DOCSLIB.ORG

WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo Is Subject to Various Earthquake

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo Is Subject to Various Earthquake CITY OF SAN MATEO RESOLUTION NO. 42(2017) ADOPTING THE SAN MATEO LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo is subject to various earthquake-related hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, fault surface rupture, and tsunamis; and WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo is subject to various weather-related hazards including wildfires, floods and landslides; and WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo seeks to maintain and enhance both a disaster- resistant City of San Mateo and region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters; and WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo is committed to increasing the disaster resistance of the infrastructure, health, housing, economy, government services, education, environment, and land use systems in the City of San Mateo, as well as in the Bay Area as a whole; and WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Act) requires all cities, counties, and special districts to adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive disaster mitigation funding from FEMA; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies mitigation goals and actions to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property in San Mateo from the impacts of future hazards and disasters; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX, notified the City in a letter dated May 19, 2017 that the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is eligible for final approval pending its adoption by the City of San Mateo; NOW, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that: 1. This action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements in that it under section 15378(b) of the CEQA guidelines in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. 2. The City of San Mateo adopts the San Mateo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Exhibit A, as the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 3. The City of San Mateo commits to continuing to take those actions and initiating further actions, as appropriate, as identified in the San Mateo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Resolution No. 42 (2017) Page 2 of 197 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan RESOLUTION NO. 42 (2017) adopted by the City Council of the City of San Mateo, California, at a regular meeting held on June 5, 2017, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: Council Members Bonilla, Freschet, Goethals and Papan NOES: None ABSENT: ,Lirn ATTEST:. Resolution No. 42 (2017) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3 of 197 San Mateo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Resolution No. 42 (2017) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4 of 197 Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Goals ....................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Update Process ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Scope/Plan Organization ......................................................................................................... 9 1.5 What’s New in the 2016 Update .............................................................................................. 9 1.6 Summary of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies ................................................................... 9 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and AB 2140 ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 14 2.4 Authority ................................................................................................................................ 14 3 PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning ................................................................................ 15 3.2 Preparing the 2016 Update .................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Community Engagement Process .......................................................................................... 17 3.4 Approval Process .................................................................................................................. 22 4 EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS .......................................................................................... 23 4.1 Relevant Plans and Programs in Place .................................................................................. 23 4.2 Previously Implemented Mitigation Strategies........................................................................ 23 5 COMMUNITY PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 27 5.1 Area at a Glance .................................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 28 5.3 Trends ................................................................................................................................... 29 5.4 Past Disasters ....................................................................................................................... 31 6 HAZARD ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 33 6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 33 6.2 Hazard Identification and Screening ...................................................................................... 33 6.3 Earthquakes .......................................................................................................................... 34 6.3.1 Historic Bay Area Earthquake Occurrences .................................................................... 37 6.3.2 Earthquake Hazards ....................................................................................................... 38 Resolution No. 42 (2017) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 5 of 197 6.3.3 Probability of Future Earthquakes ................................................................................... 54 6.4 Flooding & Sea Level Rise..................................................................................................... 54 6.4.1 Types of Flooding ........................................................................................................... 55 6.4.2 Potential Future Flooding ................................................................................................ 58 6.4.3 Probability of Future Flooding ......................................................................................... 62 6.5 Levee Failure ......................................................................................................................... 64 6.5.1 Probability of Levee Failure ............................................................................................ 65 6.6 Fire ........................................................................................................................................ 66 6.6.1 Historic Bay Area Fire Occurrences ................................................................................ 67 6.6.2 Fire Hazard ..................................................................................................................... 67 6.6.3 Probability of Future Fire – Climate Influenced ............................................................... 70 6.7 Drought .................................................................................................................................. 70 6.7.1 Historic Bay Area Drought Occurrences ......................................................................... 71 6.7.2 Drought Hazard .............................................................................................................. 71 6.7.3 Probability of Future Drought – Climate Influenced ......................................................... 74 6.8 Extreme Heat ......................................................................................................................... 74 6.8.1 Historic Extreme Heat ..................................................................................................... 74 6.8.2 Extreme Heat Hazard ..................................................................................................... 75 6.8.3 Probability of Future Extreme Heat ................................................................................. 76 6.9 Dam Failure ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements and Skyline Bridge Replacement Projects
    Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements and Skyline Bridge Replacement Projects Highlights, Timelines & FAQs In 2018, work was competed on several interconnected efforts by the County of San Mateo and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to make improvements to the Lower Crystal Springs Dam and replaced the bridge on top of the dam, which allows the re-opening of Skyline Boulevard. Below are some key facts: Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement Highlights (SFPUC Project): • Doubling the width of the spillway to 200 feet • Raising the parapet wall on top of the dam by 9 feet • Replacing the stilling basin (which stills released water before it enters San Mateo Creek) with a new larger basin and erosion protection at the toe of the dam • $35 million total project cost, over two years (completed December 2012) Skyline Bridge Replacement Highlights (County of San Mateo project): • The new bridge is 626 feet long and 51.5 feet wide and approximately 7 feet higher than the former bridge. • Constructing retaining walls at the Scenic Vista Point parking area due to the change in bridge elevation. • Created a new 15-foot wide recreational trail on the west side of the bridge that is separated from vehicular traffic and providing connectivity for Crystal Springs Regional Trail users. • Installed new split rail fencing. • A new trail section south of the bridge allows trail users to continue along the Crystal Springs Regional Trail to the relatively new “South of Dam” trail section. • PG&E relocated overhead 230kV electrical transmission lines to the underside of the new bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams
    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California
    Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program August 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Prepared for the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program by EOA, Inc. 1410 Jackson St. Oakland, CA 94612 August 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................1 2.1 Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................1 2.2 Regulatory Information........................................................................................................1 2.3 Previous Water Quality Investigations ................................................................................2 3.0 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................2 3.1 Bioassessment....................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting
    May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING May 10, 2019 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between April 15 and May 9, 2019 Correspondence Date: May 3, 2019 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Subject: Press Release: SFPUC Celebrates Completion of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Date: April 29, 2019 From: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Subject Press Advisory: Governor Newsom Directs State Agencies to Prepare Water Resilience Portfolio for California Media Coverage Water Supply: Date: May 6, 2019 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: To prevent water shortages, California must embrace desalination Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Sierra snowpack is 188 percent of normal Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: Final Phillips Survey of 2019 Finds Healthy Late-Spring Snowpack Water Infrastructure: Date: May 5, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Editorial: Governor sets welcome new course on Delta water issues Date: May 4, 2019 Source: Grist Article: The town that extended ‘smart growth’ to its water Date: May 2, 2019 Source: SF Gate Article: California governor makes big change to giant water project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Newsom officially kills Jerry Brown’s Delta Twin Tunnels project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G Water Infrastructure, cont’d.: Date: May
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • Podcast Show Notes & Transcript
    SHOW NOTES & TRANSCRIPT EPISODE SHOW NOTES Episode Title: Crystal Springs Dam Episode # & Date: Episode #24 – April 9, 2020 About this Episode: Peter uncovers the history of San Mateo’s great drinking water and the impressive Crystal Springs Dam that makes it possible. Episode Web Page: https://sanmateofocus.com/crystal-springs-dam/ EPISODE TRANSCRIPT This is San Mateo Focus, I’m Peter Radsliff filling in this week for Judy Gordon. When choosing what to present for this episode, it wasn’t lost on Judy and I how surreal life is right now and whether talking about local topics even made a difference in a San Mateo that is locked- down. But maybe because of this lack of normalcy, it’s all the more important to ensure we have some semblance of routine in our lives. It’s with that in mind that we offer ongoing stories of San Mateo’s history, culture, food, and things to do. Onto this week’s episode. When San Mateans hear the words Hetch Hetchy, most know it’s the name of a valley in Yosemite National Park about a four-hour drive away. Some might also know it’s the site of the impressive 431- foot tall O’Shaughnessy Dam that forms the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, which feeds the 160-mile long journey to Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir for us San Mateans to drink. What most probably don’t know is that the Lower Crystal Springs reservoir first existed because of the 141-foot tall Crystal Springs Dam that was built over San Mateo Creek in 1888, a full 35 years before O’Shaughnessy Dam opened in Hetch Hetchy! In this episode we’re going to explore the history of the Crystal Springs Dam and how vital it is to the lifestyle, economy, and safety of San Mateo.
    [Show full text]
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4
    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones
    Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones APPENDIX D: Building Descriptions The purpose of the Building Descriptions is to assist the user in selecting an appropriate type of building when using the Air Conditioning estimating tools. The selected building type should be the one that most closely matches the actual project. These summaries provide the user with the inputs for the typical buildings. Minor variations from these inputs will occur based on differences in building vintage and climate zone. The Building Descriptions are referenced from the 2004-2005 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Update Study. It should be noted that the user is required to provide certain inputs for the user’s specific building (e.g. actual conditioned area, city, operating hours, economy cycle, new AC system and new AC system efficiency). The remaining inputs are approximations of the building and are deemed acceptable to the user. If none of the typical building models are determined to be a fair approximation then the user has the option to use the Custom Building approach. The Custom Building option instructs the user how to initiate the Engage Software. The Engage Software is a stand-alone, DOE2 based modeling program. July 16, 2013 D-1 Version 5.0 Prototype Source Activity Area Type Area % Area Simulation Model Notes 1. Assembly DEER Auditorium 33,235 97.8 Thermal Zoning: One zone per activity area. Office 765 2.2 Total 34,000 Model Configuration: Matches 1994 DEER prototype HVAC Systems: The prototype uses Rooftop DX systems, which are changed to Rooftop HP systems for the heat pump efficiency measures.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Regional Water System Report
    San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report State of the Regional Water System September 2018 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission September 2018 1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report List of Contributors: Manouchehr Boozarpour Mary Ellen Carroll Jason Chen John Chester Eric Choi Jonathan Chow Fonda Davidis Andrew DeGraca Alexis Dufour Anna Fedman Stacie Feng Ed Forner Josh Gale Nancy Hom Margaret Hannaford Annie Li Nicholas Martin Adam Mazurkiewicz Chris Nelson Tim Ramirez Scott Riley Brian Rolley Ken Salmon Enio Sebastiani Eddy So Shailen Talati Dan Wade James West Mike Williams Derrick Wong San Francisco Public Utilities Commission September 2018 2 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report Table of Contents 1. Overview........................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................... 13 1.2 Value Added Under Water System Improvement Program ...................................................... 14 1.3 Continuing to Invest .................................................................................................................. 15 1.4 Recent Notable Events .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Vulnerability Assessment
    SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT APPENDIX TO THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (HAZARD + RISK = VULNERABILITY) San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Homeland Security Division Office of Emergency Services J A N U A R Y 2 , 2 0 1 5 SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT County of San Mateo Sheriff’s Office Homeland Security Division Office of EmergencyServices 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 650-363-4955 www.smcsheriff.com i 01/02/2015 SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 1 SAN MATEO COUNTY PROFILE ................................................................................................ 3 HAZARD 1: DAM FAILURE ...................................................................................................... 5 HAZARD 2: DROUGHT ......................................................................................................... 11 HAZARD 3: EARTHQUAKES ................................................................................................... 15 HAZARD 4: EXTREME HEAT .................................................................................................. 23 HAZARD 5: FLOODING ......................................................................................................... 25 HAZARD 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]