The Big One: How land use planning can fit with earthquake readiness
by Brian Schmidt

Bay Area residents know that they need to be ready for the Big One. And our government agencies also need solid plans for responding to a huge earthquake; those plans should include regulations that help minimize damage, injury and loss of life, as well as rapid emergency response to help people immediately afterwards.

When disaster strikes, the disaster itself - or the resulting clean-up - could permanently affect environmental policies. Environmental groups also need to prepare for disasters. While the purpose of individual and government preparation is to minimize short-term impacts and recover quickly, environmental groups need long-term plans that keep development out of harm's way and protect the environment after the event.

Preventing sprawl can minimize damage
A giant earthquake creates a disaster under any conditions, but limiting sprawl can minimize the effects of earthquakes and other natural disasters. Sprawl puts housing on hillsides prone to collapse, it strains emergency resources by requiring rescues of distant, isolated groups and it exposes more people to wildfire danger (imagine trying to fight a wildfire in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake). Every time we fight sprawl, we are helping reduce the impact of earthquakes.

Cleaning up environmental damage
In the aftermath of a giant quake, safety and environmental protection may conflict. For example, if a bulldozer has to push debris off a road and into a stream so fire trucks can reach a burning hillside subdivision, of course safety will have to come first. But environmental groups must be ready to insist on environmental cleanup to repair the damage.

Rebuilding vs. expanding
After rescue operations cease, developers often use reconstruction as an excuse to pave the way for new development. "Since we have to rebuild this road," they may say, "now is the time to widen it and solve traffic problems". "The water line needs to be repaired and parcels outside the city limits might be annexed someday; now's the time to extend the water service, annex the property and rezone it for hillside subdivisions."

Environmentalists must fight short-sighted land use planning tooth and nail, even in the aftermath of an earthquake. We need to make a clear distinction between rebuilding infrastructure - roads, utilities and flood control - and expanding that infrastructure. Expansion is a recipe for sprawl, and no more justified after an earthquake than it was beforehand. CGF and other land use organizations will be ready to defend these attempts.

Enforcing current land use regulations
A gray area that is hard to address in advance involves deciding whether to allow reconstruction of older buildings that would not be allowed under current regulations. An example would be oversized homes on small lots in rural hillsides, possibly located at the end of driveways that are inaccessible to fire trucks. Such homes could not be built under present regulations.

On the one hand, it would be difficult to look a homeowner in the face and tell her that she will not be allowed to rebuild a home she has lived in for years. On the other hand, for years she has been allowed to do something that everyone else cannot, solely because her building preceded modern regulations. That privilege does not have to be permanent.

Following these principles may allow room for compromise on other issues. Determining what compromises are appropriate will require further research and advance preparation, preferably long before the earthquake strikes.

Committee for Green Foothills is re-examining our environmental policies that pertain to earthquakes so that, when the Big One comes, we will be ready.