WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.000
You got it. We're just gonna swing right into it.

00:00:01.000 --> 00:00:08.000
Alright! Well, our first session will be "Community-Based Risk Reduction."

00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:13.000
So I'm just gonna call up Robert and Danielle to take it away and explain what we're going to be doing.

00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:18.000
Robert and Danielle.

00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:19.000 
Thank you so much, Sarah. Thank you, John. Appreciate it.

00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:27.000
My name is Robert Emberson, I'm the Associate Program Manager for the NASA Disaster Program, and I'm really excited to be here and to moderate this session.

00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:35.000
With Danielle as well. She's here herself. In a second, we're gonna take turns to introduce the presenters.

00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:37.000
We're really excited for the session today.

00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:38.000
And yeah, this is gonna be great. As mentioned. Please post questions.

00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:45.000
Show questions in the chat, and any longer more involved questions, please wait for the 

00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:56.000
Q&A at the end of today's session, which will be, I guess at 11:15 Pacific.

00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:01.000
If there are any questions that I notice in the chat that seem to be kind of more significant,

00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:09.000
I will also take note of those and come back to it in seconds. But yeah, we're looking forward to this. Danielle over to you to introduce yourself. Thank you all.

00:01:09.000 --> 00:01:10.000
Thanks. Robert. Good morning, everyone. I'm really excited to be here today.

00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:17.000
Moderating, this session with Robert. I'm Danielle Muller.

00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:22.000
I'm with the city of Alameda in the East Bay, and I will be introducing some of the the sessions.

00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:29.000
But I'm going to turn it right back over to Robert to kick us off. Thanks, everyone.

00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:39.000
Thanks again. Danielle. Well, fantastic. So the first talk we have today is by Janise Rodgers, from Geohazards International.

00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:40.000
And it's titled "Effectiveness of Past

00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:46.000
California Earthquake Scenarios in Motivating Mitigation."

00:01:46.000 --> 00:01:56.000
And so I am really cool to do this. Thank you, and over to you, Janice. Apologies if I'm pronouncing your name incorrectly.

00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:00.000
Hello! My name is Janice Rodgers, and today I'll be speaking about the effectiveness of past California 

00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:03.000
earthquake scenarios in motivating mitigation.

00:02:03.000 --> 00:02:16.000
This is a collaborative work with the co-authors from many different technical disciplines that you see on your screen.

00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:33.000
So this is applied research on the effectiveness of past earthquake scenarios and scenario-based plans and motivating mitigation and we're focusing on mitigation rather than say, earthquake preparedness for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we feel that the

00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:45.000
connection between scenarios and preparedness is much better understood, and, secondly, because a number of the major scenario development organizations in California have motivating mitigation as a goal.

00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:48.000
So we're going to see how we're doing with that.

00:02:48.000 --> 00:03:08.000
This is part of a larger study that's supported by USAID, the part I'm talking about today was funded by USGS, but the larger study is looking also at practice advancements in developing scenarios and then applying those advances in the low and middle income countries 

00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:12.000
where USAID typically works and we're Geohazards International typically works.

00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:16.000
Now, the types of scenarios that we are looking at in this research have three essential components.

00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:24.000
First, there is a science-based assessment of the selected hazard, event or events.

00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:28.000
Secondly, an estimate of the resulting damage to buildings, infrastructure, and our land.

00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:33.000
And that's got to be based on engineering or scientific principles.

00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:42.000
And then an estimator description of the likely consequences and we're only looking at scenarios that are publicly available. Now in California 

00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:51.000
we know there are a number of scenarios developed for, say, private companies that are are not going to be publicly available.

00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:57.000
Our research questions were, first of all, how are people using scenarios?

00:03:57.000 --> 00:04:01.000
Are they using them for mitigation, decision-making?

00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:06.000
What did they find useful both in terms of features and process?

00:04:06.000 --> 00:04:12.000
What actually is happening in terms of mitigation? Did anything happen as a result of scenarios?

00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:26.000
And what degree of influence did scenarios have compared, to say, other factors and influences, and also how important was credible and detailed hazard information for people using the results?

00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:35.000
And is there a threshold of scientific quality that you have to get over for the scenario to be credible and effective.

00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:44.000
Our methods were looking at literature, both the scenarios themselves and work describing their impacts for mitigation.

00:04:44.000 --> 00:04:49.000
The broader project also took a look at literature and eight associated practice areas.

00:04:49.000 --> 00:04:56.000
And then we did 66 semi-structured interviews of California scenario users and developers.

00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:15.000
The larger study has additional interviews. Then there was analysis of the transcript, some logging of mitigation impacts that were were attributed to scenarios by interview participants, triangulation interview findings with supporting documents. So who did we interview? We interviewed a range of people from different

00:05:15.000 --> 00:05:31.000
technical disciplines, earth science, engineering, public policy, land use planning, emergency management, slightly fewer social scientists and economics as well as people from different backgrounds.

00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:41.000
related to their affiliation. Affiliations range from academia to local government, state, federal, tribal agencies.

00:05:41.000 --> 00:05:53.000
We interviewed elected officials as well as scenario development organization representatives and consultants, and we also interviewed quite a few people from infrastructure.

00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:54.000
We tried to weigh our sample, much more towards the user side to interview more users than developers.

00:05:54.000 --> 00:06:06.000
There were also some people who wore both hats meeting with a user and a developer.

00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:12.000
In terms of geographic distribution, we interviewed many people in the San Francisco Bay Area.

00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:15.000
You might be saying, oh, that's a lot of people.

00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:19.000
But if you look on the right hand side you can see that there's a reason for that.

00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:27.000
There are a lot of scenarios prepared for the Bay Area, and they are more recent than those for other parts of the State relatively speaking. There are also quite a few scenarios prepared for Los Angeles.

00:06:27.000 --> 00:06:40.000
So we interviewed quite a few people there, as well as people in other parts of the State.

00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:50.000
So turning now to the results, the most useful features that our interviewees pointed out were first of all that scenarios facilitate stakeholder involvement.

00:06:50.000 --> 00:07:03.000
The process aspects of the scenario, getting everyone around the table to work on concerns around earthquake risk can be very powerful.

00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:14.000
Scenarios also allow to detail the potential impacts, especially in terms that users are going to be interested in.

00:07:14.000 --> 00:07:27.000
Say I am a city employee, I'm worried about housing and my city scenario could specifically look at housing. Scenarios are very accessible to non-experts.

00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:29.000
Compared to say probabilistic presentations.

00:07:29.000 --> 00:07:36.000
They're just easier to understand. Scenarios

00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:42.000
you can also have data visualizations that are helpful for people. That was something 

00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:48.000
people, found useful as well as identifying targets for action and investment.

00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:56.000
To do, actually do something in terms of mitigation.

00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:04.000
We also looked at something called a net promoter score, and this is, if you're safe you're shopping online 

00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:05.000
and you see a little box pop up that says, how likely are you to recommend whatever product or service it is 

00:08:05.000 --> 00:08:18.000
on a scale from 1 to 10 that's used to calculate a net promoter score, and it is a customer satisfaction metric.

00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:25.000
So how these are interpreted are basically anything over 70 is really good.

00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:29.000
So you can see for California, both the users and the developers have given scenario scores that are above 

00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:47.000
70. So people really like using scenarios. And this is just one interesting way of quantifying that.

00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:48.000
So turning to some of the research questions and how we answered them.

00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:59.000
The results. What are the key features of the scenario development process?

00:08:59.000 --> 00:09:01.000
We found collaboration, co-production, and outreach were very important.

00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:23.000
This is bringing people together. This is involving stakeholders from the beginning of the project which also brings them along and helps them to understand what the potential consequences are, and why you might really need to do something about the risk problems that the scenarios highlighting.

00:09:23.000 --> 00:09:28.000
What contextual factors most affect the use of scenarios for mitigation?

00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:35.000
Of course, the prioritization by local political leaders who have the ability to make mitigation decisions.

00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:48.000
The impact of recent disasters which pull attention back to earthquakes, for example, from the myriad other issues that cities are facing, or other local jurisdictions are facing.

00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:51.000
Of course, media tension can also be helpful socio-cultural and economic considerations.

00:09:51.000 --> 00:10:03.000
The socio-cultural considerations were not looked at in the same depth, but everyone recognized that these are important 

00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:13.000
they really affect what should be time for mitigation. Economic considerations, of course, what the economy is doing to people that have money to do mitigation.

00:10:13.000 --> 00:10:17.000
Those are important in what actually gets done. In terms of credibility,

00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:24.000
the credentials of the developer were very important, and that's both,

00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:28.000
the specific experts that are involved in the scenario and the agency.

00:10:28.000 --> 00:10:40.000
Like, for example, a science agency with an excellent reputation that would make a scenario very credible, or also some other more detailed credibility 

00:10:40.000 --> 00:11:00.000
ingredients, including diverse perspectives, including having multiple disciplines to get at the different aspects of earthquake risk problems and resilience challenges. The relevance to particular end users and the problems that they were facing. The plausibility of the scenario is it

00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:05.000
believable and then the quality of the data used to generate it. In terms of the level of scientific quality.

00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:13.000
this was generally considered to be highly important, but it would vary a bit by stakeholder.

00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:15.000
Some people said, the fact that a particular science agency made the scenario, that's good enough.

00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:22.000
I trust them. Others wanted a bit more to see.

00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:28.000
Say scientific consensus around something. And then there were also some trade offs that people recognize.

00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:32.000
For example, a better building inventory is expensive to obtain.

00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:40.000
Do you want to spend the money doing that to get that higher quality.

00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:44.000
That's a trade off that would have to be made.

00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:49.000
So now, looking at some of the key areas in which scenarios influence mitigation.

00:11:49.000 --> 00:11:50.000
First of all, looking at buildings, we have soft story retrofit programs, 

00:11:50.000 --> 00:12:06.000
nonductile concrete building retrofit programs, URM programs to a lesser extent, and also private schools were all influenced by scenarios. To take a look at how this happens, 

00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:12.000
we can look at soft story building assessment and retrofit programs.

00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:17.000
First in the Bay Area you can see here on the left, the shocks,

00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:18.000
this is kind of what's going on in the context in terms of disasters, scenarios,

00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:26.000
the mitigation actions, and the contextual factors on the right.

00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:27.000
And yeah, in the 1990s, there was not a lot of action happening in terms of mitigation.

00:12:27.000 --> 00:12:36.000
There's the focuses more on other mitigation priorities,

00:12:36.000 --> 00:12:45.000
but things didn't really start to move around the time of the quake on six scenario, and you can see there's a lot of mitigation actions retrofit ordinances.

00:12:45.000 --> 00:12:46.000
But there's also a lot of context that's happening.

00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:58.000
Need political support. You have champions being identified and cultivated, you have a new official, you have cities implementing, and then other cities 

00:12:58.000 --> 00:13:05.000
looking at What the leader cities have done, and saying, oh, we could do that, too.

00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:14.000
There's a model to follow. All of these things are contributing to the mitigation that happened. 

00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:23.000
In Los Angeles, there's a little more compact diagram, but still you can see the ShakeOut scenario.

00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:24.000
Then there's the very clear tie to the resilience by design effort, and a lot of other things were happening in the context.

00:13:24.000 --> 00:13:33.000
You can see there's a time gap between 2008 and 2014.

00:13:33.000 --> 00:13:49.000
The context had to be right for the mitigation actions to come in, you know this included things like a new official being elected, a USGS City of Los Angeles partnership, a SCAG program which then motivated other cities to develop ordinances cultivation of champions a lot of things had to happen 

00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:57.000
for mitigation to really gain traction on the ground.

00:13:57.000 --> 00:14:09.000
Another key area, that scenarios influenced was infrastructure, particularly water system resilience programs and transit system seismic upgrades.

00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:20.000
So looking specifically at water, you can see there was an internal scenario at EBMUD used to build support that then led to some major seismic improvement 

00:14:20.000 --> 00:14:29.000
work and a long program. Similarly, the ShakeOut scenario contributed again to resilience by design 

00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:35.000
that was water was a focus area. And all of those same contextual factors were in play.

00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:43.000
Similarly HayWired, contributed to work in the Bay Area.

00:14:43.000 --> 00:14:56.000
So some findings from our work on scenario use for mitigation. First of all, California saw widespread and effective use of scenarios for mitigation, but there was a lot going on in the context 

00:14:56.000 --> 00:15:05.000
that were complex and interdependent relationships between scenarios and these contextual factors.

00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:08.000
So sometimes, it's not a one-to-one 

00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:11.000
there's a lot going on in the context. That's important.

00:15:11.000 --> 00:15:19.000
One thing that we did see frequently was that earthquake professionals would pair up past earthquake damage to show there is a risk,

00:15:19.000 --> 00:15:28.000
there is a vulnerability here and then use a scenario to project that forward, and because we know that vulnerability is here, we can then say, this might happen,

00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:31.000
if you have this type of earthquake in this location.

00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:45.000
That was an effective strategy used over and over. We also saw very clearly that significant, dedicated efforts are needed to get mitigation moving.

00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:55.000
You just can't expect a scenario to sort of just have regular dissemination, or put out a report, and for mitigation to automatically happen.

00:15:55.000 --> 00:16:10.000
That was very rare to see basic stakeholder engagement in basic, simple dissemination that motivate mitigation usually it took a very focused effort to get mitigation programs going on the ground.

00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:14.000
The scenarios that were effective for mitigation had the following characteristics, so you had a robust collaborative development process.

00:16:14.000 --> 00:16:39.000
You had multiple disciplines and end users, and you had the stakeholders from the beginning, being brought along, understanding what the risk problems are, understanding that they really needed to do something at scientific and technical credibility possibility and realism of the event, practical applicability to problems that matter to the end users.

00:16:39.000 --> 00:16:49.000
And then recommendations that identified specific actions, policies, mitigation measures, and then plans to implement them and do something.

00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:50.000
And the most effective programs included clear mechanism for follow-on work 

00:16:50.000 --> 00:17:10.000
with stakeholders to support implementation. For example, going into the local hazard mitigation planning process or the CAPSS scenario in San Francisco informing the City's earthquake risk mitigation plans.

00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:28.000
There was also room for improvement. People mentioned some weaknesses and barriers. For example, overly long reports that were hard to find the most important thing, and this, of course, was not true of all scenarios, but but this was mentioned by some of our interviewees about some

00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:33.000
scenarios, so maybe improving the the way the results are communicated.

00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:43.000
In some cases there was a focus on regional issues that left out issues of local concern or the results are a little harder to pick up and use for that city.

00:17:43.000 --> 00:17:44.000
That local jurisdiction also competing priorities.

00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:56.000
That interfered with the use of scenarios and other suggestions for improvement, including just involving more stakeholders and devoting greater attention to cascading disasters 

00:17:56.000 --> 00:18:10.000
and multiple hazards. So I'd like to thank the USGS and USAID for their support and to my colleagues for just their collaboration.

00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:13.000
And I'd like to thank you for your time and attention.

00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:16.000
Thank you very much.

00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:34.000
Thank you, Janise. That was a really great interesting presentation, and there was some good questions in the chat we're now going to go to our next presentation, which is from Janiele Maffei, Chief Mitigation Officer for the California Earthquake Authority. Janiele messaged me that she is

00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:38.000
stuck in traffic. I know she is listening on the phone, but she may not be able to respond to questions in the chat, so might recommend waiting on your questions until the Q&A

00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:52.000
session. For now we will go on to Janiele's presentation. Thank you.

00:18:52.000 --> 00:19:00.000
This is Janiele Maffei. I am a structural engineer, and the Chief Mitigation Officer with the California Earthquake Authority, or CEA.

00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:04.000
In that capacity, I am the executive director of the Earthquake Brace and Bolt program,

00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:08.000
EBB. EBB provides grants to homeowners who complete a code compliant retrofit on a seismic vulnerability common 

00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:14.000
in older wood framed single-family dwellings.

00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:20.000
The lack of both, anchorage of the house to the foundation and bracing of the walls surrounding the crawl space.

00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:30.000
I will use the EBB program to explain why vulnerability-based seismic mitigation can be an effective way to increase resilience in residential structures.

00:19:30.000 --> 00:19:31.000
The EBB program is jointly managed by the CEA,

00:19:31.000 --> 00:19:37.000
and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services,

00:19:37.000 --> 00:19:40.000
Cal OES through a joint Powers agreement. The CEA

00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:48.000
is not an agency, it is a unique instrumentality of the State, created as a not-for-profit provider of residential earthquake insurance 

00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:58.000
after the Northridge earthquake. California has in place a law requirement insurance companies to offer earthquake insurance to their policy holders.

00:19:58.000 --> 00:20:07.000
Consequently at the time of the Northridge earthquake, large numbers of California residences were insured for earthquakes with 20 billion dollars in residential damage,

00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:19.000
half of which was insured these unprecedented losses prompted insurance companies to stop writing policies in California, and many companies threatened to leave the State. To preserve

00:20:19.000 --> 00:20:20.000
the residential insurance market, the California Legislature created the CEA

00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:32.000
in 1996, with a mission to educate, mitigate, and insure. In addition to the core mission, to keep residential earthquake insurance available,

00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:36.000
mitigation was part of the CEA's charge from the beginning.

00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:56.000
CEAs enabling statute requires that 5 percent of investment income up to a maximum of $5 million dollars per year be transferred to the Lost Mitigation Fund for the purposes of encouraging and supporting residential mitigation programs.  The loss mitigation fund serves as the seed money for

00:20:56.000 --> 00:20:58.000
EBB.

00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:02.000
To understand the vulnerability-based approach to mitigation,

00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:06.000
I will use this old truck as an example. We are all aware that an older vehicle is vastly different from what would be available in a vehicle 

00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:20.000
manufactured in 2023. However, this older vehicle has a certain charm, and with maintenance and enhancements can be retrofitted to meet the needs of the owner.

00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:23.000
The amount of work to improve this truck depends on the owners 

00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:32.000
budget, and the intended use of the truck. If it will be used to drive in a Fourth of July parade or haul things around on private property,

00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:34.000
the upgrades might be minimal. If the intended use is to drive on public streets or transport the kids to school,

00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:49.000
the additional safety features may be necessary. The expectations for utility and performance will drive the amount of work required.

00:21:49.000 --> 00:21:58.000
The vulnerability-based approach for seismic retrofits of older residential structures requires an analysis similar to the example used for the truck.

00:21:58.000 --> 00:22:07.000
Older houses were designed and constructed before seismic building codes were widely adopted, and do not have the same features as new construction.

00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:08.000
Assuming the owner doesn't have unlimited funds and wants to preserve the character of the house 

00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:31.000
an effective approach is to identify the intended use and the expected performance of the structure on a day-to-day basis, and in the event of an earthquake. The expected earthquake performance of an EBB retrofitted house is life safety at a minimum and an increased likelihood of habitability

00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:33.000
after an earthquake. To assist a homeowner in this effort 

00:22:33.000 --> 00:22:41.000
 a few simple identifiers and visual cues can be provided to assist them in understanding 

00:22:41.000 --> 00:22:46.000
if their house has vulnerabilities that should be addressed

00:22:46.000 --> 00:22:54.000
The 1971 Sylmar earthquake in southern California highlighted the damage ability of wood frame single-family dwellings.

00:22:54.000 --> 00:22:58.000
All these structures typically didn't result in occupant mortality.

00:22:58.000 --> 00:23:02.000
They did cause injuries and substantial financial losses.

00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:13.000
Consequently, there were significant improvements made to the seismic provisions for houses in the 1979 uniform building code that served as the foundation for the California State Building Code.

00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:20.000
This is why a construction date of 1980 is often used to identify certain seismic vulnerabilities in California 

00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:22.000
residential construction. Changes are continually made to the building codes following earthquakes,

00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:30.000
so age can be used as a proxy for identification of seismic 

00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:48.000
vulnerabilities. The improvements to the 1979 building code included requirements for elements capable of resisting strong earthquake ground shaking and careful detailing that creates a load path for seismic forces from the roof to the ground essentially holding the house together

00:23:48.000 --> 00:23:55.000
and keeping it on its foundation. Pre-1980 houses may lack some of these important elements pre-

00:23:55.000 --> 00:24:01.000
1940 houses will lack some of these important elements.

00:24:01.000 --> 00:24:12.000
When EBB opened its pilot Retrofit Grant Program in 2013 there were basic code provisions available for the retrofit of certain residential seismic vulnerabilities.

00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:13.000
However, there was a need for additional standards, so the CEA

00:24:13.000 --> 00:24:19.000
teamed with FEMA to create ATC 110, that was eventually published as FEMA

00:24:19.000 --> 00:24:38.000
FEMA-P 1100. This document provides retrofit solutions for known seismic vulnerabilities with the intent of reducing damage and increasing the likelihood of habitability following an earthquake. FEMA-P 1100 identified four vulnerabilities in older

00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:44.000
wood frame, single family dwellings that contributed dangerous and costly damage in earthquakes.

00:24:44.000 --> 00:25:03.000
These include, the cripple wall house, with inadequate bolting and bracing in the crawl space, the living space over garage house with a soft story created by the large garage area and garage door; the hillside house and unreinforced masonry chimneys.

00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:18.000
Volume one of FEMA-P 1100, includes a description of these four vulnerabilities, and a detailed methodology on the analysis and retrofit of these deficiencies. There are three additional volumes, with prescriptive plan sets for the cripple wall

00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:34.000
house, the living space of her garage house, and May Street chimneys. Prescriptive plan sets allow a contractor or owner builder to retrofit a house without an engineer design. The retrofits are essentially pre-engineered. The hillside house retrofits will always

00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:38.000
require an engineer design, so there are no plan sets for that vulnerability.

00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:47.000
These plan sets help to bring down the cost of retrofit projects, while ensuring that proper retrofitting practices are followed.

00:25:47.000 --> 00:25:51.000
It was important to note that many houses will have more than one vulnerability.

00:25:51.000 --> 00:25:58.000
These can be addressed individually or in one retrofitting project.

00:25:58.000 --> 00:26:06.000
An important message for building owners and homeowners regarding seismic retrofitting is that the work does not earthquake proof 

00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:14.000
a house. The management of expectations is important, particularly for a vulnerability-based retrofit. Bolting embracing a crawl 

00:26:14.000 --> 00:26:18.000
space will not keep an unreinforced masonry chimney from toppling.

00:26:18.000 --> 00:26:23.000
It also will not eliminate the chances that exterior and interior finishes will have damage.

00:26:23.000 --> 00:26:29.000
The focus is on keeping the house on its foundation.

00:26:29.000 --> 00:26:40.000
The cripple wall house was selected by CEA and Cal OES for the grant program because the damage in an earthquake can be costly, dangerous, and extremely disruptive.

00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:55.000
Also there was a clear connection between age of construction and the seismic vulnerability which allows us to estimate that there are over 1 million houses just in areas of high seismicity in California with this vulnerability.

00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:06.000
You can find photographs of a damaged cripple wall house from every earthquake documented in California from 1906 to the December 2022 earthquake in Ferndale.

00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:17.000
These photos show the significant damage to cripple wall houses observed in the 2014 magnitude 6.0 Napa earthquake.

00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:22.000
Earthquake, Brace and Bolt provides up to $3,000 to homeowners with pre-1980 houses that have this cripple wall vulnerability with over 18,000 EBB 

00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:34.000
projects completed we have data that shows the retrofit averages just over $5,000 

00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:39.000
Statewide. In

00:27:39.000 --> 00:27:42.000
order to assist homeowners registering for the EBB program 

00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:52.000
we have developed videos, animations, drawings, and texts to assist them in identifying if their house has the cripple wall vulnerability.

00:27:52.000 --> 00:28:03.000
Individuals respond differently to information, and we continue to improve our message to meet the needs of a wide variety of Californians.

00:28:03.000 --> 00:28:11.000
EBB participants tell us that finding a contractor is the hardest part of the project, so we provide a contractor directory.

00:28:11.000 --> 00:28:16.000
The project itself takes about 2 to 3 days, and is all done under the house.

00:28:16.000 --> 00:28:23.000
They must do the work with a permit, and upload various documents to their dashboard on our website, including the finalized permit.

00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:29.000
We also require that they confirm their water heater is properly braced.

00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:43.000
EBB has been able to leverage the Lost Mitigation Fund with some funding from the State of California in 2016 and 2017, but is currently successfully using FEMA HMGP 

00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:57.000
grants. Our latest registration brought in over 19,000 applications with our current dropout rate this number will easily allow us to complete over 15,000 additional retrofits.

00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:15.000
EBB added a supplementary grant for income eligible homeowners in 2022. Registrants with household incomes of $72,080 or less will receive a second grant that in most cases will pay for the complete retrofit

00:29:15.000 --> 00:29:32.000
The CEA worked with the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER to calculate the expected savings from an EBB retrofit to enhance messaging and provide meaningful hazard reduction discounts for earthquake insurance. The research showed that stucco clad houses

00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:50.000
performed slightly better than those with wood siding. Results, showed that in very scenario earthquakes retrofitting the worst performing house, the wood sided two-story house would decrease damage significantly in a magnitude 7 earthquake in San Francisco the savings

00:29:50.000 --> 00:30:03.000
were over $500,000. Note that the $200 replacement cost used in the calculations is significantly less than the actual replacement cost for the San Francisco area.

00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:13.000
A new retrofit grant program, Earthquake Soft Story, or ESS will be introduced in 2023, addressing the living space over garage house.

00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:22.000
The other vulnerabilities and their retrofits are discussed on our StrengthenMyHouse.com website.

00:30:22.000 --> 00:30:32.000
ESS houses that have both the living space of a garage and cripple wall vulnerabilities will be required to retrofit both vulnerabilities.

00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:36.000
The total grant pay to the owner will be higher than either 

00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:40.000
the EBB retrofit, or the ESS retrofit 

00:30:40.000 --> 00:30:42.000
grant.

00:30:42.000 --> 00:30:47.000
The recent Ferndale earthquake knocked houses off of their foundations, or caused significant 

00:30:47.000 --> 00:31:04.000
leaning in the crawl space or cripple walls leading to red tags and years of assessment, displacement, and repair. The earthquake Brace and Bolt program is now in Humboldt County, and we hope to avoid this kind of damage in the future.

00:31:04.000 --> 00:31:13.000
We have seen by example, that retrofitting works. The Blue House in the picture on the right was retrofitted after the 2000 Yountville earthquake.

00:31:13.000 --> 00:31:21.000
The 2014 Napa earthquake knocked the yellow house off of its foundation, and the yellow house was not reoccupied 

00:31:21.000 --> 00:31:26.000
two- and a half years later, after the earthquake. Thank you for this opportunity to describe how vulnerability-based retrofitting can be translated into a proactive retrofit

00:31:26.000 --> 00:31:44.000
grant program. Please visit us at EarthquakeBraceBolt.com

00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:47.000
Thank you so much. Janiele, I really appreciate it.

00:31:47.000 --> 00:31:48.000
Next following talk by Sarah Atkinson.

00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:58.000
Thank you very much, Sarah. Her talk called "Let's work together — Unifying earthquake preparedness with regional safety & resilience efforts." Thank you 

00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:01.000
and over to Sarah.

00:32:01.000 --> 00:32:04.000
Hi! Everyone. My name is Sarah Atkinson, and I'm the earthquake Resilience Policy Manager at SPUR, 

00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:13.000
the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association.

00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:24.000
And today I'm going to talk about advancing regional collaboration on earthquake resilience in the Bay Area. SPUR is an urban public policy organization that is over 100 years old.

00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:29.000
We began 1910, when a group of San Francisco City leaders came together to improve the quality of housing 

00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:32.000
after the 1906 earthquake and fire.

00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:37.000
And this picture is a view of Market Street from the Ferry Building in April, 1906.

00:32:37.000 --> 00:32:38.000
In 1942, SPUR expanded 

00:32:38.000 --> 00:32:57.000
its focus to take on more regional growth planning as well as transportation, economic revitalization. Our organization has helped shape some of the most important planning issues in the region, including on earthquake resilience. SPUR was initially a volunteer based organization in which our board and members were major

00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:07.000
contributors to our policy reports, and in the last 20 years our model has shifted, and more of our work is staff directed, which has been great for our capacity building.

00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:16.000
However, we still want and need to have active members and a supportive network to expand the reach and impact of our work.

00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:25.000
Today we bring together people from across the political spectrum to develop solutions to the big problems Bay Area cities face.

00:33:25.000 --> 00:33:31.000
And we are recognized as a leading civic planning organization through research, education, advocacy.

00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:36.000
We work to create an equitable, sustainable, and prosperous region in which all people thrive.

00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:53.000
Since 2009 SPUR has led a comprehensive effort to retrofit the buildings and infrastructure that sustained city life, and you may recognize these reports "Safe Enough to Stay," and "On Solid Ground" which are part of our resilient city initiative and "Safety First" was a more

00:33:53.000 --> 00:34:02.000
recent report we released in 2020 on a multi-hazard resilience with a strong emphasis on earthquake hazards.

00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:12.000
So I joined SPUR this last fall, and since then we have really begun to refocus on earthquake resilience and redefine our policy and planning goals.

00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:30.000
So our goal, our vision is to make our buildings and built environment safer while ensuring communities possess the resources and opportunities needed to prepare, adapt, and rebuild in ways that are both community and life affirming. Since the title of this forum is community-based risk

00:34:30.000 --> 00:34:34.000
reduction. I think our earthquake resilience version is all aligned with that theme.

00:34:34.000 --> 00:34:35.000
So for the first couple of years in this role I will be focused on two initiatives.

00:34:35.000 --> 00:34:49.000
The first initiative is advancing regional building safety for both existing and new buildings to minimize displacement as well as stress on vulnerable communities and loss of life 

00:34:49.000 --> 00:35:06.000
as a result of a major quake, and our second initiative is to prompt the integration of earthquake resilience into community level, city level, and state-level adaptation, resilient and sustainability plans.

00:35:06.000 --> 00:35:17.000
Our organization was originally San Francisco focused, but we have now expanded our work to the 9 county region with an emphasis on the major cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.

00:35:17.000 --> 00:35:30.000
We participate in state, local advocacy work to forward our vision across our seven policy areas which includes housing, transportation, economic justice, sustainability, and resilience and a few more.

00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:31.000
And I also wanted to highlight that 

00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:56.000
I was, you know, asked to talk about our work in Oakland, but our work in Oakland, really, you know, is both regional and a local effort, and so I'll be kind of talking about both scales of work and how they impact each other, and I think it's especially interesting and a strategy of ours that

00:35:56.000 --> 00:36:03.000
there is a bit of competition between these major cities of the Bay Area.

00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:15.000
SPUR played a really important role in forwarding San Francisco's soft story ordinance 

00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:23.000
and that was adopted in, I believe, 2013. In 2014,  

00:36:23.000 --> 00:36:24.000
Oakland conducted their soft story inventory, which is shown on this map 

00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:34.000
here. That was really precipitated by SPURS

00:36:34.000 --> 00:36:39.000
work in San Francisco, and then bringing that work into Oakland.

00:36:39.000 --> 00:36:59.000
Unfortunately, it took a while for this inventory to become, you know, to move forward and one of the ways that we were able to kind of move this forward into a mandatory ordinance was through contributing to the 2016 Resilient Oakland

00:36:59.000 --> 00:37:03.000
Playbook on previous sustainability and resilience.

00:37:03.000 --> 00:37:11.000
Director, Laura Tam contributed to work on this playbook, and that really was centered around getting the city to commit to advancing a soft story 

00:37:11.000 --> 00:37:19.000
ordinance, and utilizing the work that they had done on their inventory.

00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:29.000
And so in 2019, Oakland passed their soft story ordinance, and as of today they have retrofitted.

00:37:29.000 --> 00:37:34.000
I'm forgetting the number right now, but about 700 residential units.

00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:35.000
Not buildings, but residential units, so protecting those units hopefully from the next 

00:37:35.000 --> 00:38:00.000
earthquake and disruption of those residents, but there's still a lot more buildings that need to be retrofitted, and I think an aspect of the slowing down of this program was obviously the pandemic and kind of the financial struggles of property owners

00:38:00.000 --> 00:38:01.000
and tenants during the pandemic, and people just being home and making it harder for retrofits to happen.

00:38:01.000 --> 00:38:08.000
And right now a limiting factor is the distribution of the hazard 

00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:22.000
mitigation grant money, that is going to allow them to move into the second phase of their program.

00:38:22.000 --> 00:38:35.000
So you know, as I just mentioned, some barriers in Oakland, I want to, you know, go out regionally and share a little bit about the challenges that we've seen on the regional level.

00:38:35.000 --> 00:38:40.000
So within our regional Building Safety initiative, the challenges that we've seen are really around jurisdictions, lacking staff capacity, and lacking funding.

00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:46.000
Grant distribution being slow or just not knowing kind of when that funding is going to come.

00:38:46.000 --> 00:38:59.000
So that creating kind of breaks in the program and I'm kind of lack of consistency of a program.

00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:09.000
And then, obviously, the current housing crisis in the Bay Area and the cost of residential development.

00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:13.000
And there's a lot of opportunity here to, you know 

00:39:13.000 --> 00:39:23.000
be thinking about how to mitigate these issues in moving forward on seismic retrofits or new construction.

00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:33.000
And you know, we just had these atmospheric rivers and lots of flooding, and we have had years of wildfires;

00:39:33.000 --> 00:39:39.000
we have had a couple big earthquakes around California this year, but not major earthquakes.

00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:49.000
And so really, other hazards just seem more pressing at the moment, and so funding and mitigation efforts are really going towards those risks.

00:39:49.000 --> 00:39:54.000
And seismic safety is kind of invisible, until it isn't, until we have that major quake 

00:39:54.000 --> 00:40:09.000
and we see many buildings damage, and we see a lot of people displaced. For integrating earthquake resilience into, you know, broader adaptation and like climate, adaptation efforts, some challenges 

00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:30.000
we've seen are that many grant applications, both for State level grants and for philanthropic grants, are really thinking about nature-based solutions for adaptation which really limits necessary earthquake resilience or like excludes earthquake resilience efforts

00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:49.000
which aren't really nature-based. We have also heard from partners that it's hard to make the cost benefit case for earthquake resilience projects, and I think that this work, and looking at the overlapping hazard like with liquefaction and groundwater

00:40:49.000 --> 00:40:57.000
rise, we really start to get into these difficult conversations around potentially face retreat over the long term 

00:40:57.000 --> 00:41:05.000
and what does that look like for our vulnerable communities that are in these line areas that are really going to be most affected by these hazards?

00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:15.000
And how do we make sure that these communities aren't further disrupted by mitigation efforts.

00:41:15.000 --> 00:41:23.000
So what kind of projects are we working on? For existing buildings?

00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:24.000
Again. We're really thinking about these retrofit inventories and ordinances 

00:41:24.000 --> 00:41:37.000
and utilizing "Oakland Now" as their program has really gotten off the ground, to start to catalyze efforts.

00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:39.000
You know San Jose is working on their inventory and hoping to move forward on ordinance,

00:41:39.000 --> 00:42:04.000
soft story ordinance soon. We also are currently working with a group in San Mateo who wants to see ordinances pass in San Mateo County, and they have a partnership with a public policy class at Stanford that's

00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:11.000
working on creating some opportunities for soft story inventories to move forward. Also making recommendations and comments on safety elements 

00:42:11.000 --> 00:42:33.000
and local hazard mitigation plans and making sure that those really integrate earthquake resilience as we have seen once come up, that really don't initially integrate earthquake resilience, despite you know, other city goals that say that earthquake 

00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:49.000
resilience is a priority. I'm also working on a project right now, reviewing San Francisco's Soft Story Retrofit program with an emphasis on the impact to property owners and renters and really on the potential of you know did displacement happen for renters during

00:42:49.000 --> 00:42:54.000
this retrofit. Were rent controlled units lost?

00:42:54.000 --> 00:43:00.000
Were there significant increases in rent with these retrofits?

00:43:00.000 --> 00:43:12.000
All things that you know there's been lots of technical reports on San Francisco's program, but this is really going to get at the nitty gritty of like what happened to the people who were impacted by this program.

00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:29.000
And then for existing buildings, finally, we are really advocating for the protection of this $250 million for the seismic retrofit program for soft story and multifamily housing that could be super beneficial to a lot of our city partners and community organizations

00:43:29.000 --> 00:43:33.000
that want to see retrofit programs move forward. Unfortunately, this funding was not maintained in the Governor's draft budget, which was released in early January,

00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:47.000
so there's a lot of advocacy that we need to do, to hopefully get at least some of that funding back.

00:43:47.000 --> 00:44:00.000
For new construction, we are in the process of launching a program to improve seismic standards for multifamily residential developments through incentives for developers,
 
00:44:00.000 --> 00:44:03.000
so really going be like voluntary compliance route.

00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:12.000
There are many people that are working on getting higher seismic standards into the building code, and I think that is a very important effort, 

00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:28.000
and I think this is an opportunity to kind of get at both ends of the issue of we can get developers on board even before the the building code changes, and then we can start to see changes happening 

00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:36.000
before you know the building code is part of the compliance, the necessary compliance for developers.

00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:58.000
For the second initiative. We are working on a comprehensive, you know, integrating earthquake retrofits into comprehensive building upgrades, particularly with the Alameda County Green & Healthy Homes initiative, which is a Federal or national initiative to

00:44:58.000 --> 00:45:04.000
do comprehensive building upgrades which can include like electrification or like energy saving upgrades,

00:45:04.000 --> 00:45:12.000
weatherizations; it's also really focused on reducing asthma triggers 

00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:20.000
 in the home, and lead poisoning, lead pipes, replacing old piping, and so, including earthquake retrofits 

00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:36.000
in this project would be a really great opportunity, and they are working with a lot of people in Oakland and really across the East Bay on these retrofits right now 

00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:45.000
so there's some great opportunity and it really does get at the vulnerable community members that we are trying to target with our work at SPUR.

00:45:45.000 --> 00:45:46.000
And then finally for multi-hazard adaptation 

00:45:46.000 --> 00:45:52.000
I'm working with my team at SPUR on a Bayshore Hazard Adaptation Community of Practice, which is developing mitigation strategies 

00:45:52.000 --> 00:46:10.000
related to liquefaction and groundwater risks, and integrating that research with existing planning efforts of you know the BCDC 

00:46:10.000 --> 00:46:14.000
and some other regional planning groups.

00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:18.000
And finally I just wanted to say I titled this as 

00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:25.000
let's work together, engaging in policy, or I titled this as "let's work together," which was both 

00:46:25.000 --> 00:46:32.000
let's work together with local cities, with community groups, but also with everyone in this room 

00:46:32.000 --> 00:46:37.000
researchers and engineers, there's a lot of opportunities to do that.

00:46:37.000 --> 00:47:01.000
If your technical research is really thinking about how that technical research can be translated into policy or policy changes, and I'm very happy to work with anyone who wants to kind of think through and strategize, how research can be used for policy sharing expertise with organizations and government entities and that can be through

00:47:01.000 --> 00:47:15.000
commenting on safety elements, or commenting on local house and mitigation plans before they're adopted making sure that what you want to see earthquake resilience, retrofit programs are really named in those plans.

00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:22.000
So signing on the advocacy letters that we write, and that we write with our partners that our partners write.

00:47:22.000 --> 00:47:26.000
And I'm sure many of you are also working on similar projects, and advocacy letters, and we would also be happy to be a part of that process as well.

00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:46.000
And yeah, as I just mentioned many times partnerships, we would love to partner if there's any of this work that you are interested in, that you want to partner with us on, or have some ideas how you can contribute, please, reach out.

00:47:46.000 --> 00:47:54.000
I would love to connect. Thank you so much.

00:47:54.000 --> 00:48:04.000
Thank you so much, Sarah, for that presentation. It's really exciting to have SPUR back in the seismic policy space, and with Sarah in this new role.

00:48:04.000 --> 00:48:09.000
I'm really looking forward to seeing all of the work that's going to be coming out of SPUR in the future.

00:48:09.000 --> 00:48:20.000
So thank you. Next, I want to introduce AJ Faas from San Jose State University, talking about post vulnerability.

00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:25.000
Thank you, AJ.

00:48:25.000 --> 00:48:26.000
Hello! My name is AJ Faas from the Department of Anthropology 

00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:31.000
at San Jose State University, and I'm here to talk to you today about our community base,

00:48:31.000 --> 00:48:42.000
participatory projects for vulnerability and hazard analyses in the Bay Area.

00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:48.000
I'm going to share my screen so I can have some slides to accompany my 

00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:55.000
short talk here today. Thank you so much for joining us.

00:48:55.000 --> 00:49:07.000
Here we go. So. Alongside. Oh forgive me.

00:49:07.000 --> 00:49:10.000
Here we go! Get my slides working. Okay. So alongside, geoscientific and engineering advances exemplified by the U.S.

00:49:10.000 --> 00:49:20.000
Geological Survey's HayWired Scenario interdisciplinary disaster 

00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:41.000
social science has for years iterated with the concept of vulnerability as a sort of index of the unequal distribution of capacities to anticipate, prevent, cope with, respond to, and recover from disaster, as it often quoted phrase has it. This is often articulated as

00:49:41.000 --> 00:49:46.000
a critique of geoscientific hazard centrism.

00:49:46.000 --> 00:49:52.000
An argument for denaturalizing disasters by focusing on 

00:49:52.000 --> 00:49:59.000
systemic inequalities that prefigure hazard exposure and the distribution of vulnerability.

00:49:59.000 --> 00:50:20.000
A recent term in the anthropology of disasters, that my friends and colleagues and I have been sort of central to calls for a synthesis and reframing of both of these approaches that simultaneously decenters vulnerability from people in places that is you

00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:28.000
know ostensibly vulnerable people and places are not the sites of the production of vulnerability.

00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:50.000
These are the sites where vulnerability is felt and experienced, and instead, we point to opportunities to develop community-based participatory approaches for reciprocal knowledge production about hazards, vulnerability and disasters. That is while a lot of social science has effectively

00:50:50.000 --> 00:50:59.000
located disasters beyond hazards by arguing that disasters are not natural but social.

00:50:59.000 --> 00:51:09.000
Anthropologists like me are more concerned with how people do think about an experience, a problem than with how anyone feels they ought to do so.

00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:29.000
So, our approach is therefore to work with both scientists and diverse communities in the Bay Area that are underrepresented in STEM fields and frequently identified as vulnerable to disasters to identify hazards and vulnerabilities that are salient in their life

00:51:29.000 --> 00:51:33.000
experience. Our approach explicitly recognizes local communities as agents of knowledge and not merely targets of study

00:51:33.000 --> 00:51:41.000
and intervention.

00:51:41.000 --> 00:51:45.000
So, our general strategy is something we're still iterating with.

00:51:45.000 --> 00:51:51.000
We're still piling this so that we're getting ready to roll this out a somewhat larger scale.

00:51:51.000 --> 00:52:04.000
But at the moment it's broken up into three main phases. In phase 1, we work with a purposes sample of community groups in neighborhoods adjacent to the Hayward fault on the East Bay 

00:52:04.000 --> 00:52:11.000
in the San Francisco Bay Area to conduct a series of four focus group workshops.

00:52:11.000 --> 00:52:19.000
In session one, we discussed community priorities and shared objectives. In session two,

00:52:19.000 --> 00:52:23.000
we identify local hazards, their causes, local action

00:52:23.000 --> 00:52:32.000
to mitigate or reduce the frequency and severity of hazards, and what community participants would like to see done. In a third session, 

00:52:32.000 --> 00:52:33.000
we identify patterns and causes of the distribution of capacity 

00:52:33.000 --> 00:52:59.000
and resources to anticipate or event respond to, and recover from disaster. Again with attention to who in the community is working on this and what participants would like to see done. In our final session, we invite people to participate in the interpretation of findings from the first

00:52:59.000 --> 00:53:18.000
sessions, and to reflect on how the findings we came up with together correspond to aline with or diverge from aspects of the HayWired scenario.

00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:23.000
In phase 2, we pair participants from each group with SJSU,

00:53:23.000 --> 00:53:32.000
San Jose State University, 

00:53:32.000 --> 00:53:44.000
anthropology, graduate students to design and conduct an ethnographic study based on findings from phase 1, and I will have an example of one of those in just a moment.

00:53:44.000 --> 00:54:04.000
For phase 3, we are developing a three-day conference in which participants from each community group plus members of the HayWired Scenario present findings in the research team and presents a meta-analysis of trends from the phase one workshops. The third day of the summit

00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:13.000
we hope will include a charette-style program in which participants identify priorities, projects, and insights that emerge from this process.

00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:14.000
We've had several partners in this project.

00:54:14.000 --> 00:54:25.000
so far, and we've had a number of student teams working on this.

00:54:25.000 --> 00:54:43.000
In some of these images you see, here we see some of my students from the San Jose State University organizational studies program, and one of our key partners, members of the Japan Town Prepared Community Emergency Response Team and they've been active in all phases of this work.

00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:54.000
And even helped us work with a number of other partners that I'm going to tell you about right now.

00:54:54.000 --> 00:55:03.000
So in one of our pilot studies in 2021, we work with the Billy DeFrank LGBTQ+ 

00:55:03.000 --> 00:55:09.000
Community Center in San Jose. Participants here identified

00:55:09.000 --> 00:55:17.000
the following hazards as the top five out of a much longer list in their community. Chief among them was Anti-LGBTQ+

00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:31.000
aggression and violence, followed by the COVID-19 pandemic, domestic violence and abuse within the LGBTQ+ community,

00:55:31.000 --> 00:55:39.000
police lack of education with a LGBTQ+ issues and wildfires.

00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:57.000
Our discussions of hazards and vulnerability were ultimately organized around two questions that emerged during the workshops and interpretations of the HayWire Scenario data.

00:55:57.000 --> 00:56:05.000
The first was, how could we queer disaster knowledge in the HayWired Scenario, and beyond?

00:56:05.000 --> 00:56:08.000
LGBTQ+ people especially transgender individuals, have a unique set of experience with hazards such as the anti-LGBTQ+ 

00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:17.000
violence and public safety and humanitarian organizations. Issues 

00:56:17.000 --> 00:56:28.000
there include heteronormative care, traumatic insensitivity, and deprioritizing essential treatments as elective.

00:56:28.000 --> 00:56:38.000
Folks in this community not only experience different disasters in different hazards, they also experience shared ones quite differently.

00:56:38.000 --> 00:56:41.000
These live realities and experience don't cluster in place.

00:56:41.000 --> 00:57:05.000
That is, LGBTQ+ folks do not primarily live in the same neighborhood like, say, low income or immigrant communities, and even if they did, these data are not available in the census where HayWired and other scenarios and disaster risk reduction programs, often obtain their social

00:57:05.000 --> 00:57:23.000
data. So we came out of this asking, can we find practical ways to incorporate LGBTQ+ variables into HayWire and thereby establish a model for reciprocal knowledge exchange with other disaster risk reduction programs.

00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:46.000
We currently have one project right now with the ability to Billy DeFrank Center, and one of our graduate students, Jackson Benz, who was working on creating a series of maps accompanied by narratives about the structures and infrastructures that are most important to people in the

00:57:46.000 --> 00:58:06.000
LGBTQ+ community in the Bay Area; and by identifying different structures and infrastructures we hope to be able to map them and see where they can align with the impacts of the Haywire Scenario and also initiate another subscript of conversations about hazards

00:58:06.000 --> 00:58:14.000
and vulnerabilities, and sort of queer geographies of the Bay Area.

00:58:14.000 --> 00:58:22.000
Next, we have a project, which is, how do we queer or queerify disaster 

00:58:22.000 --> 00:58:24.000
preparedness? Given, the concerns that I've just outlined 

00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:43.000
how can Billy DeFrank and other LGBTQ+ Community Centers work with public safety and disaster, risk reduction, response and recovery organizations to create meaningful change for LGBTQ+ inclusiveness in major operations?

00:58:43.000 --> 00:58:47.000
Now we have a number of interesting projects in this area. One of them is a 

00:58:47.000 --> 00:58:54.000
Podcast which we've been circulating internally in the community.

00:58:54.000 --> 00:59:02.000
As we developed the first few episodes, I think we're up to four right now, but we will be rolling this out publicly soon.

00:59:02.000 --> 00:59:21.000
Now we created a SOGIEIT which is sexual orientation, gender, identity and expression. Inclusivity, training that can be used with CERT teams and the training of other emergency response and humanitarian aid personnel.

00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:35.000
We've also been developing and piloting queer centric tabletop scenarios for response sheltering and mass care. We're developing one right now and piloting one for sheltering and mass care.

00:59:35.000 --> 00:59:41.000
We piloted with some of the community emergency response teams.

00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:47.000
We piloted some of the response, and search and rescue operations.

00:59:47.000 --> 01:00:13.000
To foster development of more LGBTQ+ inclusivity. The process also resulted in the Billy DeFrank Center  identifying how they can prepare for an earthquake, how to enforce members of their own communities, how to provide essential and support services at the Center. They've been

01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:31.000
thinking about shelter, essential services, the life saving information for emergency resources and other ways, to train and prepare members of their communities and understand how to interact with the different responding agencies

01:00:31.000 --> 01:00:37.000
So, I would just like to leave us with a few takeaways from our experience on this project.

01:00:37.000 --> 01:00:50.000
Collaborative community science projects like ours, have a potential to transform science and knowledge about disasters and disaster root causes that lead to disaster risk production actions.

01:00:50.000 --> 01:01:09.000
They have the potential to foster the development of shared understandings of hazards, improve communication between community groups and organizations. To establish effective protocols for response evacuation sheltering in mass care and recovery and help communities prepare for hazardous events and

01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:29.000
emergencies. Our investigation takes seriously that claims about what is and how to go about classifying phenomena like hazards and vulnerabilities are recursive and co-constituative of situated but nevertheless, objective relations, of humans and environmental

01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:41.000
phenomena. In the absence of local knowledge and expertise, products designed for disaster, risk, production, response or recovery are unlikely to succeed.

01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:47.000
And frequently wind up, perpetuating varieties of harm.

01:01:47.000 --> 01:02:08.000
But our proposed investigation goes beyond just local contextual knowledge, for already, you know, sort of prepackaged programs to invite a diversity of communities to participate in the construction of theory about hazards, vulnerability, and disasters. We facilitate the participatory knowledge production in

01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:25.000
hybrid forms through high intensity, participation in knowledge, construction, while inviting a diversity of communities to construct investigate, critique, revise, and communicate their own models of the root causes of disasters.

01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:29.000
And with that I like to thank you very much for your time today.

01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:32.000
Special thanks to Dr. Anne Wein and Dr. Sarah McBride.

01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:36.000
of the U.S. Geological Survey Gabrielle Antolovich and the Billy DeFrank LGBTQ+ 

01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:58.000
Community Center, Rich Saito, Jeffrey, Oldman, and Jim McClure of Japan Town Prepared, and to many students researchers who have contributed to this. This is an ever-growing list and 

01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:12.000
the many more involved. Thank you so much, and I look forward to discussion.

01:03:12.000 --> 01:03:18.000
Thank you so much. I really appreciated that. And I again, I dare echo that I'm looking forward to discussion.

01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:24.000
So next up we're gonna hear from Laura Hall, who is the Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization.

01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:28.000
So take it away. Thank you so much.

01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:29.000
Hello! I'm Laura Hall from the Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization or RDPO.

01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:48.000
I'm here to talk about how the Portland Metro Region has been working to create cohesive, consistent, accessible, and trauma-informed disaster messaging through a collaboration of public, private, and community partnerships. The RDPO is housed within the Portland Bureau of

01:03:48.000 --> 01:04:04.000
Emergency Management, but we serve the metropolitan area spanning Oregon and Washington States. We are a partnership of government agencies, non-government organizations and private sector stakeholders working to build resilience to all kinds of disasters including the Cascadia Subduction

01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:11.000
Zone earthquake.  We have about a dozen work groups working on various projects from healthcare to radio, debris management, volunteer training.

01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:15.000
You name it, if it has to do with disaster preparedness 

01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:20.000
we're probably working on it. I am the chair of our disaster messaging work group.

01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:29.000
This work group brings together dozens of subject matter experts to create regional messaging and support community-based messaging efforts.

01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:41.000
We step back and look globally at how disaster messaging works in our region, and then we lean in to examine and improve specific products and address specific issues.

01:04:41.000 --> 01:05:00.000
And we work together on a number of regional projects, and we share our observations and opinions and resources, and after every meeting that we have all of the resources we've collectively stumbled across in the previous month, get compiled and added to our disaster messaging index which people who don't attend our

01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:04.000
meetings, including you could find on the RDPO website.

01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:17.000
It's full of great stuff. Disaster messaging work group members are mostly local government employees, but also we've got some state emergency management and public health partners and two and one info.

01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:22.000and
These State-level partnerships are really great, because we get to stay in tune with what they're doing.

01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:28.000
So we don't duplicate work, and it allows us to funnel community interest and feedback up to them.

01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:32.000
So we get to tell them what we need, and it influence the way they do their work.

01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:38.000
Instead of having finished projects handed down to us that don't always serve our needs.

01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:52.000
Our work group also includes some members from community-based organizations, colleges, and universities doing disaster-related research and utility companies, and more. Were working to include more voices and represent more communities.

01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:04.000
But our biggest challenge there is how to ensure everyone is being reimbursed for their time and expertise.

01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:19.000
The government folks get paid to attend. It's part of their job, but some of our most critical community partners would have to volunteer their time in order to participate, that might be okay for some, but it's really not an equitable or feasible situation for many of our community partners and their voices 

01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:33.000
are really essential. There's this massive body of literature that says, you know, certain communities experience disproportionate impacts from disasters, and that social, vulnerabilities are what lead to that.

01:06:33.000 --> 01:06:49.000
Their people, who are physically, culturally, socially, psychologically, economically, in linguistically isolated, which prevents them from receiving many, if not most, government messages and therefore services.

01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:56.000
I have a great handout for you that provides more information about social vulnerability, because it's just extremely important.

01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:02.000
We use an equity lens in all of our work, we continuously ask ourselves who is at the table to determine disaster 

01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:08.000
messaging needs and content. How have historical events shaped this situation?

01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:09.000
How can we center our work around communities most impacted by disasters?

01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:19.000
And how can equity be embedded in our work, and not just an afterthought.

01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:37.000
Excuse me. Over the last few years our work group has been paying careful attention to how our most vulnerable communities interact with disaster messaging. In 2021, we launched a project called "Community Engagement Lessons Learned," we gathered about 60 people from about 40 community-based organizations.

01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:45.000
representing a very wide variety of communities, and we ask them questions about their experiences with disaster messaging over the past few years 

01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:49.000
during a number of major events. What they shared is specific to our region.

01:07:49.000 --> 01:08:05.000
But I'd wager that many communities in your area feel the same or similar, and I should also note that most of the focus on our of our conversations was on the pandemic, wildfire, extreme heat, and other events that we had recently experienced fortunately earthquake 

01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:10.000
was not among them, but I think all of this stuff really applies to all disasters.

01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:11.000
So here's some of what they said. They said, "there's way too much noise."

01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:20.000
People often don't know where to look for accurate, timely, reliable information.

01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:30.000
For example, when there's a wildfire, information might be coming from the city or the county or the state communication offices.

01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:35.000
It might also be coming from individual offices of emergency management.

01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:45.000
Sheriff, police, local fire, fire marshal, if there are road closures, Department of Transportation, public health might be talking about smoke. The water bureau might have water safety messages, or the DEQ

01:08:45.000 --> 01:09:06.000
might, if utilities are out, they've got their own messaging, and then sometimes you have all of these different offices sending out messages at the city and the county and the state level, hoof. Government lanes of responsibility are so confusing and they're often uncoordinated not to

01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:07.000
mention the many other agencies and organizations that are messaging to the public before, during,

01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:27.000
and after disasters. It's not all bad. We do want some redundancy and messages that speak to different audiences, but our communities are saying when it comes to government messaging, we don't care about your jurisdictional or disciplinary lanes.

01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:40.000
We want one clear place to go for information, and this is also true before disasters within each branch of government you sometimes have dozens of individual offices, creating preparedness websites, and then you add on the websites of Federal agencies, colleges,

01:09:40.000 --> 01:09:52.000
universities, nonprofits, private institutions, and all told, there are hundreds of websites in each date offer preparedness, information.

01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:00.000
Some have local content which is awesome because one of the best things we can do is give people information about how to get help if they need it.

01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:17.000
But on the whole, all this creates this confusing array of messages that are overwhelming, inconsistent, sometimes conflicting, and our communities struggled to navigate this, and they really want us to work together to simplify things. Here's what else we heard. Messages aren't reaching

01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:20.000
vulnerable and isolated communities. They're not accessible.

01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:24.000
Most government messaging isn't translated or not to enough languages.

01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:29.000
There's not basic disability access ASL videos. These are all things required by law,

01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:35.000
mind you. It's not written in plain language. It's not presented in formats that are friendly to Neurodiverse

01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:43.000
minds and people with low literacy. Visual materials aren't created using basic user interface design standards which is just a fancy way of saying there's very little attention.

01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:53.000
given to the way that people navigate information. Often there's way too much information, overwhelming or

01:10:53.000 --> 01:11:13.000
way too little information, insufficient. None of this was terribly shocking to us, but we heard some really interesting things about culture and trauma. In the Pacific Northwest government agencies love to use Bigfoot and wildfire messaging. I want you to look at this campaign and then put yourself

01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:17.000
in the shoes of someone who doesn't know what Bigfoot is, how it applies to wildfires, and with the heck 

01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:29.000
this has to do with footprints. This would be nonsensical and possibly terrifying. I mean, are there, giant hairy creepy creatures in the mountains?

01:11:29.000 --> 01:11:35.000
This is an attempt to be light-hearted that has fallen flat in terms of cultural access.

01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:54.000
Humor is really tricky in public safety messaging. Now look at this one, and tell me how you would feel if you had lost a loved one to a wildfire, or maybe you lost all of your possessions, or saw the flames bearing down on your home, this would just really spark a whole lot of

01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:01.000
anxiety and trauma, and, in my opinion, fear-based messaging was never a good way to go.

01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:03.000
And there's data to support that as well. After all that we've collectively been through in the past few years.

01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:14.000
It's definitely not appropriate anymore. Our work group has begun using the term trauma-informed disaster.

01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:19.000
messaging. This term doesn't exist in the literature, but that does not mean that we should be thinking about it.

01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:26.000
Our communities are saying, this stuff is upsetting. When we're creating disaster messages 

01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:32.000
we should always be asking ourselves, what would I think? How would I feel if I saw or heard this?

01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:33.000
And I was, you know, fill in the blank, new to this country, new to this region.

01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:57.000
Recent disaster, survivor, person with no money, person with a disability, renter, and a person who is less able to prepare, more likely to experience a disaster less likely to survive one and more likely to experience multiple compounding barriers to recovering from a disaster. Let's keep going because they said a

01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:06.000
lot of other things. We heard them say that especially older folks and people in rural areas and people knew to an area, turn to tv and radio by default during a disaster,
 
01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:26.000
but they often don't get what they need. Broadcasters, like to send people to their own websites, where they encourage lots of clicking, but provide insufficient information about how to get help and stay safe and often really important articles are behind paywalls and inaccessible. When it

01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:30.000
comes to preparedness messaging local media often send people to "Ready.gov

01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:49.000
and I'm sorry Federal partners, there's some good stuff here, but it lacks local information like where to get help, and sometimes it conflicts with local advice like they're telling people to prepare for several days without services, but because of big earthquakes we need to tell them here in Oregon to

01:13:49.000 --> 01:14:07.000
aim for 2 weeks or more in some areas. Also, while they're getting better about this ready.gov does not meet our language and disability access standards, and many communities don't see themselves represented in their materials, plus these are the images that they use to explain common hazards.

01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:22.000
I think these are terrifying, I think they're not helpful, and they're not motivating to anyone who's like on fence about digesting preparedness information. And if that's the version of the nuclear incident that i'm preparing for I think I'd

01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:26.000
rather just spend my money on vacation and enjoy what time I have left.

01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:36.000
Our community partners also told us that many, many folks aren't using mainstream communication channels, and many are distrustful of government.

01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:42.000
Sometimes for very good reasons. More and more of them are communicating through instant messaging services.

01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:44.000
They're especially popular in certain immigrant communities.

01:14:44.000 --> 01:14:54.000
For example, a large number of Somali speakers aren't literate in English or their native language, so they communicate with audio, video, and image files through these apps. And the good news is public messaging 

01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:05.000
does not have to pivot to using all of these tools. We can develop partnerships with the the folks that are working daily with these community members.

01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:09.000
They know how to reach them. They're the trusted messengers, and they know a lot more than I ever will about their community's culture and language 

01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:22.000
and background. Which brings me to my next lesson learned. Community partners really want to help us get life safety information to their communities.

01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:31.000
But we need to stop bombarding them. Every office and every branch of government bombarding them with dozens and dozens of requests based on different priorities.

01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:35.000
We also must find a way to reimburse them for their time and expertise.

01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:42.000
They are busy and like sadly underpaid for the extremely vital services that they're providing every day to vulnerable communities.

01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:45.000
You might be saying, my agency can't afford that.

01:15:45.000 --> 01:16:03.000
I hear you at most can't. We usually can't, but we really believe that when we communicate and find shared interests and get organized to collaborate that we can collectively find a way to reimburse community partners for their assistance, and we can also advocate for systemic changes

01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:13.000
that can help ensure equity. Now, I want to share with you a few of the projects we're working on to address these issues. Instead of [oops 

01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:14.000
there we go] instead of each city and county creating and marketing their own preparedness website 

01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:24.000
we have a regional website "PublicAlerts.org" it's our one-stop shop for all things disaster related.

01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:38.000
You can sign up for alerts, view current alerts, learn about hazards, learn how to get prepared, get recovery information, and then, during an emergency we update the site with events specific and file like where to go for shelter, etc.

01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:44.000
The website has been designed with community input and has a clean, simple look so that it doesn't overwhelm.

01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:45.000
But you can really dig deep and get tons of information.

01:16:45.000 --> 01:17:00.000
Lots of leaks. It's a real treasure trove, and it highlights cross-cutting disaster themes, like evacuation, shelter in place, power, outage, and individualized preparation for individual needs. It's inclusive, it represents many kinds 

01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:15.000
of people in many different areas. It's undergone a thorough disability audit. It's written at a sixth grade reading level or lower. Words were chosen very carefully to ensure ease of translation and sensitivity and literacy, it aims to motivate

01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:23.000
people, through encouragement and collectivism. We also have a COAD community organizations active in disaster.

01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:36.000
This is a group of about 80 CBOS community, organizations that meet monthly to discuss disaster, preparedness and then, during an emergency, they usually meet daily, and sometimes they do coordinated response work.

01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:42.000
And we, we have a paid coordinator who provides administrative support, and facilitation for them.

01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:49.000
But the work is driven by the community members. After our terrible 2021 heat dome 

01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:54.000
we heard from them very strong complaints about local and Federal government, messaging complaints about translation, images, government branding, accessibility, and the lack of flexibility of files.

01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:05.000
They wanted to customize some further communities, but couldn't 

01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:14.000
so we launched this critical safety messaging project which I absolutely love, and I urge you to visit our website to learn more about it.

01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:18.000
It's a addressing many of the issues that we've laid out today.

01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:23.000
And we've we've done extreme heat and winter weather, and we're now working on wildfire and smoke.

01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:29.000
And next we're going to do earthquake messaging

01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:31.000
Oh, gosh! I'm all over time. We're doing so much other great work.

01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:36.000
I want to share it with you, but I'm gonna give a list of projects that we're doing.

01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:54.000
and a handout. And since this is an earthquake-specific workshop, I wanted to point out that we're also developing some draft template messaging for regional partners to push out immediately after a Cascadia earthquake through emergency alerting systems

01:18:54.000 --> 01:18:57.000
and radio stations, longer messages that are translated.

01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:04.000
And we've got a really great team of building safety professionals doing damage assessment, preparation.

01:19:04.000 --> 01:19:05.000
And we're helping them to develop public facing communication.

01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:11.000
So people can make more informed decisions about entering buildings.

01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:15.000
And finally, I just wanted to invite you to contact me.

01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:20.000
We're more than happy to share any of the work that we've done, and we really hope to learn from you.

01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:23.000
And you know you've got a lot to share with us.

01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:40.000
So please do reach out and thank you so much for including me in your workshop. Have a good day.

01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:43.000
Well, I just want to say a huge thank you to all of the speakers.

01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:47.000
I thought that was genuinely tremendous. So I was really interested to learn a lot of these things and to see all the hard work you've been doing.

01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:55.000
I think this has been fantastic. We have half enough of question.

01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:05.000
I am very open to whoever wants to start. But, Daniel, if you have anything to to pitch in to start to say, then go ahead, please

01:20:05.000 --> 01:20:09.000
Yes, thank you so much. Everyone. Those were all really interesting presentations.

01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:10.000
There's been some really interesting questions in the chat as well.

01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:18.000
So I think I'd love to continue that discussion. Kind of live.

01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:19.000
So, maybe if someone would like to kind of bring those questions into the live discussion, that would be welcome.

01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:30.000
So just raise your hand, and Robert or I will call on you.

01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:36.000
Is there anyone who would like to start

01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:37.000
I can start with a question sort of going back to Denise.

01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:46.000
I was wondering, thinking about future scenarios.

01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:56.000
If you have thoughts about sort of what kinds of maybe impacts or locations future scenarios might look at and consider.

01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:12.000
And I'm also wondering if some of your, the papers, or some of your follow-up work, might think about guidelines or best practices for scenario development and deployment for maximum impact, and especially considering some of the recommendations we heard from some others about considering

01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:17.000
vulnerable populations and messaging and sort of how to bring people along.

01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:21.000
in these policy recommendations.

01:21:21.000 --> 01:21:25.000
Thanks, very much, Danielle, just to avoid errors, propagating 

01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:32.000
I pronounce my name Janice. So sorry, there's a lot of folks on the call.

01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:36.000
But thank you. Those are some great questions, maybe taking the last one first about guidance.

01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:48.000
As I alluded to in my presentation, this is part of a broader effort that does intend to develop practice guidance.

01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:55.000
It will be not focused on California but a a bit more broadly focused.

01:21:55.000 --> 01:22:16.000
We are looking at bringing in advances to both address some of the barriers and challenges, but also some areas where scenario practice has not brought in, say, some of the large body of work from our colleagues in the social sciences and risk communication.

01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:25.000
There's been some scenarios are out in front and working in these areas already, but it's maybe not as broadly reflected in the practice.

01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:31.000
So, yes, we are going to be working on that in the coming months.

01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:41.000
Can you remind me of your first? The first question. There were several

01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:42.000
Oh!

01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:45.000
Oh, I was just wondering if there was maybe some locations that you felt could use scenarios, or maybe some vulnerable areas of vulnerability 

01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:46.000
that's future scenarios might focus on.

01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:56.000
Oh, sure. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I think one of the things that is really interesting to us, that we're thinking a lot about how you use scenarios in a multi-hazards.

01:22:56.000 --> 01:23:11.000
Context, and how you you might look at them, to perhaps examine different types of hazards, at both sort of cascading and interrelated hazards, and then, in climate impacts, I think those are all areas that are really right for exploration.

01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:17.000
We've done a lot of kind of single event scenarios which are great for clear communication.

01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:21.000
That there's a risk and something needs to be done in terms of mitigation.

01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:36.000
But there's a a lot of complexity in our local hazard environments, and maybe this can help us get at some of those issues around people prioritizing more frequent hazards. So that's something we're looking at a lot right now.

01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:43.000
But it it would be very interesting to do more work in that area, and also some things on suites of scenarios, and just looking at a bigger take a group of them, of course, they're practical limits.

01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:51.000
So over to you.

01:23:51.000 --> 01:24:06.000
Thanks. Is there anyone else who has questions? Go ahead and raise your hand, or maybe any of the speakers who want to expand on some of their responses in the chat.

01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:10.000
Oh, Austin, I see your hand. Go ahead.

01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:16.000
Sure by venue thanks. Those were a series of really stimulating talks across the board.

01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:21.000
There's so much to talk about I don't wanna make this too specific.

01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:39.000
But one thing that came up a couple of times was the sort of renter versus owner aspects of hazard and risk and financial risk, and I wonder, I had a very specific question, which is that I noticed on Janiele's slide about the Earthquake Bolt Program that the grants

01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:49.000
were only available for owner occupied buildings, and I wonder if the answer to sort of why that is maybe launching point for some of the the issues between renters and owners.

01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:54.000
So I wonder if you could explain sort of what this is?

01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:56.000
Why that is, and whether it may change in the future, or what the sort of obstacles to expanding that are.

01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:01.000
Thanks.

01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:06.000
Yeah. Thank, thank you. Austin. It absolutely, definitely will will change.

01:25:06.000 --> 01:25:23.000
And the reason I think it, it actually was in, you know, kind of the enabling statute that created our mitigation program, and we think it was because they wanted us to focus giving money, you know, without unlimited funds not to big corporations, like you know, large quality that own lots and

01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:33.000
lots of property. So we are absolutely going to try and introduce not owners 

01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:34.000
[noise]

01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:36.000
occupied program soon. It will be a whole different outreach, because now we're doing an outreach for people for whom this is a business.

01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:52.000
And, but you know, with 65% of Californians as renters and the majority of are low-income residents living in rental units, we absolutely want to be able to include that soon so it'll be a different program, entirely.

01:25:52.000 --> 01:25:53.000
I think that it's mostly return on investment.

01:25:53.000 --> 01:26:11.000
Hopefully, there's a little bit of altruism with people who own homes that I hope to be able to report back to you, a successful renter program soon.

01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:20.000
Thank you so much, I see, there's a question in the chat from Patricia, and then, if you wanted to bring that up.

01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:28.000
Cool. I'll come back.

01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:29.000
If not, I had a question. I guess for AJ.

01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:37.000
Actually in terms of thinking. I speak from a position of using satellite data a lot.

01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:43.000
And I think we fail regularly to think about vulnerability and individuals at play 

01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:48.000
here. In the images we're observing, and I was wondering if you had a suggestion.

01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:52.000
This is to any of the speakers, but really to AJ's

01:26:52.000 --> 01:27:06.000
initially suggestion about where to kind of connect with the best connection points between purely kind of observational scientists who are doing a lot of the hazard work, and the scientists, the social scientists like what's best practice there, and if you've found anything that's really

01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:13.000
proven to be successful for this this kind of work?

01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:28.000
Thank you very much for that question, and I think it is such a good question that I'm inevitably going to stumble in attempting to answer it.

01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:35.000
You know, I have in front of me here, a draft of an upcoming new paper on how to think about vulnerability, and it begins with anthropologists sort of critiquing

01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:44.000
you know, geoscientists, for you know very hazard-centric ways of thinking about this.

01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:45.000
And is it just exposure? And all this sort of stuff?

01:27:45.000 --> 01:28:04.000
And then, you know I increasingly sort of chisel away at some of the blind spots in critical social science approaches and you know, I point to the initial conversation that you know brought me here today. Just a few years ago I was invited to give a talk at the

01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:05.000
U.S. Geological Survey, and I sort of did that sort of thing. I was like. Ha, ha!

01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:12.000
Look U.S. Geological Survey. They only think hazards. Of course they do right.

01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:14.000
I think you know, if I look at the HayWired Scenario, there's far better social science in the HayWired scenario 

01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:15.000
then you'll never find geoscience in my work.

01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:22.000
Right. So you know I'm not trying to be the jerk about it right?

01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:27.000
But you know, the long story short 

01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:32.000
it's maybe an unsatisfying answer, because it's you know, as I joked in the chat earlier, it's a bit like measuring the earth 1mm at a time.

01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:50.000
But I mean, I think, that this success to doing this, to addressing the blind spots that might exist in the best geoscience, right or the points plus that might exist in some of the best social sciences is through these not just interdisciplinary,

01:28:50.000 --> 01:29:01.000
but I think transdisciplinary partnerships, and you know I mean I get frustrated with myself in this sort of work all the time, because again, just measuring.

01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:03.000
I'm like, you know, just getting the measurements right for 

01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:12.000
this 1 mm for weeks and weeks, or month and months, and I really want to expand I want to roll this out to, you know, you know, throughout the Bay Area, or at least the East Bay, for now. It's just a very slow going process.

01:29:12.000 --> 01:29:35.000
I think that you know whether we, or whether we're looking at one hazards or multi-hazards, and whether we're looking at this from a primarily social science perspective or a geoscience perspective, I mean, I think that you know one of the things I've said a number of times in

01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:38.000
this process is, you know, if I go to let's say you know, I gave the example of the LGBTQ+ Community Center here today.

01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:45.000
But there's a number of other partners we'd work with, and we assess their preparedness in terms of like earthquake preparedness.

01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:55.000
Then they're going to look, really, you know, underprepared or under engaged.

01:29:55.000 --> 01:30:06.000
But when we ask them about the hazards that actually are, you know, sounding it in their everyday experience, then all of a sudden, this focuses us up to the fact that, like, wow, there's all kinds of preparedness.

01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:11.000
There's all kinds of activity. There's all kinds of partnerships here and that

01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:16.000
sets us up to do some of that work of, you know synthesis and translation like, okay, let's try and build this towards other types of hazards.

01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:28.000
And let's try and use their knowledge to inform the other agencies that would like to work with them, and you know that's what's informing, like a lot of our tabletop strategy work and stuff like that.

01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:37.000
But yeah, I mean overall trying to address these blind spots, these disciplinary blind spots.

01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:42.000
I think it is very slow and cumbersome work.

01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:58.000
Thanks. AJ. I think you know this theme of sort of multi-disciplinary and multi-hazard approach has come up through a number of the talks today, and I think it's sort of really exciting opportunity there's a lot of

01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:03.000
energy and some of the, you know, climate change, work, mitigation.

01:31:03.000 --> 01:31:09.000
Some of the hazard, you know, responding to other types of hazards.

01:31:09.000 --> 01:31:13.000
I wanted to just ask Sarah in your new role at SPUR

01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:16.000
and you're thinking about sort of the policy landscape of the Bay Area, where do you see opportunities to sort of take this multi-hazard and multidisciplinary approach

01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:26.000
in policy development in the Bay Area?

01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:27.000
Yeah Danielle, thank you so much for that question.

01:31:27.000 --> 01:31:50.000
I really think that groups like THRIVE and getting these like nonprofits to understand the overlaps of these multi-hazards like, where can you find the grant funding, helping them access the grant funding giving them like technical support on finding opportunities for that I think that's

01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:52.000
one of the things we really are trying to do in thinking about the overlap of the groundwater rise and liquefaction risk.

01:31:52.000 --> 01:32:01.000
And USGS has a great story map, if not, everyone has seen it.

01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:06.000
You can take a look at it to kind of understand those had overlapping hazards a little better.

01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:30.000
And yeah, I think there's that project is really timely, because there was a groundwater rise report that came out recently from SFEI, the San Francisco Estuary Institute and Pathways on groundwater risk in the Bay Area and it's like one of

01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:47.000
the I'm kind of holding onto it because I think it's one of the best opportunities to really like push forward this multi-hazard moment for earthquakes and I'm trying to make sure that in the process of getting this program off the ground and getting people to

01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:54.000
understand these hazards that, like the liquefaction aspect of that is really integrated into like how people are thinking about this, and right now, we're like, not totally sure what that's gonna look like.

01:32:54.000 --> 01:33:04.000
And what the mitigation is for that on like a big scale.

01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:11.000
But I think that that is one of the biggest opportunities, because there's a lot of like momentum around groundwater right now.

01:33:11.000 --> 01:33:14.000
So, yeah.

01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:26.000
Yes, absolutely the groundwater and expanding liquefaction rest, sea level rise seems like a really sort of obvious intersection that we have here, and something that we're very familiar with in Alameda.

01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:39.000
One of the other things that you mentioned Sarah was sort of, you know, while we're also taking this multidisciplinary approach, the need to really secure earthquake specific mitigation funding.

01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:46.000
and you mentioned that you know some of the Federal grants are really focusing on nature, based solutions and and sort of a different approach.

01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:50.000
Different priorities for mitigation that can be hard to incorporate 

01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:54.000
earthquake mitigation specifically, which doesn't really as far as I know, have a nature based approach for structural mitigation.

01:33:54.000 --> 01:34:02.000
So I yeah, I don't know if you want to expand on that at all.

01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:03.000
But I do think that sort of continuing to advocate for earthquake risk 

01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:07.000
mitigation at the State and Federal level.

01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:16.000
To keep that as a priority, I was really surprised, you know, when the hazard mitigation grant guidance came out from the State earthquake 

01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:24.000
mitigation was not listed as one of their priorities for funding, which seems like a a major oversight.

01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:26.000
Yeah, I think I don't have much more to say than that we are really trying to push you know, advocacy around getting that funding.

01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:42.000
And I think, SPUR has a lot of resources to be able to put in also to philanthropic funding.

01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:59.000
And so another thing that I'm working on it, which you know, isn't quite the expansive funding that we want to get necessarily as like the hazard mitigation grants, but doing some education for philanthropic funders around the need to integrate earthquake hazards

01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:08.000
into their kind of like multi-hazard funding. That's that's definitely one of the priorities of mine right now.

01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:20.000
Thanks, Sarah, really appreciate it. I'm gonna use this as an opportunity to look back to the chat because there's been some great questions posted there, and I don't know if those people posted them. I'll talk more about this.

01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:32.000
Going back a little bit. We had a question from Max Schneider, who says, "thanks for the great talk, Laura, have you approached the topic of how risk visualization can expand on verbal risk communication to reach more communities?

01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:37.000
And any suggestions on which ways to visualize earthquake risk could be useful, especially for marginalized communities.

01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:44.000
I see Laura's already kind of send me, answered that. But I, as if you have wanted to take an opportunity to get more of a voice to that

01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:50.000
Sorry. I'm still recovering from illness, so it's hard to talk.

01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:54.000
I'm sorry. Which one was it? Which comment was it? There were a lot.

01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:07.000
Yeah, everyone from Max Schneider, who is just saying, how can we expand on the topic of risk visualization and how we can use first, verbal risk communication to reach more communities

01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:15.000
Yeah, our "PublicAlerts" website, so we partnered with University of Boise and they've been doing this.

01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:25.000
They've done it for Seattle and Portland now, and they've been studying visualization of risk and and mapping in particular.

01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:34.000
So you could go to their website and plug in your address and get a visualization of the various types of risks in your area.

01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:42.000
And then the way that they've been studying the way that people digest that information, and they've been surveying people.

01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:52.000
I feel like we don't yet have super wonderful reports back yet, but those are forthcoming.

01:36:52.000 --> 01:36:57.000
But it's been really interesting to work with this team, because that's exactly what they're looking at.

01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:06.000
So I would recommend looking at the hazard, ready resources.

01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:07.000
No, I'm sorry. But I really appreciate it. Thank you.

01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:09.000
I'm sorry, no worries

01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:13.000
There was another question from Luciana asked.

01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:22.000
I see you're on camera as well. If you wanted to sort that through.

01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:37.000
If not, no worries. The question was, can any of the presenters comment on the success or not about providing teaching moments to educate right after the disasters occur?

01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:38.000
Yeah.

01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:39.000
Yeah, yeah, it's up in the chat. Hopefully, that made sense.

01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:40.000
Or while they're going on. Laura. I don't want you to get it because you've already answered in the chat, but if anyone else is new.

01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:44.000
Just very quickly. I was in Humboldt County last week, and we were all already planning up on going to encourage contractors to sign up for our program.

01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:52.000
It's always an opportunity to learn. It's a you know, 

01:37:52.000 --> 01:38:02.000
it's a laboratory, but also you know, there's a heightened interest in earthquakes, and so for the folks who weren't directly impacted, the houses didn't come off the foundation
 
01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:06.000
For example, in Eureka, you know we wanted to encourage them. So absolutely.

01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:19.000
you have to take advantage of the windows.

01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:29.000
I think if any of the other presenters today want to make a comment on that, or we can move to another question from the chat.

01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:30.000
If not, there was a question here from address pledge, talking about retrofitting.

01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:40.000
He's saying that, given, I live in a 100 year old house, not unusual in the East Coast.

01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:47.000
How many pre-1980 units are estimated to still need retrofitting in California as a fraction of the total residential stock.

01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:51.000
I guess the question here is, how heavy is the lift?

01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:54.000
We don't know. We do know that there are, you know, over a million houses older than 1940, just in areas of high hazard.

01:38:54.000 --> 01:39:00.000
So I always say that, you know that's absolutely a house that needs to be retrofitted.

01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:09.000
There are houses between 1940 and 1980, that don't need to be retrofitted.

01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:14.000
So some proportions it's impossible to to know, because this information is not in the multiple listing.

01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:15.000
It's not in any collected, in any census data.

01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:26.000
But we do have 19,000 houses retrofitted, and so we can, 

01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:28.000
we're starting to generate some data on that issue.

01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:34.000
It's very difficult to know.

01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:39.000
Could I ask a brief follow up to that, I guess in some places we've seen pushback from homeowners 

01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:42.000
whose houses or properties have been designated to be, you know, hazardous or potentially in fire risk zones.

01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:49.000
And has that been something you've seen in talking to homeowners, who then realized that 

01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:54.000
premiums may go up, or things like that.

01:39:54.000 --> 01:40:00.000
Premiums for fire insurance?

01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:15.000
Sorry I was kind of pointing there was an example from the Pacific Northwest, with fire insurance, was the example I was thinking of, but I guess push back from homeowners that suddenly realized that you know, if they need retrofitting. I guess the question is do some people feel that ignorance is

01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:16.000
[noise]

01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:18.000
bliss rather than the status of, and moving to a more knowledgeable but expensive area.

01:40:18.000 --> 01:40:21.000
Exactly. Well, I think you know, all of us know that people deal with stress in different ways in the spectrum goes from yeah.

01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:33.000
Ignore it, or be terrified by it. And obviously we want them in that zone of being educated, enabled, and active.

01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:36.000
And so there's some good things in that.

01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:43.000
The State of California has a law that retrofit work will not increase your tax basis for property taxes.

01:40:43.000 --> 01:40:53.000
That's very good. If you could have earthquake insurance, which very few people do mitigating a house will reduce your premium, and I think they're getting 

01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:56.000
close to that with wildfire and mitigation.

01:40:56.000 --> 01:41:00.000
You know that's a much more expensive retrofit.

01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:15.000
And really needs to be done on a community basis, I think, which is one of the challenges to it.

01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:16.000
I think we've covered many of the questions in the chat.

01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:19.000
Luciana, your hands raised. Great.

01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:27.000
Yeah, I mean, just because Danielle just brought up something about like community base for earthquakes.

01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:52.000
It depends on how buildings are built, but in Napa, if I remember correctly, some structures had been retrofitted, but the neighboring one had not, and they thought they affected the one that had been retrofitted, so is there any incentive to do a collective retrofit or is that something that

01:41:52.000 --> 01:41:55.000
is being thought about.

01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:09.000
I think, for single family dwellings, it's being done on an individual basis, though, with our program, because we've been fortunate enough to get funding every year and be able to reopen registration that we have what I call social capitalist as people are hearing about it from their friends their

01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:12.000
neighbors their colleagues, their relatives, their realtors.

01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:15.000
So you're hearing about it from somebody that you trust.

01:42:15.000 --> 01:42:22.000
You hear about it from your next door, neighbor? And what we're trying to do is make it part of the culture you know that people know.

01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:29.000
This is something that they should do. Look for it when you buy a home, you know, and we've made small in roads.

01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:44.000
We've been in Oakland and and Los Angeles now for 10 years, and we see communities where we had, you know four houses with little dots on our map, you know, are now 40 houses, and then they go to you know 50 houses so just in terms 

01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:50.000
of that, the awareness, it can start to become community based.

01:42:50.000 --> 01:43:10.000
Yeah. But in terms of, let's say, like all downtowns of towns where buildings where there's no clearance between structures, you know, that's sort of like straightforward in terms of engineering. Like one can be like a hammer for the others. You know, so.

01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:11.000
[noise]

01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:13.000
It will, exactly. We saw it in Napa. There were structures that were red tag because of a person who had refused to retrofit their unreinforced masonry.

01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:22.000
And you know, that's a difficulty for local jurisdictions.

01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:26.000
They have the the unreinforced masonry law in place.

01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:37.000
They need to, you know, to have some some kind of punitive action to protect the others, and you know that's difficult to do for some politically.

01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:42.000
Keith. Question.

01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:45.000
So I'm going back to Dave Applegate's 

01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:51.000
comment about unrecognized successes. Really. And this is for you, Janielle.

01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:56.000
You were in Ferndale and Ferndale is the earthquake capital of California,

01:43:56.000 --> 01:44:03.000
really. So, I imagine there are buildings that have been repaired, and retrofitted from prior earthquakes.

01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:04.000
Is there someone there looking at the success of those repairs 

01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:09.000
and retrofits?

01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:24.000
You know, Keith, that's a really important thing. I always tell people, you know, particularly, you know, early career people that are doing their first reconnaissance make sure you look at the houses that are not damaged as well as those that are damaged and I have a beautiful picture of the tail of two houses, I call it from Napa.

01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:27.000
One next to the other, that's retrofitted, you know.

01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:37.000
I just showed it to you all where you know two- and a half years later, hundreds of thousands of dollars. House on the right wasn't done 100% properly, but, boy, it kept it on its foundation.

01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:42.000
I saw the same thing in Rio Dell, I saw a house that the guy said, "yeah, I got it, had got under there, and I've done a little bit of work," and then the house on an office foundation to the left.

01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:54.000
You know, it's interesting. Some homeowners don't even make that connection with the work they did, and their house performing better.

01:44:54.000 --> 01:45:01.000
So we need to continue to find these examples and to publicize them, because it's very important.

01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:13.000
We didn't have any retrofitted houses through Earthquake, Brace and Bolt in Rio Dell, but we have now over 19,000, so it's more likely to have an earthquake happen in a community, and we absolutely will have a post event 

01:45:13.000 --> 01:45:19.000
research project so we can absolutely show that data.

01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:22.000
Thanks, Janiele. Ruth, do you want to go ahead.

01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:32.000
Yeah, so in the news I keep seeing that a bunch of the hospitals are trying to greatly delay the implementation of seismic retrofits and they're saying that they don't have enough money to do it.

01:45:32.000 --> 01:45:39.000
Now we know that hospitals are the most important parts of our community during our disaster, and where the people that are in the worst condition are going to be going.

01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:43.000
So I am hoping that the major cities are not hospitals in the major cities.

01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000
They're not doing this, but I think I've read that.

01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:03.000
It's especially in the rural areas. But maybe also in our major city so I was wondering if anyone could say what's happening with this issue.

01:46:03.000 --> 01:46:04.000
Yeah.

01:46:04.000 --> 01:46:05.000
And if there's any way that I know, someone or something can be changed so that the hospitals do retrofit.

01:46:05.000 --> 01:46:11.000
And that's like one of the big examples of disaster from the I guess the famous cases.

01:46:11.000 --> 01:46:19.000
And 1971 Sylmar earthquake that really awoke the building community that we need to make our hospital safe.

01:46:19.000 --> 01:46:20.000
So I just wondering what's happening with that. Thank you.

01:46:20.000 --> 01:46:26.000
And I really have enjoyed the talks this morning and I've learned so much. Thanks.

01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:30.000
Do any of the speakers want to respond? Go ahead, Janiele.

01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:47.000
Well, you know I happen to be on the board when the legislation came out to try and delay, and the Structural Engineers Association of California endorsed not letting the delays happen. SB 1953 passed in the 1990s, they were given 30 years.

01:46:47.000 --> 01:46:55.000
But in reality, as you said, 1971 was really when the clock started ticking and the Olive View hospital collapsed.

01:46:55.000 --> 01:47:00.000
I understand because I've done a lot of work in hospitals.

01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:01.000
The tremendous financial burden on particularly small rural hospitals, smaller hospitals.

01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:12.000
And so in that case, if we, if we want to make this commitment, we've got folks that are saying they cannot afford it.

01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:24.000
Then maybe the State starts to step in and help with financing, because, you know, as I said to a hospital administrator, the idea here is not just that you will be around to provide health care after an event,

01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:25.000
but we will not be killing people in their beds during an earthquake.

01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:31.000
I mean, this is how serious some of these life safety issues are.

01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:42.000
So I think you can hear in my voice and answer that I firmly endorse, not allowing these delays, but looking for opportunities to assist with funding when it's required.

01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:50.000
Thanks Janiele, and I'll just add that the the EERI Northern California Public Policy Committee has also been following the legislation seeking extension of these these deadlines.

01:47:50.000 --> 01:48:00.000
It looks like this year that legislation did not pass last year.

01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:01.000
It looks like it has not yet been reintroduced this year,

01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:14.000
so we're hopeful that maybe they've backed off of that request, but agreed that you know the need in rural hospitals is real for funding and so allocating resources, and they can get that done is really important.

01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:15.000
Thank you.

01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:17.000
We have 5 min left, but I've been told we could take a little bit of time, so I see 2 more questions.

01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:25.000
Let's ask those 2 questions, and then I think it will probably be time for us to to wrap up.

01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:30.000
So, Lori, please go ahead.

01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:51.000
Yeah, this is just sort of a follow up on what Janiele said, that I've actually gotten several reports from people who did do Brace and Bolt in Eureka, because Eureka was one of the earlier communities, and although the ground shaking

01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:55.000
wasn't as strong. There certainly was damage in Eureka, and both of those reports were absolutely no problem.

01:48:55.000 --> 01:49:07.000
What I also found very interesting is reports of people who did non-structural mitigation in Rio Dell.

01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:28.000
You have to remember we had a strong earthquake only the year before to the date, and a number of people took action in Rio Dell and reported a essentially, no damage because of what they had done in their cabinets, and their knickknacks and so forth, so just to sort of

01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:33.000
underscore what you've been saying. Thank you.

01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:37.000
Thanks, Laurie. Christine?

01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:58.000
Yes, thank you for a great session. Everybody. Thank you for the Organizing Committee to front-loading the whole workshop with this, because where we can make a big difference in hazard that we do at the USGS can inform the mitigation measures and all that. The thing i'd like to

01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:04.000
know from the panelists, and in the group is, how do we bridge the knowledge we have?

01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:08.000
Some people do Hazus this analysis to get a sense of the the full risk? Right?

01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:14.000
Because we talk about vulnerabilities, and so on, and inequities and earthquake safety.

01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:25.000
But how do we really do that? I mean, it's not just as a research project in academia how do we do that as a community that we make risk informed decisions.

01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:29.000
And we target research that addresses the highest risk first.

01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:38.000
So that's something I want to know for the Earthquake Science Center and the people who really just focus on the hazard, how do we do that?

01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:42.000
And what is the pass forward? And what are your thoughts on that?

01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:48.000
What a great closing question, and something that I think each of our panelists could probably answer.

01:50:48.000 --> 01:51:01.000
So? Who wants to go first?

01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:02.000
Laura. Thank you.

01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:03.000
No one's talking. Yeah, no.

01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:09.000
Sorry I didn't mean to stump you. This is this is really what we need to do.

01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:15.000
So in all of our communications we've been having with community partners over the last few years 

01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:29.000
I mean this question of like when and how do we talk to certain communities about these really scary topics while they're experiencing just a vast array of struggles.

01:51:29.000 --> 01:51:32.000
When is it appropriate? How do we do it?

01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:54.000
And it really for me, just keeps coming back to letting the community partners decide and providing them the tools with which to do that education and outreach, because we will never succeed at doing it ourselves, because we have too many different kinds of people and so those conversations with the CBOs and

01:51:54.000 --> 01:52:04.000
and really showing them that we value their partnership by paying them for their time, and then providing them with training and resources, and an open door 

01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:22.000
to say, this worked, this didn't, and us just being in the background, providing them with what they need to get the message across, and being a resource to answer their questions as they arrive. To me, feels like the pass forward in this realm.

01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:25.000
I think I'm gonna go ahead and just endorse what

01:52:25.000 --> 01:52:42.000
Laura just said, I mean, I couldn't put that better myself. Trying to find I mean, I understand why we want to find the priority or top sort of risks, and address them first, you know, if we're looking at one hazard and we could look 

01:52:42.000 --> 01:52:46.000
at folks that have consistent exposure to that.

01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:51.000
But they're tracking other hazards within their communities, and not just the one that we're asking.

01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:57.000
So there's I think it's hard to find, you know, some some sort of view from nowhere, right?

01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:03.000
This sort of, you know, universal sort of agreement on what is the priority hazard or risk factor?

01:53:03.000 --> 01:53:20.000
It's really difficult. So I'll just endorse what Laura said, which is that we really have to find ways to support and facilitate the participation of CBOs and organizations in this type of work.

01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:22.000
Anyone else? Janice did you wanna say.

01:53:22.000 --> 01:53:25.000
Yeah, I, I absolutely wanna agree with. But Laura and Aj said, I think this is very, very important.

01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:33.000
I also want to go back to a thread that's been coming up.

01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:38.000
And this is the idea being prepared ahead of time as a technical community with information, with products.

01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:45.000
So you're not trying to scramble and develop it at the last minute, and to have mitigation ideas and programs thought about ahead of time.

01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:47.000
Because there is this window of opportunity where people are more receptive.

01:53:47.000 --> 01:53:57.000
We see this over and over in our practice. So there's this opportunity to go with information decision makers are more interested in making changes so that this bad thing doesn't happen again.

01:53:57.000 --> 01:54:08.000
Or doesn't happen in the same way. So I think that's something just to to keep at it, even if we're not the hazard of the moment or whatever.

01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:18.000
But there will be a time when what we can provide is a technical community is critically important, and we need to be ready for that moment.

01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:20.000
Thank you.

01:54:20.000 --> 01:54:30.000
Alright! Well, I wanna thank our speakers for your excellent talks today, and all of you for your excellent questions.

01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:35.000
Robert. Thanks for co-moderating with me, and thank you.

01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:44.000
Thank you all so much and enjoy your lunch. No, if there's any other announcements that need to be made before lunch.

01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:51.000
No, I just want to thank everyone, including our wonderful moderators, Robert and Danielle, for doing this amazing session.

01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:55.000
This was so good. Thank you, everyone.