DOCSLIB.ORG

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Project Zeus Mare Island, Vallejo, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Project Zeus Mare Island, Vallejo, California GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Project Zeus Mare Island, Vallejo, California Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. May 1, 2017 Project No. 6166150082 Copyright © 2015 by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. All rights reserved. May 1, 2017 Project Zeus Confidential Client Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report Project Zeus Mare Island Site Vallejo, California Project No. 6166150082.14 Dear Project Zeus Client Team: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) is pleased to present this Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Project Zeus Mare Island site, located in Vallejo, California. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Chris Coutu at [email protected] or (510) 663-4156, or any of the undersigned team members. Sincerely, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Chris Coutu, PE, GE Donald Wells, PG, CEG Principal Engineer Senior Associate Engineering Geologist Direct Tel.: (510) 663-4156 Direct Tel.: (510) 663-4178 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] cc/dw/aw/ldu X:\6166150082\3000 Rpt\Zeus Rpt\1 txt, cvrs\Zeus_MareIsland_Geotech_Text_050117.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Work ................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Project Team ................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Organization of Report ..................................................................................... 3 2.0 Regional and Local Site Setting .................................................................................. 4 2.1 Regional Geologic and Tectonic Setting .......................................................... 4 2.2 Seismic Setting ................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Local Site Setting ............................................................................................. 7 3.0 Data Review and Site Reconnaissance ...................................................................... 8 3.1 Data Reviewed ................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Site Reconnaissance and Surface Conditions ................................................. 9 4.0 Exploration and Testing Program .............................................................................. 10 4.1 Geotechnical Field Exploration ...................................................................... 10 4.2 Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................. 11 4.3 Vane Shear Test Results ............................................................................... 12 4.4 Geophysical Test Results .............................................................................. 12 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 14 5.1 Geologic Materials ......................................................................................... 14 5.1.1 Fill ...................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Young Bay Mud ................................................................................. 15 5.1.3 Old Bay Clay ...................................................................................... 15 5.1.4 Older Alluvium ................................................................................... 16 5.1.5 Bedrock .............................................................................................. 16 5.2 Site Conditions ............................................................................................... 16 5.3 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................ 17 6.0 GEOLOGIC and SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION ............................................... 18 6.1 Seismic Hazard Analysis ............................................................................... 18 6.1.1 Approach for Probabilistic Ground Motion Analysis ........................... 18 6.1.2 Results of the Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis ....................... 20 6.1.3 Results of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ........................ 21 6.1.4 Development of General Procedure Response Spectrum ................. 21 6.1.5 Development of Site-Specific Horizontal Response Spectra ............. 22 6.2 Site Specific Ground Motions and Site Response ......................................... 23 6.2.1 Site-Specific Site Response Analysis ................................................ 23 6.2.2 Site Specific Design Peak Ground Acceleration ................................ 25 6.3 Geologic Hazards .......................................................................................... 26 6.3.1 Slope Instability and Landsliding ....................................................... 26 6.3.2 Flooding and Sea Level Rise ............................................................. 27 6.3.3 Settlement and Consolidation ............................................................ 27 6.3.4 Shrink Swell Potential ........................................................................ 28 6.3.5 Corrosion of Buried Concrete and Metals .......................................... 28 6.4 Seismic Geologic Hazards ............................................................................. 28 6.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture ........................................................................ 29 6.4.2 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading ................................................... 30 6.4.3 Seismically Induced Compression and Settlement ............................ 31 Mare Island, California April 24, 2017 Page i 6.4.4 Seismically Induced Transient and Permanent Displacements ......... 32 6.4.5 Seismically Induced Landsliding ........................................................ 32 6.4.6 Seismically Induced Inundation ......................................................... 33 7.0 Geotechnical RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 34 7.1 Settlement From Liquefaction ........................................................................ 34 7.2 Settlement From Compressible Young Bay Mud ........................................... 35 7.2.1 Loads ................................................................................................. 36 7.2.2 Consolidation Parameters ................................................................. 36 7.2.3 Consolidation Settlement Analysis .................................................... 37 7.2.3.1 Anticipated Settlement without Mitigation ............................. 37 7.2.4 Mitigation for Settlement .................................................................... 38 7.2.4.1 Preloading ............................................................................. 39 7.2.4.2 Lightweight Fill ...................................................................... 41 7.2.4.3 Soil-cement mixing ............................................................... 42 7.2.4.4 Stone Columns ..................................................................... 43 7.2.4.5 Deep Dynamic Compaction .................................................. 43 7.2.5 Differential Settlement ....................................................................... 43 7.2.6 Next Steps ......................................................................................... 44 7.3 Foundations ................................................................................................... 44 7.3.1 Shallow Foundation Support .............................................................. 44 7.3.2 Driven Pile Foundations ..................................................................... 44 7.3.2.1 Vertical Load Capacity .......................................................... 45 7.3.2.2 Other Driven Pile Types and Sizes ....................................... 45 7.3.2.3 Lateral Load Capacity ........................................................... 46 7.3.2.4 Pile Installation ...................................................................... 46 7.3.2.5 Indicator Pile Driving ............................................................. 46 7.3.2.6 Approximate Cost of Driven Pile Foundations ...................... 47 7.3.3 Alternatives to Driven Pile Foundations ............................................. 47 7.3.4 Lateral Earth Pressures ..................................................................... 48 7.4 Geotechnical Observation ............................................................................. 48 8.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 49 9.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 50 Mare Island, California May 1, 2017 Page ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002, August 1994 New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement by Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith Abstract Source parameters for historical earthquakes worldwide are com­ piled to develop a series of empirical relationships among moment magnitude (M), surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, rupture area, and maximum and average displacement per event. The resulting data base is a significant update of previous compilations and includes the ad­ ditional source parameters of seismic moment, moment magnitude, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, and average surface displacement. Each source parameter is classified as reliable or unreliable, based on our evaluation of the accuracy of individual values. Only the reliable source parameters are used in the final analyses. In comparing source parameters, we note the fol­ lowing trends: (1) Generally, the length of rupture at the surface is equal to 75% of the subsurface rupture length; however, the ratio of surface rupture length to subsurface rupture length increases with magnitude; (2) the average surface dis­ placement per event is about one-half the maximum surface displacement per event; and (3) the average subsurface displacement on the fault plane is less than the maximum surface displacement but more than the average surface dis­ placement. Thus, for most earthquakes in this data base, slip on the fault plane at seismogenic depths is manifested by similar displacements at the surface. Log-linear regressions between earthquake magnitude and surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, and rupture area are especially well correlated, show­ ing standard deviations of 0.25 to 0.35 magnitude units.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismogeodesy of the 2014 Mw6.1 Napa Earthquake
    PUBLICATIONS Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth RESEARCH ARTICLE Seismogeodesy of the 2014 Mw6.1 Napa earthquake, 10.1002/2015JB011921 California: Rapid response and modeling of fast Key Points: rupture on a dipping strike-slip fault • Seismogeodetic data can provide rapid earthquake models Diego Melgar1, Jianghui Geng2, Brendan W. Crowell3, Jennifer S. Haase2, Yehuda Bock2, • Rupture is fast on a dipping strike 4 1 slip fault William C. Hammond , and Richard M. Allen • The surface trace is likely not the 1 2 extension of the fault plane Seismological Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, Cecil H. and Ida M. Green Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA, 3Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, 4Nevada Supporting Information: Geodetic Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada, USA • Text S1 and Figures S1–S10 • Animation S1 Abstract Real-time high-rate geodetic data have been shown to be useful for rapid earthquake response Correspondence to: D. Melgar, systems during medium to large events. The 2014 Mw6.1 Napa, California earthquake is important because it [email protected] provides an opportunity to study an event at the lower threshold of what can be detected with GPS. We show the results of GPS-only earthquake source products such as peak ground displacement magnitude scaling, Citation: centroid moment tensor (CMT) solution, and static slip inversion. We also highlight the retrospective real-time Melgar, D., J. Geng, B. W. Crowell, combination of GPS and strong motion data to produce seismogeodetic waveforms that have higher precision J.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
    CALIFORNIA HISTORIC MILITARY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY VOLUME II: THE HISTORY AND HISTORIC RESOURCES OF THE MILITARY IN CALIFORNIA, 1769-1989 by Stephen D. Mikesell Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Prepared by: JRP JRP HISTORICAL CONSULTING SERVICES Davis, California 95616 March 2000 California llistoric Military Buildings and Stnictures Inventory, Volume II CONTENTS CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iv PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 COLONIAL ERA (1769-1846) .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Spanish-Mexican Era Buildings Owned by the Military ............................................... 2-8 2.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault Eileen L
    Masthead Logo Smith ScholarWorks Geosciences: Faculty Publications Geosciences 3-2012 Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault Eileen L. Evans Harvard University John P. Loveless Harvard University, [email protected] Brendan J. Meade Harvard University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.smith.edu/geo_facpubs Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Eileen L.; Loveless, John P.; and Meade, Brendan J., "Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault" (2012). Geosciences: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Northampton, MA. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/geo_facpubs/21 This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Geosciences: Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Smith ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected] JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, B03410, doi:10.1029/2011JB008398, 2012 Geodetic constraints on San Francisco Bay Area fault slip rates and potential seismogenic asperities on the partially creeping Hayward fault Eileen L. Evans,1 John P. Loveless,1,2 and Brendan J. Meade1 Received 28 March 2011; revised 17 November 2011; accepted 31 January 2012; published 31 March 2012. [1] The Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) is sometimes considered unusual among continental faults for exhibiting significant aseismic creep during the interseismic phase of the seismic cycle while also generating sufficient elastic strain to produce major earthquakes. Imaging the spatial variation in interseismic fault creep on the Hayward fault is complicated because of the interseismic strain accumulation associated with nearby faults in the SFBA, where the relative motion between the Pacific plate and the Sierra block is partitioned across closely spaced subparallel faults.
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun Marsh Protection Plan Map (PDF)
    Proposed County Parks (Hill Slough, Fairfield Beldon’s Landing) Develop passive recreation facilities compatible with Marsh protection (e.g. fishing, picnicking, hiking, nature study.) Boat launching ramp may be constructed Suis nu at Beldon’s Landing. City Suisun Marsh 8 0 etaterstnI 80 a Protection Plan Map flHighway 12 San Francisco Bay Conservation (6) b .J ' and Development Commission I Denverton (7) I December 1976 ) I ~4 Slough Thomasson Shiloh Primary Management Area danyor, Potrero Hills ':__. .---) ... .. ... ~ . _,,. - (8) Secondary Management Area ~ ,. .,,,, Denverton ,,a !\.:r ~ Water-Related Industry Reserve Area c Beldon’s BRADMOOR ISLAND Slough (5) Landing t +{larl!✓' Road Boundary of Wildlife Areas and (9) Ecological Reserves Little I Honker (1) Grizzly Island Unit (9) Bay (2) Crescent Unit (4) Montezuma Slough (3) Island Slough Unit JOICE ISLAND (3) r (4) Joice Island Unit (5) Rush Ranch National Estuarine (10) Ecological Reserve Kirby Hill (6) Hill Slough Wildlife Area Suisun (7) Peytonia Slough Ecological Reserve (8) Grey Goose Unit GRIZZLY ISLAND (2) GRIZZLY ISLAND (9) Gold Hills Unit (10) Garibaldi Unit (11) West Family Unit (12) Goodyear Slough Unit Benicia Area Recommended for Aquisition a. Lawler Property I (11) Hills b. Bryan Property . ~-/--,~ c. Smith Property ,,-:. ...__.. ,, \ 1 Collinsville: Reserve seasonal marshes and Benicia Hills lowland grasslands for their Amended 2011 Grizzly Bay intrinsic value to marsh wildlife and Steep slopes with high landslide and soil to act as the buffer between the erosion potentials. Active fault location. Land (1) Marsh and any future water-related Collinsville Road use practices should be controlled to prevent uses to the east.
    [Show full text]
  • San Pablo Bay and Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuges - Refuges in the North Bay by Bryan Winton
    San Pablo Bay NWR Tideline Newsletter Archives San Pablo Bay and Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuges - Refuges in the North Bay by Bryan Winton Editor’s Note: In March 2003, the National Wildlife Refuge System will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. This system is the world’s most unique network of lands and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants. President Theodore Roosevelt established the first refuge, 3- acre Pelican Island Bird Reservation in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon, in 1903. Roosevelt went on to create 55 more refuges before he left office in 1909; today the refuge system encompasses more than 535 units spread over 94 million acres. Leading up to 2003, the Tideline will feature each national wildlife refuge in the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This complex is made up of seven Refuges (soon to be eight) located throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and headquartered at Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Fremont. We hope these articles will enhance your appreciation of the uniqueness of each refuge and the diversity of habitats and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Area. San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Tucked away in the northern reaches of the San Francisco Bay estuary lies a body of water and land unique to the San Francisco Bay Area. Every winter, thousands of canvasbacks - one of North America’s largest and fastest flying ducks, will descend into San Pablo Bay and the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge not only boasts the largest wintering population of canvasbacks on the west coast, it protects the largest remaining contiguous patch of pickleweed-dominated tidal marsh found in the northern San Francisco Bay - habitat critical to Aerial view of San Pablo Bay NWR the survival of the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF (Adobe E-Mail: [email protected] Portable Document Format, Including Full Text and All Graphics), Or SUMMARY (Abbreviated Text) Files
    2±8±99 Vol. 64 No. 25 Monday Pages 5927±6186 February 8, 1999 Briefings on how to use the Federal Register For information on briefings in Washington, DC, see announcement on the inside cover of this issue. Now Available Online via GPO Access Free online access to the official editions of the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations and other Federal Register publications is available on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html For additional information on GPO Access products, services and access methods, see page II or contact the GPO Access User Support Team via: ★ Phone: toll-free: 1-888-293-6498 ★ Email: [email protected] Attention: Federal Agencies Plain Language Tools Are Now Available The Office of the Federal Register offers Plain Language Tools on its Website to help you comply with the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998ÐPlain Language in Government Writing (63 FR 31883, June 10, 1998). Our address is: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg For more in-depth guidance on the elements of plain language, read ``Writing User-Friendly Documents'' on the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) Website at: http://www.plainlanguage.gov federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident Meagan Bowis University of San Francisco, [email protected]
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-20-2016 Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident Meagan Bowis University of San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Other Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons Recommended Citation Bowis, Meagan, "Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident" (2016). Master's Projects and Capstones. 340. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/340 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This Master’s Project Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident By Meagan Kane Bowis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
    [Show full text]
  • I Final Technical Report United States Geological Survey National
    Final Technical Report United States Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program - External Research Grants Award Number 08HQGR0140 Third Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area: Science, Hazard, Engineering and Risk Conference Dates: October 22nd-26th, 2008 Location: California State University, East Bay Principal Investigator: Mitchell S. Craig Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences California State University, East Bay Submitted March 2010 Summary The Third Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area was held October 22nd-26th, 2008 at California State University, East Bay. The conference included three days of technical presentations attended by over 200 participants, a public forum, two days of field trips, and a one-day teacher training workshop. Over 100 technical presentations were given, including oral and poster presentations. A printed volume containing the conference program and abstracts of presentations (attached) was provided to attendees. Participants included research scientists, consultants, emergency response personnel, and lifeline agency engineers. The conference provided a rare opportunity for professionals from a wide variety of disciplines to meet and discuss common strategies to address region-specific seismic hazards. The conference provided participants with a comprehensive overview of the vast amount of new research that has been conducted and new methods that have been employed in the study of East Bay earthquake hazards since the last East Bay Earthquake Conference was held in 1992. Topics of presentations included seismic and geodetic monitoring of faults, trench-based fault studies, probabilistic seismic risk analysis, earthquake hazard mapping, and models of earthquake rupture, seismic wave propagation, and ground shaking.
    [Show full text]
  • 18-1246 PC M 11-12-2020.Pdf
    Communication from Public Name: Daniel Gaines Date Submitted: 11/12/2020 12:54 PM Council File No: 18-1246 Comments for Public Posting: This ordinance, if passed, would essentially ignore our housing crisis and prioritize tourists over long term tenants and the wealthy over people who desperately need housing. As someone who works in homeless services, I see firsthand how the shortage of housing is a public health issue for the folks I serve, and we know that deaths of unhoused individuals have skyrocketed in recent months. LA is in a state of emergency when it comes to housing and I implore the council to alleviate the crisis of houselessness BEFORE focusing on lodgings for tourists who all have homes to return to. It is unconscionable for our City to consider removing housing from the long-term rental market at a time when tenants are being displaced and and homelessness is increasing. If passed, this ordinance will potentially remove 14,740 homes from the long term rental market in Los Angeles. (LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-19/los-angeles-vacation-rentals-city-council-considers-loosening-rules) In these dire times, we are asking PLUM to please consider who really needs their protection: working Angelenos trying to stay in their homes, or the wealthiest among us trying to profit from second homes they don’t actually live in? Communication from Public Name: Stella Grey Date Submitted: 11/11/2020 11:51 PM Council File No: 18-1246 Comments for Public Posting: Dear members of the Committee, Our neighborhood known as Bird Streets already bears the brunt of party houses epidemic.
    [Show full text]