PC-2026-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

330 Land Company, LLC 9785.004.001 Arroyo Lago October 31, 2025 RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS Page 2 ENGEO Response to Comment 2 No exceptions taken; the geotechnical report has been revised to reflect the latest Vesting Tentative Map dated July 2025. References to CBG’s old 2022 Vesting Tentative Map have also been replaced with the Vesting Tentative Map dated July 2025. BSK Comment 3 – Geotechnical Report, Section 2.5, Subsurface Conditions This section references up to 70 feet of fill in the Busch Pit, whereas Figures 2A, 2B and 2C indicate 80.5 feet of undocumented fill. We believe the reference to 70 feet may be in error and should be revised for accuracy. ENGEO Response to Comment 3 The “Filling of Busch Pit” geotechnical letter prepared by Haley & Aldrich dated December 18, 2013, states that “the surface elevation of Busch Pit varied from approximately 50 feet deep at the southern end to 70 feet deep at the northern end.” In contrast, 1-CPT5 from our geotechnical report shows material interpreted as fill extending up to 80½ feet below the ground surface and is outside the Busch Pit area. Both values are accurate to their respective areas. BSK Comment 4 – Geotechnical Report, Section 2.5.1, Existing Fill This section refers to the clayey fill at the site having a low to medium plasticity with a plasticity index ranging from 9 to 21. The remainder of the geotechnical report references low to high plasticity. Also, there is a plasticity index as high as 32 reported at a depth of about 13 feet below ground surface (bgs) in boring 1-B3. This discussion should be revised for consistency. ENGEO Response to Comment 4 This section has been revised to clarify that the clayey fill at the site has a low to high plasticity with a plasticity index ranging from 9 to 32. BSK Comment 5 – Geotechnical Report, Section 2.5.2, Engineered Fill (Busch Pit) This section indicates that no moisture content specification was recommended by Haley & Adrich for the soil placement at Busch Pit. The 2013 Haley & Aldrich letter recommended “at or near optimum” moisture content for engineered fill placed in the pit. This discussion should be revisited for accuracy. ENGEO Response to Comment 5 It is our opinion that a moisture content specification was not recommended by Haley & Aldrich; the 2013 Haley & Aldrich letter states “the fill was moisture-conditioned, as needed, to a point at or near its optimum moisture content.” The letter subsequently states that Haley & Aldrich personnel used the nuclear gauge to verify the compaction for each lift; there is no mention of using the nuclear gauge to verify the moisture content of each lift.