When it comes to balancing different interests, local governments seem to be reluctant to
explain what arguments they will use and what priorities they will make. Some plans mention
which other elements might interact with the safety element, but not how possible conflicting
interests are balanced. This is understandable since a sound balancing of interests is difficult
and asks for strong prioritization, but that is exactly why it is so important. Balancing issues
can occur at any moment and they will not get any easier by not mentioning them. By clearly
stating values that are important when balancing conflicting interests, decision-makers are
forced to make priorities, which is in fact the essence of decision-making. Local governments
should not be afraid to do so.
The policies presented in the plans are often too vague. They state for example ‘reduce the
risks of impacts of geologic hazards by applying proper development requirements’ without
any further explanation of the term ‘proper development requirements’ which could be
anything from retrofitting buildings to non-structural land use measures. Assuming that these
safety elements are the only natural hazard mitigation plans a city has, policies need to be far
more specific in order to be effective. A vague statement can be overruled too easily in future
discussions concerning the balancing of mitigation with other issues. Furthermore, most
policies focus on awareness projects and on structural mitigation. Plans for example state that
new developments in a hazard zone must be built according to a certain building code. Non-
structural mitigation, though usually more effective (see chapter 2), is rarely mentioned. This
might be explained by the fact that both Los Angeles County and Orange County are highly
urbanized and still growing, which leaves little space for avoidance of hazardous areas. In the
less urban cities, some non-structural polices can be found. One of the policies of the San
Clemente plan for example aims to ‘ensure that non-seismic and seismic hazards are avoided
prior to development’ instead of retrofitted afterwards. A last point of attention concerning
policy formulation is the cautiousness with which many cities formulate their policies. They
seem to be afraid to make any promises or to impose any obligations. Plans with stronger
policy formulation can be more effective because once the policies adopted they have to be
observed. El Segundo sets a good example by using strong verbs such as ‘shall’ or ‘will’
instead of ‘should’ or ‘might’. Examples from the El Segundo plan are: ‘The city shall enforce
development standards [...]’ and ‘[The city will] place responsibility on the developer’.
Most plans pay no attention to implementation issues. Goals and mitigation policies are
mentioned and that is all. Luckily, there are some cities that do provide detailed descriptions of
32