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
<br />Hana Japan Steak House 5150.100.001 <br />11991 Dublin Canyon Road November 11, 2024 <br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Page 4 <br /> <br />Comment 10 Geotechnical Report, Section 5.4.3 (2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters): <br />We understand these parameters have been superseded by the those provided in the CBC update <br />Letter. However, please refer to Comment #1 above regarding Site Class characterization and seismic <br />design values at the Site. <br /> <br />ENGEO Response to Comment 10 <br />Response to Comment 1 addresses this. <br /> <br />Comment 11 Geotechnical Report, Section 5.5 (Soil Corrosion Potential): <br />Same as Comment #7 above <br /> <br />ENGEO Response to Comment 11 <br />Please see Response to Comment 7. <br /> <br />Comment 12 Geotechnical Report, Section 6 (Earthwork Recommendations): <br />General Note: Throughout the Geotechnical Report, when referring to earthwork recommendations, <br />Section 4 is referred to. These references should be updated to refer to the correct subsections in <br />Section 6. <br /> <br />ENGEO Response to Comment 12 <br />We will add a clarifying section in the Reference 2 update. <br /> <br />Comment 13 Geotechnical Report, Section 6.1 (Expansive Soil Mitigation): <br />a. In the statement that indicates no expansive clay should be placed within the upper 3 feet of <br />building pads, the top of the building pad should be defined such as finished subgrade or bottom <br />of slab. <br />b. This section of the report should state what type of soil material should be used to replace <br />expansive (soil) material that is removed from the upper 3 feet of the building pads. BSK assumes <br />the replacement soil material would consist of a low expansion potential soil having a plasticity <br />index of less than 12 per Section 6.5 of the Geotechnical Report. <br /> <br />ENGEO Response to Comment 13 <br />a. We will define the term “building pad” in the Reference 2 update. <br />b. We will add a comment on recommended fill for building pads. Note, building pads will likely be <br />excavated into sandstone in most areas based on depths to bedrock encountered in explorations <br />in building pads shown in Figure 2 of Reference 2 and elevations shown in Sheets C3 and C4 of <br />“Improvement Plans for Hana Japan” by Alexander & Associates Inc., dated March 19, 2024. We <br />opine that the chance of encountering significant clay in the building pads is low. To be consistent <br />with non-expansive sandstone, we will recommend either processed excavated sandstone or low <br />plasticity import be used to backfill any pockets of clay to be removed from the building pads. <br />Exhibit 1 shows the location of the previous borings, along with the building location and existing <br />and planned grades. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.