Resilience Initiatives a Whole Community Approach. Program Overview

Transcription

1 City and County of San Francisco Resilience Initiatives a Whole Community Approach British Columbia Construction Round Table Vancouver, British Columbia Thursday, June 23, 2011 Program Overview Citywide Post-Disaster Resilience and Recovery Initiative ResilientSF Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety SPUR Resilient City 1

2 San Francisco Earthquake Risk We must do more when it comes to recovery New Orleans, 2007 Back to the Future Mayor Ed Lee 2

3 2009 Citywide Post-Disaster Resilience and Recovery Initiative General Services Agency Department of Emergency Management Controller s Office Harvard University Kennedy School of Government Harvard Kennedy School of Government The Comprehensive Risk Management Framework: Five Points of Action against Landscape-Scale Social Hazards Pre Event Event Post event Advance Mitigation (prevent/mitigate consequences in advance of an event) Preparation of Response (prepare to prevent/mitigate consequences during an event) Response Response (respond to an ongoing event) Recovery Recovery (recover from the consequences of an event) Preparation of Recovery (prepare to prevent/mitigate consequences after an event) Herman B. Leonard and Arnold M. Howitt 2009 ACTING IN TIME Against Landscape-Scale Disasters 3

4 2009 Recovery Initiative Mission Identify and implement projects, programs, legislation or other activities, either existing, in progress or proposed, that meet the objectives of accelerated postdisaster recovery and advance planning Recovery Initiative Focus Areas +75 Projects 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 4

5 Resilience WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY A Blueprint for Pursuing the World that We Seek When incidents occur, we must show resilience by maintaining critical operations and functions, returning to our normal life, and learning from disasters so that t their lessons can be translated into pragmatic changes when necessary. Emphasis on public-private partnership and critical infrastructure. 5

6 Disaster Resilience Indicators - Journal of Homeland Security Vol Social Resilience Economic Resilience Institutional Resilience Infrastructure Resilience Community Capital What does Resilience mean to you? 6

7 Aspects of Resilience Respond Sustain the response Recover Adapt bouncing back beyond the original ResilientSF: Citywide Resilience Initiative 7

8 ResilientSF Connects relationships, resources and plans Supports all programs and initiatives through coordination, transparency and collaboration GSA and DEM partnership facilitates citywide participation. ResilientSF Vision establish a clear, best practice guideline for the definition and implementation of resilience in San Francisco. Management Plan a comprehensive strategic plan that serves as the citywide resiliency roadmap Nt Network people, relationships and resources that t support resilience. Community Touch Points and Tools branded resources to promote concepts and support citizens. 8

9 ResilientSF Government Community Partners (Private/NGO) Government Projects Governance o Critical, foundational decision making processes o Expansion of ICS for long-term recovery o National Recovery Framework o Recovery Act of 2010 Legislation i 9

10 Government Projects Post-Disaster Financial Management and Cost Recovery Program o Citywide Finance and Admin Training o FEMA Cost Recovery Training o Emergency Reserves and Access Policies o Enterprise Risk Management ISO Program o Stafford Act Reform o Monetary Donations Program Government Projects Mitigation o Mitigation Steering Committee o Capital Planning Program Coordination o Soft Story Retrofit Legislation and Ballot Initiative o Seismic Hazard Rating and BORP Program o CAPSS and ESIC 10

11 Lifelines Council Northridge Earthquake (Source: usgs.gove) (Source: JIIRC-UBC) Lifelines Council Initiated October 2009: Five meetings to date 25+ local and regional lifelines agencies: communications, water, power, transportation, debris management and emergency response. 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 Recommended by the SPUR Resilient City Initiative 11

12 ResilientSF Government Community Partners (Private/NGO) Community Projects o Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) o Resilient Communities Initiative o Resilience Councils o Neighborhood Empowerment Network (NEN) 12

13 Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) San Francisco Department of Building Inspection plan of action to reduce earthquake risks. Began 2001 Suspended 2003 Resumed Completed 2010 Four major reports and seventeen recommendations 2010 Executive Directive and new Program Director 13

14 CAPSS Recommended Actions to Reduce Earthquake Risk 1. Require evaluation of all wood frame residential buildings of three or more stories and five or more units, and retrofits of those that are vulnerable to earthquake damage. A Mayoral task force has drafted an ordinance to require retrofit of these buildings. The Board of Supervisors should pass it. 2. Inform the public of risks and ways to reduce risk. The City should conduct focused education and outreach campaigns aimed at building owners, tenants, realtors and others to improve their understanding of earthquake risk and measures to manage the risk, and to facilitate a market for retrofitting. 3. Adopt updated code standards. The City should adopt code standards for seismic evaluation and retrofit of all common building types in San Francisco. CAPSS Recommendations 4. Require all buildings to be evaluated for seismic risk. Owners of all buildings should evaluate the seismic performance of their buildings upon sale relative to DBI standards or, if no sale occurs, by a deadline established based on the building use and structural type. The results would be shared with tenants and prospective buyers and tenants, and be made a part of public City records. 5. Require retrofits of vulnerable buildings. Owners of vulnerable buildings should seismically retrofit their building for structural, fire, usability and falling hazards by specific deadlines, varying by building category. 6. Assist community service groups to reach earthquake resilience. The City should provide technical c and financial assistance s for important non-profits, po medical clinics, daycare centers and similar groups to seismically retrofit their buildings or relocate to better buildings. 7. Establish clear responsibility for preparing for and reducing risk from earthquakes. The City should identify a single official in the Chief Administrator s Office, to be responsible for achieving earthquake resilience through mitigation, response and recovery. 14

15 CAPSS Recommendations 8. Adopt improved post-earthquake repair standards. The City should enact updated post-earthquake repair and retrofit standards developed by CAPSS and expand this approach to other building types. 9. Offer incentives for retrofit of buildings. The City should enact a range of meaningful programs to help building owners afford retrofits. 10. Require gas shut-off valves on select buildings. The City should require owners of certain vulnerable buildings and buildings in Fire Department designated Post-Earthquake High Fire Hazard Areas to install automatic gas shutoff valves. 11. Track evaluations and retrofits in a database system. The City should include information relating to seismic evaluations and retrofits in DBI s updated database system to allow tracking progress of mitigation activities and recording inventories, evaluation reports and retrofit information. CAPSS Recommendations 12. Provide technical assistance for building retrofits. The City should help residents and building professionals to evaluate and seismically retrofit buildings efficiently and in accordance with City codes. 13. Enact a façade ordinance, requiring periodic inspection of façades, parapets and decorative features fixed to building exteriors, and require repair of materials found to be falling hazards. 14. Promote development and implementation of effective ideas on earthquake risk reduction. The City should encourage efforts to improve knowledge relevant to San Francisco about building structural performance and effective ways to reduce earthquake risk. 15

16 CAPSS Recommendations 15. Evaluate measures to reduce post-earthquake fires. Multiple City Departments should work together to evaluate and implement measures to reduce fire ignitions and spread, and improve fire suppression capacity following earthquakes. 16. Address the hazards from damage to furnishings, appliances and equipment and non-structural building elements. DBI should initiate a comprehensive program to encourage, and in some instances, require measures to reduce these hazards. 17. Periodically assess progress and implementation of these recommendations. ResilientSF Government Community Partners (Private/NGO) 16

17 Partner Projects SPUR Resilient City Readiness and Recovery Workgroup Hotel Council Workgroup American Red Cross Ready Rating SFCARD/VOAD Meta-Leaderships Summit for Preparedness BOMA Preparedness Task Force 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 17

18 THE RESILIENT CITY SPUR Resilient City A disaster resilient San Francisco. Whether hit by a massive earthquake or by a hurricane, tornado, flood or terrorist attack, some communities have shown an incredible ability to recover that is, incredible resilience. Resilient communities have an ability to govern after a disaster strikes. These communities adhere to building standards that allow the power, water and communication networks to begin operating again shortly after a disaster and that allow people to stay in their homes, travel to where they need to be and resume a fairly normal living routine within weeks. They are able to return to a "new" normal within a few years. They are resilient communities because such a blow from nature remains a disaster, but does not become a catastrophe that defies recovery. 18

19 SPUR s Resilient City Initiative Community Planning Regional Planning Disaster Planning Housing Transportation Sustainable Development Economic Development Good Government Before the Disaster Seismic i 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, Governance Chair *USGS Northern California External Grant Award Before the Disaster Defining what San Francisco needs from its seismic mitigation policies After the Disaster Rebuilding our city after a major event 1. Transportation 2. Governance 3. Planning 4. Housing 19

20 2006 Seismic Mitigation Task Force Define concept of resilience Establish performance goals for the expected earthquake Define transparent performance measures that help reach the performance goals Recommended d next steps for San Francisco s: New buildings Existing buildings Lifelines Seismic Resilience defined: 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 20

21 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 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 21

22 Transparent Performance Measures for Buildings Category Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Performance Standard Safe and operational: Essential facilities such as hospitals and emergency operations centers Safe and usable during repair: shelter-in-place residential buildings and buildings needed for emergency operations Safe and usable after repair: current minimum design standard for new, non-essential buildings Safe but not repairable: below standard for new, non-essential buildings. Often used as a performance goal for existing buildings undergoing voluntary rehabilitation 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 Building Category A: Safe and Operational Lifeline Category I: Resume essential service in 4 hours 22

23 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 23

24 Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure Target States of Recovery for Buildings and Infrastructure 24

25 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. 25

26 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. 26

27 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. 27

28 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 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 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-inplace 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. 28

29 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. 29

30 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 30

31 How do you implement resilience? And what happens when you try? ResilientSF Government Community Partners (Private/NGO) 31

32 2011 Program Management Priorities ResilientSF Structure Development Donations Management Plan Community Resilience Programs CAPSS Implementation All Hazards Strategic Plan Update Lifelines Council Interdependency Analysis Housing Project Governance Project Community Safety Element Update Cost Recovery, Finance and Risk Management Thank You! RESOURCES: Heidi Sieck, San Francisco Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR Laurie Johnson, Lifelines Laurence Kornfield, CAPSS 32