Covell Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. v. JDC Development, LLC

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA COVELL VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC., a not-for-profit ) CJ-2025-8289 Oklahoma corporation, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) v. ) JDC DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ) Defendant. ) PETITION Plaintiff Covell Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. alleges as follows for its action against the Defendant JDC Development, Inc.: PARTIES 1. Covell Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. ("CV HOA") is a not-for-profit entity organized under Oklahoma's laws. CV HOA was formed January 5, 2021, and its agent is Chris Cline, 3825 NW 166th, Suite A1, Edmond, OK 73012. 2. JDC Development, LLC ("JDC") is an entity organized under Oklahoma's laws. JDC was formed Dec. 13, 2016, and its agent is Christopher Dale Cline 14009 North Eastern Ave., Edmond, OK 73013.1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The property at issue is owned by the CV HOA is located in Oklahoma County, and it comprises the common areas associated with a housing development planned and executed 1 The same person was associated with organizing both Plaintiff CV HOA and Defendant JDC. by Defendant ("Property"). The Property is south of East Covell Road between Air Depot Boulevard and Midwest Boulevard. The Property includes several retaining walls and a clubhouse with a pool. 4. JDC was the developer for the Property and more generally the associated Covell Valley I and II housing additions to the City of Edmond, Oklahoma. 5. Under 12 O.S. § 131 and 134 venue is proper in Oklahoma County, the State of Oklahoma, and the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. FACTS 6. JDC purchased real property from Covell Tucci, LLC for $1,925,000 on or about November 7, 2018. 7. In establishing CV HOA, JDC stated its intent to "establish and assure a uniform plan for the development of Covell Valley and to enhance and protect the economic and aesthetic value and desirability of Covell Valley and the health, safety and welfare of the owners and residents of property within Covell Valley." 8. JDC promised that Covell Valley would have a clubhouse with an adjacent pool for use by homeowners within the development. JDC promised to putative homeowners within Covell Valley a timeline for completion of the clubhouse and pool, but it repeatedly failed to deliver in a timely manner. JDC also failed to secure relevant permits for the clubhouse and pool. 9. JDC prepared plans for a residential development and, in support of that plan, developed plats, selected and hired Down South Dozer Service, Inc. ("Down South") to perform dirt work. Down South prepared and submitted a retaining wall permit application circa December 2020. Exhibit 1. 10. Included in the work performed by Down South at JDC’s request and direction and under its supervision was construction of a retaining wall behind houses along El Cajon St. and Santa Monica St., and the wall at issue is shown in Exhibit 1 at p.5 ("Retaining Wall"). Much of the Retaining Wall is over 10’ tall, and a significant portion is 11’6” tall. 11. JDC turned the Property over to CV HOA in January 2025. 12. In late May 2025, the Retaining Wall failed. It damaged the fences and yards of adjacent properties and threatens further damage, or even grave personal injuries were anyone to be in their yards adjacent to it when it catastrophically fails. 13. Given the risks of catastrophic failure of the Retaining Wall, CV HOA developed and provided via hand service to all affected homeowners, a notice of “immediate risk to health and safety.” Exhibit 2. The risk is believed to be serious enough that CV HOA delivered the following warning to affected homeowners: You are hereby advised to STAY OUT OF YOUR BACKYARD until further notice. Anyone near the retaining wall faces risk of serious injury or death should they be near it during a collapse. Parents, please ensure your children are aware of this situation and stay out of your backyard. 14. The problems with the Retaining Wall and the nature of its failed state were cataloged in an August 4, 2025 report prepared by Dan Treppel of the engineering firm JS Held.2 Exhibit 3. Mr. Treppel stated as follows: 1. The failure of the retaining wall was a sliding, internal compound stability, and/or global stability failure attributable to design and/or construction deficiencies. To determine the precise cause of the wall failure, or if it was some other component that could not be observed during J.S. Held’s site inspection, further invasive testing or observation during demolition will be required…. A. Design i. As far as can be discerned from provided documents, this retaining wall was never designed by a structural engineer, a requirement for a permit from the City of Edmond, Oklahoma for retaining walls over 48 inches tall. a. A permit was issued by the City of Edmond based on an apparent conceptual retaining wall design by Johnson and Associates, Inc. (JAI), the civil engineers for the development. However, this single conceptual drawing lacks sufficient information on which to competently construct a retaining wall, missing the following information, including but not limited to: • The dimensions of the excavation limits. • The number, type, depth, and spacing of the reinforcing geogrid. • The retaining wall embedment depth. • The permit documents do not include any retaining wall internal or external stability calculations, nor do they include any global stability calculations. B. Construction i. Design deficiencies notwithstanding, the wall was not constructed according to JAI drawing (and thus, the permit), with the following deficiencies noted: a. The tallest wall height depicted in the JAI drawing was 6 feet, whereas the subject wall was between 10 feet 6 inches and 11 feet 6 inches tall and even taller on other properties. b. Positive slopes were not maintained upslope and downslope of the retaining wall. ii. The following deficiencies were also noted that were not on the JAI drawings:...Filter fabric was present just upslope of the top of the retaining wall. This filter fabric did not extend to the top of the wall or wrap behind it. 2. Based on the observations made during our inspection and the lack of apparent engineering design/analysis, it the opinion of J.S. Held that the retaining wall is in a failed state and will require demolition and reconstruction, or significant structural and/or geotechnical modifications. Further movement should be anticipated, which could result in a complete collapse if the issue is not remediated. We recommend that the re-construction or structural modifications be performed per a licensed structural engineer's design plans prepared specifically for these properties.... 15. The Retaining Wall is not the only wall on the Property, and Mr. Treppel indicated that the other similar structures on the Property present similar risks and should be inspected and, if similar defects are found, should be remediated. See Exhibit 3 at p.3 (item No. 3 before "Description"). 16. The required solution for the Retaining Wall is likely to involve taking down a significant portion of the Retaining Wall. That remedy will likely include taking down multiple fences, crossing multiple properties with massive equipment, and significant labor charges. It would not be surprising if the remedy costs more than $250,000 to implement. 17. The organizational documents among the parties provide that the prevailing party in any action related to them is entitled to recover attorney fees. In addition, attorney fees to the prevailing party are recoverable since this case involves negligent damage to property. 12 O.S. § 940. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 1 – Negligence and Res Ips Loquitur 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the paragraphs outside this cause of action. 19. As the developer, JDC had a duty to take adequate precautions, to exercise due care, and to ensure appropriate design and construction of the features of the development including, but not limited to, the Property including the Retaining Wall. 20. JDC breached the aforementioned duties by failing to use proper care to design and construct elements of the Property including, but not limited to, the Retaining Wall. 21. As a direct and proximate result of JDC’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable and continuing harm to the Property. Such harm was, and is, caused solely by the negligence of the Defendant, without any negligence by the Plaintiff. 22. As a result of the breach of the aforementioned duties, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for all direct and consequential damages resulting from the negligent acts and omissions of the Defendant. 23. Defendant’s violation of the aforementioned duties constitutes negligence per se because of the violation of the City of Edmond’s permitting regulations. 24. The Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiff for all damages caused by its actions or inactions in violation of applicable permitting regulations or other applicable law. 25. Defendant has conducted itself in an abnormally dangerous manner due to the negligent design and construction of the Retaining Wall. Defendant should be held strictly liable for injuries to the Plaintiff. 26. Defendant violated permitting regulations and has acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously, oppressively, and in total disregard for Plaintiff’s property rights. Because of the absence of even slight care, Defendant has acted with gross negligence and with reckless disregard to the property rights of the Plaintiff. 27. Plaintiff’s injuries caused by Defendant’s negligence may be, in part, continuing and abatable and entitle Plaintiff to abatement of the Retaining Wall, to continuing damages associated with the stigma to the Property attached to the presence of the defective Retaining Wall, and to consequential damages and for loss of use and enjoyment of Property, all in amounts to be proven at trial. 28. Defendant has acted and continues to act with oppression, gross negligence, and with reckless and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ property rights, and such actions entitle Plaintiff to actual damages, an award of punitive damages, and an award of attorney’s fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs under 12 O.S. §940. Count 2 – Private and Public Nuisance 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the paragraphs outside of this cause of action. 30. The continued existence of the private and public nuisance created by Defendant deprives Plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of the property and causes annoyance, inconvenience, and fear and stigma. 31. Defendant’s creation of a continuing nuisance caused both permanent and temporary damages to the Property. 32. The injury to Plaintiff caused by the nuisance created by Defendant entitles the Plaintiff to damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus abatement of the continuing nuisance created by Defendant. 33. By creating and maintaining the nuisance, Defendant has acted and continues to act oppressively and with reckless and wanton disregard for Plaintiff’s property rights. Such actions entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages, and an award of attorney’s fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and costs under 12 O.S. §940. Count 3 – Unjust Enrichment 34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs. 35. Defendant is and has been under statutory, regulatory, and common law duties to prevent, investigate, and abate the defects on the Property. The Defendant has breached these statutory, regulatory, and common law duties. 36. Upon information and belief, Defendant has saved money by failing to discharge its duties to prevent, investigate, and abate the defects on the Property. 37. Rather than spending the money necessary to comply with its above-described statutory, regulatory, and common law duties, Defendant has been unjustly enriched by the amounts it saved in failing to comply with federal and state statutes, regulations, and common law. 38. Plaintiff is entitled to recover as damages the monies that Defendant has saved by not complying with its statutory, regulatory, and common law duties with respect to design and construction of features on the Property, and an award of attorney’s fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs under 12 O.S. §940. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court grant the Plaintiff the following relief: a) That Plaintiff is entitled to abatement and that Defendant be ordered to abate the nuisance; b) That Plaintiff has incurred damages as a result of the Defendant’s acts or omissions in an amount proven by evidence at trial; c) The intentional, wanton, and reckless conduct of Defendant in disregard of Plaintiff’s property rights and the risks posed to homes and of physical injury to individuals adjacent by the retaining walls and with Defendant’s full knowledge, because the Defendant knew, or should have known, of the adverse consequences of substandard construction of tall retaining walls; d) Defendant’s negligent and reckless maintenance of its equipment allowed Defendant to acquire substantial wealth for itself at the expense of the rights of the Plaintiff; e) Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for actual and punitive damages exceeding $10,000, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorney’s fees under 12 O.S. §940, and such other relief as the law allows and the Court may deem proper. Respectfully submitted, Edward L. White, OBA #16549 Edward L. White, P.C. 829 East 33rd Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 Telephone: (405) 810-8188 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED RETAINING WALL PERMIT APPLICATION Date: ________________________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Down South Dozer Service, Inc. Contact Name: Chris Duncan Mailing Address: 12550 Hillside Circle City/State/Zip: Edmond, OK 73034 Phone: (405)315-1748 Alternate Phone: _______________________ E-Mail: [email protected] PROJECT INFORMATION Type of Project: ■ Residential □ Commercial □ Residential Plat Improvement Project Address: Covell and Air Depot (if unplatted – county stamped deed is required) Subdivision: Covell Valley Phase 2 Lot: ___________ Block: ________ Zoned: ______ Urban District: □ Yes □ No Project Cost: $110k Locations without an address will need to provide an approximate location: (e.g., north side of Main Street or Common Area of ABC Development) Type of Material: □ Concrete □ Timber □ Masonry ■ Other: Dalsee 8"x18"x12" Wall Block Number of Walls: 1 <table> <tr> <th>#</th> <th>Wall Length</th> <th>Height</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>502ft</td> <td>6ft</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS → Retaining walls that exceed 4'-0" in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall or hold back a surcharge will require a permit. → Retaining wall applications must include three (3) complete sets of plans drawn to scale and 1 PDF set (USB, CD or emailed). → Applications submitted without proper documents will delay the application and plan review process. • Below is a list of required documents that must be submitted to consider an application complete. • Upon submittal of a complete application, the plan review process takes approximately 5 to 7 working days for residential and 10 to 14 working days for commercial. ■ PLOT PLAN – to include: * Mark location of wall(s) with two measurements in feet to property line. (Ex.: wall to back property line, wall to side property line, wall to front property line) ■ ENGINEERED WALL DESIGN Building(s) cannot be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building & Fire Code Services Department. By signing this form, you acknowledge the building plans submitted comply with all requirements, applicable codes, amendments and ordinances set forth by the Edmond City Council. Applicant Signature: ________________________________ RETAINING WALL PERMIT Issued Date 12/22/2020 Permit # RW20-IM033 Permission is hereby granted to Down South Dozer Service, Ince to build a retaining wall on: Address: Location Covell and Air Depot Lot(s) Block Addition Section-Township-Range <table> <tr> <th rowspan="2">Type of Project</th> <th colspan="2">COMMERCIAL</th> <th>Estimated Cost</th> <th>$110,000.00</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Total Length (ft)</th> <th>Average Height (ft)</th> <th>Material</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Private Property N</td> <td>Wall #1<br>Wall #2<br>Wall #3<br>Wall #4<br>Wall #5</td> <td>502<br>0<br>0<br>0<br>0</td> <td>6.00<br>0.00<br>0.00<br>0.00<br>0.00</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Plat Improvement N</td> <td>Wall #1<br>Wall #2<br>Wall #3<br>Wall #4<br>Wall #5</td> <td>502<br>0<br>0<br>0<br>0</td> <td>6.00<br>0.00<br>0.00<br>0.00<br>0.00</td> <td></td> </tr> </table> Important Information All construction shall comply with building plans submitted for this building permit. Permit shall be construed & accepted to be a license to proceed with the work & shall not be taken and accepted as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any provisions requirements of any ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Edmond, nor shall the issuance hereof prevent the requiring of correction of errors in plans or in construction or of violation of any ordinances of the City of Edmond Construction shall not begin and no inspections will be made until all provisions for sedimentation and erosion control are in place It is the responsibility of the builder to inform themselves and all of their subcontractors and to insure compliance by frequent inspections that proper setback standard as shown and utility easements as indicated on the plat and in the zoning code are met Construction must begin within 6 months and be completed within 2 years from date of purchase of building permit Retaining walls required to have a permit shall be signed and sealed by a design professional licensed by the state of Oklahoma. A third party inspection by a state licensed Design Professional must be performed on the foundation and wall then submitted to Building Inspection Code Services Jobsite must be addressed prior to any inspections being made SPECIAL COMMENTS: APPROVED BY ACCEPTED BY (APPLICANT) Down South Dozer Service, Ince Address: Chris Duncan 12550 Hillside Cir Edmond, OK 73034 Telephone: (405) 315-1748 FLOOD ZONE REQUEST Property Description Covell and Air Depot Permit No. RW20-00033 Legal Description Section, Township, Range Address Addition _ Lot _ Block Building Type RETAININGWALL COMMERCIAL Flood Zone Designation FEMA/Independent _____/_______ Zone A: No base Flood Elevation _____/_______ Zone AE: ______/__________ BFE: Base Flood Elevation _____/_______ Zone X: Areas of 500-year flood; area of 100-year flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood X_/X_____ Zone X: Areas outside 500-year flood plain Community Panel Number: 40109C0070H_/ Page 63 Revision Date of Map Index: 12-18-09_/05-29-15 ___________FFE: Minimum Finish Floor Elevation Elevation Certificate Required? _____Yes X___No Which Independent Flood Zone Study? _______ Spring Creek Flood Zone Study X___ Coffee Creek Flood Zone Study Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Zone checked by: J. Byram Date: 12-21-2020 RETAINING WALL PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Down South Dozer Service, Inc. Contact Name: Chris Duncan Mailing Address: 12550 Hillside Circle City/State/Zip: Edmond, OK 73034 Phone: (405)315-1748 Alternate Phone: ____________________________ E-Mail: [email protected] PROJECT INFORMATION Type of Project: ☐ Residential ☐ Commercial ☐ Residential Plat Improvement Project Address: Covell and Air Depot (if unplatted – county stamped deed s required) Subdivision: Covell Valley Phase 2 Lot: _____ Block: ____ Zoned: _____ Urban District: ☐ Yes ☐ No Project Cost: $110k Locations without an address will need to provide an approximate location (e.g., north side of Main Street or Common Area of ABC Development) Type of Material: ☐ Concrete ☐ Timber ☐ Masonry ☐ Other: Dolase 8"x18"x12" Wall Block Number of Walls: 1 <table> <tr> <th>WALL</th> <th>LENGTH (FT)</th> <th>HEIGHT (FT)</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>502ft</td> <td>6ft</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS → Retaining walls that exceed 4'-0" in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall or hold back a surcharge will require a permit. → Retaining wall applications must include three (3) complete sets of plans drawn to scale and 1 PDF set (USB, CD or emailed). → Applications submitted without proper documents will delay the application and plan review process. • Below is a list of required documents that must be submitted to consider an application complete. • Upon submittal of a complete application, the plan review process takes approximately 5 to 7 working days for residential and 10 to 14 working days for commercial. PLOT PLAN - to include • Mark location of wall(s) with two measurements in feet to property line [EG. wall to back property line, wall to side property line, wall to front property line] ENGINEERED WALL DESIGN Building site cannot be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building & Fire Code Services Department By signing this form, you acknowledge the building plans submitted comply with all requirements, applicable codes, ordinances and ordinances set forth by the Edmond City Council Applicant Signature COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 GRADING PLAN ENGINEERING DOCUMENT INFORMATION COMPANY: JASON A. DAVIS, PC Engineer PROJECT NAME: COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 PROJECT LOCATION: EDDMOND, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA SCALE: 1" = 50' DRAWN BY: KT ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY: KT ENGINEERING DATE: JULY 31, 2023 SHEET NUMBER: 14242 SIZE: 24" x 36" REVISING NO. DESCRIPTION DATE DESIGNER/ENGINEER CD-TED CONSULTING ENGINEERING LLC. [Redacted] CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER [Redacted] E.D. CERTIFIED ENGINEER & LAND SURVEYOR [Redacted] LEGEND LEGEND PROPPOSED TOP OF PAD ELEVATION PROPOSED FLOOR LINE ELEVATION PROPOSED ROOF ELEVATION EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING PAVERS EXISTING BUILDING LINE EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LINE EXISTING SIDEWALK LINE EXISTING Curb LINE EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING PAVER EXISTING TREE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LINE EXISTING SIDEWALK LINE EXISTING Curb LINE EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING TREE BORDER LINE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY PO COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 GRADING PLAN ECONOMY OICHTIWAH COUNTY, OKLAHOMA PROJECT NO: 08-015 DATE: ENGINEER: DAVE HALL REVISIONS: DRAWING TITLE: GRADE LINE/UTILITY LOCATION PLAN COVELL VALLEY PHASE II SCALE: 1"=40' DRAWN BY: GAYLE POLLYN CHECKED BY: ANNA JEANNE JOHNSON DATE: SUPERVISING ENGINEER: ROBERT W. REYNOLDS REVISED BY: CITY ENGINEER DATE: GROUND NOTES 1. DESIGN OF ALL STORM SEWERS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER AND NOT THE ENGINEER. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDING THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. ONE CALL UTILITY NUMBERS ARE 1-888-257-4564. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO ENSURE THAT ALL EXISTING VARIOUS SITE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS ARE ENSURED AS TO THE ACCURACY OF STRUCTURE. 4. ALL SITE GRADING SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: A) TOP SOIL SEPARATION BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITIONS IN DEVELOPMENT. B) EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION ENGINEERING SHALL BE DONE WITHIN TOLERANCES TO SPECIFICATIONS. C) PAVING. D) CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS PRESCRIBED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (SEE DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION OF EROSION CONTROL). E) CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL GRAVEL (MAX. SIZE 3/4") FOR ALL ACCESS DRIVEWAYS, DRIVEWAYS NEED TO BE CLEAN WITH NO ROCKS OR DEBRIS LEFT AT END OF DRIVEWAY. F) ANTERIOR OF TREE SHADING EVENS OUT AT LOWEST POINT OF TREE TRUNK. SEE DETAIL. G) ALL PAD AREAS TO BE TAILED AS PER ENGINEER'S NOTES. H) ALL PAD AREAS TO BE TAILED AS PER ENGINEER'S NOTES. I) MAINTAIN CURRENT SITE STREET ALIGNMENT WITH THE EXISTING GRADE LINE AND MAINTAIN AVERAGE SURFACE PROFILES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ENGINEER'S NOTES. J) MAXIMUM SLOPE SHALL BE AT. LEGEND PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDEWALK ELEVATION PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED FLOW ARROW DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SCALE: 1/8"=1' PROJECT LOCATION SATELLITE MAP DRAWING SCALE ONE CALL UTILITY LOCATION NUMBER: #000000 JACKSONVILLE RECREATION DISTRICT City of Covell Valley Covell Valley Phase II Project Covell Valley Phase II Project Address: PO Box 153 Covell Valley, OK 74935 Phone: 405.233.3020 Fax: 405.233.3021 www.covellvalley.org COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 GROUNDING PLAN GRADING PLAN PROJECT LOCATION SCALE: 1"=20' LEGEND PROP. LID PAD AND GRN PROP. DIVISION LINE ELEVATION PROP. DIVISION LINE PROP. DIVISION LINE TOTAL DIRECTORIAL LINE ARROW EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE REGULATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM TO REZONING REQUEST FOR NEW SUBDIVISION OF "COVELL VALLEY PHASE II" REVISIONS: WATER, STORMWATER, PARKS & OPEN SPACES, TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES & NATURAL RESOURCES DATE: DRAWN BY: CITY ENGINEER CHECKED BY: CITY ENGINEER APPROVED BY: CITY ENGINEER DRAWING NO.: COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 - GRADING PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' LEGEND PROP. LID PAD AND GRN PROP. DIVISION LINE ELEVATION PROP. DIVISION LINE PROP. DIVISION LINE TOTAL DIRECTORIAL LINE ARROW EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE REGULATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM TO REZONING REQUEST FOR NEW SUBDIVISION OF "COVELL VALLEY PHASE II" REVISIONS: WATER, STORMWATER, PARKS & OPEN SPACES, TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES & NATURAL RESOURCES DATE: DRAWN BY: CITY ENGINEER CHECKED BY: CITY ENGINEER APPROVED BY: CITY ENGINEER DRAWING NO.: COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 - GRADING PLAN Acknowledgement Date: December 22, 2020 By signing this agreement, I/We, do hereby acknowledge we have been informed of Chapter 16 of the Edmond Municipal Code pertaining to occupancy of structures, including residential and commercial swimming pools, and that said Chapter states that it is illegal to occupy, or allow to be occupied, in whole or part, by anyone or anything, any structure, including residential or commercial swimming pools and hot tubs, before all final inspections have been made by the City of Edmond and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Furthermore, I/We will be responsible for conveying this information, as well as fencing and gate requirements for pools to current owners. I/We agree to inform the property owners that failure to comply with said Chapter may result in a fine of $200 per day plus court costs. Each day that a violation continues to exist shall be deemed a separate offense. By signing this agreement, I/We, state that I/We will comply with and inform the responsible parties of the aforementioned Codes on the legally described and addressed property. Lot(s) Addition Address Permit # RW20-00033 Down South Dozer Service, Ince Block Responsible Party (sign) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMMIDIMATE RISK TO HEALTH AND SAFETY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RESIDENTS OF COVEL VALLEY Notice from HOA Board: As you are likely aware, the retaining wall behind your home has begun to collapse at an alarming rate. We are doing what we can as quickly as we can to remedy the situation. But the retaining wall may collapse at any time. You are hereby advised to STAY OUT OF YOUR BACKYARD until further notice. Anyone near the retaining wall faces risk of serious injury or death should they be near it during a collapse. Parents, please ensure your children are aware of this situation and stay out of your backyard. We hope you understand, and we will keep you informed as to any updates regarding the situation. August 4, 2025 Mr. Roy Key Commercial Property Special Claims Representative Farmers Insurance P.O. Box 268994 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126-8994 Sent via email to: [email protected] Re: Engineering Evaluation Report File Name: Covell Valley HOA Inc Addresses: 2141 Santa Monica Street, Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 2132 El Cajon Street, Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 Claim No.: 5037244621-1 Reported Date of Damage: June 1, 2025 J.S. Held No.: 250601979 Mr. Key: It is our understanding that on or about June 1, 2025, the retaining wall between the properties located at 2141 Santa Monica Street and 2132 El Cajon Street in Edmond, Oklahoma failed, resulting in movement of the wall. At your request, J.S. Held LLC (J.S. Held) has conducted an engineering evaluation to determine the cause of the reported retaining wall movement at the subject properties. Throughout our evaluation, we inspected the exterior of the properties as well as documented and photographed representative conditions. As Appendix A to this report, we include a selection of captioned photographs. These photographs may have been cropped or otherwise enhanced to emphasize certain conditions. All photographs have been retained in their original formats in our file. CONCLUSIONS Based on the inspection performed by J.S. Held, the evaluation of the information discussed below, and the information presented in the appendices, it is our professional opinion that: 1. The failure of the retaining wall was a sliding, internal compound stability, and/or global stability failure attributable to design and/or construction deficiencies. To determine the precise cause of the wall failure, or if it was some other component that could not be observed during J.S. Held’s site inspection, further invasive testing or observation during demolition will be required, for which J.S. Held would need to be present. A. Design i. As far as can be discerned from provided documents, this retaining wall was never designed by a structural engineer, a requirement for a permit from the City of Edmond, Oklahoma for retaining walls over 48 inches tall. a. A permit was issued by the City of Edmond based on an apparent conceptual retaining wall design by Johnson and Associates, Inc (JAI), the civil engineers for the development. However, this single conceptual drawing lacks sufficient information on which to competently construct a retaining wall, missing the following information, including but not limited to: o The dimensions of the excavation limits. o The number, type, depth, and spacing of the reinforcing geogrid. o The retaining wall embedment depth. o The permit documents do not include any retaining wall internal or external stability calculations, nor do they include any global stability calculations. B. Construction i. Design deficiencies notwithstanding, the wall was not constructed according to JAI drawing (and thus, the permit), with the following deficiencies noted: a. The tallest wall height depicted in the JAI drawing was 6 feet, whereas the subject wall was between 10 feet 6 inches and 11 feet 6 inches tall and even taller on other properties. b. Positive slopes were not maintained upslope and downslope of the retaining wall. ii. The following deficiencies were also noted that were not on the JAI drawings: a. Filter fabric was present just upslope of the top of the retaining wall. This filter fabric did not extend to the top of the wall or wrap behind it. 2. Based on the observations made during our inspection and the lack of apparent engineering design/analysis, it the opinion of J.S. Held that the retaining wall is in a failed state and will require demolition and reconstruction, or significant structural and/or geotechnical modifications. Further movement should be anticipated, which could result in a complete collapse if the issue is not remediated. We recommend that the re-construction or structural modifications be performed per a licensed structural engineer’s design plans prepared specifically for these properties. The engineer’s analysis should include internal and external stability calculations, as well as global stability analysis. A. In the interim, we recommend installing impermeable sheeting or tarps over the soil on top of the wall in order to prevent water infiltration behind the wall, which can be a catalyst for further movement. 3. Unless documentation, including drawings and calculations, is provided that indicates these retaining walls were designed by a structural engineer and that this information was presented in the construction plans for the development such that retaining walls could be competently constructed, it is recommended that the entire north-south retaining wall between Kinnick Drive and La Habra Drive wall be further (invasively) examined by a structural engineer to verify that the walls are safe for the public. DESCRIPTION According to the Oklahoma County Tax Assessor Office’s online records, the 1,966-square-foot (sf), one-story residential building at 2141 Santa Monica Street was constructed in 2022 and sits on a lot of approximately 0.1791 acres. The 2,324-sf, one-and-one-half-story residential building at 2132 El Cajon Street, which contains the high side of the retaining wall, was also constructed in 2022 and sits on a lot of approximately 0.1874 acres. The front of 2141 Santa Monica Street faced generally east and contains the low side of the retaining wall, and the front of 2132 El Cajon Street faced generally west and contains the high side of the retaining wall. The residences were part of Covell Valley Phase 2, which, according to The Edmond Sun¹, contained approximately 76 lots on 24 acres of land. The retaining wall separating the properties was a segmental retaining wall (SRW). SRW’s are a type of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall, with pre-cast masonry retaining wall units (typically referred to as SRW units) on the face of the wall and geogrid reinforcement installed horizontally within the SRW units and extending some length behind the SRW units. Typical design guidelines recommend that the soil be compacted in lifts. When the layers of geogrid are installed within compacted soil, it creates a “block” of reinforced soil, which is intended to behave as a homogeneous unit and retain the soil behind the reinforced block of soil. Therefore, the reinforced soil is part of the structure itself, which retains unreinforced soil. This is contrary to conventional gravity or cantilevered retaining walls, in which the structure consists solely of concrete, steel, and/or wood. An aerial site view of the subject properties and of the development, obtained from ¹ Commission approves Covell Valley Phase II plat - The Edmond Sun Nearmap, are depicted as Figures 1 and 2 below, and overviews of the front elevations of the residences are presented in Photos 1 and 2 in Appendix A.  Figure 1 – Nearmap aerial imagery, dated June 16, 2025, showing an overview of the Covell Valley development with the approximate extents of Phase 2 outlined in red and the location of the subject residences indicated in the yellow box.  Figure 2 – Nearmap aerial imagery, dated June 16, 2025, showing a close-up of the subject residences, 2132 El Cajon Street on the left (west) and 2141 Santa Monica Street on the right (east). Note visible soil failures indicated with red arrows. DOCUMENT REVIEW We reviewed the following information in conjunction with our evaluation. • Google Earth, URL: https://earth.google.com/. • Nearmap, URL: https://www.nearmap.com/us. • Oklahoma County Tax Assessor Office’s online records, URL: https://www.oklahomacounty.org/elected-offices/assessor/pageyear8068/1763/pagemonth8068/12. • Edmond, Oklahoma Code of Ordinances, Title 16 - Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.06, URL: https://library.municode.com/ok/edmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_TIT16BU CO_CH16.06RECO_16.06.560REWA. • Phone call with Edmond, Oklahoma Department of Building & Safety via telephone on July 28, 2025. • City of Edmond Department of Building & Safety Permit Number RW20-00033, containing: o Three of the same annotated Covell Valley Phase 2 Grading Plan, Sheet GR1 by JAI, dated June 4, 2019 with City of Edmond Review date of December 21, 2020. o One copy of a Flood Zone Request, checked by J. Byram, dated December 21, 2020. o Two copies of a Retaining Wall Permit Application, by Down South Dozer Service, Inc., undated. o One copy of a Retaining Wall Permit, issue date of December 22, 2020. o One copy of an Acknowledgement Letter from Edmond Building and Fire Code Services, dated December 22, 2020. SITE INSPECTION J.S. Held evaluated the property on July 11, 2025. The following people were present at the site inspection: • Mr. Ryan Myers (Ed White Law). • Mr. JT (Covell Valley Homeowners Association [HOA]) • Mr. Kelvin Chandler (homeowner, 2141 Santa Monica Street) • Mr. Daniel Treppel, P.E. (Senior Engineer, J.S. Held) Later in the inspection, Mr. Ed White (Ed White Law) and other Ed White Law personnel were present. The following information was shared onsite by the various parties (paraphrased by J.S. Held): • The HOA, as it currently exists, was formed fairly recently, and thus have been unable to procure important documents from the builder regarding the development, including the construction drawings and geotechnical report. • The movement of the retaining wall was a somewhat sudden event, with all known movement occurring recently. There was even reportedly a visual difference between how the sunken soil appeared at 2132 El Cajon Street between when they last looked at it in June 2025 and how it appeared in J.S. Held’s site inspection. • The ponded water adjacent to the building pad of 2141 Santa Monica Street has occurred since long before the movement of the retaining wall. • No other property has experienced salient signs of retaining wall movement, despite some properties having walls that are taller than at 2141 Santa Monica Street. • Permission had not been secured to inspect the neighboring properties, and thus they could not be inspected. OBSERVATIONS Photographs of representative conditions are attached in Appendix A. These photographs and their accompanying captions are only intended to describe the general conditions of the property, not all conditions and/or damage that may be present. The following observations pertain to the east (2141 Santa Monica Street) side of the retaining wall (an overview of the retaining wall viewed from the back of the residence is provided as Photo 3): • Heaving ground was observed at the foot of the retaining wall and as far as 16 feet from the retaining wall. Ponded water was observed near the residence (Photos 4 through 8). • The majority of the retaining wall had an average height of approximately 10 feet 6 inches from grade, and a small section of taller wall, near the north end of the property had an average height of approximately 11 feet 6 inches (Photos 9 and 10). • The wall comprised concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks, approximately 8 inches high by 18 inches wide, consistent with “Keystone Compac II” units depicted on the annotated Covell Valley Phase 2 Grading Plan, Sheet GR1 by JAI (see Figure 6). Though the depth could not be verified, these types of blocks are 12 inches deep. There was a geometric discontinuity in the wall above the fourth visible CMU block resulting in an opening in the CMU block up to approximately 1-1/2 inches wide. Through these openings, it could be seen that the hollow cores of the CMU blocks had been filled with drainage aggregate (Photos 11 through 13). • The wall was near plumb below the above-described discontinuity but was on the order of 73 to 74 degrees from plumb above the discontinuity, leaning toward the retained soil. This discrepancy was also visualized by the side yard fencing that abutted the front face of the wall, which was cut to accommodate the original battered face of the wall. Instead, the fence, in addition to being buckled, did not line up with the slope of the wall. For comparison, it could be seen that the cuts in the fencing at the neighboring properties did still line up with the geometry of the retaining wall (Photos 14 through 18). • Perforated, corrugated drainage pipes were observed at the base of the wall (“daylight pipes”), spaced approximately 26 feet apart, each. Using a borescope, it was observed that these drainpipes coming out of the wall base were connected to another perforated, corrugated drainpipe that ran along the bottom of the wall (“drainage collection pipes”). These pipes are typical in construction of SRW’s and are intended to reduce hydrostatic water pressure buildup behind the wall face. The center and southmost drainpipes coming out of the base of the retaining wall were partially obstructed by landscaping. One corrugated drainpipe was also observed at the top of the wall and directed away from the wall (Photos 19 through 22). • Filter fabric was present at the top of the retaining wall but typically did not extend all the way to the wall nor was it wrapped behind the wall, resulting in visible voids in between CMU blocks. When further examined with a borescope, it was noted that these voids were clogged with dirt and debris. It was also noted that the concrete for the bases of the fence posts nearly abutted the wall (Photos 23 through 25). The following observations pertain to the west (2132 El Cajon Street) side of the retaining wall (an overview property provided as Photo 26): • An exploratory hole was dug in the soil approximately 18 to 24 inches from the top of the retaining wall. No filter fabric, drainage rocks, or geogrid material were encountered down to approximately 1 foot of depth (Photo 27). • While digging this hole it was noticed that the surface soils were noncohesive while the underlying soils exhibited some cohesion when wetted (Photos 28 and 29). • There was a linear depression, approximately 15 feet from the face of the wall and covering nearly the entire north-south length of the property, in the soil. The depth could not be accurately measured, as the original grade was unknown, and based on the observed grade of the neighboring properties, the original grade typically sloped steeper near the residence and flattened as it approached the wall. However, vertical offset in the soil was observed and measured to be up to approximately 1 foot (Photos 30 through 36). • Both the fences at the north and south ends of the subject property exhibited deformation that resulted in fastener tear-through (for the south fence) and separated pickets and a gap between grade and the bottom of the fence (for the north fence) (Photos 37 through 41). HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGERY As part of our evaluation, J.S. Held reviewed historical aerial imagery provided by Nearmap to gain a better understanding of the retaining wall and any discernable damage to it. In a closer view of Figure 2 (Figure 3 below), the soil failures can be seen on the west side of the retaining wall, while the heaved soil can be seen on the east side of the retaining wall. Such conditions were not visible in the next most recent image, dated December 6, 2024 (Figure 4 below). However, a discontinuity in the north fence was present in this image but not in the next image, dated May 14, 2024 (Figure 5 below).  Figure 3 – Close-up of Figure 2, showing soil failures (indicated) on both side of the wall on June 16, 2025. Figure 4 – Nearmap aerial site view of the property, dated December 6, 2024, showing a discontinuity in the fence (indicated) but no visible soil failures. Figure 5 – Nearmap aerial site view of the property, dated May 14, 2024, showing no visible soil failures or discontinuities in the fence. EDMOND, OKLAHOMA CODE OF ORDINANCES AND RETAINING WALL PERMIT J.S. referenced Edmond, Oklahoma Code of Ordinances, Title 16 - Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.06, specifically Section 16.06.560 Retaining Walls, which states the following, "IRC [International Residential Code] Section R404.4 is hereby amended to read as follows:" Retaining walls that are not laterally supported at the top and that retain in excess of 48 inches (1219 mm) of unbalanced fill, or retaining walls exceeding 24 inches (610 mm) in height that resist lateral loads in addition to soil, shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice to ensure stability against overturning, sliding, excessive foundation pressure, and water uplift. Retaining walls shall be designed for a safety factor of 1.5 against lateral sliding and overturning. This section shall not apply to foundation walls supporting buildings. Plans for retaining walls shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a design professional licensed in the State of Oklahoma. Further, J.S. Held spoke to a representative at the Edmond, Oklahoma Department of Building & Safety via telephone on July 28, 2025 to better understand what documents are required to secure a retaining wall permit as well as the general process. According to the representative, sealed engineering plans containing measurements and dimensions are submitted and that accompanying calculations are not typically required. The drawings are then reviewed by the Plan Review Team, followed by a flood zone analysis, and finally it undergoes an engineering review. During construction, a third-party reviewer goes to the site to verify that the wall is being constructed according to the drawings. Finally, J.S. Held reviewed Permit Number RW20-00033 (Appendix B), which contained the following components: three of the same annotated Covell Valley Phase 2 Grading Plan, Sheet GR1 by JAI drawing, a Flood Zone Request, two copies of a Retaining Wall Permit Application, a Retaining Wall Permit, and an Acknowledgement Letter. The following pertinent information was gathered from this permit package: • The annotated sheet GR1 from JAI contained the detail depicted in Figure 6 below. • Of note, the following information is missing that would be required to competently construct a wall: o The dimensions of the excavation limits. o The number, type, depth, and spacing of the reinforcing grids. o The embedment depth of the retaining wall. • Also of note, there is no requirement of filter fabric in this drawing, except for that the drainage pipe should be wrapped in it. In addition, the retaining wall drawing depicted in Figure 6 does not include a wood picket fence at the top. • The tallest retaining wall depicted in the annotated Covell Valley Phase 2 Grading Plan, Sheet GR1 by JAI was 6 feet, with a top of wall elevation of 1075.25 feet and a bottom elevation of 1069.25 feet. It is also worth noting that the proposed way this would be achieved is with a 12 percent downward slope from the building pad of the residence upslope of the retaining wall to the top of the retaining wall as well as a 12 percent slope from the bottom of the retaining wall to the building pad of the residence downslope of the retaining wall. This 6-foot height is echoed in the retaining wall permit application, which lists the height as 6 feet and the length of the wall as 502 feet and the retaining wall permit, which lists the average height of the retaining wall as 6 feet and the length as 502 feet.  Figure 6 – Keystone retaining wall detail from the annotated Covell Valley Phase 2 Grading Plan, Sheet GR1 by JAI. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS There was heaved soil at the base of the retaining wall as far as 16 feet from the wall. This indicated either that the bottom of the wall slid to the east – consistent with a sliding failure, or a global stability failure had occurred. Global stability failures occur when a circular failure plane develops in the soil behind and below the retaining wall, causing a rotation of the wall and heaving soil in front of the wall. However, it was also observed that the wall had rotated above the horizontal gap in the wall, based on the measured angle of the wall and the deviation from the cuts in the wood fencing. The wall had rotated into the retained soil, not away from it. This is also consistent with an internal compound stability failure, which occurs when a circular failure plane develops behind the wall and exits within the height of the wall. This lack of equilibrium could be a function of how the wall was designed or constructed, even with respect to the same components. For example, the wall could have been designed with insufficient depth of reinforcing geogrid material, or the wall could have been correctly designed, but the geogrid was installed improperly. As such, despite the below-discussed deficiencies or potential deficiencies with the retaining wall that were readily observable during J.S. Held’s site inspection, there may be underlying conditions or deficiencies unable to be observed during the site inspection. For J.S. Held to definitively state why the wall failed, and whether it was predominantly a design or construction issue (or both), invasive testing and/or observation during demolition will be required, for which J.S. Held would need to be present. Regarding the design of the wall, the City of Edmond, Oklahoma requires a permit for retaining walls over 48 inches tall. According to the representative from Edmond, Oklahoma Department of Building & Safety, this entails sealed, dimensioned engineering plans that are then reviewed by the Plan Review Team, followed by a flood zone analysis, and an engineering review. Further, during construction, a third-party reviewer goes to the site to verify that the wall is being constructed according to the drawings. However, as far as can be discerned from documents provided to J.S. Held, this retaining wall was never designed by a structural engineer. The drawing on which the permit was based was apparently a conceptual design by the civil engineer which lacked key dimensions such as the extent of the excavation zone and far more importantly, the number, type, depth, and spacing of geogrid required as well as the embedment depth of the retaining wall. A critical way in which the construction of the walls does not conform with the permit is that the walls at the subject property were nearly twice the height that was permitted, and the walls on some other properties were even higher. This discrepancy may be the result of some entity not wanting sloped yards for the residences. In the permit drawings, the way the 6-foot maximum height was achieved was with a proposed 12 percent downward slope from the building pad of the residence upslope of the retaining wall to the top of the retaining wall as well as a 12 percent slope from the bottom of the retaining wall to the building pad of the residence downslope of the retaining wall, neither of which were observed at the subject properties. Without these slopes, the wall height needed to increase to accommodate the lack of elevation gain/loss provided by the proposed slopes. It is worth noting that lateral earth pressures increase linearly with depth of soil. As such, doubling the height of the wall would result in significantly greater forces on the wall. It is also worth noting that filter fabric was found at the top of the retaining wall, which was never depicted on the JAI plans. However, filter fabric is typically used to wrap around the drainage zone of a retaining wall, allowing water to pass through while keeping soil particles from raveling into the drainage layer. As such, the presence of the filter fabric is not, by itself, indicative of a deficiency. However, this filter fabric did not extend to the top of the wall or wrap behind it, which is a deficiency, as it allowed the topsoil and debris to ravel down into the drainage aggregate behind the wall. While the retaining walls at other neighboring properties visually appeared to be structurally sound, J.S. Held cannot rule out the possibility of that the walls are at risk of failure given that it appears the retaining walls were never properly designed, and that they were also built higher than the permit allowed. Unless documentation, including drawing and calculations, is provided that indicates these retaining walls were designed by a structural engineer and that this information was presented in the construction plans for the development such that retaining walls could be competently constructed, it is recommended that the entire retaining wall run (approximately 840 linear feet) be further evaluated via soil borings, and destructive testing to verify that the walls are safe for the public. (REPORT CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE) CLOSING Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services. Please note that J.S. Held opinions are based on the information provided and/or obtained as well as our training, knowledge, and experience. To the extent that hidden conditions exist, and/or additional information is made available, J.S. Held reserves the right to revise or update any of the observations, assessments, and/or opinions as conditions change or additional information is provided for our review. Any recommendations offered are of a conceptual nature and are only intended to restore integrity to the affected systems and/or components. This document is to inure to the benefit of the addressee only and may not be relied upon, used by, or referenced by any third party without the written consent of J.S. Held. If clarification or additional information required, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, J.S. Held Oklahoma CoA No. 8044 (Expiration date June 30, 2027) DANIEL B. TREPPPEL 31270 OKLAHOMA This document has been electronically signed and sealed using Digital Signatures. Digital Signatures can be authenticated by clicking on the name of the professional in the signature block. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and cannot be relied upon as such. Daniel Treppel, P.E. Senior Engineer I Oklahoma Licensed Engineer No. 31270, Expiration Date: March 31, 2027 Attachments: Appendix A – Captioned Photos Appendix B – Permit Number RW20-00033 APPENDIX A Captioned Photographs Photo 1: East (front) elevation of 2141 Santa Monica Street. Photo 2: West (front) elevation of 2132 El Cajon Street. Photo 3: Overview of the retaining wall, looking west (2141 Santa Monica Street). Photo 4: Heaved grade in the rear yard of 2141 Santa Monica Street. Photo 5: Heaved grade in the rear yard of 2141 Santa Monica Street. Photo 6: Heaved grade in the rear yard of 2141 Santa Monica Street. Photo 7: Heaved grade in the rear yard of 2141 Santa Monica Street. Photo 8: Ponded water near the building pad for 2141 Santa Monica Street. Photo 9: Typical wall height was approximately 10 feet 6 inches. Photo 10: Typical taller wall (north) section height was approximately 11 feet 6 inches. Photo 11: Overview of the opened CMU joint above the fourth (visible) row of blocks from the bottom. Photo 12: Close-up of the condition depicted in Photo 11, showing an open joint height of approximately 1-1/2 inches. Photo 13: Interior condition of the wall depicted in Photos 11 and 12, showing the cores were filled with drainage aggregate (left). Photo 14: Upper portion of the wall leaned approximately 73 to 74 degrees. Photo 15: Overview of the south-adjacent neighboring property. Note the final (cut) picket and the wall slope do not align (indicated). Photo 16: Close-up of the far fences depicted in Photo 15, showing the final (cut) picket and the wall slope generally align. Photo 17: Overview of the north-adjacent neighboring property. Note the final (cut) picket and the wall slope do not align (indicated). Photo 18: Close-up of the far fences depicted in Photo 17, showing the final (cut) picket and the wall slope generally align. Photo 19: 4-inch-diameter perforated corrugated drainpipe near the north end of the property. Photo 20: Interior condition of the pipe depicted in Photo 19, showing a perforated corrugated drainpipe running along the bottom of the wall. Photo 21: Partially obstructed drainpipe near the south end of the property. Photo 22: Drainpipe at the top of the wall depicted. The pipe directed away from the wall. Photo 23: Filter fabric at the top of the wall did not wrap behind the wall. Note the void between the CMU blocks (indicated). Photo 24: Filter fabric at the top of the wall did not wrap behind the wall. Note the void between the CMU blocks (indicated). Note concrete for the fence post abuts the wall. Photo 25: Interior of the condition depicted in Photo 24, showing accumulation of dirt and debris. Photo 26: Overview of the rear yard of 2132 El Cajon Street. Photo 27: Hole dug by J.S. Held on the 2132 El Cajon Street side of the top of the wall. No filter fabric, geogrid, or drainage rocks encountered approximately 1 deep. Photo 28: Noncohesive surface soils upslope of the top of the retaining wall. Photo 29: Cohesion to the underlying soils when wetted. Photo 30: Linear depression in the soil immediately upslope of the top of the retaining wall (page left), looking south. Photo 31: Linear depression in the soil immediately upslope of the top of the retaining wall (page right), looking north. Photo 32: Vertical offset at the west end of the depression depicted in Photos 30 and 31. Photo 33: Close-up of the soil structure depicted in Photo 32. Photo 34: Approximately 15 feet between the top of the wall and the soil shear failure at the west end of the depression depicted in Photos 30 and 31. Photo 35: South fence of the south-neighboring property sloped downward and toward the retaining wall, but the slope flattened out near the retaining wall. Photo 36: North fence of the north-neighboring property sloped downward and toward the retaining wall, but the slope flattened out near the retaining wall. Photo 37: Deformation of the south fence (indicated) at 2132 El Cajon Street. Photo 38: Displacement and fastener tear-through of the middle rail for the fence depicted in Photo 37. Photo 39: Displacement and fastener tear-through of the bottom rail for the fence depicted in Photo 37. Photo 40: Deformation of the north fence (indicated) at 2132 El Cajon Street. Photo 41: Gap between the fence and grade and a separation in the pickets (both indicated). APPENDIX B Permit Number RW20-00033 ground notes 1. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE COMPLETED FOR A STANDARD PROMPT DENSITY OF PITS AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTRANSLATION REPORT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITY POLES TO ENSURE ANY DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITIES. THE LOCATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION LINE CALLS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. ONE CALL UTILITY LOCATION SET WILL INCLUDE AN INDICATOR THAT SHOWS EXACT LOCATION OF ALL MUNICIPAL UTILITY LINES. 3. ALL MUNICIPAL UTILITY LINES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF ENCINO. 4. ALL SITE GRADING SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: a) UNDISTURBED GRADE AT PROPOSED FINISH LEVEL IN UNDISTURBED AREAS OF PROPOSED EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. b) EXISTING AND COMPACTED SUBGRADE SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED WITH 5/8" MINIMUM THICKNESS OF GRASS AND COMPACTED TO A MAXIMUM OF 6% PERCENT ROLLING SURFACE COMPACTION. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL SIGNAGE CONTAINING SAFETY SIGNS ACCORDING TO CONSTRUCTION CODE AND/OR SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED BEFORE ANY DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BEGIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARANCE AND REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING SIGNS AND SETUP OF NEW SIGNS. 6. EXISTING CREOSOTE PILES SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND RECORDED ON AN ENGINEERING DRAWING BY THE OWNER. 7. PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE WATER COMPANY ON THIS PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE WATER COMPANY. ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY MUST BE REMOVED BY THE OWNER AT ITS OWN EXPENSE. 8. ALL PARKING LOT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF THE ENCINO CITY OF DEVELOPMENT. ANY UNAUTHORIZED PARKING LOT DESIGN MAY BE REJECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 9. ALL PARKING LOT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF THE ENCINO CITY OF DEVELOPMENT. ANY UNAUTHORIZED PARKING LOT DESIGN MAY BE REJECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 10. ALL PARKING LOT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF THE ENCINO CITY OF DEVELOPMENT. ANY UNAUTHORIZED PARKING LOT DESIGN MAY BE REJECTED BY THE ENGINEER. Legend PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATION PARKING LOT ELEVATION PROPOSED FLOWLINE DIRECTED FLOWLINE EXISTING FLOWLINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR Project Location Map Covell Valley Phase 2 Encino, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Grading Plan Sheet Number: GR1 Date: 01/13/2006 Designer: JSA Engineering Group FLOOD ZONE REQUEST Property Description Covell and Air Depot Permit No. RW20-00033 Legal Description Section, Township, Range Address Addition _ Lot _ Block Building Type RETAININGWALL COMMERCIAL Flood Zone Designation FEMA/Independent _____ / _______ Zone A: No base Flood Elevation _____ / _______ Zone AE: _____ / _______ BFE: Base Flood Elevation _____ / _______ Zone X: Areas of 500-year flood; area of 100-year flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood _X__ / _X___ Zone X: Areas outside 500-year flood plain Community Panel Number: 40109C0070H / Page 63 Revision Date of Map Index: 12-18-09 / 05-29-15 ____________________ FFE: Minimum Finish Floor Elevation Elevation Certificate Required? _____Yes _X___No Which Independent Flood Zone Study? _____ Spring Creek Flood Zone Study _X___ Coffee Creek Flood Zone Study Comments: Zone checked by: _ J. Byram ___________________ Date: ___12-21-2020__________ COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 EDMOND, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA GRADED PLAN GR1 LEGEND PROPOSED TOP OF PAD/STAIR ELEVATION PROPOSED FLOOR ELEVATION PROPOSED GRADE LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR ONE CALL UTILITY LOCATION NUMBER REVOKED BY CITY ENGINEER - DATE GRADED NOTES 1. ALL FINAL GRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% STANDARDS PRIOR TO DENSITY TESTS AS DIRECTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CONSTRUCTION SANSEI SYSTEMS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT USE THIS DRAWING AS THE REQUIREMENT FOR ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURE. 4. ALL SITE GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER IN LANDSCAPE AREA OF PROPOSED HOUSING. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL ACCESS FOR SITE EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITH PRICES JAWNG SECTIONS 17' CUB & SUBCONTRACTORS TO COORDINATE GRADING CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON THEIR PROGRAMS AND DEMONSTRATE CONTROL PLANS FOR ERUPTION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION (COST TO BE INCURRED BY OWNER) THAT ENSURE ALL ACCESS TO OTHER YARD AREAS AND PARKING AREAS IS MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES AND EQUIPMENT ACCESS IS MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES AND EQUIPMENT PASSED THROUGH ALL ACCESS WEYS FROM WINDOWS. 6. ANY GRADE WORK SHALL BE DONE SO THAT GRAZING SHALL BE DONE SO THAT GRAZING SHALL PALLE ADJACENT LOTS OR TREE REMOVAL. 7. ALL AGENTS WILL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY GRAZING TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH TITLE 22 OF THE OKLAHOMA STATUTES. 8. MAXIMUM VALUE SHALL NOT EXCEED FORMED MANHOLE REMOVED BY CITY ENGINEER - DATE RETAINING WALL PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Down South Dozer Service, Inc. Contact Name: Chris Duncan Mailing Address: 12550 Hillside Circle City/State/Zip: Edmond, OK 73034 Phone: (405)315-1748 Alternate Phone: E-Mail: [email protected] PROJECT INFORMATION Type of Project: ☐ Residential ☐ Commercial ☐ Residential Plat Improvement Project Address: Covell and Air Depot (if unplatted - county stamped deed is required) Subdivision: Covell Valley Phase 2 Lot: ____ Block: ____ Zoned: _____ Urban District: ☐ Yes ☐ No Project Cost: $110k Locations without an address will need to provide an approximate location: ____________________________________________ (e.g., north side of Main Street or Common Area of ABC Development) Type of Material: ☐ Concrete ☐ Timber ☐ Masonry ☐ Other: Dolese 8"x18"x12" Wall Block Number of Walls: 1 <table> <tr> <th>Natural</th> <th>RESEARCHED</th> <th>HEIGHT</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>502ft</td> <td>6ft</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS → Retaining walls that exceed 4'-0" in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall or hold back a surcharge will require a permit. → Retaining wall applications must include three (3) complete sets of plans drawn to scale and 1 PDF set (USB, CD or emailed). → Applications submitted without proper documents will delay the application and plan review process. • Below is a list of required documents that must be submitted to consider an application complete. • Upon submittal of a complete application, the plan review process takes approximately 5 to 7 working days for residential and 10 to 14 working days for commercial. PLOT PLAN – to include: • Mark location of wall(s) with two measurements in feet to property line. (E.g.: wall to back property line, wall to side property line, wall to front property line) ENGINEERED WALL DESIGN Building(s) cannot be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building & Fire Code Services Department. By signing this form, you acknowledge the building plans submitted comply with all requirements, applicable codes, amendments and ordinances set forth by the Edmond City Council. Applicant Signature: RETAINING WALL PERMIT Issued Date 12/22/2020 Permit # RW20-00033 Permission is hereby granted to Down South Dozer Service, Ince to build a retaining wall on: Address: Covell and Air Depot Lot(s) Block Addition: Section- Township-Range <table> <tr> <th>Type of Project</th> <th>COMMERCIAL</th> <th colspan="2">Estimated Cost</th> </tr> <tr> <th></th> <th></th> <th>Total Length (ft)</th> <th>Average Height (ft)</th> <th>Material</th> <th>Estimate Cost</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Private Property</td> <td>N</td> <td>Wall #1</td> <td>502</td> <td>6.00</td> <td></td> <td>$110,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Plat Improvement</td> <td>N</td> <td>Wall #2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.00</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td>Wall #3</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.00</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td>Wall #4</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.00</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td>Wall #5</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.00</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> Important Information Δ All construction shall comply with building plans submitted for this building permit. Δ Permit shall be construed & accepted to be a license to proceed with the work & shall not be taken and accepted as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any provisions requirements of any ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Edmond, nor shall the issuance hereof prevent the requiring of correction of efforts in plans or in construction or of violation of any ordinances of the City of Edmond Δ Construction shall not begin and no inspections will be made until all provisions for sedimentation and erosion control are in place Δ It is the responsibility of the builder to inform themselves and all of their subcontractors and to insure compliance by frequent inspections that proper setback standard as shown and utility easements as indicated on the plat and in the zoning code are met Δ Construction must begin within 6 months and be completed within 2 years from date of purchase of building permit Δ Retaining walls required to have a permit shall be signed and sealed by a design professional licensed by the state of Oklahoma A third party inspection by a state licensed Design Professional must be performed on the foundation and wall then submitted to Building Inspection Code Services Δ Job site must be addressed prior to any inspections being made Δ SPECIAL COMMENTS: APPROVED BY ACCEPTED BY (APPLICANT) Down South Dozer Service, Inc Address: Chris Duncan 12550 Hillside Cir Edmond, OK 73074 Telephone: (405) 315-1748 RETAINING WALL PERMIT APPLICATION Date: APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Down South Dozer Service, Inc. Contact Name: Chris Duncan Mailing Address: 12550 Hillside Circle City/State/Zip: Edmond, OK 73034 Phone: (405)315-1748 Alternate Phone: ______________________ E-Mail: [email protected] PROJECT INFORMATION Type of Project: □ Residential □ Commercial □ Residential Plat Improvement Project Address: Covell and Air Depot (if unplatted - county stamped deed s required) Subdivision: Covell Valley Phase 2 Lot: _____ Block: _____ Zoned: _____ Urban District: □ Yes □ No Project Cost: $110k Locations without an address will need to provide an approximate location: ____________________________ (e.g., north side of Main Street or Common Area of ABC Development) Type of Material: □ Concrete □ Timber □ Masonry □ Other: Dolese 8" x 18" x 12" Wall Block Number of Walls: 1 <table> <tr> <th>STATION</th> <th>LARGE</th> <th>WIDTH</th> <th>TOTAL</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>502ft</td> <td>6ft</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS → Retaining walls that exceed 4'-0" in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall or hold back a surcharge will require a permit. → Retaining wall applications must include three (3) complete sets of plans drawn to scale and 1 PDF set (USB, CD or emailed). → Applications submitted without proper documents will delay the application and plan review process. • Below is a list of required documents that must be submitted to consider an application complete. • Upon submittal of a complete application, the plan review process takes approximately 5 to 7 working days for residential and 10 to 14 working days for commercial. PLOT PLAN - to include ■ Mark location of wall(s) with two measurements in feet to property line [Eg. wall to back property line wall to side property line wall to front property line] ENGINEERED WALL DESIGN GR1 COVELL VALLEY PHASE 2 EDMOND, OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA GRADING PLAN Acknowledgement Date: December 22, 2020 By signing this agreement, I/We, do hereby acknowledge we have been informed of Chapter 16 of the Edmond Municipal Code pertaining to occupancy of structures, including residential and commercial swimming pools, and that said Chapter states that it is illegal to occupy, or allow to be occupied, in whole or part, by anyone or anything, any structure, including residential or commercial swimming pools and hot tubs, before all final inspections have been made by the City of Edmond and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Furthermore, I/We will be responsible for conveying this information, as well as fencing and gate requirements for pools to current owners. I/We agree to inform the property owners that failure to comply with said Chapter may result in a fine of $200 per day plus court costs. Each day that a violation continues to exist shall be deemed a separate offense. By signing this agreement, I/We, state that I/We will comply with and inform the responsible parties of the aforementioned Codes on the legally described and addressed property. Lot(s) Block Addition Address Permit # RW20-00033 Down South Dozer Service, Ince Responsible Party (sign) 12-22-20