|
|
WSSPC Awards in Excellence 1998
Award Recipients
Awarded Category:
Overall Excellence
Program Name Hazard Mitigation Program
Administering Agency City of Berkeley
Contact Person (Name/Title) Arrietta Chakos, Chief of Staff
Address City Manager’s Office, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone Number 510-644-6580
Fax Number 510-644-6012
| 1. |
How long has this program been operational? |
|
|
|
Month: November Year: 1992
|
|
|
| |
The City’s first hazard mitigation bond program was launched in 1992 with the
passage of two local general obligation bond measures and the establishment
of a variety
of municipal residential upgrade incentive programs. |
|
|
| 2. |
What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or issue(s) was it designed
to address? |
|
|
| |
The main purpose of the City’s program is to reduce the potential life and
property losses in the event of a major natural disaster. The City instituted a
multi-pronged approach to mitigation, beginning with the seismic upgrade of
every major
public building and the installation of a secondary water supply
system to fight fires
following earthquakes. |
|
|
| |
Berkeley is susceptible to multiple hazards, like most California communities.
The
community has experienced significant earthquake damage in recent years
and is in
perennial preparation for the forecasted Hayward fault event or other major regional
earthquakes. The Hayward fault runs through the eastern
portion of Berkeley. Much of the
City is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone Area and the whole region is
categorized as a USGS Seismic Zone
4 area. The City is vulnerable to near-field earthquake
effects, such as high
ground acceleration rates. |
|
|
| |
Other potential natural hazards affect Berkeley: they include urban-wildland
fires,
landslide and liquefaction areas, and urban creek flooding. |
|
|
| 3. |
Describe the specific activities and operations of the program. |
|
|
| |
The mitigation program for Berkeley’s public buildings include the seismic
upgrade
of the community’s sixteen public schools; seven fire stations; main library;
corporation yard facilities; two public garages; and the municipal administrative center
building. Further, the City undertook the construction of
a new emergency operation
center; a separate public safety building to house police and fire operations; and the
installation of a contingency, disaster water supply system.. |
|
|
| |
The City instituted a special fire assessment district in the Berkeley hills areas
most
vulnerable to urban-wildland fires. The district levied an annual fee of
$50 per parcel to
fund vegetation management activities and provide fire prevention assistance for property
owners. |
|
|
| |
The City contributes up to $950,000 annually for residential and non-profit
agency
seismic upgrades via varies incentive programs for property owners.
These programs
include: |
|
|
| |
- A waiver for all permit fees for seismic upgrades;
- A 1.5% transfer tax rebate on upgrade costs;
- Funding for non-profit agencies like Christmas in April and a local energy conservation
agency to effect structural and non-structural hazard mitigation in low-income and senior
homes;
- Loan and grant programs for low-income families and seniors to do
seismic and other
safety repairs to their homes; and
- Seismic mitigation courses for tenants and landlords.
|
|
|
|
The City’s Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Upgrade Program has been in place
since
1992, and provides legislative mandates for the upgrade of hazardous buildings. |
|
|
|
Berkeley established a Seismic Technical Advisory Group that advises the City manager
on all seismic safety projects and with the development of its comprehensive mitigation
policy. The group is made up of internationally
recognized engineering and public policy
experts who advise staff on state-of-
the-art seismic evaluation and mitigation approaches. |
|
|
| 4. |
What were the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of funding?
|
|
|
|
$ 312 Million Budget Source: $262 M - local bond funds, $24 M - federal funds, $26 M - state funds. |
|
|
| 5. |
What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s) of funding? |
|
|
|
$950,000 (approximate) Budget Source: foregone municipal tax revenue; local
&
federal funds |
|
|
| 6. |
How many employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this program? 30 FTE |
|
|
| 7. |
To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? Yes
|
|
|
|
Are you aware of similar programs in other states? Yes |
|
|
| 8. |
Has the program been fully implemented? No |
|
|
|
If No, what actions remain to be taken? |
|
|
|
A thorough study must be done of the community’s risk exposure, including a
loss
estimation study, using FEMA’s HAZUS software. Once done, the City
Council can adopt
improved codes and standards for upgrade; develop
legislative and fiscal incentives for
mitigation; and work with state and federal
agencies to secure better funding sources for
private sector risk reduction. |
|
|
|
The City launched another phase of the mitigation program, the Disaster
Resistant
Community Project, in November 1997. This project will combine the efforts of the
University of California, Berkeley and the City, along with many community stakeholders to
continue hazard assessment and mitigation efforts
in the coming years. Two technical
panels are being appointed to assist with a
compilation of all natural hazards information
for the area and to finalize
building stack surveys. Because the university recently
completed its
assessment of the campus facilities, Berkeley is close to completing its
hazard vulnerability assessment. |
|
|
|
Once that is completed, within the next fiscal year, then the City Council can
begin to
prioritize the remaining risk in its environs and undertake assertive measures to reduce
the hazards over the next five - ten years. |
|
|
| 9. |
Is there evidence that the program has been effective in achieving its stated
purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well the
program has
addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s). |
|
|
|
The public sector work has been successful. By 2002, every major municipal
and school
building in Berkeley will be seismically upgraded. The private sector mitigation is what
the City will concentrate on for the next five - ten years, in
an attempt to reduce
hazards in seismically weak commercial and residential structures. |
|
|
|
Though the programs currently in place are encouraging retrofit. About 1200
homes are
upgraded annually via the transfer tax rebate program for a total of approximately 6300
homes in the last five years. Another 1250 residences have been upgraded in the last
eighteen months using the permit fee waiver
program. Since Berkeley's housing stock
consist of 43,000 units, the retrofit
rate must be increased. The City is exploring
funding options with local banks
to assist homeowners with low-interest loans via the
federal Community Reinvestment Act. |
|
|
|
The rate of retrofit in the Urm program needs improvement. The local rent stabilization
board has discussed possible upgrade incentive programs for both tenants and landlords.
Its seismic upgrade education program has been
successful in assisting property owners. |
|
|
| 10. |
How has the program changed since its inception? What limitations or
obstacles might
other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this program?
|
|
|
|
The program has changed dramatically as a result of the City's work with the Seismic
Technical Advisory Group. Elected officials, City staff, and the
community have benefited
greatly by the opportunity for a direct transfer of seismic safety technology. The
original plans for the retrofit of public buildings
were affected by the outcomes of the
Northridge and Kobe earthquakes. Local officials recognized the mitigation solutions
warranted revisiting after these significant urban events caused widespread and unexpected
damage in the
built environment. The upgrade standards were reviewed by the technical
group and revised to meet more stringent performance criteria. |
|
|
|
Fiscal limitations have been a major challenge to accomplishing hazard
mitigation -
over time, however, these problems have been solved on a limited basis with public
facilities. Making significant enough seismic improvements in private sector facilities is
the next big challenge that Berkeley faces. |
|
|
|
Solving the fiscal and mitigation incentive problems for private sector buildings is
largely an open issue at this time. |
|
|
| 11. |
Additional comments: |
|
|
|
City officials believe that Berkeley has the highest per capita tax rate in
California, due solely to its three local hazard mitigation bond measures (totaling $262
million) and the special fire district assessment. The local investment in risk reduction
is tremendous and far exceeds other like-sized cities. |
|
|
|
The City has assertively sought federal mitigation grants wherever available and had
dedicated HUD funds for low-income housing upgrades. Berkeley received more funding that
nay other municipality from the California Seismic Safety Bond Act
and successfully worked
at the state level to change funding allocations for urban school facilities to provide
retrofit monies. |
|
|
|
By leveraging funds and seeking technical assistance from the Earthquake Engineering
Resource Institute, USGS, FEMA and state OES, the City has make significant progress in
reducing hazards in the build environment and making its residents more aware of the
necessity to mitigate and prepare before the next earthquake. |
|
