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

1. Planning for Post-Earthquake Recovery: San Francisco’s Resilient City Efforts Bay Area Earthquake AllianceApril 19, 2011

2. 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

3. 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

4. THE RESILIENT CITY

5. 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

6. 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

7. Before the Disaster Defining what San Francisco needs from its seismic mitigation policies www.spur.org

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 EOC’s, City Buildings, Hospitals, Police and Fire Stations, Shelters San Francisco General Hospital Building Category A: “Safe and Operational” Lifeline Category I: “Resume essential service in 4 hours”

14. 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, Schools, Community retail centers, Doctors offices Building Category B: “Safe and usable while being repaired” Lifeline Category II: “Resume 100% workforce service within 4 months”

15. 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”

16. Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

17. 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.

18. Policies for Achieving Resilience:Existing Buildings Recommendation 3A mitigation program for essential city services. Recommendation 4A mitigation program for critical non-ductile concrete buildings.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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.

24. After the Disaster Rebuilding our city after a major event www.spur.org • Transportation • Governance • Planning • Housing

25. 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.

26. Many of our transportation lines cross liquefaction zones Source: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, final edition February 2003 http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_sf.pdf

28. 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

29. 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

30. EAST BAY: Before the Disaster Tool Kit

31. EAST BAY: Before the Disaster Tool Kit, continued

32. EAST BAY: Managing the Mid-term

33. EAST BAY: Long Term Projects that Create Critical Redundancy

34. 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

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

36. Recovery Initiative Partnership General Services AgencyController’s Office Department of Emergency Management Harvard University Kennedy School of Government

37. 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.”

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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 empowersf.org 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

42. Coming 2011…. ResilientSF Citywide Resilience Initiative

43. ResilientSF • 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.

44. 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

45. 3.11: Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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?

49. Thank You! Copies/Questions:skarlinsky@spur.orgheidi.sieck@sfgov.orglaurie@lauriejohnsonconsulting.com

50. Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure