The Brief

In light of the tsunami advisory issued Tuesday, July 29, following an 8.8 magnitude quake in Russia, we're resurfacing a 2017 story from our partner newsroom KQED in San Francisco.

In 2015, Steven Horowitz was watching one of the summer’s big blockbuster action flicks, San Andreas. In the movie, the San Andreas fault shifts, triggering a magnitude 9.6 earthquake in San Francisco. Disaster ensues — and for the rest of the movie we watch as all of the West Coast’s greatest landmarks are destroyed one by one in an epic, computer-generated spectacle.

“I was sitting there watching the giant tsunami course through the Golden Gate and into the bay,” he says. “I looked at that and thought: Wouldn’t there be some kind of dissipation coming through the Golden Gate?”

In 2017, he asked KQED's Bay Curious: If a tsunami were to hit the Golden Gate, what would be its real effect on communities facing the San Francisco Bay?

It’s all about our faults

Despite the terrifying image of a 250-foot wave about to wash over the Golden Gate Bridge, tsunamis do not actually pose a considerable threat to the Bay Area.

It all has to do with the kinds of geologic faults that we have (and don’t have).

Tsunamis are caused when one tectonic plate slides underneath another — a process called subduction. This slow movement is happening all the time, but sometimes a plate will get stuck and pressure starts to build. When it finally lets go, there’s an underwater earthquake that can move the seafloor up and down, sending a wave to the surface of the ocean.

But the San Andreas Fault is different. It’s called a slip-strike fault because the two plates slide past each other horizontally. Of course, whenever plates move, the ground shakes. But here, there is no subduction and little displaced ocean.

Meaning no killer tsunamis. Even San Francisco’s infamous 1906 earthquake generated only a 4-inch wave at the Presidio gauge station.

Small waves still pack a punch

Although they aren’t generated here, tsunamis do occasionally hit our shores. Since 1854, more than 71 tsunamis have been recorded in San Francisco Bay. Most were generated by earthquakes in subduction zones near Russia, Japan or Alaska.

Eric Geist, a geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, says that size is the most important factor in evaluating risk.

“We can look at anything, from huge waves to micro-tsunamis, that you’d never see with your eyes but our instruments can detect,” he says.

The worst tsunami to hit the Bay Area was triggered in 1964 by a magnitude 9.2 earthquake in Alaska, Geist says, that killed 11 people in Crescent City. That wave rolled in at just under 4 feet and damaged marinas and private boats in Marin County.

The infamous 2011 tsunami that devastated parts of Japan also arrived in the East Bay 10 ten hours later at just over a foot in height, and caused millions of dollars of damage in Crescent City.

The Cascadia subduction zone, which runs roughly from Mendocino County to Vancouver Island, could also produce a massive earthquake and tsunami. But Geist says it’s unclear how a tsunami from “The Really Big One” would affect the Bay Area.

The 2011 Japanese tsunami, photographed as it arrived in Emeryville. Click to see video of the tsunami.

(

Steven Winter via Flickr

)

“Oregon, Washington and California north of Eureka would really bear the brunt of that tsunami,” he explains.

But what if a Big One arrived?

Although it’s unlikely, Steven Ward, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, has created a series of animations to show how a big tsunami might spread through San Francisco Bay.

In Ward’s simulations, the incoming wave stands just over 16 feet tall. This is much larger than historical tsunamis, but Geist agrees that a wave this size is theoretically possible.

Approaching the Golden Gate at 55 mph, the wave would first hit the outlying areas of Point Reyes National Seashore and Montara. It would then start to flood low-lying areas like Half Moon Bay.

“It’s not like splash and dash,” explains Ward. “When the water comes in, it’s going to flood.”

It would feel like a 12-hour tidal cycle was packed into an hour.

“And it will do as much damage when it goes back out and drags along cars and debris,” he adds.

The original wave and splashbacks from shore would then start to pile up as they squeeze through the 1-mile-wide Golden Gate. In Ward’s simulations, the wave reaches a maximum height of about 30 feet.

“That’s barely to the top the pylon,” says Ward, who is confident that the bridge would have no trouble withstanding the wave energy. “It probably wouldn’t even touch the steel.”

Finally, the wave would fan out into San Francisco Bay. Parts of Crissy Field, Mission Bay and the Marina could see significant flooding, but by the time it reached Treasure Island or the East Bay, the wave would be less than 3 feet tall. It would probably not even make it to the South Bay.

Inundation maps for coastal counties are a great resource for understanding how high ocean waters could rise near you. Here’s San Francisco.

Red regions may be vulnerable to inundation by a tsunami.

(

Courtesy Cal EMA

)

Verdict: The Bay Area is relatively safe

Steven Horowitz, who asked Bay Curious the question, was glad to hear that the tsunami would be nothing like the movie.

“By the time it gets to Berkeley, which is where I’m sitting right now, I think I’m pretty safe,” he says. “Sounds like it’s not going to come rushing up University Avenue.”

Bay Area residents can also rest assured that there have been no recorded deaths from tsunami-related events in San Francisco. And even a worst-case-scenario Cascadia tsunami would take several hours to reach the city, providing ample time to mobilize a response.

And just in case, the City and County of San Francisco has a tsunami plan in place. It includes a strategy for evacuating people from vulnerable areas like Ocean Beach, coordinating basic services (like shelter, water, food, and medical attention) and performing search and rescue.

Still, “if you get a warning and are in a tsunami zone, follow the evacuation instructions,” says Ward. “What do you have to lose, a couple hours of your time?”

Listen to our podcast

Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump's nominee to serve as the next chair of the Federal Reserve, may face a tough fight for confirmation — partly over events for which he has no control.

The Senate Banking Committee holds a confirmation hearing for Warsh on Tuesday — but already one GOP senator has said he will block a vote on the nominee until the Department of Justice drops an investigation into the Fed.

Warsh will also likely face questions about inflation and borrowing costs and whether he can maintain his independence as Trump makes it clear he expects his next Fed chair to lead the charge to lower interest rates.

Here are three things to know as the confirmation process begins.

Most of the drama has nothing to do with Warsh himself

A key member of the banking committee, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has promised to hold up confirmation of the nominee, but not because of any objection to Warsh himself.

Tillis wants the Justice Department to drop its criminal investigation of the central bank and its current chairman, Jerome Powell. That probe is ostensibly about cost overruns on the Fed's headquarters renovation project. But Powell says it's really part of a pressure campaign by the Trump administration to get the Fed to lower interest rates, and a federal judge agreed, blasting the investigation as an unjustified act of intimidation.

The DOJ has promised to appeal the judge's decision. By dropping its probe, the administration could win Tillis' vote and clear the way for Warsh's confirmation. But that hasn't happened yet.

Warsh has argued for lower interest rates, but it may not be so easy

Kevin Warsh previously served on the Fed's board of governors and had a reputation as "hawkish," meaning he was cautious about cutting interest rates for fear inflation might get out of control.

But recently, he's argued that productivity gains from artificial intelligence could allow the central bank to lower interest rates while still keeping prices in check.

Critics like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the ranking Democrat on the banking committee, see that flip-flop as a sign that Warsh will take direction on rates from President Trump, even though the Fed is supposed to operate free from political pressure.

"Warsh has really gone out of his way to demonstrate that he will be the sock puppet in chief," Warren told NPR.

While past presidents have given the Fed wide latitude, at least publicly, in setting interest rates, Trump has been outspoken in demanding lower rates, raising concern that he could jeopardize the Fed's independence.

Even if Warsh wants to lower interest rates, he may not be able to. Interest rates are set by a 12-member committee at the Fed, and many committee members are reluctant to cut rates until inflation is closer to the central bank's 2% target. The war with Iran and the resulting spike in gasoline prices have made that a more challenging goal.

Warsh has also called for other changes at the central bank

If confirmed, Warsh could also seek to narrow the Fed's footprint in the economy. Warsh has criticized the Fed for straying beyond its statutory role of promoting stable prices and maximum employment. He's argued that the central bank should play a smaller role and that Fed leaders should talk less and stay in their lane.

While he agrees that political leaders should keep hands off the Fed in setting interest rates, he argues the Fed should be equally cautious about stepping into muddy political waters around climate change or inclusion.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Auditors are flagging major problems with the handling of tax dollars by the L.A. Homeless Services Authority.

The failures surround poor bookkeeping and accounting of taxpayer money at the agency — which spent over $800 million in public funds last fiscal year. The issues emerged despite previous audits flagging serious oversight problems in prior years. The latest audit was conducted by an outside firm hired by the agency to meet federal requirements.

The agency’s financial statements initially included “significant” inaccurate amounts that needed to be adjusted late in the audit process, auditors found in their review of LAHSA’s last fiscal year that ended in June 2025.

The findings are from the federally-required “single audit,” a draft of which was presented to LAHSA’s audit committee on Monday. It found the inaccuracies stemmed from a "significant deficiency” in LAHSA’s “internal controls,” which are supposed to safeguard against financial inaccuracies and fraud.

The accounting failures contributed to delays in completing the audit — which was due to the federal government on March 31 — according to the draft report. Missing that deadline can put future federal funding at risk. LAHSA officials said at the committee meeting that they hope to submit the final audit report this coming Friday, more than three weeks after the deadline.

At a public meeting Monday, LAHSA CEO Gita O’Neill told LAHSA’s audit committee that her team was working to implement many of the auditors’ recommendations, which she called “great suggestions.”

The draft audit report now goes to the LAHSA Commission for approval on Friday. The audit committee was asked to approve it Monday but didn’t have majority support to move forward.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who oversees the agency and is the only elected official on LAHSA’s governing commission, did not respond to a request for comment through a spokesperson.

The backstory

In response to previous audits that found major problems with LAHSA’s oversight of tax dollars, county supervisors decided last spring to withdraw all of the county’s $300 million-plus in annual funding of services through LAHSA and instead have the county directly manage it starting on July 1.

Problems identified in the latest audit reiterate why the county pulled its funding, Supervisor Kathryn Barger said in a statement Monday.

“LAHSA’s inaction and inability to meet its audit deadline is inexcusable,” Barger said.

In a statement, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said the “significant financial problems” found in the audit give “further confirmation” why the county decided to shift its funds out of LAHSA.

“Accountability isn’t optional; it is required to end this emergency. Anything less is unacceptable,” Horvath said.

The city is considering moving in a similar direction as the county. A key City Council panel — its homelessness committee — recently recommended the full council start shifting city homelessness funding out of LAHSA over the course of the next fiscal year. Bass has urged caution, saying moving too quickly to shift funding could disrupt services for unhoused people.

LAHSA has long functioned as the L.A.’s homeless services department, with over $300 million in city money expected to flow through LAHSA this fiscal year.

As of last summer, LAHSA had $380.5 million in assets and $381 million in liabilities, and received a total of $810 million in operating revenues during the last fiscal year, according to the latest audit.

Other problems identified by auditors

During Monday’s discussion, lead auditor Justin Measley said LAHSA did not disclose millions of dollars in payments to a service provider whose executive was married to LAHSA’s CEO at the time, Va Lecia Adams Kellum. The audit is required to list “related party” transactions, Measley said, which involve an organization with immediate family ties to LAHSA’s leadership. He said auditors only learned about it later through reviewing news media coverage.

“The article is what triggered us knowing about this specifically,” said Measley, who works for the auditing firm CliftonLarsonAllen.

LAist uncovered documents showing Adams Kellum’s signature was on a $2.1 million contract and two other contract amendments with Upward Bound House, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit where her husband Edward Kellum works in senior leadership. The contract named Adams Kellum as the LAHSA official authorized to administer it.

Va Lecia Adams Kellum, former CEO of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, at a news briefing at L.A. City Hall in June 2023.

(

Gary Coronado

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

A LAHSA-commissioned investigation cleared Adams Kellum of wrongdoing in part because “her signature was unintentionally applied by her staff, not by herself,” according to a summary released by LAHSA. LAHSA spokesperson Paul Rubenstein previously told LAist that Adams Kellum herself “mistakenly signed” the agreements. LAHSA officials also previously distributed an email from Adams Kellum’s official account to a colleague about one of the contracts with her husband’s employer, which stated “Please delete the document that I signed accidentally.”

Last year, state investigators at the Fair Political Practices Commission launched a conflict of interest investigation into the matter, which is ongoing.

Monday’s audit committee meeting also included discussion of the auditors’ findings that LAHSA is locked into paying $75 million for long-term leases over the coming years that cannot be canceled. Those leases are largely through its master leasing program that started over the last couple of years, which leases 14 apartment buildings, totaling 772 units, to provide housing for unhoused people. LAHSA management says the master leasing program is currently significantly underwater financially.

A presentation last week by LAHSA management said the master leases are causing an annual budget hit of $10 million to LAHSA, which is prompting the agency to pull from other grants to pay for the leases.

LAHSA’s lease accounting was at the center of a "significant” correction to the agency’s financial statements late in the audit process, the audit states in its findings.

The auditors also found that LAHSA failed to comply with requirements for payroll costs that it charged to the federal government. The agency’s management failed to ensure timesheets for its employees were approved for three of the 40 timesheets the auditors reviewed, despite the law requiring federally-funded salaries to be based on accurate records of work, auditors found.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Monday unveiled a $14.9 billion budget that is significantly rosier than last year’s spending plan, when she suggested massive layoffs and service cuts to accommodate a billion-dollar deficit.

This year, because of a projected increase in revenues, the mayor is proposing no layoffs and a modest expansion of street services. Bass' budget also calls for hiring police officers to keep up with retirements and resignations, maintaining Fire Department spending and holding steady funding for homelessness programs.

“This budget is about protecting the progress we have made and making clear that Los Angeles is moving forward and will not go backward,” Bass said at a news conference.

In the proposal, the reserve fund is 5.7% of the general fund, or $490 million. The budget does not dip into the reserves, in contrast to last year’s plan.

Bass is seeking re-election this year. The primary is June 2.

Some of her challengers in the upcoming election, including Councilmember Nithya Raman, criticized Bass’ proposal as doing little more than maintaining the status quo.

“The budget the Mayor released today tells us the plan is to largely keep doing what we're doing — but what we're doing is not working,” Raman said in a statement.

Next, the proposal will go to the City Council for consideration. Budget hearings will be conducted in the coming weeks.

Increasing revenue

Among the reasons city officials say revenue will go up is the expected influx of thousands of visitors to World Cup soccer matches this summer. More travelers mean more people staying in hotels and paying hotel taxes, as well as more sales tax revenue.

The budget projects a $412 million increase in general tax revenue, including $71 in business taxes, $34 million in sales taxes and $67 million in utility taxes.

The budget would add 170 new positions in the department that handles street repairs and increase funding for street and sidewalk fixes, curb-ramp installation, street sweeping, bulky item pickup and dedicated illegal dumping enforcement throughout the city.

The budget also proposes hiring 510 police officers, representing a target of 8,555 for the Police Department and enough to keep up with attrition, according to budget officials. Bass has set a goal of 9,500 officers.

“It’s about preventing the shrinkage of LAPD,” Bass said.

That proposal is likely to see opposition from some council members who want to see the department shrink and funding for unarmed response teams increase.

Inside Safe

The budget sustains citywide coverage for civilian unarmed crisis response, maintaining deployment of 500 crossing guards and expanding a program that aims to help children get to and from school safely and protect them from gang violence.

Under the budget, funding for Inside Safe, the mayor’s signature program to address homelessness, would remain about the same — $104 million.

The mayor touts an 18% drop in street homelessness as evidence of its success.

The budget maintains funding for the city Fire Department. In November, voters are expected to decide whether to increase the sales tax by half a percent to pay for more firefighters and equipment.

Criticism for the budget

Bass’ challengers immediately criticized her budget as lacking vision.

“This budget maintains a status quo of reduced services and higher fees, the direct result of fiscally irresponsible decisions made by this Mayor in prior years,” Raman said in her statement.

In January, the council member voted against Bass’ plan to hire 170 more police officers.

Adam Miller, a tech entrepreneur and another Bass challenger, said keeping the budget flat “implies that the status quo is working.”

“That is tone-deaf to the city of Los Angeles as Angelenos overwhelmingly feel we need change," he said.

The budget needs to be approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor by July 1, the start of the fiscal year.