The groundwork has a few footnotes.

A pad, with a rather important assumption.

On March 28, 2025, the engineer reported that most of the base pad near the adjoining property appeared to be well-compacted cut material from the adjacent slope. He identified a small area near the entrance that appeared more recently added, where material had been placed over tree stumps and pushed-over vegetation. He could not determine how much of the pad had been built without proper grubbing and recommended monitoring for settling.

His statement that the pad was not a concern assumed it would not support buildings. The letter does not establish the pad’s suitability for a residential foundation, and it does not conclude that the whole pad is defective. For a home project, we would want a separate foundation evaluation and design.

“I could not determine how much of the pad had been built without proper grubbing… Assuming that this small pad is not anticipated to support any buildings, it is not a concern.”

A driveway with its own ambitions.

At the March 28, 2025 visit, the engineer described a caliche entrance on a very steep natural slope, covered with a thin layer of dry concrete mix. He reported that the mix had been spread over the surface rather than mixed into the caliche and that it appeared intended to strengthen the base.

• The front tires of the engineer’s truck became stuck in the caliche when he tried to turn around at the entrance.
• The drive was difficult to walk down without sliding.
• In his opinion it would not function as day-to-day access for personal vehicles and could be dangerous.
• Tracking indicated ATV use. In his opinion, the drive may have been suitable only for those vehicles.
• He observed rutting and erosion along the sides and at the lower end.
• He reported that the caliche came from an onsite pit near the base of the drive.
• In the condition observed then, he expected the caliche base to erode over time and wash downhill.

“The driveway was difficult to walk down without sliding and in my opinion would not function as a day-to-day access for personal vehicles and could be dangerous.”

He recommended that a purchaser remove and, if desired, reconstruct the entry drive to adequately access the property. That recommendation leaves reconstruction open; it does not establish that access can never be provided. No later inspection is presented here to establish whether erosion continued, the drive was repaired or conditions otherwise changed.