My task for later today is to rewrite text for this proposal on the models that explain Palos Verdes Hills and the wide shelfs offshore. The first (and only) submission 1 1/2 years ago went on and on about how none of the exisiting published models were correct, and ours was. This time, we are taking the much more fundable approach that there are 3 classes of models, and that our proposed work can distinguish between them.
Model A:
Palos Verdes Hills are uplifting because there is a restraining-double bend (more westerly, causes convergence) across the right-lateral Palos Verdes fault.
The "Shelf Projection" anticlinorium (also called Santa Monica Shelf)has not been active for last 1 million years and the activity on the right-lateral Palos Verdes fault terminates into the Redondo Canyon fault and so is not active in Santa Monica Bay. There is no regional thrust fault beneath Palos Verdes area in that model (examples; Nardin and Henyey, 1978; Ward and Valensise, 1994).

Model B:
There is a regional thrust fault beneath Palos Verdes Hills, but the Palos Verdes Hills are uplifting above a backthrust (a roof thrust) that dips southwest. The Davis et al 1989 flavor has no strike slip, and explains the offshore fold limb, while the Shaw and Suppe (1996) flavor does not explain the offshore limb, but does have a strike-slip Palos Verdes fault, but the strike-slip fault is not involved in explaining the regional structure.

Model C (ours, in abstracts and a mansucript recently submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research): There is regional thrust system, but no need for SW-dipping roof thrust: we see NE-dipping system of Miocene normal faults imaged offshore on seismic reflection data, whose upper parts are near the base of San Pedro escarpment. We propose that the deep parts of these faults have been reactivated: The Shelf Projection, Palos Verdes Hills, and San Pedro Shelf are pushing up and over these normal faults, which are now reactivated blind thrusts. The right-lateral Palos Verdes fault does have a restraining double bend and contributes enhanced uplift to Palos Verdes Hills. The basins are sinking, so regional-scale thrust system must be active in last tens of thousands of year to keep the shelves from sinking. Parts of the Palos Verdes fault dip the wrong way (southern San Pedro Shelf and slope), or strike wrong, or are too insignificant (Santa Monica Bay)to explain the whole regional high/ridge (most of which is submerged).

While models B and C each have a regional thrust system, the geometry of the shallow part is likely to be important to generation of strong ground motion and tsunamis.

So, if I was trying to communicate with those less interested and experienced than you all, guess these models would have to be prevented with graphics. Well, actually, we need and have graphics comparing the models in the proposal and manuscript: explaining geometry in words is often un-readable even for research scientists. Hmm...I'll have to figure out how to embed graphics in these messages, but we hurt our chances of getting published if we provide them before publication...and after theer may eb copywrite issues.
I'll check later to see if our SCEC report, which has one of these figures, is online.
Chris