Duck and Cover

The baby boom generation went through school years being lied to and terrorized about nuclear bombs and how one could protect oneself until the civil defense workers could come to one's aid. Seriously, years of this. A generation of kids anxious about "the bomb" and following the rules. Wednesday night the Southern California Edison (SCE) representative (corporate owner) of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (a really inappropriate acronym being SONGS) gave a presentation.

Presentation by the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services on the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station Emergency Response Plan and consideration of a draft letter to federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and federal legislators expressing public safety concerns.

According to a room full of well informed citizens, the 30 minute presentation was as useful of this 60 year old civil defense propaganda piece. Truthiness! The video clips below are the antidote to this kind of manufactured misinformation. These are just a small percentage of the evening's San Onofe interested electorate and council discussion. Don Mosier, Del Mar council member and scientist trained in radiation safety and biology. He speaks with authority of the contents of the Del Mar letter and the research leading to full and transparent public process. Data of NRC is based on information from the 1960's (like our film above).

   

 Gene Stone of ROSE (Residents Organized for a Safe Environment) spoke. He just met with Chairman McFarland of the NRC and he knows she is interested in meeting with local governments.

   

 Carol John Cowan spoke of the many issues of San Onofre, not just the emergency action plan presented which is predicated on a perfect day. She wants a full public hearing on all the issues, for more information for full transparency.

   

 Cathy Iwane spoke of living in Japan for 25 years and leaving for the safety of her children. This account is chilling as it is, unlike any other,  the actual experience.  

 

 Tory Johnson spoke. Later when it was clear that Edison "expert" the Deputy City Manager couldn't answer city council questions, Mr. Johnson jumped up and gave a succinct answer. When it happened again Jerome Stocks snapped at him and threatened him. Too much information for the mayor?

 

Councilwoman Teresa Barth provides the stronger wording of the Santa Monica letter (Friends of the Earth) to the NRC and it is approved by the majority in the revised letter from the Encinitas staff version. *you could knock me over with a feather* A rare treat indeed when the citizens and the representative for the minority voice is listened to and followed. (Just before midnight)

 

Myths Encinitas

Tree City USA, Urban Forest Policy and other designations claimed by the Encinitas City is largely mythical. It just doesn't seem like Engineering got the memo from Public Works (and clearly unfamiliar with the Environmental Commission).  Public Works was in charge of writing the manual on Encinitas Urban Forest, including heritage trees.  Engineering is pretty much robotically wired to road code dimensions and are rarely swayed by real life or logic.

This particular week we have the perfect storm of empty rhetoric regarding city council policies actually effectively connecting and engaging various departments' supposed commitment to Encinitas community character, Encinitas trees and Encinitas Urban Forest.

Why? The agenda for Wednesday's meeting agenda includes the merging of two department director positions into one. Consolidation of the positions of Director of Engineering and Director of Public Works into Director of Engineering and Public Works. We question the success of that merger in the current culture at city hall that does not celebrate connectivity, collaboration or cooperation.

Meanwhile, another agenda item:
Public Hearing of the appeal of Engineering conditions for public improvements adjacent to 1794 Crest Drive. Reading through the appeal makes the many layers of trees, street standards, infrastructure, community character and financial hardship a complex web of assumptions, justification and a fair dose of misinterpretation.  Behind it all is money (see Growth: Ponzi Scheme series) and an authoritarian adherence to codes as power.  It's how it sounds to this reader. The appellant's challenges the reality of the city plan for a trail throughout the Crest Drive built out area will ever happen, yet alone that harms no trees. Another mythical notion of shared goals amongst departments with a council majority uninterested in making these connections.

It is very difficult to ascribe "good faith" to our city departments dealings with single family residents, given a long history of inconsistent treatment of resident requests. Indeed, there is a very real reluctance of homeowners, architects and contractors to come forward with individual stories because of fear of retaliation in their properties and businesses.

It's vital we all keep hearing, learning and sharing our preferred city government ideals.  Planting trees should be more than a political photo op. There are  fantastic examples all around us, and some close by, of a better way to deal with sincere connections to our public spaces, our trees and our private property and business owners.  These magnificent pines on Crest Drive and all the other vegetation is of upmost importance in this time of drought, climate change, erosion, need for sustainability and economic depression.

Andy Lipkis, well known TreePeople founder, known to many in Encinitas speaks here about  our need for functioning community forests as acupuncture used strategically to heal; for our watersheds, to create oxygen and filters for our air and coolants and . . . well start at 6:00 to dive right into it. Enabling community is at the heart and soul of this for success.  We could have this kind of thinking on our city council.

Love the part about we Americans just hate to be told what to do, but when informed we want to help.

Crest Drive is yet another opportunity for our city council to seek policy for connections and restoration rather than piecemeal acquisition of scattered contract work for favored vendors. After Wednesday there will only be about a half dozen council meetings until the election. Time to envision change and campaign for it too. 

Confessions of a Recovering Engineer

Pay Attention Rob Blough! and all the Encinitas Engineering Department.  This is also dedicated to the council majority and the people who refuse to question the status quo for any reason . . . just because.

This reprint from Strong Towns blog by Charles Marohn (in its entirety) is for you.

It is also in vindication of the hundreds of citizens who have attempted to be heard by engineers at city hall.

After graduating from college with a civil engineering degree, I found myself working in my home town for a local engineering firm doing mostly municipal engineering (roads, sewer pipe, water pipe, stormwater). A fair percentage of my time was spent convincing people that, when it came to their road, I knew more than they did. 

And of course I should know more. First, I had a technical degree from a top university. Second, I was in a path towards getting a state license (at the time I was an Engineer in Training, the four-year "apprenticeship" required to become a fully licensed Professional Engineer), which required me to pass a pretty tough test just to get started and another, more difficult, exam to conclude. Third, I was in a profession that is one of the oldest and most respected in human history, responsible for some of the greatest achievements of mankind. Fourth - and most important - I had books and books of standards to follow. 

A book of standards to an engineer is better than a bible to a priest. All you have to do is to rely on the standards. Back in college I was told a story about how, in WW II, some Jewish engineers in hiding had run thousands of tedious tests on asphalt, just to produce these graphs that we still use today. Some of our craft descends from Roman engineers who did all of this a couple of millennia ago. How could I be wrong with literally thousands of years of professional practice on my side? 

And, more to the point, what business would I -- let alone a property owner on a project I was working on - have in questioning the way things were done? Of course the people who wrote the standards knew better than we did. That is why they wrote the standard. 

When people would tell me that they did not want a wider street, I would tell them that they had to have it for safety reasons. 

When they answered that a wider street would make people drive faster and that would be seem to be less safe, especially in front of their house where their kids were playing, I would confidently tell them that the wider road was more safe, especially when combined with the other safety enhancements the standards called for. 

When people objected to those other "enhancements", like removing all of the trees near the road, I told them that for safety reasons we needed to improve the sight distances and ensure that the recovery zone was free of obstacles.
When they pointed out that the "recovery zone" was also their "yard" and that their kids played kickball and hopscotch there, I recommended that they put up a fence, so long as the fence was outside of the right-of-way. 

When they objected to the cost of the wider, faster, treeless road that would turn their peaceful, front yard into the viewing area for a drag strip unless they built a concrete barricade along their front property line, I informed them that progress was sometimes expensive, but these standards have been shown to work across the state, the country and the world and I could not compromise with their safety. 

In retrospect I understand that this was utter insanity. Wider, faster, treeless roads not only ruin our public places, they kill people. Taking highway standards and applying them to urban and suburban streets, and even county roads, costs us thousands of lives every year. There is no earthly reason why an engineer would ever design a fourteen foot lane for a city block, yet we do it continuously. Why? 

The answer is utterly shameful: Because that is the standard. 

In the engineering profession's version of defensive medicine, we can't recommend standards that are not in the manual. We can't use logic to vary from a standard that gives us 60 mph design speeds on roads with intersections every 200 feet. We can't question why two cars would need to travel at high speed in opposite directions on a city block, let alone why we would want them to. We can yield to public pressure and post a speed limit -- itself a hazard -- but we can't recommend a road section that is not in the highway manual.  

When the public and politicians tell engineers that their top priorities are safety and then cost, the engineer's brain hears something completely different. The engineer hears, "Once you set a design speed and handle the projected volume of traffic, safety is the top priority. Do what it takes to make the road safe, but do it as cheaply as you can." This is why engineers return projects with asinine "safety" features, like pedestrian bridges and tunnels that nobody will ever use, and costs that are astronomical.  

An engineer designing a street or road prioritizes the world in this way, no matter how they are instructed:

• Traffic speed
• Traffic volume
• Safety
• Cost

The rest of the world generally would prioritize things differently, as follows:
Safety

• Cost
• Traffic volume
• Traffic speed

In other words, the engineer first assumes that all traffic must travel at speed. Given that speed, all roads and streets are then designed to handle a projected volume. Once those parameters are set, only then does an engineer look at mitigating for safety and, finally, how to reduce the overall cost (which at that point is nearly always ridiculously expensive). 

In America, it is this thinking that has designed most of our built environment, and it is nonsensical. In many ways, it is professional malpractice. If we delivered what society asked us for, we would build our local roads and streets to be safe above all else. Only then would we consider what could be done, given our budget, to handle a higher volume of cars at greater speeds. 

We go to enormous expense to save ourselves small increments of driving time. This would be delusional in and of itself if it were not also making our roads and streets much less safe. I'll again reference a 2005 article from the APA Journal showing how narrower, slower streets dramatically reduce accidents, especially fatalities. 

And it is that simple observation that all of those supposedly "ignorant" property owners were trying to explain to me, the engineer with all the standards, so many years ago. When you can't let your kids play in the yard, let alone ride their bike to the store, because you know the street is dangerous, then the engineering profession is not providing society any real value. It's time to stand up and demand a change. 

It's time we demand that engineers build us Strong Towns.

 Strong Towns blog and website have dozens of good posts and resources. And BTW, engineers, you can console yourselves that you don't suck as bad as the economists.