DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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? ........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Contents of This Plan ................................................................................................................................. 1-2 2. Plan Update—What Has Changed ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 The Previous Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Why Update? ............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.1 Federal Eligibility ............................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Changes in Development .................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 The Updated Plan—What Is Different? ..................................................................................................... 2-2 3. Plan Update Approach ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Grant Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Formation of the Planning Team ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Defining the Planning Area........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.4 The Steering Committee ............................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.5 Coordination with Other Agencies ............................................................................................................ 3-3 3.6 Review of Existing Programs .................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.7 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.7.1 Strategy ............................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.7.2 Public Involvement Results ............................................................................................................ 3-10 3.8 Plan Development Chronology/Milestones ............................................................................................. 3-11 4. City of Los Angeles Profile .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Geographic Overview ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Historical Overview ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Major Past Hazard Events .......................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Physical Setting .......................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.1 Topography ...................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.2 Soils and Geology ............................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................................. 4-4 4.5 Development Profile .................................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.5.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.5.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 4-7 4.5.3 Future Trends in Development ....................................................................................................... 4-22 4.6 community Demographic profile ............................................................................................................. 4-23 4.6.1 Population Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 4-23 4.6.2 Age Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 4-25 4.6.3 Race, Ethnicity and Language ........................................................................................................ 4-26 4.6.4 Individuals with Disabilities or Access and Functional Needs ...................................................... 4-26 TETRA TECH v City of Los Angeles 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents 4.7 Economy .................................................................................................................................................. 4-27 4.7.1 Income ............................................................................................................................................ 4-27 4.7.2 Industry, Businesses and Institutions ............................................................................................. 4-27 4.7.3 Employment Trends and Occupations ............................................................................................ 4-29 4.8 Vulnerable Communities ......................................................................................................................... 4-30 4.8.1 Westlake Community ..................................................................................................................... 4-32 4.8.2 Historic South-Central Community ................................................................................................ 4-32 4.8.3 South Park Community .................................................................................................................. 4-32 4.8.4 Central-Alameda Community ........................................................................................................ 4-32 4.8.5 Pico Union Community .................................................................................................................. 4-33 4.8.6 Florence Community ...................................................................................................................... 4-33 4.8.7 Watts Community ........................................................................................................................... 4-33 4.8.8 Boyle Heights Community ............................................................................................................. 4-33 4.8.9 Koreatown Community .................................................................................................................. 4-33 4.9 Laws and Ordinances ............................................................................................................................... 4-33 4.9.1 Federal ............................................................................................................................................ 4-34 4.9.2 State ................................................................................................................................................ 4-41 4.9.3 City of Los Angeles .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002, August 1994 New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement by Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith Abstract Source parameters for historical earthquakes worldwide are com­ piled to develop a series of empirical relationships among moment magnitude (M), surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, rupture area, and maximum and average displacement per event. The resulting data base is a significant update of previous compilations and includes the ad­ ditional source parameters of seismic moment, moment magnitude, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, and average surface displacement. Each source parameter is classified as reliable or unreliable, based on our evaluation of the accuracy of individual values. Only the reliable source parameters are used in the final analyses. In comparing source parameters, we note the fol­ lowing trends: (1) Generally, the length of rupture at the surface is equal to 75% of the subsurface rupture length; however, the ratio of surface rupture length to subsurface rupture length increases with magnitude; (2) the average surface dis­ placement per event is about one-half the maximum surface displacement per event; and (3) the average subsurface displacement on the fault plane is less than the maximum surface displacement but more than the average surface dis­ placement. Thus, for most earthquakes in this data base, slip on the fault plane at seismogenic depths is manifested by similar displacements at the surface. Log-linear regressions between earthquake magnitude and surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, and rupture area are especially well correlated, show­ ing standard deviations of 0.25 to 0.35 magnitude units.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae DON HELMBERGER Professor of Geophysics
    Curriculum Vitae DON HELMBERGER Professor of Geophysics Seismological Laboratory 252-21 California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125 Tel. (626) 395-6998; Fax (626) 564-0715 Email: [email protected] EDUCATION: B. A. (Geophysics) University of Minnesota (five year curriculum), 1962 M. S. University of California, San Diego, 1965. Ph.D. University of California, San Diego, 1967. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Research Associate, Department of Geology and Geophysics, MIT, 1968 Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Princeton University, 1969 Assistant Professor of Geophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1970-1974 Associate Professor of Geophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1974-1979 Professor of Geophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1979 - present. Director, Seismological Laboratory, Caltech, May 1998-May 2003 RECENT HONORS AND AWARDS: First American Geophysical Union recipient of the Inge Lehmann Medal, 1997 Smits Family Professorship, California Institute of Technology, 2000-2011 Medal of the Seismological Society of America, 2002 National Academy of Sciences Member, 2004 RESEARCH INTERESTS: Seismic wave propagation and the inversion of waveforms to recover detailed information about earthquake characteristics and earth structure; particularly interested in mapping ultra-low-velocity zones and possible post-perovskite effects at the Core-Mantle Boundary. PUBLICATIONS: Helmberger, D. V. (1967). Head Waves from the Oceanic Mohorovicic Discontinuity, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Helmberger, D. V. (1968). The crust-mantle transition in the Bering Sea, Seismol. Soc. Am. Bull., 58, No. 1, 179-214. Helmberger, D. V. and G. B. Morris (1969). A travel time and amplitude interpretation of a marine refraction profile, primary waves, J. Geophys. Res., 74, No. 2, 438-494.
    [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]
  • City of Glendale Hazard Mitigation Plan Available to the Public by Publishing the Plan Electronically on the City’S Websites
    Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California City of Glendale Hazard Mitigati on Plan 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents City of Glendale, California Table of Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1 Introduction 1-2 Why Develop a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan? 1-3 Who is covered by the Mitigation Plan? 1-3 Natural Hazard Land Use Policy in California 1-4 Support for Hazard Mitigation 1-6 Plan Methodology 1-6 Input from the Steering Committee 1-7 Stakeholder Interviews 1-7 State and Federal Guidelines and Requirements for Mitigation Plans 1-8 Hazard Specific Research 1-9 Public Workshops 1-9 How is the Plan Used? 1-9 Volume I: Mitigation Action Plan 1-10 Volume II: Hazard Specific Information 1-11 Volume III: Resources 1-12 SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE 2-1 Why Plan for Natural and Manmade Hazards in the City of Glendale? 2-2 History of Glendale 2-2 Geography and the Environment 2-3 Major Rivers 2-5 Climate 2-6 Rocks and Soil 2-6 Other Significant Geologic Features 2-7 Population and Demographics 2-10 Land and Development 2-13 Housing and Community Development 2-14 Employment and Industry 2-16 Transportation and Commuting Patterns 2-17 Extensive Transportation Network 2-18 SECTION 3: RISK ASSESSMENT 3-1 What is a Risk Assessment? 3-2 2018 i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents City of Glendale, California Federal Requirements for Risk Assessment 3-7 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 3-8 Summary 3-9 SECTION 4: MULTI-HAZARD GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS 4-1 Mission 4-2 Goals 4-2 Action
    [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]
  • June 17, 2004 10:13 WSPC/124-JEE 00165 CAN SITE
    June 17, 2004 10:13 WSPC/124-JEE 00165 Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, Special Issue 1 (2004) 1–41 c Imperial College Press CANSITERESPONSEBEPREDICTED? DAVID M. BOORE US Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, MS 977, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA Large modifications of seismic waves are produced by variations of material properties near the Earth’s surface and by both surface and buried topography. These modifica- tions, usually referred to as “site response”, in general lead to larger motions on soil sites than on rock-like sites. Because the soil amplifications can be as large as a factor of ten, they are important in engineering applications that require the quantitative spec- ification of ground motions. This has been recognised for years by both seismologists and engineers, and it is hard to open an earthquake journal these days without finding an article on site response. What is often missing in these studies, however, are discus- sions of the uncertainty of the predicted response. A number of purely observational studies demonstrate that ground motions have large site-to-site variability for a single earthquake and large earthquake-location-dependent variability for a single site. This variability makes site-specific, earthquake-specific predictions of site response quite un- certain, even if detailed geotechnical and geological information is available near the site. Predictions of site response for average classes of sites exposed to the motions from many earthquakes can be made with much greater certainty if sufficient empirical observations are available. Keywords: Site response; amplification; transfer functions; ground motion; variability; prediction. 1.
    [Show full text]