HomeMy WebLinkAboutPE 2.85.47; LA COSTA ESTATES NORTH LOT 21; Engineering ApplicationApplication for Grading Permit.
CITY.01F CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
1200 Elm Avenue
438-5541
PE NO. 85-, Y7
V.alidatlion by Finance
9 4;' 0 0 C
Building Permitr Plan Check No.
FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN
SiteAddress Surety Company Bond No.
~eg~l Description i Map No.
L40f— 211-
I—$
Surety Address
eF e-44W177 I A,- rlA'C-
Subdivision Name
L -e-
Date Filed .-Yer,'d by
Owner Phone
OtA ter P *4M. L4 X
Cash deposit Recd by Date f il ed
Owner's Address
7. S A-Licftivre CAGSJW91C4~
The following documents, are required and shall become a part
of the. gr di ermit when they are approved. -a ing p
__:_~Grading plans Specifications
Soil report. Geologic Report
Drainage structures Other
:~~Compaction
Plan Ile
A r7 F V/ ~F
report Soilr Engineer R.C.E. Phone
72'AN Er. VC-RNpa 21121 .7 Y3 13 0 19
Grading Contractor Phone SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH-ARE MADE
*ro NY JI-0 rVA/ —1/7-1- A PART'OF'fHIS PERMIT
Address
P 1. Authorized hours of operation:'
7:00 AWto-Sunset, Morifty - Friday.
Party, responsible for overall.s.upervision
2.' Haul routes are to be approved by City Engineer. %Tc~'
Proposed Use-of-6rade
Adequate provisions shall be made for erosion and siltation
control. - Numberof'cubic yards
C ult Fill Import Waste All slopes shall be planted per City Code.
Proposed Schedule of~ Start Finish
Operations ~(dates) ;L3 CS7 9&-
All fills to be compacted to at least 90% of optimum
:density unless,noted otherwise.
I hereby acknowledge that I have readAhe application and state that
the information I have provided, is correct and agree to comply with
all City ordinances and State laws regulating excavating and grading,
and the provisions and conditions of any'perm it issued pursuant to
this application.
-------
C3 Under City Code Sec. 1.1.06 170,this grading is:
YR GULAR-GR * ADING - City Inspector will make inspections
si sted below.
C CC Private grading engineer shall
Signature of'Pe'rmittee
ONTROLLED GRADING,
observe w6rk, coordinate tests, make reports.
Owner or authorized agent IN SPECTION DATE IN SP. SIGNATURE
Initial - siteprep.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE -
Date 10
. EIA Log No.TCZ, 6&-tT
F By
Rough- prior to drains
Final :slopes planted ".d
Compaction reports rec'd. Al"I Grading permit fee $ 4?t0,'0C? Plan'~.'
-
check. fee-$
Private engr. cert. rec'd. 'Permit 14~6d /0 Z' A6 C—. Y uoW.q~, Wmite-Uttice; Ureen-building; .4.5 &&YLT I
Permit Ekiration Date aodft.4~dt~.Yellow-lnspe∨ Pink-Permittee; Goldenrod- Finance
THIS FORM WHEN-PROPERILY VALIDATED IS A PERMITTO DO THE WORK DESCRIBED
./THIS PERMIT IS VALID FOR A SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD
0
0
JOHN VERNON & ASSOCIATES
1859 S. ESCONDIDO BLVD.
ESCONDIDO. CA 92025 TE L. (7141 743-880i
PNOPINTV DIVILOMA910 INGING902
Agene e0e 4 ~ ~ v/. r 2~ to 14
Project LocaAon__,A!~7,1*2,We,&
GRADING REPORT
Name of Permittee
Grading Permit NO*
A.. COMPATIBILITY. WITH'GRADING PLAN AND PERMIT
1. Was the compacted fill placed only in the approximate lo- Yest-- No
cations designated on-thd grading plan as areas to be
filled?
Did the quantity of fill material placed approximately Yes_to- No
conform to the grading plan?
Did the toe of fill or the top of cut appear to,meet the Yes_L..- No
.prescribed property line setback (1.5' for fillt 3.0' for cuts)?
Were the finished fill slopes equal to or less than hor- Yes L-o"Ne
izontal to 1-vertical?
.5. If the fill material was obtained by cuts on the site, Yezj!::::~ No
were the cuts made in the proper location And to the proper
slope approximately as shown on the approved.grading plan?
6. Were brow ditches constructed approximately as shown on Yes_, Not..-
the grading plan?
B. -LOCATION AND AMOUNT OF COMPACTION TESTS
Have you attached a sketch and data showing the location Yes --_O*No and-relative elevation for all compaction tests?
Was a compaction test made so that there is at least one Y e sloo," N
test in each 29 thick lens of compacted material.
As indicated by.inspections, observations and . compaction Yesjg::f No
test results, was the fill, excluding the top 1.01 , compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density?
C. QUALITY OF FILL COMPACTION OPERATION
Was the area to receive fill properly prepared in terms of Yes-[!::f No—
brush removal. benching, wetting,, removal of noncompacted
fillor debris And related items?
2. Was all detrimentally expansive soil placed in thefill at f N 0-Yes_J,::.-
3' or more below finish grade?
Duplicate of DPL #73
Rev. 3-7-79