DOCSLIB.ORG

UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title What’s the Dam Problem? Hazardous Dams, Flood Risk, and Dimensions of Vulnerability in California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7h65t0tt Author McOmber, Britta Publication Date 2018 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles What’s the Dam Problem? Hazardous Dams, Flood Risk, and Dimensions of Vulnerability in California A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Urban and Regional Planning by Britta McOmber 2018 © Copyright by Britta McOmber 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS What’s the Dam Problem? Hazardous Dams, Flood Risk, and Dimensions of Vulnerability in California by Britta McOmber Master of Urban and Regional Planning University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Susanna B. Hecht, Chair In the state of California, dams are aging, underfinanced, and in many cases ill-maintained. The Oroville Dam Spillway Failure in February 2017 demonstrates that even dams with satisfactory condition ratings can be at risk of failing from a combination of climatic, political, economic, and structural factors. It is therefore necessary to look beyond the condition assessment of a dam and instead consider the hazard potential status. California has 833 High Hazard Potential (HHP) dams – which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines as dams that would cause significant loss of life, property destruction, or environmental damage in the case of failure or misoperation (2016). Expanding on previous literature on the sociodemographic determinants of flood-risk in cases of sea-level rise, climate change, high precipitation, and storm events, this project analyzes variables of social vulnerability within HHP dam inundation boundaries. I rely on a series of ii geostatistical analyses, two-tail independent samples statistical tests, and multiple linear regressions to answer the overarching research question – Who is most vulnerable to dam- induced floods in California? The data underpinning this research comes from the National Inventory of Dams, statewide dam inundation boundary maps, and the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey. Results from independent samples t-tests show that individuals and households are disproportionately located within hazardous dam flood zones if they are U.S. Citizens, live with a disability, are less educated, are unemployed, are single parents, have lower median household incomes, live at, below, or near the federal poverty line, and identify as either Black and African American, American Indian and Native Alaskan, or Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Furthermore, people whose highest educational attainment is a high school degree, unemployed individuals, those living with disabilities, Hispanic or Latino individuals, female-headed households, renters, and people who identify as Black and African American, American Indian and Native Alaskan, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander represent variables of social vulnerability that are statistically significant predictors of living within a hazardous dam flood zone. This project therefore reveals the spatial and social characteristics of vulnerability to dam-induced flood risk in California. Planners and policymakers can use this information to improve existing disaster management and response plans by incorporating targeted and specific strategies to reduce the flood-risk of highly vulnerable populations. It also provides information necessary for planners and iii policymakers to address and mitigate the existing social and spatial inequalities in dam inundation zones to create a more environmentally just California. iv The thesis of Britta McOmber is approved. Gregory S. Pierce Kian Goh Susanna B. Hecht, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2018 v Table of Contents Abstract of the Thesis .............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................vi List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Oroville Dam Spillway Failure ................................................................................................ 1 Hazardous Dams and Social Vulnerability ............................................................................... 4 Research Questions and Overview of Results .......................................................................... 6 Research Significance ............................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 2: Background .......................................................................................................... 11 History of Dam-building in California ................................................................................... 11 The Geography and Typology of California’s Dams .............................................................. 15 What’s the Dam Problem? Political, Economic, and Structural Context ................................. 18 Chapter 3: Literature Review ................................................................................................. 22 Dams as Critical Infrastructures............................................................................................. 22 Impacts from Seismic Activity and Climate Change .............................................................. 24 Dam Tradeoffs: Are the Benefits Worth the Costs? ............................................................... 30 The Social Vulnerability Concept: What Is It, and Why Is It Important?................................ 33 Social Vulnerability and Flood-Risk: Previous Research and Findings .................................. 36 Chapter 4: Data and Variables ............................................................................................... 39 Description of Datasets ......................................................................................................... 39 The National Inventory of Dams........................................................................................ 39 Dam Inundation Boundary Maps ....................................................................................... 42 The American Community Survey .................................................................................... 43 Data Limitations .................................................................................................................... 48 Chapter 5: Methods ................................................................................................................ 54 Research Design .................................................................................................................... 54 Research Procedure ............................................................................................................... 55 Identification of Vulnerable Groups .................................................................................. 56 Data Acquisition................................................................................................................ 56 vi Data Editing and Geoprocessing ........................................................................................ 56 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 59 Chapter 6: Results and Findings ............................................................................................ 64 Results for Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 65 Results for Research Question 2 ............................................................................................ 67 Results for Research Question 3 ............................................................................................ 70 Results for Research Question 4 ............................................................................................ 74 Chapter 7: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 80 The Geography of Social Vulnerability and Hazardous Dams ............................................... 80 Hazardous Dams, Flood-Risk, and Dimensions of Vulnerability in California ....................... 83 Chapter 8: Why Give a Dam(n)? ............................................................................................ 88 Appendix A: Data Normalization .............................................................................................. 92 Appendix B: Statistical Analyses for Research Question 1 ...................................................... 108 Appendix C: Statistical Analyses for Research Question 2 .....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NWS Public Information Statement
    National Weather Service Page 1 of 3 Print This Page Media Home Version: Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NOUS46 KLOX 131839 PNSLOX PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA 1140 AM PDT SAT OCT 13 2007 ...PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS... THE FOLLOWING ARE FINAL RAINFALL TOTALS IN INCHES FOR THIS RAIN EVENT THROUGH 1100 AM THIS MORNING. .LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN HAWTHORNE (HHR)................... 0.50 LOS ANGELES AP (LAX).............. 0.64 DNTWN LOS ANGELES (CQT)........... 0.95 LONG BEACH (LGB).................. 0.54 MONTE NIDO FS..................... 0.59 BIG ROCK MESA..................... 0.75 BEL AIR HOTEL..................... 0.98 BALLONA CK @ SAWTELLE............. 0.83 BEVERLY HILLS..................... 0.96 L.A. R @ FIRESTONE................ 0.45 LA HABRA HEIGHTS.................. 0.35 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEYS BURBANK (BUR)..................... 0.49 VAN NUYS (VNY).................... 0.48 NEWHALL (3A6)..................... 0.38 AGOURA............................ 0.28 SEPULVEDA CYN @ MULHL............. 0.51 PACOIMA DAM....................... 0.71 HANSEN DAM........................ 0.48 SAUGUS............................ 0.20 DEL VALLE......................... 0.29 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY EAGLE ROCK RSRV................... 0.35 EATON WASH @ LOFTUS............... 0.51 SAN GABRIEL R @ VLY............... 0.35 EATON DAM......................... 0.39 WALNUT CK S.B..................... 0.47 SANTA FE DAM...................... 0.41 WHITTIER HILLS.................... 0.55 CLAREMONT......................... 0.33 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY MOUNTAINS AND FOOTHILLS SANDBERG (SDB).................... 0.08 EATON DAM......................... 0.39 SANTA ANITA DAM................... 0.39 MORRIS DAM........................ 0.20 BIG DALTON DAM.................... 0.39 http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/media/getprodplus.php?wfo=lox&prod=LAXPNSLOX&version=0&print... 10/14/2007 National Weather Service Page 2 of 3 SIERRA MADRE MAINT YD............
    [Show full text]
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [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]
  • Author's Response to Reviewers
    Author’s Response To Reviewers Title: Seismic signature of turbulence during the 2017 Oroville Dam spillway erosion crisis Manuscript Number: esurf-2017-71 Paper Submission Date: 09 Dec 2017 We thank our reviewers for their insightful comments. We address each comment below and attach a revised version of the manuscript containing updated figures and with altered text in red. In our comments, the page and line references are to this revised manuscript. The revised version of the paper supplement follows the revised manuscript. Reviewer #1 (Victor Tsai) Comments 1. P1L15,18: See later comments about clarifying discharge scaling and upslope propagation. Changed “propagation up the hillside topography” to “propagation up the uneven hillside topography” 2. P2L17: Run-on sentence. Altered phrasing of sentence to: “Because turbulence affects erosional processes in both hydraulic structures and natural rivers, techniques from the seismic river monitoring (fluvial-seismic) literature provide guidance.” 3. P2L28: Not clear what is implied by ‘geometry variations’. Changed “channel geometry variations” to “deviations from spatial uniformity”. 4. P3L20: It is not true that the Tsai and Gimbert models assume only Rayleigh waves are excited. In the Tsai model, it is true that a Rayleigh-wave Green’s function is used to approximate the response since the force is assumed to be close to vertical, but it is not a limitation of the general modeling framework. In the Gimbert model, a similar approximation is made, but again Love waves could be included in the most generic version of the model. We appreciate the distinction. The sentence has been changed to: “While recent forward models to estimate the power spectral density of seismic energy produced by moving bedload and turbulently flowing water can accommodate the excitation of various seismic waves, their applications to date assume that only Rayleigh waves are excited (Tsai et al., 2012; Gimbert et al., 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Signature of Turbulence During the 2017 Oroville Dam Spillway Erosion Crisis
    Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 351–367, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-351-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Seismic signature of turbulence during the 2017 Oroville Dam spillway erosion crisis Phillip J. Goodling, Vedran Lekic, and Karen Prestegaard Department of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Correspondence: Phillip J. Goodling ([email protected]) Received: 9 December 2017 – Discussion started: 2 January 2018 Revised: 5 April 2018 – Accepted: 8 April 2018 – Published: 9 May 2018 Abstract. Knowing the location of large-scale turbulent eddies during catastrophic flooding events improves predictions of erosive scour. The erosion damage to the Oroville Dam flood control spillway in early 2017 is an example of the erosive power of turbulent flow. During this event, a defect in the simple concrete channel quickly eroded into a 47 m deep chasm. Erosion by turbulent flow is difficult to evaluate in real time, but near-channel seismic monitoring provides a tool to evaluate flow dynamics from a safe distance. Previous studies have had limited ability to identify source location or the type of surface wave (i.e., Love or Rayleigh wave) excited by different river processes. Here we use a single three-component seismometer method (frequency-dependent po- larization analysis) to characterize the dominant seismic source location and seismic surface waves produced by the Oroville Dam flood control spillway, using the abrupt change in spillway geometry as a natural experiment. We find that the scaling exponent between seismic power and release discharge is greater following damage to the spillway, suggesting additional sources of turbulent energy dissipation excite more seismic energy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
    City of Los Angeles 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Eric Garcetti, Mayor Aram Sahakian, General Manager Emergency Management Department EMERGE Ill MANAGEM August 2017 DEPART City of Los Angeles 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan August 2017 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department Tetra Tech 200 N. Spring Street 1999 Harrison Street Phone: 510.302.6300 Room 1533 Suite 500 Fax: 510.433.0830 Los Angeles, California 90012 Oakland, CA 94612 tetratech.com Tetra Tech Project # 103S4869 \\IWRS065FS1\Data\Active\0_HazMitigation\103s4869.emi_LACity_HMP\2017-08_ApprovedFinal\2017_LA_HMP_Final_2017-08-23.docx City of Los Angeles 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ xxii PART 1— PLANNING PROCESS AND COMMUNITY PROFILE 1. Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning ................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Why Prepare This Plan? ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 The Big Picture ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Purposes for Planning ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Who Will Benefit From This Plan? ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Oroville Dam Crisis
    Jon Wainwright: Hello, and welcome to another edition of CAP·impact's California Lawmaking in Depth. I'm Jon Wainwright and today we'll be discussing the Oroville Dam crisis. To help us learn more about that we have the man who represents the Assembly District that was most impacted by it, Assembly Member James Gallagher. Thank you so much for joining us. Asm. James Gallagher: Thank you. Glad to be here with you. JW: So, let's just lead off here. From what you've seen, what were some of the biggest factors that led up to the crisis? JG: Well, one of the things that I think was not the issue that had been often cited - at least early on by DWR - was that this was the wettest year on record. I believe that's a red herring. Yes, it was the wettest year on record, but that's not something that is unique in California. In fact, that's really the reason we have the flood control outlet spillway, is for high water years. JW: Yeah. JG: Which we've had in '86 for example, and 1997. Just by way of comparison, in '86 we had 270,000 CFS was the peak flow coming in to Lake Oroville. JW: Okay. JG: In '97 it was 320,000 CFS. In this last crisis, the peak flow was 190,000. So we've seen much higher peak flows that had to be handled. To me, it wasn't the fact that we had a lot of water. The real factors there was, I kind of put them into a couple different categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board of Directors Meeting
    January 18, 2018 – Agenda Item #11D BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING January 18, 2018 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between December 26, 2017 and January 11, 2018 Correspondence Date: December 26, 2017 To: Nicole Sandkulla, CEO/General Manager From: Charles Perl, Deputy Chief Finance Officer Subject: Probable Fiscal Year 2018-19 Wholesale Water Rate Range Media Coverage Water Supply: Date: January 10, 2018 Source: Calaveras Enterprise Article: It is too early to be discouraged by below-average snowpack Date: January 8, 2018 Source: Bay Area News Group & Mercury News Article: California storm sets rainfall records, triggers trouble in fire zones Date: January 4, 2018 Source: Almanac Article: Menlo Park’s first recycled water system to keep golf course green Date: January 3, 2018 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: Snow measures just 3 percent of average in first California mountain survey Date: December 27, 2017 Source: Department of Water Resources Article: California Water Plan eNews Water Supply Management: Date: January 1, 2018 Source: Times Standard Article: Opinion – Setting the record straight on Sites Reservoir Water Quality: Date: January 2, 2018 Source: Business Insider Article: Food-safety expert warns latest bizarre Silicon Valley $60 ‘raw water’ trend could quickly turn deadly Date: December 30, 2017 Source: CNBC Article: Unfiltered fervor: The rush to get off the water grid January 18, 2018 – Agenda Item #11D Water Infrastructure: Date: January 11, 2018 Source: GreenBiz
    [Show full text]
  • Scanned Document
    LOS ANGELES, CA, DISTRICT This district (total area about 230,000 square miles) comprises drainage basins tributary to the Pacific Ocean in California between the Mexican boundary and Cape San Martin (about 265 miles north of the entrance to the Los Angeles Harbor). The lower Colorado River drainage basin (below Lee Ferry, AZ) which is southeastern California, southeastern Nevada, southwestern Utah, and all of Arizona, except the northeastern corner; that part of the Great Basin that is in southern Nevada and southeastern California; and the southern Arizona that drain southward into Mexico. IMPROVEMENTS Navigation Page Page 1. Channel Islands Harbor, CA 33-2 45. Tucson Drainage Area, AZ 33-15 2. Dana Point Harbor, CA 33-2 46. Whitlow Ranch Dam, AZ 33-15 3. Imperial Beach, Silver Strand Shoreline, CA 33-2 47. Whittier Narrows Dam Safety, CA 33-16 4. LA-LB Harbors (LA Harbor), CA 33-2 48. Inspection of Completed Works 33-16 5. LA Harbor Main Channel Deepening, CA 33-3 49. Scheduling of Flood Control Operations 33-16 6. Marina Del Rey, CA 33-3 50. Flood Control Work Under Special Auth 33-16 7. Morro Bay Harbor, CA 33-4 51. Emergency Response Activities Program 33-16 8. Newport Bay Harbor, CA 33-4 Environmental Improvements 9. Oceanside Harbor, CA 33-4 52. Cambria Seawater Desalination, CA 33-17 10. Port Hueneme, CA 33-5 53. City of Inglewood, CA 33-17 11. Port of Long Beach, CA 33-5 54. City of Santa Clarita (Perchlorate), CA 33-17 12. Redondo Beach Harbor (King Harbor), CA 33-5 55.
    [Show full text]
  • ATN]D Illill for the Regular Meeting of June 26, 2018 on Mating Epartment: Community Deve1opmv Department Head: City Manager: Icha Flat”
    Item No. 5 City ofSouth Gatt. CITY COUNCiL ATN]D IllILL For the Regular Meeting of June 26, 2018 On mating epartment: Community Deve1opmV Department Head: City Manager: ichaFlat” SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN PURPOSE: Consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Following the conclusion of the public hearing, adopt Resolution adopting the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, describing the City’s efforts to prepare for and respond to emergencies. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City. Failure to adopt the Resolution could affect the City’s eligibility for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster mitigation funding. ALIGNMENT WITH COUNCIL GOALS: The adoption of the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan supports the goal of protecting strong and sustainable neighborhoods. Some naturally occurring hazards may be unavoidable, but the potential impact on the City of South Gate can be reduced through advance planning and preparation. The updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan addresses geologic, seismic, flood, and fire hazards, as well as hazards created by human activity such as hazardous materials and incidents that call for emergency protection. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: The foregoing is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where, as here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
    [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]
  • The City Is Divided Into Many Neighborhoods, Many of Which Were Towns That Were Annexed by the Growing City
    The city is divided into many neighborhoods, many of which were towns that were annexed by the growing city. There are also several independent cities in and around Los Angeles, but they are popularly grouped with the city of Los Angeles, either due to being completely engulfed as enclaves by Los Angeles, or lying within its immediate vicinity. Generally, the city is divided into the following areas: Downtown Los Angeles, Northeast - including Highland Park and Eagle Rock areas, the Eastside, South Los Angeles (still often colloquially referred to as South Central by locals), the Harbor Area, Hollywood, Wilshire, the Westside, and the San Fernando and Crescenta Valleys. Some well-known communities of Los Angeles include West Adams, Watts, Venice Beach, the Downtown Financial District, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Hollywood, Hancock Park, Koreatown, Westwood and the more affluent areas of Bel Air, Benedict Canyon, Hollywood Hills, Pacific Palisades, and Brentwood. [edit] Landmarks Important landmarks in Los Angeles include Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Kodak Theatre, Griffith Observatory, Getty Center, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Grauman's Chinese Theatre, Hollywood Sign, Hollywood Boulevard, Capitol Records Tower, Los Angeles City Hall, Hollywood Bowl, Watts Towers, Staples Center, Dodger Stadium and La Placita Olvera/Olvera Street. Downtown Los Angeles Skyline of downtown Los Angeles Downtown Los Angeles is the central business district of Los Angeles, California, United States, located close to the geographic center of the metropolitan area. The area features many of the city's major arts institutions and sports facilities, a variety of skyscrapers and associated large multinational corporations and an array of public art, unique shopping opportunities and the hub of the city's freeway and public transportation networks.
    [Show full text]