Laserfiche WebLink
GEOTECHNICAL <br />ENVIRONMENTAL <br />WATER RESOURCES <br />CONSTRUCTION SERVICES <br />COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS <br /> <br />2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 250  San Ramon, CA 94583  (925) 866-9000  info@engeo.com <br />www.engeo.com <br /> <br />Project No. <br /> 9785.004.001 <br />October 31, 2025 <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Reilly <br />330 Land Company, LLC <br />16381 Scientific Way <br />Irvine, CA 92618 <br /> <br />Subject: Arroyo Lago <br /> Unincorporated Alameda County, California <br /> <br /> RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS <br /> <br />References: 1. ENGEO. 2024. Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration, Arroyo Lago, <br />Unincorporated Alameda County, California. April 16, 2024, Revised <br />October 31, 2025. Project No. 9785.004.001. <br /> 2. BSK Associates. 2025. Revised Geotechnical Peer Review, Arroyo Lago <br />Annexation/Planned Unit Development, Pleasanton, California. <br />October 9, 2025. Project No. G25000701. <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Reilly: <br /> <br />As requested, this letter contains our responses to the geotechnical peer review comments by <br />BSK Associates (BSK) on behalf of City of Pleasanton. The BSK comments were presented in <br />the letter dated October 9, 2025 (Reference 2). The geotechnical report (Reference 1) has been <br />revised appropriately in response to the review comments by BSK. <br /> <br />The review comments by BSK are presented below in italics, followed by our responses. <br /> <br />BSK Comment 1 – Geotechnical Report, Letter of Transmittal <br /> <br />The letter of transmittal states that one of the main geotechnical concerns is relatively shallow <br />groundwater. We believe this may be in error based on the information provided in Section 2.6 <br />(Groundwater Conditions) of the geotechnical report. Consideration should be given to revising <br />this statement for clarity. <br /> <br />ENGEO Response to Comment 1 <br /> <br />No exceptions taken; shallow groundwater is not a geotechnical concern for this site. The <br />geotechnical report has been revised accordingly. <br /> <br />BSK Comment 2 – Geotechnical Report, Section 1.3, Project Description <br /> <br />The cut and fill amounts should be updated to reflect the Vesting Tentative Map dated July 2025 <br />if appropriate. In addition, the reference to 7½ feet of fill does not match the 6 feet of fill mentioned <br />in Section 3.4, Compressible Soil. The fill amounts should be revisited for consistency. <br />