The San Francisco recovery plan refers to the city’s strategy for rebuilding and revitalizing San Francisco in the aftermath of a major earthquake. On October 17, 1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay Area, causing widespread damage throughout the city. This magnitude 6.9 earthquake was one of the most destructive in California’s history, resulting in over 60 deaths and thousands of injuries. The total economic loss was estimated at around $6 billion, with nearly 12,000 homes and 2,600 businesses damaged or destroyed. In response to this devastation, city officials developed a comprehensive long-term recovery plan aimed at getting San Francisco back on its feet. Now, over 30 years later, San Francisco has largely rebounded thanks to the multi-faceted recovery plan enacted after the earthquake.
What were the goals of the San Francisco recovery plan?
The overarching goals of the San Francisco recovery plan were to:
- Rebuild damaged infrastructure and housing
- Restore disrupted public services and utilities
- Reinvigorate the local economy and business community
- Improve disaster preparedness and response systems
After the Loma Prieta earthquake exposed weaknesses in San Francisco’s buildings, roads, transit systems, and emergency services, city officials saw a unique opportunity to not just repair what was broken but to revamp and modernize the city’s infrastructure. The recovery plan aimed to “build back better” by leveraging state and federal disaster aid to implement improvements that would boost San Francisco’s resilience against future earthquakes. Upgrading aging infrastructure while meeting the city’s ongoing growth needs was a key priority.
At the same time, the plan emphasized restarting the economy, getting businesses operating again, and bringing tourism revenue back to pre-earthquake levels. Given the massive impact on housing and commercial space, the recovery plan called for expedited rebuilding of damaged areas. The city prioritized permitting and financing assistance to property owners affected by the disaster.
Strengthening emergency preparedness and response was also a major component of the long-term recovery strategy. The plan mandated updates to building codes, seismic retrofitting standards, and public safety systems. Improving collaboration across city departments, along with community outreach efforts, were seen as essential for increasing resilience.
What steps did the recovery plan involve?
The multi-faceted San Francisco recovery plan contained a broad range of programs and policy initiatives focused on four key areas:
Infrastructure Rebuilding and Improvement Projects
– Demolished and rebuilt damaged public housing and medical facilities
– Carried out seismic retrofits on elevated highway sections and overpasses
– Upgraded power and water systems against seismic hazards
– Expanded and modernized the city’s port and airport facilities
– Repaired over 300 public buildings and spaces like libraries, police stations, and parks
– Improved the emergency communications networks and 911 response capacity
Housing and Commercial Redevelopment Programs
– Offered low-interest loans, grants, and tax breaks as incentives for rebuilding damaged private property
– Streamlined permitting processes for earthquake repairs and new construction
– Supported affordable housing development through public-private partnerships
– Funded façade improvements and accessibility upgrades for commercial buildings
– Launched marketing campaigns to bring back tourists and revitalize neighborhood businesses
Economic Stimulus Measures
– Allocated over $350 million in city contracts for rebuilding schools, roads, utilities
– Set hiring requirements on public works projects to employ local residents
– Provided workforce training tailored to construction skills needed for recovery efforts
– Expanded access to capital for small businesses through special disaster assistance loans and programs
– Invested in infrastructure projects to generate long-term employment growth
Disaster Preparedness and Response Improvements
– Passed ordinances to strengthen seismic safety standards for new building construction
– Required earthquake retrofitting for at-risk buildings and facilities
– Bolstered the city’s emergency management operations and command structure
– Expanded emergency shelter capacity, stockpiles of response supplies, and contingency plans
– Launched community preparedness and education campaigns on earthquake safety
– Upgraded 9-1-1 dispatch infrastructure and trained personnel on post-disaster response
The scope of the recovery plan expanded over time by securing additional funding sources and policy changes at the state and federal levels. With a combination of public and private investments, San Francisco was able to substantially rebuild its infrastructure, housing stock, and economy over the course of the 1990s.
How was the San Francisco recovery plan funded?
The scale of damage from the Loma Prieta earthquake required marshaling resources from all levels of government as well as the private sector. Key funding and financing mechanisms for implementing the recovery plan included:
- $2.9 billion in capital investments funded through the city’s general obligation bonds
- $1.2 billion in FEMA disaster assistance grants
- $2.3 billion in low-interest, long-term loans from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- $1.4 billion in state infrastructure bonds sponsored by the California legislature
- Tax increment financing that leveraged future growth in property tax revenue
- Public-private partnerships that attracted over $5 billion in private lending and equity
Roughly one-third of the total $15 billion recovery costs came from federal sources, one-third from state and local public funds, and the remaining third from private capital investments.
The substantial federal assistance was made possible by special congressional legislation after the earthquake that increased availability of FEMA aid and HUD community development block grants in declared disaster areas. The California legislature also passed a slate of bills to finance rebuilding projects, compensate uninsured residential losses, and stabilize insurance availability.
What major projects and initiatives were part of the recovery plan?
Here are some of the most notable rebuilding projects and policy initiatives that came out of the San Francisco recovery plan:
Embarcadero Freeway Demolition
– The elevated Embarcadero Freeway along the city’s waterfront was severely damaged by the earthquake and demolished in 1991.
– Its removal opened up views of the bay and revitalized the Embarcadero as a grand public promenade.
– The city invested $90 million to upgrade the surface-level boulevard and add a streetcar line.
San Francisco General Hospital Rebuild
– The hospital’s main building constructed in 1976 was seismically vulnerable and suffered major damage.
– A $667 million campus expansion project broke ground in 1997 to replace the main hospital.
– The new 9-story hospital wing opened in 2016, completing the multi-phase rebuild.
Housing Recovery Bond Programs
– $150 million affordable housing program helped finance over 4,000 units.
– $150 million residential hotel preservation program rehabilitated over 15,000 single-room occupancy units.
– $39 million down payment assistance program helped over 500 households purchase homes.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing
– In 2008, San Francisco launched California’s first PACE program, GreenFinanceSF.
– The program helped commercial property owners finance seismic upgrades through property assessments.
– Over $30 million in seismic retrofit and resiliency projects were funded.
Soft-Story Retrofit Ordinance
– In 2013, the city passed a mandatory retrofit ordinance for soft-story buildings.
– These multi-unit, wood-frame buildings with weak first stories were prone to collapse.
– About 4,400 soft-story buildings were required to complete seismic retrofits. As of 2022, 94% have become compliant.
Neighborhood Empowerment Network (NEN)
– This grassroots program launched in 1994 to expand neighborhood preparedness.
– The NEN provided disaster response training and helped coordinate emergency plans tailored to specific community needs.
– It increased social connectivity and strengthened relationships between residents.
Hotel Tax Hike for Moscone Center Expansion
– A 1.5% hotel tax increase was approved in 1998 to expand the major Moscone Convention Center.
– The $410 million project completed in 2003 nearly doubled the facility’s size to over 1.2 million sq ft.
– The expansion helped retain prominent conventions and fueled tourism sector jobs.
What was the economic and demographic impact of the recovery plan?
San Francisco saw substantial economic and population growth during the 10-15 year recovery period from 1990-2005:
Economic Impact
– By 1996, 80% of damaged commercial space had been repaired.
– Tourism rebounded strongly by 1992 and hotel occupancy rates reached 90% by 2000.
– The city’s taxable sales surged over 30% from 1990 to 2000 after adjusting for inflation.
– Ongoing investments in housing, transit, and infrastructure fueled lasting job creation.
Demographic Changes
– The population grew 20% between 1990 and 2000, adding over 115,000 residents.
– The economic boom attracted a wave of newcomers, especially young professionals.
– Housing prices rose rapidly with population growth, intensifying gentrification pressures.
– Notable tech companies like Salesforce, Twitter, Uber, and Airbnb emerged during this period.
While the rebuilding programs stimulated substantial economic activity and investment, the period also saw rising income inequality and displacement of low-income households. These side effects highlighted the need for more equitable approaches to community development.
What lessons were learned from San Francisco’s earthquake recovery process?
The long process of implementing San Francisco’s ambitious recovery plan yielded many valuable lessons and best practices for seismic resilience and disaster rebuilding:
- Proactive retrofitting of vulnerable infrastructure before disasters is most effective.
- Broad community engagement creates more equitable and inclusive rebuilding outcomes.
- Balancing urgent restoration needs with long-term resilience goals is challenging but vital.
- Partnerships between public agencies, neighborhood groups, and the private sector maximize resources.
- Creative financing tools allow cities to align public and private incentives.
- Disaster recovery planning must incorporate projections for population growth and economic development.
- Response experience makes residents better prepared for handling future disasters.
San Francisco also demonstrated the feasibility of reimagining and redesigning damaged cityscapes in ways that improve urban functions. Eliminating the Embarcadero Freeway to create a more vibrant, pedestrian-friendly waterfront embodied this transformative vision. The recovery plan’s unique policy combinations fostered not just reconstruction but modernization.
However, criticism of the rebuilding approach highlighted its insufficient emphasis on equity and affordability issues. Many believed a stronger focus on protecting vulnerable residents from displacement was needed. This feedback informed later resilience efforts such as San Francisco’s Resilient SF strategy launched in 2016.
How did the plan impact San Francisco’s earthquake preparedness?
30 years after the Loma Prieta earthquake, San Francisco is considered one of the nation’s most prepared cities when it comes to earthquake risk. The disaster recovery plan’s policy achievements have significantly improved local resilience:
– Thousands of seismically vulnerable buildings have been retrofitted or replaced.
– Emergency response systems can mobilize effectively for major events.
– Residents are broadly aware of earthquake safety protocols.
– Stringent building codes require the latest seismic design standards.
– Major infrastructure projects integrate advanced seismic protections.
Ongoing preparedness work includes the *Earthquake Safety Implementation Program (ESIP)* to aggressively retrofit remaining high-risk buildings and strengthen water systems. The city also now requires soft-story apartments to post earthquake warning placards.
However, preparedness gaps still exist. Many aging smaller buildings still need retrofits. The affordability crisis hampers efforts to house vulnerable residents in seismically sound units. And heavy reliance on tech sector jobs poses economic recovery challenges if tech campuses sustain damage.
Nonetheless, San Francisco’s coordinated efforts to rebuild smarter after 1989 changed the paradigm for earthquake readiness. The recovery plan provided a model that other cities like Los Angeles and Seattle have emulated to enhance their own seismic resilience.
Conclusion
The multifaceted San Francisco recovery plan following the devastating 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake brought about an era of rebuilding that transformed the city. Careful policy planning coupled with billions in public and private investment restored damaged housing and infrastructure while stimulating economic revitalization. The plan’s emphasis on learning from disaster fueled long-term improvements in seismic safety regulations, emergency systems, and community preparedness.
However, rebuilding also came with adverse consequences like unaffordability that compounded the disaster’s human toll. Subsequent city initiatives have tried to address these impacts and vulnerabilities. As the risks of future earthquakes endure, San Francisco’s ongoing resilience efforts show that recovery from disasters is a complex process that requires harnessing community strengths.