Safe Enough to Stay - ABAG Earthquake and Hazards Program

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Safe Enough to StayAppendix IImpacts of the expectedearthquake on San Francisco’sneighborhoodsWorking with data from the Community Action Plan for SeismicSafety (CAPSS), SPUR has estimated the impacts of a Magnitude7.2 San Andreas earthquake on San Francisco’s neighborhoods. Weattempted to determine how much of San Francisco’s housing wouldbe usable after the expected earthquake, meaning it would meetshelter-in-place standards and be safe enough to be inhabited whilebeing repaired.Figure 7: Housing Units in Various Damage States by NeighborhoodThe safety performance of housing stock in different neighborhoods will vary after the expectedearthquake. Some housing units will meet shelter-in-place standards, while others will not be usableimmediately after an earthquake. A few won’t even be repairable in the long term.Number of Housing Units60,000Usable light damage unitsUsable moderate damage unitsNot usable repairable damage unitsNot usable, not repairable damage unitsTotal units50,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000BayviewCentral WaterfrontDowntownExcelsiorInglesideMarinaMercedMissionNorth BeachPacific HeightsRichmondSunsetTwin PeaksWestern AdditionSources: SFGIS, Census 2000 and SPUR analysis of CAPSS Hazus Output Data32 SPUR Report > January 2012
Appendix IFigure 8: Unusable Housing by Neighborhood and Structure TypeWe expect the majority of housing that is declared unusable after the expected earthquake to bewood-frame soft-story residences. Non-ductile concrete buildings will make up a higher percentage inneighborhoods such as Downtown, where there are a greater number of these buildings.Number of Unusable Housing Units16,0001 & 2 family wood-frame soft-story residences3+ family wood-frame soft-story residencesConcrete buildings built before 1980All other types of buildings14,00012,00010,0008,0006,0004,0002,0000BayviewCentral WaterfrontDowntownExcelsiorInglesideMarinaMercedMissionNorth BeachPacific HeightsRichmondSunsetTwin PeaksWestern AdditionSources: SFGIS, Census 2000 and SPUR analysis of CAPSS Hazus Output DataSPUR Report > January 2012 33
Page 6 and 7: Safe Enough to StaySection I:How mu
Page 8 and 9: Safe Enough to StayLibrary of Congr
Page 10 and 11: Safe Enough to StayFigure 1: Compar
Page 12 and 13: Safe Enough to StaySeveral relevant
Page 14 and 15: Safe Enough to StayFigure 3: How Wi
Page 16 and 17: Safe Enough to StaySan Andreas eart
Page 18 and 19: Safe Enough to StaySection I Recomm
Page 20 and 21: Safe Enough to StaySeismically Vuln
Page 22 and 23: Safe Enough to StaySection II:What
Page 24 and 25: Safe Enough to StayAssessing the ex
Page 26 and 27: Safe Enough to StaySection III:What
Page 29 and 30: Building evaluation and inspectionA
Page 31: Section IV:Applicability to otherju
Page 35 and 36: Safe Enough to StayAges 22-29Ages 3
Page 37 and 38: Figures 10 and 11: Seismic Valuatio
Page 39 and 40: Safe Enough to StayFigure 13: Lique
Page 41 and 42: Safe Enough to Stayimmediate post-e
Page 43 and 44: Appendix IIIC. Engineering evaluati

Safe Enough to Stay - ABAG Earthquake and Hazards Program

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?