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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
8 52 year resident of SM
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
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
10 Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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
5 Tina Cox
"Time spent with cats is never wasted"
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
27 Santa Monica
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
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
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
30 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
43 Sandra Laderas
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
Item 4-S
November 18, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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