We will finish with real estate and FLOOD ZONES by reminding that these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA our Federal agencies tasked with developing FLOOD ZONE MAPS have JUKED THE STATS-----they provide FLOOD ZONES that are narrow so developers can build----then decades later they claim NO FLOOD INSURANCE while flooding soars because that real estate was ALWAYS IN A FLOOD PLAIN. This is how our 99% of citizens keep losing their wealth and assets.
It is our BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH/MARYLAND HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES that should be outing these FAKE FLOOD ZONE MAPS and stopping development KNOWING it will create GREAT HARM to public health. Here in Baltimore, those FLOOD ZONE MAPS are indeed JUKED AND DEVELOPMENT WILL HARM. Who knows this? All of global Wall Street Baltimore Development 5% labor and justice organizations pushing to MOVE FORWARD GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS development under US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE designation.
WE SHOUT TO OUR 99% OF NEW IMMIGRANT CITIZENS WHO ALWAYS END IN THE WORST OF COMMUNITIES---WATCH OUT---WE DON'T HAVE THE US GOVERNANCE WE HAD THESE 300 YEARS.
'New York in 2050 Will Be Wetter, Warmer, and More Dangerous
Jan 18 2017, 12:36pmIllustration by Corey Brickley'
We already know our CANTON/FELLS POINT communities will be that FLOOD PLAIN ZONE and 99% of citizens who are homeowners in these communities are today's victims of flooding not being able to get the flood insurance protection for which they paid over decades. These several decades will see homeowners in Hollins Market and Falls Rd area now being developed for business and residence face the same----THESE ARE WETLANDS AND FLOOD PLAINS and if you look at a map today that says otherwise---if you are allowed to buy flood insurance these few decades---then you will be underwater soon after that with no ability to use flood insurance. Our Baltimore City government is even getting into that flood insurance game to keep people as homeowners on real estate that will be UNDERWATER.
Our Baltimore citizens are shouting for better street drains and pipeline ---but THAT is not the coming problem and global Wall Street Baltimore Development/global Johns Hopkins, and our Baltimore PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT knows this.
Today Canton and Fells Point homeownership is being marketed to upper-middle and middle-class----these 99% will soon be those being impoverished and they will be owning homes in the worst of FLOOD PLAINS.
Drivers Cautioned As Heavy Rain, Flooding Hits Baltimore, Parts Of Md.
July 28, 2017 11:35 PM By George Solis
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — All over Maryland, heavy and rising rain water saturated roads, people, and for a few unfortunate folks, their cars.
In Fells Point and in Canton, people pushed through the deluge.
Our media partner The Baltimore Sun shared a video flooding off Aliceanna and Caroline street. One driver appeared to get stuck.
WOW: Car flooded at Aliceanna & Caroline. Video courtesy of @lightforall @cbsbaltimore pic.twitter.com/B33JD5ghiC
— George Solis (@GeorgeSolisWJZ) July 29, 2017
The Maryland Transportation Authority tweeted out a photo of the shutdown north-bound ramp from 295 to I-95 caused by the high water. It remained closed for a little more than an hour and a half.
Ramp from NB MD 295 to NB I-95 remains temporarily closed for high water. #mdtraffic pic.twitter.com/1wSyW0PImd
— MDTA (@TheMDTA) July 29, 2017
Heavy rains also hit Dundalk. Off of Oak Street, a Jeep has nearly been submerged by rising water and the road is closed for the time being.
In Montgomery County, clogged storm drains appeared to contribute to flooding on Connecticut Avenue in Kensington, as crews quickly working to unclog drains and to help the water recede. Logs and debris also clogged bridges over Rock Creek.
The warning from first responders again if you see rising water on the road: “turn around, don’t drown.”
It is the responsibility of our Baltimore City Council and Mayor---with our Baltimore PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT department to GET FLOOD MAPS THAT ARE NOT JUKED. It should be the duty of our HOUSING JUSTICE ADVOCATE groups to KNOW these flood zone maps are juked.
This is why our national media is pretending these storms are MONSTERS-----they are covering up for decades of CRIMINAL DEVELOPMENT.
ALL of Baltimore's development is done on JUKED FLOOD ZONE MAPPING. This of course also is the case for our rural homeowners built on flood plains on RIVER FRONTS.
'The experience, Edgar said, had left her feeling deeply frustrated, as a both homeowner and a taxpayer. FEMA hasn’t reimbursed her for the surveying costs or for the flood insurance premium she and her husband paid. “It falls to the homeowner to hire a professional engineer and pay” hundreds, even thousands, “to disprove what I would call their shoddy work,” she said. “I don’t think that’s fair.”'
FEMA’s inaccurate flood maps are costing Texas homeowners
By Theodoric Meyer | ProPublica
When Donna Edgar found out that new flood maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency would place her house in a high-risk flood zone, she couldn’t believe it. Her home, on the ranch she and her husband own in Texas hill country about 60 miles north of Austin, sits well […]
- By Contributor
- Jul 19, 2013
By Theodoric Meyer | ProPublica
When Donna Edgar found out that new flood maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency would place her house in a high-risk flood zone, she couldn’t believe it.
Her home, on the ranch she and her husband own in Texas hill country about 60 miles north of Austin, sits well back from the nearby Lampasas River.
“Her house is on a hill,” said Herb Darling, the director of environmental services for Burnet County, where Edgar lives. “There’s no way it’s going to flood.”
Yet the maps, released last year, placed the Edgars in what FEMA calls a “special flood hazard area.” Homeowners in such areas are often required, and always encouraged, to buy federal flood insurance, which the Edgars did.
FEMA eventually admitted the maps were wrong. But it took Edgar half a dozen engineers (many of whom volunteered their time), almost $1,000 of her own money and what she called an “ungodly number of hours” of research and phone calls over the course of a year to prove it.
Edgars is far from alone.
From Maine to Oregon, local floodplain managers say FEMA’s recent flood maps — which dictate the premiums that 5.5 million Americans pay for flood insurance — have often been built using outdated, inaccurate data. Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the cost of fixing FEMA’s mistakes.
“It’s been a mess,” Darling said. “It’s been a headache for a lot of people.”
Joseph Young, Maine’s floodplain mapping coordinator, said his office gets calls “almost on a daily basis” from homeowners who say they’ve been mapped in high-risk flood areas in error. More often than not, he said, their complaints have merit. “There’s a lot of people who have a new map that’s unreliable,” he said.
Maps built with out-of-date data can also result in homeowners at risk of flooding not knowing the threat they face.
FEMA is currently finalizing new maps for Fargo, N.D., yet the maps don’t include any recent flood data, said April Walker, the city engineer, including from when the Red River overran its banks in 1997, 2009 and 2011. Those floods were the worst in Fargo’s history.
Fargo has more recent data, Walker said, but FEMA hasn’t incorporated it.
It’s unclear exactly how many new maps FEMA has issued in recent years are at least partly based on older data. While FEMA’s website allows anybody to look-up flood maps for their areas, the agency’s maps don’t show the age of the underlying data.
FEMA’s director of risk analysis, Doug Bellomo, said it was “very rare” for the agency to digitize the old paper flood maps without updating some of the data. “We really don’t go down the road” of simply digitizing old maps, he said.
FEMA did not respond to questions about the maps for Fargo or other specific areas.
State and local floodplain officials pointed to examples where FEMA had issued new maps based at least in part on outdated data. The reason, they said, wasn’t complicated.
“Not enough funding, pure and simple,” Young said.
Using new technology, FEMA today is able to gather far more accurate elevation data than it could in the 1970s and 1980s, when most of the old flood maps were made. Lidar, in which airplanes map terrain by firing laser pulses at the ground, can provide data that’s 10 times more accurate than the old methods.
Lidar is also expensive. Yet as we’ve reported, Congress, with the support of the White House, has actually cut map funding by more than half since 2010, from $221 million down to $100 million this year.
With limited funding, FEMA has concentrated on updating maps for the populated areas along the coasts. In rural areas, “it’s sort of a necessary evil to reissue maps with older data on them,” said Sally McConkey, an engineer with the Illinois State Water Survey at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which has a contract with FEMA to produce flood maps in the state.
When old maps are digitized, mapmakers try to match up road intersections visible on them with the ones seen in modern satellite imagery (similar to what you can see using Google Earth). But the old maps and the new imagery don’t always line up correctly, leading to what Alan R. Lulloff, the science services program director with the Association of State Floodplain Managers, called a “warping” effect.
“It can show areas that are actually on high ground as being in the flood hazard area when they’re not,” he said. “That’s the biggest problem.”
When FEMA issued new maps last year for Livingston Parish in Louisiana, near Baton Rouge, they included new elevation data. But the flood studies, said Eddie Aydell III, the chief engineer with Alvin Fairburn in Denham Springs, La., who examined the maps, were “a conglomeration of many different ancient engineering studies” dating from the 1980s to 2001. The mapmakers did not match up the new elevation data with the older data correctly, he said, making structures in the parish seem lower than they really are.
“It’s going to be a nightmare for the residents of our parish,” he said.
Bonnie Marston’s parents, Jim and Glynda Childs, moved to Andover, Maine, where Marston lives with her husband, in 2010 with the intention of building a house. But when they applied for a loan the bank told them that FEMA’s new flood maps for the county, issued the year before, had placed the land on which they planned to build in a special flood hazard area. The cost: a $3,200 annual flood insurance bill, which the Childs had to pay upfront.
Marston spent about $1,400 to hire a surveyor, who concluded her parents did not belong in a special flood hazard area. FEMA eventually removed the requirement for them to buy flood insurance — though it didn’t actually update the map. The bank refunded the flood insurance premium, but Marston said FEMA wouldn’t refund the cost of the survey.
“In my mind it’s a huge rip-off,” Marston said.
Edgar, 68, a retired IBM software developer, said she couldn’t understand why FEMA thought her house was suddenly at risk of flooding. When she called FEMA and asked, she said the agency couldn’t tell her.
“They just said, ‘You need to buy flood insurance,’” she said, and told her she could apply for what’s known as a letter of map amendment if she thought she’d been mapped into a special flood hazard area in error. She worried that being in a high-risk flood area would diminish the value of her home.
Her husband, Thomas, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, knew David R. Maidment, a civil engineering professor there who is an expert on flood insurance mapping. While she hired a surveyor and wrangled with FEMA, Maidment and several of his Ph.D. students drove up to the ranch to study it as a class project.
The experience, Maidment said, showed him “in a very small microcosm” the importance of using up-to-date elevation data in new maps. The Texas state government paid to map Burnet County, where the Edgars’ ranch is located, in 2011 using lidar. But FEMA’s new maps for the county don’t include the lidar data.
FEMA removed the Edgars from the special flood hazard area in March, but again it hasn’t actually changed the maps. Letters of map amendment acknowledge that FEMA’s maps were incorrect without actually changing them. While the Edgars don’t have to buy flood insurance, the new, inaccurate maps remain.
Darling, the county’s director of environmental services, said he had gotten calls from dozens of homeowners with similar complaints about the new flood maps.
“We’ve still got ‘em coming in,” he said.
The contractor that created the new maps appeared to have taken shortcuts in drawing them, Darling said. Without new lidar data, he added, issuing a new map is “just a waste of money.”
The experience, Edgar said, had left her feeling deeply frustrated, as a both homeowner and a taxpayer. FEMA hasn’t reimbursed her for the surveying costs or for the flood insurance premium she and her husband paid. “It falls to the homeowner to hire a professional engineer and pay” hundreds, even thousands, “to disprove what I would call their shoddy work,” she said. “I don’t think that’s fair.”
How does a far-right wing global Wall Street US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE like HOUSTON AND BALTIMORE get the right people to move into FLOOD PLAIN ZONES they know will be underwater? They push tax credits and have global Wall Street give low-interest easy to get homeowner loans.
It's all done DELIBERATELY, WILLFULLY, AND WITH MALICE ---this is what makes it PUBLIC MALFEASANCE and the developers criminally responsible.
Baltimore City Tax Incentives
Newly Constructed Dwelling Tax Credit
Administered by the Baltimore City Department of Finance
Contact Ms. Paula Buchanan, 443-984-3497 or download an application.
- Owner occupies new construction.
- 50% credit in first year to 10% in fifth year.
- Applies to building permits issued after October 1, 1994.
- Owner must apply for credit within 90 days of closing and title transfer.
Rehabilitated Vacant Dwelling Tax Credit
Administered by the Baltimore City Department of Finance
Contact Ms. Paula Buchanan, 443-984-3497
- 5 year reduction in assessment increase due to rehab.
- 100% credit in first year to 20% in the fifth year.
- Encourages rehab of vacant property.
- Up to four (4) dwelling unit property.
- Vacant and abandoned for one year.
Home Improvement Tax Credit
Administered by the Baltimore City Department of Finance
Contact Ms. Paula Buchanan, 443-984-3497
- 5 year reduction in increases due to improvements completed.
- 100% credit in first year to 20% in the fifth year.
- Improvement incentive.
Historic Landmarks and District Tax Credit
Administered by the Baltimore City Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation (CHAP)
For more information, call 410-396-4866, email web site.
Available for historic properties in Baltimore City and National Register Historic District and individual Baltimore City and National Register Landmarks.
Offsets any increase in Baltimore City's taxes that occurs following a substantial rehabilitation project that has been approved by CHAP.
The tax credit is a dollar value that is subtracted from an owner's property tax bill each year for 10 years.
Program requires a total investment of at least 25% of the full cash value of the property into a qualifying, approved rehabilitation project.
All work must be reviewed and approved before any work begins. All work must meet the CHAP Historic Design Guidelines.
Maryland Sustainable Communities Tax Credit Program
Administered by the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)
For more information, call 410-514-7628, or visit the web site.
Available to "certified historic structures," which are properties individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, contributing to a National Register Historic District, or a locally designated structure or contributing resource to a local historic district that MHT determines to be eligible for the National Register.
The credit is a one-time state income tax credit equal to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures.
The credit is capped at $50,000 in a 24-month period and must have a minimum of $5,000 of eligible expenses to qualify.
The property must be a single-family, owner-occupied residence to qualify.
All work must be review and approved by MHT before work can begin. All work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Credits for Commercial properties are also available.
This video does give an accurate list of concerns for US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE cities along West Coast BUT we strongly disagree with the stats given in deaths and population evacuation as they do not take into consideration the goals of West Coast FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES filling with global labor pool by the millions. The idea that only 70,000 people will be in direct harm from a TSUMANI is wrong. He for some reason goes from Seattle to LA ignoring SAN FRAN which of course is the MOST COMPROMISED of US cities right on top of earthquake faults both San Andreas and Cascadia.
I lived in CA during the 1960s when students drilled for earthquake safety----fast forward these several decades add lots of earthquake and geological technology and WE KNOW A BIG ONE IS COMING and we have scientific method telling us it will be soon. As stated here, when the CASCADIA plate goes---and we are seeing all kinds of volcanic activity saying things are moving forward-----that San Andreas is likely to go as well. One thing we NEVER see told in national media is this----the TSUNAMI COMES BACK ONTO US WEST COAST ---media tends to make people think they will go forward towards Japan only.
What Would Happen if “The BIG ONE” (Earthquake) Hits the WEST COAST
When most people think of the “Big One,” they often think about an earthquake caused by the San Andreas Fault. However, there’s actually a more dangerous fau...
youtube.com11 months ago
Having lived in CA and Seattle I KNOW the bravado of citizens living in an active earthquake zone----they move there accepting that BIG ONE may come at any time. What we demand of our government is REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT and US Foreign Economic Zone development with super-CITY STATES filled with what will be tens of millions of citizens is NOT REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT. When we look at a San Fran or an LA we see the CITY CENTER----and we know about the SUBURBAN SPRAWL. It is that suburban sprawl that will contain those millions and millions more of global citizens and it will be there the devastation is worse.
We are rebuilding our US city infrastructure to last for 60-100 years just as it lasted last century and there will be no rebuilding after this window. From coast to mountain are those deeply forested areas as this video shows will immediately go up in smoke. Where are housing developments still being allowed--in fact with national parks being privatized and developed real estate being sold to average homeowners AND FOREIGN INVESTORS is soaring. Those rich foreign investors won't be living there ---they will be renting so we are seeing the staging of populations for 21st century with development slated to FAIL. We shout for citizens to think beyond these few decades to our next generation----that is 2070 -----we will have NO INFRASTRUCTURE and NO NATURAL RESOURCES with climate change hitting earthquake activity and trillions and trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending happening along the US West Coast
'A new report is elevating the possibility that California could see an 8.0 or greater earthquake during the next 30 years'.
Odds of an 8.0-magnitude Quake Rising, According to New USGS Study
March 10 2015 12:00 AM EDT
Risk Of 8.0 Earthquake In Cali Rises
The USGS says the risk of 8.0 magnitude earthquakes in California is on the rise. Matt Sampson has the details.
A new report is elevating the possibility that California could see an 8.0 or greater earthquake during the next 30 years.
The stat comes from the Third Uniform Earthquake Rupture Forecast, better known as UCERF3. The study was a collaboration by scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey, the Southern California Earthquake Center, the California Geological Survey and the California Earthquake Authority.
The group’s last report came out in 2008. While most of the findings were similar, the 2015 version raises the odds that California will see an 8.0 or higher tremor in the next three decades from 4.7% to about 7%. The scientists attribute the elevated risk to a better understanding of the relationship between different fault lines.
A graphic from the new earthquake forecast outlines the likelihood of a 6.7-magnitude or higher tremor in the next 30 years.
“The new likelihoods are due to the inclusion of possible multi-fault ruptures, where earthquakes are no longer confined to separate, individual faults, but can occasionally rupture multiple faults simultaneously,” lead author and USGS scientist Ned Field said in a news release. “This is a significant advancement in terms of representing a broader range of earthquakes throughout California’s complex fault system.”
One example of how closely-related faults might rupture was in October 1987. The Los Angeles Times reports the 5.2-magnitude Whittier Narrows earthquake hit the Puente Hills thrust fault system on October 1. Just three days later, a 5.6-magnitude aftershock hit on a different fault, causing damage in four cities, including Los Angeles.
Scientists say the 2010 Easter Sunday earthquake in Northern California was another example of the relationship between fault lines.
"We've come to understand that multiple faults can rupture, producing a quake of this size," USGS geophysicist Morgan Page told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "We saw that happen with the (7.2) El Mayor Cucapah earthquake in northern Baja in 2010. That ruptured moved on to other systems, including the Borrego fault.”
Of all the fault lines, the study's authors say the San Andreas fault, which was responsible for the violent 1906 San Francisco earthquake, is still a huge concern.
“We are fortunate that seismic activity in California has been relatively low over the past century. But we know that tectonic forces are continually tightening the springs of the San Andreas fault system, making big quakes inevitable,” said Tom Jordan, Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center and a co-author of the study.
What many citizens don't know about these geo-plate tectonics is this----a BIG ONE on the West Coast will be that MAJOR PLATE SHIFT moving the entire US continental plate. When this happens real estate seeing little or no earthquake activity will get a MAJOR EARTHQUAKE. We want to emphasize that there is no government sponsored heightening of earthquakes happening---these are natural and having been growing for centuries. When we look at where US CITY FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development is happening----bringing again MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of global labor pool to massive global corporate campuses and global factories----we see it is there the effects of earthquake tectonics will be greatest.
SUSTAINABILITY BY HIGH-DENSITY US CITY STATES -----is not 99% of WE THE PEOPLE sustainability and this infrastructure will not help our next generation.
'The New Madrid earthquake zone in the central United States has more potential for a larger quake than previous estimates suggested. The zone could have a devastating earthquake that would be felt in nearly a dozen states, researchers say, threatening large cities such as St. Louis, Memphis, Nashville and Atlanta'.
Nearly half of Americans live in areas prone to earthquakes, study says
By Dave Hennen, CNN
Updated 2:25 PM ET, Mon August 17, 2015
America's earthquake risk doubles 01:56(CNN)
You don't have to live in California to be at risk of experiencing an earthquake, according to a new study. Research released by the U.S. Geological Survey indicates nearly half of Americans live in earthquake-prone areas.
"The new exposure estimate is nearly double the previous 2006 estimate, based on population growth and advances in science," said William Leith, A senior science adviser for earthquakes at the USGS.
More than 143 million Americans could be exposed to potentially damaging ground shaking caused by earthquakes, the study concludes. Researchers looked at how populations have grown in earthquake-prone areas, and they say improvements in data collection provide a more accurate estimate than in years past.The study looked at ground shaking, which is caused by the passage of seismic waves. This shaking causes most property damage during an earthquake and can range from weak and barely noticeable to violent or extreme, with catastrophic damage.
As you might expect, California tops the list of states most at risk, but others may surprise you. Based on this new assessment, states in the eastern United States have a greater chance of having a damaging quake than was previously thought. A lot was learned from the magnitude-5.8 earthquake that hit Virginia in 2011, researchers say; the quake caused considerable damage and forced the Washington Monument to close for repairs, which were just completed in May 2014.
The New Madrid earthquake zone in the central United States has more potential for a larger quake than previous estimates suggested. The zone could have a devastating earthquake that would be felt in nearly a dozen states, researchers say, threatening large cities such as St. Louis, Memphis, Nashville and Atlanta.
The magnitude-9.0 earthquake that hit Japan in 2011, triggering a Pacific-wide tsunami and causing a series of meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant, along with the 8.2 earthquake that hit Chile in April 2014, have given scientists valuable data and insight into the U.S. Pacific Northwest earthquake zone. Scientists say they think that a quake with a magnitude as high as 9.3 is possible, a number previously thought to be impossible for the region.
The USGS' new assessment of California's earthquake risk was mixed. More faults were discovered, raising the earthquake threat for cities like San Jose and San Diego, while the estimated threat decreased for Santa Barbara and Oakland. Hazard probabilities increased for parts of San Francisco and Los Angeles, but they decreased in other parts of the cities, based on the new data.
"This research helps us better understand the scale of earthquake hazards," and it strengthens "the nation's ability to protect Americans," Kishor Jaiswal, a USGS engineer and lead author of the study, said in a statement.
The new USGS earthquake hazard map continues to show the highest threat levels in the western U.S. But other areas of the country, such as the central states surrounding the New Madrid fault, and Charleston, South Carolina, also show a high risk.
We are hearing of increased earthquake activity south of the border as that MEXICAN AND CENTRAL AMERICAN FAULT LINE hits our southern CA ---San Diego and LA ----and would likely again push that San Andreas fault into action.
Below we see the question---why does Mexico have early warning and not US? The answer is this-----we have so much development and concentrated population tied to SUBSTANDARD INFRASTRUCTURE that early warning will not help 99% WE THE PEOPLE in CA. The development of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES is so bad we will be told to just try to survive IN PLACE.
Our Latino nations are still mostly rural with low populations so they can easily escape given proper notice.
'The massive earthquake that ripped through Mexico is offering stark testimony on the power of modern early warning systems that, to the dismay of seismologists who have spent years pushing the technology, do not exist in California or anyplace in the United States'.
'Some experts on Friday posed a question: Why does Mexico have an early warning system while the richest country in the world does not'?
SURVIVE IN PLACE----WHAT HAPPENED IN KATRINA AND IRMA----FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL 1% SAY NO NEED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY ---JUST SURVIVE IN PLACE.
Earthquake early warning in Mexico reminds California what it still lacks
By Peter Fimrite
September 8, 2017 Updated: September 8, 2017 5:41pm
Photo: PEDRO PARDO, AFP/Getty Images
People gather on a street in downtown Mexico City during an earthquake on September 7, 2017.
An earthquake of magnitude 8.0 struck southern Mexico late Thursday and was felt as far away as Mexico City, the US Geological Survey said, issuing a tsunami warning. It hit offshore 120 kilometers (75 miles) southwest of the town of Tres Picos in the state of Chiapas. / AFP PHOTO / PEDRO PARDOPEDRO PARDO/AFP/Getty Images
The massive earthquake that ripped through Mexico is offering stark testimony on the power of modern early warning systems that, to the dismay of seismologists who have spent years pushing the technology, do not exist in California or anyplace in the United States.
Experts believe the growing death toll from Thursday’s 8.1-magnitude quake off Mexico’s southern coast could have been worse if alarms had not gone off throughout faraway population centers well before the shaking started.
The temblor, which struck just before midnight, knocked down buildings and caused skyscrapers to sway hundreds of miles away in Mexico City, but television newscasters, businesses and utility companies there got as much as 92 seconds to warn people and take other steps to protect them.
Japan and Taiwan have made use of the same kind of system, but earthquake-prone California is still trying to develop one, even as geologists warn that the risk of a seismic disaster looms along faults up and down the coast, including the San Andreas and Hayward faults.
Some experts on Friday posed a question: Why does Mexico have an early warning system while the richest country in the world does not? They warned that the U.S. may learn the hard way the cost of being slow to adopt the technology, which could send an alert to key agencies — or every smartphone — up to a minute before the shaking begins.
“The simple answer is inadequate funding,” said Doug Given, the earthquake early warning coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena. “We haven’t had the killer earthquake to create the political will to do it.”
The USGS developed one of the world’s most sophisticated early warning systems in 2012, and in April of this year it set up a dozen pilot projects allowing testing by emergency management groups, police departments, fire agencies and companies in California, Oregon and Washington.
The system relies on a phenomenon in which an earthquake sends several types of seismic waves coursing through the Earth for thousands of miles at various speeds. The waves that cause the dangerous ground shaking that can destroy buildings and take lives move slower than data does between modern communication devices.
The program, called ShakeAlert, sends signals that could, in addition to giving people 10 seconds or more to duck under heavy desks, trigger firehouse doors to open, gas valves and oil production lines to close, elevators to halt at the nearest floor, and even amusement park rides to stop.
BART, which could brake trains, is among the agencies that are now receiving earthquake alerts from the more than 200 stations of the California Integrated Seismic Network. The prototype includes 740 of the 1,675 seismic stations needed to complete the system and provide adequate coverage for California, Oregon and Washington, but the political commitment to finish the job has been lacking.
President Trump’s budget proposal this year would have ended the program, but 28 California legislators successfully protested, including leaders from both parties, and it appears the system will get another $10.2 million next year, Given said. The problem, he said, is that operators are still well short of the $38 million needed to build the system, and they’ve secured none of the $16 million a year they need to maintain it.
“It’s moved forward and is more reliable than it was in 2012,” said Given, who pointed out that California’s warning system would be superior to the one in Mexico, which detects earthquakes in the subduction zone off the coast. “Our intent is to build a system that can be very fast and very accurate so that with a local quake near to you, you will still get some warning.”
The Mexican system may not be as sophisticated, but, except for a recent false alarm, it generally works. Anne Sorensen, a Danish journalist living in Mexico City, said she was jolted out of a sound sleep by a siren. Though she didn’t get up until the shaking started, her roommate and many others took action.
“My furniture started to fall over, the mirror fell down, a lamp got crushed and my bed was moving,” said Sorensen. “I tried to get out of bed because I could hear my roommate, who was very scared, and I fell flat on the floor. I got up and made it out to the doorway, and that’s where my roommate was standing.”
Sorensen admitted that the alarm would not have helped if the building had come down, but she said it was clearly better than being caught by surprise.
Jennifer Strauss, the regional coordinator for the ShakeAlert project, who also works at the UC Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, said about half of the nonfatal injuries in the deadly 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles were “due to things falling, things beaning people on the head.”
“If somebody can drop, cover and hold on under a sturdy table or get away from a huge window,” she said, they might save their life. “These are things that you can do in seconds, and things that a warning system could help (enable).”
Given said Mexico built its system in response to an earthquake that devastated the capital in 1985, killing an estimated 10,000 people. Japan’s system, which is similar, was a response to the Kobe earthquake, which left 6,400 dead. Taiwan built an alert system after the Chi Chi earthquake in 1999 killed 2,400, and China is building one in response to the 2008 Wenchuan quake that killed 87,000.
“We’re hoping in the United States that we will build our system before a devastating earthquake instead of afterward,” Given said.
National media and far-right wing Clinton neo-liberal ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE OPEN BORDERS like to make it appear as if white citizens worry or leave US because of growing global 99% of citizens coming to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as along CA WEST COAST. Looking at population projections for these cities SAN DIEGO, LA, SAN FRAN, SEATTLE we do not see REAL population projections ----we KNOW there will be a few billion global labor pool filling these US Foreign Economic Zones and CA's CITY STATES will explode ---looking at suburban growth as city centers fill with GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2%.
This is a current population stat for Greater LA-----these few decades of OPEN BORDER will see these numbers explode. Now, think about CLIMATE CHANGE/EARTHQUAKE public policy where almost nothing is being done along the West Coast to mitigate disaster and we see why white citizens will migrate out of West Coast cities as global labor pool brings lots of black and brown 99% -------WAKE UP AND WATCH OUT TO OUR 99% OF NEW CITIZENS-----
As with FLOOD ZONE MAPPING the mapping for disaster from earthquake is equality JUKED. This is done to allow developers to avoid all the zoning laws and public policy installed surrounding earthquake readiness. As well, we KNOW the high-rise office buildings in San Fran and Seattle ARE NOT EARTHQUAKE READY even as inspectors give those ratings.
We showed an article with MERCY MEDICAL going real estate development in just these locations----the one in SAN JOSE outside of San Fran shows how all medical and nursing home development is MOVING FORWARD as if no disaster is looming. In fact if one looks at addresses one sees not only FLOOD ZONE issues but earthquake issues. CA passed laws surrounding the need for hospitals to be EARTHQUAKE resistant and we are told in most cases these laws are IGNORED.
L.A. County population pushes past 10 million, highest in nation
March 27, 2014|By Emily Alpert Reyes
Hundreds of cyclists crowd the disembark and walk zone during last year's… (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles…)The population of Los Angeles County has edged past 10 million -- a new high for the most populous county in the United States, according to just-released estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.
As of July, the county was estimated to have a whopping 10,017,068 residents. That’s nearly twice as many as the next largest: Cook County in Illinois, which had an estimated 5,240,700 people.
Though Los Angeles has the biggest population by far, it isn’t among the fastest growing counties in the U.S., many of which are in oil- and gas-producing areas in and around the Great Plains.
While such rapidly growing counties boosted their populations by 4% or more, Los Angeles County grew less than 0.7% in population between July 2012 and July 2013, according to the new estimates.
Part of what prodded Los Angeles County past the 10-million mark was an influx of people from abroad.
Compared with other counties across the country, Los Angeles County had the highest net number of international migrants between 2012 and 2013 -- 39,000 people -- compared with 32,000 in Florida’s Miami-Dade County and 24,000 in New York’s Queens County, according to the Census Bureau estimates.
Here we see SAN FRAN city hall is earthquake-ready and our favorite far-right wing Bush neo-conservative global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE STANFORD is ready to PATENT yet another PRODUCT that is very likely not going to work.
Having watched the VIDEO we posted earlier today on what THE BIG ONE will look like and having seen very violent earthquakes we KNOW it is not the physical structure of housing that normally collapses----it is fire, the breaking of natural gas and water pipelines, mudslides, flooding that take out houses in communities filled with the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
While Baltimore City Hall is built in a downtown FLOOD ZONE we are seeing new city halls built on high-ground just for these reasons. We have the OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASON SENATE on top of FEDERAL HILL.
"The idea of seismic isolation is to isolate the house from the vibration of the ground," Miranda said. "When the ground is moving, the house will just slide." Seismic isolators already protect large structures like San Francisco City Hall and structures at San Francisco International Airport, Deierlein said, but they are quite expensive. He and his team adapted the technology for residential use by incorporating inexpensive materials into their scaled-down isolators'.
Stanford Report, October 16, 2014
Stanford engineers build, test earthquake-resistant house
Twenty-five years after the Loma Prieta earthquake, a Stanford team develops inexpensive design modifications that could be incorporated into new homes to reduce damage in an earthquake.
By Amber Dance
Video by Eduardo MirandaA Stanford team has developed inexpensive design modifications that might replace the need for residential earthquake insurance. Seismic isolators let a house skate along the trembling ground instead of collapsing.
Stanford engineers have built and tested an earthquake-resistant house that stayed staunchly upright even as it shook at three times the intensity of the destructive 1989 Loma Prieta temblor 25 years ago.
The engineers outfitted their scaled-down, boxy two-story house with sliding "isolators" so it skated along the trembling ground instead of collapsing. They also including extra-strength walls, to create a home that might replace the need for residential earthquake insurance, said project leader Gregory Deierlein, Stanford's John A. Blume Professor in the School of Engineering.
The modifications are inexpensive and could be incorporated into new homes as soon as designers and contractors decide to try them, according to the researchers.
"We want a house that is damage free after the big earthquake," said Eduardo Miranda, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. He co-led the project with Deierlein and Benjamin Fell, an associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at California State University, Sacramento.
Residential homes already do a good job of keeping the people inside safe when a temblor hits. But earthquakes typically do a lot of minor structural damage. For example, after the 1994 Northridge quake, the majority of the $25.6 billion in repair costs paid for fixes to 500,000 residential structures.
Most of those homes were not destroyed, but nonetheless thousands of families had to find a new place to live while their houses were repaired. Even if the walls stay up in a quake, wall finishes like drywall and stucco, along with architectural fixtures like cabinetry, are damaged because of the large sideways movements caused by earthquakes, Deierlein said.
The house that Stanford built had two major modifications to stave off earthquake damage. For one, it was not affixed into a foundation, but rested on a dozen steel-and-plastic sliders, each about 4.5 inches in diameter. Under those sliders were either plates or bowl-shaped dishes made of galvanized steel. These units are called seismic isolators.
"The idea of seismic isolation is to isolate the house from the vibration of the ground," Miranda said. "When the ground is moving, the house will just slide." Seismic isolators already protect large structures like San Francisco City Hall and structures at San Francisco International Airport, Deierlein said, but they are quite expensive. He and his team adapted the technology for residential use by incorporating inexpensive materials into their scaled-down isolators.
Second, the engineers developed what they call a "unibody" design, a term borrowed from the automobile industry, in which every element of the structure contributes to its strength. Instead of simply screwing drywall to the wood framing, as in typical construction, they used glue to affix extra-thick, 5/8-inch drywall more securely. On the outside, they used strong mesh and additional screws to attach the white stucco tightly. These elements made the house stiffer and stronger, leading to a significantly better seismic performance.
How do you test an earthquake-resistant house? It takes a big earthquake simulator called a shake table. Deierlein and colleagues constructed their 36-by-22-foot three-bedroom home atop the biggest such platform in the country, the Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table at the University of California, San Diego. The facility uses computer-controlled hydraulic pistons to move the platform back and forth in a pattern selected by the engineers, so it can replicate specific earthquakes like Loma Prieta.
The table is part of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), with sites across the United States funded by the National Science Foundation. The engineers tested partial versions of their design earlier at Stanford, California State University, Sacramento, and a NEES site at the University of California, Berkeley.
After a seven-week build, in September it was time to rumble the house. First, the engineers tested the isolators, the flat versions and the dish shape. The dishes are designed so that after the temblor ceases, the isolators' pegs will settle back into the lowest point of the dish. That way, the house always winds up where it started. Although flat pads are easier to build, they also leave the house more vulnerable to migrating from its original location.
While it is difficult to put the simulations on the Richter scale, the engineers shook the table at three times the intensity of the ground shaking during Loma Prieta, which measured 6.9 magnitude. The house slid from left to right, but held together. "Under the isolators, the house basically saw no damage," Deierlein said. Even in a strong quake like Northridge, a 6.7 on the Richter scale, isolators should protect a home, he said.
Next, the researchers bolted the house to the shake table, to test how well the unibody system held up without isolators. They had developed computer models to predict when the house would fall, but it outperformed their expectations.
"We are really seeing very little damage," said Ezra Jampole, a doctoral candidate at Stanford whose T-shirt read, "I'm an earthquake engineer… If I run you run." Under the triple-Loma Prieta conditions, a few cracks appeared in the stucco and drywall, and a swinging light in the garage shattered. The test window and steel door stayed put, as did the table and chair that furnished the test house.
Encouraged, the engineers cranked up the table to shake 50 percent faster, the maximum quake the table can simulate. That did it. The engineers whooped and clapped as the house sashayed from side to side. The window and door fell out and stucco sheared off. The house wound up listing to the side like the Tower of Pisa.
"It came really close to collapse," Deierlein said. He said the engineers still have some work to do to figure out precisely how much shaking a unibody house can withstand before crumbling.
Want your own earthquake-resistant home? Though it should be possible to retrofit houses with these modifications, it would be simpler to incorporate them into a new construction, Deierlein said. He and his colleagues intentionally designed protective features that were not only effective, but also affordable. The unibody system, requiring some glue, mesh and screws, should add less than a few thousand dollars to the cost of building a building the size of the test house, and very little time to the construction process, Miranda said.
Deierlein estimated that building a house on this type of seismic isolators would add about $10,000 to $15,000 to the total cost of a 1,500- to 2,000-square-foot house; and it would take contractors about four extra days to install them before building the home on top. However, he said, that one-time cost is minimal compared to annual earthquake insurance with high deductibles. Californians paid an average premium of $676 in 2013, according to the California Department of Insurance, but the majority of homeowners don't carry a policy at all.
Contractors could start incorporating these changes into new homes anytime, Deierlein said, though it will likely take a few pioneering engineers to add them to designs and work with building departments to incorporate them into existing building codes.
"We are always cautious never to talk about earthquake-proof," he said, "but our resistance is getting better and better."
Here is what happens when SHELTER IN PLACE laws for emergency in this case EARTHQUAKE emergencies are installed rather than population evacuation---you get TIERED HOUSING STRUCTURE READINESS. Where the US once had public safety guidelines to assure ALL 99% OF CITIZENS would be safe----now we have a wealth tiered safety structure and we are shouting even if you are that upper-middle/merely rich homeowner what is being sold as the next big selling PRODUCT----earthquake -resistant houses-----you will be YET AGAIN FLEECED ----as we say it is not only the shaking----it is the infrastructure development from roads, pipelines, and soft-soil land/mudslide that brings down housing. THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT IN US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES addressing these once standard public safety disaster issues.
So, we see pictures of LA CITY COUNCIL global Wall Street pols giving one another HIGH-FIVES at passing laws requiring homeowners and renters to upgrade their homes for earthquake safety when none of this protects against the COMING BIG ONE. Lot's of government revenue and individual citizen homeowner money to buy these NEW PRODUCTS-----almost NO PUBLIC SAFETY will occur given surrounding conditions.
Know what? You will have to be that global 1% and their 2% to meet these guidelines----but even they will not survive subprime infrastructure public safety/.
THIS IS A LONG ARTICLE PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH
What it will take for residents to live safely in their homes after an earthquake.
Excerpted from the SPUR report Safe Enough to Stay
Urbanist Article February 1, 2012
This article is excerpted from the SPUR report Safe Enough to Stay. Read the complete report at spur.org/safe-enough >>
When a major earthquake strikes the Bay Area, the region could face thousands of casualties, hundreds of thousands of displaced households and losses in the hundreds of billion dollars. The lives of San Franciscans will be enormously disrupted, and it could take months to re-establish essential services. Recovery will be slow, depending on the extent of the building damage, the amount of business lost, the availability of utilities and how quickly communities can repair and rebuild their housing.
In order to rebound quickly after a major earthquake, San Francisco needs to become a resilient city. Resilience is the ability of the city to contain the effects of earthquakes when they occur, to carry out recovery activities in ways that minimize social disruption and to rebuild in ways that mitigate the effects of future earthquakes. The more quickly a community is able to rebound from a major event, the more resilient it is.
This article, based on our report Safe Enough to Stay, addresses one consideration: housing. After a major earthquake hits, how many San Franciscans will be able to shelter in place, i.e., stay in their homes while those homes are being repaired? What does it mean for the city’s overall resilience if some neighborhoods suffer more damage than others? What steps can city government, building owners and residents take now to ensure that homes are safe to occupy after an earthquake strikes?
Housing is only one element in the complex web of factors that contribute to the city’s earthquake resilience, but we believe it is an especially important one. Housing is linked to every other aspect of the city’s recovery: Businesses, neighborhood districts, schools and cultural institutions all rely on residents being in the city. If people can stay in their homes, they will be more able to put their energy and resources into rebuilding their neighborhoods. If they must leave the city, their resources will go with them, perhaps permanently.
In this article, we answer the following questions:
1. How much of San Francisco’s housing stock needs to meet shelter-in-place standards in order for the city to be resilient?
2. What engineering criteria should be used to determine whether a home has shelter-in-place capacity that's adequate for a major earthquake?
3. What needs to be done to enable residents to shelter in place for days and months after a large earthquake?
I. How much of San Francisco’s housing stock needs to meet shelter-in-place standards in order for the city to be resilient? The question of how much housing in a city can be damaged by an earthquake before the city’s viability is undermined is not easily answered. However, after assessing the city’s existing capacity for short-term housing (shelter beds) and medium-term or “interim” housing (hotel rooms, trailers) and analyzing how housing damage in recent relevant disasters affected community resilience, we conclude that 95 percent is an appropriate goal.
San Francisco’s emergency and interim housing capacity
After a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault (see "Defining the Expected Earthquake" on page 8 for more on why we use this metric), approximately 85,000 households (roughly 25 percent of San Francisco’s population ) could need interim housing for several months, gradually decreasing to 45,000 households (approximately 13 percent) by two years after the earthquake. Up to 15,000 households (approximately 5 percent) could require interim housing for up to five years. 
San Francisco’s Department of Emergency Management estimates that its top shelter capacity is 60,000 persons, or roughly 7.5 percent of San Francisco’s overall population. Sheltering this many people would require maximizing shelter space at large convention facilities like the Moscone Center and also making use of some outdoor or soft-sided shelters to supplement indoor space. If we were only to use indoor facilities, capacity would be reduced to 45,000 persons, or roughly 5.5 percent of San Francisco’s population. 
After the emergency period has subsided, residents will need to find interim housing during the period when repairs to damaged housing are being completed and new replacement housing is constructed. San Francisco’s options for providing interim housing are severely constrained and could lead to residents being dispersed to other parts of the state (or possibly even farther).
Recent comparable disasters
Perhaps the best way to investigate whether a goal of 95 percent shelter in place is reasonable for San Francisco is to consider how other communities fared after major disasters (See Figure B). Several relevant lessons for San Francisco emerge from the experiences of disasters in other communities:
1. Rebuilding housing takes a long time, even if the percentage of units rendered uninhabitable is relatively small. It took at least two years for a significant portion of housing to be replaced in all of the profiled disasters for which information was available. After the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan — an area often cited as similar to the Bay Area — it took the city five to 10 years to reach its rebuilding goals.
2. Multifamily and affordable housing is much more difficult and slower to replace than single-family, market-rate housing. Financing and legal issues are some of the many factors that slow down this work. After the Bay Area’s Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, it took seven to 10 years to replace all of the damaged affordable housing. If affordable housing is lost, it is possible that some might never be replaced, leading to a significant shift in post-event population.
3. Large losses of housing lead to permanent losses of population. Hurricane Katrina and the Kobe earthquake had housing losses greater than 25 percent. Both events caused large population losses and demographic shifts. Even where housing losses were much smaller — such as the Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand — large losses in population were felt.
4. Interim housing matters. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles, most of the people displaced were able to relocate nearby due to the area’s pre-earthquake 9.3 percent vacancy rate. Vacant rental units served as interim housing. In San Francisco, the vacancy rate is typically much tighter, currently 4 percent, meaning the city will need more active measures to house its displaced residents over longer periods.
We believe that San Francisco would experience significant consequences if even only 5 percent of its housing units were unusable after an earthquake, given the city’s low vacancy rates, density and limited capacity for interim housing. If more housing were damaged, the potential social and economic consequences could be devastating.
What Does It Mean to Shelter in Place?
SPUR defines “shelter in place” as a resident’s ability to remain in his or her home while it is being repaired after an earthquake — not just for hours or days after an event, but for the months it may take to get back to normal. For a building to have shelter-in-place capacity, it must be strong enough to withstand a major earthquake without substantial structural damage. This is a different standard than that employed by the current building code, which promises only that a building meets life-safety standards, that is, the building will not collapse but may be so damaged as to be unusable. A shelter-in-place residence will not be fully functional, like a hospital would need to be, but it will be safe enough for people to live in it during the months after an earthquake. While utilities such as water and sewer lines are being repaired and reconnected, residents who are sheltering in place will need to be within walking distance of a neighborhood center that can help meet basic needs not available within their homes.
How will San Francisco’s neighborhoods be impacted by the expected earthquake?
After a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, approximately 25 percent of San Francisco’s housing units would be unsafe for residents to occupy. In other words, we currently expect 75 percent of residences to be available for sheltering in place after the expected earthquake.
SPUR has refined estimates of housing damage provided by the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) so that they could be reported in greater detail by neighborhood and structure type. The analysis makes clear that housing in every San Francisco neighborhood would be damaged heavily by the expected earthquake. The neighborhoods that will see the most damage are those with large amounts of multifamily housing, which is generally more vulnerable than smaller residences, and those that have significant areas of soft or liquefiable soils, which can experience magnified shaking and ground failure.
Defining the Expected Earthquake
For the purposes of defining resilience and developing mitigation policies to achieve it, SPUR uses one of the scenario earthquakes developed by the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS): a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault.
We refer to this scenario as the “expected earthquake” because an event of this magnitude can be expected — conservatively but reasonably — to occur once during the useful life of a structure or system, and more frequently if the structure is renovated to serve more than one or two generations.
1. Adopt recovery targets for the housing sector as a whole, based on what is necessary for citywide resilience in a large but expected earthquake.
SPUR recommends 95 percent shelter in place as the appropriate goal for San Francisco. This target should be adopted by the City and County of San Francisco, either in the Community Safety Element of the General Plan or as a stand-alone piece of legislation adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The city should set a 30-year time frame to reach this goal, mirroring the 30-year time frame identified to implement the CAPSS recommendations.
2. Implement the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) recommended mandatory soft-story retrofit program.
Estimated increase in shelter-in-place capacity:
As SPUR noted in its 2009 resilient city report, the single most important step San Francisco can take to increase its resilience is to adopt a mandatory retrofit program for wood-frame soft-story buildings with three stories or more and five units or more. If these buildings were seismically retrofitted, we estimate that 80 percent of city residents would be able to shelter in place after the expected earthquake.
3. Develop soft-story retrofit program for smaller soft-story buildings.
Estimated increase in shelter-in-place capacity:
Smaller wood-frame soft-story buildings also pose a major challenge to San Francisco’s resilience. These buildings are represented in large numbers in the Sunset and Richmond districts, both of which are highly vulnerable to the expected earthquake. A retrofit program is needed for these buildings as well.
4. Develop retrofit programs for other vulnerable housing types that impact San Francisco’s resilience and also have the potential to severely injure or kill people.
Estimated increase in shelter-in-place capacity:
There are a number of building types used for housing, such as non-ductile concrete buildings and unreinforced masonry buildings, that will not serve as shelter-in-place housing and also have the potential to be significantly damaged, causing injury and significant loss of life. As we do not currently know how many of these buildings exist, the city should begin by developing a reliable inventory of them.
5. Focus on developing an interim housing strategy for San Francisco.
The city should complete its interim housing planning process and adhere to its objectives to keep as many residents as possible in their homes; keep residents within their neighborhoods; keep people within the city; and finally, if residents are relocated, have a plan to bring them back.
II. What engineering criteria should be used to determine whether a home has adequate shelter-in-place capacity?While shelter-in-place capacity is needed after the earthquake, the ability to assess an individual building’s expected performance is needed beforehand.
SPUR recognizes that San Francisco’s resilience requires more than basic safety during the earthquake. It requires that buildings remain habitable and repairable so that occupants can live safely in them even before repairs begin.
To support the move to resilience-based earthquake planning, the city’s existing structural-evaluation criteria need to be revisited. Specifically, the city needs to determine what shelter in place means from an engineering perspective and to develop a criteria for analyzing now, before the earthquake, whether a building is likely to serve as shelter-in-place housing afterward.
We recommend that feasible shelter-in-place evaluation criteria be based on existing standards already familiar to practicing engineers and code officials. Those standards should account for:
> Cost-effective procedures;
> The range of residential structure types in San Francisco;
> Differences between new and existing structures (unlike most building code provisions); and
> Nonstructural conditions that affect shelter-in-place habitability.
We recommend the use of the national standard called Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, also known as ASCE 31.
To determine whether a building has shelter-in-place capacity, the ASCE 31 criteria should be modified to consider only the types of damage that are critical for sheltering in place with reference to approved maps of relevant hazards and expected infrastructure performance.
6. Further develop shelter-in-place evaluation criteria for voluntary, mandatory and triggered seismic work on residential buildings.
We have described one approach to developing shelter-in-place evaluation criteria. However, much work is yet to be done. SPUR recommends that the Office of the City Administrator, the Department of Building Inspection and the Department of Emergency Management further develop shelter-in-place evaluation criteria.
7. As draft criteria are developed, generate a new loss estimate for the magnitude 7.2 San Andreas and other scenario earthquakes.
Our best estimate of housing loss and its impact on recovery (based on the CAPSS data referenced above) does not account specifically for what we have now defined as shelter-in-place performance. With the new definition in place, and with draft engineering criteria in progress, the Department of Building Inspection and the Department of Emergency Management should undertake a new loss estimate focused on shelter-in-place performance.
III. What needs to be done to enable residents to shelter in place for days and months after a large earthquake?SPUR believes it is critical to define alternative shelter-in-place housing standards that are safe enough to allow people to stay in their homes but not so stringent that otherwise safe buildings will be deemed unsuitable for occupancy. How do we set a post-earthquake standard that is “safe enough”? We need to define alternative standards that would supersede regular code requirements and standards during a housing-emergency period declared by the city after a major earthquake. Such an emergency period might extend for days, weeks or longer.
Shelter-in-place standards should be phased, with the expectation that repairs need to be made over time to restore habitability. Certain standards that would be considered acceptable immediately following the earthquake (such as using portable outdoor toilets) would not be considered acceptable three months after the earthquake. The shelter-in-place standards should define which needs will be met by the building itself and which will be met outside the building for each time phase. Those resources that must be met outside the building will need to be provided at a neighborhood service center located in close proximity to shelter-in-place housing.
Phased Habitability Standards Following an Earthquake
After an earthquake, even housing that is safe enough to occupy will not meet existing codes. A phased standard needs to be defined in this post-earthquake period.
Figure C illustrates the idea of alternative habitability standards that would apply in emergencies but gradually revert to normal code requirements. The blue line represents the code standards for habit-ability that normally apply. When an earthquake occurs, some damage might result, but if the damage is light, it would not affect the city’s overall resilience, so no relaxation of the normal standards would be justified. A declared housing emergency, however, indicates that damage — and possibly housing loss — is significant enough to justify special measures to speed response and recovery. The red line represents the minimum standard to be met within a residence. The pink shaded area represents elements that will be provided outside of the home by a neighborhood service center. The red shaded area represents the actual loss of habitable housing. As repairs are made, the loss is recovered, and buildings return to normal.
Minimum habitability requirements for occupancy after the earthquake
SPUR has identified five different post-earthquake time periods and defined the major habitability requirements for each:
1. The immediate post-earthquake period
2. One week after the earthquake
3. One month after the earthquake
4. Three months after the earthquake
5. After the declared housing emergency is over
Increasingly robust habitability standards will need to be met in each phase, as described in Figure D.
Building evaluation and inspection
After a major earthquake, engineers and design professionals come from all over the country to help conduct formal building inspections using what is known as the ATC-20 evaluation procedure. They evaluate building structures and tag them depending on their level of damage: Red tags mean a building is unsafe and should not be entered or occupied; yellow tags indicate restricted use, meaning a building either requires further evaluation or is okay to occupy except for designated areas; and green tags mean that no unsafe conditions were found or suspected.
Shelter-in-place evaluations are not a building tagging program. Instead, they will provide immediate guidance for residents as to whether nonstructural and related conditions are suitable for continued occupancy. Residents will need to review shelter-in-place conditions within 24 hours of an earthquake so that they know whether they can remain in their homes. Meanwhile, it may take a period of several days or weeks for inspectors and design professionals to undertake ATC-20 evaluations.
Shelter-in-place standards need to be clear enough so that most residents will be able to assess their own buildings. But many residents will need help and guidance in applying shelter-in-place standards to their buildings while they wait for design professionals to complete an ATC-20 evaluation. Private community volunteers can be trained to help residents determine if shelter-in-place standards are met.
A post-earthquake alternative shelter-in-place habitability standard should be established and implemented in order to encourage residents to remain in their homes. The following recommendations will help to achieve this goal.
8. Create a San Francisco interdepartmental shelter-in-place task force.
The Mayor’s Office should create an interdepartmental task force that will ensure coordination with the Department of Building Inspection, the San Francisco Fire Department, the Department of Public Health and the Department of Emergency Management. Other agencies to be involved should include the Department of Public Works, the Mayor’s Office on Disability, the Mayor’s Office on Housing and others.
9. Prepare and adopt regulations that allow for the use of shelter-in-place habitability standards in a declared housing-emergency period.
Shelter-in-place standards may be adopted in advance of an emergency or be completed and ready to adopt as part of the city’s emergency measures. Administrative bulletins and similar regulations should be adopted by various agencies to detail how code requirements and policies will need to be implemented. These should include complaint, inspection and enforcement procedures.
During a declared emergency, a separate housing emergency may also be declared, which would allow the enforcement of the alternative shelter-in-place habitability standards. A declared housing emergency may continue as a special emergency period past the general declared emergency period and may be applied to specific areas where housing is most severely impacted.
10. Develop a plan for implementation of a shelter-in-place program.
This implementation plan should include the creation of public training materials, coordination with existing post-disaster building evaluation procedures and the stockpiling of materials needed to achieve shelter in place in the post-disaster period.
A. Preparation of public training materials
The interagency task force recommended above should develop simple and clear training materials for residents to help them determine whether or not they can shelter in place. These should include a set of graphic illustrations and a shelter-in-place checklist, which should be incorporated in outreach and training materials to building owners and residents to inform them of shelter-in-place habitability requirements, standards, inspection procedures and repair expectations. These could include such elements as door tags that say “I’m OK!” or “I Need Help.” Additionally, residents could receive special training in shelter in place prior to an event, much like the current Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (NERT) program.
B. Coordination with existing post-disaster evaluation procedures
After an earthquake, professionals will come from all over the country to help evaluate buildings using the ATC-20 evaluation procedure. If San Francisco’s evaluation procedures are modified to focus on shelter in place, ATC-20 inspectors will need to be trained in San Francisco–based shelter-in-place habitability standards.
C. Storing materials necessary to allow shelter-in-place standards to be met
The city will need to have certain materials, such as plastic sheeting for weather protection, on hand for use after a major earthquake. SPUR recommends that the Department of Building Inspection, the Department of Emergency Management and the Department of Public Health coordinate to develop a list of these materials and the quantities that will be needed.
11.Develop plans for neighborhood support centers to provide necessary support for shelter-in-place communities.
Neighborhood support centers are not emergency shelters. Rather, they are resource centers near residences that support and encourage people to stay in their homes by providing essential services and information and ensuring that the balance of human needs, outside the shelter-in-place home, is met. A store, restaurant, small business or religious or social facility could provide necessary local space. A large garage or other covered area could be equipped to provide these services. Neighborhood support centers will need to be staffed and equipped to provide information and services such as distribution of supplies, water and food; and referrals to community service organizations and agencies.
The Path to Resilience
It is hard to plan for the unknown. We know that future earthquakes will damage the Bay Area, but we don’t know where, when or how large these earthquakes will be. But there are things that San Francisco can do now to help its buildings survive the expected earthquake and enable its residents to stay and rebuild their homes.
The steps we propose aren’t easy. They require money, political capital and coordination among many public agencies. Yet the risk of doing nothing is enormous. If San Francisco does not take the steps outlined in this report, the city will need to find ways to provide interim housing for approximately 85,000 households — roughly 25 percent of its population. There are not nearly enough shelter beds and interim housing capacity to meet this demand. San Franciscans need to be able to shelter in place.
Through a combination of retrofits and careful planning we can make San Francisco’s housing safe enough to stay. It won’t happen overnight. But if we don’t begin work now, we won’t be ready when the next large earthquake strikes. SPUR believes that is a risk too great to take.
 There are approximately 330,000 households in San Francisco. The estimate of 85,000 households comes from analysis of CAPSS HAZUS output data — see Figure B.
 Laurie Johnson and Lucas Eckroad, “Summary Report on the City and County of San Francisco’s Post-Disaster Interim Housing Policy Planning Workshop,” July 11, 2001, San Francisco Department of Emergency Management.
 E-mail correspondence with Robert Stengel, Department of Emergency Management, September 1, 2011.
 Vacancy rates in SF are currently 4% and are continuing to tighten due to high demand from growing employment sectors, potentially exacerbating interim housing needs should a disaster strike. First quarter 2011. Data from Reis, Inc. as quoted in “U.S. Housing Market Conditions: Pacific Regional Report, HUD Region IX – 1st Quarter 2011.” Available at www.huduser.org/portal/regional.html.
 Defining building performance in terms of shelter in place is a new concept. The CAPSS project used the best information and methods available at the time to estimate the amount of housing that would be usable after an earthquake. This task force has now developed improved methods to identify which residences could be used to shelter in place, but this new approach has not yet been applied to San Francisco’s building stock. The analysis presented in this report is based on the CAPSS analysis. We are hopeful that an improved analysis will be conducted sometime in the future using the methods developed by this task force, producing updated and refined estimates of housing damage.
 This assumes a high standard of retrofit, referred to as Retrofit Scheme 3 in the CAPSS report “Here Today — Here Tomorrow: Earthquake Safety for Soft-Story Buildings” (ATC 52-3). There are 4,400 wood-frame buildings with three or more stories and five or more units in San Francisco, an unknown number of which have a soft-story condition.
We just want to give a global example of how these NEW EARTHQUAKE PRODUCTS are being sold overseas.....here we see just what we said would be true in US-----there are tiered prices for this amount of housing-structure protection and that amount of housing protection ----and we can bet our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE and these 99% sovereign citizens overseas will be required to buy these products when the reality will be -----
there will be no protection from the coming BIG ONE.
India as Malaysia has a far worse earthquake/tsunami situation with their geo-tectonic plate shifts that will coincide with our West Coast shifts----please watch out for FAKE ASSURANCES of safety from a far-right wing extreme wealth global 1% that simply do not want the same PUBLIC SAFETY EVACUATIONS for 99% protections during disaster.
THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN MADE EARTHQUAKE READY-----OH, REALLY??????
Here comes certification for earthquake resistant buildings in India
The 'Taylor Protected' buildings will comprise shock absorbers using aerospace technology, which will stay hidden inside the walls and will act just like shock absorbers in a car absorbing the shocks from an earthquake so that the building structure remains unharmed.
Sanu Sandilya | ET Bureau | July 03, 2015, 16:25 IST
The building, its occupants and contents are severely shaken. This can cause significant damage, but the structure does not reach a state of imminent collapse. The building will not be usable until a structural safety assessment is done to see if it can be retrofitted.
NEW DELHI: In a first, Taylor Devices India, the Indian subsidiary of US-based Taylor Devices Inc has launched certification for earthquake resistance buildings in India.
The 'Taylor Protected' buildings will comprise shock absorbers using aerospace technology, which will stay hidden inside the walls and will act just like shock absorbers in a car absorbing the shocks from an earthquake so that the building structure remains unharmed.
The company claims that certified buildings will absorb even an earthquake measuring 7.5 on the richter scale and stay operational after the calamity.
India has yet not seen this premier earthquake protection which is popular in countries like the US and Japan. "Presently there is noway to identify if a building is earthquake resistant, other than take the word of the seller that the building he is selling is earthquake resistant. These brand certification marks will enable the consumers in India to be rest assured," said Sandeep Donald Shah, managing director, Taylor Devices India.
There are four distinct categories of earthquake resistant buildings - Category A, B C & D. Category A and category B buildings stay operational even after a major earthquake whereas Category C and Category D buildings need to be abandoned/vacated and structurally repaired before being reoccupied. The building code in India requires a minimum compliance to category D standard, which is 'collapse prevention'.
'Taylor Protected' and 'Taylor Earthquake Protection' brand certification will only be given to Category A and B buildings (Operational and Immediate Occupancy buildings).
This certification can be given both for new and existing buildings. Explaining the cost difference between a category D and category B certified buildings, Shah said, "If a Category D building is costing Rs 8,000 per sq ft, the certified Category B building will cost just Rs 350 more than that, which is nothing considering the protection aspect."
When US citizens shake their fists at a sitting President for failing to engage FEMA in Federal disaster relief these few decades they are not understanding that FEMA as a public safety emergency agency has been dismantled and privatized -----tied to HOMELAND SECURITY -----and the policies being pushed by FEMA since Bush era has been SHELTER IN PLACE. The far-right wing does not see a Federal agency that rescues---it does not see US citizens as having rights to rescue----it sees individuals prepared to do the best they can in times of DISASTER. This is what the failure by Bush to have FEMA engaged in New Orleans was about and it is what happened in Houston under Trump. Who decides to take this FAR-RIGHT WING EXTREME WEALTH stance in a Federal agency like FEMA? The President appoints that agency head. The state governor decides not to involve the Federal agency FEMA and tells citizens to SHELTER IN PLACE. These policies are particularly critical when US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES usually right on coastline fill with millions of people. The infrastructure development is not there to evacuate----global 1% has no intentions of having that infrastructure -----they do not want to train or have a government response to these emergency incidents so we get what we see in New Orleans or Houston----if you have the means to evacuate you do----if you don't leave early enough you sit in bumper to bumper interstate traffic to NOWHERE----or you face that disaster at home.
So, we are now told what we need to SHELTER IN PLACE according to what kind of emergency. If you live in wealthy communities you have easy access to escape routes ----you have money to charter helicopters-----if you are the 99% you hold your breath and pray. These far-right wing policies mirror AGING IN PLACE----where seniors are led to believe they will have home support----when they will not.
BUSH installed these FEMA policies===Obama continued them and pushed FEMA to HOMELAND SECURITY where terrorism and emergencies are linked. When we allow global 1% to sell STATES RIGHTS in order to get citizens to want FEDERALISM ----keeping Federal government out of states----this is what we get. Once those Federal agencies are gone----states and local government cannot afford a response.
IT IS CRITICAL WHEN CHOOSING A COMMUNITY TO LIVE THAT WE LOOK CLOSELY AT WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE FOR EMERGENCY----AND IF A CITY COUNCIL HAS REALLY INSTALLED BUILDING SAFETY POLICIES IT PASSED LAWS TO PRETEND THEY WORK FOR THE 99%.
All we see for earthquake as flood are new products they pretend will help us SHELTER IN PLACE.
Residential Shelter In Place (FEMA 2002)
Published on Jun 10, 2010
Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Manaagement Agency Residential Shelter In Place AVA21190VNB1, January 2002 When industrial accidents occur public officials typically evacuate the public. In certain circumstances it is preferable to shelter people in their residences. In addition to staying indoors, people can increase their protection from chemicals.