San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2026-2027
The Sounds of Silence - Full ReportThis report details the Jury's research, investigation, findings, and recommendations.PublishedJune 16, 2026
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 12 findings
F1
The OPWS was originally designed for an aerial attack that is not a threat to San Francisco today.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Each type of emergency facing San Francisco, including earthquakes, tsunamis and extreme weather, requires its own emergency instructions, affects different areas of the city, and has different durations.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The OPWS was not designed for San Francisco’s current population, which is larger, multilingual, often indoors, and includes a substantial visitor population with little siren training or familiarity.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
A modernized version of the OPWS would still depend on listeners being outdoors, in range, and able to hear and understand the language of the broadcast.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Sirens cannot deliver the information people need to take protective action during an emergency.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Any siren-based approach to emergency warnings still requires San Francisco to maintain and use its existing digital messaging systems for emergencies including WEA, AlertSF, and social media.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Restoring OPWS would add a layer of infrastructure and operational complexity to emergency warnings without providing the specific, actionable instructions that discourage milling behavior.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The siren system has been inoperable since 2019 due to security vulnerabilities and deteriorating physical infrastructure without a firm commitment of resources for its restoration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By 1 January 2028, the Department of Public Works, in coordination with property owners where applicable, should remove or secure remnant siren hardware identified as a physical safety hazard.
F9
The status quo, in which OPWS is inoperable and no institutional actor has committed to either restoring or retiring the OPWS, produces ongoing cost without progress to restore OPWS or to confirm its retirement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By 1 July 2027, the Department of Emergency Management should formally advise the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors whether to restore or permanently retire the OPWS.
F10
The unresolved question of whether to restore or retire the OPWS consumes DEM capacity, including staff time and leadership attention, that could be spent improving the city’s emergency warning systems.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The public has not been given a clear explanation of OPWS’s historical importance or its current status, and the public information that does exist is outdated and contradictory.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
By 1 January 2028, the DEM should preserve one siren installation, restored and distinctively marked, as a permanent public safety monument with interpretive signage. The signage should explain the history of the siren system, its World War II origins, its role in San Francisco's public safety infrastructure, and the City's evolution toward modern emergency alerting. The monument should be visibly distinct, consistent with San Francisco's tradition of commemorative infrastructure such as the gold fire hydrant at Church and 20th Streets.26
R4
By 1 April 2027, the DEM should make available to the public a clear explanation of the City's emergency alerting strategy: what channels exist, how the public can access them, and the rationale for the City's approach. DEM should also correct or remove public-facing content that inaccurately describes the siren system. This explanation should be written for a general audience, available in the City's threshold languages, and maintained as a living resource. It should be accessible to anyone searching for "San Francisco emergency sirens" or "San Francisco emergency alerts." REQUIRED AND INVITED RESPONSES The following responses are required pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. Required Respondent Findings Recommendations Mayor of San Francisco F6, F7, F9–F12 R1, R2, R4 Board of Supervisors F6, F7, F9–F12 R1, R2 Invited Respondent Findings Recommendations SF Department of Emergency Management F1–F12 R1, R2, R3, R4 SF Department of Public Works F8, F9 R2
F12
The absence of a clear explanation of OPWS’s status has negative implications, including negative media coverage, and public uncertainty.
No recommendations for this finding