HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 6 Rough Grading Compaction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LyJ9 5- (3, ~
ROUGH GRADE COMPACTION REPORT
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT 6 TRACT 9833i-3
/
CALLE DE VELARDO
RANCHO CALIFORNIA. TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA
FOR
FOR MR. BOB DOYLE
PROJECT NO. 95-100.COM
RECEIVED
FEB 211996
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPART!,;;:.;. .
DATED FEBRUARY 18. 1996
Lakeshore Engineering
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LAKESHORE
Engineering
Consulting Civil Engineering and Geologists
Client:
Subject:
February 18, 1996
Project No: 95-110.COM
Mr. Robert and LaBecca Doyle
30449 Corte Santa Lina
Murrieta, CA 92563
(909) 676-0082
Compaction Testing Report
Proposed Single Family Residence
Lot 6, Tract 98333-3
Calle de Velardo, Temecula
Riverside County, California
Reference: Soil and Foundation Report
Dated November 8, 1996 (P.N. 95-100.PI)
Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
This is to report the results of tests and observations made during the
placement of compacted fill on the subject site.
Periodic tests and observations were provided by a representative of
Lakeshore Engineering to check the grading contractors on compliance
with the drawing and job specifications. The presence of our field
representati ve at the site was to provide to the owner a source of
professional advice, opinions and recommendations based upon the field
representati ve' s observations of the contractor's work and did not
include any supervision, superintending or direction of the actual work
of the contractors or the contractor's workmen. The opinions and
recommendations presented hereafter are based on our tests and
observations of the grading procedures used, and represent our
engineering judgment as to the contractor's compliance with the job
specifications.
31606 Railroad Canyon Road, #201 . Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 18, 1996
Project No.: 95-110.COM
Page Two
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The lot was undeveloped prior to Lakeshore Engineering involvement. At
the site, the area is part of a new upper scale, ranch style
neighborhood. Ground cover, consists of a growth of annual grasses,
trash and debris are lacking.
The proposed development will consist of a one and/or two story single
family residences of conventional construction, with a long paved
driveway and surrounding landscape areas.
GRADING OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The rough grading operation was observed to be performed in the
fOllowing manner:
I. Vegetation, surface trash and miscellaneous debris were cleared
from the areas to be graded.
2. Unsatisfactory soils were excavated to expose competent materials
on which to start the fill. The maximum depth of fills placed was
approximately 7 feet located at the top of the southerly facing
building pad fill slope.
3. A keyway approximately 12 feet in width and 4 feet in depth,
cut into and along the outer toe of proposed driveway and building
pad fill slopes.
4. The native soils exposed at the bottom of excavation were
inspected and are in our opinion, suitable for support of
compacted fills.
5. Approved soils were placed in layers on the prepared surface, and
each layer was compacted to the specified density before the next
layer was added.
6. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction content was 90
percent of the maximum density.
7. Maximum density and optimum moisture content were determined by
the A.S.T.M. D1557-78 method.
8. Field density tests were performed utilizing the sandcone method
(A.S.T.M. D1556) and the drive tube method.
Lakeshore Engineering :?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 18, 1996
Project No.: 95-110.COM
Page Three
/
9. The soils used in the compacted fill consisted predominantly of
on-site light brown Silty SAND (SM).
10. Due to the competent subgrade soils exposed within the building pd
area, overexcavation and recompaction of cut areas within the
building pad were not recommended. Field inspection of the layout
of the house indicated only the kitchen nook area will require
deepen footings to reach competent native soils.
Field density tests were made during the placement of fill to determine
the degree of compaction and moisture content. Where tests or field
observations indicated insufficient density, additional compaction wi th
adjustment of the moisture content where necessary was performed before
the next layer was added. All field density tests are listed in the
"Summary of Field Density Tests", and their approximate locations are
shown on Figure No.1. Also shown are the limits of the compacted fill
placed during this grading operation.
GRADING DEVIATIONS FROM PLANS
Near the conclusion of rough grading, the following rough grading
changes were observed on the subject site:
1) No major deviations were observed in the field when compared to
the approved grading plan. Minor changes included a) the level
graded area extended across the knoll to the west and b) the
alignment of the driveway was change slightly. A revised plan has
been prepared showing the minor changes compared to the original
drawing. It is our understanding that the driveway, swales and
flowlines will be reinspected during fine grading/landscaping
operation.
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES AND COMPACTION TESTING
Soil samples obtained from the field were visually identified and when
necessary, additional laboratory testing was performed to confirm
identification. All soils were classified with the Unified Soil
Classifications System. The procedures outlined in A. S. T .M. Method
D1557-78 were used to determine the compaction characteristics of the
fill materials.
The results of our laboratory compaction tests are presented below:
Soil Tvpe
Soil Description
Optimum Moisture
Max. Dry Density
A
Lt. Brn. Silty SAND
132.5
9.7
Lakeshore Engineering
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 18, 1996
Project No.: 95-110.COM
Page Four
Laboratory Expansion Test
A Laboratory Expansion Index Test was performed on a representative
soil sample recovered from within the proposed building area at the
subject site. The laboratory expansion test was performed in accordance
wi th U. B. C. Test Method 29-C, and the pertinent test results are
presented below:
Soil
Description
Moisture %
Before Test
Expan.
Index
Expansion
Potential
Depth
Sil ty SAND
_611
8.7
22
LOW
Based upon a test result of 22, subgrade materials are considered to be
LOW in expansion potential. It is recommended that the appropriate
guidelines under "Suggested Guidelines for Design of Foundation/Slab
Systems" be incorporated into the design and construction phases of the
project.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the final results of the tests, on observations of the
construction procedures used in the field and on our experience, it is
our opinion that the compacted fill shown on Figure No. 1 has been
placed in accordance with the applicable portions of the job
specifications and in accordance with the regulations of the City of
Temecula. Any fill added beyond the limits or above the grades shown
should be placed under engineering control and in accordance with the
job specifications, if it is to be covered by the recommendations of
this report.
The foundation recommendations presented in the
remain valid and should be incorporated
construction of the residence.
referenced soils report
into the design and
Based upon our field testing results, the compacted fill in our opinion
has been compacted to at least 90 percent relative density. The on-site
foundation soils exposed during rough grading are granular and
therefore considered LOW in expansion potential as verified in the
laboratory test results. Foundation should be constructed in accordance
with the attached guidelines.
Footings should be 12" by 12" minimum. For two story structures,
Footings shall be a minimum of 18 inches in depth reinforced with one
no.4 bar at top and one at 3" from bottom.
Lakeshore Engineering
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 18, 1996
Project No.: 95-110.COM
Page Five
SLAB-ON-GRADE
The subgrade soils are considered to be low-medium in expansion
potential. The floor slabs may be supported directly on properly
prepared subgrade. The concrete floor slabs should be reinforced with
at least 6 x 6 -#10 /#10 welded wire mesh or equivalent bar
reinforcing, installed at mid-height. Slabs thickness should be at
least 4 inches nominal. Presaturation to 120 % over optimum to depth of
12 inches of subgrade soil is required.
FOOTING INSPECTION
Due to periodic inspections and the transitional cut/fill condition
left inplaced, footing excavations should be inspected by a
representative of Lakeshore Engineering prior to concrete placement to
verify proper embeddment entirely into competent soils. Sitting of
footing on compacted fills is not recommended, therefore deepening of
footings into native soils especially in the kitchen nook area is
recommended.
SLOPES AND EROSION CONTROL
Due to the sandy nature of the
existing slopes are sensitive
mitigate surficial erosion,
presented:
onsite soils, it is our opinion that
to surficial erosion. In order to
the following recommendations are
1.0) Slopes should be planted as soon as possible with
vegetation which is drought resistant and whose root system
extends a minimum of 18 inches into the slope face.
Immediate planting of the slopes is particularly important
where relatively loose sand is exposed.
2.0) High water content in slope soils is a major factor in
slope erosion or slope failures. Vegetation watering should
be such that a uniform near optimum content is maintained
year-around. A landscape architect should be consulted in
this regard.
3.0) Shrub and/or tree root excavations should be minimized in
size so that water will not collect and cause saturation of
the surficial materials. Also, back cuts for tree wells are
geotechnically inadvisable because they create a localized
over-steepened condition.
4.0) Excavated slope and footing soils should not be spread
loosely on the slope face.
5.0) Burrowing Animals should be controlled because burrows
become avenue for water penetration.
Lakeshore Engineering
"
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 18, 1996
Project No.: 95-110.COM
Page Six
6.0) All berms should be regularly maintained. Surface drains
should be kept free of debris at all times.
7.0) Seemingly insignificant factors, such as recreational abuse
(e.g., motorcycles, bicycles, etc.), human trespass, small
concentrations of uncontrolled surface/subsurface water, or
poor compaction of trench backfills on slope can result in
major erosion and slope distress.
8.0) A slope area maintenance program should be developed for
use by the home owner.
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be provided around the structure to minimize
water infiltration into the underlying soils. Finish subgrade adjacent
to exterior footings should be sloped down and away to facilitate
surface drainage.
ADDITIONAL GRADING
The project soil engineer should be notified prior to any fill
placement, regrading of the site, or backfilling of trenches, after
rough grading has been completed. This report is limited to the
earthwork performed through February 17, 1996, the date of our last
inspection and testing of compacted soils.
At the time of the preparation of this report, only a single family
residence is proposed. Any future appurtenance structure such as a
detached garage, office, barn, spas or pools, etc., should be reviewed
for subgrade suitability prior to construction.
Our findings have been obtained in accordance with accepted
professional engineering practices in the fields of geotechnical
engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either
express or implied.
to you on this project. If
this office at your convenience.
, RCE 37
0/96 \
1) SUG . ~IDELINES
2) PLOT/GRA NG P AN IN POCKET
3) SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
4) SLOPE EROSION GUIDELINES
Lakeshore Engineering 1
I
-(f) I
fge
8G)
;:: G) I
~m
15(f)
~-1 I
om
t50
~ G) I
me
aJ_
1'Iio
~ m I
cr
"U -
oz
~ m I
O(f)
c
15T\
~o I
O:IJ
z
~ 0 I
om
t5(f)-,
..,---,
::0 ,....)>
C ~JOJ I
o Zr
.., m
~O
~ T\ I
OT\
~O
rile I
rriZ
~o
~ ~ I
~O
il Z I
0-..
<
m(f)
o
rJl r I
c)>
~(JJ
~(f) I
~(f)
0-<
~(f) I
Q-I
::jm
~~
!!J (f) I
I
."
o
c
Z
o
)>
-l
o
z
en
-<
en
-l
m
s::
::;!
"1l
m
~
"1l
m
~
"1l
m
~
"1l
m
<
~
"1l
m
<
~
."
??en 0 ." Gl ." m
0 0 x m
~ 0 )>0> 0 -0 X
0.0 c 0 -iil - ." 0> -0
-co- en ~ :::J :::J 0>
() --(0 0> 0(0 (0 0
~~ Gl 0 en 0<1l "1l 0 en :::J
0<1l0> :;: 0- 0> :D <1l ::-. o' cn
:::J30. 0> gGl :::J ~ o'
iil <1l :D 0- <1l - :::J :::J
cn<1l<1l <1l 3 (0 :::J
:::::;-:)s: <1l -l oiil :::J :::J.
(0 :::J -00. - 0 <1l 0 :::J "1l
c- <1l :::J :::r 0 - 0.
n. Q) Q. (0 - <1l<1l ~ <1l <1l s;a.
cn 0 o' ei <1l
-''-+(J) cn ~.OJ ~ ::l.
o -l- ei ;1'; <1l X <1l
:::J :::J<1l :::r ~ :::J
:J _.c <1l <1l (00) 3 m -
3~ 3 iii'
<1l<1l cn 3 <1l
<1l cn :::J -
~
:::J -
-
:Dz s:: ~ s:: s:: ~I~ SQo
20 ~ ~ O:::J <
0> 0> 0> -<<1l 0 <1l
!;. (J) :::Jz Z :::Jz ~z -<
~-o 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 ,
<1l<1l !!l.- 3 !!l.- !!l.- I\) r
30 0 :::J 0 0 ~I~ en-l 0 0
<1l -. -< 0> -< -< 0:;: :;:
:::JO>
- -<0
z 02 SQo
??z x- -l ~ -l ~I~
0 ~ ~ 0~1\) o~ ~ ~ O:::J
- "0, == -0 , -<<1l
.00 s:: , I\)
!;. en :!:: z S20,,*,x S20"*' ~ b
0> 0
~-o :::J ~ 3 OJ-!>-~ OJ-!>- ,
<1l<1l 0. ~ I\) gro (11 :;:
30 0> :::J 9. lJJ :: ~I~ en-l 0
<1l-' 0 0> -o>:!:: 00>
:::JO> - o~ 3~ 0:;:
- -< ~ 3 -- -<0
-!>-
~ 02 02
OJs::l\)
<1l 0 x- x- -l -l ~I~ SQo
-0 0 m m -!>- o~~ o~
o _.~ = = = "'0 I :: -0, o~ s::
:;:!a.o , , -<<1l (11
(f)~- :!:: :!:: z S20,,*,x S20,,*, ~ <1l
0 Q,
iil<1l0 ~ ~ 3 OJ-!>-~ OJ-!>- ,
0---0 ~ ~ 00J~ s;a.0J en-l to c
0_ ~ - - ~I~ 0 3
o -. 0> -o>:!:: -0> ~ ~ 0:;:
:::J~3 o~ o~
~ ~ 3 -- 3 -<0
_ _C
'< -3 -!>- -!>-
~ 02 02
OJs::l\)
<1l 0 x- x- -l dl\) SQo
-0 0 m m O....l.~ a?la?
0-.0' = = ~ "'0 I :: -0 , o~ to
:E !a. 0 , , - - -<<1l ~
(/)~- ::E :!:: )> S20,,*,x S20"*' , :r:
0><1l0 I\) I\) n. OJ-!>-~ OJ-!>- ~ lO"
0---0 to to C s;a.0J~ OOJ (J)-l w :::r
0_ ~ ~ 0> :::0> ~I~ 0
o -. -o>:!:: 0:;:
:::J 0;3 o~ o(il ~ ~
_ _C !" I\) 3 -- 3 -<0
'< -3 to (0
~ 02
OJS::I\)
<1l 0 x. "*' -l ~ dl\) ~Iw SQo
oQ.~ m m-!>- ~ o~()) )> <
:;: cn 0 = ""0 I = -0 , ()) 0 o~ 0-
, 0>0> = = -<<1l <1l
-0 :!:: Z S20=lI:x S20"*' 0
cn~- 0- -<
:::r~ 0 OJ-!>- <
0><1l0 I\) :;:~ 2. OJ-!>-~ <1l :r:
0---0 to s;a.0J~ OOJ (J)-l ~ lO'
0_ ~ 0>0 ~ :::0> ~Iw w
o -. -O>::E 0:;:
'<. 0> o~ O(il ~ ~ 0 :::r
~ 0;3 I\) ~ 3 -- 3 -<0
_ _C
'< -3 (0
I
/
,V~S ON)
I
JI....._ _
I
I
1
(
I
\
I
/
9-'S-
\
\
\
I
-.
NtH,s
I
0~
I
I / /
.------- If/,
'\:ijo / ( D I
'2;11 / /~
/ J 1 --L-...__
/ "DV8,i OlS r"W S
I / / I
_/ / 1
eL,1 / 1
,n ./ /
~ \)....... ---P.
)," /c,,-~-' I'
/ '-'", V
"1-'}-_:-\\1 __
? /\~ / -(iinl)'--..."
r
/
-,
1 () \
J C, \.-
I /
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
/
I
h
,c-
/O"
,e;
/
I
/
/ ~
8i1-\'
--- ~(
/ ---
~
/
V ~
,,/
/ /Co'<-1.\)
~. ~"
I
...
....
"
"
/
"
~
_ -(,571,\'7
I
/
I
"
"
"
"-
" "- (- XI/VIA) '3.fJl'l j
" ,",,'Ij I'"~ 1171-Z /
"- "-
\ "-
\ -~d\JlS 711:/
\ - '~M\71U "d "1. 'lflI
\ \
,
\ ...
...
'/v
!'>i
I
~\
"(0 ,il7
-----
'--..
L07.."ON 'Ql'Zi 1'L1"J ~'3d
F-VM3(\\(jO iVILf'l-;j\JI<;-3'J
301M:U J.C:;I'~~i"I
--
"
I
~
I
/^
." -
,..-
--
o
~
\i\{J/dRL ') ,IVL3CJ
NOI.LVNV1dXH
1""'/- -1(/-"-
'1..'7 }.;1i
; \ I>' -
\\ Y
/'
~
\ ,5X;ZI "tll
- d::JJ '>""5 -3~d. KVI'
(
'--
0) - ~G>
I
"""
Zl~X
.LSH.L A.LISN;!IG
G1HIA AO NOI.LV301 A1H.LVWIXOHddV
-,
GH.L3HdSNI GNV
G1I3V1d 11IA AO SlI.LIWI1 A111.LVWIXOHdd~ "..
. N\fJ ~ !-CTld- - . \ . ~bl
. '7 "'-~,-o
. "? 'Oll-.S,!::> . t\j'd
. :1-; \:::~ ~o:tA oW
....
r
L SUMMARY OF FIELD DENS ITY TESTS
I~ST DATE EL E V A REFER- MAX I,MUM FIELD ~ ~~I
~ -\<.... ,," 0.....
OF TION ErKE DP.Y I,A TER DRY u
LDCATIDtI \:~, ~c:.... RENARKS 01:;:
NO. TEST (feet) CURVE DENS !TY CONTENT DEI,S !TY '-~ "'-~ ~~
t, -l' (pef) (%) (pef) '<;-<.; c:....CS ",-
'2.1 1 l'1 ::'. ~M..-fIL sa: PW -12- A 1~1...-S OJ.S- '2.4.'1 q~ J
-
r- I, " tl8 Seel'l#Il'l -14 -A 1~1..'S- 10" '1~.\ q~ J
I.l -t 2..L fb A 1/
'3 " h 1/ \-';2.....<;;" C1.~ \--z.1.'b fjl
~ I, /I -t Z2> II \) 41 A. 1~2.'S- 10.0 \"2.4'B qLj. 1/
.=, II 1iI+~ I" t.I tl -A \~Z..,:> t1. , lu.-S c:1'r" /
I 4 z./-!l j)1!W~- SU- PeAt\! ' 1-z... A I~'Z..S" 10') L'Lb'C t:I\" /
-, II II h +1:\- A \~"2S q.D \ '2.1+ .q qq /
I IS 'I t1 11 ~+ A I 32..S" q,~ 11'1.4 I1D 1/
I q 1/ P..a-t> . J1 +'=- A. 1~2'5 10.0 I 'Z.IA ft'2... I
I \0 Zl"! fl~D . -I A 132..''') G,.L \u"4 CJI /
_ '/2- \/~2'S- -r,L 119.b /
1\ '/1 ~'2- -A 'to
I lL I' Dtl.VV~ _ \/""2- A- t"':>! .-S; IO'S- \2.1.1 Cf'" /
I l4- -+ ='--F-. F~,^^- ).. .2:l w,o ~ ~ m-?-. . ~ F-> \<.JC..- - . -E:..... .
I
I
I
I
eLAKESHORE ~e:. {)~l 0;;:=. ~CM-O \0
V E: L...1"r1U:>-a .
Engineering Tobl.,
PrqJ. No: 0011:
Consulting Civil Engineering and Geologists "'li":-ILO G '2.-\ e,~iO \ oF- I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
APPENDIX C-2
SOIL EROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR SLOPE AREAS
To minimize water-induced surficial erosion/sloughing to existing
slopes or new fill and cut slopes, permanent erosion control measures
should be planned as soon as possible. However, all soil slopes will
undergo some erosion when subject to sustained water application. To
minimize long-term erosion, we have listed below some important
points to be considered when planning, designing and
installing/implementing slope erosion control plans.
I) All berms, terrace drains and surface drain inlets should be
properly maintained. A qualified Engineer should review any
proposed additions or revisions to these systems, to evaluate
their impact on slope erosion.
2) Local experience that the upper 3 to 5 feet of slope soils may
be subject to water-induced mass erosion. Therefore, a suitable
portion of slope plantings should have root systems which will
develop well below 5 feet. We suggest consideration of
drought-resistant shrubs and low trees for this purpose.
Intervening areas can then be planted with lightweight surface
plantings with shallower roots systems. In any event,
lightweight, low-moisture plantings should be used.
3) Construction delays, climate/weather conditions, and plant growth
rates may be such that additional short term, non-plant erosion
control measures may be needed; examples would be matting,
netting, plastic sheets, deep (5 feet) staking.
4) Major erosion can be initiated by seemingly insignificant events:
rodent burrowing, human tresspass (foot prints) in damp areas,
small concentrations of controlled surface/subsurface water;
or poor compaction of utility trench backfill on slopes.
5) All possible precautions should be taken to minimize soil
moisture percolating deep into the slope soils. Slope
irrigations systems should be properly operated and maintained
and system controls should be placed under strict control.
The duration of each cycle of irrigation should be short and
may be more frequent in order to reduce the saturation of the
deeper soils.
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
APPENDIX C-2 -CONTINUED-
6) High water content in slope soils is a major factor in slope
erosion or slope failures. Therefore, all possible precautions
should be taken to minimize soil moisture. Slope irrigation
systems should be properly operated and maintained and system
controls should be placed under strict control.
7) If completion of new slopes occurs during the rainy season,
contingency plans should be developed to provide prompt
temporary protection against major erosion/ sloughing. One
method would be to place plastic sheeting over the slopes.
If this is carefully coordinated with the Landscape
Architect/Contractor, plantings might be placed prior to
sheeting placement, thus minimize any delays in the plant
growth program.
We strongly recommend that a "team effort" be used to develop the
erosion control program. The team should consist of the Civil and
Soils Engineers, the Engineering Geologist, the Landscape
Architect/Contractor and the Developer/Owner. To assist in
developing a landscape program, we have listed (below) several
references.
Finally, we recommend that a "Slope Area Maintenance Manual" be
developed by the erosion control team, for use by homeowners and
their Associations.
The above recommendations are intended for guidance purposes.
Situations will vary and therefore, erosion control plans will
differ. No guaratee is made as to performance, but we believe these
recommendations meet the generally accepted standards of our
profession at this time.
\2--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
.'
EROSION CONTROL REFERENCES
1.
"Slope Protection for Residential Developments", National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (l969)
2.
"Guide for Erosion and Debris Control in Hillside Areas",
Department of Building and Safety, City of Los Angeles (l970)
3.
"Slope Stability Report", Orange County Department of Building
and Safety (1973)
4.
"Guides of Erosion and Sediment Control" Soil Conservation
Service, Davis California, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1977)
5.
"Rain-Care and Protection of Hillside Homes", brochure undated,
published by Buiolding and Safety Divsion, Los Angeles County
Engineer.
6.
"Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Implementation", Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, (1972)
7.
"Resource Conservation Glossary", Soil Conservation Society of
America (1970)
8.
"Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Developing Areas:' Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
9.
"Homeowners Guide for Debris and Erosion Control"' Los Angeles
County Flood Control District (undated)
lO.
"Grading Guildelines (8 pages, stapled sheets), Building and
Safety Division, Department of County Engineer, County of Los
Angeles (undated, but probably about 1977)
Vb