DOCSLIB.ORG

Geotechnical Feasibility Report, LEAPS, August 28

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geotechnical Feasibility Report, LEAPS, August 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 1.1 GENERAL........................................................................................................................1 1.2 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................1 1.4 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................2 1.4.1 Federal..................................................................................................................2 1.4.2 State of California.................................................................................................2 1.5 SCOPE OF WORK ...........................................................................................................3 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................4 SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................5 2.1 GENERAL........................................................................................................................5 2.2 RECONNAISSANCE, MAPPING, AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY...........................5 2.3 GEOLOGIC FEATURES..................................................................................................6 2.3.1 Regional Geology.................................................................................................6 2.3.2 Seismicity..............................................................................................................6 2.3.3 Site Geology.........................................................................................................7 2.3.3.1 Morrell Canyon Upper Reservoir Site...................................................7 2.3.3.2 Decker Canyon Upper Reservoir Site....................................................8 2.3.3.3 Penstock ................................................................................................8 2.3.3.4 Ortega Oaks, Santa Rosa, and Evergreen Powerhouse Sites.................8 2.3.3.5 Tailrace Tunnel .....................................................................................9 2.4 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS ......................................................10 2.4.1 General................................................................................................................10 2.4.2 Active Faulting...................................................................................................10 2.4.3 Strong Ground Motions......................................................................................10 2.4.4 Earthquake-Induced Landslides and Rockfalls...................................................10 2.4.5 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement .................................................................11 2.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOILS AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES.......................11 2.6 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS.........................................................................................11 SECTION 3: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN........................................................................................13 3.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................................13 3.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR UPPER RESERVOIRS................................................13 3.2.1 General................................................................................................................13 3.2.2 Upper Reservoir Alternative A - Morrell Canyon Site.......................................14 3.2.2.1 Alternative A.1.....................................................................................15 3.2.2.2 Alternative A.2.....................................................................................16 3.2.2.3 Alternative A.3.....................................................................................17 3.2.3 Upper Reservoir Alternative B - Decker Canyon Site........................................17 Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 i 222C-EIS-LEAPS-GeoRpttoconly TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3.2.3.1 Alternative B.1.....................................................................................18 3.2.3.2 Alternative B.2.....................................................................................19 3.2.4 Conceptual Dam Designs....................................................................................19 3.2.5 Appurtenant Structures.......................................................................................22 3.2.6 Reservoir Liner System......................................................................................22 3.3 PENSTOCK ...................................................................................................................24 3.3.1 Alternative H.1....................................................................................................24 3.3.2 Alternative H.2....................................................................................................25 3.3.3 Alternative H.3....................................................................................................25 3.4 POWERHOUSE SITES..................................................................................................26 3.4.1 General................................................................................................................26 3.4.2 The Ortega Oaks Site..........................................................................................26 3.4.3 The Santa Rosa Site ............................................................................................26 3.4.4 The Evergreen Site..............................................................................................26 3.4.5 Summary of Powerhouse Sites ...........................................................................27 3.5 TAILRACE TUNNEL....................................................................................................28 SECTION 4: FEASIBILITY LEVEL ESTIMATES.....................................................................29 4.1 ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES.......................................................................................29 4.1.1 Upper Reservoir Fill Quantities..........................................................................29 4.1.2 Penstock Quantities.............................................................................................29 4.1.3 Powerhouse Quantities.......................................................................................29 4.1.4 Tailrace Tunnel Quantities..................................................................................29 4.2 FEASIBILITY LEVEL PROJECT COST ......................................................................30 4.2.1 Construction Cost...............................................................................................30 4.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Costs.........................................................................32 SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................33 5.1 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................33 5.2 RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY LEVEL SCOPE OF WORK ...............................33 SECTION 6: LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................35 SECTION 7: REFERENCES ........................................................................................................36 SECTION 8: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................38 TABLES Table 2-1 Locations of Geophysical Surveys Table 2-2 Expected Values of Fault Rupture Length and Displacement Table 2-3 Maximum Credible Earthquake Parameters Table 3-1 Summary of Upper Reservoir Alternatives Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 ii 222C-EIS-LEAPS-GeoRpttoconly TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Table 3-2 Summary of Powerhouse Alternatives Table 4-1 Fill Quantities for Upper Reservoir Alternatives Table 4-2 Lengths of Shafts and Tunnels for Penstock Alternatives Table 4-3 Excavation Quantities for Penstock Alternatives (Assumed 16-Ft Inside Diameter) Table 4-4 Quantities for Powerhouse Excavation (Shaft-Type Powerhouse) Table 4-5 Quantities for Tailrace Tunnel Alternatives (Assumed 22-Ft Inside Diameter) FIGURES Figure 1-1 Site Location Map Figure 1-2 Site Plan Figure 2-1 Geophysical Survey Locations Figure 2-2 Geologic Map Figure 3-1 Morrell Canyon Alternative A.1 Figure 3-2 Morrell Canyon Alternative A.2 Figure 3-3 Morrell Canyon Alternative A.3 Figure 3-4 Decker Canyon Alternative B.1 Figure 3-5 Decker Canyon Alternative B.2 Figure 3-6 Decker Canyon Alternative B.2 – Option Figure 3-7 Conceptual Types of Dams for Upper Reservoir Figure 3-8 Conceptual Reservoir Liner Systems Figure 3-9 Penstock Alternative H.1 Figure 3-10 Penstock Alternative H.2 Figure 3-11 Penstock Alternative H.3 Figure 3-12 Cross Section of Underground
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economic Recovery Recommendation Report
    Economic Recovery Recommendation Report June 2020 Los Angeles County Economic Resiliency Task Force Infrastructure Development and Construction Sector Subcommittee Fran Inman, Chair County of Los Angeles Coronavirus (COVID-19) Economic Resiliency Task Force Infrastructure Development and Construction Sector Recommendation Report Introduction: As Los Angeles County represents a huge, diverse geographic footprint with an incredibly diverse population base, we collectively have the opportunity with the Infrastructure, Development, and Construction sector(s) to provide a robust economic stimulus across our County and beyond. In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, the County must strengthen its commitment to sustainability, equity, and resilience in order to create a pathway for investment in a safe, healthy, and inclusive future. Throughout our nation’s history, a concerted focus on infrastructure investments during an economic downturn has reaped both short-term and long-term benefits. This combined sector represents an enormous opportunity to leverage both public and private investments to provide immediate positive economic impacts for all with good paying jobs, dynamic career pathways, and the pride of playing a part in the development of tangible assets. We appreciate the work of our fellow task force sectors and recognize that each and every one of these sectors has cross-over economic recovery needs relating to infrastructure, development, and construction. Our work group represents a broad base and stands ready to continue our engagement as we recognize that our work will not be complete with this initial report. We hope the focus we have provided with our initial recommendations will be viewed as just the beginning of our bold, inclusive vision.
    [Show full text]
  • NWS Public Information Statement
    Page 1 of 4 Send to Printer PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NOUS46 KLOX 040045 PNSLOX PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA 445 PM PST MON FEB 03 2008 ...PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS... THE FOLLOWING ARE RAINFALL TOTALS IN INCHES FOR THIS RAIN EVENT THROUGH 400 PM THIS AFTERNOON. .LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN AVALON............................ 0.83 HAWTHORNE (KHHR).................. 0.63 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES.............. 0.68 LOS ANGELES AP (KLAX)............. 0.40 LONG BEACH (KLGB)................. 0.49 SANTA MONICA (KSMO)............... 0.42 MONTE NIDO FS..................... 0.63 BIG ROCK MESA..................... 0.75 BEL AIR HOTEL..................... 0.39 BALLONA CK @ SAWTELLE............. 0.40 BEVERLY HILLS..................... 0.30 HOLLYWOOD RSVR.................... 0.20 L.A. R @ FIRESTONE................ 0.30 DOMINGUEZ WATER CO................ 0.59 LA HABRA HEIGHTS.................. 0.28 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEYS BURBANK (KBUR).................... 0.14 VAN NUYS (KVNY)................... 0.50 NEWHALL........................... 0.22 AGOURA............................ 0.39 CHATSWORTH RSVR................... 0.61 CANOGA PARK....................... 0.53 SEPULVEDA CYN @ MULHL............. 0.43 PACOIMA DAM....................... 0.51 HANSEN DAM........................ 0.30 NEWHALL-SOLEDAD SCHL.............. 0.20 SAUGUS............................ 0.02 DEL VALLE......................... 0.39 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY L.A. CITY COLLEGE................. 0.11 EAGLE ROCK RSRV................... 0.24 EATON WASH @ LOFTUS............... 0.20 SAN GABRIEL R @ VLY............... 0.15 WALNUT CK S.B..................... 0.39 SANTA FE DAM...................... 0.33 WHITTIER HILLS.................... 0.30 CLAREMONT......................... 0.61 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY MOUNTAINS AND FOOTHILLS http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/cnrfc/printprod.php?sid=LOX&pil=PNS&version=1 2/3/2008 Page 2 of 4 MOUNT WILSON CBS.................. 0.73 W FK HELIPORT..................... 0.95 SANTA ANITA DAM..................
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Los Angeles County Arroyo Sequit Arroyo Sequit consists of about 3.3 stream miles. The arroyo is formed by the confluence of the East and West forks, from where it flows south to enter the Pacific Ocean east of Sequit Point. As part of a survey of 32 southern coastal watersheds, Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1979. The O. mykiss sampled were between about two and 6.5 inches in length. The survey report states, “Historically, small steelhead runs have been reported in this area” (DFG 1980). It also recommends, “…future upstream water demands and construction should be reviewed to insure that riparian and aquatic habitats are maintained” (DFG 1980). Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1989-1990 as part of a study of six streams originating in the Santa Monta Mountains. The resulting report indicates the presence of steelhead and states, “Low streamflows are presently limiting fish habitat, particularly adult habitat, and potential fish passage problems exist…” (Keegan 1990a, p. 3-4). Staff from DFG surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 1993 and captured O. mykiss, taking scale and fin samples for analysis. The individuals ranged in length between about 7.7 and 11.6 inches (DFG 1993). As reported in a distribution study, a 15-17 inch trout was observed in March 2000 in Arroyo Sequit (Dagit 2005). Staff from NMFS surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 2002 as part of a study of steelhead distribution. An adult steelhead was observed during sampling (NMFS 2002a). Additional documentation of steelhead using the creek between 2000-2007 was provided by Dagit et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The San Dimas Experimental Forest: 50 Yearsof Research
    United States Department of Agriculture The San Dimas Forest Service Pacific Southwest Experimental Forest: Forest and Range Experlrnent Station 50 Yearsof Research General Technical Report PSW-104 Paul H.Dunn Susan C. Barro Wade G. Wells II Mark A. Poth Peter M. Wohlgemuth Charles G. Colver The Authors: at the time the report was prepared were assigned to the Station's ecology of chaparral and associated ecosystems research unit located in Riverside, California. PAUL H. DUNN was project leader at that time and is now project leader of the atmospheric deposition research unit in Riverside. Calif. SUSAN C. BARRO is a botanist, and WADE G. WELLS II and PETER M. WOHLGEMUTH are hydrologists assigned to the Station's research unit studying ecology arid fire effects in Mediterranean ecosystems located in Riverside, Calif. CHARLES G. COLVER is manager of the San Dimas Experimental Forest. MARK A. POTH is a microbiologist with the Station's research unit studying atmospheric deposition, in Riverside, Calif. Acknowledgments: This report is dedicated to J. Donald Sinclair. His initiative and exemplary leadership through the first 25 years of the San Dimas Experimental Forest are mainly responsible for the eminent position in the scientific community that the Forest occupies today. We especially thank Jerome S. Horton for his valuable suggestions and additions to the manuscript. We also thank the following people for their helpful comments an the manuscript: Leonard F. DeBano, Ted L. Hanes, Raymond M. Rice, William O. Wirtz, Ronald D. Quinn, Jon E. Keeley, and Herbert C. Storey. Cover: Flume and stilling well gather hydrologic data in the Bell 3 debris reservoir, San Dimas Experimental Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • 3-8 Geologic-Seismic
    Environmental Evaluation 3-8 GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC Changes Since the Draft EIS/EIR Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS/EIR in April 2004, the Gold Line Phase II project has undergone several updates: Name Change: To avoid confusion expressed about the terminology used in the Draft EIS/EIR (e.g., Phase I; Phase II, Segments 1 and 2), the proposed project is referred to in the Final EIS/EIR as the Gold Line Foothill Extension. Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative and Updated Project Definition: Following the release of the Draft EIS/EIR, the public comment period, and input from the cities along the alignment, the Construction Authority Board approved a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in August 2004. This LPA included the Triple Track Alternative (2 LRT and 1 freight track) that was defined and evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR, a station in each city, and the location of the Maintenance and Operations Facility. Segment 1 was changed to extend eastward to Azusa. A Project Definition Report (PDR) was prepared to define refined station and parking lot locations, grade crossings and two rail grade separations, and traction power substation locations. The Final EIS/EIR and engineering work that support the Final EIS/EIR are based on the project as identified in the Final PDR (March 2005), with the following modifications. Following the PDR, the Construction Authority Board approved a Revised LPA in June 2005. Between March and August 2005, station options in Arcadia and Claremont were added. Changes in the Discussions: To make the Final EIS/EIR more reader-friendly, the following format and text changes have been made: Discussion of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative has been deleted since the LPA decision in August 2004 eliminated it as a potential preferred alternative.
    [Show full text]
  • MASTER Projects List with Districts CR EQ.Xlsx
    Upcoming LA County Regional Infrastructure Projects Supporting Climate Resilience & Equity State State Congressional No. Project Name Location Project Type Assembly Senate District District District 1 Rosewood - Stanford Avenue, et al. Rosewood Road Construction 64 35 44 Cap Project - 2 Cogen Landfill Gas Mitigation Los Angeles 49 22 27 Buildings 3 East Los Angeles - Michigan Avenue, et al. East Los Angeles Road Maintenance 49, 51 22, 24 27, 40 Florence-Firestone - Compton Av at Nadeau 4 Firestone, Florence Traffic Design 64 35 44 St Hacienda Heights Community - Hacienda 5 Hacienda Heights Traffic Design 57 35 38, 39 Boulevard at Shadybend Drive Hacienda Heights-Garo St- Stimson 6 Hacienda Heights Traffic Design 57 35 38, 39 Av/Fieldgate Av 7 Willowbrook - Wadsworth Av at E 126th St Willowbrook Traffic Design 64 35 44 Cap Project - 8 Redondo Beach Yard Redondo Beach 66 26 33 Buildings 9 Altadena - Glenrose Ave, et al. Altadena Road Maintenance 41 25 27 10 Rowland Heights - Otterbein Avenue, et al. Rowland Heights Road Maintenance 55 29 39 Cap Project - 11 RB Maint Yard and Restroom DM Repair Redondo Beach 66 26 33 Buildings Cap Project - 12 Hansen Yard Sun Valley 39 18 29 Buildings Cap Project - 13 Imperial Yard 2 South Gate 63 33 44 Buildings South Whittier - Gunn and Du Page Avenue, et 14 South Whittier Road Maintenance 57 32 38 al. Cap Project - 15 LAC USC Parking Lot 12 Structure ADA Los Angeles 51 24 34 Buildings Cap Project - 16 East Yard Irwindale 48 22 32 Buildings Cap Project - 17 Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds Montebello 58 32
    [Show full text]
  • City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018
    City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Executive Summary The City of Azusa prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events. This plan demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This plan was also developed in order for the City to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to people and property from hazards LHMP Plan Development Process Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies determined, prioritized, and implemented. This plan documents the hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • NWS Public Information Statement
    National Weather Service Page 1 of 4 Print This Page Media Home Version: Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NOUS46 KLOX 230057 PNSLOX PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA 456 PM PST FRI FEB 22 2008 ...PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS... THE FOLLOWING ARE RAINFALL TOTALS IN INCHES FOR THIS RAIN EVENT THROUGH 400 PM THIS AFTERNOON. .LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN AVALON............................ 1.94 HAWTHORNE (KHHR).................. 0.33 LOS ANGELES AP (KLAX)............. 0.27 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES.............. 0.57 LONG BEACH (KLGB)................. 0.54 SANTA MONICA (KSMO)............... 0.63 MONTE NIDO FS..................... 0.75 BIG ROCK MESA..................... 0.71 BEL AIR HOTEL..................... 1.02 BALLONA CK @ SAWTELLE............. 0.04 BEVERLY HILLS..................... 0.64 HOLLYWOOD RSVR.................... 0.55 L.A. R @ FIRESTONE................ 0.48 DOMINGUEZ WATER CO................ 0.51 LA HABRA HEIGHTS.................. 0.20 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEYS VAN NUYS (KVNY)................... 0.46 NEWHALL........................... 0.22 AGOURA............................ 0.55 CHATSWORTH RSVR................... 0.45 SEPULVEDA CYN @ MULHL............. 0.71 PACOIMA DAM....................... 0.39 HANSEN DAM........................ 0.30 NEWHALL-SOLEDAD SCHL.............. 0.24 SAUGUS............................ 0.03 DEL VALLE......................... 0.26 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY L.A. CITY COLLEGE................. 0.55 EAGLE ROCK RSRV................... 0.40 EATON WASH @ LOFTUS............... 0.36 SAN GABRIEL R @ VLY............... 0.28 WALNUT CK S.B..................... 0.47 SANTA FE DAM...................... 0.26 WHITTIER HILLS.................... 0.60 CLAREMONT......................... 0.70 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY MOUNTAINS AND FOOTHILLS http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/media/getprodplus.php?wfo=lox&print=yes&media=yes&pil=pns&sid=lox 2/23/2008 National Weather Service Page 2 of 4 SANDBERG (KSDB)..................
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Beneficial Use Table
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Table 2-1. Beneficial Uses of Inland Surface Waters. Hydro WATERSHEDa MUN IND PROC AGR GWR FRSH NAV POW REC1 LREC1 REC2 COMM AQUA WARM COLD SAL EST MAR WILD BIOL RARE MIGR SPWN SHELL WETb GIS Code Unit No. VENTURA COUNTY COASTAL STREAMS Los Sauces Creek 401.00 P* I I I I I I I I E I I Poverty Canyon 401.00 P* I I I I I I I I E I I Madranio Canyon 401.00 P* I I I I I I I I E I I Javon Canyon 401.00 P* I I I I I I I I E I I E Padre Juan Canyon 401.00 P* I I I I I I I I E I I McGrath Lake c 403.11 Ed Ed P E E Ee E Big Sycamore Canyon Creek 404.47 P* I I I I E E P P E Little Sycamore Canyon Creek 404.45 P* I I I E E P VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED E Ventura River Estuary c 402.10 E E EE E EEE Ee Ef Ef E E CA402.0000E Ventura River 402.10 P* E EEE E E EE E EEE E ? Ventura River 402.20 E E E E E E E E EE E Eg E E E ? Canada Larga 402.10 P* I I I I I I II E II Lake Casitas 402.20 E E E E P P P Ph E EE E E N/A Lake Casitas tributaries 402.20 E* PE E E EE E PEE E N/A Coyote Creek below dam 402.20 P* E P EE E EE E ? San Antonio Creek 402.20 E E E E E E E EE E EE E ? San Antonio Creek 402.32 E E E E E E E E EE E EE E ? Lion
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Safety Element
    GLENDORA COMMUNITY PLAN 2025 SAFETY ELEMENT CHAPTER 6 SAFETY ELEMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION The aim of the Safety Element is “to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods, earthquakes, landslides and other hazards”.1 It serves as a guide for the City government and public for understanding the hazards facing the City of Glendora and how to reduce the impacts of these hazards. 2.0 AUTHORITY FOR THE ELEMENT California Government Code Section 65302(g) requires that a General Plan include: “...a safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wild land and urban fires.” The following Federal and State regulations provide the legal framework to the Safety Element of a General Plan. These programs provide minimum requirements/criteria that must be complied with. Cities have the ability to adopt stricter requirements if desired. 2.1 CALIFORNIA ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into law in 1972 with its primary purpose being to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The Act requires the State Geologist to delineate “Earthquake Fault Zones” along faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” The Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for projects within an Earthquake Fault Zone within their jurisdiction until geologic investigations demonstrate that the projects are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Rainfall Totals
    1/23/2010 http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/cnrfc/printp… Send to Printer PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NOUS46 KLOX 230620 PNSLOX PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA 1017 PM PST FRI JAN 22 2010 ...PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS... THE FOLLOWING ARE RAINFALL TOTALS IN INCHES FOR THIS RAIN EVENT FROM 10 PM TUESDAY THROUGH 1000 PM THIS EVENING. .LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN HAWTHORNE (KHHR).................. 2.26 LOS ANGELES AP (KLAX)............. 2.39 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES.............. 2.57 LONG BEACH (KLGB)................. 3.64 SANTA MONICA (KSMO)............... 2.59 MONTE NIDO FS..................... 3.74 BIG ROCK MESA..................... 2.32 BEL AIR HOTEL..................... 3.19 BALLONA CK @ SAWTELLE............. 2.41 HOLLYWOOD RSVR.................... 3.15 L.A. R @ FIRESTONE................ 2.43 DOMINGUEZ WATER CO................ 2.28 LA HABRA HEIGHTS.................. 3.63 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEYS BURBANK (KBUR).................... 3.02 NEWHALL........................... 4.39 VAN NUYS (KVNY)................... 3.47 AGOURA............................ 3.54 CHATSWORTH RSVR................... 3.28 SEPULVEDA CYN @ MULHL............. 4.25 PACOIMA DAM....................... 3.15 HANSEN DAM........................ 3.31 SAUGUS............................ 2.42 DEL VALLE......................... 2.96 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY EAGLE ROCK RSRV................... 2.64 EATON WASH @ LOFTUS............... 3.30 SAN GABRIEL R @ VLY............... 2.95 EATON DAM......................... 3.98 WALNUT CK S.B..................... 3.50 SANTA FE DAM...................... 3.82 WHITTIER HILLS.................... 3.30 CLAREMONT......................... 4.36 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY MOUNTAINS AND FOOTHILLS www.wrh.noaa.gov/cnrfc/printprod.ph… 1/4 1/23/2010 http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/cnrfc/printp… MOUNT WILSON CBS.................. 2.29 W FK HELIPORT..................... 6.89 SANTA ANITA DAM................... 3.70 SAN GABRIEL DAM................... 6.45 MORRIS DAM.......................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Information Statement
    Page 1 of 3 Send to Printer PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NOUS46 KLOX 082002 PNSLOX PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA 1158 AM PST TUE DEC 08 2009 ...PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS... THE FOLLOWING ARE RAINFALL TOTALS IN INCHES FOR THIS RAIN EVENT THROUGH 11 AM THIS MORNING. RAIN BEGAN ABOUT 10 PM ON SUNDAY ACROSS THE CENTRAL COAST...AND AFTER MIDNIGHT FOR AREAS SOUTHWARD. RAINFALL ENDED BY 10 PM MONDAY EVENING. SNOW REPORTS ENDING AT 1000 AM MT HIGH.............. 10-14 INCHES AT 7000 FT WRIGHTWOOD........... 6-10 INCHES AT 6200 FT PINE MOUNTAIN........ 10 INCHES AT 5800 FT LOCKWOOD VLY YARD.... 3-6 INCHES AT 5500 FT LAKE OF WOODS........ 5 INCHES AT 5000 FT FRAZIER PARK......... 7 1/2 INCHES AT 5000 FT CUDDY VALLEY......... 11 INCHES AT 5900 FT LLANO................ 1 INCH AT 3200 FT I-5 FORT TEJON....... 1 1/2 INCHES AT 4500 FT LANCASTER APT........ TRACE AT 2300 FT PALMDALE APT......... TRACE AT 2500 FT .LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES AP (KLAX)............. 0.99 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES.............. 0.95 LONG BEACH (KLGB)................. 1.46 MONTE NIDO FS..................... 1.18 BIG ROCK MESA..................... 0.91 BEL AIR HOTEL..................... 0.95 BALLONA CK @ SAWTELLE............. 0.87 HOLLYWOOD RSVR.................... 0.75 L.A. R @ FIRESTONE................ 0.73 DOMINGUEZ WATER CO................ 1.06 LA HABRA HEIGHTS.................. 0.59 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEYS BURBANK (KBUR).................... 0.70 VAN NUYS (KVNY)................... 0.74 AGOURA............................ 0.99 CHATSWORTH RSVR................... 1.11 SEPULVEDA CYN @ MULHL............. 1.14 PACOIMA DAM....................... 0.90 HANSEN DAM........................ 0.75 SAUGUS............................ 0.58 DEL VALLE........................
    [Show full text]