Glendale (PDF) - Hazard Mitigation Web Portal - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity of Glendale, CaliforniaSection 9 – LandslidesJoints and shears, which weaken the rock fabric, allow penetration of water leading to deeperweathering of the rock along with increasing the pore pressures, increasing the plasticity ofweak clays, and increasing the weight of the landmass. For engineering of earth materials,these factors are combined in calculations to determine if a slope meets a minimum safetystandard. The generally accepted standard is a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater (where 1.0equilibrium, and less than 1.0 is failure).Although existing landslides are not widespread in the area, it is probable that many of thesteeper hillsides do not meet the minimum factor of safety and slope stabilization may be neededif development reaches these areas. Natural slopes, graded slopes, or graded/natural slopecombinations must meet minimum engineering standards where they impact planned homes,subdivisions, or other types of developments. Slopes adjacent to areas where the risk ofeconomic losses from landsliding is small, such as parks and mountain roadways, are oftenallowed a lesser factor of safety.While a quantitative vulnerability assessment (an assessment that describes number of lives oramount of property exposed to the hazard of landslides) has not yet been conducted for city ofGlendale, there are many qualitative factors that point to potential vulnerability. Landslides canimpact major transportation arteries, blocking residents from essential services and businesses.Past landslide events have caused major property damage or significantly impacted cityresidents, and continuing to map city landslide and debris flow areas will help in preventingfuture loss.Factors included in assessing landslide risk include population and property distribution in thehazard area, the frequency of landslide or debris flow occurrences, slope steepness, soilcharacteristics, and precipitation intensity. This type of analysis could generate estimates of thedamages to the City due to a specific landslide or debris flow event. At the time of publication ofthis plan, data were insufficient to conduct a risk analysis and the software needed to conductthis type of analysis was not available.Community Landslide IssuesWhat is Susceptible to Landslides?The City’s mountain and foothill areas are vulnerable to the types of slope instability mentionedabove. Steep-sided slopes along Verdugo Wash and other incised drainages may also be locallysusceptible to slope instability. Table 9-1 below is a general summary of the geologic conditionsin various parts of the city that provide the environment for slope instability to occur. Theseconditions usually include such factors as terrain steepness, rock or soil type, condition of therock (such as degree of fracturing and weathering), internal structures within the rock (such asbedding, foliation, faults) and the prior occurrence of slope failures. Catalysts that ultimatelyallow slope failures to occur in vulnerable terrain are most often water (heavy and prolongedrainfall), erosion and undercutting by streams, man-made alterations to the slope, or seismicshaking. The summary in Table 9-1 was derived from the Geologic Map (Plate H-2), and otherresources. The information in Table 9-1 was then used to prepare the Slope Instability Map forGlendale (Plate H-11).Landslides can affect utility services, transportation systems, and critical lifelines. Communitiesmay suffer immediate damages and loss of service. Disruption of infrastructure, roads, andcritical facilities may also have a long-term effect on the economy. Utilities, including potablewater, wastewater, telecommunications, natural gas, and electric power are all essential toservice community needs. Loss of electricity has the most widespread impact on other utilitiesand on the whole community. Natural gas pipes may also be at risk of breakage from landslidemovementsas small as an inch or two. Some of these issues are discussed in more detail below.2006 PAGE 9 - 9
Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity of Glendale, CaliforniaSection 9 – LandslidesRoads and Bridges:It is not cost-effective to mitigate all slides because of limited funds and the fact that somehistorical slides are likely to become active again even with mitigation measures. The Cityalleviates problem areas by grading slides, and by installing new drainage systems on the slopesto divert water from the landslides.This type of response activity is often the most cost-effective in the short-term, but is onlytemporary. Unfortunately, many property owners are unaware of slides and the dangersassociatedwith them.2006 PAGE 9 - 10
Page 2 and 3:
City CouncilDave Weaver, MayorRafi
Page 4 and 5:
Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Table 4-2: STAPLEE Ranking of Actio
Page 58 and 59:
Table 4-4: Description of Ranking C
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Sec
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159: Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
NOTES:This map is intended for gene
Page 325:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 332 and 333:
City of GlendaleUpdateHazard Mitiga
Page 334 and 335:
Similar to Safety ElementIncludesEa
Page 336 and 337:
HospitalsPartnershipsWithin City an
Page 338 and 339:
Impact on CityMost significant area
show all

Glendale (PDF) - Hazard Mitigation Web Portal - State of California

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?