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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4-4: Description of Ranking Criteria Used for Each STAPLEE Component2007 Disaster Mitigation Plan, City of Glendale, CaliforniaGENERAL IMPACT SPECIFIC IMPACT DESCRIPTION of GRADING SCALE for EACH IMPACTSocialAcceptanceEffect on Segment of PopulationIs the action item perceived as socially acceptable to a wide segment of the population? Values range from 0 to 3, with 0 =public indifferent to action, 1 = somewhat popular, 2 = popular, 3 = very popular.Is the action item likely to impact (positively or negatively) a particular segment of the population? Values range from -3 to 3with -3 = will negatively impact a segment of the population, 0 = will have no effect, 3 = will have a very positive effect on asegment of the population.Technical Feasibility Is the action feasible given our current knowledge or science? 0 = No, 1 = somewhat, 2 = moderately, 3 = absolutely.Long-Term SolutionIs implementation of this action going to reduce the hazard permanently? 0 = no, 1 = slightly, 2 = somewhat, 3 = yes.AdministrativePoliticalLegalStaffingFunding allocatedMaintenancePublic SupportPolitical SupportState AuthorityLocal AuthorityPossible Legal Action?Is there staff currently at the City doing this work? Does it involve 1 person, or more? The resulting number is a weightedsum of individual components, as described below:Is there staff currently at the City doing this work? 0 = no; 1 = yes, 1 person; 2 = yes, 2 or more but not enough to do theproposed work; 3 = yes, several, enough to get the work done. -1 = City needs to hire someone to do the work; -2 = Cityneeds to hire 2 people to do the work; 3 = City needs to hire several people to get this done.0 = no funding currently allocated; 1 = some funding allocated, need a lot more $, 2 = funding available, enough to do thebasics; 3 = funding available to do the work w/out cutting corners.Does this action require constant maintenance and upgrade? 0 = no, this is a one-time expenditure; -1= some minormaintenance required, -2 = constant maintenance by 1 individual required; -3 = constant maintenance and upgrade required,effort requires 2 more individuals assigned to task.Is the action going to be popular with the public? On a scale from -3 to 3, with -3 = very unpopular; 0 = no public reaction,indifferent; and 3 = very popular.Is the action going to be popular with the Mayor and City Council? On a scale from -3 to 3, with -3 = very unpopular; 0 = noreaction, indifferent; and 3 = very popular.Is there a State mandate or a recommendation to have this done? 0 = no; 1= there is minor State interest in doing this; 2 thereis a strong support at the State level to do this; 3 = there is a State mandate to do this, generally with a target date forimplementationIs there a local mandate or recommendation to implement this action? 0 = no; 1 = there is minor local support to get thisdone, 2 = there is strong local support to get this done; 3 = there is a City mandate to get this done.Is this action likely to get challenged in court? 0 = no; -1 = a small possibility, -2 = yes, some people might object enough togo to court; -3 = yes, expect several neighbors to challenge this in court.Economic Benefit The economic benefits of implementing this action. 0 = no benefit; 1= small benefit, 2 = benefit; 3 = great benefit.CostThe economic costs of implementing this action: 0 = no costs; -1 = small cost, -2 = some cost; 3= very expensive.Outside FundingIs there outside funding available to implement this action? 0 = no; 1 = small amounts of money, not enough to get it done;2= funding available; 3= enough grant money available to get this done.EnvironmentalImpacts on EnviromentConsistent with Community'sEnvironmental GoalsDoes this action have a positive or negative impact on the environment? On a scale from -3 to 3 with -3 = severe negativeimpact on enviroment; 0 = no impact; and 3 = very positive impact on environment.Is the proposed action consistent with Glendale's environmental goals? On a scale from -3 to3 with -3 = goes against all goalsto protect the environment; 0 = has no impact on the local enviromental goals; 3 = is very consistent with Glendale'senvironmental goals.Page 4-27
Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity of Glendale, CaliforniaSection 4 – Multi-Hazard Goals and Action ItemsJurisdiction:Project TitleAgency:Hazard(s):Flood Zone:Project Evaluation WorksheetBase FloodElevation:Contact:Phone:E-mail:Erosion Rate:Critical Facility/Population At Risk:Environmental Impact:Historic Preservation Impact:High Medium Low High Medium LowImportance to Protection of Life/Property andRisk of Hazard Impact:Disaster RecoveryHigh Medium Low High Medium LowEstimated Cost:Project Duration:Value of Facility:Value of Contents:Source(s) of Financing:Project Objectives:Project Description:Proposal Date:Evaluation Category Considerations CommentsCommunity AcceptanceSocialTechnicalAdversely Affects Segments of thePopulationTechnical FeasibilityLong Term SolutionAdministrativeSecondary ImpactsStaffingFunding AllocatedPoliticalMaintenance / OperationsPolitical SupportPlan ProponentLegalPublic SupportAuthorityAction Subject to Legal ChallengeEconomicBenefitCost of ActionContributes to Economic GoalsEnvironmentalOutside Funding RequiredAffects Land / Water BodiesAffects Endangered SpeciesAffects Hazardous Materials andWaste SitesConsistent with CommunityEnvironmental GoalsConsistent with Federal Laws2006 PAGE 4 - 28
Page 2 and 3:
City CouncilDave Weaver, MayorRafi
Page 4 and 5:
Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9: Natural Hazards Mitigation PlanCity
Page 56 and 57: Table 4-2: STAPLEE Ranking of Actio
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?