Nitrite and nitrate
Nitrogen-oxygen combinations that occur in several organic and inorganic compounds. High concentrations of nitrites in drinking water can pose serious health hazards, especially to infants.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 24
Non-coastal A zone
The portion of the Special Flood Hazard Area in which the principal source of flooding is runoff from rainfall, snowmelt, or a combination of both. In non-coastal A zones, flood waters may move slowly or rapidly, but waves are usually not a significant threat to buildings. See A zone and coastal A zone. (Note: the National Flood Insurance Program regulations do not differentiate between non-coastal A zones and coastal A zones.) Non-load-bearing
wall
Wall that does not support vertical loads other than its own weight. See Load-bearing wall.
Nor'easter An extra-tropical cyclone producing gale-force winds and precipitation in the form of heavy snow or rain.
North American
Vertical Datum
(NAVD)
Datum used as a basis for measuring flood, ground, and structural elevations. NAVD is used in many recent Flood Insurance Studies rather than the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
Objective A measurable step to take to achieve a strategy.
Oblique-slip fault A fault that combines some strike-slip (horizontal) motion with some dipslip (vertical) motion.
Oblique – reverse
fault
A fault that combines some strike-slip motion with some dip-slip motion in which the upper block, above the fault plane, moves up over the lower block.
Offset ridge A ridge that is discontinuous on account of faulting.
Offset stream A stream displaced laterally or vertically by faulting One hundred (100)-
year flood
See Base flood.
Oriented strand board
(OSB)
Mat-formed wood structural panel product composed of thin rectangular wood strands or wafers arranged in oriented layers and bonded with waterproof adhesive.
Outflow Follows water inundation creating strong currents that rip at structures and pound them with debris, and erode beaches and coastal structures.
Paleoseismic Pertaining to an earthquake or earth vibration that happened decades, centuries, or millennia ago.
Pandemic An epidemic of infectious disease that has spread through human populations across a large region, multiple continents, or worldwide.
Paralic
Marine and non-marine deposits, typically interfingered, that generally occur on the landward side of a coastline, or in an area sporadically invaded by sea water.
Particulate matter
Particles or solids or liquids in the air. Typically reported as PM10- consisting of fine particles that are 10 micrometers or less in diameter- and PM2.5-particles that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter.
Peak flood The highest discharge or stage value of a flood.
Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA)
The greatest amplitude of acceleration measured for a single frequency on an earthquake accelerogram. The maximum horizontal ground motion generated by an earthquake. The measure of this motion is the acceleration of gravity (equal to 32 feet per second squared, or 980 centimeter per second squared), and generally expressed as a percentage of gravity.
Pedogenic Pertaining to soil formation.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 25
Perched groundwater Unconfined groundwater separated from an underlying main body of ground water by an unsaturated zone.
Peak flood The highest discharge or stage value of a flood.
Perchlorates
Negatively charged molecules highly persistent in the environment that can displace the iodide molecule in the thyroid gland, leaving to hypothyroidism in adults, and impaired development in infants.
Perennial stream A stream that flows continuously throughout the year.
Planimetric Describes maps that indicate only human-made features like buildings.
Planning The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of goals, policies and procedures for a social or economic unit.
Playa
Term used in the Southwestern US to describe a flat-floored, typically unvegetated area composed of thin, stratified sheets of fine clay, silt or sand that represent the bottom or central part of a shallow, completely closed or undrained desert lake basin where water accumulates after a rainstorm and quickly evaporates, leaving behind deposits of soluble salts.
Pleistocene
Geologic epoch that lasted from about 2.58 million years ago to 11,700 years ago, spanning the most recent period of repeated glaciations. See Holocene and Quaternary entries also.
Plutonic Pertaining to igneous rocks formed at great depth.
Plywood
Wood structural panel composed of plies of wood veneer arranged in cross-aligned layers. The plies are bonded with an adhesive that cures on application of heat and pressure.
Polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAs)
Group of compounds containing carbon to fluorine chemical bonds that are manufactured and used to enhance the repellency of water, grease, and soil in consumer products. These chemicals are very stable and resistant to environmental degradation, and readily absorbed but not readily eliminated from the human body. Long-term exposure can cause harmful health effects to a developing fetus or infant, suppress the immune system, disrupt thyroid function, increase liver weight, and lead to cancer.
Pore pressure The stress transmitted by the fluid that fills the voids between particles of a soil or rock mass.
Post foundation
Foundation consisting of vertical support members set in holes and backfilled with compacted material. Posts are usually made of wood and usually must be braced. Posts are also known as columns, but columns are usually made of concrete or masonry.
Post-FIRM structure
For purposes of determining insurance rates under the National Flood Insurance Program, structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate Map or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, including any subsequent improvements to such structures. This term should not be confused with the term new construction as it is used in floodplain management.
Pounding
The crashing of buildings next to each other as they sway and deflect in response to strong ground shaking. This can result in significant damage to the structures, especially if the floors are at different elevations, such that a reinforced floor hits the columns of an adjacent building.
Precast concrete Structural concrete element cast elsewhere than its final position in the structure. See Cast-in-place concrete.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 26
Pre-Holocene fault A fault that last ruptured the ground surface more than 11,700 years ago.
Preparedness Actions that strengthen the capability of government, people, and communities to respond to disasters.
Prescribed fire A fire ignited under known conditions of fuel, weather, and topography to achieve specific objectives.
Pressure-treated wood
Wood impregnated under pressure with compounds that reduce the susceptibility of the wood to flame spread or to deterioration caused by fungi, insects, or marine borers.
Primary fault rupture Fissuring and displacement of the ground surface along a fault that breaks in an earthquake.
Probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis
(PSHA)
An analytical method used to quantify the rate (or probability) of exceeding various ground-motion levels at a site (or a map of sites) given all possible earthquakes.
Probability of
occurrence
A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.
Generally based on past hazard events and a forecast of events that could occur in the future.
Project
A development application involving zone changes, variances, conditional use permits, tentative parcel maps, tentative tract maps, and plan amendments.
Public Safety Power
Shutoff (PSPS)
An intentional shutdown of electrical power in an area because of hazardous weather conditions which could contribute to the possibility of wildfires.
Quaternary The second period of the Cenozoic era, consisting of the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs; covers the last approximately two million years.
Rain shadow
A reduction in precipitation in an area on the leeward side of a mountain or range of mountains, caused by the release of moisture on the windward side.
Recovery
Restoring, redeveloping and revitalizing the health, social, economic, natural and environmental fabric of a community during and following a disaster.
Recurrence interval
The time between earthquakes of a given magnitude, or within a given magnitude range, on a specific fault or within a specific area. More generally, a measure based on the probability that a given hazard event will be equaled or exceeded in any given year based on past occurrences (called the return period).
Reinforced concrete Structural concrete reinforced with steel bars.
Remedial action
Long-term responses at sites in the National Priorities List (NPL) with the objective of permanently and significantly reducing the risk associated with the past release of hazardous substances at these sites.
Remote shutoff Valve that can be used to shut off the flow of a substance or chemical from a location away from the spill or break.
Removal action
Short-term responses, often to address emergency situations that require a prompt response, such as the finding of abandoned drums containing hazardous materials or soils contaminated with a substance that poses an acute risk to human health or the environment.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 27
Repetitive loss
property
A property that is currently insured for which two or more National Flood Insurance Program losses (occurring more than ten days apart) of at least $1000 each have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978.
Replacement value
The cost of rebuilding a structure. This is usually expressed in terms of cost per square foot, and reflects the present-day cost of labor and materials to construct a building of a particular size, type and quality.
Reportable quantity
A term used by the EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) to denote a quantity of chemicals that require some kind of action, such as reporting an inventory or reporting an accident involving a certain amount of chemicals.
Representative
Concentration
Pathways (RCPs)
Greenhouse gas concentration trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that represent different scenarios based on whether or not emissions are curtailed and mitigated.
The RCP numbers (2.6, 4.5…8.5) refer to the range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100 that affect global warming and climate change.
Radiative forcing is the change in the net radiative flux [energy measured in watts per square meter (W m− 2)] at the tropopause or top of atmosphere due to a change in an external driver of climate change such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or changes in solar energy output. A low RCP number represents an aggressive reduction of emissions that in turn resolves into a lower temperature increase in 2100 relative to pre-industrial worldwide temperatures.
Resilience
The capacity of people, organizations, or systems to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and/or rapidly recover from disruption due to an emergency.
Resonance
Amplification of ground motion frequencies within bands matching the natural frequency of a structure and often causing partial or complete structural collapse; effects may demonstrate minor damage to single-story residential structures while adjacent 3- or 4-story buildings may collapse because of corresponding frequencies, or vice versa.
Response spectra The range of potentially damaging frequencies of a given earthquake applied to a specific site and for a particular building or structure.
Response time
The time that elapses between the moment a 911 call is placed to the emergency dispatch center and the time that a first-responder arrives on scene. Response time includes dispatch time, turnout time (the time it takes firefighters to travel to the fire station, don their personal protection equipment, and prepare the apparatus), and travel time.
Retrofit
Any change made to an existing structure to reduce or eliminate damage to that structure from flooding, erosion, high winds, earthquakes, or other hazards.
Revetment
Facing of stone, cement, sandbags, or other materials placed on an earthen wall or embankment to protect it from erosion or scour caused by flood waters or wave action.
Richter scale
A numerical scale of earthquake magnitude devised by seismologist C.F.
Richter in 1935. Seismologists no longer use this magnitude scale because of limitations in how it measures large earthquakes, and prefer instead to use moment magnitude as a measure of the energy released during an earthquake.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 28
Ridgetop shattering
An earthquake-induced type of ground failure that occurs along at or along the top of ridges, forming linear, fault-like fissures, and leaving the area looking like it was plowed.
Right-lateral fault 0BA strike-slip fault across which a viewer would see the block on the opposite side of the fault move to the right.
Riprap Broken stone, cut stone blocks, or rubble that is placed on slopes to protect them from erosion or scour caused by flood waters or wave action.
Risk
The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard.
Risk assessment
Process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to hazards.
Risk ranking Process to score and rank hazards based on the probability that they will occur and the impact that they will have if they do occur.
Riverine Of or produced by a river.
Rockfall Free-falling to tumbling mass of bedrock that has broken off steep canyon walls or cliffs.
Rogue wave
Unusually large and unpredictable surface wave that can be damaging to ships and coastal structures. What causes rogue waves to form is not completely understood, but recent modeling suggests that linear superposition can cause a wave to draw energy from other nearby waves and briefly become very large. Also referred to as freak waves, monster waves, killer waves, extreme waves and abnormal waves; these names allude to how these waves are unusual and dangerous.
Roof deck Flat or sloped roof surface not including its supporting members or vertical supports.
Rotational landslide
Landslide that occurs along a curved or spoon-shaped surface. Backtilting may occur near the scarp (top) of the landslide and there is often a toe of displaced material at the base. Rotational slides often occur because the internal strength of the material is overcome by its own weight.
Runway Protection
Zone (RPZ)
Trapezoidal-shaped areas at ground level off the end of an airport runway that serves to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground in the event an aircraft lands or crashes beyond the runway end. The dimensions of RPZs vary depending upon the type of landing approach that is available (visual, non-precision, precision) and the characteristics of the aircraft (size, weight, approach speed).
Safety Data Sheet
(SDS)
Information sheets for employees that provide specific information about a chemical that they may come in contact at their place of work, with attention to health effects, handling, and emergency procedures.
Sand boil
An accumulation of sand resembling a miniature volcano or low volcanic mound produced by the expulsion of liquefied sand to the sediment surface. Also called sand blows, and sand volcanoes.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 29
Sandstone
A medium-grained, clastic sedimentary rock composed of abundant rounded or angular fragments of sand size set in a fine-grained matrix and more or less firmly united by a cementing material.
Santa Ana (or
Santana) wind
Strong, typically extremely dry offshore winds that characteristically blow through southern California and northern Baja California in late fall and winter. They typically originate in the Great Basin or upper Mojave Desert, and can be either hot or cold. The winds tend to funnel down the valleys and canyons, where gusts can attain speeds of 60 to 90 miles per hour (mph). Several devastating wildfires in southern California have been associated with Santa Ana winds.
Saturated Said of the condition in which the interstices of a material are filled with a liquid, usually water.
Scale
A proportion used in determining a dimensional relationship; the ratio of the distance between two points on a map and the actual distance between the two points on the earth's surface.
Scarp A steep slope. A line of cliffs produced by faulting or by erosion. The term is an abbreviated form of escarpment.
Schist A metamorphic rock characterized by a preferred orientation in grains resulting in the rock’s ability to be split into thin flakes or slabs.
Scour
Removal of soil or fill material by the flow of floodwaters. The term is frequently used to describe storm-induced, localized conical erosion around pilings and other foundation supports where the obstruction of flow increases turbulence.
Sea level rise (SLR)
The rise in global mean sea level due to the added water from melting glaciers and the thermal expansion of seawater as a result of higher water temperatures.
Secondary fault
rupture
Ground surface displacements along faults other than the main traces of active regional faults.
Sediment
Solid fragmental material that originates from weathering of rocks and is transported or deposited by air, water, ice, or that accumulates by other natural agents, such as chemical precipitation from solution, and that forms in layers on the Earth's surface in a loose, unconsolidated form.
Sedimentary rock
Type of rock composed of material deposited at the Earth’s surface or at the bottom of bodies of water by the actions of water, wind, gravity, or ice. Sedimentary rocks generally differ from sediment in that the individual particles have been partially or fully cemented together by clay, silica, calcium carbonate or some other material, giving the rock strength.
Seiche
A free or standing-wave oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin (such as a lake, bay, or harbor), that is initiated chiefly by local changes in atmospheric pressure, aided by winds, tidal currents, and earthquakes, and that continues, pendulum-fashion, for a time after cessation of the originating force.
Seismic moment
A measure of the size of an earthquake that is associated with the amount of energy released (the force that was necessary to overcome the friction along the fault plane), the area of the fault rupture, and the average amount of slip.
Seismicity Describes the likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes.
Seismogenic Capable of producing earthquake activity.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 30
Seismograph An instrument that detects, magnifies, and records vibrations of the Earth, especially earthquakes. The resulting record is a seismogram.
Sensitivity
In regards to climate change, it refers to characteristics of a population or system that are dependent on specific environmental conditions, and the degree to which the population or system will likely be affected by climate change (e.g., temperature or hydrological requirements).
Shear wall Load-bearing wall or non-load-bearing wall that transfers in-plane lateral forces from lateral loads acting on a structure to its foundation.
Sheet flow
An overland flow or downslope movement of water taking the form of a thin, continuous film over relatively smooth soil or rock surfaces, and not concentrated into channels larger than rills.
Shutter ridge That portion of an offset ridge that blocks or “shutters” the adjacent canyon.
Significant hazard
dam
Dam that if it fails can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or disruption of lifeline facilities, or that can impact other concerns, but not necessarily cause the loss of life.
Sidehill fill A wedge of artificial fill typically placed on the side of a natural slope to create a roadway or a level building pad.
Silt
A rock fragment or detrital particle smaller than a very fine sand grain and larger than coarse clay, having a diameter in the range of 1/256 to 1/16 mm (4-62 microns, or 0.00016-0.0025 in.). An indurated silt having the texture and composition of shale but lacking its fine lamination is called a siltstone.
Single Event Noise
Exposure Level
(SENEL)
The sound level produced by a single aircraft at a particular measuring point, recorded during the duration of that event.
Single-ply membrane Roofing membrane that is field-applied with one layer of membrane material (either homogeneous or composite) rather than multiple layers.
Slip rate
The speed at which a fault is moving, typically expressed in millimeters per year (mm/yr), and generally estimated by measuring the amount of offset that has occurred in a given, known amount of time.
Slope creep Deformation and movement of the outer soil or rock that covers a slope due to the forces of gravity overcoming the shear strength of the material.
Slope ratio
Refers to the angle or gradient of a slope as the ratio of horizontal units to vertical units. For example, in a 2:1 slope, for every two horizontal units, there is a vertical rise of one unit (equal to a slope angle, from the horizontal, of 26.6 degrees).
Slopewash The movement of soil and rock down a slope by rain.
Slump A landslide characterized by a shearing and rotary movement of a generally independent mass of rock or earth along a curved slip surface.
Social vulnerability
index (SVI)
A measure established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and adopted by FEMA to rate the ability of a community to respond to natural and human-caused disasters that is based on social factors such as poverty, age, level of education, access to a vehicle and smart phone, etc.
These values are assigned at the county, city and census tract level and range from 0 (low) to 1 (high).
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 31
Soft-story building
Building with a story, generally the ground or first floor, lacking adequate strength or toughness due to too few shear walls. Examples of this type of structure include apartments above glass-fronted stores, and buildings perched atop parking garages.
Soil horizon A layer of soil that is distinguishable from adjacent layers by characteristic physical properties such as structure, color, or texture.
Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA)
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, an area having special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or Flood Insurance Rate Map as Zone A, AO, A1-A30, AE, A99, AH, V, V1-V30, VE, M or E.
Stafford Act
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100-107 was signed into law November 23, 1988 and amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs.
Stakeholder
Business leaders, civic groups, academia, non-profit organizations, major employers, managers of critical facilities, farmers, developers, special purpose districts, and others whose actions could impact hazard mitigation efforts.
Standardized
Emergency
Management System
(SEMS)
(Government Code § 8607). The group of principles developed for coordinating state and local emergency response in California. SEMS provides for organization of a multiple-level emergency response, and is intended to structure and facilitate the flow of emergency information and resources within and between the organizational levels--the field response, local government, operational areas, regions and the state management level. SEMS incorporates by reference: the Incident Command System (ICS); multi-agency or inter-agency coordination; the State's Mutual Aid Program; and Operational Areas.
Start of construction
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
State Coordinating
Agency
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the agency of the state government, or other office designated by the Governor of the state or by state statute to assist in the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in that state.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 32
State Hazard
Mitigation Officer
(SHMO)
The representative of state government who is the primary point of contact with FEMA, other state and Federal agencies, and local units of government in the planning and implementation of pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities.
State Responsibility
Area (SRA)
Per California Public Resources Code 4125-4127, the lands in which the State has primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires.
Stillwater elevation
Projected elevation that flood waters would assume, referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum, North American Vertical Datum, or other datum, in the absence of waves resulting from wind or seismic effects.
Storage capacity Dam storage measured in acre-feet or decameters, including dead storage.
Strandline Shoreline, especially one above current sea level.
Strike-slip fault A fault with a vertical to sub-vertical fault surface that displays evidence of horizontal and opposite displacement.
Structural concrete All concrete used for structural purposes, including plain concrete and reinforced concrete.
Structural engineer A licensed civil engineer certified by the State as qualified to design and supervise the construction of engineered structures.
Structural fill Fill compacted to a specified density to provide structural support or protection to a structure. See Fill.
Structure
Something constructed, such as a building, or part of one. For floodplain management purposes under the National flood Insurance Program, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. For insurance coverage purposes under the NFIP, structure means a walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground and affixed to a permanent site, as well as a manufactured home on a permanent foundation. For the latter purpose, the term includes a building while in the course of construction, alteration, or repair, but does not include building materials or supplies intended for use in such construction, alteration, or repair, unless such materials or supplies are within an enclosed building on the premises.
Subdrain
An underground pipe or network of piping used to remove water from areas that collect or retain surface water or groundwater. A subdrain system is typically installed behind concrete or masonry walls built to retain a vertical slope face (retaining wall), to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, which would in time make it fail.
Subsidence The sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the Earth's surface with little or no horizontal motion.
Superfund
Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
(SARA)
Law that regulates a number of environmental issues, predominantly for the chemical inventory reporting by industry to the local community.
Surficial failure Type of slope failure that impacts the near-surface soil and weathered rock face, typically in response to the effects of gravity and precipitation.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 33
Substantial damage
Damage of any origin sustained by a structure in a Special Flood Hazard Area whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage.
Substantial
improvement
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures, which have incurred substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either (1) any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or (2) any alteration of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” Super typhoon A typhoon with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph or more.
Surface faulting
The differential movement of two sides of a fracture – in other words, the location where the ground breaks apart. The length, width, and displacement of the ground characterize surface faults.
Surface fault rupture Offset of the ground surface when a fault rupture extends to the Earth’s surface.
Surficial failure Type of slope failure that impacts the near-surface soil and weathered rock face, typically in response to the effects of gravity and precipitation.
Surge See Storm surge.
Sustainability
Strategy for improving the quality of life while preserving the environmental potential for the future. Refers to the preservation of resources, including physical, social, economic, environmental, historical, and cultural, for the benefit of future generations.
Swale In hillside terrace, a shallow drainage channel, typically with a rounded depression or “hollow” at the head.
Talus The cone-shaped accumulation of angular fragments of rock or soil at the base of a cliff that has experienced rockfalls.
Target fire hazard
A facility or structure within a fire department’s jurisdiction that if it caught fire, it could overwhelm the fire department’s fire response capabilities.
Target hazards typically include industrial buildings, facilities that use, store or manufacture hazardous materials, high-occupancy facilities, and structures that house sensitive populations, like schools and hospitals.
Tectonic plate
Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth's lithosphere that may be assumed to move horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between plate boundaries that cause seismic activity.
Teletsunami
Tsunami that originates from a distant source, generally defined as more than 1,000 km (620 miles) away or at least three-hours travel across the ocean from its source to the area of interest. Teletsunamis are usually caused by earthquakes of magnitudes higher than 7.5.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 34
Thirty (30)-year
erosion setback
A state or local requirement that prohibits new construction and certain improvements and repairs to existing coastal buildings located in an area expected to be lost to shoreline retreat over a 30-year period. The inland extent of the area is equal to 30 times the average annual long-term recession rate at a site, measured from a reference feature.
Thrust fault A fault, with a relatively shallow dip, in which the upper block, above the fault plane, moves up over the lower block.
Thunderstorm A weather condition that develops when warm, moist air meets a cold front, producing strong winds, and sometimes tornadoes and hail.
Topographic
Characterizes maps that show natural features and indicate the physical shape of the land using contour lines. These maps may also include human-made features.
Topple
A type of gross slope failure that involves the forward rotation and movement of a mass of rock, earth or debris out of a slope. This kind of slope failure generally occurs around an axis (or point) at or near the base of the block of rock.
Tornado A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground.
Transform system A system in which faults of plate-boundary dimensions transform into another plate-boundary structure when it ends.
Translational
landslide
Landslide where the downslope movement of material occurs along a distinctly planar surface, such as a bedding plane, joint or fault.
Transpression In crustal deformation, an intermediate stage between compression and strike-slip motion; it occurs in zones with oblique compression.
Tropical cyclone A generic term for a cyclonic, low-pressure system over tropical or subtropical waters.
Tropical depression A tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of less than 39 mph.
Tropical disturbance
Tropical cyclone that maintains its identity for at least 24 hours and is marked by moving thunderstorms and with slight or no rotary circulation at the water surface. Winds are not strong. It is a common phenomenon in the tropics and is the first discernable stage in the development of a hurricane.
Tropical storm A tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds greater than 39 mph and less than 74 mph.
Tsunami Great sea wave produced by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption.
Turbidite
Deep marine geologic deposit characterized by a fining-upward sequence, from pebble conglomerate at the bottom to fine-grained shale at the top. These sediments are transported and deposited by low density flows or turbidity currents. Turbidites typically exhibit several finingupward intervals, each representative of one flow event.
Typhoon
A special category of tropical cyclone peculiar to the western North Pacific Basin, frequently affecting areas in the vicinity of Guam and the North Mariana Islands. Typhoons whose maximum sustained winds attain or exceed 150 mph are called super typhoons.
Unconfined aquifer Aquifer in which the upper surface of the saturated zone is free to rise and fall.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 35
Unconsolidated
sediments
A deposit that is loosely arranged or unstratified, or whose particles are not cemented together, occurring either at the surface or at depth.
Underground Storage
Tank (UST)
Tank, commonly used to store gasoline, diesel or other chemical, that is buried under the ground.
Undermining
Process whereby the vertical component of erosion or scour exceeds the depth of the base of a building foundation or the level below which the bearing strength of at the foundation is compromised.
Unreinforced
Masonry (URM)
Structure
Structures in which there is no steel reinforcement within the masonry walls. The definition of an unreinforced masonry building can vary among jurisdictions. Some cities classify unreinforced infill walls within a reinforced frame as a URM while others classify unreinforced exterior veneers on to a wood frame as URMs.
Uplift
Hydrostatic pressure caused by water under a building. It can be strong enough lift a building off its foundation, especially when the building is not properly anchored to its foundation.
Upper bound
earthquake
The ground motion with a 10% chance of exceedance in 100 years, with a statistical return period of 949 years.
Variance Under the National Flood Insurance Program, grant of relief by a community from the terms of a floodplain management regulation.
Violation
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community’s floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in Sections 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) of the NFIP regulations is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided.
Volcanic rocks Rocks formed from lava erupted from a volcano. They are very common in the oceans, and at plate boundaries.
Vulnerability
Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power – if an electric substation is flooded, it will affect not only the substation itself, but a number of businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct ones.
Vulnerability
assessment
The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address impacts of hazard events on the existing and future built environment.
V zone
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, these are coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26% chance of being flooded over the life of a 30-year mortgage, and as a result, property owners in the V zone are required to buy flood insurance. No base elevations are shown within these zones.
Watershed A topographically defined region draining into a particular water course.
Waterspout Tornado that forms over water.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Glossary Page E - 36
Water surface
elevation
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (or other datum, where specified), of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.
Water table The upper surface of groundwater saturation of pores and fractures in rock or surficial earth materials.
Water year The 12-month period from October 1 through September 30 of the following year.
Wave Ridge, deformation, or undulation of the water surface.
Wave crest elevation Elevation of the crest of a wave.
Wave height Vertical distance between the wave crest and wave trough.
Wave runup Rush of wave water up a slope or structure.
Wave runup depth Vertical distance between the maximum wave runup elevation and the eroded ground elevation.
Wave runup elevation Elevation, referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum or other datum, reached by wave runup.
Weather
The short-term state of the air or atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness, or any other meteorological phenomena.
Wildfire An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures.
Wildland-urban
interface area (WUI)
The area where wildland approaches or interfaces with the urban environment. Important in fire hazard studies where wildland fires have the potential to impact the built environment.
X zone
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, areas where the flood hazard is less than that in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Shaded X zones shown on recent Flood Insurance Rate Maps (B zones on older maps) designate areas subject to inundation by the 500-year flood. Un-shaded X zones (C zones on older Flood Insurance Rate Maps) designate areas where the annual probability of flooding is less than 0.2 percent.
Zone A geographical area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.
Zoning ordinance Ordinance that designates allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Los Angeles Area Disasters Page F - 1
APPENDIX F: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
AREA DISASTERS SINCE 1950
Disaster Name Disaster
# Year
CA Counties
(or Cities)
Declared
State
Proclamation or
Federal Declaration
Date
# of
Deaths
# of
Injuries
Cost of
Damage
(see notes at end)
Floods OCD
50-01
1950 Statewide 11/21/1950 9 $32.2 million
Flood and
Erosion
DR-15 1954 Statewide 02/05/1954 - - Not available
Fire, Flood, and
Erosion
DR-28 1954 Los Angeles, San Bernardino 02/05/1954 - - Not available Floods DR-47 1955 Statewide 12/22/55 74 - $200 million
Fires DR-65 1956 Los Angeles (Malibu area),
Ventura
12/29/1956 1 Several
hundred
$70 million
Fires CDO
58-01
1958 Los Angeles 01/03/1958 1 23 Not available
Storms &
Flooding
DR-82 1958 Statewide 04/02/1958 13 several $24 million
Potential Flood
Damage and
Landsides as a
Result of Fires
CDO
59-01
1959 Los Angeles 01/08/1959 - - Not available
Major and
Widespread Fires
N/A 1960 Los Angeles, San Bernardino 07/21-22/1960 12 $10 million Bel Air Fires DR-119 1961 Los Angeles 11/16/1961 103 $50-$100 million Flood and
Rainstorm
DR-122 1962 Los Angeles, Ventura 02/16/1962
02/23/1962
03/06/1962
- - Not available
Severe storms
and Flooding
DR-138 1962 Statewide 10/24/1962 - - Not available
Severe storms,
Heavy rains and
Flooding
DR-145 1963 Statewide 02/25/1963 - - Not available
Baldwin Hills
Dam Failure
DR-161 1963 Los Angeles 12/16/1963 5 27 $5.2 million
Abnormally
Heavy and
Continuous
Rainfall
N/A 1963 Northern California (boundaries
of San Luis Obispo, Ventura, Los
Angeles, and San Bernardino
counties to the Oregon State Line
2/14/1964 Not Available
Major
Widespread Fires
(Weldon Fire)
N/A 1964 Los Angeles 03/16/1964 - - $2 million
Storms N/A 1964 Los Angeles 04/03/1964 $1.6 million
Seismic Sea Wave
(Tsunami –
Alaska EQ)
DR-169 1964 Statewide 04/01/1964 13 - $20 million
Watts Riots N/A 1965 Los Angeles 08/14/1965 34 1,032 $445 million Flooding and
Landslides
Caused by Heavy
Rains
N/A 1965 Los Angeles (Burbank, Los
Angeles)
01/05/1965 - - Not available
Slide Damage N/A 1965 Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles, Pacific Palisades area)
06/21/1965 - - $6.5 million
Major and
Widespread Fires
N/A 1967 Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego,
Ventura
01/07/1967 - - $11.3 million
Santa Barbara
Major Oil Spill
N/A 1969 Coastal Areas of Southern
California
- - - Not available
1969 Storms DR-253 1969 Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo,
Fresno, Inyo, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Tulare,
Ventura, Amador, El Dorado,
Kern, Kings, Madera, Modoc,
Mono, Monterey, Orange, Placer,
1/23/69, 1/25,69,
1/28/69, 1/29/69,
2/8/69, 2/10/69,
2/16/69, 3/12/69
1/26/1969 (Fed)
47 161 $300 million
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Los Angeles Area Disasters Page F - 2
Disaster Name Disaster
# Year
CA Counties
(or Cities)
Declared
State
Proclamation or
Federal Declaration
Date
# of
Deaths
# of
Injuries
Cost of
Damage
(see notes at end)
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta,
Solano, Stanislaus, Tuolumne,
Mariposa, Merced, Calaveras, San
Benito, Sierra, Contra Costa,
Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma,
Plumas, Tehama, Yuba, Butte,
Marin, Yolo
Slide Damage
Caused by Heavy
Rains and Storms
N/A 1970 Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles) 03/10/1970 - - $8.5 million Statewide Fires DR-295 1970 City of Oakland, and Los Angeles, Ventura, San Diego, Kern, San
Bernardino, Monterey, Riverside
counties
9/24/70, 9/28/70,
10/1/70, 10/2/70,
10/20/70, 11/14/70
09/29/1970 (Fed)
19 - $223.6 million
San Fernando
Earthquake
DR-299 1971 Los Angeles 02/09/1971
(State & Fed)
58 2,000 $484 million
Exotic Newcastle
Disease Epidemic
N/A 1972 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego,
Ventura, Santa Barbara
4/10/1972
05/22/1972
- - $10 million
Fires N/A 1973 Los Angeles 07/16/1973 - - $1.3 million
Gasoline
Purchasing
Problems
N/A 1974 Alameda, Contra Costa, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Mateo, Solano, Santa Clara,
Ventura
02/28/1974
03/04/1974
03/10/1974
- - Not available
Fires N/A 1975 Los Angeles 11/24/1975 - - $19.5 million Drought N/A 1976 Alpine, Calaveras, Colusa, Fresno,
Glenn, Madera, Merced, San
Diego, San Joaquin, Solano,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tuolumne,
Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa,
Kings, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Luis Obispo, Tulare, Yolo,
Amador, Monterey, Napa,
Nevada, San Benito, San
Bernardino, Tehama, San Mateo,
Marin
02/09/1976
02/13/1976
02/24/1976
03/26/1976
07/06/1976
- - $2.7 billion
1978 Los Angeles
Fire
EM-3067 1978 Los Angeles (City of Los AngelesPacific Palisades, Malibu)10/24/1978 1 - $61.3 million Storms DR-547 1978 Inyo, Mono, San Diego, San Luis
Obispo, Kings, Monterey, Kern,
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, Santa Barbara,
Tulare, Ventura
03/09/1978
02/27/1978
02/13/1978
14 21 $117.8 million
Gasoline
Shortage
Emergency
N/A 1979 Alameda, Contra Costa, Los
Angeles, Marin, Monterey,
Orange, Riverside, San Francisco,
San Diego, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, San Mateo, Ventura, San
Bernardino, Sonoma, Contra
Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, Santa
Clara
05/8/1979
01/13/1979
- - Not available
Fires N/A 1979 Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los
Angeles, El Dorado
09/28/1979
09/21/1979
09/20/1979
- - $10 million
1980 Winter
Storms
DR-615 1980 Santa Barbara, Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, Ventura, San
Bernardino, San Diego
02/21/1980
02/07/1980
- - Not available
Southern
California Fires
DR-635 1980 San Bernardino, Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside
11/18/1980 - - $64.8 million
Mediterranean
Fruit Fly
Infestation
N/A 1981 Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San
Benito, Stanislaus, Santa Cruz, San
Mateo
08/08/1981
09/25/1981
- - $22 million
Dayton Hills Fire N/A 1982 Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura 10/10/1982 - - $19.3 million 1982-83 Winter
Storms and
DR-677
82-18
1982 Contra Costa, San Joaquin,
Sacramento, Marin, San Mateo,
12/08/1982
03/21/1983
- - $523.6 million
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Los Angeles Area Disasters Page F - 3
Disaster Name Disaster
# Year
CA Counties
(or Cities)
Declared
State
Proclamation or
Federal Declaration
Date
# of
Deaths
# of
Injuries
Cost of
Damage
(see notes at end)
Floods Los Angeles, San Diego, Alameda,
Orange, San Benito, Santa
Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz,
Shasta, Sonoma, Ventura, Trinity,
Colusa, Lake, Mendocino,
Monterey, San Luis Obispo,
Solano, Yolo, Butte, Glenn, Kern,
Kings, San Bernardino, Sutter,
Tehama, Merced, Del Norte,
Fresno, Madera, Napa, Placer,
Riverside, Stanislaus, Tulare,
Humboldt, Mariposa, Nevada,
Yuba
02/09/1983 (Fed)
Mexican Fruit Fly N/A 1983 Los Angeles 11/4/1983 - - Not available High Winds 83-01 1983 Yuba, Los Angeles 03/1983 - - Not available 1983 Floods 83-05 1983 Los Angeles 03/1983 - - Not available Statewide Fires DR-739 1985 San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Ventura, (and City of Los
Angeles)
07/01/1985
07/11/1985
07/18/1985 (Fed)
3 470 $64.8 million
Plane Crash N/A 1986 Los Angeles (Cerritos) 08/31/1986 82 2 Not available Mediterranean
Fruit Fly
N/A 1987 Los Angeles 08/25/1987 - - Not available
Whittier
Earthquake
DR-799
87-01
1987 Los Angeles (Monterey Park,
Whittier), Orange
10/02/1987
10/05/1987
10/07/1987 (Fed)
9 200+ $358 million
Coastal Storms DR-812
87-04
1988 Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego,
Ventura
01/21/1988
02/05/1988 (Fed)
- - Not available
Mediterranean
Fruit Fly
N/A 1988 Los Angeles 07/21/1988 - - Not available
Fire and Wind
Driven Waves
N/A 1988 Los Angeles (Redondo Beach) 06/15/1988 - - $25 million Fires 87-07 1988 Los Angeles 05/1988 - - Not available
Fires/ High
Winds
88-03 1988 Los Angeles 12/09/1988 0 2 $12.4 million
Mediterranean
Fruit Fly
N/A 1989 Los Angeles 08/09/1989 Not available
Upland
Earthquake
89-07 1990 Los Angeles, San Bernardino 03/9/1990
03/13/1990
0 38 $12 million
Mexican Fruit Fly N/A 1990 Los Angeles, San Diego 05/14/1990 - - Not available Santa Barbara
Fires
DR-872
89-08
1990 Los Angeles, Santa Barbara,
Riverside, San Bernardino
06/28/1990
06/29/1990
06/30/1990 (Fed)
3 89 $300 million
Freeze DR-894 1990 Santa Cruz, Fresno, Glenn,
imperial, Kern, Mendocino,
Monterey, Riverside, San Benito,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San
Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara,
Solano, Sonoma, Tulare, Ventura,
Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Los
Angeles, Madera, Marin, Merced,
Napa, San Joaquin, San Luis
Obispo, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba,
Stanislaus, Tehama
12/19/90
01/18/1991
02/11/1991 (Fed)
- - $852.4 million
Sierra Madre
Earthquake
91-04 1991 Los Angeles 07/05/1991 1 30 $33.5 million
1992 Winter
Storms
DR-935
92-01
1992 Los Angeles, Ventura, City of Los
Angeles, Kern, Orange, San
Bernardino
02/12/1992
02/19/1992
02/25/1992 (Fed)
5 $123.2 million
Los Angeles Civil
Unrest (Riots)
DR-942
92-03
1992 Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles) 04/29/1992
05/22/1992 (Fed)
53 2,383 >$1 billion
Landers/Big Bear
Earthquakes
DR-947
92-04
1992 Riverside, San Bernardino, Los
Angeles
06/28/1992
06/28/1992 (Fed)
1 402 $15.6 million
1992 Late Winter DR-979 1992 Alpine, Los Angeles, Humboldt, 01/7/1993 20 10 $600 million
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Los Angeles Area Disasters Page F - 4
Disaster Name Disaster
# Year
CA Counties
(or Cities)
Declared
State
Proclamation or
Federal Declaration
Date
# of
Deaths
# of
Injuries
Cost of
Damage
(see notes at end)
Storms 93-01 Napa, Santa Barbara, Culver City,
City of Los Angeles, Contra
Costa, Mendocino, Sonoma,
Fresno, imperial, Madera,
Monterey, San Bernardino, Sierra,
Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Modoc,
Orange, Riverside, Lassen,
Siskiyou, Plumas, San Diego
02/19/1993
01/15/1993
Southern
California
Firestorms
DR-1005
93-05
1993 Los Angeles, Ventura, San Diego,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino
10/27/1993
10/28/1993
10/28/1993 (Fed)
4 162 $83 million
Northridge
Earthquake
DR-1008
94-01
1994 Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange 01/17/1994
01/24/1994
01/17/1994 (Fed)
57 11,846 $6.1 billion
Severe Winter
Storms
DR-1044
95-01
95-02
1995 Los Angeles, Orange, Humboldt,
Lake, Sonoma, Butte, Colusa,
Contra Costa, Del Norte, Glenn,
Kern, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc,
Monterey, Napa, placer, Plumas,
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Tehama,
Ventura, Yolo, Yuba, Alpine,
Amador, Nevada, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, San
Mateo, Shasta, Sutter, Trinity, San
Diego, Alameda, Marin, Fresno,
Kings, El Dorado, Madera, Solano,
Siskiyou
01/06/1995
03/14/1995
01/10/1995 (Fed)
11 NA $741.4 million
Late Winter
Storms (Southern
California)
DR-1046
95-04
1995 Imperial, Inyo, Los Angeles, Mono,
Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura
03/12/1995
03/14/1995
03/12/1995 (Fed)
17 NA $1.1 billion
Southern
California
Firestorms
EM-3120
96-04
1996 Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego,
Ventura (City of Santa
Buenaventura)
01/01/1996
10/22/1996
5 $12.6 million
El Niño Floods DR-1203
98-01
1998 Alameda, Amador, Butte,
Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa,
Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern,
Kings, Lake, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, Merced, Monterey,
Napa, Orange, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Benito, San
Bernardino, San Diego, San
Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis
Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou,
Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter,
Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Ventura,
Yolo, Yuba
17 NA $550 million
Windstorms 2000-02 2000 Los Angeles 04/01/2000 - - $78,081 2001 March
Storms & Floods
2001-01 2001 Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara
03/01/2001 - - $9.4 million
Williams Fire 2002-01
FM-2464
2002 Los Angeles 09/23/2002
10/10/2002
- - $6 million
Copper Fire FM-2417 2002 Los Angeles 06/06/2002 - - $2,927,981 Leona Fire FM-2462 2002 Los Angeles 09/03/2002 - - $2,410,655 Pacific Fire FM-2466 2003 Los Angeles 01/07/2003 (Fed) - - $2,017,043 Southern
California
Wildfires
DR-1498
2003-03
2003 Ventura, Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego
10/24/2003
10/26/2003
10/27/2003 (Fed)
24 246 $177.5 million
Verdale Fire FM-2502 2003 Los Angeles, Ventura 10/25/2003 (Fed) - - Not available Flash Flooding 2003-04 2003 Los Angeles 11/14/2003 - - $903,275 Pine Fire FM-2528 2004 Los Angeles 07/14/2004 (Fed) - - $9,028,675 Foothill Fire FM-2534 2004 Los Angeles 07/18/2004 (Fed) - - $4,319,501
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Los Angeles Area Disasters Page F - 5
Disaster Name Disaster
# Year
CA Counties
(or Cities)
Declared
State
Proclamation or
Federal Declaration
Date
# of
Deaths
# of
Injuries
Cost of
Damage
(see notes at end)
Crown Fire FM-2535 2004 Los Angeles 07/21/2004 (Fed) - - $2,604,924 Southern
California Severe
Storms
DR-1577
2005-01
2005 Kern, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura
1/12/2005
02/04/2005 (Fed)
28 8 $573.1 million
Floods DR-1585
2005-02
2005 Kern, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, Ventura
02/01/2005
04/14/2005 (Fed)
9 $198.7 million
Hurricane
Katrina
Evacuations
(Economic
impact)
EM-3248 2005 Statewide 07/25/2005 (Fed) $763,576
Topanga Fire FM-2583 2005 Los Angeles, Ventura 09/28/2005 (Fed) - - $19,787,415 Severe Freeze DR-1689
2007-02
2007 Statewide 01/12/2007 -
01/26/2007
03/13/2007 (Fed)
65 (US)
220
(US)
$1.3 billion
Catalina Island
Fire
FM-2694 2007 Los Angeles 05/10/2007 (Fed) - - Not available Griffith Park Fire FM-2691
2007-04
2007 Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles) 05/17/2007
05/08/2007 (Fed)
- - $2,508,441
Canyon fire FM-2708 2007 Los Angeles 07/08/2007 (Fed) - - $517,152 I-5 Major
Collision Fire
2007-13 2007 Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles) 10/14/2007 - - $66,465 Forest Fires DR-1731
2007-14
EM-3279
2007 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara and Ventura counties
10/23/2007
10/21/2007 (Fed)
10 139 $198.6 million
Santa Anita Fire FM-2763
2008-09
2008 Los Angeles 04/27/2008
04/27/2008 (Fed)
- - Not available
Marek Fire FM-2788 2008 Los Angeles 10/12/2008 (Fed) 2 NA $6,060,351 Sesnon Fire FM-2789 2008 Los Angeles, Ventura 10/13/2008 (Fed) 1 30 $12.6 million Wildfires,
including
Sayre Fire
DR-1810
FM-2792
2008-11
2008 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
and Santa Barbara
11/18/2008
11/18/2008 (Fed)
>28 >5 $95-$164 billion (est)
PV Fire FM-2828 2009 Los Angeles 08/28/2009 0 0 $317,175 Station Fire FM-2830
2009-05
2009 Los Angeles 08/28/2009 2 23 $19,053,328
Wildfires 2009-05 2009 Los Angeles 08/28/2009 - 6 $9,286,724 Flooding DR-1884
2010-02
2010 Imperial, Siskiyou, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Bernardino and
Calaveras
01/21/2010 -
01/27/2010
03/08/2010 (Fed)
2 $50.6 million
Crown Fire FM-2851 2010 Los Angeles 07/29/2010 (Fed) 0 0 $6,565,808 Wildfires 2010-06 2010 Los Angeles 08/07/2010 0 0 Not available Powerhouse Fire FM-5025 2013 North Los Angeles County, within the Angeles National Forest
06/02/2013 0 10 $2,023,801
Drought
(drinking water
shortage)
2014-03 2014 All 58 counties 09/18/2014 - - >$810 million Colby Fire FM-5051 2014 Los Angeles (near Morris
Reservoir north of Glendora,
within the Angeles National
Forest)
01/16/2014 - - 1,952 acres burned; 7
residences damaged, 5
destroyed. 1 outbuilding
damaged, 10 destroyed.
Wildfires DR-4240
2015-03
2015 All 58 counties 08/27/2015
09/22/2015 (Fed)
- - $242,803,440 +
$2,401,287
Storms, floods
(various)
Tropical Storm
Dolores
DR-4206
2015-04
2015 San Diego
Kern
01/27/205 (Fed)
7/19/2015
- - Not available
Not available
Hurricane Marie 2015-02 2014 Los Angeles (Avalon) - 1 NA $20 million (CA) Aliso Canyon
natural gas leak
Los Angeles 10/23/2015 - - Not available
Tree Mortality 2015-05 2015 Statewide 10/30/2015 0 0 Not available Old Fire FM-5124 2016 Los Angeles 06/05/2016 $1,923,392
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Los Angeles Area Disasters Page F - 6
Disaster Name Disaster
# Year
CA Counties
(or Cities)
Declared
State
Proclamation or
Federal Declaration
Date
# of
Deaths
# of
Injuries
Cost of
Damage
(see notes at end)
Fish Fire FM-5129 2016 Los Angeles 06/21/2016 0 0 $1,394,208 Sage Fire FM-5132 2016 Los Angeles 07/09/2016 0 0 $1,993,954 Sand Fire FM-5135 2016 Los Angeles 07/23/2016 2 0 $5,128,119 Late Jan-Feb
Storms (Flooding)
DR-4305
2017-02
2017 Alameda, Calaveras, Colusa,
Contra Costa, El Dorado, Inyo,
Kern, Los Angeles, Mendocino,
Modoc, Mono, Napa, Orange,
Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego,
San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Cruz, Trinity,
Tuolumne, Yolo
02/10/2017
03/16/2017 (Fed)
5 NA $80,972,695
(elsewhere reported as
>$2 Billion)
La Tuna Fire FM-5201 2017 Los Angeles 09/03/2017
09/02/2017 (Fed)
0 0 $10,232,240.78
Creek Fire FM-5225,
2017-12
2017 Los Angeles 12/05/2017
12/05/2017 (Fed)
0 3 $18,522,443
Rye Fire FM-5226,
2017-12
2017 Los Angeles 12/05/2017
12/05/2017 (Fed)
0 1 $10,037,011
Skirball Fire FM-5227,
2017-12
2017 Los Angeles 12/07/2017
12/07/2017 (Fed)
0 3 $6,858,306
December 2017
California
Wildfires
EM-3396
DR-4353
2017 Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego,
Santa Barbara, Ventura
12/07/2017
12/08/2017 (Fed)
2 16 >$3.5 billion
December 2017
California
Wildfires &
Debris Flows
DR-4353
2017-12
FM-5224
2017-
2018
Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los
Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara,
Ventura
12/05/2017 (FM-5224)
12/07/2017
01/02/2018 (SR-4353)
21 NA $432,850,634.74
Debris &
Mudflows
2018-02 2018 Los Angeles County (Burbank) - 0 0 $3,867,458 Wildfires, Mud
and Debris Flows
FM-5278
FM-5279
FM-5280
DR-4407
2018-09
EM-3409
2018 Butte, Los Angeles, Ventura 11/08/2018
11/8/2018 (Fed, Camp
and Hill)
11/09/2018 (Fed
Woolsey)
11/12/2018 (DR-4407)
88 (includes
Camp Fire in
Butte Co.)
NA $2,222,192,556
Mid-February
storms
DR-4331
2019-02
2019 Calaveras, Colusa, Los Angeles,
Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino,
Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, Santa Barbara, Shasta,
Trinity
05/01/2019
05/01/2019 (Fed)
2 NA $67,576,405
Saddleridge Fire 2020-02
FM-5296
2019 Los Angeles 10/11/2019
10/19/2019 (Fed)
1 8 $16,064,704.23
Tick Fire FM-5296 2019 Los Angeles 10/24/2019 0 0 $7,393,070.69 Getty Fire FM-5297 2019 Los Angeles 10/27 & 11/22/2019
10/28/2019 (Fed)
0 0 $9,118,156.54
COVID-19
Pandemic
EM-3428
DR-4482
2020-01
2020 Statewide 03/04/2020
03/13/2020 (EM-3428)
03/22/2020 (DR-4482)
110,810
(as of
04/05/2025)
- $13,958,966,199
Bobcat Fire CA20-3 2020 Los Angeles 09/25/2020 0 >6 >$100 million Drought 2021 All 58 counties 10/19/2021 229 (US) NA $10.3 billion (US) Winter Storms
(Dec. 2021)
CA22-3 2021 Alameda, Amador, Calaveras, El
Dorado, Humboldt, Lake, Los
Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Napa,
Nevada, Orange, Placer,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, San
Luis Obispo, San Mateo Santa
Cruz, Sierra Yuba
12/30/2021
01/08/2022
>22 NA $1.3 billion
Route Fire
Aug. 2022
CA22-9 Los Angeles 11/19/2022 0 7 Not available
Extreme Temp
Response
2022 Statewide 08/31/2022 >395 NA $7.7 billion (est)
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Los Angeles Area Disasters Page F - 7
Disaster Name Disaster
# Year
CA Counties
(or Cities)
Declared
State
Proclamation or
Federal Declaration
Date
# of
Deaths
# of
Injuries
Cost of
Damage
(see notes at end)
Tropical Storm
Kay
CA22-10 2022 Imperial, Inyo, Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino
09/16/2022 5 NA $63.5 million
Severe winter
storms Dec. 27,
2022-Jan. 2023)
CA23-1 2022-
2023
All 58 counties 01/04/2023 22 (through
March 2023)
NA $4.8 billion including storms
through March 2023
Severe winter
storms
(February-March
2023)
CA23-3 2023 Amador, Kern, Los Angeles,
Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada,
San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara, Sierra, Sonoma,
and Tulare
03/01/2023
03/08/2023
03/12/2023
03/14/2023
03/28/2023
04/20/2023
05/15/2023
06/16/2023
21 NA >$3 billion
Tropical Storm
Hilary (Aug. 20,
2023)
CA23-4
DR-4750
2023 Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, Tulare,
and Ventura
08/19/2023
08/20/2023
3 (2 in Mexico,
1 in CA)
NA >$126 million (CA)
I-10 Bridge Fire
(Nov. 2023)
CA24-1 2023 Los Angeles 11/11/2023 0 0 $6-10 million
Severe winter
storms (Dec.
2023-Jan. 2024)
CA24-2
DR-4758
2023-
2024
Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura 01/23/2024
02/02/2024
02/19/2024 (Fed)
06/21/2024
21 NA >$3 billion
Severe winter
storms –
atmospheric river
(Feb. 2024)
CA-24-3
DR-4769
2024 Alameda, Butte, Glenn, Humboldt,
Lake, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, Monterey, Napa,
Orange, Riverside, Sacramento,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San
Francisco, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz,
Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Trinity
and Ventura
06/21/2024 >9 NA $9-11 billion
Storms (March) CA24-4 2024 Alameda, Contra Costa, Del
Norte, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, Monterey, Napa,
Nevada, Plumas, San Bernardino,
San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano,
Sonoma, Trinity and Ventura
03/22/2024
06/21/2024
5 NA Up to $11 billion
Bridge Fire
(Sept 8, 2024)
FM-5537 2024 Los Angeles, San Bernardino 09/11/2024 0 8 $95-164 billion (est) Franklin Fire FM-5548 2024 Los Angeles (Malibu) 12/10/2024 (Fed) 0 0 $76-131 billion (est) Fire and
windstorm
conditions (Jan. 7,
2025)
CA25-2
DR-4856
FM-5549
FM-5550
FM-5551
2025 Los Angeles (City of Los AngelesPacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena, Pasadena), Ventura
01/07/2025
01/08/2025
30 NA $250-275 billion (est)
This table was compiled from a variety of sources, with the cost estimates often varying from source to source.
Typically, the dollar amounts shown in the last column reflect the highest figure found in the various sources reviewed, rounded.
Sources: California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (http://www.oes.ca.gov) and especially the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 2, available from https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Hazard-Mitigation/Documents/2023-California-SHMP_Volume-2_01.09.2024- FINAL.pdf;
FEMA’s interactive tool for historical disaster declarations by state, county, hazard and year (https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization/disaster-declarations-states-and-counties); and Wikipedia entries for dozens of historical wildfires and other disasters in California.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix G
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Major Dams in Los Angeles County Page G-1
APPENDIX G: MAJOR DAMS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Dam No. National
ID. No. Name Owner Stream Year Built
Capacity
(Ac-ft)
Res. Area
(acres)
Drainage
Area
(sq. miles)
Crest
Elev. (ft)
Height
(Ft)
Length
(Ft)
Dam
Type
Certified
Status
Downstream
Hazard
Condition
Assessment
Reservoir
Restrictions
1049-000 CA00881 10 MG Walteria City of Torrance Offstream 1953 31 1 282 40 1022 RECT Certified High Satisfactory No 1049-002 CA01193 18MG Walteria City of Torrance Offstream 1987 58 2 0.08 281.3 31 1287 RECT Certified High Satisfactory No 789-000 CA01406 Amargosa Creek City of Palmdale Amargosa Creek 1998 1187 93 23.6 3026.3 65 480 ERTH Certified Significant Satisfactory No 32-034 CA01150 Bailey Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Bailey Canyon Wash 1954 49 2.5 0.58 1167.6 43 585 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 32-000 CA00187 Big Dalton Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Big Dalton Wash 1929 1290 26 4.3 1718 153 480 MULA Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-030 CA01156 Big Dalton Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Big Dalton Wash 1960 208 10 7.33 1148 59 840 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 32-002 CA00188 Big Santa Anita Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Tributary Rio Hondo 1927 858 17 10.8 1328 225 612 VARA Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-006 CA00191 Big Tujunga No. 1 Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Big Tujunga Creek 1931 5750 83 81.7 2320 220 505 VARA Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-025 CA0151 Blanchard Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Blanchard Canyon 1966 26 1 0.5 2065 35 925 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 6-031 CA00088 Bouquet Canyon
(Bouquet Reservoir) City of Los Angeles Bouquet Creek 1934 36505 628 13.6 3008 190 1180 ERTH Certified Extremely High Satisfactory No 32-026 CA01152 Brand Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Brand Debris Basin 1965 42 3 1.03 903 45 400 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 5-000 CA00061 Brand Park City of Glendale Offstream 1930 32 1 0 970.6 99 230 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 1-058 CA00044 Castaic California Dept. of Water Resources Castaic Creek 1973 323700 2235 153.7 1535 340 5200 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 1-071 CA00740 Century California Dept. of Parks and Recreation Malibu Creek 1913 70 7 68.1 661 44 149 CORA Certified Significant Satisfactory No 6-039 CA00093 Channel Diversion Dike City of Los Angeles Storm Drain Channel 1940 437 28 6.3 1193 42 390 ERTH Certified/Inop Low Satisfactory No 6-004 CA00067 Chatsworth City of Los Angeles Tributary to Los Angeles River 1918 9886 607 5.4 900 45 2700 HYDF Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 5-008 CA01078 Chevy Chase 1290 City of Glendale Tributary to Sycamore Canyon 1940 17 1 0.01 1292 90 300 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 32-005 CA00190 Cogswell Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Wfk San Gabriel River 1935 8969 146 38.4 2412 266 585 ROCK Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-003 CA00189 Devils Gate Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Arroyo Seco 1920 2600 110 29.7 1075 108 252 GRAV Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 5-006 CA00064 Diederich Reservoir City of Glendale Offstream 1950 174 7 0 728 60 100 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-016 CA00077 Drinkwater City of Los Angeles Offstream 1923 92 4 0.03 2060 105 448 ERTH Certified Significant Satisfactory No 6-005 CA00068 Dry Canyon City of Los Angeles Dry Canyon Creek 1912 1140 58 4.5 1520 66 780 HYDF Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-041 CA00094 Eagle Rock City of Los Angeles Offstream 1953 254 7 0 963.5 113 495 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 5-009 CA01079 East Glorietta City of Glendale Tributary to Verdugo Canyon 1932 71 4 970 22 1730 RECT Certified High Satisfactory No 32-020 CA00201 Eaton Wash Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Eaton Wash 1936 721 54 9.47 902 63 1545 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-049 CA01080 Elderberry Forebay City of Los Angeles Castaic Creek 1974 28400 781 81.6 1550 179 1935 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No 6-006 CA00069 Elysian City of Los Angeles Tributary to Los Angeles River 1943 167 6 0.08 466 71 480 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 6-007 CA00070 Encino City of Los Angeles Encino Creek 1924 9789 158 1.4 1088 168 1850 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-008 CA00071 Fairmont City of Los Angeles Antelope Valley Creek 1912 7507 172 2.64 3043 121 4300 HYDF Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-053 CA1295 Fairmont #2 City of Los Angeles Tributary to Antelope Valley Creek 1982 493 28 0.08 3040 24 4437 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No 35-006 CA00217 Garvey Reservoir Metropolitan Water District Tributary to Rio Hondo 1954 1610 38 0 580 160 5164 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 5-007 CA00065 Glenoaks 968 Reservoir City of Glendale Offstream 1949 28 1 0 972 62 220 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 6-043 CA00096 Green Verdugo City of Los Angeles Tributary to Tujunga Wash 1953 99 3 0.04 1406 118 452 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 1061-000 CA00893 Greystone Reservoir City of Beverly Hills Offstream 1970 60 2 628 75 1140 RECT Certified Extremely Satisfactory No Hansen Dam U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tujunga Wash 1940 25400 372 147.4 1060 97 10475 ERTH 6-054 CA01448 Hansen Recreational Lake City of Los Angeles Offstream 1999 85 11 0.01 1060 50 3600 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No 57-002 CA00238 Harold Reservoir (Palmdale Lake) Palmdale Water District Tributary to Antelope Valley Creek 1891 3870 218 4.63 2824 30 2800 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 6-55 CA01510 Headworks Reservoir East Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Offstream 2016 165 32 2,095 RECT Certified Low Satisfactory No 6-56 CA01598 Headworks Reservoir West Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Offstream 2022 227 32 2,384 RECT Certified Low Satisfactory No 1-067 CA00053 J.W. Wisda California Dept. of Parks and Recreation Tributary to Topanga Canyon 1958 45 4 0.22 1140 50 350 ERTH Certified/Inop Low Satisfactory No 32-027 CA01153 La Tuna Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works La Tuna Canyon 1960 207 11 5.3 1157 47 654 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-022 CA00203 Laguna Regulating Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Laguna Wash 1970 310 12 5.55 380 43 380 ERTH Certified Significant Satisfactory No 785-000 CA00742 Lindero Private Entity – Lake Lindero HOA Lindero Creek 1966 90 12 5 935 19 170 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No 32-028 CA01154 Little Dalton Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Little Dalton Canyon 1960 234 8 3.3 1200 71 543 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 57-000 CA00237 Littlerock Little Rock Creek Id Littlerock Creek 1924 4600 126 63.7 3286 124 576 GRAV Certified Extremely High Satisfactory No
32-007 CA00192 Live Oak Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Live Oak Creek 1922 239 12 2.3 1506 76 303 GRAV Certified Extremely High Satisfactory No
35-013 CA01084 Live Oak Reservoir Metropolitan Water District Tributary to Marshall Creek 1975 2500 77 0.17 1574 105 3000 ERTH Certified Extremely High Satisfactory No
6-050 CA01081 Los Angeles Reservoir City of Los Angeles San Fernando Creek 1977 10000 175 9 1185 130 3415 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No CA10020 Lopez Dam U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pacoima Wash 1954 1248 63 34 1272.9 50 1330 ERTH 6-014 CA00075 Lower Franklin City of Los Angeles Franklin Canyon 1922 920 22 1.12 590.4 103 500 HYDF Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-052 CA01188 Lower Franklin No. 2 City of Los Angeles Franklin Canyon 1982 206 10 1.12 590 49 410 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix G
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Major Dams in Los Angeles County Page G-2
Dam No. National
ID. No. Name Owner Stream Year Built
Capacity
(Ac-ft)
Res. Area
(acres)
Drainage
Area
(sq. miles)
Crest
Elev. (ft)
Height
(Ft)
Length
(Ft)
Dam
Type
Certified
Status
Downstream
Hazard
Condition
Assessment
Reservoir
Restrictions
6-015 CA00076 Lower San Fernando (Lower Van
Norman Lake) City of Los Angeles San Fernando Creek 1918 9843 220 13.3 1115 125 1840 HYDF Certified Extremely High Satisfactory No 32-034 CA01161 Lower Sunset Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Sunset Canyon 1963 37 2 1.1 1056 86 379 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 6-048 CA00101 Lower Van Norman Bypass City of Los Angeles Offstream 1970 240 12 0.03 1166.2 78 600 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No 771-000 CA00739 Malibu Lake Club Malibu Lake Mountain Club, Inc. Malibu Creek 1923 500 55 64 727 44 190 CORA Certified High Satisfactory No 32-039 CA01385 Morgan Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Morgan Canyon Creek 1962 21 2 0.6 1169.9 37 380 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 32-040 CA00216 Morris Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works San Gabriel River 1935 27500 420 210 1175 245 750 GRAV Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 19-003 CA00154 Morris S. Jones Pasadena City Dept. of Water & Power 1952 153.3 6.3 948 49 1470 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-017 CA00078 Mullholand
(Hollywood Reservoir) City of Los Angeles Weid Canyon 1924 4036 82 1 756 195 933 GRAV Certified Extremely High Satisfactory No 32-008 CA00193 Pacoima Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Pacoima Creek 1929 3777 68 27.8 2015.8 365 640 VARA Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 35-004 CA00215 Palos Verdes Reservoir Metropolitan Water District Tributary to Los Angeles Harbor 1939 1100 27 1 330 82 2150 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 786-000 CA00743 Potrero Westlake Lake Management Assn. Triunfo Canyon Creek 1967 1600 95 28.9 880 40 730 GRAV Certified High Satisfactory No 32-009 CA00194 Puddingstone Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Walnut Creek 1928 16342 490 33.1 982 147 2698 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-016 CA00199 Puddingstone Diversion Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works San Dimas Wash 1928 150 16 19.8 1168 34 825 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 1-066 CA00052 Pyramid California Dept. of Water Resources Piru Creek 1973 171196 1291 295 2606 386 1080 ERRK Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 4-006 CA00059 Reservoir No. 4 City of Burbank Offstream 1955 34 1 0 908 38 210 RECT Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 4-007 CA00060 Reservoir No. 5 City of Burbank Offstream 1949 77 3 0 906 36 870 RECT Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 1043-000 CA00876 Riviera Reservoir City of Santa Monica Dept. of Public Works Offstream 1962 76 2 349 40 1280 RECT Certified High Satisfactory No 32-021 CA00202 Rubio Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Rubio Creek 1944 44 3 1.71 1624.5 64 780 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No San Antonio Dam U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Antonio Creek 1956 11880 145 26.7 2238 130 3850 ERTH High 32-010 CA00195 San Dimas Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works San Dimas Creek 1922 1534 36 15.9 1481 131 340 GRAV Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-019 CA00200 San Gabriel No. 1 Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works San Gabriel River 1938 44183 560 205 1481 320 1520 ERRK Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-029 CA01155 Santa Anita Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Santa Anita Wash 1960 116 9 12.5 796 56 955 ERTH Certified Low Fair Yes Santa Fe (Santa Fe Reservoir) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Gabriel River 1941- 32109 1256 236 496 92 23800 ERTH 6-047 CA00100 Santa Ynez Canyon City of Los Angeles Tributary to Santa Ynez Canyon 1968 356 9 0.23 727 157 544 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-012 CA00196 Sawpit Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Sawpit Creek 1927 406 9 3.27 1378 150 527 CORA Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-031 CA01157 Sawpit Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Sawpit Wash 1955 152 6 2.87 1000 82 520 ERTH Not Certified Extremely Fair Yes 32-036 CA01172 Schoolhouse Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Mansfield Channel 1962 19 1 0.28 1491.3 38 265 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No Sepulveda
(Sepulveda Flood Control Basin) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles River 1941 17425 46764 152 710 57 15444 ERTH 32-013 CA00197 Sierra Madre Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Lower Santa Anita Creek 1928 51 1 0.77 1179 69 200 CORA Certified High Satisfactory No 32-032 CA01158 Sierra Madre Villa Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Sierra Madre Canyon 1958 109 8 1.5 1102.5 50 906 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-051 CA00081 Silver Lake City of Los Angeles Tributary to Ballona Creek 1976 2020 77 0.12 463 43 760 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-041 CA01469 Stevenson Ranch Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Pico Canyon Creek 2004 105 4.75 5.1 1386.5 54 280 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 6-025 CA00083 Stone Canyon City of Los Angeles Stone Canyon Creek 1924 10372 138 1.4 878 188 1150 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 32-033 CA01160 Stough Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Stough Canyon 1961 6 3 1.7 1044 46 567 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 104-027 CA00445 Thompson
(Middle Ranch Reservoir) Southern California Edison Co. Middle Canyon 1925 1010 54 8.6 677 114 445 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 32-015 CA00198 Thompson Creek Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Thompson Creek 1928 543 345 3.46 1648 66 1500 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 6-029 CA00087 Upper Hollywood City of Los Angeles Weid Canyon 1933 196 8 0.37 763 87 368 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No 6-028 CA00086 Upper San Fernando City of Los Angeles San Fernando Creek 1921 1848 78 0.53 1219 82 1740 HYDF Certified Low Satisfactory No 6-044 CA00097 Upper Stone Canyon City of Los Angeles Stone Canyon Creek 1954 425 14 0.66 936.5 111 740 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No 1073-000 CA00904 Westlake Reservoir Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Three Springs Creek 1972 9200 156 0.9 1056 158 1400 ERTH Certified Extremely Satisfactory No 35-011 CA00222 Weymouth Memorial Reservoir Metropolitan Water District Offstream 1966 151 8 0 1080 18 2400 RECT Certified Extremely Satisfactory No Whittier Narrows U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Gabriel River 1957 49143 63512 554 239 56 16960 ERTH 18-002 CA00153 Whittier Reservoir No. 4 City of Whittier Water District Tributary to San Gabriel River 1931 32 1 0.08 464 55 190 ERTH Certified/Inop Low Satisfactory No 32-035 CA01162 Wilson Debris Basin Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Wilson Canyon 1961 84 5 2.6 1543 50 666 ERTH Certified High Satisfactory No 104-026 CA00444 Wrigley Reservoir Southern California Edison Co. Hapress Creek 1930 62 2 0 1426 42 190 ERTH Certified Significant Satisfactory No 6-046 CA00099 Yarnell Debris Basin City of Los Angeles Tributary to Bull Canyon 1963 105 10 1.87 1220 42 1290 ERTH Certified Low Satisfactory No Sources: California Division of Safety of Dams, Listing of California Jurisdictional Dams, from https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-Safety-of-Dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of-CaliforniaListed-Alphabetically-by-County-September-2022.pdf; https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/publications/engineerregulations/er_1110-2-240.pdf; https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Asset-Management/Hansen-Dam/; https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Asset-Management/Lopez-Dam/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Dam_(San_Bernardino_County)#cite_note-3 Notes: Dams shaded in blue are discussed in this report.
The dams owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are for the most part not included in the list of California Jurisdictional Dams, and their safety ratings are not available.
For the California Jurisdictional Dams, the following definitions or explanations apply:
Certified Status: Certified = Jurisdictional-sized dams that may safely impound water to the elevation specified on the Certificate of Approval; Certified/Inop = Jurisdictional-sized dams without water impounding capabilities under reasonable foreseeable conditions, taking into account the size of the drainage area; Not certified = Jurisdictional-sized dams that operate without a Certificate of Approval.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix G
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Major Dams in Los Angeles County Page G-3
Downstream Hazard: Low = No probable loss of life and low economic and environmental losses; Significant = No probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, impacts to critical facilities, or other significant impacts; High = Expected to cause loss of at least one human life; Extremely High = Expected to cause considerable loss of human life or would result in an inundation area with a population of 1,000 or more.
Condition Assessment: Satisfactory = No existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized. Acceptable performance expected under all loading conditions (static, hydrologic, seismic) in accordance with the minimum applicable state or federal regulatory criteria or tolerable risk guidelines, and permanent risk reduction measures (reservoir restrictions, spillway modifications, operating procedures, etc.) have been implemented to eliminate identified deficiencies; Fair = No existing dam safety deficiencies are recognized for normal operating conditions, but a rare or extreme hydrologic and/or seismic event may result in a dam safety deficiency. Other circumstances may include lack of maintenance that requires attention to prevent developing safety concerns; maintenance conditions may exist that require remedial action greater than routine work and/or secondary studies or investigations; and/or interim or permanent risk reduction measures may be under consideration. Poor = A dam safety deficiency is recognized for normal operating conditions which may realistically occur. Remedial action is necessary. May also be used when uncertainties exist as to critical analysis parameters which identify a potential dam safety deficiency. Investigations and studies are necessary. Other circumstances may include that dam has multiple deficiencies or a significant deficiency that requires remedial work; lack of maintenance (erosion, sinkholes, settlement, cracking, unwanted vegetation, animal burrows, inoperable outlet gates) has affected the integrity or operation of the dam under normal operational conditions and requires remedial action to resolve; critical design information or a review of the dam’s performance history has identified a question that can only be answered by review of the design and construction history for the dam. Uncertainty arises when there is no design and/or construction documentation available for review and additional analysis is needed to better understand the risk associated with operation under normal operational conditions; interim or permanent risk reduction measures may be under consideration. Unsatisfactory = A dam safety deficiency is recognized that requires immediate or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. Typical circumstances include: a critical component of the dam has deteriorated to unacceptable condition or has failed; a safety inspection indicates major structural distress (excessive uncontrolled seepage, cracks, slides, sinkholes, severe deterioration, etc.), advanced deterioration, or operational deficiencies which could lead to failure of the dam or its appurtenant structures under normal operating conditions; reservoir restrictions or other interim risk reduction measures are required; a partial or complete reservoir drawdown may be mandated by the state or federal regulatory agency. Not rated = The dam has not been inspected, is not under state jurisdiction, or has been inspected but, for whatever reason, has not been rated.
Reservoir Restrictions: State Division of Dam Safety may direct or order a dam owner to operate the reservoir to a specified water surface elevation level that is lower than the maximum storage level. In addition, owners may self-impose a restriction as a result of an owner-initiated study that identifies a dam safety issue. Reservoir restrictions are typically imposed for deficiencies of the dam, spillway, low-level outlet, or other appurtenances with respect to dam safety.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix H
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Plates PAGE H - i
APPENDIX H: PLATES
Table of Contents
Plate No. Title
H-1 Physiographic Map of Santa Monica, California and Surrounding Areas H-2 Roads In and Near Santa Monica
H-3 Essential / Critical Facilities, Schools and Libraries, Santa Monica H-4 Earthquake Fault Zones of Required Investigation In and Near Santa Monica H-5 Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Santa Monica, California
H-6 Census Tracts used in the HazUS Analyses, Santa Monica, California H-7 Total Residential Building-Related Losses as a Percentage of Total Residential Building Exposure Based on Four Large (M>7) Earthquake Scenarios H-8 Total Commercial Building-Related Losses as a Percentage of Total Commercial Building Exposure Based on Four Large (M>7) Earthquake Scenarios H-9 Tsunami Hazards Map, Santa Monica, California
H-10 Flood Hazard Map, Santa Monica, California
H-11 Dam Inundation Map, Santa Monica, California
H-12 Anticipated Damage in Santa Monica as a Result of a Stone Canyon Dam Failure Scenario
H-13a Geologic Map of Santa Monica, California and Vicinity H-13b Geologic Unit Descriptions to Accompany Geologic Map H-14 Slope Distribution Map, Santa Monica, California
H-15 Slope Instability Map, Santa Monica, California
H-16 Historical Wildland Fires (1930-2025) Near Santa Monica, California H-17 Fire Hazard Severity Zones In and Near Santa Monica, California H-18 Sea-Level Rise Forecasts Through 2100 for Santa Monica H-19 Hazardous Materials Sites, Santa Monica, California
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Beverly Hills
Plate H-1
NOTE:
Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
Source: USGS 10m Digital Elevation Model
Explanation
City of Santa Monica Boundary
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Feet
Scale: 1:70,000
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Baldwin Hills
Los Angeles Basin
Ballona Gap
Coastal BluffsS
antaMonicaMountains
Elevation in Feet above Mean Sea Level
Physiographic Map
of Santa Monica, California
and Surrounding Areas
Showing Some of the Features
Discussed in the Text
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) ; Alma Real D r
Will Rogers State Pa Rd
S Gretna Gre
n Way
W San Vicente Blvd
W San Vicente Blvd
Gretna Green Way
Santa Monica Blvd
S Rockingham
Ave
S C anyon View D r
S Burlingame Ave
C hautauqua
Blvd
Blvd Rivas C anyon
Rd
S Bar ington Ave
S
C armelina
Ave
Burlingame Ave
S C entinela Ave
Westwo d Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
S
Westgate Ave
S Westgate Ave
ve
D arlington Ave
Gre
nfield Ave
Gre
nfield Ave
Lorenzo St
Wellworth Ave
range Ave
ve
Rochester Ave
deman
Rd
Armacost Ave
S Bentley Ave
Georgina Ave
Ave
Whitfield Ave
Sawtel e Blvd
an
el Rd
Wilshire Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Gre
ntre
Rd
Monument St Monument St
San
Remo
D r
Montana Ave
Montana Ave
Mayfield Ave
Glendon Ave
Missouri Ave
C amden Ave
C amden Ave
S
Saltair Ave
Midvale Ave
ona Ave
Moreno Ave
Goshen Ave
Veteran Ave
Wilkins Ave
Federal Ave
Federal Ave
C orinth Ave
Marlboro St
La Mesa D r
Sunset Blvd
C hapala
D r
C arlyle Ave
Pontius Ave
Monaco
D r
S
Medio
D r
C henault St
S
Bundy D r
Purdue Ave
Evanston St
Berkeley St
Berkeley St
H anover St
C otner Ave
Latimer Rd
C orsica D r
Stanford St
Stoner Ave
Kiowa Ave
D orothy St
H arvard St
H artzell St
Franklin St
Albright St
Toyopa D r
Kagawa St
Butler Ave
C olby Ave
Beloit Ave
Napoli D r
Embury
St
Idaho Ave
Texas Ave
Amalfi D r
Bar y Ave
Anita Ave
D Este D r
Ohio Ave
Ohio Ave
Ravoli D r
Ave
Evans Rd
C apri D r
Alta Ave
Berea
Pl
2 nd C t
Fiske
St
2 nd S
2 nd St
24th C t
26th C t
26th C t
15th C t
25th C t
14th C t
16th C t
23rd St
23rd St
26th St
24th St
21st C t
20th St 19th St
18th St
25th St
21st Pl
Yale St
21st St
2 Ilif St
I 405
I 40
Adelaide Pl Adelaide D r
D onald D ouglas Loop S
Altata D r
Mountain View Ave
Pacific C oast H wy
Pacific C oast H wy
Morningside Way
C hautauqua
Washington Blvd
Grand View Blvd
W Olympic Blvd
San Vicente Blvd
Ocean Park Blvd
S Bar ington Ave
Maplewo
d Ave
Washington Ave
C loverfield Blvd
Ocean Park Pl S
S C entinela Ave
S C entinela Ave
C orona del Mar
Inglewo d Blvd
Exposition Blvd
Exposition Blvd
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mississippi A
San
La G
C entenil a Ave
Tennes ee A
Tennessee Ave
C olorado Pl N
C alifornia Ave
C alifornia Ave
G
ateway
Blvd
Walgrove Ave
Redwo d Ave
Redwo
d Ave
H
al
National Blvd
Georgina
Granvil e Ave
C olorado Ave
C olorado Ave
E
C h
Marguerita Pl
Palisades Ave
Milwo
d Ave
Montana Ave
C abril o Blvd
Barnard Way
Thatcher Ave
San Juan Ave
Glencoe Ave
Glencoe Ave
Neilson Way
Broadway C t
Lincoln Blvd
Alhambra C t
Superba Ave
Garfield Ave
D el Rey Ave
Preston Way
Bicknel Ave
Ashland Ave
Ashland Ave
C arlton Way
W Pico Blvd
Ap ian Way
C helsea Ave
Arizona Ave
Ariz
Vienna Way
Victoria Ave
Virginia Ave
Mildred Ave
Lyceum Ave
Venice Blvd
Venice Way
Venice Blvd
Venice Pl N
Georgina Pl
Penmar Ave
Warren Ave
Stewart Ave
Federal Ave
Stewart Ave
C arlyle Ave
Oxford Ave
S Bundy D r
Airport Ave
Kansas Ave
E
Rustic
Rd
Village Pky
Brooks Ave
Ocean Ave
Ocean Ave
Lucille Ave
Lucille Ave
Pacific Ave
Venezia C t
Pacific Ave
Palms Blv
S
d
unset Ave
Sunset Ave
Sunset Ave
Palms Blvd
Palms Blvd
Palms Blvd
Entrada D r
Entrada D r
Stoner Ave
17th Street
Stanford St
H arvard St
Franklin St
Angeles Pl
C arter Ave
Lincoln C t
Lincoln C t
Spe dway
C olby Ave
Spe dway
Rialto Ave
Vernon C t
Broadway
Idaho Ave
Broadway
Broadway
Nowita
Pl
Ayres Ave
Stewart St
Boise Ave
Amalfi D r
Rose Pl N
Tivoli Ave
D ewey St
Bundy D r
Marine St
Marine St
H arbor St
Pico Blvd
Pico Blvd
7th Street
5th Street
4th Street
5th Street
4th Street
4th Street
Shell Ave
Ocean Pl
Marco C t
Iowa
Rose Ave
Rose Ave
Rose Ave
Mo
re St
Mo
re St
Euclid C t
Pacific St
Marco Pl
Euclid C t
Pacific St
Marco Pl
Urban Pl
Maple St
Strand St
Pico Pl S
H ill Pl N
Euclid St
Euclid St
Euclid St
Mesa
Rd
Royal C t
Meier St
Pier Ave
Pier Ave
Grant St
Grant St
Z anja St
Navy St
Navy St
Z eno Pl
Main St
Main St
32nd St
2 nd St
2 nd St
5th Ave
4th Ave
t
6th Ave
7th Ave
Pearl St
Pearl St
Al a Rd
19th C t
17th C t
15th C t
10th C t
20th C t
Marr St
19th C t
12th C t
20th C t
27th C t
18th C t
17th C t
19th C t
16th C t
25th C t
26th C t
Lake St
14th C t
11th C t
10th C t
18th C t
Lake St
23rd St
23rd St
3 rd St
25th St
24th St
30th St
25th St
18th St
29th St
19th St
15th St
34th St
14th St
17th St
11th St
14th St
12th St
20th St
10th St
11th St
14th St
19th St
16th St
12th St
11th St
14th St
25th St
20th St
26th St
20th St
26th St
21st C t
26th St
18th St
20th St
10th St
17th St
11th St
10th St
18th St
19th St
16th St
24th St
Pine Pl
14th St
18th St
28th St
May St
Oak St
2nd C t
31st St
31st St
Alta Pl
21st St
1st St
2nd St
2nd St
2nd St
Bay St
H ill St
H ill St
3rd C t
3rd C t
7th C t
5th C t
4th C t
4th C t
7th C t
6th C t
7th C t
6th C t
9th C t
6th C t
3rd St
3rd St
7th St
6th St
9th St
7th St
5th St
6th St
6th St
6th St
9th St
5 I-10
I-10
I 10
I 10
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-2
Explanation
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019 and Google Satellite.
Sources: Modified from City of Santa Monica
Roads In and Near
Santa Monica, California
Santa Monica City Boundary
Scale: 1:24,000
feet
San Vicente Blvd
Olympic Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
I-10
PCH
Venice Blvd
I-405
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
This map is intended for general land use planning only.
Earth Consultants International (ECI) and the City of Santa Monica make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which this map was derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTES:
0 2,500 5,000
Freeway
Major Street
Ocean Front Walk
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Explanation
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Sources: Modified from Data Provided by the City of Santa Monica.
Essential /Critical Facilities,
Schools and Libraries
Santa Monica, California
Santa Monica City Boundary
Fire Training Academy
Fire Station
Police Station, Fire Administration &
Primary Emergency Operations Center
Hospital/ Medical Center
Library
City Property
Government Building
Secondary Emergency Operations Center
School
Water Tank or Reservoir
Facilities Essential to Government and
Healthcare Response
Facilities Critical to Utility and
Transportation Operations
Public Schools K-12, Community College
Primary Campuses, and Libraries
Southern California Edison
Santa Monica Airport
Metro Facility
Plate H-3
PS/EOC1
EOC2/L2
SMURRF
Bus Yard
PSJHC
SMCY
Metro
SMC3
SMC1
SMC2
UCLA
EOC3
SWIP
MOR
SCE2
SCE3
SCE4
SCE1
CWF
SMA
FS-1
FS-2
FS-5
FS-7
FS-3
ACT
SVR
PPT
BPS
FTA
S10
S11
CH
HP
CC
RR
AS
S6
S1
S8
S9
S2
S3
S4
S7
S5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
0 2,500 5,000 ft
S Beverly Glen Blvd
W Washington Blvd
W San Vicente Blvd
W San Vicente Blvd
W San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd
Pacific Coast Hwy
Chautauqua Blvd
Washington Blvd
S Barrington Ave
San Vicente Blvd
Ocean Park Blvd
Westwood Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
Centenilla Ave
Washington Pl
Overland Ave
National Blvd
Olympic Blvd
Olympic Blvd
Sawtelle Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Montana Ave
Montana Ave
Lincoln Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
W Pico Blvd
Venice Blvd
Venice Blvd
Culver Blvd
Federal Ave
Sunset Blvd
Sunset Blvd
Sunset Blvd
S Bundy Dr
S Bundy Dr
Entrada Dr
Ocean Ave
Ocean Ave
Pacific Ave
Idaho Ave
7th Street
Short Ave
Bundy Dr
Pico Blvd
ico Blvd
Main St
11th St
14th St
20th St
17th St
11th St
26th St
26th St
20th St
14th St
26th St
20th St
2nd St
P
This map is intended for general land use planning only.
Earth Consultants International (ECI) and the City of Santa Monica (City) make no representations or warranties the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived.
ECI and City shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
.
NOTES:
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Earthquake Fault Zones of
Required Investigation
In and Near
Santa Monica, California
NOTES:
Sources: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS); Official Maps for Beverly Hills and Topanga Quadrangles issued on January 2018.
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Feet
Scale: 1:10,000
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-4
Explanation
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault; dashed where location
is approximate. These are fault traces considered to be Holocene-active (meaning that they have displaced the
ground surface in the last 11,700 years, during the
Holocene epoch).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Site-specific
investigations are required for certain developments
within these zones and, if the potential for the hazard is found to exist, plans to mitigate the hazard must be
provided prior to the City, or the appropriate regulatory agency, issuing a permit for construction.
Santa Monica City Boundary
This map is intended for general land use planning only. Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for detailed geologic investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations. This map may not show all faults that have the potential for surface fault rupture, either within the Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZs) or outside their boundaries. The faults shown are the basis for establishing the boundaries of the EFZs.
The identification and location of these faults by the State are based on the best available data at the time the maps were created. However, the quality of the data used is varied. Traces were depicted as accurately as possible at a map scale of 1:24,000. In zoomed-in maps like this one, the location of the fault may be off by tens of feet relative to the original 1:24,000-scale map.
Thus, fault lines on the map are used solely to approximate the fault location. The width and location of the faults should not be used in lieu of site-specific investigations, evaluation, and design. Detailed geologic investigations, including trenching studies, may make it possible to refine the location and activity status of a fault.
Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
San Vicente Blvd
California Ave
Arizona Ave
Stanford St Franklin St
Washington Ave
Idaho Ave
Montana Ave
Marguerita Ave
Carlyle Ave
Georgina Ave
Harvard St
Wilshire Blvd.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) San Vicente Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
I-405
Sepulveda Blvd
I-405
PCH
Venice Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Santa Monica, California
This map is intended for general land use planning only. Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for detailed geologic investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations.
Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTES:
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Sources: California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey: Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverly Hills (2002), Topanga (1997), and Venice (1999) Quadrangles.
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-5
Santa Monica City Boundary
Feet
Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or
local geological, geotechnical and groundwater
conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground
displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources code Section 2693c would be required.
Areas where historic occurrence of landslide movement,
or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and
groundwater conditions indicate a potential for
permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as
defined in Public Resources code Section 2693c would
be required.
EXPLANATION
0 2,000 4,000
Quadrangle boundary
Topanga
Venice
Beverly Hills
Olympic Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-6
Explanation
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019 and Google Satillite.
Sources: Modified from 2020 Census Tract Data
Census Tracts used in the
HazUS Analyses
Santa Monica, California
Santa Monica City Boundary
Scale: 1:24,000
feet
San Vicente Blvd
Olympic Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
I-10
PCH
Venice Blvd
I-405
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTES:
06037701201
06037701202
06037701802
06037701702
06037701502
06037701501
06037701402
06037701302
06037701304
06037701601
06037701701
06037701602
06037701801
06037702202
06037702201
06037702300
06037701902
06037702002
06037702102
06037702300 Census Tract Boundaries with
Census Tract Number
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) M7.4 Santa Monica Earthquake Scenario
5.01% - 7.46%
7.47% - 10.0%
5.89 %
6.73 %
5.79 %
8.54 %
8.97 %
7.54 %
8.81 %
8.09 %
8.55%
8.78 %
9.15 %
8.62 %
8.78 %
6.54 %
5.62 %
6.93 %
7.54 %
9.51 %
9.18 %
M7.2 Newport-Inglewood Earthquake Scenario
0.0% - 2.50%
2.51% - 5.0%
1.84 %
2.01 %
2.18 %
2.38 %
2.9 %
2.35 %
2.25 % 2.42 %
2.66 %
2.97 %
3.0 %
3.17 %
3.34 %
2.94 %
2.7 %
2.4 %
2.34 %
2.55 % 2.73 %
M7.8 San Andreas ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario
0.0% - 2.50%
0.063%
0.068%
0.069%
0.063%
0.071%
0.081%
0.105%
0.115%
0.061%
0.056%
0.063%
0.082%
0.057%
0.059% 0.068%
0.092%
0.111%
0.115%
0.098%
M7.7 Palos Verdes Earthquake Scenario
0.0% - 2.50%
2.51% - 5.0%
3.16% 3.46%
3.65%
3.42%
3.86%
2.96%
3.05%
4.15%
3.18%
2.77%
2.62%
4.28%
4.07%
5.01% - 7.46%
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-7
Total Residential Building-Related
Losses as a Percentage of Total
Residential Building Exposure
Based on Four Large (M>7)
Earthquake Scenarios
Santa Monica, California
These maps for Santa Monica were created from the results obtained from running four separate earthquake scenario analyses using FEMA’s Hazus (Version 6.0) Loss Estimation Methodology software, with the results presented at the census-tract level.
Hazus calculates building-related losses using functions that relate the intensity of an earthquake to the degree of damage for different types of buildings, with the losses presented in U.S. dollars. The building inventory data is based on the 2022 National Structure Inventory, which includes building counts, values, and square footage at the census block and tract levels. Building losses are broken into two categories:
(1) direct building losses and (2) business interruption losses, with building losses including both structural and nonstructural components.
These maps present the estimated total building-related losses for residential structures at the census tract level as a percentage of the estimated total exposure of residential structures in that census tract. Both the losses and the exposure values are in U.S. dollars.
Darker shades represent higher total residential building losses as a percentage of the total residential building inventory for each census tract.
For additional information, refer to Section 6 - Earthquakes.
2.31%
2.39 %
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) M7.7 Palos Verdes Earthquake Scenario
8.59%
9.52%
9.48%
8.06%
11.06%
11.01%
10.01% - 12.3%
6.99%
M7.8 San Andreas ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario
0.0% - 2.50%
0.141%
0.142%
0.136%
0.131%
0.122%
0.147%
0.105%
0.227%
0.128%
0.109%
0.119%
0.131%
0.103%
0.111% 0.131%
0.157%
0.198%
0.205%
0.192%
M7.2 Newport-Inglewood Earthquake Scenario
5.01% - 7.46%
2.51% - 5.0%
3.27 %
3.92 %
3.54 %
4.64 %
5.01 %
4.24 %
3.77 % 4.14 %
4.49 %
5.01 %
5.11 %
5.67 %
5.67 %
5.61 %
5.42 %
4.15 %
3.97 %
3.76 % 4.94 %
M7.4 Santa Monica Earthquake Scenario
17.21% - 20.0%
20.01% - 25.0%
12.95 %
20.01 %
12.10 %
15.01 %
19.73 %
19.92 %
20.45 %
20.15 %
20.25%
19.18 %
19.66 %
18.0 %
18.06 %
15.4 %
15.06 %
17.54 %
21.71 %
21.72 %
20.86 %
15.01% - 17.20%
12.31% - 15.0%
10.01% - 12.3%
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-8
Total Commercial BuildingRelated Losses as a Percentage of Total Commercial Building
Exposure Based on Four Large
(M>7) Earthquake Scenarios
Santa Monica, California
These maps for Santa Monica were created from the results obtained from running four separate earthquake scenario analyses using FEMA’s Hazus (Version 6.0) Loss Estimation Methodology software, with the results presented at the census-tract level.
Hazus calculates building-related losses using functions that relate the intensity of an earthquake to the degree of damage for different types of buildings, with the losses presented in U.S. dollars. The building inventory data is based on the 2022 National Structure Inventory, which includes building counts, values, and square footage at the census block and tract levels. Building losses are broken into two categories:
(1) direct building losses and (2) business interruption losses, with building losses including both structural and nonstructural components.
These maps present the estimated total building-related losses for commercial structures at the census tract level as a percentage of the estimated total exposure of commercial structures in that census tract. Both the losses and the exposure values are in U.S. dollars.
Darker shades represent higher total commercial building losses as a percentage of the total commercial building inventory for each census tract.
For additional information, refer to Section 6 - Earthquakes.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) City of Santa Monica Boundary
Los Angeles County Tsunami Hazard Area
(California Department of Conservation, Los Angeles County, Tsunami Hazard Areas, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ tsunami/maps/los-angeles)
Santa Monica, California
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-9
Explanation
Tsunami Hazards Map
NOTE: This map is intended for general land use planning only. Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for detailed geologic investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations. Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
Walk Neilson WayBarnard Way
Ocean Front Walk
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) V
E
AE
X
A
X
AE
A
X
X
X
AE
VE
AE
VE
X
X
AH
X
X
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-10
Scale: 1:24,000
This map is intended for general land use planning only. Earth Consultants International (ECI) and the City of Santa Monica make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTES:
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency, downloaded 2/2023, Los Angeles County and City of Santa Monica
Flood Hazard Map
Santa Monica, California
Explanation
Zone A: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplains. No base (1% annual chance) flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone.
Zone AE: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplains. Base flood elevations derived from the hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone, either at cross section locations or as static whole-foot elevations that apply throughout the zone.
Zone AH: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1% annual chance shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Whole-foot BFEs derived from the hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.
Unshaded Zone X: Areas of minimal flood hazard.
Other Areas of Flood Hazard
Shaded Zone X: Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood hazards and areas of 1% annual chance flood hazards with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile.
AAE AO Zone AO: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1% annual chance shallow flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Average whole-foot depths derived from the hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone.
AHXXVE
Zone VE: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Base flood elevations derived from the coastal analyses are shown within this zone as static whole-foot elevations that apply throughout the zone.
* See FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and FEMA Flood
Insurance Study for Los Angeles County for Base Flood
Elevations.
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Zones
Feet
Santa Monica City Boundary
High Risk Areas (Special Flood Hazard Areas)
San Vicente Blvd
Olympic Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
I-405
Sepulveda Blvd
PCH
I-10
Venice Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
0 2,000 4,000
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Sto
neCanyonDam
RivieraReservoir
Dam Inundation Map
Santa Monica, California
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Sources: Modified from https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim.RivieraDam Inundation Limits file generated 10/31/2019, Stone Canyon Dam Inundation Limits file generated 5/1/2019.
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-11
Feet
Scale: 1:50,000
StoneCanyonDam InundationLimits Riviera Dam Inundation Limits NOTES: This map is intended for general land use planning only. Earth Consultants International (ECI) and the City of Santa Monica make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circum- stances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or conse- quential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
Santa Monica City Boundary Lake or open water
Explanation
San Vicente Blvd Olympic Blvd I-10 Pico Blvd Lincoln Blvd I-405
Sepulveda Blvd
I-10
I-405
PCH
Venice Blvd
I-405
Santa Monica Blvd
Venice Blvd
LAX
Wilshire Blvd
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Anticipated Damage in
Santa Monica as a Result of a
Stone Canyon Dam Failure Scenario Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-12
NOTE:
This map is intended for general land use planning only. Earth Consultants International (ECI) and the City of Santa Monica make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
Commercial Building Loss in Thousands of $
$0.00 to $9.00
$9.01 to $69.00
$69.01 to $378.00
$378.01 to $1,155.00
$1,155.01 to $3,590.00
Water Depth in Feet
High: 12.81
Low: 0.00
Census Blocks
Study Region Boundary
Residential Building Loss in Thousands of $
$0.00 to $233.00
$233.01 to $916.00
$916.01 to $2,573.00
$2,573.01 to $5,135.00
5,135.01 to $10,509.00
Water Depth in Feet
High: 12.81
Low: 0.00
Census Blocks
Study Region Boundary
Residential and Commercial Building Losses in Santa Monica as a Result of a Hypothetical Failure of Stone Canyon Dam Note that the same color distribution means significantly different dollar amounts depending on building type (residential vs. commercial). Based on a “user-supplied” HazUS flood model analysis that considered the flooded area and water depths calculated by Genterra Consultants, Inc. (2019) for a “sunny day” dam failure scenario for Stone Canyon Dam.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 0 2000 4000
Fault; solid where location known, dashed where
approximate, dotted where concealed. (For more
information refer to Figures 6-13 and 6-14).
Symbols
Approximate Contact between Geologic Units
Santa Monica City Boundary
Geologic Map
of Santa Monica, California
and Vicinity
This map is intended for general land use planning only. Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for detailed geologic investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations.
Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTES:
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Sources: Modified from Campbell et al., 2014 and Saucedo et al., 2016.
For Geologic Unit Descriptions
see Plate H-13b
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-13a
Feet
Scale: 1:24,000
QTp
Tm
Qoa
Qof
Qoa
Qoa
Qf
QTp
Tm
Af
Qof
Af
Qof
Qb
Af
Qya
Qya
Qa
Qb
Qom?
San Vicente Blvd
Olympic Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
I-405
Sepulveda Blvd
I-10
I-405
PCH
Venice Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Af
Af
Tss
Afc
Afc
Afc
Afc
Tm
Ktc
Kte Ktd
Ti
Qof
Qya
Kt
Qya
Ktc
Ttc
Tss Qoa
Qf
Qf
Qya
Qof
Qof
Qof
Qe
Qom?
Qb
Qe
Qof
Qls
Qls
Tm
Qya
Qya
Qya
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Afc
QTp
Pico Formation (Pliocene) — Soft, olive gray, marine clayey siltstone and sandy siltstone with very fine-grained sandstone interbeds. Siltstone beds often contain fossils of foraminifera and well cemented-invertebrate shells.
Alluvial fan deposits (Holocene)— Sediments ranging in size from boulders to silt. Aside from on active and recently active alluvial fans, these deposits can be found in the headward sections of channels.
Qa Alluvium (late Holocene) ) — Unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays that have accumulated on canyon floors.
Plate H-13b
Geologic Unit Descriptions
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2024
Geologic Unit Descriptions to Accompany Geologic Map
Kt
Qb
Qe
Qf
Qoa
Qof
Qom
Qya
Tm
Ttc
Beach deposits (Historical and late Holocene) — light gray to tan, loose, fine- and medium-grained sand forming a narrow strandline along the western edge of the city; typically slope gently towards the ocean.
Eolian deposits (late Holocene) — Loose, fine- to medium- grained sand, silty sand and silt. The deposition of these sediments forms temporary dunes against beach-facing cliffs.
Young alluvium, undivided (Holocene and latest Pleistocene) — Predominately friable, unconsolidated, gravel-rich fluvial silt, sand, and gravel deposited in the floodplain at the base of the Santa Monica Mountains. These sediments can be found in stream beds and alluvial fans as well. Upper sections of these deposits are locally capped by slightly to moderately developed soils.
Old alluvium undivided — Unconsolidated to moderately consolidated (indurated) gravel, sand and silt deposited on flood plains. Deposits have been uplifted or removed from their sedimentation source. Surfaces have been dissected and show signs of pedogenic (soil) development. Preserved paleo-surfaces are indicated by the presence of a moderately to well-developed “B” soil horizon.
Old fan deposits, undivided — Slightly to moderately consolidated silt, sand and gravel deposited in alluvial fans.
Deposits have been uplifted or removed from their sedimentation source. Fluvial deposits present within the fan deposits consist of subangular to rounded gravels, with Santa Monica slate being the most common lithology. Fan deposits can exhibit signs of pedogenic development by the presence of moderately to well-developed soils.
Old shallow marine deposits on wave-cut surface — Unconsolidated, but locally calcite-cemented, sand, silty sand and gravel. Typically overlie wave-cut bedrock platforms located at two or more elevations above present-day sea level. Paleo-surfaces indicated by soil development. Late Pleistocene molluscan fauna fossils are found locally within this unit.
Modelo Formation, undivided (late Miocene) — Thinly bedded, gray to brown mudstone, shale or siltstone. Interbeds of very fine- to coarse-grained sandstone are present as well. While the thickness of these sections of sandstone can be prominent, the sections are not laterally continuous.
Topanga Group, undivided (middle Miocene) — Volcanic and sedimentary rocks. More specifically, these various deposits can be split up into three different subunits. The lowest stratigraphic subunit, sometimes referred to as the Lower Topanga Formation or the Topanga Canyon Formation, consists of near-shore marine, shoreline deposits, along with sandstone and siltstone that were deposited in an estuary-like environment. Intrusions associated with the overlying subunit cut through these deposits. The middle subunit, which has been referred to as the Middle Topanga Formation or the Conejo Volcanics, consists predominately of basaltic and andesitic extrusive volcanics that were typically deposited in a marine environment. Above these volcanics is a deep marine facies that includes submarine turbidite sandstone with shale interbeds. This upper section of the Topanga Group has been referred to as the Upper Topanga Formation and the Calabasas Formation.
Tuna Canyon Formation, undivided (late Cretaceous) — Marine deposits that consist of bedded sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate. Ammonite and foraminifera fossils are often found in this formation. The Tuna Canyon Formation has been subdivided into four informal members; three of these have been mapped in the area covered on Plate H-3a. From youngest to oldest these include:
Kce - informal member “c” consists of greenish-gray shale with coarse-grained sandstone interbeds in the upper part.
Ktd - informal member “d” consists of fine-grained, thick-bedded, fossiliferous sandstone.
Kte - informal member “e” consists predominantly of pebble-cobble conglomerate and minor sandstone.
Young Surficial Deposits
Holocene and latest Pleistocene (?) sedimentary deposits including landslide deposits and young alluvium.
Old Surficial Deposits
Late to middle Pleistocene non-marine and possible marine (or paralic) sedimentary deposits.
Sedimentary and Volcanic Bedrock Units (exposed to the north and northwest of the city) Several different bedrock types and lithologies crop out in the Santa Monica Mountains to the north of the city of Santa Monica.
Ages of these units vary as well, ranging from Pliocene (~2.6 million years old) to late Cretaceous (~150 million years old).
These bedrock units are not present at the surface within city limits, but clasts and grains eroded from these units comprise the bulk of the alluvial deposits in the foothills, alluvial fan surfaces and alluvial deposits that mantle the city. Only the formational units that crop out in the area included in Plate H-13a are included here.
Modern Surficial Deposits
Historical and late Holocene deposits generally underlying the coastal areas, as well as farther inland, where stream channels once flowed, depositing sediments eroded from the mountains onto the low-lying flat regions to the south. Includes artificial fill.
Af
Artificial fill and areas surrounding the Clay Pits
and Landfills where shallow fills, debris, and
disturbed ground are anticipated. Includes
compacted fill related to major roads.
Approximate limits of Former Clay Pits and Landfills;
debris and potentially explosive gases may occur in
these areas.
Ti
Ts Sespe Formation, undivided (early Miocene, Oligocene, and late Eocene) — A nonmarine “red bed” sequence of sandstone, pebbly sandstone, varicolored mudstone, and pebble-cobble conglomerate; sandstone beds commonly very thick to massive, with strong internal cross lamination; and rare thin interbeds varicolored reddish, greenish and grayish mudstone.
Ktc
Ktd
Kte
Intrusive rocks, undivided (middle Miocene) — Dikes, sills and irregularly shaped intrusive bodies of diabase, basalt and andesite; commonly pervasively altered and easily eroded, undercutting slopes and thus commonly associated with the toes of landslides. In the western Santa Monica Mountains, related to the Conejo Volcanics (see description of the Topanga Group below).
Qls
Landslide deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene?) — Detritus from bedrock and surficial materials deposited by landslide processes. The deposits range from relatively coherent large blocks to disaggregated small fragments. Only large landslides are shown on Plate H-13a. Typically comprised of adjacent bedrock units shown on map. Qls/Tm means landslide comprised of Modelo Formation materials.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) degrees
Slope Distribution Map
Santa Monica, California
Plate H-14
Base Map: USGS Topographic Map from Sure!MAPS RASTER (1997) Source: Derived from 2002/2003 IfSAR data for Southern California:
3m Digital Elevation Model (NAVD88)
Explanation
Slope (in degrees)
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Feet
Scale: 1:25,000
10 to 26
0 to 10
26 to 40
40 and greater
San Vicente Blvd
Olympic Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
I-405
Sepulveda Blvd
I-10
I-405
PCH
Venice Blvd
I-405
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
City of Santa Monica Boundary
This map is intended for general land use planning only. Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for detailed geologic investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations.
Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTES:
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Slope Instability Map
Santa Monica, California
Plate H-15
This map is intended for general land use planning only. Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for detailed geologic investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations.
Earth Consultants International (ECI) and the City of Santa Monica (City) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTES:
Sources: Slope data derived from LA County 2016 lidar and City-provided topographic data, combined with a “drive-by” visual analysis of slopes using the GoogleEarth Street View function. For a description of the geologic hazards addressed herein and additional sources, refer to the text.
Explanation
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Feet
Scale: 1:25,000
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
San Vicente Blvd
Olympic Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
I-405
Sepulveda Blvd
I-10
I-405
PCH
Venice Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
City of Santa Monica Boundary
Gross Slope Instability Area - Steep slopes more than
50 feet high that could slide or topple in response to
intense precipitation, strong ground shaking, coastal
or stream erosion at or near their base, or as a result of human activity.
City-defined Area of Runoff Consideration: Area
where runoff is to be diverted away from the coastal
bluffs, to decrease erosion.
Surficial Slope Instability Area - Slopes generally less than 50 feet high, with sections steeper than 26
degrees (see Plate H-14), that could fail surficially
(see text) as a result of intense or continuous rainfall, overwatering, and/or burrowing animal or human
activity. Many backyard areas that meet these criteria
are not included here.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Wilshire Blvd
Santa Monica Blvd I-405Venice Blvd
PCH
I-405
I-10 Sepulveda Blvd I-405 Lincoln Blvd Pico Blvd I-10 Olympic Blvd San Vicente Blvd Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
NOTE:
1930 - 1940
1920 - 1930
1940 - 1950
1950 - 1960
1960 - 1970
1970 - 1980
1980 - 1990
1990 - 2000
2000 - 2010
2010 - 2020
Explanation
Year of Last Burn
Santa Monica City Boundary
Fire Stations in Santa Monica Stati ns
CAL FIRE Facilities for Wildland
Fire Protection
2025 Palisades Fire
feet
5000 10000
Scale: 1:50,000
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Source: California Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) @ http://frap.fire.ca.gov/mapping/gis-data
Plate H-16
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Historical Wildland Fires
(1930-2025)
Near Santa Monica, California
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) San Vicente Blvd
Olympic Blvd
I-10
Pico Blvd
Lincoln Blvd
I-405
Sepulveda Blvd
I-10
I-405
PCH
Venice Blvd
I-405
Santa Monica Blvd
Wilshire Blvd
Explanation
Base Map: Extracted from CloudMade data, derived from OpenStreetMap community (www.openstreetmap.org) and downloaded from MapCruzin (www.mapcruzin.com) on 1/08/2019.
Sources: Modified from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE); https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
In and Near
Santa Monica, California
Scale: 1:40,000
t
0 5,000 10,000
fee
Plate H-17
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Very High Hazard in a Local
Responsibility Area
High Hazard in a Local
Responsibility Area
Moderate Hazard in a Local
Responsibility Area
Fire Stations in Santa Monica
City of Santa Monica Boundary
CAL FIRE Facilities for Wildland Fire
Protection
California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ)
This map is intended for general land use planning only.
NOTES:
Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Intermediate-High Scenario (4.9 ft)
Intermediate Scenario (3.3 ft)
High Scenario (6.6 ft)
100-Year Storm Flooding
High Scenario (6.6 ft)
Intermediate Scenario (3.3 ft)
Intermediate-High Scenario (4.9 ft)
Annual Storm Flooding Extent
by 2100
Flood Extent by 2100 Under
Three Sea-Level Rise Scenarios
100-Year Storm Flooding Extent
by 2100
Annual Storm Flooding
Project Number: 4306 Date: 2025
Plate H-18
High Scenario (6.6 ft)
Intermediate Scenario (3.3 ft)
Intermediate-High Scenario (4.9 ft)
Sources:
Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson , NCEAS, NLS OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc., METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS.
Santa Monica Coastline
City Boundary
Sea-Level Rise Forecasts Through 2100 for Santa Monica
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) N
Projection and Scale: WGS84, 1:18,000
Basemap Source: Google Earth Satellite ImageryandRoads Ocean Front Walk Ocean Front Walk AE Zone AE: Flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplains
VE Zone VE: Flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance coastal floodplains
Land Disposal Site - now closed (refer to Figure 9-2 and Plates H-13a & 13b)
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Site - Open cases Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) Site
Waste Discharge Requirements Site: Sites regulated by the DWR Program that discharge domestic or municipal wastewater, foodprocessing related wastewater, and industrial wastewater.
Cleanup Program Site - Open cases
Non-RCRA Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste. These sites produce, store or transport wastes that cause no harm to human or environmental health.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Large Quantity Generator (LQG) of hazardous waste
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Site
Sources: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program; https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite/map/help;
https://www.santamonica.gov/programs/certified-unified-program-agency-cupa; https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/); City of Santa Monica CUPA.
Fire Station 5
Santa Monica, California
Project Number: 4306
Date: 2025
Plate H-19
Explanation
Hazardous Materials Sites
NOTE: This map is intended for general land use planning only. Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for detailed investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations. Earth Consultants International (ECI) makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. ECI and the City of Santa Monica shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of this map.
Zone A: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplains. No base (1% annual chance) flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone.
A
Hazardous Materials Sites
Selected Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Flood Zones and Faults
Alquist-Priolo Zoned Faults
Fire Stations
(HazMat unit at Station 5)
City of Santa Monica Boundary
Hospitals
Crude Oil Pipeline Roads
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 1
APPENDIX I: REFERENCES
Allen, M.R., Dube, O.P., Solecki, W., Aragón-Durand, F., Cramer, W., Humphreys, S., Kainuma, M., Kala, J., Mahowald, N., Mulugetta, Y., Perez, R., Wairiu, M., and Zickfeld, K., 2018, Framing and Context; in Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M. and Waterfield, T. (editors), Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above PreIndustrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 49-92, doi:10.1017/9781009157940.003.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and guidelines prepared by the California Geological Survey (CGS) – previously known as the California Division of Mines and Geology – in their Special Publication 42, most recently updated in 2018. [see CGS, 2018a below] Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler), 2018, Proposed Airport Park Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 217031024; report prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, dated January 2018; available from https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/EnvironmentalReports/Airport%20Park%20Final%20EIR%20FOR%20PRINTING.pdf.
American Red Cross, 1994, Your Guide to Home Chemical Safety and Emergency Procedures, 24p.
Anagnos, T., Comerio, M.C., and J. P. Stewart, P., 2016, Earthquake loss estimates and policy implications for nonductile concrete buildings in Los Angeles: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1951– 1973; doi:10.1193/060415EQS088M.
Anbar, M., Guttmann, S., and Lewitus, Z., 1959, The mode of action of perchlorate ions on the iodine uptake of the thyroid gland: International Journal on Application of Radiating Isotopes, Vol. 7, pp. 87-96.
Anderson, M.K., 2005, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources: University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 526p.
Anderson, K., 2006, The Use of Fire by Native Americans in California; in Sugihara, N.G., van Wagtendonk, J.W., Shaffer, K.E., Fites-Kaufman, J., and Thode, A.E., (editors), 2006, Fire in California’s Ecosystems: University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, pp. 417-430.
Anhorn, J. and Khazai, B., 2015, Open space suitability analysis for emergency shelter after an earthquake:
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 15, pp. 789-803, doi:10.1594/nhess-15-789- 2015.
Arcadis US, Inc. (Arcadis), 2024, Domestic Water Master Plan; report prepared for the City of Santa Monica Water Resources Division, dated January 2024.
Arcas, D., 2015, A Tsunami Forecast Model for Santa Monica, California: NOAA Center for Tsunami Research (NCTR) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), PMEL Tsunami Forecast Series:
Vol. 9, NOAA OAR Special Report, 140 p., doi:10.7289/V5D50KX8.
Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE), 1982, Interim Feasibility Report for Ballona Creek and Tributaries: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, December.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 1990, Appendices 1 and 2: Known Hazardous Materials Releases due to the Loma Prieta Earthquake; in Van Anne, C. and Scawthorn, C. (editors), The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Fire, Police, Transportation, and Hazardous Materials: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1553-C, pp. C36-C38.
Barberopoulou, A., Qamar, A., Pratt, T.L., Creager, K.C., and Steele, W.P., 2004, Local amplification of seismic waves from the Denali earthquake and damaging seiches in Lake Union, Seattle, Washington: Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03607; doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018569.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 2
Barrows, A.G., 1974, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 114, 115p.
Barrows, A.G., Irvine, P.J., and Tan, S.S, 1995, Geologic Surface Effects Triggered by the Northridge Earthquake; in Woods, M.C., and Seiple, W.R. (editors), The Northridge, California, Earthquake of 17 January 1994: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 116, pp 65-88.
Barrows, A.G., Tan, S.S., and Irvine, P.J., 1994, Investigation of Surface Geologic Effects and Related Land Movement in the City of Simi Valley Resulting from the Northridge Earthquake of January 14, 1994: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 94-09, 41p., 1 plate.
Basner, M., Clark, C., Hansell, A., Hileman, J.I., Janssen, S., Shepherd, K., and Sparrow, V., 2017, Aviation noise impacts: State of the science: Noise Health, Vol. 19, No. 87, pp. 41-50, doi:10.4103/nah.NAH_104_16.
Basu, R. and Malig, B., 2011, High ambient temperature and mortality in California: Exploring the roles of age, disease, and mortality displacement: Environmental Research, Vol. 111, No. 8, pp. 1286- 1292.
Bausch, D.B., and Gonzalez, T., 1994, Damage pattern in Santa Monica as a result of the Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake; in Seismological Society of America, Program of Northridge Abstracts, 5-7 April 1994, Pasadena, California, p. 28.
Becker, Graehl, N., Zuzak, C., LaDuke, Y., Wilson, R., Patton, J., Bott, J., Palmer, M., and Hoang, K., 2023, Assessment of tsunami risk and exposure to California’s coastal communities using FEMA’s Hazus Tsunami model and ESRI demographic data: Poster presentation for the 2023 American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California; Poster No. NH51D-05.
Bedsworth, L., Cayan, D., Guido, F., Fisher, L. and Ziaja, S., 2018, Statewide Summary Report-California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: A project of the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, and California Public Utilities Commission, Publication No.: SUM-CCCA4-2018-013.
Belleri, A., and Marini, A., 2016, Does seismic risk affect the environmental impact of existing buildings?:
Energy Build, Vol. 110 (Jan), pp. 149–158; doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.048.
Bolt, Bruce A., 1999, Earthquakes: W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, Fourth Edition, 320p.
Bondevik, S., Gjevik, B. and Sørensen, M. B., 2013, Norwegian seiches from the giant 2011 Tohoku earthquake: Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 40, pp. 3374–3378; doi.org/10.1002/grl.50639.
Borchardt, G., and Kennedy, M.P., 1979, Liquefaction Potential in Urban San Diego–A Pilot Study:
California Geology, Vol. 32, pp. 217-221.
Borchers, J.W., Kretsinger Grabert, V., Carpenter M., Dalgish, B., and Cannon, D., 2014, Land Subsidence from Groundwater use in California: Full Report of Findings prepared by Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for the California Water Foundation, April, 193p., available from https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1397858208- SUBSIDENCEFULLREPORT_FINAL.pdf.
Borrero, J., Dolan J., Synolakis, C.E., 2001, Tsunami sources within the Eastern Santa Barbara Channel:
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, pp. 643-647.
Borrero, J.C., Legg, M.R., and Synolakis, C.E., 2004, Tsunami sources in the southern California bight:
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, pp. L13211-L13215.
Brandsma, M., Divoky, d., and Hwang, L.S., 1978, Circumpacific variation of computed tsunami features in Tsunami Symposium: Ottawa, Canada, Marine Sciences Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Environment Manuscript Report Series 48, pp. 132-151.
Branum, D., Chen, R., Petersen, M., and Wills, C., 2016, Earthquake Shaking Potential for California:
California Geological Survey Map Sheet 48; available from https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/publications/map-sheets/MS_048.pdf.
Bray, J.D., 2001, Developing Mitigation Measures for the Hazards Associated with Earthquake Surface Fault Rupture; in A Workshop on Seismic Fault-Induced Failures–Possible Remedies for Damage to
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 3
Urban Facilities: Research Project 2000 Grant -in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 12355020), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Workshop Leader, Kazuo Konagai, University of Tokyo, Japan, pp. 55-79, January 11-12, 2001.
Brewer, L., 1992, Preliminary damage and intensity survey: Earthquakes and Volcanoes, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 219-226.
Brown, R.D., Jr., 1990, Quaternary Deformation; in Wallace, R.E. (editor), The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, pp. 83-113.
Bullard, T.F., and Lettis, W.R., 1993, Quaternary fold deformation associated with blind thrust faulting, Los Angeles basin, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, pp. 8,348-8,369.
Burgette, R.J., Hanson, A.M., Scharer, K.M., Rittenour, T.M., and McPhillips, D., 2020, Late Quaternary slip rate of the Central Sierra Madre fault, southern California: Implications for slip partitioning and earthquake hazard: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 530, p. 115907.
California Air Resources Board, 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, report dated December 2022, 299p., available from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf.
California Air Resources Board, 2023, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, report released December 14, 2023; available from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.
California Coastal Commission, 2021, Critical Infrastructure at Risk | Sea Level Rise Planning Guidance for California’s Coastal Zone: Final Adopted Guidance dated November 17, 2021, 232p., available from
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/SLR%20Guidance_Critical%20Infrastructure_12.6.2021. pdf.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1961, Planned Utilization of the Ground Water Basins of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County, Appendix A: Ground Water Geology: DWR Bulletin No. 104.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1986, Statutes and Regulations Pertaining to Supervision of Dams and Reservoirs: Division of Safety of Dams, 46p.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, last updated February 27, 2004.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams (DoSD), 2022, Dams within Jurisdiction of the State of California; Dams Listed Alphabetically by Dam Name; September, 108p; available from https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/AllPrograms/Division-of-Safety-of-Dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-ofCalifornia-Listed-Alphabetically-by-Name-September-2022.pdf.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997a, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Topanga
7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: Seismic Hazard Zone Report No. 01.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997b, Official Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Topanga
7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California; Scale: 1:24,000, map issued April 7, 1997.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998a, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Beverly Hills 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: Seismic Hazard Zone Report No. 023, 49p. + 3 plates.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998b, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Venice
7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: Seismic Hazard Zone Report No. 036, 45p. + 3 plates.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1999a, Official Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Venice
7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County California; Scale: 1:24,000, map issued March 25, 1999.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1999b, Official Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Beverly
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 4
Hills 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California; Scale: 1:24,000, map issued on March 25, 1999.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117A, Revised and Re-adopted September 11, 2008 by the State Mining and Geology Board, 98p.; available from
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2016, Shear-Wave Velocity in Upper 30m of Surficial Geology (Vs30):
Map Sheet 48; available from https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-map-sheet-48-shear-wavevelocity-in-upper-30m-of-surficial-geology-vs30/explore?location=34.027555%2C118.483092%2C13.66.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018a [Revision], Earthquake Fault Zones | A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California: Special Publication 42, 83p. + plates.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018b, Earthquake Fault Zones of Required Investigation, Beverly Hills
7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, revised official map released January 11, 2018.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018c, Earthquake Fault Zones of Required Investigation, Topanga 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, revised official map released January 11, 2018.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, Los Angeles County, California; available from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=- 13249590.3641%2C3986280.7635%2C-13132183.0887%2C4038410.8168%2C102100&utm _source=cgs+active&utm_content=losangeles.
[The] California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), 2020, California Adaptation Planning Guide, 282p., report dated June 2020; available from https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Hazard-Mitigation/Documents/CA-Adaptation-Planning-Guide-FINAL-June-2020- Accessible.pdf.
California Ocean Protection Council, 2024, State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance, 2024 Science & Policy Update, report prepared in partnership with the California Ocean Science Trust (OST) and a scientific Task Force (Task Force).
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), 2005, The Tsunami Threat to California: Findings and Recommendations on Tsunami Hazards and Risks: CSSC Report No. 05-03, dated December 2005, 16p.; available from https://ssc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2022/11/cssc_05- 03_tsunami_findings.pdf.
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), 2006, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006 Report to the Legislature, Adopted November 9, 2006, SSC Publication No. 2006-04, 12p. + 2 appendices.
Caltrans (State of California Department of Transportation) Division of Aeronautics, 2011, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; report dated October 2011; available from https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbooka11y.pdf.
Campbell, R.H., 1975, Soil Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorms in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 851, 51p, available from http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp851.
Campbell, R.H., Fleming, R.W., Prior, DB., Nichols, D.R., Varnes, D.J., Hampton, M.A., Sangrey, D.A. and Brabb, E.E., 1989, Landslide Classification and Identification of Mud Flows and Other Landslides; in Sadler, P.M., and Morton, D.M., (editors), Landslides in a Semi-Arid Environment with Emphasis on the Inland Valleys of Southern California: The Inland Geological Society, Volume 2, pp. 1-27.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 5
Campbell, R.H., Wills, C.J., Irvine, P.J., and B. J. Swanson, B.J., 2014, Geologic Map of the Los Angeles 30' × 60' Quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey, Digital Version 2.0., scale: 1:100,000.
Castle, R.O., 1960, Surficial Geology of the Beverly Hills and Venice Quadrangles, California: U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-60-26, scale 1:24,000.
Castro, G., Keller, T.O., and Boynton, S.S., 1989, Re-Evaluation of the Lower San Fernando Dam, Report 1:
An Investigation of the February 9, 1971 Slide: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Contract Report GL-89-2; available from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA214589.pdf.
Catchings, R.D., Gandhok, G., Goldman, M.R., and Okaya, D., 2001, Seismic Images and Fault Relations of the Santa Monica Thrust Fault, West Los Angeles, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 01-111.
Catchings, R.D., Gandhok, G., Goldman, M.R., Okaya D., Rymer, M.J., and Bawden, G.W., 2008, Nearsurface location, geometry, and velocities of the Santa Monica fault zone, Los Angeles, California:
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 98, No.1, pp. 124-138.
Chakraborty, J. et al., 2019, Exploring the environmental justice implications of Hurricane Harvey flooding in greater Houston, Texas: American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 244-250; doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304846.
Chang, S.E. and Chamberlin, C., 2003, Assessing the Role of Lifeline Systems in Community Disaster Resilience; in Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), Research Progress and Accomplishments 2003–2004, pp. 87–94; available from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a648240c65addffbdde74adf053 d81648ec6bfc0.
Chapman, R.H., and Chase, G.W., 1979, Geophysical Investigation of the Santa Monica-Raymond Fault Zone, Los Angeles County, California; in Earthquake Hazards Associated with Faults in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area, Los Angeles County, California, including in the Santa MonicaRaymond, Verdugo-Eagle Rock, and Benedict Canyon fault zones: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Repot 76-16-LA, Chapter E. pp. E1-E30.
Chou, J.-S., Ou, Y.-C., Cheng, M.-Y., Cheng, M.-Y., and Lee, C.-M, 2013, Emergency shelter capacity estimation by earthquake damage analysis: Natural Hazards, Vol. 65, pp. 2031–2061, doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0461-5.
Choun, Y.S., 2012, Sloshing response of liquid storage tanks subjected to earthquakes with different peak acceleration to velocity ratios; in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24-28 September, pp. 2782, 2791.
Churchill, D.D., Houston S.H., and Bond, N.A., 1995, The Daytona Beach wave of 3-4 July 1992: A shallow-water gravity wave forced by a propagating squall line: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 21-32; doi: 10.1175/1520- 0477(1995)076<0021:TDBWOJ>2.0.CO;2.
Citygate Associates, 2020, Community Risk Assessment / Standards of Cover Analysis, City of Santa Monica, CA, Volume 1 of 2: Technical Report, and Volume 2 of 2: Map Atlas.
City of Santa Monica, 2010 (Revised 2017), Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan, adopted July 2010, Revised July 2017.
City of Santa Monica, 2018, Sustainable Water Master Plan Update; report dated December 2018; available from
https://www.santamonica.gov/Media/Users/smgov_5Calfredo_2Egonzalez/Water_Rate_Files/City_of _Santa_Monica_SWMP_122018.pdf.
City of Santa Monica, 2019, Climate Action & Adaptation Plan: A 2030 Community Plan to Reduce Carbon Emissions & Become Climate Resilient; Final Draft Adopted May 2019, available from https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Climate/ CAAP_SantaMonica.PDF.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 6
City of Santa Monica, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, report dated June 2021.
City of Santa Monica, 2022, 2022 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report, report dated May 2022.
City of Santa Monica, 2022, 2021-2029 Housing Element, Final Draft dated September 2022.
City of Santa Monica, 2022, Annual Water Quality Report; report issued by the Water Resources Division, dated June 2022.
City of Santa Monica, 2023, Annual Water Quality Report; report issued by the Water Resources Division, dated June 2023; available from
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Document%20Library/Topic%20Explainers/Your%20Guide% 20to%20Water/2023%20WQ%20AWQR%20WEB.pdf.
City of Santa Monica, 2023, Draft 2023 Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report; report dated April 2023; available from
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Public%20Works/Water%20Resources/Draft%202023%20An nual%20Water%20Shortage%20Assessment%20Report.pdf.
City of Santa Monica, 2024, Annual Water Quality Report; report issued by the Water Resources Division, dated June 2024; available from
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Public%20Works/Water%20Resources/2024%20WQ%20CC R%20WEB%20READY.pdf.
Clarke, S.H., Jr., Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., 1985, Earthquake-Related Phenomena Offshore; in Ziony, I., (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 347-374.
Cole, D., 2000, The Incident Command System: A 25-Year Evaluation by California Practitioners; available from https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo31023.pdf.
Corringham, T.W., Ralph F.M., Gershunov, A., Cayan, D.R., and Talbot, C.A., 2019, Atmospheric rivers drive flood damages in the western United States: Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 12, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax4631.
County of Los Angeles, Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 2020, County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, 214p.
Cousins, W.J., and Smith, W.D., 2004, Estimated losses due to post-earthquake fire in three New Zealand cities; in Proceedings of the Annual Technical Conference, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 19-21 March 2004, Rotorua, Paper No. 028.
Crook Jr., R., Allen, C.R., Kamb, B., Payne, C.M., and R.J. Proctor, 1987, Quaternary Geology and Seismic Hazard of the Sierra Madre and Associated Faults, Western San Gabriel Mountains; in Recent Reverse Faulting in the Transverse Ranges, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339, pp. 27-63.
Crook Jr., R., and Proctor, R., 1992, The Hollywood and Santa Monica Faults and the Southern Boundary of the Transverse Ranges Province, in Pipkin, B., and Proctor, R., eds., Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California: Belmont, California, Star Publishing, p. 233–246.
Crook Jr., R., Proctor, R.J., and Lindvall, E.E., 1983, Seismicity of the Santa Monica and Hollywood Faults Determined by Trenching: Technical Report to the U.S. Geological Survey, Contract No. 14-08- 001-20523.
Cubrinovski, M., Robinson, K., Taylor, M., Hughes, M. and Orense, R. 2012, Lateral spreading and its impacts in urban areas in the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes: New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Special Issue on Canterbury Earthquakes, pp. 255-269.
Dark, S., Stein, E., Bram, D., Osuna, J., Monteferante, J., Longcore, T., Grossinger, R., and Beller, E., 2011, Historical Ecology of the Ballona Creek Watershed: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Technical Report #671, 75p.
Davis, P.M., Rubinstein, J.L., Liu, K.H., Gao, S.S., and Knopoff, L., 2000, Northridge earthquake damage caused by geologic focusing of seismic waves: Science, Vol. 289, Issue 5485, pp. 1746-1750, doi:10.1126/science.289.5485.1746.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 7
Davis, T.L., Namson, J., and Yerkes, R.F., 1989, A cross section of the Los Angeles area; seismically active fold and thrust belt, the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, and earthquake hazard: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, pp. 9644-9664.
Dettinger, M.D., 2013, Atmospheric rivers as drought busters on the U.S. Coast: Journal of Hydrometeorology, Vol. 14, pp. 1721-1732, doi:0.1175/JHM-D-13-02.1.
Dettinger, M.D., and Ingram, B.L., 2013, Megastorms could drown massive portions of California: Scientific American, January 1, 2013, available from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/megastormscould-down-massive-portions-of-california/.
Dewey, J.W., Reagor, B.G., Dengler, L., and Moley, K., 1995, Intensity Distribution and Isoseismal Maps for the Northridge, California, Earthquake of January 17, 1994: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 95-92, 35p.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1991, Geologic Map of the Beverly Hills and Van Nuys (South ½) Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-31, edited by H.E.
Ehrenspeck, January 2000 Second Printing, scale: 1:24,000.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1992, Geologic Map of the Topanga and Canoga Park (South ½) Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-35, dated June 1992, edited by H.E. Ehrenspeck, scale: 1:24,000.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 2007, Geologic Map of the Venice and Inglewood Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: DIbblee Geology Center Map #DF-322, dated May 2007, edited by John A. Minch, scale: 1:24,000.
Dolan, J.F. and Sieh, K., 1992, Tectonic Geomorphology of the Northern Los Angeles Basin: Seismic Hazards and Kinematics of Young Fault Movement; in Ehlig, P.L., and Steiner, E.A., (editors), Engineering Geology Field Trips: Orange County, Santa Monica Mountains, and Malibu, Guidebook and Volume: Association of Engineering Geologists, pp. B-20—B-26.
Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., and Rockwell, T.K., 1992, Paleoseismology and geomorphology of the northern Los Angeles Basin: Evidence for Holocene activity on the Santa Monica fault and identification of new strike-slip faults through downtown Los Angeles: Eos, Transaction, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 73, p. 589.
Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T.K., Yeats, R.S., Shaw, J., Suppe, J., Huftile, G.J., and Gath, E.M., 1995, Prospects for larger or more frequent earthquakes in the Los Angeles metropolitan region: Science, Vol. 267, No. 5195, pp.199-205.
Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T.K., Guptill, P., and Miller, G., 1997, Active tectonics, paleoseismology, and seismic hazards of the Hollywood fault, northern Los Angeles basin, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 109, No. 12, pp. 1595-1616.
Dolan, J.F., and Pratt, T.L., 1997, High-resolution seismic reflection profiling of the Santa Monica fault zone, west Los Angeles, California: Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 16, pp. 2051-2054.
Dolan, J., Donovan, S., and Rockwell, T., 2000a, Paleoseismic evidence for an early to mid-Holocene age of the most recent surface rupture on the Hollywood fault, Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 90, No. 2, pp. 334-344.
Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., and Rockwell, T.K., 2000b, Late Quaternary activity and seismic potential of the Santa Monica fault system, Los Angeles, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 112, No. 10, pp. 1559–1581.
Dolan, J.F., Marin, M., Hartleb, R.D., Christofferson, S.A., Tucker, A.Z., and Owen, L.A., 2000c, 2000 SCEC Progress Report, Trench Study of the Slip Rate of the Raymond Fault, San Gabriel Valley.
Dolan, J.F., Christofferson, S.A., and Shaw, J.H., 2003, Recognition of paleoearthquakes on the Puente Hills blind thrust fault, California: Science, Vol. 300, pp. 115-118.
Dong, C., Williams, A.P., Abatzoglou, J.T., Lin, K., Okin, G.S., Gillespie, D.L., Lin, Y-H, Hall, A., and MacDonald, G,M., 2022, The season for large fires in Southern California is projected to lengthen in a changing climate: Communications Earth & Environment, Vol. 3, Article No. 22 doi:10.1038/s43247-022-00344-6.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 8
Drumm, P.L., 1992, Holocene Displacement of the Central Splay of the Malibu Coast Fault Zone, Latigo Canyon, Malibu; in Pipkin, B.W., and Proctor, R.J., (editors), Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California: Association of Engineering Geologists Special Publication 4, pp. 247-254.
Dudek, Inc., 2022, Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Santa Monica Groundwater Subbasin; unpublished consulting report, Project No. 12169, dated January 2022.
Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI), 2000, Report of Fault Investigation Studies, Vesting Tentative Tract 52487, Winter Mesa, 24200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California; unpublished consulting report, ECI Project No. 988117-003, February 6, 2000, 14 pp.
Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI), 2002, Supplemental Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating Results on Sand Blow Deposit from Trench 1, Vesting Tentative Tract 52487, Winter Mesa, 24200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California; consulting report, ECI Project No 1617, dated April 12, 2002.
Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI), 2017, Baseline Study to Evaluate the Value of Using Differential Interferometry Synthetic Aperture Radar (DInSAR) to Monitor Land Elevation Changes Related to Groundwater Extractions and Recharge for the Santa Monica Basin; unpublished consulting report, ECI Project No. 3615, dated September 2017.
Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI), 2018, Report – Supplemental DInSAR Study of the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin; unpublished consulting report prepared for the City of Santa Monica Water Resources Protections Programs, ECI Project No. 3615.02, final draft dated August 31, 2018.
Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI), 2023, Detailed DInSAR Study of the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin with Time-Series and Studies of Recharge Patterns; unpublished consulting report prepared for the City of Santa Monica Water Resources Division, ECI Project No. 3615.03, dated April 2023.
Earth Consultants International, Inc. (ECI), 2024, Technical Background Report to the Safety Element Update for the City of Santa Monica; ECI Project No. 4205, available from https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/EnvironmentalReports/Appendix%201%20Combined%20December%202024.pdf.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 1992, Landers and Big Bear earthquakes of June 28 & 29, 1992, Special Report, Newsletter, August 1992, pp. 1-12.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 1995, Northridge, California, 1994 Earthquake, Vol. 11, Issues S1 and S2.
Eguchi, R.T., and Ghosh, S., 2008, The ShakeOut Scenario Supplemental Study: Hazardous Materials, report prepared for the US Geological Survey and California Geological Survey under contract to SPA Risk LLC, Denver, CO.
Ehlers, R., 2022, Climate Change Impacts Across California: Cross Cutting Issues: Report from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 24p., dated April 2022, available from https://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2022/4575/Climate-Change-Impacts-Crosscutting-Issues040522.pdf Eichler, O., and Hackenthal, E., 1962, Uber Ausscheidung und Stoffwechsel von Perchlorat gemessen mit 36ClO4 [Secretion and metabolism of perchlorate measured with 36ClO4]: NaunynSchmidedberg's Archives of Experimental Pathology & Pharmacology, Vol. 243, pp. 554-565.
Eidinger, J., 2009, Magic R: Seismic Design of Water Tanks: paper accessed from https://www.geengineeringsystems.com/ewExternalFiles/Magic%20R%20%20Seismic%20Design% 20of%20Water%20Tanks.pdf on February 19, 2023.
Ellen, S.D., and Fleming, R.W., 1987, Mobilization of debris Flows from soil slips, San Francisco Bay region, California; in Costa, J.E. and Wieczorek, G.F. (editors), Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recognition, and Mitigation: Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol.
VII, pp. 31-40.
ES Engineering Services, LLC (ES), 2016, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, Area A-1, Santa Monica Airport (SMO), Santa Monica, California; report dated September 12, 2016.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 9
ES Engineering Services, LLC (ES), 2016, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, Area A-2, Santa Monica Airport (SMO), Santa Monica, California; report dated September 12, 2016.
ES Engineering Services, LLC (ES), 2017, Supplemental Site Assessment Report, East Parcel, Santa Monica Airport (SMO), Santa Monica, California; report dated July 20, 2017.
ES Engineering Services, LLC (ES), 2017, Supplemental Site Assessment Report, West Parcel, Santa Monica Airport (SMO), Santa Monica, California; report dated July 20, 2017.
Ewing, L., 2011, The Tohoku tsunami of March 11, 2011: A preliminary Report on Effects to the California Coast and Planning Implications: Memorandum to the California Coastal Commission, dated April 13, 2011, revised April 18, 2011, available from
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/energy/tsunami/ccc_tohoku_tsunami_report.pdf.
Faculty of Societal Safety Sciences, Kansai University (editors), 2018, Chapter 8: Liquefaction with the Great East Japan Earthquake; in The Fukushima and Tohoku Disaster: A Review of the Five-Year Reconstruction Efforts: Elsevier Inc., doi:10.1016/C2016-0-04143-8, pp. 147-159.
Faiyetole, A.D., Sivowaku, J.T., 2021, The effects of aircraft noise on psychosocial health: Journal of Transport and Health, Vol. 22, paper 101230; doi:10.1016/j.jth.2021.101230.
Fakhoury, E., and Patton, K.R., 1992, A Practical Approach for Environmental Site Assessment of Oilfield Properties Prior to Redevelopment; in Stout, M.L. (editor), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting, Association of Engineering Geologists, October 2-9, 1992, p. 268.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1985, Comprehensive Earthquake Preparedness Planning Guidelines: City: Earthquake Hazard Reduction Series 2, FEMA-73, 80p.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1987, The Los Angeles – Whittier Narrows Earthquake of October 1, 1987: Federal/State Hazard Mitigation Survey Team Report; report prepared by FEMA, Region IX, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, and Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project and Planning Division, dated November 1987.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1996, Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation, Publication 331; available from https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/haz_cost.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007, Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning:
State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide No. 5, FEMA Publication 386-5, 13p. + appendix; available from
https://iemaohs.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/iemaohs/recovery/documents/plan-femahtg5.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2020, Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for Adopting Building Codes; available from https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 11/fema_building-codes-save_brochure.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2023, P-366: HazUS Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States; available from
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_p-366-hazus-estimated-annualizedearthquake-losses-united-states.pdf.
Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y., 2013, Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165, 97 p., California Geological Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/.
Field, E.H., Seligson, H.A., Gupta, N., Gupta, V., Jordan, T.H., and Campbell, K.W., 2005, Loss estimates for a Puente Hills blind-thrust earthquake in Los Angeles, California: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 329-338, doi:10.1193/1.1898332.
Field, M.E., and Edwards, B.D., 1980, Slopes of the Southern California Continental Borderland: A Regime of Mass Transport; in Field, M.E., Bouma, A.H., Colburn, I.P., Douglas, R.G., and Ingle, J.C., (editors), Proceedings of the Quaternary Depositional Environments of the Pacific Coast: Pacific
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 10
Coast Paleogeography Symposium No. 4: Los Angeles California Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, pp. 169-184.
Fischer, P.J., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The Offshore Newport-Inglewood – Rose Canyon Fault Zone, California:
Structure, Segmentation and Tectonics; in Abbott, P.L., and Elliot, W.J., (editors.), Environmental Perils, San Diego Region: Geological Society of America Field Trip guidebook prepared by the San Diego Association of Geologists, pp. 17-36.
Fisher, F.L., 1995, Building Fire Safety in the Wildland Urban Intermix: The Role of Building Codes and Fire Test Standards: Report prepared for the California/China Bilateral Conference on Fire Safety Engineering held August 14-15, 1995 in Sacramento, California, 13p.
Frederikse, T., Landerer, F., Caron, L., Adhikari, S., Parkes, D., Humphrey, V.W., Dangendorf, S., Hogarth, P., Zanna, L., Cheng, L., and Wu, Y-H., 2020, The causes of sea-level rise since 1900: Nature, Vol. 584, pp. 393-397.
Freeman, S.T., Heath, E.G., Guptil, P.D., and Waggoner, J.T., 1992, Seismic Hazard Assessment, NewportInglewood Fault Zone, in Pipkin, B.W., and Proctor, R.J., (editors), Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California: Association of Engineering Geologists, Star Publishing Company, Belmont, California, pp. 211-231.
Fung, J.F., Cook, D.T., Zhang, Y., Johnson, K.J., and Sattar, S., 2022, Economic Considerations for Recovery-Based Design; in Proceedings, 12th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (NCEE). Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Fung, J. F., Sattar, S., Butry, D.T., and McCabe, S.L., 2020, A predictive modeling approach to estimating seismic retrofit costs: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 579–598; doi:10.1177/8755293019891716.
Galloway, D.L. and Burbey. T.J., 2011, Review: Regional land subsidence accompanying groundwater extraction: Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 1459-1486.
Garcia, A.W., and Houston, J.R., 1975, Type 16 flood Insurance Study – Tsunami Predictions for Monterey and San Francisco Bays and Puget Sound: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report H-75-17, 21p.
Garrison, T., 2002, Oceanography – An Invitation to Marine Science: Wadsworth Publishing House, Belmont, California, 4th Edition.
GENTERRA Consultants, Inc., 2018, Stone Canyon Dam Sunny Day Dam Failure Scenario, Los Angeles County, California State Dam # 06-025, National Dam ID # CA00083; consulting report prepared for Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, dated June 29, 2018.
Gensini, V.A. and Brooks, H.E., 2018, Spatial trends in United States tornado frequency: NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, Vol. 1, Article No. 38.
Gershunov, A., Guzman Morales, J., Hatchett, B., Guirguis, K., Aguilera, R., Shulgina, T., Abatzoglou, J.T., et al., 2021, Hot and cold flavors of southern California’s Santa Ana winds: their causes, trends, and links with wildfire: Climate Dynamics, Vol. 57, No. 7, pp. 2233-2248; doi: 10.1007/s00382-021- 05802-z.
Goforth, B.R. and Minnich, R.A., 2007, Evidence, exaggeration, and error in historical accounts of chaparral wildfires in California: Ecological Applications, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 779-790.
Gorris, M.E., Treseder, K.K., Zender, C.S., and Randerson, J.T., 2019, Expansion of Coccidioidomycosis endemic regions in the United States in response to climate Change: GeoHealth, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 308-327; doi:10.1029/2019GH000209.
Graber, M., Trapp, R.J., and Wang, Z., 2024, The regionality and seasonality of tornado trends in the United States: NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Article No. 144.
Graehl, N., Patton, J., Bott, J., Wilson, R., LaDuke, Y., and Miller, K., 2019, State of California’s Update to the Tsunami Inundation Maps for Evacuation Planning: Poster presented at the American Geophysical Union 100-Year Meeting, Poster Session No NH43D-0973; available from https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Tsunami/Tsunami-inundation-map-methodology2019.pdf.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 11
Grant, E. and Runkle, J., 2022, Long-term health effects of wildfire exposure: A scoping review: The Journal of Climate Change and Health, Vol. 6, 100110.
Grant, L.B and Rockwell, T.K., 2002, A northward-propagating earthquake sequence in coastal southern California?: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 461-469.
Grant, L.B., Ballenger, L.J, and Runnerstrom, E.E., 2002, Coastal uplift of the San Joaquin Hills, southern Los Angeles Basin, California, by a large earthquake since A.D. 1635: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 590-599.
Grant, L.B., Waggoner, J.T., Rockwell, T.K., and von Stein, C., 1997, Paleoseismicity of the north branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone in Huntington Beach, California, from Cone Penetrometer Test Data: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 277-293.
Grant, U.S. and Sheppard, W.E., 1939, Some recent changes of elevation in the Los Angeles Basin of Southern California, and their possible significance: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 29, No. 2, 299-326.
Grauzinis, V.J., Joy, J.W., and Putz, R.R., undated, The Reported Tsunami of December 1812: unpublished manuscript, 120p. as reported in Lander et al. (1993).
Graves, R.W., Pitarka, A., and Somerville, P.G., 1998, Ground-motion amplification in the Santa Monica area: Effects of shallow basin-edge structure: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 88, No.5, pp.1224-1242.
Greene, H.G. and Maher, N.A., 2000, Slope Instability and the Potential for Tsunami Generating Landslides: National Science Foundation Workshop on the Prediction of Underwater Landslide and Slump Occurrence of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, dated 2000. [as referenced in Borrero et al., 2001].
Greenlee, J.M., and Sapsis, D.B., 1996, Prefire Effectiveness in Fire Management: A Summary and a Review of the State-of-Knowledge: International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA.
Greenwood, R.B., 1998, Section 1–Liquefaction Evaluation Report: Liquefaction Zones in the Long Beach
7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Long Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Open File Report No. 98-19, pp. 3-20.
Griggs, G.B., Marshall, J.S., Rosenbloom, N.A., and Anderson, R.S., 1991, Ground Cracking in the Santa Cruz Mountains in Baldwin, J.E. and Sitar, N. (editors), Loma Prieta Earthquake: Association of Engineering Geologists, Engineering Geologic Perspectives, Special Publication No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Gutenberg, B., Richter, C.F., and Wood, H.O., 1932, The earthquake in Santa Monica Bay, California, on August 30, 1930: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.138-154.
Guzman‐Morales, J., and Gershunov, A., 2019, Climate change suppresses Santa Ana winds of Southern California and sharpens their seasonality: Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 2772- 2780; doi: 10.1029/2018GL08026.
Hall, A., Berg, N., and Reich, K., 2018, Los Angeles Region Summary Report: California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Publication # SUM-CCA4-2018-007, 97p., available from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg%20Report-%20SUM-CCCA4-2018- 007%20LosAngeles_ADA.pdf.
Hall, J.F. (editor), 1994, Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994, Preliminary Reconnaissance Report:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Report 94-01, Oakland, California, 104p.
Harp, E.L., and Jibson, R.W., 1995, Inventory of landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-213, available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1995/ofr-95-0213/.
Harp, E.L., and Jibson, R.W., 1996, Landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake:
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 86, No. 1B, pp. S319-S332.
Hauksson, E., 1987, Seismotectonics of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 539-561.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 12
Hauksson, E., 1994, The 1991 Sierra Madre earthquake sequence in southern California: Seismological and tectonic analysis: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 1058-1074.
Hauksson, E, and Jones, L.M., 1989, The 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake sequence in Los Angeles, southern California: Seismological and tectonic analysis: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, pp. 9569-9589.
Hauksson, E. and Jones, L.M., 1991, The 1988 and 1990 upland earthquakes: Left‐lateral faulting adjacent to the Central Transverse Ranges: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 96, No. B5, pp. 8143-8165.
Hauksson, E. and Saldivar, G.V., 1986, The 1930 Santa Monica and the 1979 Malibu, California, earthquakes: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 1542-1559.
HDR, 2021, Soil Corrosivity Study, Santa Monica High School, Santa Monica, CA; HDR Project No. 21- 0239SCS, report prepared for Leighton Group Inc., dated April 16, 2021.
Heck, N.H., 1947, List of seismic sea waves: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 269-286.
Hereford and Longpre, 2009, Climate History of the Mojave Desert Region, 1982-1996, Including Data from 48 Long-Term Weather Stations and an Overview of Regional Climate Variation: U.S.
Geological Survey, available from http://mojave.usgs.gov/climate-history/.
Hill, R.L., 1979, Potrero Canyon fault and University High School escarpment; in Keaton, J.R. (editor), Field Guide to Selected Engineering Geologic Features, Santa Monica Mountains: Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, Annual Field Trip, May 19, 1979, pp. 83- 103.
Hill, R.L., Pechman, J.C., Treiman, J.A., McMillan, J.R., Given, J.W., and Ebel, J.E., 1980, Geologic study of the Homestead Valley earthquake swarm of March 15, 1979: California Geology, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 60-67.
Hill, R.L., Slade, R.C., Sprotte, E.C., and Bennett, J.H., 1978, Fault Location and Fault Activity Assessment by Analysis of Historic Leveling Data, Oil Well Data and Ground Water Data, Beverly Hills – Hollywood Area, California; in Lamar, D.L. (Field Trip Chairman), Geologic Guide and Engineering Geology Case Histories, Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: Association of Engineering Geologists, First Annual California Section Conference, Sheraton Inn – Los Angeles Airport, May 12-14, 1978, pp. 167-174.
Hill, R.L., Sprotte, E.C., Bennett, J.H., Real, C.R., and Slade, R.C., 1979, Location and Activity of the Santa Monica Fault, Beverly Hills – Hollywood Area, California; in Hill, R.L., Sprotte, E.C., Chapman, R.H., Chase, G.W., Bennett, J.H., Real, C.R., Slade, R.C., Borchardt, G., and Weber, F.H., Jr., (editors), 1979, Earthquake Hazards Associated with Faults in the Greater Los Angeles Area, Los Angeles County, California, Including Faults in the Santa Monica-Raymond-Verdugo-Eagle Rock and Benedict Canyon Fault Zones: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 79- 16-LA (Final Technical Report, U.S.G.S. Grant No. 14-08-0001-G-510), pp. B-1 to B-42.
Hill, R.T., 1928, Southern California Geology and Los Angeles Earthquakes: Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, 232p.
Hoots, H.W., and Kew, W.S.W., 1931, Geologic Map of the Eastern Part of the Santa Monica Mountains and Adjacent Areas, Los Angeles County, California; in Hoots, H.W., 1931, Geology of the Eastern Part of the Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles, County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 165-C, Plate 16, map scale: 1:24,000.
Houston, J.R., 1980, Type 19 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami Predictions for Southern California: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Technical Report HL-80-18, 172p.
Houston, J.R, and Garcia, A.W., 1974, Type 16 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami Predictions for Pacific Coastal Communities: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Research Report H-74-3, 10p.
Houston, J.R., and Garcia, A.W., 1978, Type 16 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami Predictions for the West Coast of the United States: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Research Report H-78-26, 38p.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 13
Houston, J.R., Whalin, R.W., Garcia, A.W., and Butler, H.L., 1975, Effect of Source Orientation and Location in the Aleutian Trench on Tsunami Amplitude Along the Pacific Coast of the Continental United States: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Research Report H-75- 4, 22p.
Huang, X. and Swain, D.L., 2022, Climate change is increasing the risk of a California megaflood: Science Advances, Vol. 8, Issue 32, eabq0995.
Huang, Y. And Wen, Z., 2015, Recent developments of soil improvement methods for seismic liquefaction mitigation: Natural Hazards, Vol. 76, pp. 1927-1938; doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1558-9.
Hutt, C.M., Vahanvaty, T., and Kourehpaz. P., 2022, An analytical framework to assess earthquake-induced downtime and model recovery of buildings: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 1283–1320; doi:10.1177/87552930211060856.
Iida, K., 1963, Magnitude, Energy, and Generation Mechanisms of Tsunamis and a Catalog of Earthquakes Associated with Tsunamis; in Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Science Congress Symposium:
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Monograph No. 24, pp. 7-18.
Iida K., Cox, D. C, and G. Pararas-Carayannis, 1967, Preliminary Catalog of Tsunamis Occurring in the Pacific Ocean: University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Imamura, A., 1949, List of tsunamis in Japan: Journal of the Seismological Society of Japan, Vol. 2, pp. 22- 28 (in Japanese, as referenced in McCulloch, 1985).
Inoue, R., Sakai, F., and Omine, S., Water Tank Damage Due to the 2011 East Japan Earthquake in Consideration of Strong Ground Motion and Design Codes; in Proceedings of 16th World Conference on Earthquakes, 16WCEE 2017, January 9-13, 2017, Santiago, Chile, 12p.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021, Climate Change 2021, The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J.B.R., Maycock, T.K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B.: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391p. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022a, Climate Change 2022, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A., and Rama, B.: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056p., doi:10.1017/9781009325844.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022b, Climate Change 2022, Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., and Malley, J.: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.
Ishiwa, T., Yokoyama, Y., Okuno, J., Obrachta, S., Uehara, K., Ikehara, M. and Miyairi, Y., 2019, A sealevel plateau preceding the Marine Isotope Stage 2 minima revealed by Australian sediments:
Scientific Reports, Vol. 9, Article No. 6449, doi: org/10.1038/s41598-019-42573-4; available from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42573-4.
Iwaki, M. and Toda, T., 2022, Seismic seiche-related oscillations in Lake Biwa, Japan, after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake: Scientific Reports, Vol. 12, 19357, available from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23939-7.
Jackson, W.A., Bohlke, J.K., Gu, B., Hatzinger, P.B., and Sturchio, N.C., 2010, Isotopic composition and origin of indigenous natural perchlorate and co-occurring nitrate in the Southwestern United States:
Environmental Science Technology, Vol. 44, No. 13, pp. 4869-4876, DOI:10.1021/es903802j.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 14
Jacoby, G.C. Jr., Sheppard, P.R., and Sieh, K.E., 1988, Irregular recurrence of large earthquakes along the San Andreas fault: Evidence from trees: Science, Vol. 241, No. 4862, pp. 196-199.
Jennings, Charles W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Location and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Map scale: 1:250,000.
Jiang, W., and Marggraf, R., 2021, The origin of cost-benefit analysis: a comparative view of France and the United States: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, Vol. 19, Article 74; doi:
10.1186/s12962-021-00330-3.
Jibson, R.W., 2005, Landslide Hazards at La Conchita, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1067, 12 p.
Jibson, R.W., 2006, The 2005 La Conchita, California landside: Landslides, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 73-78; doi:
10.1007/s10346-005-0011-2.
Jibson, R.W., 2020, Types and areal distribution of ground failure associated with the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 110, No. 4, pp. 1567-1578.
Johnson, H.R., 1932, Geologic and structural report with recommendations upon Quelinda Estate, Pacific Palisades, California; consulting report dated November 30, 1932 (as referenced in Olson, 2018.) Johnson, I.A., 1998, Land Subsidence Due to Fluid Withdrawal in the United States–An Overview; in Borchers, J.W. (editor), Land Subsidence, Case Studies and Current Research: Association of Engineering Geologists, Proceedings of the Dr. Joseph F. Poland Symposium on Land Subsidence, Special Publication 8, pp.51-57.
Jones, L.M., 1995, Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country: Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Special Publication, Los Angeles, California.
Jones, L.M., Bernknopf, R., Cox, D., Goltz, J., Hudnut, K., Mileti, D., Perry, S., Ponti, D., Porter, K., Reichle, M., Seligson, H., Shoaf, K., Treiman, J., and Wein, A., 2008, The ShakeOut Scenario: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2008-1150, California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25, Version 1.0, 308p.
Jones, L.M., Sieh, K.E., Hauksson, E., and Hutton, L.K., 1990, The 3 December 1988 Pasadena, California earthquake: evidence for strike-slip motion on the Raymond fault: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp.474-482.
Joy, J.W., 1968, Tsunamis and their Occurrence along the San Diego County Coast: Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory Report, No. 68-567-OCEAN-RL, San Diego, California.
Juliá, P.B., Ferreira, T.M., and Rodrigues, H., 2021, Post-earthquake fire risk assessment of historic urban areas: A scenario-based analysis applied to the Historic City Centre of Leiria, Portugal: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 60, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102287.
Kaltenbach, M., Maschke, C., and Klinke, R., 2008, Health consequences of aircraft noise: Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, Vol. 105, No. 31-31, pp. 548-556, doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0548.
Keefer, D.K., and Johnson, A.M., 1983, Earth Flows – Morphology, Mobilization and Movement: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1264.
KellerLynn, K., 2016, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, Geologic Resources Inventory Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR-2016/1297, Fort Collins, Colorado, 88p., available from https://npshistory.com/publications/samo/nrr-2016-1297.pdf.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (KJC), 2011, Feasibility Report for Development of Groundwater Resources in the Santa Monica and Hollywood Basins; consulting report prepared for Los Angeles City Department and Power, December 2011, 158p
Kenney GeoScience, 2016, Evaluation of Regional and Local Seismic Issues within the Beverly Hills Unified School District and Their Public and Scientific Issues; unpublished consulting report dated March 30, 2016, 163p.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 15
Khorasani, N.E. and Garlock, M.E.M., 2017, Overview of fire following earthquake: historical events and community responses: International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 158-174; doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-02-2015-0005.
Khorshidi, M.S., Dennison, P.E., Nikoo, M.R., AghaKouchak, A., Luce, C.H., and Sadegh, M., 2020, Increasing concurrence of wildfire drivers tripled megafire critical danger days in Southern California between 1982 and 2018: Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15, No. 10, Paper No. 104002, doi:10.1088/1748‐9326/abae9e.
Kim, H-M., Zhou, Y., and Alexander, M.A., 2017, Changes in atmospheric river and moisture transport over the Northeast Pacific and western North America in response to ENSO diversity: Climate Dynamics, Vol. 52, pp. 7375-7388, doi:10.1007/200382-017-3598-9.
Knight, C.A., Anderson, L., Bunting, M.J., Champagne, M., Clayburn, R.M., Crawford, J.N., KlimaszewskiPatterson, A., Knapp, E.E., Lake, F.K., Mensing, S.A., Wahl, D., Wanket, J., Watts-Tobin, A., Potts, M.D. and Battles, J.J., 2022, Land management explains major trends in forest structure and composition over the last millennium in California’s Klamath Mountains: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Vol. 119, No. 2, e2116264119, doi:10.1073/pnas.2116264119.
Koch, A.L., Santucci, V.L., and Weasma, T.R., 2004, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Paleontological Survey: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Geologic Resources Division Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-04/01, Denver, Colorado.
Kroll, K.A., Cochran, E.S., Richards-Dinger, K.B., and Sumy, D.F., 2013, Aftershocks of the 2010 Mw 7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah earthquake reveal complex faulting in the Yuha Desert, California: Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp. 6146-6164; doi:10.1002/2013JB010529.
Lajoie, K.R., Ponti, D.J., Powell II, C.L., Mathieson, S.A., and Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., 1991, Emergency Marine Strandlines and Associated Sediments, Coastal California, a Record of Quaternary SeaLevel Fluctuations, Vertical Tectonic Movements, Climatic Changes, and Coastal Processes; in Morrison, R.B. (editor), Quaternary Nonglacial Geology, Conterminous U.S: Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, K-2, pp. 190-203.
Lambeck, K. and Chappell, J., 2001, Sea level change through the last glacial cycle: Science, Vol. 292, No. 5517, pp. 679-686, doi:10.1126/science.1059549.
Lander, E.B. (compiler), 2011, Stratigraphy, Biostratigraphy, Biochronology, Geochronology, Magnetostratigraphy, and Plate Tectonic History of the Early Middle Eocene to Late Early Miocene Sespe, Vaqueros, and Lower Topanga Formations, East-Central Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County, Southern California: Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists 2011 Annual Meeting Field Trip Volume and Guidebook: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California.
Lander, J.F., 1968, Seismological notes: March and April 1968: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 1709-1714.
Lander, J.F., and P.A. Lockridge, 1989, United States Tsunamis 1690-1988: U.S. Department of Commerce, Publication 41-2.
Lander, J.F., Lockridge, P.A., and Kozuch, M.J., 1993, Tsunamis Affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806–1992: NGDC Key to Geophysical Record Documentation No. 29, NOAA, NESDIS, NGDC, 242 pp.
Lang, H.R., and Dreessen, R.S., 1975, Subsurface Structure of the Northwestern Los Angeles Basin: California Division of Oil and Gas Technical Report TP01, pp.15-22.
Langenheim, V.E.; Griscom, A., Jachens, R.C., and Hildenbrand, T.G., 2000, Preliminary Potential-Field Constraints on the Geometry of the San Fernando Basin, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-219, 36p.
Lanzano, G., Di Carluccio, A., and Santucci de Magistris, F., 2011, Numerical Analysis of the Seismic Response of Underground Steel Storage Tanks; in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 10-13 January 2011, Santiago, Chile, 13p.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 16
Larson, L., 2009, How certain are we about our flood risk?: Natural Hazards Observer (EERI publication), Vol. XXXIII, No. 6, dated July 2009.
Latter, J.H., 1981, Tsunamis of volcanic origin: Summary of causes, with particular reference to Krakatoa, 1883: Bulletin Volcanologique, Vol. 44, pp. 467–490; doi.org/10.1007/BF02600578.
Lau, D.L., Tang, A.K., and Pierre, J-R., 1995, Performance of lifelines during the 1994 Northridge earthquake: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 438-451, doi:10/1139/I95- 052.
Layne, J.G., 1935, Annals of Los Angeles, From the Arrival of the First White Man to the Civil War, 1769 to 1861: California Historical Society, Special Publication No. 9, pp. 11-12 and p. 15. (as referenced in Grant and Sheppard, 1939).
Lazarte, C.A., Bray, J.D., Johnson, A.M., and Lemmer, R.E., 1994, Surface breakage of the 1992 Landers earthquake and its effects on structures: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp 547-561.
Leeper, R., Rhodes, B., Kirby, M., Scharer, K., Carlin, J., Hemphill-Haley, E., Avnaim-Katav, S., MacDonald, G., Starratt, S., and Aranda, A., 2017, Evidence for coseismic subsidence events in a southern California coastal saltmarsh: Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 1, 44615, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44615.
Legg, M.R., Borrero, J.C., and Synolakis, C.E., 2003, Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities: Research supported by the 2002 Professional Fellowship, funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and administered by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, EERI PF2002-11, 32p. + graphics; available from https://www.eeri.org/images/archived/wp-content/uploads/FinlRept.pdf.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1994a, Report of Geotechnical Studies for Planning Purposes in the Civic Center Area, City of Malibu, California; unpublished consulting report, Project No. 2920647-01, March 18, 1994.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1994b, Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the City of Santa Monica General Plan; Project No. 2910399-01, dated March 30, 1994.
Leighton and Associates, Inc. with Kenneth C. Topping, 1995, Safety Element of the General Plan, City of Santa Monica, California, dated January 1995, 36p.
Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2020, Geotechnical Exploration Report, Phase III Santa Monica High School Campus Plan, 601 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California; LCI Project No. 11428.028, report dated October 22, 2020 with revisions on December 21, 2020.
Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2022, Geotechnical Exploration Report, New Makerspace Building, Franklin Elementary School, 2400 Montana Avenue, Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California; LCI Project No. 11428.035, dated January 5, 2022.
Lekkas, E.L., Andreadakis, E., Kostaki, I., and Kapourani, E., 2013, A proposal for a new integrated tsunami intensity scale (IT IS-2012): Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 103, No. 2B, pp. 1493-1502, doi:10.1785/0120120099
Lenton, T.M., Xu, C., Abrams, J.F., Ghadiali, A., Loriani, S., Sakschewski, B., Zimm, C., Ebi, K.L., Dunn, R.R., Svenning, J-C, and Scheffer, M., 2023, Quantifying the human cost of global warming:
Nature Sustainability, Vol. 6, No. 10, pp. 1237–1247; doi:10.1038/s41893-023-01132-6.
Leon, L.A., Christofferson, S.A., Dolan, J.F., Shaw, J.H., and Pratt, T.L., 2007, Earthquake-by-earthquake fold growth above the Puente Hills blind thrust fault, Los Angeles, California: Implications for fold kinematics and seismic hazard: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, doi:10.1029/2006JB004461.
Lepowsky, M., 2004, Indian Revolts and Cargo Cults: Ritual Violence and Revitalization in California and New Guinea; in Harkin, M.E. (editor), Reassessing revitalization movements: Perspectives from North America and the Pacific Island: University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 1–61, ISBN 9780803224063.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 17
Leps, T.H., 1987, Failure of Baldwin Hills reservoir, 1963-Interpretation of step-by-step failure sequence:
Engineering Geology, Vol. 24, Issues 1-4, pp. 83-88.
Leps, T.H., 1987, The Baldwin Hills reservoir failure in retrospect – Prepared discussion: Engineering Geology, Vol. 24, Issues 1-4, pp. 89-92.
LeRoy Crandall & Associates, 1978, Report of Site Evaluation, Proposed Parking Structure North of Colorado Avenue, Between Cloverfield Boulevard and 26th Street, Santa Monica, California; unpublished consulting report, Project No. ADE-78180, dated June 15, 1978.
LeRoy Crandall & Associates, 1989, Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed “The Arboretum” Between Colorado Avenue and Olympic Boulevard and Between 20th Street and Cloverfield Boulevard, Santa Monica, California; unpublished consulting report, Project No. LCA L8911.AO, dated December 4, 1989.
Lindell, M.K. and Perry, R.W., 2006, Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge Earthquake:
Implications for seismic risk assessment: Risk Analysis Journal, doi:10.1111/j.1539- 6924.1997.tb00854.x.
Lindvall, S.C., and Rockwell, T.K., 1995, Holocene activity of the Rose Canyon fault zone in San Diego, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, pp. 24,121-24,132.
Long, E.E. (Acting Chief of Tide and Current Prediction Section, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, 1988, personal communication with J.F. Lander on September 9, 1988 as reported in Lander et al. (1993).
Los Angeles County, 2020, 2020 County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, report prepared by the Chief Executive Office–Office of Emergency Management, available from https://ceo.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/County-of-Los-Angeles-All-HazardsMitigation-Plan-APPROVED-05-2020.pdf.
Los Angeles County, 2021, LA County Climate Vulnerability Assessment (LACCVA), report dated October 2021, available from https://ceo.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/LA-County-ClimateVulnerability-Assessment-1.pdf.
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, 1991, Revised 2004, Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, January 2006, Hydrology Manual, available from https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/publication/engineering/2006_Hydrology_Manual/2006%20Hydrolo gy%20Manual-Divided.pdf.
Lund, Le Val, 1994, Lifelines performance in the Landers and Big Bear (California) earthquakes of 28 June 1992: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 562-572.
Lund, Le Val, 1996, Lifeline utilities performance in the 17 January 1994 Northridge, California earthquake:
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 86, No. 1B, pp. S350-S361.
MACTEC, 2004a, Report of Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation, University High School, 11800 Texas Avenue, West Los Angeles, California; consulting report, Project No. 4953-04-0851, dated September 7, 2004.
MACTEC, 2004b, Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation, Existing Boys Gymnasium and Music Building, University High School, 11800 Texas Avenue, West Los Angeles, California; consulting report, Project No. 4953-04-0851.10, dated December 7, 2004.
MACTEC, 2007, Report of Supplemental Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation, University High School, 11800 Texas Avenue, West Los Angeles, California; consulting report, Project No. 4953-06-2471, dated February 23, 2007.
Maison, B., and Martinez, R., 2020, Mobile home damage in 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes: 2019 Searles Valley Earthquake Information Clearinghouse; available from https://lfestorage.s3.us-east2.amazonaws.com/images/2019_07_04_Searles_Valley/PDFs/RidgecrestMobileHomes_v2.pdf.
Marin, M., Dolan, J.F., Hartleb, R.D., Christofferson, S.A, Tucker, A.Z., and Owen, L.A., 2000, A latest Pleistocene-Holocene slip rate on the Raymond Fault based on 3-D trenching, East Pasadena, California: Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 81, No. 48, Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract S62B-03.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 18
Marine Advisors, Inc., (compilers), 1965, Examination of Tsunami Potential at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Report A-163, Los Angeles, California.
Marliyani, G.I., Rockwell, T.K., Onderdonk, N.W., and McGill, S.F., 2013, Straightening of the Northern San Jacinto fault, California, as seen in the fault‐structure evolution of the San Jacinto Valley stepover: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 2047–2061, doi.org/10.1785/0120120232.
Marshall, S., Plesch, A., Nicholson, C., Shaw, J., Su, M., Maechling, P., 2022, The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Community Fault Model, Version 5.3 (CFM5.3); available from https://www.scec.org/research/cfm.
Martinson, D.G., Pisias, N.G., Hays, J.D., Imbrie, J., Moore Jr., T.C., and Shackleton, N.J., 1987, Age dating and the orbital theory of the ice ages: Development of a high-resolution 0 to 300,000-year chronostratigraphy: Quaternary Research, Vol 27, No. 1, pp. 1-29, doi:10.1016/0033- 5894(87)90046-9.
Masters, J., 2023, The Other “Big One”: How a Megaflood Could Swamp California’s Central Valley: Yale Climate Connections, dated January 25, 2023; available from https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/01/the-other-big-one-how-a-megaflood-could-swampcalifornias-central-valley/.
McCarthy, R.J., Bernard, E.N., and Legg, M.R., 1993, The Cape Mendocino Earthquake: A Local Tsunami Wakeup Call?; in Magoon, O.T. et al. (editors), Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. III: American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp. 2812– 2828.
McCulloch, D.S., 1985, Evaluating Tsunami Potential; in Ziony, I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 375-413.
McGarr, A., and Vorhis, R.C., 1968, Seismic Seiches from the March 1964 Alaska Earthquake: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 544-E, 43p.
McGill, J.T., 1989, Geologic maps of the Pacific Palisades area, Los Angeles, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1828, scale 1:4,800.
McLaughlin, R.P., and Waring, C.A., 1914, Petroleum Industry of California: California State Mining Bureau, No. 69, 519p.
Mendenhall, W.C., 1905, Development of Underground Waters in the Coastal Plain Region of Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No 139, Series 0, Underground Waters, 42, Government Printing Office, Washington; available from https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/0139/report.pdf.
Miller, R.K., Field, C.B., and Mach, K.J., 2020, Factors influencing adoption and rejection of fire hazard severity zone maps in California: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 50, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101686.
Modaresi Rad, A., Abatzoglou, J.T., Fleishman, E., Mockrin, M.H., Radeloff, V.C., Pourmohamad, Y., Cattau, M., Johnson, J.M., Higuera, P., Nauslar, N.J., Sadegh, M., 2023, Social vulnerability of the people exposed to wildfires in U.S. West Coast states: Science Advances, Vol. 9, No. 38, doi:10.1126/sciadv.adh4615.
Montandon, F., 1928, Tremblements de Terre: Moterdaux pour l’Etude des Calamites, Geneva, Switzerland, No. 16, 345p.
Morton, D.M., Alvarez, R.M., and Campbell, R.H., 2003, Preliminary Soil-Slip Susceptibility Maps, Southwestern California: U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report OF 03-17, 46p.
Mountain Data Group, 2021, Leaded Aviation Gasoline Exposure Risk at Reid-Hillview Airport in Santa Clara County, California, pp. 37–45; available from https://news.sccgov.org/sites/ g/files/exjcpb956/files/documents/RHV-Airborne- Lead-Study-Report.pdf.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 19
Muhunthan, B., and Schofield, A.N., 2000, Liquefaction and Dam Failures: Slope Stability 2000, Proceedings of the Geo-Denver 2000 Conference held in Denver, CO, July 2000, pp. 266-280, doi:10.1061/40512(289)20.
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, 2005, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, Vol. 1: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations: National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington D.C., 11p.; can be purchased from https://store.atcouncil.org/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=235.
National Research Council, Committee on FEMA Flood Maps, 2009, Mapping the Zone – Improving Flood Map Accuracy: National Academies Press, ISBN: 0-309-13058-1, 136p.
National Transportation Safety Board, 2024, downloadable data sets of aviation accident data available for public use; files available from https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Pages/Data_Stats.aspx.
Oldale, R.N., 1985, Rapid postglacial shoreline changes in the western Gulf of Main and the Paleo-Indian environment: American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 145-150, doi:10.2307/280640.
Olson, B.P.E., 2018, The Hollywood, Santa Monica and Newport-Inglewood Faults in the Beverly Hills and Topanga 7.5’ Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: California Geological Survey Fault Evaluation Report FER 259; dated January 5, 2018 (revised), 74p. + 3 plates.
Onderdonk, N.W., McGill, S.F., and Rockwell, T.K., 2014, Paleoseismology of the northern San Jacinto fault zone and implications for rupture across steps in the San Andreas fault system, southern California: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 85, No. 2, p. 455 Onderdonk, N.W., McGill, S.F., and Rockwell, T.K., 2015, Short-term variations in slip rate and size of prehistoric earthquakes during the past 2000 years on the northern San Jacinto fault zone, a major plate-boundary structure in southern California: Lithosphere, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 211-234.
Onderdonk, N., McGill, S., and Rockwell, T., 2018, A 3700 yr paleoseismic record from the northern San Jacinto fault and implications for joint rupture of the San Jacinto and San Andreas faults:
Geosphere, Vol. 14, No.6, pp.2447-2468.
Onderdonk, N.W., Rockwell, T.K., McGill, S.F. and Marliyani, G.I., 2013, Evidence for seven surface ruptures in the past 1600 years on the Claremont fault at Mystic Lake, northern San Jacinto fault zone, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 519-541, doi:10.1785/0120120060.
Oppenheimer, M., Glavovic, B.C., Hinkel, J., van de Wal, R., Magnan, A.K., Abd-Elgawad, A., Cai, R., Cifuentes-Jara, M., DeConto, R.M., Ghosh, T., Hay, J., Isla, F., Marzeion, B., Meyssignac, B., and Sebesvari, Z., 2019, Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities; in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [edited by Pörtner, H.-O, Roberts, D.C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai,P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B., and Weyer, N.M.]:
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 321-445, doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.006.
Oskin M., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T., Miller G., Guptill, P., Curtis, M., McArdle, S. and Elliot, P., 2000, Active parasitic folds on the Elysian Park anticline: Implications for seismic hazard in central Los Angeles, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 693-707.
Parsons, 2016, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Site: Area A, 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South (a portion of), 3021 Airport Avenue, 3025 Airport Avenue, Santa Monica Airport, Santa Monica, California 90405; consulting report prepared for the City of Santa Monica Water Resources Division, dated February 4, 2016.
Parsons, 2017, Screening Level Risk Assessment, Area A-1, East Parcel, Santa Monica Airport – Santa Monica, California; memorandum report dated August 21, 2017.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2011, Century City area fault investigation, Volumes 1 and 2; consulting report prepared for Metro, Parsons Project No. 4953-10-1561, dated October 14, 2011.
Patsch K. and Griggs, G., 2006, Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline: Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California Department
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 20
of Boating and Waterways, California Coastal Sediment Management Work Group, October 2006, 40p., available from https://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastalvoices/resources/2006-LittoralCells.pdf.
Peek, L., 2013, Age; in Thomas, D.S.K., Phillips, B.D., Lovekamp, W.E., and Fothergill, A. (editors), Social Vulnerability to Disasters, 2nd Edition: CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 167-198.
Perica, S. et al., 2014 (revised), NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 6, Version 2.3: California: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 233p.; available from https://www.weather.gov/media/owp/oh/hdsc/docs/Atlas14_Volume6.pdf.
Petersen, M. D. and Wesnousky, S.G., 1994, Fault slip rates and earthquake histories for active faults in southern California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 1608-1649.
Pierce, D.W., Kalansky, J.F., and Cayan, D.R., 2018, Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: A report for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission, Publication # CCCA4-CEC-2018-006, 78p., available from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018- 006_ADA.pdf.
Poland, J.F. (editor), 1984, Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence due to Ground-Water Withdrawal:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), International Hydrological Programme, Working Group 8.4, Paris, France, 340p. available from http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/rgws/Unesco/.
Poland, J.F., Garrett, A.A., and Sinnott, A., 1959, Geology, Hydrology, and Chemical Character of Ground Waters in the Torrance-Santa Monica Area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1461.
Popescu, M.E and Sasahara, K., 2009, Engineering Measures for Landslide Disaster Mitigation; in Sassa, K. and Canuti, P. (editors), Landslides – Disaster Risk Reduction: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 609-631.
Porter K., Wein, A., Alpers, C., Baez, A., Barnard, P., Carter, J., Corsi, A., Costner, J. Das, T., Dettinger, M., Done, J., Eadie, C., Eymann, M., Ferris, J., Gunturi, P., Hughes, M., Jarrett, R., Johnson, L., LeGriffin, H., Mitchell, D., Morman, S., Neiman, P., Olsen, A., Perry S., Plumlee, F., Ralph, M., Reynolds, D., Rose, A., Schaefer, K., Serakos, J., Siembieda, W., Stock, J., Strong, D., Wing, I., Tang, A., Thomas, P., Topping, K., and Wills, C., Jones, L. (chief scientist), and Cox, D. (project manager), 2011, Overview of the Arkstorm Scenario, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2010-1312, 183p. plus appendices.
Potter, S.H., Becker J.S. Johnston, D.M., and Rossiter, K.P., 2015, An overview of the impacts of the 2010- 2011 Canterbury earthquakes: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 14, Part 1, December 2015, Pages 6-14
Pourmohamad, Y., Abatzoglou, J.T., Fleishman, E., Short, K.C., Shuman, J., AghaKouchak, A., Williamson, M., Seydi, S.T., and Sadegh, M., 2025, Inference of wildfire causes from their physical, biological, social and management attributes: Earth’s Future, Vol. 13, paper e2024EF005187, doi:10.1029/2024EF005187.
Pratt, T.L., Dolan, J.F., Odum, J.K., Stephenson, W.J., Williams, R.A., and Templeton, M.E., 1998, Multiscale seismic imaging of active fault zones for hazard management: A case study of the Santa Monica fault zone, Los Angeles: Geophysics, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 479-489.
Pujol, J., Mueller, K., and Shen, P., 2001, Tomographic imaging of structure and active faults in the San Fernando-Northridge region, Southern California: Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 82.
Ralph, F.M., and Dettinger, M.D., 2011, Storms, floods, and the science of atmospheric rivers: Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 92, No. 32.
Reneau, S.L., and Dietrich, W.E., 1987, The Importance of Hollows in Debris Flow Studies; Examples from Marin County, California; in Costa, J.E. and Wieczorek, G.F. (editors), Debris Flows/Avalanches:
Process, Recognition, and Mitigation: Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol. VII, pp. 165-179.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 21
Riad, J.K., Norris, F.H., and Ruback, R.B., 1999, Predicting evacuation in two major disasters: Risk perception, social influence, and access to resources: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 918–934, doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00132.x.
Rogers, D.E., 1998, Perchlorate user and production information [memorandum with attachments to Annie M. Jarabek], Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command Law Office; October 30.
Rogers, J.D., 2007, Impacts of the 1928 St. Francis Dam Failure on Geology, Civil Engineering, and America: PowerPoint presentation given at the 2007 Annual Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geologists, Los Angeles, California; available from https://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/st_francis_dam/Impacts%20of%20St.%20Francis%20Dam%20Failur e-compressed.pdf.
Romans, B.W., Normark, W.R., McGann, M.M., Covault, J.A., and Graham, S.A., 2009, Coarse-grained sediment delivery and distribution in the Holocene Santa Monica Basin, California: implications for evaluating source-to-sink flux at millennial time scales. Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 121, pp. 394–408.
Rose, A., Porter, K., Dash, N., Bouabid, J., Huyck, C., Whitehead, J., Shaw, D., Eguchi, R., Taylor, C., McLane, T., Tobin, L., Ganderton, P., Godschalk, D., Kiremidjian, A., Tierney, K., and West, C., 2007, Benefit-Cost Analysis of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants: Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 97–111; available from https://bechtel.colorado.edu/~porterka/Rose-et-al-2007-NHRBCA.pdf.
Rose, A., Wei, D., and Wein, A., 2011, Economic impacts of the ShakeOut scenario: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 27, No. 2, doi:10.1193/1.2587204.
Ross, S., and Jones, L. (editors), 2013, The SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) Tsunami Scenario: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1170 and California Geological Survey Special Report 229; available from https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1170/.
Ross, Z.E., Trugman, D.T., Hauksson, E., and Shearer, P.M., 2019, Searching for hidden earthquakes in Southern California: Science, Vol. 364, Issue 6442, pp. 767-771, doi:10.1126/science.aaw6888.
Roth, W.H., Dawson, E.M., Somerville, P., Davis, C.A., and Plumb, C.C., 2004, Evaluating the seismic performance of Stone Canyon Reservoir with 2-D and 3-D analyses: Paper No. 3249 presented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. Canada, 1-6 August 2004; available from https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_3249.pdf.
Rubin, C.M., Lindvall, S.C., and Rockwell, T.K., 1998, Evidence for large earthquakes in metropolitan Los Angeles: Science, Vol. 281, No. 5375, pp.398-402.
Russell, N. and Griggs, G., 2012, Adapting to Sea Level Rise: A Guide for California’s Coastal Communities: report prepared for the California Energy Commission Public Interest Environmental Research Program; available from http://www.opc.ca.gov/2012/06/new-sea-level-rise-adaptationguide-available.
Ryder, S.S., 2017, A bridge to challenging environmental inequality: Intersectionality, environmental justice, and disaster vulnerability: Social Thought & Research, Vol. 34, pp. 85-115; available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44807699.
Rzonca, G.F., Spellman, H.A., Fall, E.W., and Shlemon, R.J., 1991, Holocene displacement of the Malibu Coast fault zone, Winter Mesa, Malibu, California: Engineering geologic implications: Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 147-158.
Sahakian, V., Bormann, J., Driscoll, N., Harding, A., Kent, G., and Wesnousky, S., 2017, Seismic constraints on the architecture of the Newport‐Inglewood/Rose Canyon fault: Implications for the length and magnitude of future earthquake ruptures: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 122, No. 3, pp. 2085-2105.
Salsman, G. S., 1959, The Tsunami of March 9, 1957 as Recorded at Tide Stations: United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Technical Bulletin No. 6.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 22
Sana, H., 2021, Chapter 10–Liquefaction as a Seismic Hazard: Scales, Examples and Analysis; in Samui, P., Dixon, B., and Tien Bui, D. (editors), Basics of Computational Geophysics, Elsevier, pp. 153-163, doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-820513-6.00007-2.
Santa Monica Airport, 2016, Calendar Year 2016 Annual Operations Report; available from https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Public%20Works/Airport/noise%20reports/2016_Annual_Noi se_Report.pdf.
Saucedo, G.J., Greene, H.G., Kennedy, M.P., Bezore, S.P, 2016, Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, Version 2.0: California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Series, map scale 1:100,000.
Savage, W.U., 1995, Utility Lifelines Performance in the Northridge Earthquake; in Woods, M.C. and Seiple, W.R. (editors), The Northridge, California Earthquake of 17 January 1994: California Department of Conservation, Special Publication 116, pp. 153-162.
Scawthorn, C., 1987, Fire Following Earthquake—Estimates of the Conflagration Risk to Insured Property in Greater Los Angeles and San Francisco: report prepared for the All-Industry Research Advisory Council, Oak Park, IL.
Scawthorn, C.R., 2008, The ShakeOut Scenario Supplemental Study: Fire Following Earthquake: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2008-1150, dated March 3, 2008.
Scawthorn, C., O’Rourke, T.D., and Blackburn, F.T., 2006, The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire— Enduring lessons for fire protection and water supply: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 22, No. S2, pp.
S135-S158.
Schwartz, J. and Penney, V., 2020, In the West, Lightning Grows as a Cause of Damaging Fires: The New York Times, article published Oct. 23, 2020; available from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/23/climate/west-lightning-wildfires.html.
Seligson, H.A., Eguchi, R.T., and Tierney, K.J., 1992, A methodology for assessing the risk of hazardous materials release following earthquakes – a demonstration study for the Los Angeles area:
Proceedings of the 4th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Disaster Prevention for Lifeline Systems, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., pp. 437-450.
Seligson, H.A., Eguchi, R.T., Tierney, K.J., and Richmond, K., 1996, Chemical Hazards, Mitigation and Preparedness in Areas of High Seismic Risk: A Methodology for Estimating the Risk of PostEarthquake Hazardous Materials Release: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) Technical Report 96-0013, dated November 7, 1996.
Shaw, J.H., Plesch, A., Dolan, J.F., Pratt, T.L., and Fiore, P., 2002, Puente Hills blind thrust system, Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 8, pp. 2,946- 2,960.
Shaw, J.H., and Shearer, P., 1999, An elusive blind-thrust fault beneath metropolitan Los Angeles: Science, Vol. 283, pp. 1516-1518.
Shaw, J.H., and Suppe, J., 1996, Earthquake hazards of active blind-thrust faults under the central Los Angeles basin, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 101, pp. 8623-8642.
Shlemon, R.J., Elliot, P., and Franzen, S., 1995, Holocene displacement history of the Newport-Inglewood, North Branch fault splays, Santa Ana River floodplain, Huntington Beach, California: The Geological Society of America 1995 Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Short, K.C., 2022, Spatial wildfire occurrence data for the United States, 1992-2020 [FPA_FOD_20221014], 6th Edition: Forest Service Research Data Archive, Fort Collins, CO; available from https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2013-0009.6.
Shreve, C.M., and Kelman, I., 2014, Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 10, Part A, pp. 213-235; doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.004.
Siddiqui, M., LeChevallier, M.W., Ban, J., Phillips, T., and Pivinski, J., 1998, Occurrence of Perchlorate and Methyl tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) in Groundwater of the American Water System: American Water
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 23
Works Service Company, Inc., Vorhees, NJ, September 30.
Sieh, K., Jones, L., Hauksson, E., Hudnut, K., Eberhart-Phillips, D., Heaton, T., Hough, S., Hutton, K., Kanamori, H., Lilje, A., Lindvall, S., McGill, S., Mori, J., Rubin, C., Spotila, J. A., Stock, J., Thio, H., Treiman, J., Wernicke, B., and Zachariasen, J., 1993, Near-field investigations of the Landers Earthquake sequence, April to July, 1992: Science, Vol. 260, pp. 171-176.
Simon, M.C., Hart, J.E., Levy, J.I., VoPham, T., Malwitz, A., Nguyen, D., Bozigar, M., Cupples, L.A., James, P., Laden, Fr., and Peters, J.L., 2022, Sociodemographic patterns of exposure to civil aircraft noise in the United States: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 130, Issue 2, doi:10.1289/EHP9307.
Singleton, D.M., Rockwell, T.K., Murbach, D., Murbach, M., Maloney, J.M., Freeman, T., and Levy, Y., 2019, Late‐Holocene Rupture History of the Rose Canyon Fault in Old Town, San Diego:
Implications for Cascading Earthquakes on the Newport–Inglewood–Rose Canyon Fault System: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 855-874, doi:10.1785/0120180236.
Soloviev, S.L., and Go, C.N., 1975, A catalogue of Tsunamis of the Eastern Shore of the Pacific Ocean:
Academy of Sciences of the USSR, “Nauka” Publishing House, Moscow, 204p.
Sorlien, C.C., Broderick, K.G., Sliter, R., Fisher, M., Normark, W., Seeber, L., and Kamerling, M.J., 2004, Digital 3D Mapping of Active Faults beneath Santa Monica Bay, Basin Modeling, and Strain Partitioning: Collaborative Research UCSB and LDEO, Final Report to U.S. Geological Survey NEHRP, contract 03-HQGR-0048, 21p.
Sovacool, B.K., Tan-Mullins, M., and Abrahamse, W., 2018, Bloated bodies and broken bricks: Power, ecology, and inequality in the political economy of natural disaster recovery: World Development, Vol. 110, pp. 243-255; doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.028.
Spaeth M.G. and S.C. Berkman, 1972, Tsunami of March 28, 1964 as Recorded at Tide Stations at the Seismic Sea Wave Warning System; in The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Oceanography and Coastal Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 38-110.
Spittler, T.E., Harp, E.L., Keefer, D.K., Wilson, R.C., and Sydnor, R.H., 1990, Landslide Features and Other Coseismic Fissures Triggered by the Loma Prieta Earthquake, Santa Cruz Mountains, California; in McNutt, S.R., and Sydnor, R.H. (editors), The Loma Prieta (Santa Cruz Mountains), California, Earthquake of 17 October 1989: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 104, pp. 59-66.
Stephens, S.L., Martin, R.E., and Clinton, N.E., 2007, Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands: Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.005.
Stermitz, F., 1964, Effects of the Hebgen Lake Earthquake on Surface Water: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 435, pp. 139-150.
Stewart, J.P., Bray, J.D., McMahon, D.J., and Knopp, A.L., 1995, Seismic performance of hillside fills:
Reprint from Landslides Under Static and Dynamic Conditions-Analysis, Monitoring, and Mitigation: Geotechnical Engineering Division/ASCE, held on October 23-27, 1995, San Diego, California.
Stewart, J.P., Bray, J.D., McMahon, D.J., Smith, P.M., and Kropp, A.L., 2001, Seismic performance of hillside fills: Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 11, pp. 905- 919.
Stewart, J.P., Bray, J.D., Seed, R.B., and Sitar, N., (editors), 1994, Preliminary Report on the Principal Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake: University of California at Berkeley, College of Engineering Report No. UCB/EERC 94-08, 245p.
Stork, N., Mainzer, A., and Martin, R., 2023, Native and non‐native plant regrowth in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area after the 2018 Woolsey Fire: Ecosphere, Vol. 14, No. 6, e4567, doi:10.1002/ecs2.4567.
Stover, C.W., Minsch, J.H., Reagor, B.G., and Smith, P.K., 1980, Earthquakes in the United States, JanuaryMarch, 1979: U.S. Geological Survey Circular, Vol. 836-A, pp. A24-A26.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 24
Swain, D., 2022, ARkStorm 2.0: Climate change is increasing the risk of a California megaflood: Weather West: California Weather and Climate Perspectives article dated August 11, 2022, available from https://weatherwest.com/archives/16626.
Synolakis C.E., 1987, The runup of solitary waves: Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 185, pp. 523-545.
Synolakis, C.E., Borrero, J., and Eisner, R., 2002, Developing Inundation Maps for Southern California; in Ewing, L. and Wallendorf, L. (editors), Solutions to Coastal Disasters ’02: Conference Proceedings, San Diego, California, 24-27 February 2002: American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp. 848-862.
Synolakis, C.E., Liu, P.L., Yeh, H., and Carrier, G., 1997, Tsunamigenic seafloor deformations: Science, Vol. 278, pp. 598-600.
Syphard, A.D., Keeley, J.E., Massada, A.B., Brennan, T.J., and Radeloff, V.C., 2012, Housing arrangement and location determine the likelihood of housing loss due to wildfire: PLoS One, Vol. 7, No. 3, e33954, doi:10.1371/Journal.pone.0033954.
Talley, C.H., Jr. and Cloud, W.K., (editors), 1962, United States Earthquakes, 1960: United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.
Tan, S.S., 1998, Slope Failure and Erosion Assessment of the Fire Areas at Fillmore (April 1996) and Piru (August 1997), Ventura County: California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 98-32.
Teggart, F.J. (editor), 1911, The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770, Diary of Miguel Costanso: Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, Vol. 2, No. 1, University of California, Berkeley.
Tennyson, M., 2005, Growth History of Oil Reserves in Major California Oil Fields During the Twentieth Century: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2172-H, 22p.
Thio, H.K., 2019, Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Maps for the State of California (Phase 2): Technical Report prepared for the California Geological Survey by AECOM Technical Services, 172p.
Thio, H.K., Somerville, P., and Polet, J., 2010, Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard in California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER Report No. 2010/218, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 331p.
Thio, H.K., Wei, Y., Chock, G., and Li, W., 2017, Development of offshore probabilistic tsunami exceedance amplitudes for ASCE 7-16; in Proceedings, 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16WCEE 2017), Santiago, Chile, Paper No. 2004, 11p.; available from https://www.wcee.nicee.org/wcee/article/16WCEE/WCEE2017-2004.pdf.
Tinsley, J.C., and Fumal, T.E., 1985, Mapping Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Aerial Variations in Shaking Response; in Ziony, J.I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region– An Earth Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 101-125.
Tinsley, J.C., Youd, T.L., Perkins, D.M., and Chen, A.T.F., 1985, Evaluating Liquefaction Potential; in Ziony, J.I., (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region–An Earth Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 263-316.
Tippett, M.K., Lepore, C., and Cohen, J.E., 2016, More tornadoes in the most extreme US tornado outbreaks: Science, Vol. 354, No. 6318, pp. 1419-1423; doi:10.1126/science.aah7393.
Titov, V.V. and Gonzalez, F.I., 1997, Implementation and Testing of the Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) Model: Environmental Research Laboratory at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Technical Memorandum ERL PMEL-112, Government Printing Office, Seattle, Washington, 11p.
Titov, V.V. and Synolakis, C.E., 1998, Numerical modeling of tidal wave runup: Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 157-171.
Toppozada, T.R., Bennett, J.H., Borchardt, G., Saul, R., and Davis, J.F., 1988, Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault (Los Angeles and Orange Counties): California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication No. 99.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 25
Toppozada, T.R., Real, C.R., and D.L. Parke, 1981, Preparation of Isoseismal Maps and Summaries of Reported Effects for Pre-1900 California Earthquakes: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 81-11 SAC.
Tornaghi, M.L., Loli, A., and Negro, P., 2018, Balanced evaluation of structural and environmental performances in building design: Buildings, Vol. 8, No. 4, 52 p.; doi:10.3390/buildings8040052.
Townley, S.D., 1939, Earthquakes in California, 1769 to 1928: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 21-252.
Trask, J.B., 1856, Untitled paper on earthquakes in California from 1812 to 1855: Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Science, San Francisco, Vol. I, No. 2.
Treiman, J.A., 1994, Malibu Coast fault, Los Angeles County, California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Evaluation Report FER-229, 3 October 1994, 42p.
Treiman, J., compiler, 2000, Fault number 99, Malibu Coast fault; in Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-417.
Troxell, H.C., 1942, Floods of March 1938 in southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 844.
Tsutsumi, H., and Yeats, R.S., 1999, Tectonic Setting of the 1971 Sylmar and 1994 Northridge earthquakes in the San Fernando Valley, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 89, pp. 1232-1249.
Tsutsumi, H., Yeats, R.S., and Huftile, G. H., 2001, Late Cenozoic tectonics of the northern Los Angeles fault system, California: Geological Society of America, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 454-468.
Tucker, A.Z., and Dolan, J.F., 2001, Paleoseismologic evidence for a >8 ka age of the most recent surface rupture on the eastern Sierra Madre fault, northern Los Angeles metropolitan region, California:
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 91, pp. 232-249.
Tweet, J.S., Santucci, V.L. and Connors, T., 2012, Paleontological Resource Inventory and Monitoring:
Mediterranean Coast Network: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/MEDN/NRTR—2012/640, Fort Collins, Colorado.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), 1982, Ballona Creek and Tributaries, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California: ACOE interim feasibility report, Accession No. ADA150322, 33p.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, Landslide Hazards: USGS Fact Sheet FS-071-00, available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0071-00.
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 2017, Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I, Washington DC, United States, 470p. doi:10.7930/JOJ964J6 (see Wuebbles et al., 2017).
United States Society on Dams (USSD), 2014, Observed Performance of Dams During Earthquakes, Volume III, report dated February 2014, available from https://damfailures.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/EQPerfo2_v3.pdf.
Unreinforced Masonry Law, California Public Resources Code, Chapter 12.2 Building Earthquake Safety, Section 8875 et seq.
Vakilaad Sarabi, A., Miyajima, M. and Murata, K., 2012, Study of the sloshing of water reservoirs and tanks due to long period and long duration seismic motions; in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24-28 September, pp. 25920-25929.
Wachs, M., 2012, Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Options for the Future, prepared by Martin Wachs, Rand Corporation, Transportation, Space and Technology Division, 2012 Wald, D.J., Quitorino, V., Heaton, T.H., and Kanamori, H., 1999, Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California: Earthquake Spectra, Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 557- 564.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 26
Walls, C., Rockwell, T., Mueller, K., Bock, Y., Williams, S., Pfanner, J., and Fang, P., 1998, Escape tectonics in the Los Angeles metropolitan region and implications for seismic risk: Nature, Vol. 394, pp. 356-360.
Weaver, K.D., and Dolan, J.F., 2000, Paleoseismology and geomorphology of the Raymond fault, Los Angeles County, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 90, No. 6, pp. 1409-1429.
Weber, Jr., F.H., Chapman, R., Chase, G., and Saul, R.B., 1980, Earthquake Hazards Associated with the Verdugo-Eagle Rock and Benedict Canyon Fault Zone, Los Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 80-1-LA, 27p.
Wei, Y., Thio, H.K., Titov, V., Chock, G., Zhou, H., Tang, L., and Moore, C., 2017, Inundation Modeling to Create 2,500-Year Return Period Tsunami Design Zone Maps for the ASCE 7-16 Standard; in Proceedings, 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16WCEE 2017), Santiago, Chile, Paper No. 450; available from https://www.wcee.nicee.org/wcee/article/16WCEE/WCEE2017- 450.pdf.
Wells, W.G., 1987, The Effects of Fire on the Generation of Debris Flows in Southern California; in Costa, J.E. and Wieczorek, G.F. (editors), Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recognition, and Mitigation:
Geological Society of America, Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol. VII, pp. 105-114.
Welsh-Huggins, S.J., and Liel, A.B., 2018, Evaluating multiobjective outcomes for hazard resilience and sustainability from enhanced building seismic design decisions: Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 144, No. 8, Paper 04018108; doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002001.
Whitehead, J.C., and Rose, A.Z., 2009, Estimating environmental benefits of natural hazard mitigation with data transfer: Results from a benefit-cost analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency hazard mitigation grants: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 655-676; doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9189-2.
Wills, C.J., Weldon II, R.J., and Bryant, W.A., 2008, Appendix A: California Fault Parameters for the National Seismic Hazard Maps and Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) 2007: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1437A, California Geological Survey Special Report 203A, Southern California Earthquake Center Contribution #1138A, Version
1.0, 48p.
Wilson, R.I., Barberopoulou, A., Miller, K.M., Goltz, J.D., and Synolakis, C.E., 2008, New maximum tsunami inundation maps for use by local emergency planners in the State of California, USA: Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 89, No. 53, Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract OS43D-1343.
Wilson, R.I, Engler, L., Borrero, J., Synolakis, C., Jaffe, B., Barberopoulou, A., Ewing, L., Legg, M., Ritchie, A., Lynett, P., Admire, A., McCrink, T., Falls, J., Rosinski, A., Treiman, J., Manson, M., Silva, M., Davenport, C., Lancaster, J., Olson, B., Pridmore, C., Real, C., Miller, K., and Goltz, J., 2011, The effects of the 2011 Tohuku tsunami on the California coastline [abstract]: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 459–460.
Wilson, R., Hemphill-Haley, E., Jaffe, B., Richmond, B., Peters, R., Graehl, N., Kelsey, H., Leeper, R., Watt, S., McGann, M., Hoirup, D., Chague-Goff, C., Goff, J., Caldwell, D., and Loofbourrow, C., 2014, Chapter C: The search for geologic evidence of distant-source tsunamis using new field data in California, in Ross, S.L., and Jones, L.M., editors, The SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) tsunami scenario: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1170–C, 122 p., doi:10.3133/ofr20131170c.
Wilson, R., Lynett, P., Miller, K., Admire, A., Ayca, A., Curtis, E., Dengler, L., Hornick, M., Nicolini, T., and Peterson, D., 2016, Maritime Tsunami Response Playbooks: Background Information and Guidance for Response and Hazard Mitigation Use: California Geological Survey Special Report 241, 48p.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 27
Wilson, R.I., and Miller, K.M., 2014, Tsunami Emergency Response Playbooks and FASTER Tsunami Height Calculation: Background Information and Guidance for Use: California Geological Survey Special Report 236, 42p.
Wolfe, F.D., Shaw, J.H., and Plesch, A., 2022, Origin of the Palos Verdes restraining bend and its implications for the 3D geometry of the fault and earthquake hazards in Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 2689-2714.
Wolfe, M.R., Bolton, P.A., Heikkala, S.G., Greene, M.M., and May, P.J., 1986, Land Use Planning for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Handbook for Planners: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, National Science Foundation, Special Publication 14, available from https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/fmhi_pub/82/.
Wood, H.O., 1916, The earthquake problem in the western United States: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 196-217.
Wood, H.O., 1933, The Long Beach earthquake: Science, Vol. 78, No. 2016, pp. 147-148; doi:10.1126/science.78.2016.147.
Wood, N.J., Ratliff, J., and Peters, J., 2012, Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards in California: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5222; available from https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5222/.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1979, Report of the evaluation of maximum earthquake and site ground motion parameters associated with the offshore zone of deformation, San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station: Santa Ana, California, unpublished consulting report prepared for Southern California Edison, WCC Project No. 41101.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2008, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): USGS Open File Report 2007-1437, CGS Special Report 203, SCEC Contribution #1138, Version 1.0.
Wright, K. and Johnston, D., 2010, Post-earthquake Sheltering Needs: How Loss of Structures and Services Affects Decision Making for Evacuation; in Proceedings New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Conference, Vol. Session 7B, Paper 31, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Inc., Wellington.
Wright, T.L., 1991, Structural Geology and Tectonic Evolution of the Los Angeles basin, California; in Biddle, K. (editor), Active Margin Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, pp. 35-134.
Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D. J., Stewart, B.C., and Maycock, T.K. (editors), 2017, Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. I: U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), Washington DC, 470p., doi:10.7930/JOJ964J6, available from https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf.
Wyllie, D.C., and Norrish, N.I., 1996, Stabilization of Rock Slopes; in Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L. (editors), Landslides–Investigation and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board Special Publication 247, pp. 474-504.
Yablonski, B., 2022, The Big Burn of 1910 and the Choking of America’s Forests: Decades of Fire Suppression Fuel Catastrophic Fires Today: PERC Reports, Vol. 41, No. 1 Yeats, R.S., 2001, Subsurface structure of the northern Los Angeles Basin south of the Santa Monica and Hollywood faults: [Abstract] American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Cordilleran Section, 97th Annual Meeting, April 9-11, 2001, Session No. 12, Los Angeles, California.
Yeats, R.S. and Verdugo, D., 2010, Subsurface evidence for the Puente Hills and Compton-Los Alamitos faults in south-central Los Angeles, 2010: Report to the annual meeting of the Southern California Earthquake Center, Funded Project No. 10066, 16p.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix I
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 References Page I - 28
Yerkes, R.F., and Campbell, R.H., 2005, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Los Angeles 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005- 1019; available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1019.
Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California–An Introduction: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A, 57p.
Zahran, S., Keyes. C., and Lanphear, B., Leaded aviation gasoline exposure risk and child blood lead levels:
PNAS Nexus, Jan. 10 2023 edition, Vol. 2, Issue 1, doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac285.
Zhang, Y., Fung, J.F., Cook, D., Johnson, K.J., and Sattar, S., 2024, Benefit-cost analysis for earthquakeresilient building design and retrofit: State of the art and future research needs: Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 25, No. 3; doi:10.1061/NHREFO.NHENG-1910.
Zimmaro, P., Nweke, C.C., Hernandez, J.L., Hudson, K.S., Hudson, M.B., Ahdi, S.K., Boggs, M.L., Davis, C.A., Goulet, C.A., Brandenberg, S.J., and Hudnut, K.W., 2020, Liquefaction and related ground failure from July 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 110, No. 4, pp.1549-1566.
Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, Evaluating earthquake and surface-faulting potential; in Ziony, J.I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region–An Earth-Science Perspective:
U.S Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 33-91.
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix J
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 City Council Resolution PAGE J - i
APPENDIX J: ADOPTION
City of Santa Monica, California
2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
City Council Adoption Resolution
4.S.c
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: 2025 SM LHMP Volume 3: Appendices [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update)
LOCAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN2025 UPDATEBOARDS & COMMISSION UPDATEOCTOBER 2025
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1428
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Public Safety Communications
9-1-1 and Public Safety Call Answering Police, Fire, EMS Dispatching Alerts and Warning Emergency Services & Preparedness
Emergency Mitigation & Response Plans
Disaster Cache Staff and Community Education Emergency Operations Center Operations Office of Emergency Management
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1429
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Raise awareness of local hazards and risks
Identify hazard mitigation actions to help reduce losses Communicate priorities Follow equitable process that ensures resources are available to those that need them the most
Align with other community objectives as described in other planning documents
Incorporate approved plan into Safety Element to
facilitate additional funding opportunities
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1430
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) City Departments
City Attorney’s Office Office of Emergency Management Building & Safety City Planning Transportation Fire Housing & Human Services Police Engineering & Street Services Office of Sustainability & Environment Airport Rent Control Resilience Planning Committee
Valued Partners City of Los Angeles, Emergency Management Department County of Los Angeles, Office of Emergency Management Santa Monica College Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
UCLA Health Providence Saint John’s Health
Center
American Red Cross Westside Food Bank Downtown Santa Monica Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
Santa Monica Travel &
Tourism
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1431
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Planning Process
Development of Resilience Planning Committee
Hazard Specific Research
Public Survey
Public Workshops
Department/CommitteeChapter Review
Public Comment Period
Commission & Council Review
Council Adoption
Cal OES Review
FEMA Review/Approval
Council Adoption of Cal OES/FEMA Revisions
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1432
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) December 2022, March 2023 Atmospheric Rivers
August 2023 Tropical Storm Hilary February 2024 Atmospheric River December 2024 Franklin Fire January 2025 Palisades & Eaton Fires July 2025 Tsunami Advisory (Off-shore Russian earthquake) Natural Hazard Incidents
During Planning
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1433
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Volume I: Action Plan
Executive Summary Introduction Community Profile Risk Assessment Goals & Action Items Plan Maintenance Key Components
Volume II: Hazard Specific Information Earthquakes Tsunamis Floods Landslides Wildfires & Urban Fires
Climate Change & Severe Weather Hazardous Materials
Management
Airport Hazards
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1434
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) OEM’s Response-Focused Plans
Multi-Hazard Emergency Operations Plan
Tsunami Pier Emergency Civil Unrest Alert & Warning Brush Fire Evacuation City Facility Emergency Action Plans Department Procedures
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1435
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update)
HAZARD ANALYSIS FINDINGS
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1436
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Greatest Risk
Earthquake Tsunami Wildland Fire Flood Inundation
due to Dam Failure
Severe Weather Sea-Level Rise
Summary
Lower Risk Coastal Flooding Landslide Structure Fires Hazardous Materials Release
Airport Crashes
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1437
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Risk Assessment Data
HazUS (Hazards US)
FEMA GIS-based risk assessment software Estimate risk of earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, and floods
Not available for wildfire, extreme heat, sea-level
rise
HazUS analysis results presented to Resilience Planning Committee in January 2024
Crisis Track tool used to estimate potential wildfire loss Only reviews Santa Monica’s local impacts
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1438
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) M 7.4 on Santa Monica fault
M 7.2 on Newport-Inglewood
fault
M 7.7 on the Palos Verdes
fault (tsunami scenario)
M 7.8 on Southern San
Andreas fault (ShakeOutscenario)
Earthquake
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1439
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Earthquake Risk Analysis Results
(using HazUS)
San
Andreas*
Palos
Verdes
NewportInglewood Santa Monica
Building Damage
Slight 10,543 7,557 2,881 506
Moderate 5,974 2,376 1,460 60
Extensive 1,511 364 677
4 Complete 675 60 269
0 Building Losses $3.41 B $1.01 B $1.47 B $31.09 M
Total Economic Loss $3.43 billion $1.02 billion $1.48 billion $33.13 millionInjuries Slight 279-1,002 55-167 48-186 1-3
Moderate 66-275 8-31 10-47
0 Severe 9-44 1-4 1-7
0 Fatalities 18-85 1-7 3-14
0 4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1440
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Residential Building Loss as a
Percentage of Residential Building Exposure
M7.4 Santa Monica EQ M7.2 Newport-Inglewood EQ
M7.7 Palos Verdes EQ M7.8 San Andreas EQ
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1441
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) M7.7 Palos Verdes EQ M7.8 San Andreas EQ
M7.4 Santa Monica EQ M7.2 Newport-Inglewood EQ
M7.8 San Andreas EQ
Commercial Building Loss as a Percentage of Commercial Building Exposure
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1442
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local sources
• Offshore faults• Submarine landslides
Long distance sources (tele-tsunamis)
• Alaska• Central and South America• Other
Tsunami
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1443
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Scenario: Tele-tsunami originating
in Alaska with 20-foot run-up
Statewide Tsunami Inundation Map
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1444
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Component Results
Exposed Under 65 729 - 1,857Population(does not include visitors) 65 and Over 119 - 166Total 848 - 2,023
Casualties Fatalities 80 - 931
Injuries 80 - 545Total 160 - 1,476
Damaged Complete Loss 3Buildings Building Losses $18.25 - $182.6 million Casualty ranges represent community preparedness levels of “Good” and “Fair” Tsunami Risk Analysis Results
(using HazUS)
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1445
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Inundation Due to
Stone Canyon Dam Failure(Genterra Consultants, 2018)
Flooding
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1446
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) HazUS
Estimated Residential Building Losses (in $)
0.00 ‒ 233,000.00233,000.01 ‒ 916,000.00916,000.01 ‒ 2,573,000.002,573,000.01 ‒ 5,135,000.005,135,000.01 ‒ 10,509,000.00 Flooding Boundaries• Centinela Ave from Colorado
Ave to Ocean Park Blvd
• 30th Street & Pearl St• Yorkshire Ave & Urban Ave • Stewart St & Kansas Ave• Cloverfield Blvd & 26th St • 26th St & Colorado Ave
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1447
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) HazUS
Estimated Commercial Building Losses (in $)
0.00 ‒ 9,000.009,000.01 ‒ 69,000.0069,000.01 ‒ 378,000.00378,000.01 ‒ 1,155,000.001,155,000.01 ‒ 3,590,000.00
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1448
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Stone Canyon Dam Risk Analysis Results
(using HazUS)
Moderate Damage: 214 buildings
205 residential
• 7 commercial• 2 industrial
Destroyed:
23 residential buildings
No essential facilities impacted Displaced: 464 households (1,393 people) 59 people require public shelter
Building losses: $56M – $120 million Total building-related economic losses: $227 million Area impacted has higher social vulnerability ranking
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1449
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Pre-Palisades Fire
California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ)Very High Hazard in a Local Responsibility AreaAdditional Wildfire Impacts:TransportationHealth (smoke, ashes, stress) Pre-2025 Wildland Fire Hazard
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1450
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Palisades Fire Impact
Property DamageDestroyed: +6,800Major: 72Minor: 171Affected: 732No Damage: +4,300 ArcGIS - Palisades Fire Structure Status Map
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1451
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Post-Palisades Fire
2025 California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ)
• Crisis Track Data
• If all properties were uniformly impacted,
property damage to 1,715 structures would range from $60 Million - $660 Million • Northeastern section of the city has higher
density of persons with disabilities and over 65 years old Very High Hazard
High Hazard
Moderate Hazard
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1452
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Source: R. Ehlers, 2022, Climate Change Impacts Across California: Cross Cutting Issues:
The Legislatives Analyst’s Office, April.
Impacts ofClimate Change Difficult to measure but
potentially in the billions of $
Dependent on our
ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Climate Change Hazards
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1453
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Impacts of Sea-Level Rise
Infrastructure, beaches, homes and
businesses at risk
Costs of sea-level rise by 2100 if not
abated:
• Public damage: $8.4 million• Private damage: $22.7 million• Non-market losses: $816.4 million• Total: $847.5 million
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1454
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update)
MITIGATION ACTION ITEMS
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1455
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Five-Year Mitigation Action Plan
Mitigation Actions • Measures, projects, plans or activities proposed to reduce identified vulnerabilities
• Developed and prioritized by Resilience Planning
Committee
• After Palisades Fire and new state fire hazard maps, city leaders identified additional wildfire mitigation strategies • Progress monitored by OEM• Status update provided in next LHMP
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1456
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Constraints to Implementation
• Funding
• Reduced capital improvement budget• Grant instability and competition • Staff capacity to implement• Competing public interests• Regulatory hurdles• Unforeseen events
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1457
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Planning
Assessment
& Regulation
Natural
Systems
City
Readiness
Education &
Awareness
Structure &
Infrastructur
e
• Post-Disaster Water
Prioritization
• Evacuation Plan• Airport Design
• Bluffs & I-10
Slope Mitigation
• Red Flag Warning
Restrictions
• Resilient City Facility
Design Standards
• Natural Dune
Expansion
• Community
Gardening Food Resilience
• Expanding Emergency
Management Technologies
• Inclusive Emergency
Communications
• Wildfire Safety
Education
• Water Infrastructure
Seismic Assessment
• Renewable Back-Up
Utilities
• Tsunami Alerting
System
2025 Mitigation
Action Items
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1458
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Planning
Department(s) Responsible
Recommended Action Summarized DescriptionItem
Identify strategies for immediate and long-term local Public Workspotable water services during disaster events, such as seismic events, wildfire or drought. Identify water deconfliction strategy to prioritize water usage during emergencies (i.e. recreational pools vs. firefighting needs) Water Deconfliction Planning
Office of Emergency ManagementTransportationPolice
Evaluate multi-modal citywide evacuation routes identified by the City’s revised Safety Element and create a citywide evacuation plan for emergency events, such as tsunami, dam inundation, or wildfire. Plan to include evacuation considerations for persons with access and functional needs, including those without access to private transportation, and persons living in assisted living and highrise buildings. Publicize to the community.
Evacuation Plan & Routes Plan
In the planning of the Santa Monica Airport space, ensure City Manager’s Officethat emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response features are included, such as the storage of disaster cache supplies and space for emergency operations (owned/operated and available for use by public safety departments).
Santa Monica Airport (SMO) Design
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1459
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Assessment & Regulations
Department(s) Responsible
Recommended Action Summarized DescriptionItem
Public WorksFire
Continue to inspect and monitor Santa Monica coastal bluffs and I-10 Freeway slope stability and brush overgrowth. Where necessary, implement actions needed to mitigation land instability, especially during rain and seismic events, and clear brush and other debris to mitigate brush fires.
Santa Monica Bluffs and I-10 Freeway Slope & Brush Fire Mitigation Fire Office of Emergency Management
Implement policy that during any Red Flag Warning, restrictive measures will be implemented to reduce fire ignition opportunities and facilitate rapid first responder response activities. Restrictions to be considered include, but are not limited to, parking restrictions in Very High hazard zones and evacuate routes and construction/landscaping activity bans.
Red Flag Warning Restrictions
Implement and enhance a set of design standards for City- Public Works owned and/or City/tenant-operated facilities, both to ensure their operability post-disaster and to protect occupants. Prioritize seismic retrofits of public infrastructure and facilities to minimize potential damage, ensure protection of vulnerable populations, and continuity of government operations.
Resilient City Facility Design Standards
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1460
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Structure & Infrastructure
Department(s)Responsible
Recommended Action Summarized DescriptionItem
Examine water system resistance to local seismic hazards, Public Worksespecially water infrastructure that crosses potential liquefaction zones and areas where traces or projections of the Santa Monica fault have been mapped. Consider retrofitting older water pipelines and other strategies to address identified seismic vulnerability.
Water Infrastructure Seismic Assessment
Public WorksCity Manager’s Office, OSE
Identify and create program to implement critical, utility back-up systems at City facilities and essential/emergency community facilities, including but not limited to microgrids, solar + storage, and other back-up sustainable utility resources.
Back-Up Utilities
Office of Emergency ManagementPoliceCity Manager's Office, Pier Management Implement overhead paging at Santa Monica Pier with
ability to provide tsunami alerts and evacuation directions. Complete assessment of other communications tools, such as, but not limited to digital kiosks and siren systems, to widely distribute tsunami education and imminent threat alerts and warnings along Santa Monica’s coastal areas. Regularly test communications systems during earthquake/tsunami preparedness events.
Tsunami Alerting System
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1461
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Natural Systems Improvement
Department(s) Responsible
Recommended Action Summarized DescriptionItem
City Manager’s Office, OSE
To protect beaches and beach-front properties from erosion, sea level rise, and coastal flooding, continue to expand and maintain Natural Dune Beach Restoration projects. By the end of 2029, the goal would be to have at least 50 acres of established beach dunes.
Natural Dune Restoration Expansion
City Manager’s Office, OSE
Increase production of food grown and donated from Cityowned community gardens to local organizations to increase food resilience of vulnerable Santa Monica residents through the expansion of additional community garden space.
Food Resilience through Community Gardening
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1462
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Education & Awareness
Department(s) Responsible
Recommended Action Summarized DescriptionItem
Office of Emergency ManagementCity Manager’s Office
Conduct emergency response, mitigation, and preparedness outreach in multiple languages to better reach diverse Santa Monica communities, including international tourists and persons with access and functional needs. Create standards for emergency response messaging to ensure it meets standards in the City’s Language Access Administrative Instruction.
Inclusive Emergency Communications
Develop education campaign on mandatory wildfire safety Firepractices, such as defensible space standards and wildland urban interface building codes, required for areas of Santa Monica within the 2025 State-identified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Local Wildfire Safety Education
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1463
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) City Readiness
Department(s) Responsible
Recommended Action Summarized DescriptionItem
Information ServicesOffice of Emergency ManagementFirePolicePublic Works Expand City GIS mapping, staffing, training, and tools to better facilitate emergency planning and response activities, including use of public education/ communications. Expand on cloud infrastructure, data servers, and staffing to support the implementation, execution, and maintenance of critical technologies to support first responders. Continue adopting evacuation mapping technology to improve awareness of city evacuation zones, hazard areas, and assist with prompt implementation of evacuation and shelter-in-place directions during emergencies.
Expand Critical Emergency Management Technologies
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1464
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Approval Timeline
Task Approximate TimelinePublic Comment August – September 2025Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission October 8, 2025 Planning Commission October 15, 2025Environment & Sustainability October 20, 2025CommissionCity Council Review & Adoption November 18, 2025Submit Plan to Cal OES & FEMA for December – January 2025ApprovalCity Council Adoption of Any Edits February – April 2026Initiate Accessible Plan Design Upon FEMA Approval
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1465
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Feedback &
Questions
[email protected]
SantaMonica.gov/Safety-Element-Update
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1466
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update)
4.S.d
Packet Pg. 1467
Attachment: SMLHMP Presentation_11.25 (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 City Council Meeting: November 18, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _____________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE UPDATED LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica recognizes that natural hazards pose a threat to people and property within the City of Santa Monica; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica further recognizes that undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences and disaster events; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 emphasizing the need for pre-disaster mitigation of potential disasters and making hazard mitigation grants available to state, tribal, and local governments; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has prepared a multi-hazard mitigation plan, hereby known as Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, in accordance with federal laws including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended; the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended; and the National Dam Safety Program Act, as amended; and
WHEREAS, an adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant programs; and
4.S.e
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: LHMP Approval Adoption Resolution_10.25 A [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 WHEREAS, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies mitigation goals and actions to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property in the City of Santa Monica from the potential impacts of future hazards and disasters; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica approved and adopted, which was ultimately approved by FEMA on October 4, 2016; and WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica were awarded opportunities to comment and provide input on the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the actions in the plan by completing a survey, attending three special meetings hosted by the City, and via the City’s website and public libraries; and
WHEREAS, adoption by the City Council demonstrates its commitment to hazard mitigation and achieving the goals outlined in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. In accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.080, after consideration of all oral and written testimony presented on November 18, 2025, including, but not limited to public comment received by the City and compiled by City staff, the City Council does hereby approve and adopt the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2025 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to make required revisions to the adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to meet the plan approval requirements and
4.S.e
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: LHMP Approval Adoption Resolution_10.25 A [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 any non-substantive changes as necessary to make it internally consistent, including but not limited to, typographical errors. Changes occurring after adoption will not require City of Santa Monica to re-adopt any further iterations of the plan. Subsequent plan updates following the approval period for this plan will require separate adoption resolutions.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Heidi von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney
4.S.e
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: LHMP Approval Adoption Resolution_10.25 A [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 EXHIBIT A
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2025
4.S.e
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: LHMP Approval Adoption Resolution_10.25 A [Revision 1] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) LHMP Shortcomings
Wildfire
Tsunami and Coastal Flooding
Inundation
Truck Routes
Identifies Evacuation routes for
But fails to identify the capacity,
safety and viability of any of the
evacuation routes required by AB
747
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) No Capacity Analysis
The legally required capacity analysis has not been performed on any of the identified emergency evacuation routes.
City councilmembers and staff have habitually been made aware that neither the Safety Element nor the draft LHMP identify the legally required capacity of the evacuation routes.
Without first knowing the capacity of our evacuation routes, we cannot ensure the safety of residents, workers, and visitors during emergencies.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Evacuation Routes
1995 Evacuation routes identified
2015 No updates to evacuation routes
requested
2025 Capacity analysis remains
unperformed
2019 AB 747 requires identification of
evacuation route capacity
2025 Chi and Call agree to investigate
the shortcoming. Neither did.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Lives Depend on
Your Leadership
Understanding public safety needs
• Without capacity analysis, planning is
incomplete and unsafe.
• Stop accepting staff’s unverified
representation that the plans comply with
legal requirements. They. Do. Not.
• Do not adopt the LHMP until the required
evacuation route capacity analysis is done.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Council Mailbox
Subject: Emergency evacuation routes
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
I am writing you about the absolute necessity for an emergency evacuation route capacity analysis. I believe a couple of you live in or near Sunset Park so I hope this information is helpful. While Ashland Avenue and 23rd street are not directly indicated on the map associated with the plan, there is a comment airport might be included.
A couple years ago I personally witnessed one of our fire engines stuck in gridlock for ten minutes (truly) trying to cross over 23rd street at Ashland Avenue, going east to west. The problem with congestion was so great that eventually some of the crew jumped out of the engine to redirect traffic so they could back the truck up and in time, they proceeded north to Ocean Park Blvd and made a left turn. The precious time the crew needed to cross that street definitely got my attention because in an emergency, minutes count. About twenty minutes later, I discovered after taking my own detour, that the engine was called to an emergency located on Ashland close to Lincoln Blvd. If this was a heart attack or gunshot victim they were attending to, I imagine the survival rate was significantly diminished by the delay. This was so upsetting that I reported it to the city fire chief just after a council meeting he attended (but since he was newly hired, I believe he didn't want to rock the boat about this significant hazard).
You can imagine the problem if a mass evacuation in this area is to be undertaken, right? And what if the plan for mass evacuations calls for access to the airport for staging areas? The west entrance to the airport is just past Dewey, close to where 23rd becomes Walgrove. How are people going to access the airport road in an emergency?
Thank you,
Tina Grossman
Santa Monica resident since 1979
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Richard Michaelsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; [email protected] Subject: Nov 18, 2025 Item 4-S - OPPOSE Hazard Mitigation Plan in current form
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
We join, Friends of Sunset Park (who we thank for raising this issue), and other Santa Monica Neighborhood Organizations including NOMA, to urge you NOT to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form. This is especially relevant and applicable to the Neighbors of Palisades Park, because we are the most northern point of Santa Monica, the closest to the Santa Monica Mountains and the community that was mostly directly impacted by the January 2025 wildfires. Parts of our neighborhood were under mandatory evacuation orders during these recent fires. The draft contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
Firstly, The plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747.
These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey, preventing residents from comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Sunset Blvd After the Palisades Fire
As Santa Monica inevitably increases population density it is imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering that gridlock conditions already exist during peak hours, we urge you to prohibit approval of density increases in the city until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety of current and future residents. The Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Furthermore, Residents also have concerns about whether our water system can maintain pressure if many hydrants are opened during a major fire; we are seeking clear, published data from the City to understand these limits.
Therefore, we ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law, and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Richard Michaelsen
435 San Vicente Blvd., Unit N
Santa MOnica, CA 90402
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:53 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: 11-18-25 agenda item 4-s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
EXTERNAL
[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],jesse.zwi [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],Caroline [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], I have a hard time believing that you have brought another “emergency” ordinance/plan. It is not well thought out and is improper and fails to analyze the applicable code sections. You are also once again circumventing community involvement. Why are we paying the salaries of a manager and city attorney who are not carefully following the law? This is not ok.
You cannot in good conscience adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
1. You have failed to comply with state law. You have omitted the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Govt Code 65302.15 enacted by SB99 and AB 747.
These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation route and evaluate their capacity safety and viability.
2. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element and it remains absent from the LHMP. Our city is already overly dense for the infrastructure in place. We are not Manhattan.
This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Tracey P. Hom Esq.
10850 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90024
310 749 5343
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 5 David Yakobson
From: Katherine Griffith <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:59 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; [email protected] Subject: 11/18/25 item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - OPPOSE adoption in current form
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
We join, Friends of Sunset Park (who we thank for raising this issue), and other Santa Monica Neighborhood Organizations including NOMA, to urge you NOT to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form. This is especially relevant and applicable to the Neighbors of Palisades Park, because we are the most northern point of Santa Monica, the closest to the Santa Monica Mountains and the community that was mostly directly impacted by the January 2025 wildfires. Parts of our neighborhood were under mandatory evacuation orders during these recent fires. The draft contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
Firstly, The plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747.
These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey, preventing residents from comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 6 Sunset Blvd After the Palisades Fire
As Santa Monica inevitably increases population density it is imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering that gridlock conditions already exist during peak hours, we urge you to prohibit approval of density increases in the city until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety of current and future residents. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Furthermore, Residents also have concerns about whether our water system can maintain pressure if many hydrants are opened during a major fire; we are seeking clear, published data from the City to understand these limits.
Therefore, we ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law, and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Your Name,
Katherine Griffith
129 Alta Ave, Santa Monica CA 90402
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 7 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form.
While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
The current plan, as I understand it, omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
It is worth considering how loudly and passionately this issue is going to be broadcast to residents if you choose not to do a proper safety study. I would point you to the excellent letter that John Murdoch has written about the rigorous standards for studies about evacuation route capacity, safety and viability that California courts currently expect (such as "Dynamic traffic assignment").
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 8 If we don't proceed with this detailed and expert level of study for our safety as this Council simultaneously continues to push for densification across the city, worried and scared residents are going to hold the city accountable.
Why wouldn't we do this appropriate and legally mandated study? Thank you for considering my thoughts on this matter,
Heather Thomason
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 9:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 4-S, Nov. 18, 2025 - Please Oppose Deficient Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
For the reasons listed below I must ask you to oppose the current deficient Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The recent Palisades Fire shows we must have an adequate Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
________________________________________
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 4:30 PM
To: Tricia Crane
Subject: NE Neighbors - What is our government NOT doing to protect us from disaster? Oppose the Deficient Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - Council Agenda Item 4-S, Nov. 18, 2025 - map attached Agenda Item 4-S, Council Agenda, Nov.18, 2025 - Oppose Deficient Local Hazard Mitigation Plan To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Dan Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Barry Snell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Oliver Chi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Mayor Negrete and members of the City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: Agenda Item 4-S, Council Agenda for Nov. 18, 2025 Oppose Deficient Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Before City Council can vote to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as proposed in the Nov. 18, 2025 Council Agenda Item (4-S) the City must first provide a detailed, publicly available Emergency Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis.
California Government Code Section 65302.15 requires that a local government’s LHMP and/or Safety Element “shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability, along with evacuation locations, under a range of emergency scenarios.” Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 In other words, the City of Santa Monica is required to (1) identify the capacity of roads to accommodate evacuations while (2) also allowing access for emergency responders. It is required to analyze both the timing for community evacuation during emergencies and local traffic to quantify travel times under various likely scenarios.
The City must procure publicly available documents confirming that our roads and transportation networks can safely, timely and efficiently move people out of our city to safety during emergencies such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, chemical releases or other hazards.
While the singular emergency evacuation route map in the draft LHMP identifies evacuation routes in the event of wildfire, tsunami and inundation, it does not identify the capacity of any of the evacuation routes.
Importantly, neither the Safety Element nor the draft LHMP identify evacuation routes for any earthquake despite identifying numerous faults that would affect Santa Monica if there is fault rupture. For example, it is acknowledged that an earthquake on the offshore section of the Palos Verdes fault could result in damage which in turn would impact the use of PCH as an evacuation route, yet it designates PCH as an evacuation route nonetheless and without identifying the capacity of PCH or any alternative evacuation route.
The Safety Element notes that there are locations in our city where there is only a single egress to serve as an evacuation route and the City reports in the 2025 – 2030 LHMP that it has evacuation mapping technology, but there is no publicly available report reflecting comprehensive evacuation route capacity analysis, a full trafficsimulation study for the worst-case evacuation scenarios. The bottom line is we don’t know if residents and visitors can safely and timely evacuate in an emergency.
Santa Monica’s residents and stakeholders live and operate in a dense coastal city where there are earthquake fault lines and tsunami risks exist. The LHMP presentation acknowledges that Santa Monica’s social vulnerability is ranked as HIGH. Consequently, the lack of a compliant Plan informed by a complete Emergency Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis absolutely exposes the people of Santa Monica to significant life-threatening safety risks.
What greater responsibility does a city government have than to address the fundamental safety of residents and stakeholders through timely evacuation in a disaster?
Tricia Crane on behalf of the Board of Northeast Neighbors Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: SUBJECT: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
This forces us to ask WHY you are choosing not to take the safety of residents into account, and it certainly appears to be tied to your quest to overdevelop Santa Monica. Since the state has exempted most new developments from CEQA, the only way to challenge a project is to demonstrate a threat to health and safety. But if you refuse to conduct the study, we don't have the data to prove that Santa Monica doesn't have the evacuation capacity to handle additional development. So it appears that you are willing to put all of our lives at risk to keep the developer spigot open. The only way to prove us wrong is to HALT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE WE ARE SAFE.
Regarding the specifics of the plan:
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
It can take us an hour just to get from Sunset Park to the 405 in heavy commuting traffic. How long would it take to evacuate all current residents? All the new residents once the developments are built?
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 5 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Nancy Morse
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 6 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:25 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; [email protected] Subject: 11/18/25 item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - OPPOSE adoption in current form
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
We join, Friends of Sunset Park (who we thank for raising this issue), and other Santa Monica Neighborhood Organizations including NOMA, to urge you NOT to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form. This is especially relevant and applicable to the Neighbors of Palisades Park, because we are the most northern point of Santa Monica, the closest to the Santa Monica Mountains and the community that was mostly directly impacted by the January 2025 wildfires. Parts of our neighborhood were under mandatory evacuation orders during these recent fires. The draft contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
Firstly, The plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747.
These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey, preventing residents from comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Sunset Blvd After the Palisades Fire
As Santa Monica inevitably increases population density it is imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering that gridlock conditions already exist during peak hours, we urge you to prohibit approval of density increases in the city until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety of current and future residents. The Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 7 recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Furthermore, Residents also have concerns about whether our water system can maintain pressure if many hydrants are opened during a major fire; we are seeking clear, published data from the City to understand these limits.
Therefore, we ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law, and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Ryan Ward
535 Ocean Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 8 David Yakobson
From: janine autolitano <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:37 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Janine Autolitano
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 9 David Yakobson
From: Catherine Jayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; [email protected] Subject: 11/18/25 item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - OPPOSE adoption in current form
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
We join, Friends of Sunset Park (who we thank for raising this issue), and other Santa Monica Neighborhood Organizations including NOMA, to urge you NOT to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form. This is especially relevant and applicable to the Neighbors of Palisades Park, because we are the most northern point of Santa Monica, the closest to the Santa Monica Mountains and the community that was mostly directly impacted by the January 2025 wildfires. Parts of our neighborhood were under mandatory evacuation orders during these recent fires. The draft contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
Firstly, The plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747.
These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey, preventing residents from comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Sunset Blvd After the Palisades Fire
As Santa Monica inevitably increases population density it is imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering that gridlock conditions already exist during peak hours, we urge you to prohibit approval of density increases in the city until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety of current and future residents. The Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 10 recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Furthermore, Residents also have concerns about whether our water system can maintain pressure if many hydrants are opened during a major fire; we are seeking clear, published data from the City to understand these limits.
Therefore, we ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law, and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Catherine Jayne
305 Georgina Ave. Santa Monica CA 90402
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 9:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I understand you are about to vote on the LHMP.
As we have so recently seen, the the evacuation from the Palisades fire was a near disaster. We need to do better than that. And the plan as it now stands does not seem sufficient to protect residents in the event of an emergency.
A true study of roadway capacity must be part of the LHMP.
The routes out of Santa Monica are already jammed to near gridlock for hours every week. With the addition of proposed increased housing, not doing one feels like a huge omission. And… is it even legal to not do this??
We should proceed carefully and correctly, please. There could well be a situation in which we need it and lives could be at stake.
Yours truly,
Paula Mazur
3204 Pearl Street
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: LORI WHITESELL <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 4:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Lori Whitesell
Resident of Sunset Park for 30 years
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:29 PM
To: Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, My friends barely got out of the Palisades Highlands alive! I urge you to oppose the adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pulldown menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density makes it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
With great concern,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica, Resident
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 7:09 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC Meeting 2025-11-18 Item 4.S. - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan: OPPOSE VOTE AND ADOPTION until, and unless, a comprehensive Emergency Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis has been completed
Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and Council Members,
I was frankly to astounded to find a vote to adopt the Local Hazard MiƟgaƟon Plan (LHMP) agendized tomorrow’s Nov. 18, 2025 Council meeƟng given the glaring defect in this document which is missing any analysis on the emergency exit capaciƟes and chokepoints in the city. This version of the LHMP simply catalogs risks. The only map provided by the City shows exit points without any reference to their usefulness in an emergency given the vastly different populaƟon densiƟes in the different parts of the city and the differenƟal impacts to those zone densiƟes under different disaster scenarios. Without that evacuaƟon capacity analysis, the City effecƟvely has no evacuaƟon plan. None. And, this is despite the City acknowledging in the LHMP presentaƟon that Santa Monica's social vulnerability is ranked as HIGH! No vote on this issue can be scheduled unƟl a detailed, publicly available Emergency EvacuaƟon Route Capacity Analysis has been completed. And, given the apparent lack of progress on this point despite the long lead Ɵmes that have already been consumed, the Council’s priority must be to prioriƟze the swiŌ and comprehensive compleƟon of Emergency EvacuaƟon Route Capacity Analysis.
The singular emergency evacuaƟon route map that can only be found in the Safety Element simply idenƟfies evacuaƟon routes in the event of wildfire, tsunami and inundaƟon. Moreover, different emergencies will impact different escape routes. For example, tsunamis will impact a different secƟon of the City than will earthquakes, placing differenƟal stains on escape route capaciƟes. As neither the map nor any secƟon of the LHMP idenƟfies the capacity of any of the evacuaƟon routes under relevant disaster scenarios, the LHMP is currently a funcƟonally useless document.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 California Government Code SecƟon 65302.15 requires that a local government’s LHMP and/or Safety Element “shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to idenƟfy evacuaƟon routes and their capacity, safety, and viability, along with evacuaƟon locaƟons, under a range of emergency scenarios.” As the California ConsƟtuƟon clearly lays out, the safety of the State’s residents is the top priority. This is not opƟonal.
In other words, the City of Santa Monica is required to (1) idenƟfy the capacity of roads to accommodate evacuaƟons while (2) also allowing access for emergency responders. It is required to analyze both the Ɵming for community evacuaƟon during emergencies and local traffic to quanƟfy travel Ɵmes under various likely scenarios. The City must then provide publicly available documents confirming that our roads and transportaƟon networks can safely, Ɵmely and efficiently move people out of our city to safety during emergencies such as earthquake, tsunami, flood, chemical release or other hazards. None of this has occurred, which is surprising since the City that prides itself on legal compliance.
The Safety Element notes that there are locaƟons in our city where there is only a single egress to serve as an evacuaƟon route. The City reports in the 2025 – 2030 LHMP that it has evacuaƟon mapping technology, but there is neither a publicly available report reflecƟng comprehensive evacuaƟon route capacity analysis nor a full traffic-simulaƟon study for the worst-case evacuaƟon scenarios. The boƩom line is that we have absolutely no idea whether residents and visitors can safely and Ɵmely evacuate in an emergency.
Santa Monica’s residents and stakeholders live and operate in one of the highest density ciƟes in the state, which is why LHMP presentaƟon acknowledges that Santa Monica's social vulnerability is ranked as Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 5 HIGH. Consequently, the lack of a compliant Plan informed by a complete Emergency EvacuaƟon Route Capacity Analysis absolutely exposes the people of Santa Monica to significant life-threatening safety risks.
Please remove this item from the agenda and instruct staff to prioriƟze compleƟon of a comprehensive, relevant and Ɵmely comprehensive Emergency EvacuaƟon Route Capacity Analysis that can be published for public review and comment BEFORE any vote on adopƟon. There is no Ɵme to waste to get this done.
What greater responsibility does a city government have than to effecƟvely addresses the fundamental safety of its residents and stakeholders through Ɵmely evacuaƟon in a disaster? Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 6 David Yakobson
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 8:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, As I am sure that you do not want to be personally responsible for injuries or deaths in an emergency situation in Santa Monica, by passing the LHMP, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 7 David Yakobson
From: wendie olshan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 8:59 PM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP.
In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
W. Olshan
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 8 52 year resident of SM
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 9 David Yakobson
From: Teri Bernstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Cc: Teri Davis Bernstein
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Teri Davis Bernstein
2528 29th St.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 10 Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Derrick Townsend <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 4:56 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Derrick Townsend OTR
Certified Aging in Place Specialist
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Travis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 12:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Hazard Mitigation Plan
EXTERNAL
SUBJECT: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey.
This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Chester Badalato
1248 Pearl St
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 1:17 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Will von Bernuth
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 1:18 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Kelly Hsiao
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 5 David Yakobson
From: John Zemke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
John Zemke
3030 Paula Dr
Santa Monica, CA, 90405
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda Item 4-S, Council Agenda for Nov. 18, 2025 - Oppose Deficient Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and members of the City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: Agenda Item 4-S, Council Agenda for Nov. 18, 2025
Oppose Deficient Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Before this City Council can vote to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as proposed in the Nov. 18, 2025 Council Agenda Item (4-S) the City must first provide a detailed, publicly available Emergency Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis.
California Government Code Section 65302.15 requires that a local government’s LHMP and/or Safety Element “shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability, along with evacuation locations, under a range of emergency scenarios.”
In other words, the City of Santa Monica is required to (1) identify the capacity of roads to accommodate evacuations while (2) also allowing access for emergency responders. It is required to analyze both the timing for community evacuation during emergencies and local traffic to quantify travel times under various likely scenarios. The City must procure publicly available documents confirming that our roads and transportation networks can safely, timely and efficiently move people out of our city to safety during emergencies such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, chemical releases or other hazards.
While the singular emergency evacuation route map in the draft LHMP identifies evacuation routes in the event of wildfire, tsunami and inundation, it does not identify the capacity of any of the evacuation routes.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 Importantly, neither the Safety Element nor the draft LHMP identify evacuation routes for any earthquake despite identifying numerous faults that would affect Santa Monica if there is fault rupture.
For example, it is acknowledged that an earthquake on the offshore section of the Palos Verdes fault could result in damage which in turn would impact the use of PCH as an evacuation route, yet it designates PCH as an evacuation route nonetheless and without identifying the capacity of PCH or any alternative evacuation route.
The Safety Element notes that there are locations in our city where there is only a single egress to serve as an evacuation route and the City reports in the 2025 – 2030 LHMP that it has evacuation mapping technology, but there is no publicly available report reflecting comprehensive evacuation route capacity analysis, a full traffic-simulation study for the worst-case evacuation scenarios. The bottom line is we don’t know if residents and visitors can safely and timely evacuate in an emergency.
Santa Monica’s residents and stakeholders live and operate in a dense coastal city where there are earthquake fault lines and tsunami risks exist. The LHMP presentation acknowledges that Santa Monica’s social vulnerability is ranked as HIGH. Consequently, the lack of a compliant Plan informed by a complete Emergency Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis absolutely exposes the people of Santa Monica to significant life-threatening safety risks.
What greater responsibility does a city government have than to address the fundamental safety of residents and stakeholders through timely evacuation in a disaster? Tricia Crane on behalf of the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document. First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP. Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis. The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith.
Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Vincent Esparza
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 David Yakobson
From: Debbie Travis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 12:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Hazard Mitigation Plan
EXTERNAL
SUBJECT: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 5 peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Debbie Travis
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rachel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 8:50 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form.
While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document. First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis. The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith.
Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Rachel Witenstein
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 8:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi; Rachel Kwok; Susan Cline; Peter James; Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Matthew Hallock; Darrick Jacob
Subject: Nov 18, 2025 Council Meeting - Agenda Item 4.S. - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - OPPOSE adoption without study/revisions
EXTERNAL
SUBJECT: 11/18/25 agenda item 4.S. – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption absent study/revision Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge Council to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety.
The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. It's imperative that Santa Monica take the extra time now to comply with Section 65302.15.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved and incorporate evacuation route capacity and planning information in the LHMP so that the plan meets state law, public safety and that of our emergency responders is well-considered and prioritized, and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 29 years
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 David Yakobson
From: Danny Guggenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – LHMP – Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear All,
Please oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form, due to its omission of an emergency evacuation route capacity analysis, which affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence.
Please also allow a more meaningful opportunity for residents to comment on the LHMP before approving it.
We already have gridlock conditions throughout the city during peak hours, so it seems obvious that there is currently a capacity issue, which would only be worse - perhaps dangerously so - with any additional density that doesn’t also include infrastructure improvements.
This should go without saying, but I respectfully request that the OEM complete the evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved.
Sincerely,
Danny Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption Thanks,
Amy Larkin
Administrative Staff Assistant- City Council
City Manager’s Ofiice
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:26 AM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document. First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP. Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis. The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith.
Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 5 Tina Cox
"Time spent with cats is never wasted"
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Erika Kemmerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 4:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: Let's Get Our Community Safety Right
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
The Big Picture:
Complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved.
Why This Matters:
The LHMP is out of compliance with state law
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element The public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. It also prevented residents from commenting on omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis. This prevented clear feedback.
The Bottom Line:
Oppose the adoption of agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan on 11/18/25.
Sincerely,
Erika Kemmerer
Sunset Park Resident
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 11:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi
Subject: ITEM 4S Council meeting on November 18, 2025
EXTERNAL
Agenda Item 4S
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dear Mayor and council members,
I urge you NOT to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 2 omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
I respectfully ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 3 David Yakobson
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 4 David Yakobson
From: colette herbstman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 5 David Yakobson
From: colette herbstman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Colette Herbstman
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 6 David Yakobson
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Tina Grossman
Santa Monica resident
Since 1979
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 11/18/25 item 4-S -- Local Hazard Mitigation Plan -- Oppose adoption in current form
EXTERNAL
November 15, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete, City Council members, City Manager, and Office of Emergency Management From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 11/18/25 item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - Oppose adoption in current form
We urge you not to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 8 The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density makes it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, it is our view that all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, we respectfully ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law, and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 9 David Yakobson
From: Mary Donovan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at rimary donovansk.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 10 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Owens <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Nancy Owens
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 11 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, Please think about the safety of the residents. We are literally talking life and death here. We are already experiencing enormous stress and mental duress due to the gridlock we face every day due to the densification of the city. What makes it worse is we have friends who almost lost their lives in the fires in the Palisades because escape and safety plans were not in place. With the densification you have completed, without any study of the dangers facing us in case of the need for evacuation, and the buildings you have planned, we strongly feel there is dereliction of duty if you choose to ignore the potential hazards to our lives. It’s simple. Do the safety studies first.
Then see what we can build safely. And then make the necessary plans.And of course anyone who has ANY conflict of interest, makes money in any way from building or promoting or foaming the runway for developers, must recuse themselves from this vote. Council, you must choose to respect the precious lives of generations of residents who live in Santa Monica, And then decide what is safe to build. But those decisions must be made based on protecting the lives of our residents, our children. You know that. That is the law.
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 12 Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 13 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Jenny Monbouquette
(310)266-3665
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 14 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Duresky <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Nancy J Duresky
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 15 David Yakobson
From: Nancy Duresky <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:38 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose ado
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Nancy J Duresky
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 16 David Yakobson
From: wavehunterz Deguzis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Jo Deguzis
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 17 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Polhemus <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose
EXTERNAL
The City Council should not adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as currently drafted.
The plan should evaluate the CAPACITY of existing evacuation routes, as required by California law.
The public comment process was inexplicably restricted with an online survey that did NOT allow respondents to provide their own input unless it fit into the survey's own fixed response categories.
Residents and workers already face gridlock conditions, particularly on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards during peak hours, and mega-developments are presently under construction in West LA at Santa Monica’s eastern borders.
Adding new density without knowing CAPACITY is not responsible policymaking and puts all of us at unreasonable risk. The LHMP is an empty promise without knowledge of CAPACITY.
Please direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the required evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved.
Jennifer Polhemus
Santa Monica resident, parent, and small business owner Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 18 David Yakobson
From: Karen Pickard-four <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Karen Pickard Four
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 19 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Resident of Sunset Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 20 David Yakobson
From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 1:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Dennis Granelli
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 21 David Yakobson
From: Aram Kadish <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 5:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document. First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP. Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis. The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Further, due to the city’s short sighted, constant pressure to try and eliminate cars in lieu of bikes, you’ve further reduced the vehicle capacity of our streets by eliminating needed car lanes, which are necessary in the case of an evacuation. You have sacrificed needed car lanes for seldom used bike lanes. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk. Sincerely, Aram Kadish
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 22 David Yakobson
From: Mary Hubbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 5:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
Sent from Mary's iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 23 David Yakobson
From: Mayra Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 6:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Mayra Herrera
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 24 David Yakobson
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document. First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP. Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis. The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
John Reynolds
3217 17th street
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 25 David Yakobson
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Brian Lanich
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 26 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density makes it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
Faustino Garza
1351 Pacific Street
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 27 Santa Monica
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 28 David Yakobson
From: Ani Sherman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Ani Sherman
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 29 David Yakobson
From: asbakkerr <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Armen Baker
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 30 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 31 David Yakobson
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:26 AM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document. First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP. Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis. The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith.
Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Tina Cox
"Time spent with cats is never wasted"
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 32 David Yakobson
From: Hal Jaffe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Harold Jaffe
2626 34th St
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 33 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Karen M Fisher
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 34 David Yakobson
From: Peter Mezza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 9:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Peter Mezza
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 35 David Yakobson
From: Diane Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Diane Gray
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 36 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 9:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Janet Tunick
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 37 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiijí Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 38 David Yakobson
From: Ellen Hiura <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Ellen Hiura
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 39 David Yakobson
From: Sherri Sawaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 10:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely, Sherri Sawaya
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 40 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Joensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 10:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Joensen
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 41 David Yakobson
From: LUCY F STONE <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Lucy Frances Stone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 42 David Yakobson
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 43 Sandra Laderas
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 44 David Yakobson
From: Jerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Jerry Nodiff
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 45 David Yakobson
From: e winston <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:29 AM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, We urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, we respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Eddy Winston & Steven Brady
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 46 David Yakobson
From: ErikLerner RealEstateArchitect.com <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I concur with the sentiments expressed in the comments below from my neighbors, the Friends of Sunset Park:
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
ERIK LERNER
REAL ESTATE BROKER
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 47 CA DRE #01225073
ARCHITECT
LEED AP
REAL ESTATE ARCHITECT
25 Village Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
310 729 4597
[email protected]
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 48 David Yakobson
From: Peter Sawaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Peter Sawaya
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 49 David Yakobson
From: Ken LeBlanc <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 1:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 50 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 2:03 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: SUBJECT: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Respectfully,
Dalila Fuentes
Santa Monica resident 45 years
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 51 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Hanlin]
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 52 David Yakobson
From: Dan Halperin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 3:09 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document. First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP. Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk. Sincerely, Dan Halperin 1030 Cedar St, SM, CA Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 53 David Yakobson
From: John Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; OEM
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: ITEM 4-S LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION; COUNCIL MTG 11/18/25: REQUIRE
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, City Manager, and OEM Director:
Speaking as an individual who lives in Sunset Park, I incorporate by reference the Friends of Sunset Park Board’s letter to you, as well as comments by Eve Lopez and others, urging nonadoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan until it complies with State Law. I write to elaborate on paragraph 8 in FOSP’s letter, which states:
"The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.”
With that in mind, I place you on notice of, and insert in the public record for the benefit of all interested parties, the following article dated August 19, 2025 by Fehr & Peers, a transportation consulting firm, outlining the courts’ attitudes and State Guidelines dealing with the CEQA obligation to provide proper analysis of evacuation routes and capacities in light of increasing densities (highlighting added). The article's analysis has broad implications and foreshadows future litigation problems for cities that willfully ignore the mandatory requirement in state law to provide updated circulation capacity analysis for evacuation plans before approving everincreasing densities on the excuse that state laws require it. There is one statutory reason cities can disapprove added densities, waivers of height limits, and density bonuses. That reason is when findings, based on substantial objective evidence, are made that the approval will result in health & safety hazards. The city cannot adequately make that determinations on behalf of its population unless it has the proper capacity/evacuation study in place, grounded upon substantial evidence. Please take the time to study the law evolving on this health & safety issue, as detailed here
(https://www.fehrandpeers.com/blog/wildfire-evacuation-assessments-incalifornia/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) :
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 54 "California Courts Raise Bar on Wildfire Evacuation
Planning
"Recent rulings highlight the need for realistic, dynamic, and expert-driven evacuation models.
August 19, 2025 • 6 minute read To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Helicopter dumping retardant on a wildfire
Back in 2022, we wrote about the benefits of using quantitative dynamic assignment models when creating wildfire evacuation plans for communities.
Since that time, a series of court rulings has underscored just how important these practices are, affirming established transportation case law and warning of the legal risks of ignoring them.
Considering that wildfires have become larger, hotter, faster, and more destructive and deadly, especially in the western US, courts are expecting agencies to adopt more detailed and data-driven strategies to facilitate evacuations and protect communities.
Given these developments, it’s time to take a fresh look at this important topic.
Four key takeaways to know:
Planners now have more guidance and case law to work with.
Together, these resources paint a clearer picture of what’s needed for evacuation analysis.
California courts expect evacuation studies to use expert opinion and appropriate assignment and operations modeling methods, such as Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), rather than traffic analysis approaches for typical day-to-day conditions.
Rigorous analysis (and by extension, more time, attention, and coordination across agencies before an evacuation event occurs) can improve planning for clearer evacuation routes, faster exits, and fewer life-threatening delays. DTAs can model incremental changes over smaller time periods. This provides a more granular reflection of how traffic conditions might change during an emergency evacuation scenario.
Understanding How Courts Are Shaping Planning
Expectations for evacuation planning and environmental assessments have evolved in California in just the past decade. Beyond California, the latest legislation, guidance, and court rulings can serve as an example of what other states could do to better plan and prepare for wildfire (and other local hazard) evacuations.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 55 Since 2018, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has included additional requirements for local governments and public agencies to evaluate wildfire evacuation impacts for projects and proposed developments located within fire-prone areas. In addition, since 2019, new legislation including California Assembly Bill (AB) 747, AB 1409, and Senate Bill (SB) 99 have added evacuation planning requirements for local jurisdictions.
While both Safety Element evacuation studies and CEQA evacuation assessments are crucial for ensuring public safety during emergencies, they address different legislative requirements, state guidance, and court decisions.
This post focuses specifically on CEQA evacuation assessments and what they mean for public agencies.
Recent court cases have shown that many public agencies are falling short of these CEQA requirements. This has led to legal challenges, project delays, and increased public scrutiny often centered on whether agencies adequately analyzed evacuation routes and public safety during emergencies.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Infographic stating that CA Courts have a rigorous approach to evacuation planning The California Attorney General—who has previously joined lawsuits that challenged development projects regarding their evacuation impact studies— released guidance in October 2022 for assessing and mitigating a project’s impact on wildfire ignition risk, emergency access, and evacuation for both new and existing developments. The guidance recommends more analysis of projects located in wildfire-prone areas for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) compared to the general “good faith effort at full disclosure” standard outlined in Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines.
According to the AG’s office, evacuation modeling and analysis should evaluate:
How the addition of new developments affects the evacuation of project residents.
The capacity of roads to accommodate evacuations while also allowing access for emergency responders.
The timing for community evacuation during emergencies. Alternative plans for evacuations depending upon the location and dynamics of the emergency.
How new projects will impact existing evacuation plans and the existing population.
Local traffic to quantify travel times under various likely scenarios.
The Attorney General’s guidance also urges public agencies to assess and mitigate a project’s evacuation impacts based on the potential need for largescale evacuations, rather than relying primarily on shelter-in-place plans. Public Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 56 agencies can also work with fire officials and other first responders to align future projects with real-world conditions; this could help identify any gaps in existing evacuation plans.
VIEW FULL GUIDANCE
Neglecting these steps could substantially understate added evacuation times and the need for evacuation measures, possibly putting project approval at risk and resulting in litigation.
For example, the California First District Court of Appeal upheld rulings in 2022 and 2024 that Lake County failed to adequately analyze wildfire evacuation routes and wildfire risk when certifying a 2020 EIR for a major development, violating state law. Lake County recently released a Final Partially Recirculated EIR that includes substantial new analysis to address the court rulings for these two topics. Other rulings in Placer, Sonoma, and Contra Costa counties indicate that this may be a statewide issue.
Recent Court Rulings
EIRs must assess evacuation impacts.
Appellate court upheld the ruling that the EIR was inadequate for not analyzing how new traffic from a proposed development could worsen evacuation times for existing residents.
Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Lake (“Guenoc Valley Case”), 2024 Evacuation studies must include expert input & transparency.
Key outcomes of this court ruling noted that evacuation studies must be based on wildfire expert opinions, must consider future developments, and must document all study assumptions and parameters for public review and comment.
Sonoma Community Advocates for a Livable Environment (SCALE) v. County of Sonoma, 2024
Evacuation timing must use realistic traffic assumptions.
Appellate court found the project’s evacuation analysis underestimated evacuation times due to a misunderstanding of how traffic control would occur during emergencies.
Sierra Watch v. County of Placer, 2021
The US will continue to experience wildfires—that’s the one constant in all of this.
If these recent court rulings in California are any indicator, planners, emergency management officials, and public agencies across the state and in other wildfireprone areas of the country will change the way they think about wildfire evacuation planning and simulation.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 57 Better simulation models can potentially save lives while also providing legal protection for local governments.
Adopting Dynamic, Data-Driven Models
Public agencies, planners, and transportation consultants have long recognized the shortcomings of traditional models and methods. The message from the court rulings is clear: traditional and static travel model assignments no longer suffice for local evacuation planning.
So, what does the future look like, and how do we move toward it? Dynamic Traffic Assignment modeling plays a big part. Many public agencies are now adopting DTA modeling to better reflect realistic travel behaviors.
Unlike static assignment models, which assume steady traffic flow and average conditions over an hour time period, DTA models simulate how traffic conditions evolve in real time as drivers respond to delays, detours, or congestion.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Demonstration of Dynamic Traffic Assignment
Models that use Dynamic Traffic Assignment can show where and when traffic jams happen and how long they last, in 15-minute time slices over the course of several hours. Static travel models cannot show the same level of detail.
DTA models better reflect real-world conditions, which is critical in fire-prone areas where the road network is already stressed and every minute counts.
Dig Deeper
Using DTA for forecasting trip demand for evacuations
Learn More
Helping You Navigate Evolving Evacuation Standards
Evacuation analysis expectations are evolving.
As California raises the bar with court rulings and evolving requirements, public agencies are expected to adopt more rigorous, transparent, and defensible methods for wildfire evacuation planning.
“Local governments have a responsibility to address wildfire risks associated with new development projects early in the planning process when changes to these projects can still be made.” –California Attorney General Rob Bonta Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 58 We are already applying these legal considerations for our clients’ evacuation assessment projects.
By modeling traffic in shorter increments and across more detailed networks, we can produce insights that are not only more accurate and useful, but may also be more defensible in the eyes of regulators, stakeholders, and the courts.
Our DTA models incorporate critical details about the local community, including travel choices, household vehicle ownership, and future changes to the transportation network. By aligning with established regional planning models and calibrating for real-world conditions, we can offer more granular evacuation insights that go beyond traditional and static travel models.
Our experts have a deep understanding and hands-on experience with some of the most complex evacuation studies. Most recently, we applied the above analysis methods in the following projects:
Sonoma County Safety Element Update (Described by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as an example for other jurisdictions [4:05:30]) Kenwood Winery EIR in Sonoma County for CEQA clearance Koi Nation Shiloh Casino EIS in Sonoma County for NEPA clearance Montecito Evacuation Study in Santa Barbara County
Many of our analyses have undergone CEQA reviews, and to date, none of our clients have faced legal challenges when using these models. However, we cannot make a guarantee to any of our clients that our analyses using these methods will be immune to legal challenges.”
Please instruct OEM to complete the required analysis and bring the plan back for future consideration.
Thank you for your attention,
John Murdock
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 59 David Yakobson
From: Harold Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 3:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Harold Monbouquette
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 60 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Johansson Wessel <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 4:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Ann-Louise Johansson
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 61 David Yakobson
From: Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 4:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – OPPOSE ADOPTION
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Vivien Flitton
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 62 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 6:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Thank you,
Kathy Cody
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 63 David Yakobson
From: Marc Grossman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 6:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Oppose adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I urge you to oppose adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in its current form. While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density make it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law and the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Sincerely,
Marc Grossman
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 64 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Subject: 11/18/25 item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - Oppose adoption in current form
EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To: Mayor Negrete, City Council members, City Manager, and Office of Emergency Management From: Board of Directors, North of Montana Association (NOMA) RE: 11/18/25 item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - Oppose adoption in current form We join, Friends of Sunset Park (who we thank for raising this issue), and other Santa Monica Neighborhood Organizations, to urge you not to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form.
This is especially relevant and applicable to NOMA, because we are the most northern point of Santa Monica, the closest to the Santa Monica Mountains and the community that was mostly directly impacted by the January 2025 wildfires. Parts of our neighborhood were under mandatory evacuation orders during these recent fires.
While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability.
The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
As Santa Monica inevitably increases population density it is imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 65 Considering that gridlock conditions already exist during peak hours, we urge you to prohibit approval of density increases in the city until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety of current and future residents.
The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, we respectfully ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law, and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Board of NOMA
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 66 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:19 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council -- 11/18/25 item 4-S – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - Oppose adoption in current form
EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete, City Council Members, City Manager and Office of Emergency Management,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition Board urges you to not adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form.
While the draft outlines the hazards facing our community, it contains gaps that leave it out of compliance with state law and weaken its effectiveness as a public safety document.
First, the plan omits the emergency evacuation route capacity analysis that is expressly required under Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by SB 99 and AB 747. These laws direct local governments to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. The city did not complete this analysis for the 2025 Safety Element, and it remains absent from the LHMP. In a city as dense and constrained as Santa Monica, this omission affects legal compliance, public safety, and public confidence. A quantitative study of roadway capacity, congestion, and evacuation times across multiple hazard scenarios is necessary and must be incorporated into both the Safety Element and the LHMP.
Second, after revisions were made to the draft LHMP, the public comment process was restricted to limited pull down menu choices on an online survey. This prevented Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 67 meaningful participation and did not allow residents to comment on the significant omissions in the document, including the required evacuation analysis.
The onslaught of state laws forcing our city to increase density makes it imperative that the capacity analysis required by law be accomplished forthwith. Considering the gridlock conditions already existing during peak hours, it is our view that all further approval of densities in the city should be halted until the requisite capacity study conclusively demonstrates that adding new density is not a hazard to lives and public safety. The recent experience in the Palisades fire clearly demonstrates that lives are at risk when evacuation capacity is insufficiently planned and provided.
Therefore, we respectfully ask that you direct the Office of Emergency Management to complete the legally mandated evacuation capacity study before the LHMP is approved so that the plan meets state law, and so the city’s eligibility for FEMA funding is not placed at risk.
Finally, we ask that the Office of Emergency Management generate a report by March 31, 2026, on the number and type of buildings in Santa Monica that still require earthquake retrofitting. Going forward, we request that OEM provides quarterly reports on the number of required buildings for retrofitting 1) that have been retrofitted, 2) not retrofitted and 3) what is the regulatory timing for the buildings that have not been retrofitted e.g., soft story, unreinforced brick and 4) an action plan to complete earthquake retrofitting for all Santa Monica buildings.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 68 David Yakobson
From: darkosuvak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:36 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Oliver Chi; OEM; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4-S. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Do not adopt without evacuation capacity analysis
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management, I am writing to ask you to vote against adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in its current form.
The plan you are being asked to approve omits the evacuation route capacity analysis required by Government Code section 65302.15, adopted through SB 99 and AB 747. That statute is clear. Cities must identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability. Here, that work has not been done. It was missing from the 2025 Safety Element. It is still missing from the LHMP.
That omission would be serious in any city.
In Santa Monica it is acute, because the City is simultaneously processing and approving very large housing projects that rely on already constrained streets to move residents out of harm’s way. Ocean Park Boulevard is a prime example. e.g. A 7-story, 102-unit mixed-use SB 330 project at 3205 Ocean Park, layered with density bonuses and waivers, is moving through the pipeline at the same time this LHMP is being advanced. Other intensifications along the same corridor are either proposed or foreseeable under recent state housing laws.
In effect, the City is planning to load thousands of additional daily trips and hundreds of new residents onto evacuation routes without any quantitative demonstration that those routes can perform in a fire, earthquake, or other major event. That is not a technical quibble. It goes to the core of legal compliance and to your duty of care to the people who will rely on those streets in an emergency.
Approving the LHMP in this condition carries at least three long-term consequences:
1. Legal exposure. Adopting a hazard plan that omits an analysis expressly required by state law, while at the same time granting extraordinary height, density, and setback relief along Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 69 those same corridors, invites challenge under Government Code section 65302.15, the Safety Element statutes, and CEQA for lack of substantial evidence on evacuation capacity.
2. Risk to funding. FEMA and Cal OES expect hazard plans to align with state law and to be based on demonstrable analysis. Proceeding without the required capacity work unnecessarily risks the City’s standing and weakens its position for future disaster funding and grants.
3. Personal accountability. If there is a major incident and residents are trapped in gridlock on Ocean Park or other key corridors, every decision leading to that outcome will be reconstructed. A record that shows the City was warned that no evacuation capacity study existed, yet chose to adopt the LHMP and continue approving large projects along those routes, will reflect on every official who voted yes.
None of this argues against housing or compliance with state housing mandates. It argues for sequencing. First, complete a real, corridor-specific evacuation capacity study that models current and pipeline development on Ocean Park and other key routes. Then, integrate those findings into both the Safety Element and the LHMP, and only after that proceed to approve further large projects that rely on those streets for life safety.
I therefore urge you to continue item 4-S and direct staff to complete the required evacuation route capacity analysis, with particular attention to Ocean Park Boulevard and the cumulative effect of projects such as 3205 Ocean Park, before bringing the LHMP back for adoption.
The decision you make on Tuesday will shape both the legal record and the practical safety of your constituents for decades. Please insist on the analysis the law requires before you certify that this plan protects us.
Sincerely,
Darko Suvak
2666 32nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 70 David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 10:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; OEM
Cc: Eve Lopez Esq.; Friends of Sunset Park
Subject: Agenda Item 4S - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan: Oppose Adoption
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete,Councilmembers City Manager Chi, Chief Resilency Officer Call, I submit the following comments regarding the City of Santa Monica Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for 2025 to 2030. While the draft contains useful information about the hazards facing our community, it omits several legally required elements that place the plan out of compliance with California law and undermine public safety. These issues must be resolved before the LHMP is adopted.
1. The LHMP is missing the legally required evacuation route capacity analysis Government Code section 65302.15, enacted by AB 747, requires every jurisdiction to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. This is a mandatory requirement. The draft LHMP lists evacuation routes, but it does not assess their capacity, does not evaluate their safety or viability, and does not model evacuation times under earthquake, tsunami, wildfire, or flood conditions.
In a dense coastal city with limited east-west corridors, this omission creates a serious public safety gap and places the City out of compliance with state law. A quantitative capacity study is required. This includes roadway throughput, congestion points, bottlenecks, clear times, and scenario based modeling for multiple hazard types.
This requirement is triggered because:
On October 14, 2022, HCD certified the City’s Housing Element, which required an update to the Safety Element. On February 11, 2025, the City adopted a revised Safety Element. The Safety Element violates Government Code section 65302.15 because it lists routes without analyzing their capacity or viability.
A public records request confirmed that no evacuation capacity analysis was ever performed. Staff acknowledged that evacuation routes were not updated and rely on plans dating back to 1995. The City has not adopted an LHMP since 2016, despite the requirement for regular updates.
Santa Monica cannot responsibly plan for emergencies if it does not know whether its residents, workers, and visitors can evacuate in time.
2. Wildfire and climate change impacts are not sufficiently addressed The wildfire section describes historic fires but does not meaningfully assess evacuation risks for high-rise development, coastal bluffs, or worsening climate driven fire behavior. State law, including SB 1241 and AB 2140, requires more robust analysis for jurisdictions in or near areas with high wildfire risk.
The LHMP should incorporate:
Updated CalFire hazard severity maps
Evacuation modeling for wildfire scenarios
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 71 Climate adaptation strategies such as cooling and resilience centers Urban canopy expansion and mitigation for extreme heat Without these elements, the plan does not meet state expectations for fire and climate resiliency.
3. Hazardous materials risks are not adequately assessed Although the LHMP acknowledges hazardous materials, it lacks the detailed analysis required to understand cumulative risks along major transport corridors like Interstate 10 and Pacific Coast Highway. California Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CalEPA guidelines call for cumulative hazard analysis when planning for mitigation.
The LHMP should include:
Pipeline rupture and tanker spill scenarios
Shelter in place and evacuation coordination across agencies Traffic and choke point analysis for hazmat evacuation routes These omissions leave the City unprepared for a potentially catastrophic event.
4. Public outreach and transparency need improvement
The draft LHMP references public engagement, but provides little evidence that community input shaped the plan.
Residents were asked to review more than 680 pages of material without access to a simple, clear summary. This is not meaningful participation.
Pubic comments was only available through an on-line survey. The on-line survey only permitted comments from predetermined pull down options. There was no ability to submit public comments about items that were omitted from the draft LHMP. This effectively denied meaningful public participation.
A plan of this importance must be understandable to renters, seniors, persons with disabilities, and residents with limited English proficiency. Without accessible materials and the ability to submit meaningful public comment, critical issues like the absence of an evacuation capacity analysis may be overlooked by the public.
5. Unanswered commitments from the City Manager and Chief Resilience Officer For nearly a year, concerns about the lack of a legally required evacuation capacity analysis have been raised at public meetings and through direct communication.
On November 3, 2025, City Manager Oliver Chi stated publicly that he would look into this issue. Despite follow up reminders, no response has been provided.
On November 4, 2025, Chief Resilience Officer Lindsay Call made the same commitment. She also has not responded.
This is a public safety matter, and it requires prompt attention. Delays and silence erode public trust and place the City at continued legal and safety risk.
Recommendations
1. Complete and publish a full evacuation route capacity analysis before adopting the LHMP as is legally required.
Engage a qualified multimodal transportation planning and evacuation planning firm.
2. Strengthen wildfire and climate change sections with updated mapping, scenario modeling, and adaptation strategies.
3. Develop a robust hazardous materials mitigation plan that includes cumulative risk and joint agency coordination.
4. Expand and document community engagement using accessible summaries, targeted outreach, and inclusive communication strategies.
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) 72 Addressing these gaps will help bring the LHMP into compliance with Government Code section 65302.15, SB 1241, AB 747, and AB 2140, and will strengthen eligibility for state and federal hazard mitigation funding.
Planning for disasters must happen before disaster occurs. Santa Monica deserves an LHMP that protects the entire community, especially the most vulnerable, and reduces long term losses through thoughtful, data driven preparation.
Sincerely,
Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.f
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update)
LOCAL HAZARD
MITIGATION
PLAN
2025 UPDATE
COUNCIL UPDATE
NOVEMBER 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Public Safety Communications
9-1-1 and Public Safety Call Answering
Police, Fire, EMS Dispatching
Alerts and Warning
Emergency Services & Preparedness
Emergency Mitigation & Response Plans
Disaster Cache
Staff and Community Education
Emergency Operations Center Operations
Office of Emergency Management
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Raise awareness of local hazards and risks
Identify hazard mitigation actions to help reduce losses Communicate priorities
Follow equitable process that ensures resources are
available to those that need them the most
Align with other community objectives as described in other planning documents (especially the Safety
Element of the General Plan)
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) City Departments
City Attorney’s Office
Office of Emergency
Management
Building & Safety
City Planning
Transportation
Fire
Housing & Human Services
Police
Engineering & Street Services
Office of Sustainability &
Environment
Airport
Rent Control
Planning Team
Valued Partners
City of Los Angeles,
Emergency Management Department
County of Los Angeles, Office
of Emergency Management
Santa Monica College
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified
School District
UCLA Health
Providence Saint John’s Health
Center
American Red Cross
Westside Food Bank
Downtown Santa Monica
Santa Monica Chamber of
Commerce
Santa Monica Travel &
Tourism
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Planning Process
Development of
Resilience
Planning
Committee
July 2023
Hazard
Research
Public Survey
January 2024
Public
Workshops
Spring 2024
Department/
Committee
Chapter
Review
Safety Element
Adoption
February 2025
Public
Comment
Period
Sept 2025
Planning,
Life/Safety &
Sustainability
Commissions
October 2025
Council
Adoption
November 2025
Cal OES
Review
FEMA
Review/
Approval
Implementation
Planning
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) December 2022, March 2023 Atmospheric Rivers
August 2023 Tropical Storm Hilary
February 2024 Atmospheric River
December 2024 Franklin Fire
January 2025 Palisades & Eaton Fires
Wildfire, Climate Change & Mitigation Actions
revised
July 2025 Tsunami Advisory (Off-shore Russian earthquake) Natural Hazard Incidents
During Planning
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Volume I: Action Plan
Executive Summary
Spanish Version
Available
Introduction
Community Profile
Risk Assessment
Goals & Action Items
Plan Maintenance
Key Components
Volume II: Hazard
Specific Information
Earthquakes
Tsunamis
Floods
Landslides
Wildfires & Urban
Fires
Climate Change &
Severe Weather
Hazardous Materials
Management
Airport Hazards
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Volume 3:
Appendices
Master Resource Directory
Public Participation Process
and Meeting Materials
Economic Analysis of Natural
Hazard Mitigation Projects
Acronyms
Glossary
California Disasters Since
1950
Major Dams in LA County
Plates (Maps)
References
City Council Adoption
Resolution
Key Components
Next Step – Pending
FEMA Grant
Approval
Public Hazard
Education Tools
Magazinestyle booklet
Website
Grant-funded
design,
translation,
printing
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) OEM’s Response-Focused Plans
Multi-Hazard Emergency Operations Plan
Tsunami
Pier Emergency
Civil Unrest
Alert & Warning
Brush Fire Evacuation
City Facility Emergency Action Plans
Department Procedures
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update)
HAZARD ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Greatest Risk Earthquake Tsunami Wildland Fire Flood Inundation due to Dam
Failure
Severe Weather Sea-Level Rise
Summary
Lower Risk Coastal Flooding Landslide Structure Fires Hazardous Materials Release
Airport Crashes
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Risk Assessment Data
HazUS (Hazards US)
FEMA GIS-based risk assessment software
Estimate risk of earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, and
floods
Not available for wildfire, extreme heat, sea-level
rise
HazUS analysis results presented to Resilience Planning Committee in January 2024
Crisis Track tool used to estimate potential wildfire loss Only reviews Santa Monica’s local impacts
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) M 7.4 on Santa Monica fault M 7.2 on Newport-Inglewood fault
M 7.7 on the Palos Verdes
fault (tsunami scenario)
M 7.8 on Southern San
Andreas fault (ShakeOut
scenario)
Earthquake
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Earthquake Risk Analysis Results
(using HazUS)
Santa
Monica
NewportInglewoodPalos
Verdes
San
Andreas*
Building Damage
Slight 10,543 7,557 2,881 506
Moderate 5,974 2,376 1,460 60
Extensive 1,511 364 677 4
Complete 675 60 269 0
Building Losses $3.41 B $1.01 B $1.47 B $31.09 M
Total Economic Loss $3.43 billion $1.02 billion $1.48 billion $33.13 million Injuries
Slight 279-1,002 55-167 48-186 1-3
Moderate 66-275 8-31 10-47 0
Severe 9-44 1-4 1-7 0
Fatalities 18-85 1-7 3-14 0
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Residential Building Loss as a
Percentage of Residential
Building Exposure
M7.4 Santa Monica EQ M7.2 Newport-Inglewood EQ
M7.7 Palos Verdes EQ M7.8 San Andreas EQ
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) M7.7 Palos Verdes EQ M7.8 San Andreas EQ
M7.4 Santa Monica EQ M7.2 Newport-Inglewood EQ
M7.7 Palos Verdes EQ M7.8 San Andreas EQ
Commercial Building Loss
as a Percentage of
Commercial Building
Exposure
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local sources
• Offshore faults
• Submarine landslides
Long distance sources (tele-tsunamis)
• Alaska
• Central and South America
• Other
Tsunami
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Scenario: Tele
-tsunami originating
in Alaska with 20-foot run-up
Statewide Tsunami
Inundation Map
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Component Results
Exposed
Population
(does not include
visitors)
Under 65 729 - 1,857
65 and Over 119 - 166
Total 848 - 2,023
Casualties Fatalities 80 - 931
Injuries 80 - 545
Total 160 - 1,476
Damaged
Buildings
Complete Loss 3
Building Losses $18.25 - $182.6 million
Casualty ranges represent community preparedness levels of “Good” and “Fair” Tsunami Risk Analysis Results
(using HazUS)
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Inundation Due to
Stone Canyon
Dam Failure
(Genterra Consultants, 2018)
Flooding
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) HazUS
Estimated Residential
Building Losses (in $)
0.00 – 233,000.00
233,000.01 – 916,000.00
916,000.01 – 2,573,000.00
2,573,000.01 – 5,135,000.00
5,135,000.01 – 10,509,000.00
Flooding Boundaries • Centinela Ave from Colorado
Ave to Ocean Park Blvd
• 30th Street & Pearl St • Yorkshire Ave & Urban Ave • Stewart St & Kansas Ave • Cloverfield Blvd & 26th St • 26th St & Colorado Ave Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) HazUS
Estimated Commercial
Building Losses (in $)
0.00 – 9,000.00
9,000.01 – 69,000.00
69,000.01 – 378,000.00
378,000.01 – 1,155,000.00
1,155,000.01 – 3,590,000.00
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Stone Canyon Dam Risk Analysis Results
(using HazUS)
Moderate Damage: 214 buildings
205 residential
• 7 commercial
• 2 industrial
Destroyed:
23 residential buildings
No essential facilities impacted
Displaced: 464 households (1,393 people)
59 people require public shelter
Building losses: $56M – $120 million
Total building-related economic losses: $227 million
Area impacted has higher social vulnerability ranking Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Pre-Palisades Fire
California Fire
Hazard Severity
Zones (FHSZ)
Very High Hazard in a
Local Responsibility Area
Additional Wildfire Impacts:
Transportation
Health (smoke, ashes, stress)
Pre-2025 Wildland Fire Hazard
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Palisades Fire Impact
Property Damage
Destroyed: +6,800
Major: 72
Minor: 171
Affected: 732
No Damage: +4,300
ArcGIS - Palisades Fire
Structure Status Map
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Post
-Palisades Fire
2025 California Fire
Hazard Severity
Zones (FHSZ) • Crisis Track Data • If all properties were uniformly impacted, property damage to 1,715 structures would
range from $60 Million - $660 Million
• Northeastern section of the city has higher
density of persons with disabilities and over 65
years old
Very High Hazard
High Hazard
Moderate Hazard
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Source: R. Ehlers, 2022, Climate Change Impacts Across California: Cross Cutting Issues:
The Legislatives Analyst’s Office, April.
Impacts of
Climate Change
Difficult to measure but
potentially in the billions
of $
Dependent on our
ability to reduce
greenhouse gas
emissions
Climate Change Hazards
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Impacts of Sea-Level Rise
Infrastructure, beaches, homes and
businesses at risk
Costs of sea-level rise by 2100 if not
abated:
• Public damage: $8.4 million
• Private damage: $22.7 million
• Non-market losses: $816.4 million
• Total: $847.5 million
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update)
MITIGATION ACTION ITEMS
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Five-Year Mitigation Action Plan
Mitigation Actions
• Measures, projects, plans or activities proposed to
reduce identified vulnerabilities
• Developed and prioritized by Resilience Planning
Committee
• After Palisades Fire and new state fire hazard maps, city leaders identified additional wildfire mitigation
strategies
• Progress monitored by OEM
• Status update provided in next LHMP
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Constraints to Implementation
• Funding
• Reduced capital improvement budget
• Grant instability and competition
• Staff capacity to implement
• Competing public interests
• Regulatory hurdles
• Unforeseen events
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Planning
Recommended Action
Item
Summarized Description Department(s)
Responsible
Water Deconfliction
Planning
Identify strategies for immediate and long-term local
potable water services during disaster events, such as
seismic events, wildfire or drought. Identify water
deconfliction strategy to prioritize water usage during emergencies (i.e. recreational pools vs. firefighting needs) Public Works
Evacuation Planning Assess Santa Monica’s transportation network and multimodal citywide evacuation routes identified by the City’s revised Safety Element. Create a citywide evacuation plan to meet anticipated demand during emergency events,
such as tsunami, dam inundation, or wildfire. Plan to include evacuation considerations for persons with access and
functional needs, including those without access to private transportation, and persons living in assisted living and highrise buildings. Publicize to the community.
Office of Emergency
Management
Transportation
Police
Santa Monica Airport (SMO)
Design
In the planning of the Santa Monica Airport space, ensure that emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response
features are included, such as the storage of disaster cache supplies and space for emergency operations
(owned/operated and available for use by public safety
departments).
City Manager’s Office
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Expand on Existing
Evacuation Activities • Safety Element pages 3-11 –
3-17
• Expand on evacuation
protocols in Tsunami
Playbook and Traffic Services
Brushfire Evacuation Plan
• DOT, SMPD, OEM, CDD SMEs
conducted evaluation of
hazard zone, evacuation
routes • Single egress parcels
identified
• Routes identified based on
historic traffic capacity,
signals, detour opportunities
• Tsunami, Stone Canyon,
Wildfire evacuation routes • Separate maps per hazard
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Local Assessment & Regulations
Recommended Action
Item
Summarized Description Department(s)
Responsible
Santa Monica Bluffs and I-10
Freeway Slope & Brush Fire
Mitigation
Continue to inspect and monitor Santa Monica coastal
bluffs and I-10 Freeway slope stability and brush
overgrowth. Where necessary, implement actions needed
to mitigation land instability, especially during rain and seismic events, and clear brush and other debris to mitigate brush fires.
Public Works
Fire
Red Flag Warning
Restrictions
Implement policy that during any Red Flag Warning,
restrictive measures will be implemented to reduce fire ignition opportunities and facilitate rapid first responder response activities. Restrictions to be considered include, but are not limited to, parking restrictions in Very High hazard zones and evacuate routes and
construction/landscaping activity bans.
Fire
Office of Emergency
Management
Resilient City Facility Design
Standards
Implement and enhance a set of design standards for Cityowned and/or City/tenant-operated facilities, both to ensure their operability post-disaster and to protect
occupants. Prioritize seismic retrofits of public
infrastructure and facilities to minimize potential damage, ensure protection of vulnerable populations, and continuity of government operations.
Public Works
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Structure & Infrastructure
Recommended Action
Item
Summarized Description Department(s)
Responsible
Water Infrastructure
Seismic Assessment
Examine water system resistance to local seismic hazards, especially water infrastructure that crosses potential
liquefaction zones and areas where traces or projections of the Santa Monica fault have been mapped. Consider
retrofitting older water pipelines and other strategies to address identified seismic vulnerability.
Public Works
Back-Up Utilities Identify and create program to implement critical, utility back-up systems at City facilities and essential/emergency community facilities, including but not limited to microgrids, solar + storage, and other back-up sustainable utility
resources.
Public Works
City Manager’s Office
Tsunami Alerting System Implement overhead paging at Santa Monica Pier with ability to provide tsunami alerts and evacuation directions.
Complete assessment of other communications tools, such as, but not limited to digital kiosks and siren systems, to widely distribute tsunami education and imminent threat alerts and warnings along Santa Monica’s coastal areas.
Regularly test communications systems during
earthquake/tsunami preparedness events.
Office of Emergency
Management
Police
Community Development
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Natural Systems Improvement
Recommended Action
Item
Summarized Description Department(s)
Responsible
Natural Dune Restoration
Expansion
To protect beaches and beach-front properties from
erosion, sea level rise, and coastal flooding, continue to expand and maintain Natural Dune Beach Restoration
projects. By the end of 2029, the goal would be to have at least 50 acres of established beach dunes.
City Manager’s Office
Food Resilience through
Community Gardening
Increase production of food grown and donated from Cityowned community gardens to local organizations to increase food resilience of vulnerable Santa Monica
residents through the expansion of additional community garden space.
City Manager’s Office
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Education & Awareness
Recommended Action
Item
Summarized Description Department(s)
Responsible
Inclusive Emergency
Communications
Conduct emergency response, mitigation, and
preparedness outreach in multiple languages to better
reach diverse Santa Monica communities, including
international tourists and persons with access and
functional needs. Create standards for emergency
response messaging to ensure it meets standards in the
City’s Language Access Administrative Instruction.
Office of Emergency
Management
City Manager’s Office
Local Wildfire Safety
Education
Develop education campaign on mandatory wildfire safety practices, such as defensible space standards and wildland urban interface building codes, required for areas of Santa Monica within the 2025 State-identified Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone.
Fire
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) City Readiness
Recommended Action
Item
Summarized Description Department(s)
Responsible
Expand Critical Emergency
Management Technologies
Expand City GIS mapping, staffing, training, and tools to better facilitate emergency planning and response
activities, including use of public education/
communications. Expand on cloud infrastructure, data
servers, and staffing to support the implementation,
execution, and maintenance of critical technologies to
support first responders. Continue adopting evacuation
mapping technology to improve awareness of city
evacuation zones, hazard areas, and assist with prompt
implementation of evacuation and shelter-in-place
directions during emergencies.
Information Services
Office of Emergency
Management
Fire
Police
Public Works
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Approval Timeline
Task Approximate Timeline
Public Comment August – September 2025
Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission October 8, 2025
Planning Commission October 15, 2025
Environment & Sustainability
Commission
October 20, 2025
City Council Review & Adoption November 18, 2025
Submit Plan to Cal OES & FEMA for
Approval
December – January 2025
City Council Adoption of Any Edits February – April 2026 Initiate Accessible Plan Design Upon FEMA Approval
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) Feedback &
Questions
[email protected]
SantaMonica.gov/Safety-Element-Update
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
4.S.g
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7378 : Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 18, 2025
Agenda Item: 5.B
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):
John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2; LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al; LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.
City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV0239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v.
City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe 53 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV31763; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al.; LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV24158
5.B
Packet Pg. 1635
2 of 2
Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
5.B
Packet Pg. 1636
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 18, 2025
Agenda Item: 5.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Teri Davis Bernstein v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCP04293 Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
5.D
Packet Pg. 1637
1 David Yakobson
From: Peter A Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:12 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: 2644 33rd St. Rezoning
EXTERNAL
Council & Co,
I am recommending that the City allow an appropriate legal action to proceed for the above project..
Please follow the law.
Thanks,
蚋蚌蚍蚎Peter A Donald
2618 32nd St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 871-4862
[email protected]
Item 5-D
November 18, 2025
Item 5-D
November 18, 2025
5.D.a
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7418 : 5.D. Closed Session: Terri Davis) 2 David Yakobson
From: RICHARD BERNSTEIN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:15 PM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Lana Negrete
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 5-D – Litigation re "Common Sense" CEQA Exemption at 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
The City changed the zoning of a portion of 2644 30th Street from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial and determined that this zoning change was exempt from CEQA under the “Common Sense Exemption” because "there is no possibility that the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment." The City failed to comply with the law.
The City's proposed rezoning may have significant environmental impacts on this residential neighborhood. The existing office building at 2644 30th Street may be redeveloped immediately for uses that are substantially different from what exists today (including materially different commercial activity) that would encroach upon the neighborhood. The building can be redeveloped to an 85 feet tall housing structure across from one and two-story homes in a residential neighborhood, with only a 10-year reprieve.
Even without any redevelopment at all, the rezoning permits the building, which has consisted of office space for decades (i.e., people working from 9am-5pm, Monday through Friday), to now immediately be converted to use as a restaurant or another commercial establishment, which would have significant environmental impacts (e.g., constant in-and-out traffic, double parking food delivery vehicles, noise, air quality and other environmental factors that do not currently exist in this neighborhood).
It is simply not possible for the City to show that the rezoning of this property has no possible significant effects on the environment. We ask that the City follow the law and conduct the proper environmental review process required of it, and consequently reverse the rezoning of 2644 30th Street to Neighborhood Commercial.
Thanks,
Richard Bernstein
2606 29th Street
Santa Monica
Item 5-D
November 18, 2025
Item 5-D
November 18, 2025
5.D.a
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7418 : 5.D. Closed Session: Terri Davis) 3 David Yakobson
From: David Yuguchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 3:38 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: 11/18/25 agenda item 5-D – Litigation re "Common Sense" CEQA Exemption at 2644 30th St.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, City Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and Office of Emergency Management,
The City changed the zoning of a portion of 2644 30th Street from R1 to Neighborhood Commercial and determined that this zoning change was exempt from CEQA under the “Common Sense Exemption” because "there is no possibility that the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment." The City failed to comply with the law.