The financing of hazard mitigation continues to, be one of the more
difficult impediments to creating a seismically safe environment
for Californians. Both State and local governments have undertaken
mitigation utilizing a variety of funding mechanisms. California is
one of the most seismically active States in the U.S. The
statistics generated by seismologists are sobering. Over the coming
decades variously sized earthquakes can be expected throughout the
State, some with catastrophic damage potential. A sample statistic:
there is a 90% probability that either the San Francisco Bay Area
or the Los Angeles basin will suffer a magnitude 7 or larger
earthquake by the year 2020. Each of the many large earthquakes
predicted throughout the State can cause billions of dollars in
property damage, loss of human life, injury, and disruptions in
transportation, communications and utilities. As one response to
this threat, because unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs) are
susceptible to serious damage in a major earthquake, in 1986 the
State of California adopted what is commonly referred to as "the
URM Law." As discussed later in this Handbook, this law requires
municipalities and counties within the most seismically active
zones in the State to identify and create hazard mitigation
programs for the unreinforced masonry buildings in their
jurisdiction. A number of earthquake experts are now recommending
that such identification and mitigation be applied to other
seismically hazardous structures as well, including concrete frame
structures lacking ductile connections, poorly designed tilt-up
concrete buildings with inadequate roof-wall connections, and older
(pre-1960) homes with inadequate strength in their foundations or
cripple walls. The URM Law stopped short of requiring the owners of
URM buildings to upgrade their structures. Many communities,
however, have taken the initiative and mandated retrofitting of
privately-owned URMs and other hazardous buildings. A few
jurisdictions have mitigated the URM hazard in their community and
more are in the process of doing so. The vast majority of
jurisdictions, however, having identified some or all of the
hazards, are wondering what they might do to mitigate them. This
Handbook has been designed with that group in mind. The Handbook
was conceived as part of an effort to find sources of financing for
retrofit of privately owned hazardous buildings. The first step in
the research process was to survey the 520 cities, towns and
counties in California as to the status of their URM retrofit
programs, and to gather information on any financial and
non-financial incentive programs they may have established.
Although more than 35% of those surveyed did respond, very few
respondents had implemented any retrofit incentive programs. While
the survey did not reveal the pot of gold, we were excited and
encouraged by the creativity and resourcefulness of the few
jurisdictions which have found ways to leverage or develop
financing while promoting retrofitting in their communities. Their
efforts are described in this Handbook. The heart of the
Handbooklies in the CASE STUDIES, which describe steps to promote
retrofitting taken by jurisdictions throughout California that may
serve as models for others. The case studies were selected from
responses to our survey. We met with staff at these municipalities
to develop the case studies, which include descriptions of these
jurisdictions' programs, as well as discussions of their programs'
development, the resources they require, and their effectiveness.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
Welcome to Loot.co.za!
Sign in / Register |Wishlists & Gift Vouchers |Help | Advanced search
