LAURIE JOHNSON CONSULTING
Urban Planning ● Risk Management ● Disaster Recovery
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
Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research
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
Disaster Response Emergency Preparedness Task Force
D Morten, Chair
After the Disaster –
Rebuilding Task Force
J McCain, Chair
L Johnson, Recovery Governance Chair
*USGS Northern California External Grant Award
Before the Disaster
Defining what San Francisco
needs from its seismic
mitigation policies
www.spur.org
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
Category
Hazard Level
Routine
Likely to occur routinely in
San Francisco
(M = 5.0)
Expected
Reasonably expected to occur
once during the useful life
of a structure or system
(M= 7.2)
Extreme
Reasonably be expected to occur
(M=7.9)
on a nearby fault
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
Transparent Performance Measures
for Buildings
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, nonessential 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
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”
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”
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”
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.
Policies for Achieving Resilience:
Existing 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:
New 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:
Lifelines
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.
SPUR Shelter-in-Place Task Force
(USGS NEHRP funded, Initiated Jan 2011)
If a Resilient City is one where 95% of residents can shelter-inplace 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 selfinspection
• 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 postdisaster 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.
2.
3.
4.
Transportation
Governance
Planning
Housing
www.spur.org
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
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_sf.pdf
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
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 Item
Responsible Agency
Create a plan to coordinate bus bridges across AC Transit, BART and
the Bay Bridge
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 plans
MTC, 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 Item
Responsible 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 Item
Responsible Agency
Implement Bay Bridge restricted vehicle plan
Caltrans, 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 Item
Responsible 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
Disaster Response Emergency Preparedness Task Force
D Morten, 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
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 31000 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
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
Thank You!
Copies/Questions:
skarlinsky@spur.org
heidi.sieck@sfgov.org
laurie@lauriejohnsonconsulting.com
Laurie Johnson PhD AICP Consulting | Research
Target States of Recovery for Buildings
and Infrastructure
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
1. Do a “gap analysis” to determine which agencies
should lead the recovery of transportation systems
after a disaster
2. Complete a performance audit of our existing
transportation infrastructure
3. Engage in hazard mitigation strategies that shore up
our existing transit infrastructure and add redundancy
on our core transportation lines