to, although that seems hard to believe since Glendale, Sierra Madre and Los Angeles (all close
to Pasadena) also prepared plans for landslide, flood and wildfire hazard. When asked what the
reason is for the absence of other natural hazards, the city of Pasadena unfortunately does not
respond. Another remarkable issue is the fact that some cities have not updated their plans at
all during the last decade (see tables 4.5 and 4.8). As seen in chapter 2, a regular updating of
plans is crucial to ensure its effectiveness.
From the numerous ‘0’s in the tables 4.7 and 4.10 can be concluded that certain aspects of a
plan are sometimes completely absent. Especially the elements mandated by the State of
California General Plan Guidelines (hazard maps, evacuation routes, clearings around
hazardous buildings, and peak load water requirements) are often missing. This is strange since
the State has to approve all General Plans and their elements before adoption. It is possible that
these elements, except for the hazard maps, are covered in the emergency plans that most cities
do have. But even then it is peculiar that mandatory elements are simply missing in approved
plans. For the aspects that are not mandatory, but desirable from a planning perspective (factual
basis, goal definition, balancing of interests, policies, and implementation) holds that the
absence of these aspects can reduce the overall quality of the plans.
Overall, the quality of the factual bases is in order. Natural hazard risks are explained and
usually accompanied by detailed hazard maps that visualize risks spatially. In most cases, an
overview of historic natural hazard events is presented. Sometimes, not only present risks, but
also future risks in case of future developments are discussed. This is the ideal form of a factual
basis since it combines hazard knowledge with future developments in all planning disciplines
and can thereby provide a link between the safety element and other elements of the plan.
Generally speaking, the goal definition is not nearly as detailed as desirable. Often, goals are
formulated as ‘to minimize losses from hazard x’ and ‘to reduce losses from hazard y’. That
can hardly be called a goal definition, it is merely stating the obvious. Fortunately, there are
some examples of excellent goal definition as well. Long Beach for example states
‘redevelopment of areas that may present safety problems’ and ‘physical planning as a means
of achieving greater degrees of protection from hazards’ as some of its goals. These are well
formulated and provide good starting points for determining specific policies.
31