Orange County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Paradise Lost: If a Tsunami Strikes the Orange County Riviera... 04/14/08, 317k
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
The Sheriff Department’s existing tsunami inundation maps are inconsistent with those used by the two largest coastal cities, appear to minimize the threat and could contribute to misinformed decision-making during a crisis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Sheriff Department’s Emergency Management Bureau: Develop a plan in coordination with beach cities to standardize tsunami maps for the entire Orange County coast. 13
F2
Existing tsunami signs along roadways are small, difficult to read and, in at least one city, not visible to visitors driving into the tsunami hazard zone.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Sirens at the beach without public address capability are ineffective unless beachgoers know what the sirens mean and how to respond to the warning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach: Establish a means of informing non-resident visitors what the sirens mean and what visitors should do when the sirens sound.
F4
Public education directed at beach visitors is inadequate, making them the least prepared and highest at-risk population in the event of a tsunami. Responses to findings F-1, F-2 and F-4 are required from: • City Council, City of Newport Beach • County of Orange Sheriff-Coroner • City Council, City of Dana Point • City Council, City of Laguna Beach • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Seal Beach • City Council, City of San Clemente Responses to finding F-3 are required from: • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Newport Beach A response to finding F-2 is requested from: • OC Infrastructure (formerly the County Resources and Development Management Department) RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
All beach cities and the Sheriff Department’s Emergency Management Bureau: Develop methods to communicate tsunami public education messages to beach visitors. Responses to recommendations R-1, R-2a, R-2b and R-4 are required from: • City Council, City of Newport Beach • County of Orange Sheriff-Coroner • City Council, City of Dana Point • City Council, City of Laguna Beach • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Seal Beach • City Council, City of San Clemente Responses to recommendation R-3 are required from: • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Newport Beach A response to recommendations R-2a and R-2b is requested from: • OC Infrastructure (formerly the County Resources and Development Management Department) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. 14 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 15
Conclusions 1
-
CL1Because of the efforts of its emergency planners, the Orange County coast is probably better prepared for a tsunami than any other comparable stretch of California coast. Developing coordinated, countywide tsunami response plans with new signage and public education tools and activities represents a significant improvement. The Grand Jury concluded, however, that the information available to visitors and perhaps even to some residents is insufficient to reduce casualties in the event of a local tsunami disaster. The signage is too small and, in some cases, fails to provide adequate notice to visitors entering the tsunami hazard zone. Sirens may be ineffective unless those hearing the warning know what to do, through signage or other means. Public education is largely directed at permanent residents and overlooks visitors. Yet, on warm summer days, visitors may outnumber residents and be at greater risk in a tsunami due to inadequate information about tsunamis. COMMENDATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Grand Jury commends the emergency managers for Orange County coastal communities who, following the disastrous 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, took the initiative and provided the leadership to re-examine local tsunami plans. Their efforts led to the May 2006 countywide tsunami exercise in which representatives of more than five dozen government agencies participated. Thanks to them, Orange County is the most prepared stretch of coast in California to respond to a rare but dangerous tsunami. The Grand Jury also wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and professionalism of these emergency managers who answered the jurors’ many questions quite graciously.
Agency Responses 10
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.