Loading...
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