Building Disaster
Resilience through Land
Use Choices
Ken Topping, FAICP
Topping Associates International
Land-use Decision Support: Reducing Risk from
Hazards
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver
Friday, September 17, 2010
Land Use Planning –
A Hazard Mitigation Tool

Planning can be a powerful
tool for mitigating natural and
human-caused hazards

Opportunities:
– Increase disaster resilience
– Prevent disaster losses
– Avoid repetitive long-term
post-disaster losses

Challenges:
– Create credible knowledge,
science and mapping
– Overcome economic and
policy constraints
When we build in the wrong places…
or ways…Nature pushes back
Wrong
place:

Landslide which killed 12,
La Conchita, 2005, Ventura
County…The second time in
10 years, except more killed
Source: CGS
Wrong way:

Collapsed soft-story
building,
Loma Prieta Earthquake,
1989…There are 3,000+
of these in San Francisco
Source: USGS
•
Challenge: build in the right ways and places
…design is key!
Terminology: What is a Hazard?

FEMA:
An event or physical
condition that has the
potential to cause fatalities,
injuries, property damage,
infrastructure damage,
agricultural losses, damage
to the environment,
interruption of business, or
other types of harm or loss

Examples:
– Earthquake
– Floods
– Wildfires
– Landslides
Source: 2010 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan
Cascadia Subduction Zone
Source: Natural Resources Canada
Terminology: What is Risk?

FEMA:
The potential losses
associated with a
hazard, defined in terms
of expected




Probability
Frequency
Exposure
Consequences

Example: 100-year flood
= 1% chance in a given
year

The catch – they can
happen more frequently
Source: FEMA
Terminology: What is
Vulnerability?

FEMA:
The level of exposure
of human life and
property to damage
from natural and
Oakland
manmade hazards

Example – narrow
road where people
died in 1991 Oakland
Hills Fire
Terminology: What is a
Disaster?
FEMA:
A major
detrimental
impact of a
hazard upon
the population
and the
economic,
social, and
built
environment
of an affected
area
Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake,
Kobe, Japan, 1995
Disasters are the “New Normal”



Disasters are increasing
due to:
– Natural hazards
– Urban growth
– Poor urban planning
– Climate change
Some communities are
more vulnerable
Mudflow, Venezuela, 1999
No community is immune
Southern California Wildfires,
2003
New Orleans, 2005
What is Mitigation?

FEMA:
Mitigation = “sustained
action to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to
human life and property
from natural and humancaused hazards”

Examples include :
– Building flood walls
– Avoiding development
in hazardous areas
– Strengthening
structures to
withstand earthquakes
New flood wall protects previously
flooded mobile homes from Napa River,
2005, Yountville, California
Mitigation Project Examples

Distinguishing mitigation from preparedness
Mitigation
NOT Mitigation (i.e., preparedness)
Flood walls and home
elevations Sandbags and rescue boats
Vegetation management and
landscape ordinances
Fire trucks, respirators,
and radios
Seismic building codes and
building retrofits
Family disaster supply kits
and “go­bags”
Terminology: What is
Sustainability?

Bruntland Commission:
Sustainable development…
…meets the needs of the
present without
compromising the ability of
future generations to meet
their own needs (Our Common
Future, 1987)

Sustainability = preservation
of resources: environmental,
physical, economic, social,
cultural, historical

Disasters destroy resources
and make communities less
sustainable
Terminology: What is Resilience?
Hazard: floods in City of Roseville
The capacity of an
community to:

–
–
–


Survive a major crisis or
disaster
Retain its essential
structure and functions
Adapt to post-disaster
improvement
opportunities
Important to build
resilience before a
disaster
After may be too late
Library-Emergency Operations
Center moved out of floodplain
U.S. Federal Disaster Management
Role
 The U.S. is very large
and decentralized

The federal
government depends
on states to play
pivotal role

States in turn rely
heavily on cities,
counties, and special
districts (88,000 total)

Disaster management
laws and systems
appear at all levels of
government
Wildland Fire
Communities at Risk
Source: USDA Forest Service and DOI
National Flood Insurance Act
(1968)

Established National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP)

Provides private flood insurance
backed by federal government

Includes 100-year and 500-year
floodplain mapping

Community Rating System
rewards better performing
communities with lower flood
insurance rates
Stafford Act (1988) – Main
Provisions

Bottom-up emergency response/preparedness system:
– Mutual aid  governor’s emergency proclamation 
Presidential disaster declaration

Individual and Household Assistance Program:
– Basic disaster relief up to < $28,800 for 4-person
household

Public Assistance Program
– Provides post-disaster infrastructure restoration
grants

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
– Provides post-disaster hazard mitigation grants to
prevent repetitive losses
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA
2000)

Purpose: reduce preventable, repetitive disaster losses

Requires adoption of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans
(LHMPs) as a precondition for receipt of federal
mitigation project grants

Adds new Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program
mitigation projects designed to prevent disaster losses

Encourages state and local mitigation capacity building
through:
– Financial incentives
– Competitive applications
DMA 2000: Hazard Mitigation
Concepts

Citizens pay for each other’s disaster losses ultimately

Some losses are due to unwise local development decisions

It is in everyone’s best interest for the federal government to
build state and local mitigation capacity:
– Federal government provides project grant funds to states
and localities which adopt multi-hazard mitigation plans
– Multi-hazard is most effective approach

Mitigation is a good investment:
– A study of FEMA mitigation grants from 1993-2003 found
that for every $1 invested $4 of disaster losses were
avoided
Why Prepare an LHMP?

FEMA requires LHMP as a condition of receiving both NFIP
as well as DMA 2000 project grants, e.g.:
– Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grants (NFIP)
– Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grants (NFIP)
– HMGP grants (DMA 2000)
– PDM grants (DMA 2000)
– PA grants (DMA 2000)

NFIP Community Rating System participation can lower
flood insurance premiums up to 45%

An LHMP can form the foundation of a community's longterm strategy to reduce disaster losses and break the cycle
of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage

The planning process can be as important as the plan itself
DMA 2000 LHMP Requirements
1.
–
1.
–
–
1.
–
–
–
1.
Planning Process
Documentation of the
Planning Process
Risk Assessment
Identifying and Profiling
Hazards
Assessing Vulnerability
Mitigation Strategy
Local Hazard Mitigation
Goals
Identification and Analysis
of Mitigation Actions
Implementation of
Mitigation Actions
Plan Maintenance Process
FEMA “How-To” Guides
2010 California State
Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Prepared by Cal Poly San
Luis Obispo for Cal EMA
- 2010 Plan nearing
completion (Public
Comment Draft online,
pending final version)
- Profiles and addresses
mitigation strategies to
counteract California’s
natural and human-caused
hazards
- Recognizes climate change
from global warming
impacts, plus need to link
climate action and
“adaptation” policies and
actions with hazard
-
Earthquake Hazards and Vulnerability
Linking the LHMP & GP
State General Plan Law

Each county and city must adopt a comprehensive,
long-term general plan for the physical
development of the county or city... (§65300)

General Plan Contents
– The community's goals, objectives, and policies for
development
– A background data and analysis report
– Maps and diagrams illustrating the generalized distribution
of land uses, the road system, environmental hazard areas,
the open space system, and other policy statements that
can be illustrated

The general plan acts as a “constitution for future
development.”
Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek
Linking the LHMP & GP
7 Mandatory Elements of the
General Plan
Land Use
Housing
Circulation
Noise
Conservation
Open Space
Safety
Linking the LHMP & GP
Safety Element
Establishes policies
and programs to
reduce the potential
risk of death, injuries,
property damage,
and economic and
social dislocation
resulting from fires,
floods, earthquakes,
landslides, and other
hazards
California State Laws
Reinforcing Hazard Mitigation








General Plan – integrated
elements
Zoning – must be consistent with
General Plan
Subdivisions - must be consistent
with General Plan
Building code
Building retrofit laws
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
– Seismic shaking
– Liquefaction
– Landslide areas
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
City of San Luis Obispo
What’s Missing in this Picture?
New Flooding Law –
Assembly Bill 162 (2007)

Most of downtown San
Luis Obispo is in a
100-year floodplain

Cities and counties
must now address
floodplains in general
plan land use,
conservation, safety
and housing elements

Land use element
must annually review
areas subject to
flooding as identified
by FEMA or DWR

New DWR Handbook
Risk Reduction in Land Use
Decisions Timing is Everything

Two critical points for
mitigation:
1. General plan adoption
— infrequent, farreaching
2. Subdivision approval —
critical in hazardous
areas

If we miss the
opportunity to
mitigate at either
point we create a
“hazards multiplier”
Multi­Hazard Case Study:
Existing Conditions
The General Plan Safety
Element identified
several
potential hazards:
e.g., the Dove Creek
site is in a “High”
wildfire area
Dove Creek Hazard Mitigation
Multi­Hazard Case Study:
Existing Conditions
The General Plan
Safety Element shows
a major fault to
the east, capable of
generating an M 7.0
earthquake
The site has potential
Earthquake liquefaction
in the streambeds
Dove Creek Hazard Mitigation
Multi­Hazard Case Study:
Existing Conditions
The General Plan
Safety Element showed
a 100-year floodplain
crossing the site in two
locations
Development was
designed to mitigate
flood and other hazards
Dove Creek Hazard Mitigation
Hazard Mitigation in New Development
Key Land Use Mitigation Decisions:
 Refine federal-state hazard mapping

Avoid development in hazard areas

Deploy development setbacks

Increase densities in safer areas

Realign parcel and street boundaries
to respect hazards

Require multiple street entry-exit
points for emergency access and
evacuation
Site Mitigation Evaluation Flooding/Seismicity
+ Engineered floodplain,
Dove Creek Hazard Mitigation
liquefaction analysis
+ Development set back
behind 100-year
floodplain boundary
+ Post-tensioned
foundation system for
liquefaction effects
+ Seismic structural code
compliance
Source: T. Yackzan photo
Site Mitigation Evaluation Wildland Fires
Dove Creek Hazard Mitigation
+ Project within 7
minutes of fire
station
+ Impact fees paid to
Fire Department
+ Fire code
requirements met for
structures
+ Fire sprinklers
required in higher
density areas
Source: T. Yackzan photo
Site Mitigation Evaluation Emergency Access
­
Overloaded
cul-de-sacs in
higher density
area
Dove Creek Hazard Mitigation
- Lack of street
continuity in
higher density
area
- Insufficient
turnaround
areas
- Cars parked in
turnaround area
no-parking
zones
Source: T. Yackzan photo
Hazard Mitigation in Existing
Communities
Floodplain Property Buy Out
Some Routine Strategies:

Buy out hazardous
properties and coastal
wetlands

Elevate structures in
floodplains

Add routes for emergency
access-evacuation

Use economic
development,
redevelopment, historic
preservation as tools
Source: City of Roseville
Elevated home,
New Orleans,
January 2008
Source: K. Topping
Building Codes Make New Buildings
Safer

Structural code
requirements: part of
California Building Code, now
the International Building
Code (January 2008)

Structural code requirements
apply to all new buildings

Good News: Upgrading
structural codes has made
buildings stronger over time

Bad news: Large remaining
inventory of older vulnerable
buildings
Source: Professor James Mwangi, Arch. Eng.
URM Retrofit Law: Progress in SLO

100+ URM buildings
being strengthened

SLO ordinance is
mandatory

Now most of way
through

Approach: economic
asset protection
Example: Railroad Square Building, SLO
Statewide Progress
SB 547 (1986) URM Building Retrofit
Law

Good News:
70% of Unreinforced
Masonry (URM) buildings
in California’s Seismic
Zone 4 retrofitted in past
two decades

Bad News:
Other structures needing
retrofit:




Soft-story apartments
Tilt-ups
RC-infill walls
Houses not bolted to
foundations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Maps
Affect Building Permits
Earthquake Fault Zone Mapping
Act –
– Prohibits placement of
buildings designed for
human occupancy across
active faults
– Provides for maps of
earthquake fault rupture
zones (Holocene - last
11,000 years or less or
more recent)
– Proximity must be
disclosed on real estate
transactions
Example: Hollister Area
Source: California Geologic Survey
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
State mapping
areas susceptible to:
- Liquefaction
- Earthquake Induced
Landslides
- Ground shaking
Susceptibility map of San Fransisco
removed for transfer efficacy
Local governments must use
with building permit reviews
Must also be disclosed on
real estate transactions
Areas Susceptible to
Liquefaction, San Francisco
Source: California Geologic Survey
An Emerging Factor:
Climate Change
Adaptation =
“Adjustments in
natural or human
systems to actual or
expected climate
changes to minimize
harm or take
advantage of
beneficial
opportunities”
California Natural Resources Agency, December 2009
Climate Change Impacts:
More and Bigger Natural Disasters








Sea level rise
Severe winds, storms
Floods, landslides
Wildfires
Prolonged drought 
depleted water supply 
desertification
Species changes
Urban heat zones
Agricultural disruption
Source: Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
Temperature Increases 1961 –
2099
Rainfall Scenarios
Less rainfall for
Northern
California
means…
…lower water
supply for
Southern
California
Wildfire Risk
“The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal/Fire) spent over $500 million on fire suppression during fiscal year 2007/2008. “Larger and more frequent wildfires will impact California’s economy by increasing fire suppression and emergency response costs, damages to homes and structures, interagency post­fire recovery costs, and damage to timber, water supplies, recreation use and tourism.” Sea Level Rise Scenarios
Current
projection:
1.4 meters by
2100
Stay tuned…
Projected
Sea Level Rise at
San Francisco
Airport
Light blue = 16 inches by 2050
Dark blue = 55 inches by 2100
Coastal Development Policy
Choices

Harden coastline – seawalls,
levees

Prohibit development in hazard
areas – beachfront, bluffs,
floodplain

Improve evacuation

Acquire coastal open space

Re-engineer Infrastructure

Elevate structures
Source: EPA
Coastal Land Acquisition Example:
Fiscalini Ranch, Cambria
Multi-use
open space

437 acres

$11.1 million cost

1.25 miles
of coastline

Pacific Ocean to
downtown
Cambria

New water line
extensions

New access and
evacuation route
New Guidance Available

FEMA/APA book - James C. Schwab, ed.,
Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best
Practices into Planning, Planning Advisory
Service Report Number 560, May 2010

Forthcoming: Cal EMA and California
Natural Resources Agency - Local Climate
Adaptation Policy Guide
Land Use Planning as a
Hazard Mitigation Tool

Opportunities:
– Improve community resilience
through better land use
decisions
– Reduce disaster losses through
mitigation investments
– Avoid repetitive long-term
losses through pre-event action

Challenges:
– Expand knowledge base of
stakeholders
– Create credible science and
mapping for wise land use
– Utilize economic self-interest as
leverage to overcome legal and
political obstacles
Advice from Roseville –
Best Practices for LHMP
Preparation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Involve elected officials,
community and the
experts
Find a champion in your
agency – great
opportunity as planner
to work citywide
Hire a good consultant
(return on investment
will be exponential)
Communicate benefits
constantly
Leverage work done by
others (state mapping,
State Plan as resource)
First steering committee meeting, August 2004
Take-away Points

Wise community planning is essential to
effective hazard mitigation

Hazard mitigation is a good investment
because it helps build resilience

Communities can become more sustainable
by addressing future land use planning with
natural and human-caused hazards in mind