planning for post earthquake recovery san francisco s resilient city efforts
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Planning for Post-Earthquake Recovery: San Francisco’s Resilient City Efforts

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 56

Planning for Post-Earthquake Recovery: San Francisco’s Resilient City Efforts - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Planning for Post-Earthquake Recovery: San Francisco’s Resilient City Efforts. Bay Area Earthquake Alliance April 19, 2011. Presentation Overview. Pre-disaster Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery SPUR Resilient City Initiative City of San Francisco’s Recovery and Resilient SF Initiatives

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Planning for Post-Earthquake Recovery: San Francisco’s Resilient City Efforts' - teresa

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
planning for post earthquake recovery san francisco s resilient city efforts

Planning for Post-Earthquake Recovery: San Francisco’s Resilient City Efforts

Bay Area Earthquake AllianceApril 19, 2011

presentation overview
Presentation Overview
  • Pre-disaster Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery
  • SPUR Resilient City Initiative
  • City of San Francisco’s Recovery and Resilient SF Initiatives
  • Great East Japan Earthquake, Implications for Post-Disaster Recovery Planning in the Bay Area
value of planning for recovery before a disaster
Value of Planning for RecoveryBefore A Disaster
  • Anticipate, prevent, or minimize loss of life and property
    • Identify natural and human-caused risks, both short- and long-term
    • Promote methods for risk reduction
    • Bring community along regarding mitigation investments and their post-event value in loss reduction
  • Reduce scope and intensity of recovery and reconstruction tasks
    • Provide information on potential scenarios for recovery and rebuilding
    • Prepare pre-event plans and ordinances
  • Increase community resilience, i.e., enhance capability to withstand and rebound from future disasters
    • Call attention to need for developing disaster-resilience

Promotes good planning and governance in San Francisco Bay Area through research, education and advocacy

  • History began in 1910, working to improve housing conditions after the 1906 earthquake
  • Membership: >4,500
  • Staff: 20
    • Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director
    • Sarah Karlinsky, Deputy Director
spur s resilient city initiative one of 8 policy areas
SPUR’s Resilient City Initiative – One of 8 Policy Areas
  • Community Planning
  • Regional Planning
  • Disaster Planning
  • Housing
  • Transportation
  • Sustainable Development
  • Economic Development
  • Good Government

Before the Disaster – Seismic Mitigation Task Force

Shelter-in-Place Task Force *C Poland, Chair

Disaster Response - Emergency Preparedness Task Force

D Morten, Chair

After the Disaster –

Rebuilding Task Force J McCain, ChairL Johnson, Recovery Governance Chair

*USGS Northern California External Grant Award


Before the Disaster

Defining what San Francisco needs from its seismic mitigation policies

seismic mitigation task force established in 2006
Seismic Mitigation Task Force Established in 2006
  • Define concept of resilience
  • Establish performance goals for the “expected” earthquake
  • Define transparent performance measures that help reach the performance goals
  • Recommended next steps for San Francisco’s:
    • New buildings
    • Existing buildings, and
    • Lifelines
defined seismic resilience as the ability of san francisco to
Defined Seismic Resilience, as the Ability of San Francisco to:
  • Contain the effects of earthquakes
  • Carry out recovery activities in ways that minimize social disruption
  • Rebuild in ways that mitigate the effects of future earthquakes
transparent hazard definitions for san francisco
Transparent Hazard Definitions for San Francisco

Category Hazard Level

Routine Likely to occur routinely in (M = 5.0) San Francisco

Expected Reasonably expected to occur (M= 7.2) once during the useful life of a structure or system

Extreme Reasonably be expected to occur (M=7.9) on a nearby fault

performance goals for the expected earthquake
Performance Goals for the “Expected” Earthquake

Phase Time Frame Condition of the Built Environment

I 1 to 7 days Initial response and staging for reconstruction

II 7 to 60 days Workforce housing restored – ongoing social needs met

III 2 to 36 months Long term reconstruction

Lifelines and workforce are the key elements


Category Performance Standard

Category A Safe and operational: Essential facilities such as hospitals and emergency operations centers

Category B Safe and usable during repair: “shelter-in-place” residential buildings and buildings needed for emergency operations

Category C Safe and usable after repair: current minimum design standard for new, non-essential buildings

Category D Safe but not repairable: below standard for new, non-essential buildings. Often used as a performance goal for existing buildings undergoing voluntary rehabilitation

Category E Unsafe – partial or complete collapse: damage that will lead to casualties in the event of the “expected” earthquake - the killer buildings

Transparent Performance Measures for Buildings

target states of recovery for buildings and infrastructure
Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

Phase Time Frame Focus of Attention

I 1 to 7 days Initial response and staging for reconstruction


City Buildings,


Police and Fire Stations,


San Francisco General Hospital

Building Category A: “Safe and Operational”

Lifeline Category I: “Resume essential service in 4 hours”

target states of recovery for buildings and infrastructure1
Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

Phase Time Frame Focus of Attention

II 7 to 30 days Housing restored – ongoing social needs met

Residential structures,


Community retail centers,

Doctors offices

Building Category B: “Safe and usable while being repaired”

Lifeline Category II: “Resume 100% workforce service within 4 months”

target states of recovery for buildings and infrastructure2
Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

Phase Time Frame Focus of Attention

III 2 to 36 months Long term reconstruction

Industrial Buildings

Commercial buildings

Historic buildings

Building Category C: “Safe and usable after repair”

Lifeline Category III: “Resume 100% commercial service within 36 months”

policies for achieving resilience existing buildings
Policies for Achieving Resilience:Existing Buildings

Recommendation 1: Mandated retrofit of soft-story, wood-frame, multifamily housing.

Recommendation 2Mandated retrofit or redundancy for designated shelters.

policies for achieving resilience existing buildings1
Policies for Achieving Resilience:Existing Buildings

Recommendation 3A mitigation program for essential city services.

Recommendation 4A mitigation program for critical non-ductile concrete buildings.

policies for achieving resilience existing buildings2
Policies for Achieving Resilience:Existing Buildings

Recommendation 5Mandated and triggered retrofit of gas lines and gas-fired equipment.

Recommendation 6Assessment of the unreinforced masonry program.

policies for achieving resilience new buildings
Policies for Achieving Resilience:New Buildings

Recommendation 1Establish seismic performance targets (and incentives) for new buildings that allow the city to recover quickly from the inevitable strong earthquake.

Recommendation 2Make near-term improvements to the San Francisco Building Code to provide cost-effective improvements in seismic performance.

Recommendation 3Declare the expected performance that will be achieved by the current building code, and develop options for quantifiably improved seismic performance.

Recommendation 4Develop strong incentives and a clear communication of seismic performance expectations that encourage building to higher seismic standards.

policies for achieving resilience lifelines
Policies for Achieving Resilience:Lifelines

Recommendation 1Establish a “Lifelines Council” to provide a mechanism for comprehensive planning

Recommendation 2Conduct a seismic performance audit of lifelines in San Francisco and establish priorities for lifeline mitigation.

Recommendation 3Require improvements to City-owned and regulated systems necessary to meet performance goals and develop a funding program to make those improvements happen.

Recommendation 4Require the design and implementation of improvements to the gas distribution system that reduce the risk of post-earthquake ignitions.

Recommendation 5Establish partnerships with regional, state, and private sector entities to address multi-jurisdictional and regional systems.

spur shelter in place task force usgs nehrp funded initiated jan 2011
SPUR Shelter-in-Place Task Force (USGS NEHRP funded, Initiated Jan 2011)

If a Resilient City is one where 95% of residents can shelter-in-place after a disaster, how do we achieve that goal?

  • Task One: Validate the need to achieve 95% shelter-in-place and the best way to achieve it citywide
  • Task Two: Define the role and extent of post earthquake self-inspection
  • Task Three: Define a shelter in place standard using available documents such as ASCE 31 and 41 and 7. Establish the proper planning case for the expected earthquake scenario and determine the impact of geologic hazards in the post-disaster period.
  • Task Four: Develop Policy Recommendations
shelter in place project objectives
Shelter-in-Place: Project Objectives
  • Bring together diverse stakeholders in a series of collaborative and educational workshops to bring about building code and policy changes necessary to properly address shelter-in-place.
  • Determine what geologic hazard information, design guidelines, building code changes and new policies are needed to reach the determined shelter-in-place standard.
  • Publish findings in our monthly publication the Urbanist, with a distribution of 4,500.
  • Disseminate seismic mitigation information to groups that are not typical members of the earthquake professional community, including community and policy leaders in San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area.

After the Disaster

Rebuilding our city after a major event

  • Transportation
  • Governance
  • Planning
  • Housing
impacts of the extreme earthquake on our transportation system
Impacts of the Extreme Earthquake on our Transportation System
  • Transit lines will collapse and rail tracks broken.
  • Transbay road, rail and public transit links will be disrupted.
  • Highways and surface streets will be closed by bridge collapses, failure of pavement and structures, and the accumulation of debris.
  • Traction power system failures will immobilize electric transit modes (BART, MUNI).
  • Maintenance facilities will be damaged.
  • Airport runways will be rendered unusable.

Many of our transportation lines cross liquefaction zones

Source: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, final edition February 2003

corridor failure analysis
Corridor Failure Analysis

East Bay: Transbay Tube, Bay Bridge

North Bay: Golden Gate Bridge, Ferries

South Bay: BART, Caltrain, I - 280, US - 101

Intra San Francisco – Roads and Rail

Ferries only

east bay
East Bay

Scenario A: Bay Bridge Intact, Transbay Tube Closed

Scenario B: Transbay Tube Intact, Bay Bridge Closed

Scenario C: Both Bay Bridge and Transbay Tube Closed

spur s resilient city initiative city of san francisco impacts and linkages
SPUR’s Resilient City Initiative – City of San Francisco Impacts and Linkages
  • Input to San Francisco’s CAPSS -- Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety CAPSS
  • Proposition A (Nov 2010; 63% voter-approved but not 66%) – Bond measure to retrofit affordable ‘soft story’ housing
  • City of San Francisco established “Lifelines Council” and launching interdependency study
  • Input to draft safety element and revisions to City’s hazard mitigation plan (both underway)

Before the Disaster – Seismic Mitigation Task Force

Shelter-in-Place Task Force C Poland, Chair

Disaster Response - Emergency Preparedness Task Force

D Morten, Chair

After the Disaster –

Rebuilding Task Force J McCain, ChairL Johnson, Recovery Governance Chair

  • City of San Francisco post-disaster recovery governance project
  • City of San Francisco interim housing policy and planning project

City and County of San Francisco Citywide Post-Disaster Recovery Initiative and the new ResilientSF: Citywide Initiative

recovery initiative partnership
Recovery Initiative Partnership

General Services AgencyController’s Office

Department of Emergency Management

Harvard University Kennedy School of Government

recovery initiative overview
Recovery Initiative Overview

“Identify and implement projects, programs, legislation or other activities, either existing, in progress or proposed, that meet the objectives of advance planning and accelerated post-disaster recovery.”

recovery initiative over 75 projects in 9 focus areas
Recovery Initiative:Over 75 Projects in 9 Focus Areas
  • Governance, Legislation and Intergovernmental Coordination
  • Emergency Planning and Response
  • Finance, Budget and Risk Management
  • Citywide Planning
  • Community Infrastructure and Lifelines
  • Environmental Impact and Restoration
  • Housing and Shelter
  • Economic and Community Development
  • Community Relations and Communications
projects and key milestones
Projects and Key Milestones
  • Lifelines Council
    • Recommended by the SPUR Resilient City Initiative
    • Initiated October 2009: Four meetings to date
    • 25+ local and regional lifelines agencies: communications, water, power, transportation, debris management and emergency response.
      • adding Financial Institutions
    • Lifelines Council case studies:
      • SFPUC-Water, PG&E, AT&T, Transportation
    • Launching interdependency study 2011/12
      • Understand inter-system dependencies to enhance planning, restoration and reconstruction
projects and key milestones1
Projects and Key Milestones
  • Post-Disaster Financial Management and Cost Recovery Program
    • Citywide Finance and Admin Training
    • FEMA Cost Recovery Training
    • Emergency Reserve Funds
    • Emergency Access Policies
    • Enterprise Risk Management ISO 31000 Program
    • Advocate for Stafford Act Reform
  • Governance Project
    • Critical, foundational decision making processes
    • Long-term recovery planning framework
projects and key milestones2
Projects and Key Milestones
  • Community Resilience and Capacity Building
    • Readiness and Recovery Workgroup
    • Resilient Communities Initiative
        • (Polk/OMI/North Beach)
    • Neighborhood Empowerment Network (NEN)
      • Launched and NEN Social Media Campaign (Facebook/Twitter)
      • NEN University Initiative (USF/SFSU/UCSF)
      • Three Capacity Building Summits for over 1000 Community Leaders
      • Two Annual NEN Awards
coming 2011
Coming 2011….


Citywide Resilience Initiative

  • Vision – establish a clear, international best practice guideline for the definition of resilience.
  • Management Plan– a comprehensive strategic plan that serves as the citywide resiliency roadmap
  • Network – people, relationships and resources that support resilience.
  • Community Touch Points and Tools –branded resources to promote concepts and support citizens.
2011 priorities
2011 Priorities
  • All Hazards Strategic Plan Update
  • Community Resilience Programs
  • CAPSS Projects
  • Housing Project
  • Governance Project
  • Community Safety Element Update
  • Cost Recovery, Finance and Risk Management
early lessons from japan
Early Lessons from Japan
  • A country with an excellent track record of preparedness, had not anticipated the magnitude of the earthquake and tsunami.
    • Uncertainty about future risk for planning implementing rebuilding, and risk management assumptions elsewhere
  • Cascading effects indicative of a ‘super-cat’ leading to a protracted response period, escalating losses, far-field effects, and impeded transition to recovery
early lessons from japan1
Early Lessons from Japan
  • Loss of land (350 sq km/ 135 sq mi), and tremendous human and economic losses
    • Long-distance evacuations will disrupt communities
    • Relocations and consolidation of service provision likely in order to rebuild given constraints
    • Changes in legislation, policy, engineering/construction, and financing needed
  • National “Committee for Recovery Framework” established April 11 will influence recovery authority and responsibilities at all levels of government
    • Develop national reconstruction strategies, relocation strategies, and promote “ECO city” construction
planning for the next large bay area earthquake
Planning for the Next Large Bay Area Earthquake
  • Are we planning for the right hazards/risks (i.e. expected vs. extreme, and cascading effects)?
  • Is our planning toolkit up-to-date and appropriate to deal with post-disaster recovery issues and demands?
    • General plans/safety elements, zoning, hazard mitigation plans, building repair and retrofit standards, lifeline performance standards
  • What resources (human, financial, information) do we need to deal with the likely post-disaster needs (public and private)?
  • Are our governing structures and institutional capacities adequate to manage different aspects of recovery?
copies questions skarlinsky@spur org heidi sieck@sfgov org laurie@lauriejohnsonconsulting com
Thank You!Copies/Questions:skarlinsky@spur.orgheidi.sieck@sfgov.orglaurie@lauriejohnsonconsulting.comCopies/
south bay
South Bay

Scenario A: Caltrain and BART intact, both freeways disrupted

Scenario B: One or both freeways remain intact, BART and Caltrain disrupted

north bay
North Bay

Scenario A:

Ferry terminals intact, Golden Gate Bridge Closed

intra san francisco
Intra San Francisco

Scenario A: Market Street Subway Closed


Scenario A: Only Ferries Functioning

non corridor specific recommendations
Non Corridor Specific Recommendations

Do a “gap analysis” to determine which agencies should lead the recovery of transportation systems after a disaster

Complete a performance audit of our existing transportation infrastructure

Engage in hazard mitigation strategies that shore up our existing transit infrastructure and add redundancy on our core transportation lines