Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hazard Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gardena approves Local Hazard Mitigation Plan with corrections after council questions
Summary
Council approved the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Item 8F) Oct. 22, voting to adopt the plan while directing staff to correct typographical errors and noting the plan emphasizes building resilience and planning tools rather than individual social services.
Get email alerts on the Hazard Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Gardena City Council approved the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Item 8F) at its Oct. 22 meeting, voting to adopt the document with typographical corrections noted by Councilmember Francis.
Councilmember Francis flagged spelling errors and several misnamed local institutions in the draft (including a reference that should read "Gardena Memorial Hospital") and asked whether the plan sufficiently addressed vulnerable populations and infrastructure such as storm drains and sewers. He described the document as "very well written" but expressed concern that it emphasizes damage to buildings rather than human vulnerability.
Public Works staff explained the plan’s purpose: it is a planning document focused on strengthening the built environment — for example, getting a generator for City Hall and updating building codes — rather than a recovery plan that details operational responses for people after an event. Public Works also told council that separate documents, such as the Sewer Master Plan, address operational systems and recovery for sewers and drains.
Following that exchange, Mayor Serta moved to approve Item 8F with corrections to three specified pages; the motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka and passed by roll call with all council members voting yes.
The council’s approval directs staff to make the typographical corrections identified by council and to return any ordinance or code changes if needed for future consideration. The vote and the director’s explanation leave the plan’s emphasis on structural resiliency intact while acknowledging public concerns about how the plan represents impacts to people and infrastructure.

