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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity of Glendale, CaliforniaAppendix C – Economic Analysis• Infrastructure• Regional exports and imports• Local, state, and national regulations and policies• Insurance availability and ratesChanges in the resources and industries listed above are more difficult to estimate and requiremodels that are structured to estimate total economic impacts. Total economic impacts are thesum of direct and indirect economic impacts. Total economic impact models are usually notcombined with economic feasibility models. Many models exist to estimate total economicimpacts of changes in an economy.Decision makers should understand the total economic impacts of natural disasters in order tocalculate the benefits of a mitigation activity. This suggests that understanding the localeconomy is an important first step in being able to understand the potential impacts of adisaster, and the benefits of mitigation activities.Additional ConsiderationsConducting an economic analysis for potential mitigation activities can assist decision-makers inchoosing the most appropriate strategy for their community to reduce risk and prevent lossfrom natural hazards. Economic analysis can also save time and resources from being spent oninappropriate or unfeasible projects. Several resources and models (see list below) are availableto help in conducting an economic analysis for natural hazard mitigation activities.Benefit/cost analysis is complicated, and the numbers may divert attention from otherimportant issues. It is important to consider the qualitative factors of a project associated withmitigation that cannot be evaluated economically. There are alternative approaches toimplementing mitigation projects. Many communities are looking towards developing multiobjectiveprojects. With this in mind, opportunity rises to develop strategies that integratenatural hazard mitigation with projects related to watersheds, environmental planning,community economic development, and small business development, among others.Incorporating natural hazard mitigation with other community projects can increase theviability of project implementation.ResourcesCUREe Kajima Project, Methodologies For Evaluating The Socio-Economic Consequences ofLarge Earthquakes, Task 7.2 Economic Impact Analysis, Prepared by University ofCalifornia, Berkeley Team, Robert A. Olson, VSP Associates, Team Leader; John M.Eidinger, G&E Engineering Systems; Kenneth A. Goettel, Goettel and Associates Inc.;and Gerald L. Horner, Hazard Mitigation Economics Inc., 1997.Federal Emergency Management Agency, Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects,Riverine Flood, Version 1.05, Hazard Mitigation Economics Inc., 1996.Federal Emergency Management Agency Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural HazardMitigation. Publication 331, 1996.Goettel & Horner Inc., Earthquake Risk Analysis Volume III: The Economic Feasibility ofSeismic Rehabilitation of Buildings in the City of Portland, Submitted to the Bureau ofBuildings, City of Portland, August 30, 1995.2006 PAGE C - 5
Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity of Glendale, CaliforniaAppendix C – Economic AnalysisGoettel & Horner Inc., Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects Volume V,Earthquakes, Prepared for FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Branch, October 25, 1995.Horner, Gerald, Benefit/Cost Methodologies for Use in Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness ofProposed Hazard Mitigation Measures, Robert Olson Associates, Prepared for OregonState Police, Office of Emergency Management, July 1999.Interagency Hazards Mitigation Team, State Hazard Mitigation Plan, (Oregon State Police –Office of Emergency Management, 2000).Risk Management Solutions, Inc., Development of a Standardized Earthquake Loss EstimationMethodology, National Institute of Building Sciences, Volume I and II, 1994.VSP Associates, Inc., A Benefit/Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,Volumes 1 & 2, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, PublicationNumbers 227 and 228, 1991.VSP Associates, Inc., Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects: Section 404 HazardMitigation Program and Section 406 Public Assistance Program, Volume 3: SeismicHazard Mitigation Projects, 1993.VSP Associates, Inc., Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/Cost Model,Volume 1, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Publication Number 255,1994.2006 PAGE C - 6
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:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191: Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?