do not
show this. Revise to clearly show this revision
or call out which sheet shows this information.
Sopris Engineering There are adequate flowline spot elevations and a
call out for drainage scuppers at this location
which imply the intent of a swale. Furthermore, a
Grading & Drainage Cert. will be required prior to
obtaining a CO and the installation of this swale
along with all other stormwater mitigation
improvements will be confirmed throughout
construction and in support of signing off on the
G&D Cert. Note: no re-print necessary
E-P2.2 90.Civil Plans.20201211.pdf 20 Civil Has this easement
documentation been formalized?
Sopris Engineering Chris Everson is taking the lead on recording all
easements. Draft easement exhibits are included
with our responses.
E-P2.3 90.Civil Plans.20201211.pdf 20 Civil Transformer load calculation forms are
required to be submitted for review. The
Permit Coordinator for this project should have
blank forms. Note that these forms require Ron
Christian's signature prior to submitting them
with the permit.
Sopris Engineering / BG The transformer load calculation forms are
executed by the project electrical engineer, signed
by the owner, reviewed and signed by Ron
Christian and will be submitted for permit approval.
E-P2.4 90.Civil Plans.20201211.pdf 23 Civil / Geotech Confirm with the geotech that the weight of the
footer will not impact the water service line
when it is routed below the footer of a building.
Call out the vertical separation between
foundation and service line.
HP-Kumar Geotech It is not uncommon for utility services, to include
water services, to enter a structure below a footing.
Additional coordination with the geotechnical and
structural engineer will occur prior to construction.
The geotech will provide a written response of
approval.
E-P2.5 90.Civil Plans.20201211.pdf 23 Civil It appears that most water service lines were
updated to utilize vertical bends rather than
deflection per previous comments. Building 10
WS profile still calls out deflection. Please
address in the response to comments to
inform the Water Department staff.
Sopris Engineering Given the available distance from main to building,
mild adjustment in grade to maintain min. 7-ft bury
depth and a not so critical entry elevation at the
building it was determined that vertical bends will
not provide any benefit in the design or
construction of this service line.
E-P2.6 90.Civil Plans.20201211.pdf 24 Civil Deflection is proposed on building 14B ws
profile over deflection. Please include
discussion in the response to comments.
Sopris Engineering Given the available distance from main to building,
mild adjustment in grade to maintain min. 7-ft bury
depth and a not so critical entry elevation at the
building it was determined that vertical bends will
not provide any benefit in the design or
construction of this service line.
E-P2.7 90.Civil Plans.20201211.pdf 44 Civil Include a note to use a bond breaker or similar
material at the penetration of the service line
through the foundation wall.
Sopris Engineering Note provided on detail
03/05/202103/05/2021