DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report Palmdale to Burbank Supplemental Sacramento Alternatives Stockton Analysis Transbay Transit Center Modesto Millbrae-SFO Redwood City or Palo Alto San Jose Merced Report (Potential Station) June 2015 Gilroy Fresno Kings/Tulare Bakersfield Palmdale East Burbank San Gabriel Valley Ontario Airport Los Angeles Riverside/Corona Norwalk Anaheim Murrieta Escondido San Diego This Page Intentionally Left Blank California High-Speed Rail Project Palmdale to Burbank SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT JUNE 2015 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PALMDALE TO BURBANK SECTION JUNE 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS ES1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 ES 1.1 Palmdale to Burbank Project Section Background ............................................................. 1 ES 1.2 Summary of Recommendations in the SAA ....................................................................... 1 ES 1.3 Public and Agency Outreach Efforts ................................................................................... 3 ES 1.4 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 3 1 Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report ............................................................................... 4 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Criteria Applied in the Alternatives Analysis Process ......................................................... 4 1.3 Background and Description of Alternatives; Conclusions of this SAA .............................. 5 1.4 Alternatives Development Process ..................................................................................... 6 1.5 Meeting Project Purpose and Need/Objectives .................................................................. 7 1.6 2014 Business Plan ............................................................................................................ 9 1.7 Evaluation Measures and Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................... 9 1.8 Community Outreach ........................................................................................................ 12 1.8.1 Summary of Public Scoping Meetings .................................................................... 13 1.8.2 Summary of Community Open House Meetings ..................................................... 13 1.8.3 Summary of Community Working Group Meetings ................................................. 13 1.8.4 Summary of Outreach Briefings .............................................................................. 14 1.8.5 Corridor Cities ......................................................................................................... 17 1.8.6 Select Elected Officials - Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors ..................... 20 1.8.7 Select Agencies - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Metrolink .............................................................................................. 20 1.9 Previously and Newly Identified Alternatives .................................................................... 20 2 Description and Analysis of Modifications and Newly Identified Alternatives...................... 24 2.1 Alignments and Stations Proposed by the Public ............................................................. 24 2.2 Refinements Since the 2014 SAA ..................................................................................... 24 2.2.1 Shift within the City of Palmdale .............................................................................. 24 2.2.2 Lake Palmdale Avoidance ....................................................................................... 24 2.2.3 Refinements near the Community of Acton ............................................................ 24 2.2.4 Refinements near the City of Santa Clarita ............................................................. 29 2.2.5 Withdrawal of the East Side San Fernando Valley Alignment ................................ 29 2.3 East Corridor Study Area .................................................................................................. 29 2.3.1 Description of East Corridor Alignment Alternatives ............................................... 29 2.3.2 Description of Burbank Airport Station Options ...................................................... 36 Page i CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PALMDALE TO BURBANK SECTION JUNE 2015 2.3.3 Evaluation of East Corridor Alternatives ................................................................. 38 2.3.4 Analysis of Burbank Airport Station Options ........................................................... 47 2.4 SR14 Corridor Alternatives ............................................................................................... 47 2.4.1 Description of SR14 Alignment Alternatives ........................................................... 48 2.4.2 Description of Burbank Airport Station Connections to SR14 Alternatives ............. 51 2.4.3 Evaluation of SR14 Alternatives .............................................................................. 51 3 Recommendation ......................................................................................................................... 58 TABLES Table 1.7-1 Performance Objectives and Criteria ................................................................................ 10 Table 1.7-2 HSR AA Evaluation Measures .......................................................................................... 10 Table 1.8-1 Summary of Palmdale to Burbank Section Key Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (June 2014 – March 2015) ................................................................................................ 14 Table 1.9-1 Palmdale to Burbank Corridor Alignment Alternatives and Station Options ..................... 23 Table 2.3-1 East Corridor Station Configuration Compatibility ............................................................ 38 Table 2.3-2 East Corridor – Summary of Non-Tunnel (Surface and Aerial) Evaluation Measurement Criteria........................................................................................................ 39 Table 2.4-1 SR14 Alternative Station Configuration Compatibility ....................................................... 51 Table 2.4-2 SR14 Corridor – Summary of Non-Tunnel (Surface and Aerial) Evaluation Measurement Criteria........................................................................................................ 52 Table 3.1-1 Alternatives Evaluation Summary ..................................................................................... 60 FIGURES Figure ES-1 Palmdale to Burbank Section Overview.............................................................................. 2 Figure 1.9-1 Alignment Alternatives and Station Locations Carried Forward in the 2014 SAA ............ 22 Figure 2.1-1 Alignments Proposed by the Public .................................................................................. 25 Figure 2.2-1 Refinements in the Palmdale Area Alignment .................................................................. 26 Figure 2.2-2 Design Refinements at Lake Palmdale ............................................................................. 27 Figure 2.2-3 Design Refinements near the Community of Acton .......................................................... 28 Figure 2.2-4 Design Refinements near the City of Santa Clarita .......................................................... 30 Figure 2.3-1 East Corridor Alignment Alternatives and Station Options ............................................... 31 Figure 2.3-2 Burbank Airport Station Configuration Options A, B, and C ............................................. 37 Figure 2.4-1 SR14 Alignment Alternatives and Station Options…… .................................................... 49 Figure 3.1-1 Alignment Alternatives and Station Options Carried Forward .......................................... 59 APPENDICES Appendix A Detailed Evaluation Tables Page ii CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PALMDALE TO BURBANK SECTION JUNE 2015 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AA Alternatives Analysis Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation Authority California High-Speed Rail Authority Authority Board California High-Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CGS California Geological Survey CHSTP California High Speed Train Project CNG Compressed Natural Gas CNPS California Native Plant Society CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CWA Clean Water Act EC East Corridor E1a East Corridor 1a E1b East Corridor 1b E2a East Corridor 2a E2b East Corridor 2b E3a East Corridor 3a E3b East Corridor 3b EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMT Engineering Management Team FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FRA Federal Railroad Administration GIS Geographic Information System HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HDC High Desert Corridor HSR High-Speed Rail LADOT City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation LA River Los
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transbay Transit Center
    Transbay Transit Center TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Transbay Transit Center Why do we need the Transbay Transit Center? It is time for public infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century. The project will centralize a fractured regional transportation network—making transit connections be- tween all points in the Bay Area fast and convenient. The new Transit Center will make public transit a convenient option as it is in other world-class cities, allowing people to travel and commute without the need for a car, thereby decreasing congestion and pollution. The Transit Center will provide a downtown hub in the heart of a new transit- friendly neighborhood with new homes, parks and shops, providing access to public transit literally at the foot of people’s doors. When will I be able to use the Transit Center? The Transit Center building will be completed in 2017 and will be a bustling transit and retail center for those who live, work and visit the heart of downtown San Francisco. When will I be able to take Caltrain into the new Transit Center? The construction of the underground rail extension for the Caltrain rail line and future High Speed Rail is planned to begin in 2012. It is estimated to be completed and operational, along with the Transit Center’s underground rail station, in 2018 or sooner if funding becomes What is the Transbay Transit available. Center Project? How many people will use it? When the rail component is complete, it is estimated that The Transbay Transit Center Project is a visionary more than 20 million people will use the Transit Center transportation and housing project that will transform annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Joint Powers Authority
    NEW ISSUE – Book-Entry Only RATINGS: See “RATINGS” In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing law and assuming compliance with the tax covenants described herein, and the accuracy of certain representations and certifications made by the Authority, interest on the 2020 Tax-Exempt Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Tax-Exempt Bonds is not treated as a preference item in calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed under the Code. Interest on the Senior 2020A-T Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Bond Counsel is further of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Bonds is exempt from personal income taxes of the State of California (the “State”) under present State law. See “2020 TAX-EXEMPT BONDS TAX MATTERS” and “SENIOR 2020A-T BONDS TAX MATTERS” in this Official Statement regarding certain other tax considerations. TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY $189,480,000 $28,355,000 Senior Tax Allocation Bonds Senior Tax Allocation Bonds Series 2020A (Tax-Exempt) (Green Bonds) Series 2020A-T (Federally Taxable) (Green Bonds) $53,370,000 Subordinate Tax Allocation Bonds Series 2020B (Tax-Exempt) (Green Bonds) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: October 1, as shown on inside cover Bonds. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (the “Authority”) is issuing the above-captioned bonds (the “Senior 2020A Bonds,” the “Senior 2020A-T Bonds,” and the “Subordinate 2020B Bonds” and, collectively, the “2020 Bonds”).
    [Show full text]
  • Littlerock Reservoir Sediment Removal Project Final EIS/EIR
    Littlerock Reservoir Sediment Removal Project C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the same impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW, Forest Service, or USFWS species as described for the Project. Sensitive plants (Impact BIO-12) or invertebrates (Impact BIO-13) were not found in the disturbance area and would be subject to the same direct and indirect impacts as the Project. Implementation of Alternative 1 may result in a minor reduction in road kill to butterflies should they occur from fewer truck trips. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the same impacts to southwestern pond turtles (Impact BIO-14), two-striped garter snakes (Impact BIO-15), coast range newts (Impact BIO-16), and sensitive amphibian and reptile species (Impact BIO-17) as described for the Project. Reduced water levels required to construct in July could reduce habitat for these species in the Reservoir; however, fluctuating water levels at the reservoir occur during below-normal rain years. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the same impacts to burrowing owls (Impact BIO-18), special status nesting birds (Impact BIO-19), special status bats (Impact BIO-20), and other special-status mammals (Impact BIO-21, Impact BIO-22, and Impact BIO-23) or greater as described for the Project. The commencement of work on July 1 would increase the likelihood of disturbing active breeding birds or disrupt mammal denning or pupping should they occur. Implementation of the same SPCs for the Project would reduce impacts to biological resources identified under Criterion BIO 3 from Alternative 1.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TERACOR Resource Management
    APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TERACOR Resource Management, Inc., General Biological Assessment for a 4.75-Acre Property in the City of Palmdale, California, January 14, 2019. [This Page Intentionally Left Blank] GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR A 4.75-ACRE PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 3010-030-023 Located within Section 35 of the Ritter Ridge, California Quadrangle within Township 6 north, Range 12 west Prepared for: City of Palmdale, California and Meta Housing Corporation 11150 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite #620 Los Angeles, California 90064 Prepared by: TERACOR Resource Management, Inc. 27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253 Temecula, California 92591 (951) 694-8000 Principal Investigator: Samuel Reed [email protected] Fieldwork conducted by: Samuel Reed and Jared Reed 14 January 2019 General Biological Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ........................................................................................... 11 4.0 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................. 12 5.0 Sensitive Species Analysis ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure + Public Utilities
    Infrastructure + Public Utilities CHAPTER 9: INFRASTRUCTURE + PUBLIC UTILITIES • Water suppliers depend heavily on highly variable imported water supply and face newly imposed restrictions on groundwater pumping. • Groundwater banking, water transfers, and exchanges will be necessary to meet projected supply deficiencies under drought conditions, which are anticipated as early as 2020. • Water purveyors are committed to diversifying the region’s water supply portfolio by focusing on water banking projects and expanding the city’s recycled water infrastructure. • Water suppliers and the City implement a variety of policies and programs targeting water conservation, including water waste prevention ordinances, a water efficient landscape ordinance, phased water use restrictions, and public outreach initiatives. • The City of Palmdale’s sewer system consists of nearly 400 miles of sewer which are operated almost entirely by gravity, having only two small pump stations. EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CONDITIONS EXISTING Palmdale is predominantly served by two water suppliers: Palmdale Water District (PWD) and Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40, which generally serves portions of the city east and west of State Route (SR) 14, respectively. Other water suppliers in and around Palmdale include Quartz Hill Water District, Littlerock Irrigation District, various small mutual water companies, and private wells. These suppliers generally serve small portions of the city or areas adjacent to city limits. Figure 9.1 presents service areas for water suppliers in the Palmdale area. PWD serves a population of approximately 118,227 people through over 26,500 municipal connections. The District’s primary service area spans approximately 46 square miles of the southern Antelope Valley, including the central and southern portions of Palmdale.
    [Show full text]
  • FB FEIRS CH 2 Alternatives
    CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT FINAL EIR/EIS FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.0 Alternatives This chapter describes the background and development of the HST System and its individual components. This chapter also describes the background, development, and provides a detailed description of the alternatives considered for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HST System. Six of the alternatives discussed in this chapter are based on the alternatives selected by the Authority and FRA at the conclusion of the Tier 1 EIR/EIS processes for the HST System (see Section 1.5, Tiering of Program EIR/EIS Documents). Five additional alternatives were developed based on substantive Definition of High-Speed Train comments received during public and agency review of the (HST) System Draft EIR/EIS and the Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (Revised DEIR/Supplemental DEIS). With the exception of a A system that includes HST tracks, structures, stations, traction power few geographic areas, alternative alignments at one location are substations, maintenance facilities, independent of the selection of alignment alternatives at other and trains able to travel 220 mph. locations, thereby creating 108 possible combinations of HST alignments which form end-to-end alternatives. The design drawings that support the alternatives’ descriptions are included as Volume III (Alignments and Other Plans) of the EIR/EIS. This Final EIR/EIS analyzes the environmental impacts for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HST System, including alternatives, direct and indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, secondary effects, and mitigation measures. Visit the California High-Speed Rail Authority website (www.hsr.ca.gov) to view and download the EIR/EIS, request a CD-ROM EIR/EIS, and locate a library to review a hard copy of the environmental document.
    [Show full text]
  • San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment
    Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment September 2011 Produced by the Pacifi c West Regional Offi ce Park Planning and Environmental Compliance National Park Service San Francisco, California U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Top, left to right: Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park, NPS photo; Inspiration Point, Angeles National Forest, NPS photo. Bottom: Eaton Canyon Natural Area, NPS photo. California Broom Sage, Santa Clara River near Acton. Photo courtesy of BonTerra Consulting. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study & Environmental Assessment Errata October 2012 1 San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study & Environmental Assessment Errata October 2012 The following errata provide factual corrections, additions, and revisions to the Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment (draft study report/EA), dated September 2011. Changes to the draft study report/EA, and references to the page number where the change has occurred are provided. The reader must have access to a copy of the draft study report/EA in order to fully understand the changes. Additional copies of this document and the September 2011 report can be downloaded from the internet at www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel. Printed copies are also available on request from the address below. National Park Service Attn: San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study 333 Bush Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104 2 INTRODUCTION The following document includes errata that correct and add factual information to the September 2011 Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment (draft study report/EA).
    [Show full text]
  • California High Speed Rail CHSR Side-By-Side
    Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza 213.922.2000 Tel Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 metro.net ®Metro January 10, 2020 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS THROUGH: PHILLIP A. WASHINGTON CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER J FROM: RICHARD CLARKE R. f (_ CHIEF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICER SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON ISSUE On May 23, 2019, Directors Najarian, Solis, Barger, Butts and Krekorian directed the Chief Executive Officer to continue monitoring any future developments regarding "bookend" high speed rail investments and report back. Staff is providing a summary of the California High-Speed Rail Authority's (CAHSR) Draft Qualitative Report on "Side by Side Comparison: Southern California High-Speed Rail Financial Study, Peninsula Corridor Financial Study, Central Valley Segment Financial Study" dated October 31, 2019. The CAHSR's Draft Qualitative Report is included as Attachment A to this board box for additional information. DISCUSSION The CAHSR staff completed their California High-Speed Rail Early Train Operator Draft Qualitative Report: "Side by Side Comparison: Southern California High-Speed Rail Financial Study, Peninsula Corridor Financial Study, Central Valley Segment Financial Study" dated October 31, 2019. The Draft Qualitative Report consists of defining parameters, identifying stakeholders and gathering data in Northern, Central and Southern California corridors; establishing operating concepts for Regional Rail and High Speed Rail (HSR) operations and providing preliminary conclusions of the Southern California corridor and how it compares with the Northern California and Central Valley Corridors. Northern California The Northern California shared corridor is approximately 77 miles from the 4th/King Street Station in San Francisco to the City of Gilroy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan Is Provided in the Following Tables for Specific Projects
    2013 City of Lancaster Hazard Mitigation Plan 9/4/2013 Submitted by: MLC & Associates, Inc. 3525 Hyland Avenue, Suite 265 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.MLCHQ.com City of Lancaster Hazard Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1-2 Los Angeles County Operational Area and Disaster Management Areas .............................................. 1-2 Hazard Mitigation Plan Organization ...................................................................................................... 1-4 Mitigation Strategy Five-Year Action Plan .......................................................................................... 1-4 Hazard Mitigation Plan Participants ................................................................................................... 1-4 Hazard Mitigation Plan Mission .......................................................................................................... 1-4 Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals ............................................................................................................. 1-5 Strategy Organization .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail
    Connecting and Transforming California DRAFT 2016 BUSINESS PLAN FEBRUARY 18, 2016 www.hsr.ca.gov 2 California High-Speed Rail Authority • www.hsr.ca.gov The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is re- Board of Directors sponsible for planning, designing, building and operating the first high-speed rail in the nation. California high- Dan Richard Chair speed rail will connect the mega-regions of the state, con- Thomas Richards tribute to economic development and a cleaner environ- Vice Chair ment, create jobs and preserve agricultural and protected Lou Correa lands. When it is completed, it will run from San Francisco Daniel Curtin to the Los Angeles basin in under three hours at speeds Bonnie Lowenthal capable of exceeding 200 miles per hour. The system will Lorraine Paskett eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, total- Michael Rossi ing 800 miles with up to 24 stations. In addition, we are Lynn Schenk working with regional partners to implement a statewide rail modernization plan that will invest billions of dollars in Jeff Morales local and regional rail lines to meet the state’s 21st century Chief Executive Officer transportation needs California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 324-1541 [email protected] www.hsr.ca.gov DRAFT 2016 Business Plan: Connecting and Transforming California 3 History of High-Speed Rail in California alifornia has evaluated the potential for high-speed rail for several decades. It first pursued the idea of a Southern California high- speed rail corridor working with Japanese partners in 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • International Lessons for Promoting Transit Connections to High-Speed Rail Systems
    MTI Funded by U.S. Department of Services Transit Census California of Water 2012 Transportation and California International Lessons for Department of Transportation Promoting Transit Connections to High-Speed Rail Systems MTI ReportMTI 12-02 December 2012 MTI Report 12-53 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). MTI then successfully MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES competed to be named a Tier 1 Center in 2002 and 2006 in the Safe,Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Most recently, MTI successfully competed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 to Founder, Honorable Norman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) Diane Woodend Jones (TE 2016) Michael Townes* (TE 2017) be named a Tier 1 Transit-Focused University Transportation Center. The Institute is funded by Congress through the United States Mineta (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer Principal and Chair of Board Senior Vice President Secretary (ret.), US Department of Amtrak Lea+Elliot, Inc. Transit Sector, HNTB Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Transportation Centers Program, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by private grants and donations. Vice Chair Anne Canby (TE 2017) Will Kempton (TE 2016) Bud Wright (Ex-Officio) Hill & Knowlton, Inc. Director Executive Director Executive Director OneRail Coalition Transportation California American Association of State The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface Honorary Chair, Honorable Bill Highway and Transportation Officials transportation modes.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Public Works Department 38250 Sierra Highway Palmdale, CA 93550 661-267-5300 661-267-5292(fax) www.cityofpalmdale.org LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN September 30, 2016 (update per FEMA Comments) (5 year update 2016-2021) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palmdale Local Multihazard Mitigation Plan 1 CITY OF PALMDALE LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2016 - 2021 UPDATE Table of Contents SECTION PAGE Adoption Resolution ......................................................................................................Under cover Title Page ....................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................2 Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................7 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................7 SECTION ONE – BACKGROUND & COMMUNITY PROFILES 1.1 Definition of Hazard Mitigation ........................................................................11 1.2 Why Develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan ............................................................12 1.3 Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................16 1.4 General Planning Requirements in California ...................................................16
    [Show full text]