4935 GLENWOOD AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

1 . . � � Jordan Construction JN 00284 ' July 25, 2000 Page 3 dense till. Based on this, it is our opinion the proposed residence can be constructed on conventio��al foundations, or on lean-mix (1 1/2 sack) concrete placed above these dense native soils. Overexcavation may be needed to reach the competent bearing material. Based on the location and elevation of the residential footprint, the existing rockery should not be impacted by the construction of this residence. The footprint of the residence is 30 feet from the top of the rockery at its ciosest point. No additional fill should be placed on the s�ope above the rockery. It is cur opinion that the slope is stable and will remain so if no fill is placed on the slope. The proposed 30-foot setback from the rockery is adequate. The existing septic system within the proposed footprint of the residence will need to be removed. The depth and make up of the septic system is unknown. It the tank is located in the foundation areas, it should be removed and replaced with controlled density fill (CDF). The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope side of any cleared areas. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and gectechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract docun�ents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footi.igs bearing on undisturbed, dense, glacially deposited, gravelly, silty sand (glacial till) native soil, or on structural fill, or on lean-mix (1 1/2 sack) concrete placed on this competent, native soil. See the later sub-section entitled GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL F/LL for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 12 and 16 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest ' adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose competent, native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. �(J