The Review recently reported that I had expressed concerns about the tsunami siren project. Since I have recieved inquiries,

(1) I think the HMB sirens should be located out of the dam inundation and tsunami run up zone so that it will survive (the plan is for the sirens to be usable for multiple emergencies). The battery box is 10 feet above the ground and would be needlessly wiped out. Our LCP policies, zoning ordinances and general plan safety element (did you know we had one?) all prohibit development in this location.

(2) The sirens are intended to alert people for in a one-mile radius, and so it’s going to be pretty loud (if you’re an engineer, the sound increases inversely to the square of the distance from the source). That mean that if you’re 400 feet or less from the horn (in the current location, that would be me, but if the horn is too close to your house, it could be you), it will be really loud. If you have ever inadvertently tripped an alarm in a small room, it is not just awakening; it is dazing. With such a radius, and the City’s open space and easements, we should be able to locate the siren in such a way that all homes in the target region get the warning, but the distance from the siren to the first house is maximized. Apparently, the proposal was initially to place the siren in the middle of Casa del Mar. I applaud the decision to relocate it, but not in the coastal hazard zone, and not so close to the SAM Plant workers and to my corner of the neighborhood. The impact could be reduced by targeting the horns more carefully, and by having additional (less loud) siren poles at other locations.

(3) The testing plan described in the project was vague, and the limit of 1 minute of siren blasting per month is not justified for reliability testing; most of that can be done silently, and the horn can be tested in 50 milliseconds, enough time to observe the amperage on the siren circuit, and then be ended. It would be over before anyone know it started.

The real objective of testing aeems to be to train the public (hence the reference to “duck and cover” drill for those of us old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis). I’m all for training, but want it to be effective. And as others have commented, I want to see that it is part of a larger plan that leads to a safe evacuation. Perhaps that is the case, but none of that was in evidence. Moreover, under the proposed conditions, the duration of testing could be modified without limit by a stroke of the HMB Planning Director’s pen. A change like that can have significant impacts, and deserves to be the subject of a CDP amendment, not directorial discretion.

(continued in first reply)

(continuing from original post…)

(4) Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public has a right to know more about the project’s details and potential impacts, and have a chance to review and comment on them.

I oppose neither sirens nor redundant warning systems, but this project needs additional planning to reduce its impacts, be more survivable, and conform to the law. I have spoken to Jim Asche, and he has proposed a meeting to continue our conversation. And whatever comes out of those meetings will certainly be subject to more public scrutiny and review than the original project..

Hope this helps,

- Jimmy Benjamin

There has been some discussion (and not a little mudslinging) over at the Review’s forum about the tsunami evacuation route signs. Actually, when the sirens go off, the officials want you to tune your radio/tv to the stations the broadcast emergency warnings—for example, KQED-88.5 FM. This is because they would like to tune any required evacuation to the emergency. People who need to evacuate a small tsunami should not be delayed by needless evacuations by those who are already on sufficiently high ground.

Perhaps most importantly, if the coastside experiences an earthquake violent enough to knock you down and keep you from getting up, or if you observe the ocean receding, or see large waves moving beyond the beach, don’t wait for a siren; take your family to an upland location, east of Hwy 92 until you the authorities give the all-clear that it is safe to return.

There are alternate methods to receive warnings of impending natural disasters. You can participate in San Mateo County’s alert system by visiting http://www.smcalert.info. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates a tsunami warning system which you can subscribe to at http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/subscribe.php

Those tsunami alert signs on highway might be useful in the event that we had 8 hours before a really BIG tsunami hit us; that much time should allow an orderly evacuation of the entire coastside.

But as you can see, warning systems are a complex topic, and although there are site specific issues, planning and operating them requires systematic thinking.

Of course, the nameless, shameless trolls that seem to prefer the anonymity of that forum that can’t think of anything else to say are free to hurl accusations of NIMBY, but anyone who can read will find a long record at City Hall that shows I have been commented on the public record concerning projects throughout the community. Since I am not a public official, there is no reason for me to withold comment on projects occurring near my home. ““My backyard” is not special because I live there; it is special because survey after survey confirms it contains legally protected ESHAs that support rare and endangered species. With proper advocacy, there is no reason it should not stay that way.

I will gladly continue to discuss the siren issue, but the trolls that thrive on personal attacks will have to pretend to be adults and come out of the shadows as coastsider.com.

Thank you, Barry, for providing aforum for responsible citizens to communicate about this important topic.

- Jimmy

A reply was posted to the Review’s blog by “Joan” questioning whether I knew about the sirens earlier when I was on the planning commission, why this isn’t like tornado sirens in the midwest or like the sirens in SF, and urging me to think about what is best for the community, not just my corner of the world. I have cross-posted my reply here to provide authenticity.

Hi Joan,

Your assumption is correct. It has been years since I served on the planning commission.

Stanford put some letters after my name for a some studies and a dissertation I wrote in risk engineering, I have consulted with experts, and the project planner confirmed to me that the device can be tested without an actually sounding the alarm.

As I wrote earlier, I understand the need for well-planned drills. They should be part of a coherent plan, that has a high probability of saving lives, and they should be planned and regulated by the permit.

Joan, a 131 dB (C) siren is LOUD—according to the manufacturer’s specification, it will warn people for a radius of a mile. I don’t think that you would find living right next to it much of an advantage. If you really do feel it is desirable and your neighbors agree, you may want to invite the County OES to put the siren in your backyard, if it is out of the tsunami uprush and dam inundation.

Coastal hazards are different than midwestern ones, quiet areas are different than noisy ones, rural areas are different than urban ones. There can be and should be a better, lower-impact solution that provides the warnings you seek. Are you planning to contact the OES to urge them to move the siren back to the middle of Casa del Mar, where it was originally proposed, and would give more people a head start? Since you are mindful the budget, I suppose that you would would like a more survivable system, and the center of Casa del Mar is out of the City’s tsunami uprush and dam inundation zone.

I appreciate your desire to ensure that public officials put their personal views aside and consider matters in the public interest. We can each can have our own points of view on public matters. The fact that I wrote the City, and that I have been having this conversation is, I hope, and indication that I’m trying to make sure that they are well-informed points of view. When I was a planning commissioner I routinely recused myself from matters that posed a conflict of interest, and I would do the same in any office of public trust, so I wouldn’t have to apologize to anyone for having my own point of view, and my own personal preferences. If you decide to run for public office, I am sure that you would do the same.

Peace out.

- Jimmy

NOTE: on an earlier post, I mentioned that when we hear sirens, the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services (OES) wants us to tune in an emergency warning system broadcast station. I mentioned KQED 88.5 FM, but the OES website mentions KCBS 740 AM. I defer to them.