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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity of Glendale, CaliforniaSection 4 – Multi-Hazard Goals and Action Itemsdifferent stakeholders as to the success of the various action items, and incorporate thisinput into future revisions of the Plan.Hazard Mitigation Plan Action ItemsThe Hazards Mitigation Plan identifies short and long-term action items developed throughdata collection and research, and the public participation process. Mitigation Plan activitiesmay be considered for funding through Federal and State grant programs, and when otherfunds are made available through the City. Action items address multi-hazard (MH) andhazard-specific issues. To help ensure activity implementation, each action item includesinformation on its timeline and coordinating organizations. Upon implementation, thecoordinating organizations may look to partner with other organizations for resources andtechnical assistance. A description of possible partner organizations is provided in AppendixA, the Resource Directory of this Plan.Multi-hazard action items are presented in this Chapter only. Hazard-specific action items areincluded in this Chapter and are also repeated in the individual chapter that addresses theseissues (Chapter 6 for Earthquakes, Chapter 7 for Floods, Chapter 8 for Wildfires, and Chapter 9for Landslides). Putting all the action items together under one chapter heading is meant tomake this document more user friendly, allowing the coordinating organizations to moreeffectively manage their assigned action items.Coordinating OrganizationThe coordinating organization is the organization that is willing and able to organizeresources, find appropriate funding, or oversee activity implementation, monitoring, andevaluation. Coordinating organizations may include local, City, or regional agencies thatare capable of or responsible for implementing activities and programs.TimelineAction items include both short and long-term activities. Each action item includes anestimate of the timeline for implementation. Short-term action items are activities thatCity agencies may implement with existing resources and authorities within one to twoyears. Long-term action items may require new or additional resources or authorities, andmay take between one and five years (or more) to implement.Ideas for Future ImplementationEach multi-hazard action item includes ideas for future implementation that may beconsidered once the main action items have been addressed. Some of these ideas maybecome action items in future versions of the Plan.Plan Goals AddressedThe Plan goals addressed by each action item are included as a way to monitor andevaluate how well the Hazards Mitigation Plan is achieving its goals once implementationbegins.2006 PAGE 4 - 3
Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity of Glendale, CaliforniaSection 4 – Multi-Hazard Goals and Action ItemsConstraintsConstraints may apply to some of the action items. These constraints may be a currentlack of City staff to implement the action, lack of funds, or vested property rights thatmight expose the City to legal action as a result of adverse impacts on private property.Project Evaluation WorksheetsEvery jurisdiction has limitations on the number of mitigation activities that can becompleted within a given period of time, usually because of limited economic resources.This forces jurisdictions and agencies to review and select the most cost-effectivemitigation projects first, in essence prioritizing mitigation projects by their return oninvestment. Given the competition for available funding, multi-hazard action items aregenerally attractive and more likely to be implemented first. The challenge is to maintaina balance between mitigating projects that can be implemented readily and for a relativelysmall amount of money, with longer-term projects that cost more but have the potential toreally reduce the City’s vulnerability to natural hazards.To prioritize the implementation of the action items, and in conformance with FEMArecommendations, the committee conducted a generalized “STAPLEE” ranking analysis ofthe proposed action items. The STAPLEE process considers the Social, Technical,Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental benefits of a givenproposed action item and weighs these benefits against the costs of implementing theaction (see Table 4-1, below). Finding that the action items are in most cases generallyworded, the Committee then used the results of the first STAPLEE analysis to identify thoseaction items that have priority and develop more specific implementation measures thataddress the high priority action items. These specific implementation measures arequantifiable — the costs associated with them can be estimated to at least an order ofmagnitude if not better, and the completion of these action items is measurable, inagreement with the requirements that future updates of this Plan use metrics to qualify thesuccessful implementation of the action items in past versions of the Plan. These specificaction items were then prioritized using a similar STAPLEE approach. The prioritizationprocess, including a description of the criteria and grading system used for both thegeneral and specific action items is summarized in Tables 4-2 (STAPLEE ranking of thegeneral action items), 4-3 (STAPLEE ranking of specific action items) and 4-4 (gradingcriteria used in the STAPLEE process), respectively. These tables are at the end of thissection.Once the process of implementing an action item begins and funding for it is sought,Glendale can follow the FEMA-required Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) by preparing andsubmitting to the appropriate agencies a Project Evaluation Worksheet as part of theproposal package. An example of a Project Evaluation Worksheet is included at the endof this section. The data on these worksheets can help the coordinating organization andother agencies and committees involved in the project assess the value of an action item(both in dollars and overall benefit to the community). Some projects may need a moredetailed BCA, but this worksheet provides a first-screening methodology.2006 PAGE 4 - 4
Page 2 and 3: City CouncilDave Weaver, MayorRafi
Page 4 and 5: Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity
Page 56 and 57: Table 4-2: STAPLEE Ranking of Actio
Page 58 and 59: Table 4-4: Description of Ranking C
Page 84 and 85:
Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity
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:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?