L AURIE J OHNSON C ONSULTING Urban Planning ● Risk Management ● Disaster Recovery Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research Planning for Post-Earthquake Recovery: San Francisco’s Resilient City Efforts Bay Area Earthquake Alliance April 19, 2011

Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research 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

Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research Value of Planning for Recovery Before 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

THE RESILIENT CITY

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 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 After the Disaster – Rebuilding Task Force J McCain, Chair L Johnson, Recovery Governance Chair Disaster Response - Emergency Preparedness Task Force D Morten, 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 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: 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 CategoryHazard Level RoutineLikely to occur routinely in (M = 5.0) San Francisco ExpectedReasonably expected to occur (M= 7.2) once during the useful life of a structure or system ExtremeReasonably be expected to occur (M=7.9) on a nearby fault

PhaseTime FrameCondition of the Built Environment I1 to 7 daysInitial response and staging for reconstruction II7 to 60 daysWorkforce housing restored – ongoing social needs met III2 to 36 monthsLong term reconstruction Lifelines and workforce are the key elements Performance Goals for the “Expected” Earthquake

Transparent Performance Measures for Buildings CategoryPerformance Standard Category ASafe and operational: Essential facilities such as hospitals and emergency operations centers Category BSafe and usable during repair: “shelter-in-place” residential buildings and buildings needed for emergency operations Category CSafe and usable after repair: current minimum design standard for new, non-essential buildings Category DSafe but not repairable: below standard for new, non- essential buildings. Often used as a performance goal for existing buildings undergoing voluntary rehabilitation Category EUnsafe – partial or complete collapse: damage that will lead to casualties in the event of the “expected” earthquake - the killer buildings

PhaseTime FrameFocus of Attention I1 to 7 daysInitial 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” Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

PhaseTime FrameFocus of Attention II7 to 30 daysHousing 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” Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

PhaseTime FrameFocus of Attention III2 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” Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

Policies for Achieving Resilience: Existing Buildings Recommendation 1: Mandated retrofit of soft-story, wood-frame, multifamily housing. Recommendation 2 Mandated retrofit or redundancy for designated shelters.

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

Recommendation 5 Mandated and triggered retrofit of gas lines and gas-fired equipment. Recommendation 6 Assessment of the unreinforced masonry program. Policies for Achieving Resilience: Existing Buildings

Recommendation 1 Establish seismic performance targets (and incentives) for new buildings that allow the city to recover quickly from the inevitable strong earthquake. Recommendation 2 Make near-term improvements to the San Francisco Building Code to provide cost-effective improvements in seismic performance. Recommendation 3 Declare the expected performance that will be achieved by the current building code, and develop options for quantifiably improved seismic performance. Recommendation 4 Develop strong incentives and a clear communication of seismic performance expectations that encourage building to higher seismic standards. Policies for Achieving Resilience: New Buildings

Recommendation 1 Establish a “Lifelines Council” to provide a mechanism for comprehensive planning Recommendation 2 Conduct a seismic performance audit of lifelines in San Francisco and establish priorities for lifeline mitigation. Recommendation 3 Require improvements to City-owned and regulated systems necessary to meet performance goals and develop a funding program to make those improvements happen. Recommendation 4 Require the design and implementation of improvements to the gas distribution system that reduce the risk of post-earthquake ignitions. Recommendation 5 Establish partnerships with regional, state, and private sector entities to address multi-jurisdictional and regional systems. Policies for Achieving Resilience: Lifelines

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 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 1. Transportation 2. Governance 3. Planning 4. Housing

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.

Source: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, final edition February Many of our transportation lines cross liquefaction zones

Corridor Failure Analysis East Bay: Transbay Tube, Bay Bridge North Bay: Golden Gate Bridge, Ferries South Bay: BART, Caltrain, I - 280, US Intra San Francisco – Roads and Rail Ferries only

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

EAST BAY: Before the Disaster Tool Kit Action ItemResponsible Agency Create a plan to coordinate bus bridges across the Bay Bridge AC Transit, BART and Caltrans Create permanent bus-only lanes on approaching freeways to the Bay Bridge (I-80, I-580, and I-880). Caltrans and AC Transit Develop a Restricted Vehicle Plan.Caltrans Develop contraflow bus system.Caltrans and MTC/BATA Identify emergency park-and-ride locations.MTC and local government Develop emergency transit plansMTC, BART and AC Transit Establish an emergency reserve bus fleet.AC Transit Establish mutual aid agreements with other bus agencies. AC Transit, MTC

EAST BAY: Before the Disaster Tool Kit, continued Action ItemResponsible Agency Complete BART system improvements.BART Ensure ferry vessel/terminal compatibility.WETA Identify critical docks and piers throughout the Bay Area that could be used as ferry terminals WETA Develop a strategy for critical goods movement. WETA

EAST BAY: Managing the Mid-term Action ItemResponsible Agency Implement Bay Bridge restricted vehicle planCaltrans, MTC Implement bus bridging in the event of a BART shutdown. Caltrans, MTC Create contraflow bus lanes on Bay Bridge.Caltrans, AC Transit, MTC Create bus only lanes on Bay Bridge and on approaching freeways. Caltrans, AC Transit, MTC Require all BART cars running into and out of San Francisco to be at full capacity BART Implement mutual aid actions.MTC, AC Transit Utilize excursion boats to enhance ferry service. WETA

EAST BAY: Long Term Projects that Create Critical Redundancy Action ItemResponsible Agencies Build a second Transbay Tube. Extend Caltrain and High Speed Rail under the Bay to Oakland. BART to lead in consultation with Muni, AC Transit and cities that would receive new BART service.

SPUR’s Resilient City Initiative – City of San Francisco Impacts and Linkages Before the Disaster – Seismic Mitigation Task Force Shelter-in-Place Task Force C Poland, Chair After the Disaster – Rebuilding Task Force J McCain, Chair L Johnson, Recovery Governance Chair 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) City of San Francisco post-disaster recovery governance project City of San Francisco interim housing policy and planning project Disaster Response - Emergency Preparedness Task Force D Morten, Chair

General Services Agency Controller’s Office Department of Emergency Management Harvard University Kennedy School of Government

“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.”

 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

 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

 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 Program ◦ Advocate for Stafford Act Reform  Governance Project ◦ Critical, foundational decision making processes ◦ Long-term recovery planning framework

 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

 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.

 All Hazards Strategic Plan Update  Community Resilience Programs  CAPSS Projects  Housing Project  Governance Project  Community Safety Element Update  Cost Recovery, Finance and Risk Management

Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research 3.11: Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research 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

Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research 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

Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research 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?

Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research Copies/Questions: Thank You!

Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure

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 Scenario A: Ferry terminals intact, Golden Gate Bridge Closed

Intra San Francisco Scenario A: Market Street Subway Closed

Ferries Scenario A: Only Ferries Functioning

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