News Subscribe  to Our Newsletter Sign  up for Email Updates CGF  In the News Press  Inquiries Past  Articles Calendar			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. We can consider three principles as we develop policies  on building reconstruction: First, if a structure was destroyed because it was in an area that  is not earthquake-safe, it would not be safe or smart to allow its reconstruction. Second, reconstruction that would sacrifice safety should not be allowed  - for example, replacing older buildings on steep hillsides that do  not allow access for modern fire trucks. Third, any mitigation for impacts of reconstruction should meet modern  land use standards. Also, if the building itself would not be allowed  under modern regulations, any reconstruction should not allow for building  expansion. 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. Published November 2004 in Green  Footnotes. Page last updated November 8, 2004 .