sr-072782-11hVR:fwp Santa Monica, California
City Council,P4eeting 7/27/82
TO: P4ayor and City Council
~UL 2 7 192
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Request to Re-evaluate Civil Defense and Crisis
Relocation Planning for City in the Event of
a Nuclear war
INTRODUCTION
In late May, 1982, the City Manager was asked to inform the City
Council of a County-wide re-evaluation of Civii Defense and
Crisis Relocation Planning which was occurring in Los Angeles
County. The Emergency Preparedness Commission for the County and
Cities of Los Angeles has judged that a crisis relocation plan
for the Los Angeles area is not a viable means to protect the
welfare of citizens in this area and is calling on local
governing bodies to be fully briefed before local crisis
relocation planning proceeds. The Commission has suggested that
other civil defense preparedness might be more appropriate and
could include anti-missile defense as well as shelter programs.
In response to the growing discussion of the viability of crisis
relocation and the general fearfulness of the possibility of
nuclear war, a group of Santa Monica citizens headed by Rev. Al
Smith, has written to the City Council requesting a local
re-evaluation similar to efforts underway in other communities.
The overall goal is to bring information to the public about the
civil defense measures which are contemplated and the reality of
1 ~- t~-
v~'~ ^ 7 i~g?
the devastation which would be faced by our community members if
a nuclear exchange actually occurred.
BACKGROUND
As a result of the dramatic increase in Federal civil defense
funding and a national emphasis on crisis relocation as a
reasonable response to the possibility of a nuclear exchange,
local communities across the nation and the State have held
hearings, passed resolutions, and published materials to address
the issue.
On June 10, 1982 the City of New York rejected a plan to remove
New York residents to upstate New York. in the event of a nuclear
war and a county by county re-evaluation is underway in New York
State.
From P4arch-September, 1981 the city of Cambridge, P4assachusetts
held hearings to which officials from the state emergency
preparedness were invited. A resolution was subsequently passed
by the City Council stating that there is no defense against
nuclear war except disarmament. State funds for Civil Defense
were utilized in that community to publish an educational
pamphlet on the dangers of nuclear war.
In Marin County the Director of Health Services delivered to the
Board of Supervisors a report describing the crisis relocation
plan as unworkable and on that basis the plan was rejected by the
County.
2
Humboldt County recently sent a letter to President Reagan asking
for a reduction in the nuclear arsenal and stressed the
incapacity of local governments to deal with an emergency of the
magnitude of a nuclear war. And in the second week of July, 1982
the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County after lengthy
discussion passed a resolution rejecting the proposed crisis
relocation plan for their area.
FISCAL IMPACT
Currently the City receives the equivalent of 1/2 the salary of
Officer Gregory Slaughter from Federal funds. There is the
possibility that this funding may be jeopardized if the City
itself refuses to participate in the Crisis Relocation Planning.
However, critical discussion of these issues is becoming so
widespread that there is no way to ascertain at this point what
the financial response will actually be from the Federal
government.
RECOMMENDATION
A Civil Defense and Disaster Council was established by Ordinance
in 1978 to monitor disaster planning. This Council is composed
of the Mayor as Chair, City Manager, Chief of Police and
Co-ordinator of Emergency Services. Staff suggests that a
citizen advisory committee to the Civil Defense and Disaster
Council be established to review the County location plan, hold
public hearings on the issue, and make recommendations for
3
further action. Specialists from the State and County,
scientists, physicians and religious leaders as well as concerned
citizens would be invited to present information in open public
hearings about the consequences of a nuclear war and the
possibilities for surviving such an event,
Participants in the advisory council shall be drawn from
interested members of our community who have addressed the issues
from a personal and/or professional basis. Appointments would be
made after a notification and application process. Staff to the
committee would be provided by the Co-ordinator of Emergency
Services and Community Liaison.
Prepared by: Vivian Rothstein, Community Liaison
4
E
C
T~~ ~~~~~G~NCY PREPaREU~~~s~~o~~'ssioN
FOR THE COUNTY AND CITIES OF LOS ANGEC~~'~F
743 Hall of Administration / Cos Angeles, California 90012 / 9z~i47~ ~ 3 ~~ P
U[
May 17, 1982
HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County of Los Angeles
383 Hall of Administration
Gentlemen:
CIVIL DEFENSE AND
CRISIS RELOCATION PLANNING
Truman Chaffin
Chairman
Allen R. Evansen
Vice Chairman
Gilbett D. Smith
Secretary
Ezu nial Burts
James J. Enright
Harry 5. Hansen
Arthur E. Jones
Charles Mitchell
George A Morrison
The President's budget request for FY 1982-83 submitted to the
Congress in early February, proposed the first .significant
increase in civil defense funding in nearly 20 years--a 90
per cent increase to $252,3 million, with continuing increases
planned through 1989. This enhanced national civil defense
program reemphasizes the Crisis Relocation Planning, that is,
planning for .the pre-attack evacuation of risk area populations
and their care in safer host areas.
In response to, your instructions, the County Chief Administrative
Office and other departments are preparing a comprehensive report
with recommendations to your Board on civil defense and disaster
preparedness, including crisis relocation.
The Emergency Preparedness Commission has been reviewing the
crisis relocation concept and discussing local concerns with
federal and state planners for some time. At its meeting on
May 12, 1982, the Commission adopted the attached resolution,
reiterating our serious doubt that crisis relocation is a viable
concept for the greater Los Angeles area, but recognizing that
State planners may proceed with the planning. The resolution
includes separate recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors
and the Director of the California Office of Emergency Services
(a copy is being forwarded to him).
THEREFORE IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Urge the President and the Governor of California to
reassess protection needs and crisis relocation for
the greater Los Angeles area and adjust both defense
and emergency management programs to provide substantially
F. _... _. .:.:" "_
r~_
THE EMERGENCY PREPARE®NESS C®~rA1SSION
FOR THE COUNTY AND CITtES'OF LOS ANGELES
743 Hall of Administration (los Angeles, California 90012 / 974-1414 Truman Chaffin
Chairman
Allen R. Evansen
Vice Chairman
Gilbert D. Smith
RESOLUTION CONCERNING Secretary
CIVIL DEFENSE AND CRISIS RELOCATION PLANNING Jamesl Emig ht
Harry S. Hansen
iKay 12 1982 Arthur E. Jones
~ Charles Mitchell
George A. Morrison
WHEREAS crisis relocation (pre-attack evacuation of risk area
populations and their care in safer host areas) is one of several
elements of an enhanced national civil defense program contemplated
in 1980 changes to federal law, and it is considered to be feasible
in many areas of the nation; and
WY.EREAS the Emergency Preparedness Commission for the County
and Cities of Los Angeles has considered the crisis relocation
concept for the past two years and has expressed serious doubt that
it is a viable concept for the greater Los Angeles area. Among our
reasons are:
There are 11 million people within 60 miles of downtown
Los Angeles (7.5 million people and 82 incorporated cities
in Los Angeles County alone) in a unique geographical
setting which does not lend itself to a plan that would
require evacuating most of these 11 million people in a
relatively brief period of time; and
Considering the millions of people and colossal logistical
problems involved, limited egress routes, distances to be
traveled, extensive facilities and support required, and
the expense and resources needed to develop and maintair.
evacuation and hosting capabilities in readiness, the
current concept appears impractical for this area; and
Little enthusiasm or support for crisis relocation planning
has been expressed by local officials in this area; and
Individual county and city plans for crisis relocation
from this area are not practical; if planning is to proceed,
it should be on a regional (multi-county) basis as a federal
or state master plan, and all local costs to develop and
maintain readiness capabilities should-be federally funded,
743 Hall o`' Administration /Los Angeles, California 9007 2 / 974-7 47 4 Truman Chditln
Chairman
Allen R. Evansen
Vice Chairmar,
May 17 , 1982 Gilbert D. Smith
Secretary
Ezun;al eurts
James J. Enright
Harry S. Hansen
Arthur E. Jones
Charles Mitchell
George A. Morrison
Mr. Alex R. Cunningham, Director
State Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 9577
Sacramento, CA 95823
Dear :~1r. Cunningham:
CIVIL DEFENSE AND CRISIS RELOCATION PLANS?I NC
The attached resolution was. adopted by the Emergency Pre-
paredness Commissioners at our meeting on May 12, 1982, It
includes consideration of your Regional Manager's letter,
dated April 29, 1982.
Please note that the resolution reiterates our serious doubt
that crisis relocation is a viable concept for the greater
Los Angeles area, recommends important reassessment and ad-
justments to meet local needs, and urges that you ensure that
the governing bodies of county and city governments and
appropriate officials of the public and private sectors are
fully briefed by federal and state officials before local
crisis relocation planning proceeds.
Very truly y~oju~rs~
TRU^1AN CHAFFIN // /
Chairman
TC:kv
Attachment
cc: Commission Members
Robert L. Vickers, Director,
F~1A Region IX
Jim Alexander, Manager,
OES Region I