If the game does not permit a player to determine in advance what will make a proposed city site more vulnerable to destructive hurricanes, then the game is just trolling the player (Ha, ha, you guessed wrong! Sucks to be you!). The game does provide that sort of information about sea level impacts, which allows a player to make a reasonably informed decision about where to place a city, and which tiles to invest in, and whether and when to monitor atmospheric CO2 levels and when to beeline Computers. As near as I can tell, no similar information is available for hurricanes, which makes those storms a particular source of frustration for players and leads rational players, at the margin, to avoid settling coastal cities and, therefore, significantly reduces their interest in playing civs with sea-oriented bonuses. Telling a player that "once your city has been hammered by one hurricane, you should assume that same city will get hammered again and again, so you're well advised to cut your losses and write-off that city" is not helpful in a strategy game. Nor is implicitly telling players "if you don't like excessive randomness when playing Civ A, just play another Civ".
