My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-2025-16
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2025
>
PC-2025-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/23/2025 10:30:44 AM
Creation date
12/23/2025 10:28:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/23/2025
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
277
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
GEOTECHNICAL <br />ENVIRONMENTAL <br />WATER RESOURCES <br />CONSTRUCTION SERVICES <br />COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS <br /> <br />2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 (925) 866-9000 info@engeo.com <br />www.engeo.com <br /> <br /> <br />Project No. <br />5150.100.001 <br /> <br />November 11, 2024 <br /> <br />Mr. Dan Yoon <br />Hana Japan Steak House <br />7298 San Ramon Road <br />Dublin, CA 94568 <br /> <br />Subject: Hana Japan Steak House <br /> 11991 Dublin Canyon Road <br /> Pleasanton, California <br /> <br /> RESPONSE TO COMMENTS <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Yoon: <br /> <br />We are pleased to provide the following response to comments for the Hana Japan Steak House <br />project in Pleasanton, California. For our use, we were provided with Reference 4, by BSK <br />Associates (BSK), dated September 6, 2024. For completeness of the record, we restate BSK’s <br />comments in italics, followed by our responses. Our intent is to provide this response to comments, <br />and upon concurrence by BSK, update References 1, 2, and 3 as appropriate, to document the <br />modifications. <br /> <br />Comment 1 CBC Update Letter: <br />The letter characterizes the Site as Site Class D whereas the Geotechnical Report characterizes the <br />Site as Site Class C. Some of the values provided in Table 1 appear to be consistent with a Site <br />Class C, while others are consistent with Site Class D. The discrepancy between Site Class <br />characterizations and their associated seismic design values should be clarified. In addition, <br />consideration should be given to providing an appropriate justification for the Site Class selected. <br /> <br />ENGEO Response to Comment 1 <br />Our use of Fa of 1.2 and Fv of 1.7 site coefficient values, which correlate to parameters for <br />Site Classes D and C, respectively, was intentional. The 2008 recommendations were based on the <br />2007 California Building Code (CBC), which was based on the 2005 version of ASCE 7 “Minimum <br />Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures” (ASCE 7-05). The current parameters are provided <br />in accordance with the 2022 CBC, which is based on the 2016 version of ASCE 7 (ASCE 7-16). A <br />difference between the two versions of ASCE 7 is the encouragement to use Site Class D with a <br />Fa value not less than 1.2 for sites where “the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to <br />determine the site class,” (Sections 11.4.3 and 11.4.4). Since we did not measure a shear wave <br />velocity and we did not explore to a depth of 100 feet in the exploration that supports Reference 2, we <br />judge that applying a Site Class D but with a Fa value of 1.2 to be in alignment with the 2022 CBC. <br />Note, on online seismic design parameter websites, this combination is referred to as “D Default.” We <br />will update Reference 3 to better reflect this information. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.