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

Table 4-2: STAPLEE Ranking of Action Items2007 Disaster Mitigation Plan, City of Glendale, CaliforniaACTION ITEMSEQ = Earthquake, MH= Multi Hazard ST= Short Term, LT= Long TermDESCRIPTIONAdvisory CommitteeManagement ServicesFirePublic WorksPlanningGlendale Water & PowerPoliceGlendale Unified School DistrictLos Angeles Co Dept. of TransportationLos Angeles County FloodAcceptanceSocialEffect on Segment of PopulationTechnicalFeasibilityLong-Term SolutionAdministrative Political Legal Economic nvironmentaStaffingFunding AllocatedMaintenancePublic SupportPolitical SupportState AuthorityExisting Local Auth.Potential ChallengeBenefitCostOutside FundingEffects on EnvironmentConsistent with Community GoalsTOTALRANKMH ST 1MH ST 2MH ST 3MH ST 4MH ST 5MH ST 6MH ST 7Integrate NHMP into Glendale’s General Plan, Capital Improvement Plansand local Codes. Lobby to have NHMP concerns integrated into new Codes.Identify and pursue funding opportunities to develop and implement localand City mitigation activities.Establish a formal role for the City of Glendale’s Hazards Mitigation AdvisoryCommittee to develop a sustainable process for implementing, monitoring,and evaluating citywide mitigation activities.Transfer cost of risk to owners through insurance. Pinpoint specific hazardsand focus education to match. Continue community wide Public Educationand unify organizations involved in the effort.Identify stake holders and responders. Develop mutual goals and formalizeintegration of plans. Improve coordination between GPW and CDOT, andElectric and Transportation utilities in response preparation.Develop inventories of at-risk buildings and infrastructure and prioritizemitigation projects.Have owners upgrade bridges where needed. Coordinate emergencytransportation routes. (GPW and Cal DOT.) Coordinate public, privateresources and establish response teams. Educate public officials re:requirements for disaster response.CO X X X 2 0 2 3 2 0 -1 2 2 2 2 0 2 -1 0 0 0 17 20CO 2 0 2 2 2 0 -1 2 3 2 2 0 2 -1 2 0 0 19 14X CO X 3 2 3 3 2 0 -1 2 2 3 3 0 2 -1 0 0 0 23 6CO 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 -2 2 -1 0 0 0 13 30X CO X 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 1 2 2 2 0 2 -1 0 0 0 16 23X X CO 2 -1 2 3 2 1 -1 3 3 2 2 -1 3 -1 1 0 0 20 10X CO 2 -2 3 3 1 0 -1 2 3 2 1 -1 2 -2 1 0 0 14 29MH LT 1 Publish the Plan, start outreach and public education on aspects of NHMP. X CO X X 3 2 3 2 1 0 -1 2 3 3 3 0 2 -1 0 0 0 22 8MH LT 2MH LT 3Slides ST 1Incorporate natural systems and processes in local codes, and use themwhere possible to reduce hazards.Address conflicts created by overlapping regulatory requirements; developsingle reference for emergency action. Include terrorism in Public Educationefforts.Map landslide hazards; emphasize economic risk when building in theseareas.CO 3 -1 2 2 1 0 -1 2 2 2 1 -1 2 -2 1 2 2 17 19CO X 2 2 2 3 2 0 -1 3 3 2 2 0 2 -1 0 0 0 21 9CO CO 2 -2 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 -1 2 -1 0 0 0 12 33Slides ST 2 Increase communication and coordination between the City’s Departments. CO CO 3 2 3 2 1 0 -2 3 3 1 2 0 2 -1 0 0 0 19 13Slides ST 3Slides LT 1Slides LT 2Increase participation in regional committee planning for emergencytransportation routes. Identify and publicize information regardingemergency transportation routes. Identify potential debris removal resourcesto open routes if needed.Create committee of local stakeholders to study issue and makerecommendations to staff.Analyze and perhaps strengthen existing regulations regarding developmentin landslide prone areas. Identify existing mechanisms for public outreach /develop new methods of outreach.CO 2 1 2 2 1 0 -1 2 2 2 1 0 2 -1 0 0 0 15 272 2 2 2 1 0 -1 2 3 1 2 0 2 -1 0 0 0 17 18CO X 2 1 3 3 1 0 -1 1 2 2 1 -1 2 -1 0 0 0 15 26Maximum Possible Score 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 3 3 42 Maximumpossible scoreFor a description of the grading system used to weigh each action item, refer to Table 4.4.