409- paper

James C. Schwab, Editor

Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

American Planning Association

Planning Advisory Service Report Number 560

front.indd 1 5/5/10 12:33:24 PM

The Planning Advisory Service is a subscription service offered by the Research Department of the American Planning Association. Four reports are produced each year. Subscribers also receive PAS Memo and PAS QuickNotes, and they have access to the Inquiry Answering Service and other valuable benefits. W. Paul Farmer, faicp, Executive Director and CEO; Sylvia Lewis, Director of Publications; William R. Klein, aicp, Director of Research.

Planning Advisory Service Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA. Timothy Mennel, Editor; Lisa Barton, Design Associate

© May 2010 by the American Planning Association. APA’s publications office is at 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. APA headquarters office is at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

E-mail: [email protected]

Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning is the result of a contract between the American Planning Association (APA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Fed- eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contract #HSFEHQ- 07-C-0078 with the American Planning Association. The substance and findings of that work are dedicated to the public.

The report was developed under the auspices of the Hazards Planning Research Center, one of APA’s National Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, outreach, and education that advance hazard mitigation and disaster recovery through planning. For more information, visit www.planning .org/nationalcenters/hazards/index.htm. APA’s National Cen- ters for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and education involving community health, natural and man-made hazards, and green communities. For more details, visit www.planning .org/nationalcenters/index.htm.

James C. Schwab, aicp, served as the project manager and prin- cipal investigator. He is the manager of APA’s Hazards Planning Research Center, a senior research associate, and co-editor of Zon- ing Practice.

Kenneth C. Topping, faicp, is president, Topping Associates In- ternational, Cambria, California, and lecturer with the City and Regional Planning Department, California Polytechnic State Uni- versity–San Luis Obispo, where he serves as project director, 2010 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

David R. Godschalk, faicp, is the Stephen Baxter Professor Emeri- tus in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the Uni- versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Joseph A. MacDonald, aicp, is a program development senior as- sociate for APA.

Ann Dillemuth is a research associate for APA and co-editor of PAS Memo.

Rebecca Little Leitschuh, formerly an APA project intern, is the city planner for the City of Wooster, Ohio.

The authors would like to thank the following individuals who contributed to or supported this project, including Bill Klein, aicp, Director of Research at APA, who provided valuable input and leadership; Tre Jerdon, research associate at APA who assisted the project; Rana Salzmann, Knowledge Management Associate, who helped identify research materials; Kathleen Smith, aicp, of FEMA, who served as project monitor; Terry Baker, Frederick Sharrocks, Karen Helbrecht, Diana Coho, Jennifer Burmester, Julie Baxter, and Tom Smith of FEMA, who reviewed the manuscript and provided other vital support; Pete Fogg, Jeff Bielling, Deepa Srinavasan, Mark Stewart, Gavin Smith, Chad Berginnis (who also assisted with Chapter 4), and Tina Sanchez, who along with authors David Godschalk and Ken Topping, participated in a scoping symposium

that helped define goals and objectives for the project at its outset; Edward A. Thomas, Attorney/Manager, Homeland Security Pro- grams, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., who provided input on legal issues; Laurie Johnson, aicp, consultant; Robert E. Deyle, professor of urban planning at Florida State University, and Darrin Punchard, aicp, senior project manager at AECOM Water, who reviewed the manuscript and provided numerous valuable suggestions; and the following who all participated in a roundtable discussion on ecology and mitigation: Kimberly Bitters, Environmental Spe- cialist, Floodplain Management Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources; David Carlton, Engineer, ESA Adolfson; Craig Colten, Carol O. Sauer Professor, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University; David Fowler, Milwau- kee Metropolitan Sanitary District; and Michele Steinberg, aicp, Firewise Communities Support Manager, National Fire Protection Association.

In addition, the following provided valuable information to the case study authors: for Lee County, Florida: John Wilson, Lee County Public Safety Director; Mary Gibbs, Lee County Commu- nity Development Director; and Bill Spikowski, planning consul- tant and former Lee County Growth Management Department Director; for Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: David Canaan, Director, Mecklenburg County Land & Water Re- sources; Julie Clark, Division Director, Greenway Planning and Development; Garet Johnson, Assistant Director, Long-Range Planning Services & Strategic Planning Services; Gavin Smith, Executive Director, Center for the Study of Natural Hazards and Disasters at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill; and Tim Trautman, Program Manager, Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation; for Roseville, California: Julia Burrows, Deputy City Manager, Rhon Herndon, Engineering Manager, and Paul Richardson, Planning Director, all with the City of Roseville; and Robert Flaner, Senior Planner, Tetra Tech, Inc.; for Berkeley, California: Arrietta Chakos, formerly assistant city manager but now at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Gil Dong, Berkeley Fire Department, and Debra R. Pryor, Fire Chief; and Dan Lambert, Senior Management Analyst, Planning and Development Department, City of Berkeley; for Bourne, Massachusetts: Ted Brovitz, Associate Planner, Stantec Planning and Landscape Architecture; Stacey Justus, Coastal Resources Specialist, Cape Cod Commission; Kate Kennen, Landscape Ar- chitect, Kennen Landscape Architecture; Coreen Moore, Town Planner, Town of Bourne, Massachusetts; Sallie Riggs, Executive Director, Bourne Financial Development Corporation; and Sarah White, Hazard Mitigation Planner, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency; and for Morgan County, Utah: Brad Bar- tholomew, Mitigation Planner/Recovery Officer, State of Utah; Sherrie Christensen, former Community Development Direc- tor, Dave Manning, GIS Specialist, and Grant Crowell, Director of Planning and Development Services, Morgan County; DeeEll Fifield, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planner, Wasatch Front Regional Council; Linda Manning, Director, Morgan County Historical So- ciety; and Jana Peay, Morgan County Librarian.

Cover design by Lisa Barton

Cover photo: Coastal lighthouse beaming storm warning; © iStockphoto.com/juuce

560_Cover2.indd 2 5/5/10 12:28:24 PM

Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

James C. Schwab, aicp, Editor

Ta b l e o f C o n T e n T s

Foreword, by W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, FEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Chapter 1 . Hazard Mitigation: An Essential Role for Planners . . . . . . . 1 What Role Should Planners Play? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Who Else Is Involved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Who Should Prepare Local Hazard Mitigation Plans? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Chapter 2 . Hazard Mitigation and the Disaster Mitigation Act . . . . . . 15 How DMA Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Linkages with Other Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 3 . Integrating Hazard Mitigation Throughout the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

State Policies on Hazard Mitigation and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Which Elements Matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Should There Be a Hazards Element? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Linking Plan Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 4 . Integrating Hazard Mitigation into Other Local Plans . . . . 41 Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Functional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Operational Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

apa-pas560-00fm.indd 1 5/14/10 11:46:45 AM

ii Table of Contents

Chapter 5 . Integrating Hazards into the Implementation Tools of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Goals of Integrating Hazards into Planning Implementation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Where Hazards Fit in the Zoning Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Where Hazards Fit in the Subdivision Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Where Hazards Fit in the CIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Testing Implementation with a Safe Growth Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Chapter 6 . Case Studies: Large Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Lee County, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter 7 . Case Studies: Intermediate Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Roseville, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Berkeley, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Chapter 8 . Case Studies: Small Towns and Rural Communities . . . . . .111 Bourne, Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Morgan County, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Chapter 9 . Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 What Works? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 What Does Not Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 The Road Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

apa-pas560-00fm.indd 2 5/14/10 11:46:45 AM

iii

foreword

Integrating Hazards into Local Planning

We will always live on a restless planet with natural hazards covering the gamut of flood, fire, wind and earthquake. Today, more than ever, Ameri- can communities know more and can do more to take actions to reduce the devastating consequences of natural hazards left unchecked. Over the last century, we have faced our threats in a number of ways . We spent billions to control those hazards we knew about, but in some cases nature reacted in ways we did not expect and ways we could not predict .

Mitigation, a cornerstone of emergency management, is defined as taking sustained actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to people and property from hazards . Mitigation builds community resilience and commu- nity sustainability. When a tornado or flood is upon us, it is too late to take mitigative actions; but by taking steps to lower our risk across generations, we can ensure that our communities recover more quickly from those natural events when they do occur . Building our homes and buildings outside of high-risk flood areas; fortifying our schools and hospitals and office buildings against earthquakes; constructing safe rooms for our neighbors, our friends, and our families to shelter in during high wind events are all examples of ways planners, developers, architects, engineers, and community leaders can take those necessary and sustainable actions to protect existing and future development against natural functions of the environment and reduce the need—and cost—for response and recovery after an event occurs .

Community planners have an integral role as advocates in shaping their communities . Tools that are the mainstay of the planning professional— such as building codes, zoning, and land-use plans—are keys to mitigation . However, unless the public understands that we need to change where and how we develop and live, this work won’t matter . Therefore, better com- munication, citizen involvement, and proactive leadership set the priorities, tone, and attitude for development decisions .

Experience has also shown that emergency managers continue to take the lead on addressing hazards in their communities. Frequently, emer- gency managers lead mitigation planning efforts but may not always take advantage of the unique expertise that community development or zoning officials can bring to bear in the preparation of these plans. Community planners share the responsibility to seek out their emergency management counterparts and become part of the emergency management team to jointly determine what shared values and potential solutions work best for their community .

apa-pas560-00fm.indd 3 5/14/10 11:46:45 AM

iv Foreword

The national emergency management system has evolved to address comprehensively at all levels protection, recovery, preparedness, response, and mitigation needs . Communities that have suffered from disasters are acutely aware that disasters are inherently local, but the regional and global impacts of a disaster can be far-reaching . This knowledge places a huge responsibility on local governments to incorporate resilience and sustain- ability to natural hazards into their decision making .

This report is the result of a contract between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Planning Association (APA) . In 1998, under a separate FEMA contract, APA completed the widely disseminated guide, Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction (PAS Report 483/484). That report reflected the need for greater inclusion of hazards as a factor in local planning during a time when emergency management, in the postdisaster environment, was the primary driver of change. The practice of community planning has evolved significantly in a very short time, with sophisticated and creative results evident in hazard- prone communities throughout our nation . The case studies highlighted in the pages of this report illustrate this change . However, the basic tenets of Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction are still widely appli- cable for recovery and mitigation planning efforts today .

When developing this report, there was no expectation of finding a perfect solution in any one community . Integration of hazards into local plans does not exist in one ideal template . The comprehensive plans that are the most effective are unique, living documents that evolve over time. Comprehensive planning recognizes the long-term benefits of our actions, even if the process of developing a long-term plan can be a challenge . Integrating hazards into the planning process on paper is easy; putting that integration into practice amid a myriad of local variables is much tougher . The commitment and politi- cal will to address hazards wane when the immediate threat of or response to a disaster is gone . This is our challenge to address together .

The participants who assisted with the development of this report know intuitively what integration of hazards into local planning means . As a result of the groundbreaking change in federal policy with regard to the Robert T . Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and the requirement for mitigation plans for federal disaster assistance, a national repository of almost 20,000 state, local, and tribal mitigation plans has been developed over the last decade . Hazard mitigation plans previously existed within only a few select states that included hazards as a component of comprehensive planning in land- use enabling laws . This report shows what can be accomplished when that integration goes beyond the minimum federal requirements.

I am extremely impressed by the ability of communities to go beyond the bare minimum in community planning to achieve true reduction of risks to their built environment, future development, and, most important, to protect the people that live in, work in, or visit them . I hope that community leaders and practicing planners with the skills, knowledge, and influence are inspired to think a little bit differently about how hazards affect their communities, and how they can help their communities become resilient and sustainable .

W . Craig Fugate, Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency

Department of Homeland Security

apa-pas560-00fm.indd 4 5/14/10 11:46:46 AM

v

Executive Summary

This PAS Report resulted from a growing awareness by both the American Planning Association and the Federal Emergency Management Agency that effective hazard mitigation requires exploiting every opportunity a community has at its disposal to promote safe growth . This awareness has grown rapidly as a result of the experience that FEMA and communities nationwide have acquired in implementing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 amendments to the Robert T . Stafford Disaster Assistance and Relief Act . Planners must be able to learn from the best practices for integrating hazard mitigation into all aspects of the local planning process . The study thus includes six major case studies from across the nation .

The report’s initial chapters present a framework for understanding those case studies . Chapter 1 is a brief for expanding the role of planners in hazard mitigation, detailing the value of what they bring to the table while summarizing the roles of other actors in the process . Chapter 2 explains the often complex relationships among federal and state hazard mitigation laws and local hazard mitigation planning . Chapter 3 then details the rela- tionships between hazard-related elements and other elements in the local comprehensive plan and discusses the various types of hazard elements prescribed in state planning legislation . Chapter 4 goes on to describe how hazard mitigation can be integrated into other types of community and regional plans—specifically, area, functional, and operational plans. Chapter 5 then offers best practices for integrating hazard mitigation into the tools for implementing local policy . It also prescribes the methodology for Safe Growth Audits .

Chapters 6, 7, and 8 each offer pairs of case studies of large, intermedi- ate, and small town and rural jurisdictions . That division helps to show that communities large and small can use best practices for integration to achieve meaningful results in reducing losses of both life and property on account of natural hazards . Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes what the report’s authors have learned about what works, what does not work, and what lies ahead for our nation’s communities with regard to natural hazards . The key points of those findings are:

WHAT WORKS

• Complementary Goals and Objectives in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Comprehensive Plan

• Implementing Hazard Mitigation through Government Expenditures and Development Regulations

apa-pas560-00fm.indd 5 5/14/10 11:46:46 AM

vi Executive Summary

• Documenting Existing and Predicted Future Conditions and Raising Awareness of What Can Be Done about Them

• Mutual Reinforcement Between Hazard Mitigation and Other Planning Goals

• Sustaining Leadership for Hazard Mitigation

• Strong Culture of Preparedness and Mitigation

• Using External Drivers As Leverage While Focusing on Community Needs

• Proactive Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement in Planning

WHAT DOES NOT WORK

• Procrastination

• Failure to Involve Planners in Local Hazards Planning

• Failure to Engage Public Participation or to Communicate about Hazards

• Investment in Redevelopment without Accounting for Hazards • Failure to Use Other Plans to Address Hazards

THE ROAD AHEAD

• Learn from Disasters

• Start Change Now

• Strengthen Integration of Hazards with Other Planning Activities • Think Linkages

apa-pas560-00fm.indd 6 5/14/10 11:46:46 AM

47

Chapter 5

Integrating Hazards into the Implementation Tools of Planning

David R. Godschalk, faicp

What is the aim of integrating hazards into planning implementation tools? In answering this question, consider the significant hazard mitigation goals that can be pursued in the course of planning implementation. Knowledge of the desired goals can suggest the type of implementation tool or combina- tion of tools that can achieve them.

This chapter focuses on the primary planning implementation tools under the purview of local planners—zoning, subdivision regulations, and capital improvement programs—although it recognizes that tools designed by other agencies, such as building codes, and public outreach programs also play important roles in implementation.1

s

apa-pas560-05.indd 47 5/14/10 11:56:15 AM

48 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

GOALS OF INTEGRATING HAZARDS INTO PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS Integrating hazards into planning implementation tools has three primary goals:

• Keeping future development out of known hazard areas. The purpose here is to influence the location of public and private investment, guiding it away from known hazard areas and toward safe growth locations. For example, zoning and subdivision regulations can direct private development away from hazard areas through designation of location-specific allowable land uses and standards for public safety. Capital improvement programs (CIPs) can direct funding for public facilities such as roads, bridges, utility systems, and critical facilities to locations outside hazard areas.

• Keeping hazards from affecting existing developed areas. The purpose here is to improve protection of already built-up areas through structural mitiga- tion projects or environmental management techniques that modify the progression of the hazard itself, using combinations of local funds from CIPs and funds from state and federal programs. For example, dams and levees can be constructed to provide a certain amount of protection from future flooding for low-lying developed areas, while reforestation and wetland preservation can be used for flood control.

• Strengthening existing development to resist hazards. The purpose here is to enhance hazard resistance by enacting and enforcing construction code provisions concerning hazard stresses and impacts. For example, hazard area zones and subdivision regulations, as well as building codes, can contain design standards and project review procedures for ensuring the safety of projects subject to earthquake, landslide, wildfire, and flood hazards.

Each planning implementation tool has particular powers appropriate for implementing hazard safety. We next consider where hazard mitigation fits into individual tools—zoning, subdivision regulations, capital improvement programs (see Schwab et al. 1998, chap. 5; Godschalk 2007; and Tobin and Montz 1997)—and then we propose a strategy for analyzing the overall effectiveness of the complete package of local implementation tools: using safe growth audits.

WHERE HAZARDS FIT IN THE ZONING CODE Zoning ordinances are among the planner’s most effective tools for limiting damage from hazards. They have the ability to restrict development in haz- ardous areas to land uses that will not suffer extensive disaster losses, and they can encourage growth in safe locations. They achieve this by specify- ing the location, type, amount, density, and characteristics of development permitted in mapped zoning districts. Where and how these development characteristics are applied affects both the physical and the social vulner- ability of the jurisdiction.

The characteristics of each natural hazard inherent in a jurisdiction determine how ways to address that hazard fit into the jurisdiction’s zoning code. For example, floods, the most common hazard for most communi- ties, occur in low-lying areas adjacent to water bodies. The boundaries of these floodplains are established by FEMA on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), along with estimates of how frequently a location can expect to see floods of various depths. If floods are an important local hazard, then designated floodplains must be incorporated into the zoning map and regulations.

Flood zoning typically is implemented through placement of floodplain boundaries on the local zoning map and the use of various regulations to

apa-pas560-05.indd 48 5/14/10 11:56:15 AM

Chapter 5. Integrating Hazards into the Implementation Tools of Planning 49

enforce restrictions on development in and adjacent to those floodplains. The most common regulation prohibits development within the most hazardous part of the floodplain—the floodway channel where water flows and where obstructions would limit the channel and increase downstream flooding. It also limits the density (or amount of obstruction) that can be placed in the flood fringe area, which is within the floodplain but outside the floodway.

Other flood zoning elements include use regulations that permit only open- space land uses within floodplains; setbacks to minimize flood exposure of buildings and to provide waterfront buffers, maintain natural vegetation, and limit runoff; nonconforming-use regulations that prescribe standards for allowable reconstruction of flood-damaged structures; special-use permits that require development to meet established criteria or conditions to minimize future flooding; and overlay districts that add a separate level of regulation to sensitive hazard areas, such as floodplains. For an example of an ordinance that incorporates all of these elements, see the sidebar on the Chapel Hill Resource Conservation District (p. 50).

Coastal-zone management regulations constitute a special case of flood zoning that may use the same devices but also must contend with shoreline erosion and therefore include provisions, such as setbacks, to deal with ocean dynamics (see Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley 1989). Hurricane zon- ing safeguards against still-water flooding, storm surge, and wind damage. Still-water flooding (A Zones) and coastal flooding with wave action (V Zones) hazard areas are delineated on FIRMs. Specific elevation and build- ing construction standards are applied within A and V zones. Wind-damage zones are identified and protection standards are specified in building codes. Since hurricanes are often accompanied by severe erosion, special setbacks may be required. For example, in North Carolina, minimum ocean setbacks of 60 feet for single-family and two-family residential dwell- ings and 120 feet for multifamily and commercial buildings are required. Height and bulk regulations are used to reduce density in areas subject to hurricane hazards.

Earthquake and geologic hazards zoning is implemented through mapping of seismic areas and restricting development in and adjacent to them. For example, a California law requires the state geologist to map seismic haz- ard zones, sellers of real property to disclose the zones’ existence, and local jurisdictions to conduct a site-specific investigation for all development proposals in order to ensure acceptable levels of earthquake risk before issuing a development permit.2

Earthquakes and associated geologic hazards, such as landslides and debris flows, may be regulated by means of a natural hazards overlay zone, such as the one adopted by Utah County. (See sidebar, p. 52). This overlay zone allows the underlying uses from the zoning map but requires that uses and facilities vulnerable to geologic hazards be protected against collapse or severe damage at the time of construction or placement in the zone.

Wildfire zoning is applied in jurisdictions subject to intense, uncontrolled, rapidly spreading fires that sweep through forests or chaparral. The goal of wildfire zoning is to manage conditions in the urban-wildland interface, as well as in other forest or recreation areas with high wildfire potential. Zoning regulations can reduce residential densities or encourage cluster develop- ment patterns in the most vulnerable interfaces. Wildfire risk also can be reduced by using nonflammable building materials, planting fire-resistant vegetation, and constructing firebreaks and safety zones around residential areas and public facilities in the urban-wildland interface.

apa-pas560-05.indd 49 5/14/10 11:56:15 AM

50 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

CHAPEL HILL RESOuRCE CONSERvATION DISTRICT

(ExCERPTS)

The resource conservation district (RCD) is applied to the areas within and along watercourses within the town’s planning jurisdiction in order to preserve the water quality of the town’s actual or potential water supply sources, to minimize danger to lives and properties from flooding in and near the watercourses, to preserve the water-carrying capacity of the watercourses and

to protect them from erosion and sedimentation, to retain open spaces and greenways and to protect their environmentally sensi- tive character, to preserve urban wildlife and plant life habitats from the intrusions of urbanization, to provide air and noise buf- fers to ameliorate the effects of development, and to preserve and maintain the aesthetic qualities and appearance of the town.

Permitted uses in the RCD depend on location within the Stream Corridor Zones, which are defined relative to the distance from the stream bank, as shown in the illustration below.Excerpts from Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance – January 27, 2003

A graphic illustration of Stream Corridor Zones follows:

Corridor Zone

Location and Required Width of Zone

Stream Side

50’ from Stream Bank

Managed Use

50’ from outer edge of Stream Side zone

Upland

50’ from Managed Use zone, or out to RCD Elevation, whichever is greater

Total Corridor Area

150’ minimum from each side of Stream Bank

PERMITTED uSES WITHIN RESOuRCE CONSERvATION DISTRICT

(A) (B) (C) (D)

use Stream Side

Zone Managed use

Zone upland Zone

Trails, greenways, open space, parks, and other similar public recreational uses and private recreational uses that do not require fertilizers, pesticides, or extensive fences, or walls

P P P

Outdoor horticulture, forestry, wildlife sanctuary, and similar agricultural and related uses that do not require land-disturbing activities or pesticides, or extensive fences or walls

P P P

Pastures or plant nurseries that do not require land-disturbing activities or pesticides, or extensive fences or walls

N P P

Gardens, play areas and other similar uses which do not require pesticides for routine maintenance

N P P

Lawns, golf course fairways, play fields and other areas which may require fertilizers or pesticides

N N P

Archery ranges, picnic structures, playground equipment and other similar public and private recreational uses that do not require fertilizers, pesticides, or extensive fences or walls

N P P

(continued on page 51)

s

apa-pas560-05.indd 50 5/14/10 11:56:16 AM

Chapter 5. Integrating Hazards into the Implementation Tools of Planning 51

The resource conservation district elevation is defined to be the elevation three feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation. The 100-year floodplain elevation shall be established as the regulatory floodplain as delineated in the flood insurance rate maps, flood boundary floodway maps, and Flood Insurance Study for the Town of Chapel Hill, or where the base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have not been determined, the 100-year floodplain plan elevation shall be calculated using engineering methodology compatible with that used to develop the flood insurance rate maps, flood boundary, floodway maps, and flood insurance study.

Standards for development in the resource conservation district include:

• The lowest floor elevation of all permanent structures (build- ings) shall be placed at least eighteen (18) inches above the resource conservation district elevation and in such a manner as not to adversely impede the flow of waters.

• Wherever practicable no stormwater discharge shall be allowed directly off an impervious surface into a stream channel.

• Utility lines, roads and driveways shall be located parallel to the flow of waters. Where a road, driveway, or utility line necessarily must cross a watercourse, such crossing shall allow convenient access by wildlife and shall safely convey floodwaters to the same extent as before construction of the crossings.

• The site plan shall minimize adverse environmental and flooding effects. Permanent structures shall be located as far from the watercourse, and as close to the outer boundary of the resource conservation district, as is practical, and shall be clustered as much as practical, to minimize land disturbance, to maximize undeveloped open space, and to maximize reten- tion of natural vegetation and buffers.

• Water supply, sanitary sewer, and on-site waste disposal systems shall be designed to prevent the infiltration of flood waters into the system(s), prevent discharges from the system(s) into flood waters and, avoid impairment during flooding to minimize flood damage.

• Cutting or filling shall be permitted within the watercourse only if the resulting change to the hydraulic characteristics of the watercourse will reduce or maintain the water surface elevation during the base flood discharge in the vicinity of the development; however, in no case will cutting or filling be permitted within the watercourse if greater than a one foot per second increase in the velocity would result; or if greater than one-half (1/2) foot rise in the base flood eleva- tion would result.

Source: http://library1.municode.com/default-test/template.htm?view=browse &doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=5d1c1b1b79939075bd0f03 8b721a1e5e&infobase=19952, sec. 3.6.3. ◀

Public utility and storm drainage facilities where there is a practical necessity to their location within the RCD

P P P

Streets, bridges, and other similar transportation facilities where there is a practical necessity to their location within the RCD

S S S

Sidewalks P P P

Accessory land-disturbing activities ordinarily associated with a single- family or two-family dwelling, such as fences, gardens, and similar uses

N P P

Driveways and utility service lines when there is a practical necessity P P P

Public maintenance of streets, bridges, other similar transportation facilities and/or public utility and storm drainage facilities

P P P

Detention/retention basin and associated infrastructure N P P

Lakes, ponds, and associated infrastructure, such as dams, spillways, riser pipes and stilling basins, that are located outside of the regulatory floodplain, shall be permitted with a Special Use Permit

S S S

Stream and riparian area restoration and maintenance P P P

“P” means the activity is permitted as of right, “N” means that the activity is prohibited; “S” means that the activity is permitted only upon approval of a special use permit or a subdivision application by the town council.

PERMITTED uSES WITHIN RESOuRCE CONSERvATION DISTRICT (continued )

(A) (B) (C) (D)

use Stream Side

Zone Managed use

Zone upland Zone

(continued from page 50)

apa-pas560-05.indd 51 5/14/10 11:56:17 AM

52 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

The San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance defines fire hazards based on the type of vegetation (fuel potential) present, as shown in Table 5.1 and mapped in the safety element of the county’s general plan.

Transfer of development rights (TDR) is a zoning-based technique that allows property owners in defined sending areas to sell their development rights to property owners in receiving areas. The sending areas, which may include hazard areas as well as agricultural lands and other areas, are downzoned to a low density. The receiving areas, which are planned to accommodate urban growth, are upzoned to a higher density that is permitted when develop- ment rights are applied. For example, Sarasota County, Florida, designates its barrier islands as the sending zone, with the receiving zone located on higher and drier terrain.

Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions increases risks of drought, sea-level rise, and decreased air quality. Climate scientists have identified two types of responses to climate change: (1) avoiding its unmanageable impacts (preparing for climate warming by reducing vulnerability to the impacts) and (2) managing the avoidable impacts (slowing climate warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions). The terminology can be confusing, however, since “mitigation” in the field of emergency management refers to predisaster actions to reduce damage and injury from natural hazards, a definition that includes both adaptation and mitigation measures.

Zoning implementation offers a means to mitigate climate change effects through policies to guide the location, type, and amount of land-using build- ings and activities, as well as the preservation of open space and agricultural lands to minimize or even sequester carbon emissions. It also can aid in adap- tation to the impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise, by redirecting future settlement patterns away from existing or anticipated future hazard areas. For an example, see the California climate change bill, SB 375.3

Accelerated sea-level rise associated with climate change is leading to increased exposure of people and property to coastal hazards. Adverse consequences include increased vulnerability to losses of lives and prop- erty from flooding; increased vulnerability to property losses and losses of recreational areas from accelerated erosion of beaches and dune systems; increased salinity of drinking-water aquifers and of estuaries and wetlands; diminished effectiveness of stormwater drainage systems; and retreat or,

TABLE 5.1. POTENTIAL FOR RANGE, BRuSH, AND FOREST FIRES, BY TYPE OF PLANT COMMuNITY, SAN LuIS OBISPO COuNTY

WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD FuEL POTENTIAL

very High High Moderate

Chaparral North Coastal Scrub

Riparian Woodland

Beach-Dune

Foothill Woodland

North Coastal Grassland

Coast Sand Plains

Juniper/Oak Woodland

Evergreen Forest Saline Plains

Interior Herbaceous

Coastal Salt Marsh

Desert Scrub Freshwater Marsh

San Luis Obispo 2008

FROM THE uTAH COuNTY

NATuRAL HAZARDS

OvERLAY ZONE

The specific purposes and intent of the County Commission in estab- lishing the NHO Natural Hazards Overlay Zone are:

1. To take advantage of the powers and more fully implement the basic purposes for planning and zoning and to implement the plans.

2. To implement the joint program of the Utah Geologic and Mineral Survey, the U.S. Geological Sur- vey, and Utah County to identify geologic hazards and reduce the risk therefrom.

3. To protect human life and health.

4. To minimize damage to public and private property.

5. To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with hazards and disasters, which efforts occur at public expense.

6. To minimize the damage to essen- tial public facilities including (but not limited to) water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; and roads and bridges.

7. To maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas affected by geologic hazards so as to mini- mize post-disaster blight.

8. To assure that those who occupy the areas susceptible to geologic hazards assume responsibility for their actions regarding land use, construction, and grading.

9. To notify owners and buyers of land in the NHO Zone of the potential for rockfall, debris flow, landslide, or surface fault rupture.

In order to accomplish the stated purposes and intent, the provisions of the NHO Zone: a. Restrict or prohibit those uses

which are dangerous to health,

s

(continued on page 53)

apa-pas560-05.indd 52 5/14/10 11:56:17 AM

Chapter 5. Integrating Hazards into the Implementation Tools of Planning 53

where retreat is not possible, loss of wetlands and the biological communi- ties they support.

Changes in the land’s surface features may be at least as important in altering the weather as changes associated with greenhouse gases (Pielke 2005). Conversion of vegetated areas to urban and agricultural uses induces regional temperature and precipitation change. Forests can play a significant role in mitigating such climate change. Deforestation can change the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, as well as affect the local, regional, and global climate by changing the energy balance on the earth’s surface.

WHERE HAZARDS FIT IN THE SuBDIvISION CODE Subdivision regulations govern the basic processes of dividing land into salable parcels and servicing those lots with roads, water, and sewer sys- tems. Awareness of and sensitivity to hazards are critical in the design and implementation of subdivision regulations because, once individual property rights have been established by sales of lots to individual buyers, it is almost impossible to change the resulting urban form. If a subdivision is allowed to be created in a hazard area, then the die is cast and one more neighborhood will be subjected to an unacceptable level of future hazard risks.

Many jurisdictions combine their zoning and subdivision regulations in a single unified land-use ordinance or unified development ordinance. The unified land-use ordinance of San Luis Obispo County, California, is a good example. Allowable land uses and permit requirements (zoning) are described in one article, while subsequent articles describe site planning and project design standards, subdivision design standards, and transfer of development credits. The ordinance includes specific regulations for flood, wildfire, earthquake, and coastal hazards. (See sidebar, p. 54.)

Subdivision location and design can either reduce or worsen vulnerabil- ity to natural hazards. Obviously, location on or adjacent to hazard-prone lands, such as landslide or floodplain areas, heightens the risk of disasters. Placement of roads, residential lots, and public facilities within subdivision projects can clearly increase hazard risks by reducing evacuation or public safety access. Less obviously, increases in impervious surfaces can generate increased stormwater runoff, heightening flooding risks, while failure to conserve natural vegetation and environmental features, such as wetlands and dunes, can reduce the capacity of the environment to contain or absorb hazard forces.

Subdivision regulations can use techniques intended to promote design flexibility—such as cluster development, planned unit development, conser- vation subdivisions, and density transfer—for hazard mitigation purposes. For example, in a subdivision proposed for a property containing flood- plains, the area to be developed can be clustered on the upland portion of the property, leaving the low-lying features of the floodplain undisturbed. (See sidebar on Clinton County, Ohio, p. 55.)

WHERE HAZARDS FIT IN THE CIP The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) lays out a jurisdiction’s medium- term (five- to six-year) spending plan for capital projects that support existing and future development such as roadways and sewer and water systems. As such, it represents the locality’s commitments to major expendi- tures and is concrete evidence of its priorities for implementing its policies and plans, including those for hazard mitigation.

There are two types of CIP commitments relevant to hazards: hazard- specific expenditures and the hazard-specific nonexpenditures. Specific relevant expenditures include spending for open space acquisition, such

safety, and property because of their incompatible nature, location, design, or method of construction.

b. Require that uses and facilities vulnerable to geologic hazards be protected against collapse or severe damage at the time of construction or placement in the zone.

c. Control any fill, cut, construction or other development which may unnaturally increase the degree of hazards.

d. Require site-specific and build- ing-specific studies by qualified engineering geologists, geological engineers, and building designers to adjust construction and land use to minimize the degree of hazard.

All structures and uses of land which are listed as permitted uses and permitted conditional uses in the underlying zoning districts shall also be permitted in the territory covered by the NHO Zone if they meet the standards of both this section and the underlying zone.

Before any building permit is issued within the NHO Zone, the Zon- ing Administrator must first find that the land use, grading, construction, or other such development to be permit- ted therein complies with both the requirements of the NHO Zone and the underlying zone and issue a writ- ten clearance attesting to such finding. No land use, grading, construction or other development shall be com- menced or altered within the territory of the NHO Zone until the clearance and the building permit based on such clearance are granted.

Every application to use land, grade, construct, or otherwise develop in the NHO Zone shall be accompanied by a plot plan and construction plans required by Section 7-6 of this ordinance plus a Natural Hazards Assessment which complies with the standards of this chapter, unless exempted.

Source: http://planning.utah.gov/library/ Index_files/PDFs/ut5.12.pdf, sec. 5-12. ◀

(continued from page 52)

apa-pas560-05.indd 53 5/14/10 11:56:17 AM

54 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

as at-risk waterfront properties that can be converted to public parks and greenways, and for hazard miti- gation projects, such as strengthening at-risk public facilities—schools, hospitals, fire and police stations, utility systems—to resist floods and geologic hazards. (See sidebar on the King County Flood Control Zone District Proposed Work Program, p. 56).

Hazard-specific nonexpenditures include prohibitions against support of infrastructure projects that would increase the vulnerability of future development, such as extending trunk sewer lines into hazard areas or building bridges to barrier islands at risk from hurricanes and shoreline erosion. For example, the Lee County, Florida, comprehensive plan includes a statement limiting public expenditures in coastal high-hazard areas to necessary repairs, public safety needs, services to existing residents, recreation, and open space uses. (See Chapter 6.) It also prohibits new causeways to islands and bridges to undeveloped barrier islands, except to achieve evacuation clearance-time objectives.

TESTING IMPLEMENTATION WITH A SAFE GROWTH AuDIT Beyond the use of individual planning implementation tools, hazards must be dealt with comprehensively, using complete packages of tools, in order to get the most effective result.

The Safe Growth Audit is a method to analyze how the full slate of current policies, ordinances, and plans on community safety affects hazard risks due to growth. The audit gives the community a comprehensive but concise evaluation of the positive and negative effects of its existing growth-guidance framework on future hazard vulnerability. It informs citizens and decision makers about important safety issues and highlights needed changes in policy and planning instruments (Godschalk 2009).

By answering a series of basic questions, the Safe Growth Audit can be used to test existing tools and policies, to involve stakeholders and decision makers in hazards issues, and to guide needed changes in growth- related tools. (See sidebar, p. 57.)

If the community and its elected officials understand how their zoning and subdivision ordinances allow growth in hazard areas, they can then revise those ordinances before property owners embark on risky projects. If they understand how their capital improve- ment programs encourage unsafe growth, they can then change their expenditure policies and priorities. For an example of action recommendations similar to those that might result from a Safe Growth Audit, see Kane County (2003, chap. 10).

Safe growth is community-specific. To define safe growth for a jurisdiction, consider its opposite, unsafe growth. Ask if accommodating the expected 20-year population growth according to the future land-use plan is likely to put more people in harm’s way. Will it result in more intense development in known hazard areas? Will redevelopment policies increase the amount of

SAN LuIS OBISPO COuNTY COASTAL

HIGH-HAZARD AREAS

3. Coastal High Hazard areas.: The following requirements shall apply to new structures or any improvement / repair to an existing structure as specified in Subsection D., in areas identified as having special flood hazards extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity waters including coastal and tidal inundation or tsunamis as established on the maps identified in subsection A.: a. All buildings or structures shall be elevated on adequately

anchored pilings or columns and securely anchored to such pilings or columns so that the lowest horizontal portion of the structural members of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the base flood elevation level. The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base flood. Wind loading values used shall be those required by applicable state or local building standards.

b. All new construction and other development shall be located on the landward side of the reach of mean high tide.

c. All buildings or structures shall have the space below the lowest floor free of obstructions or constructed with breakaway walls. Such enclosed space shall not be used for human habitation and will be usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage.

d. Fill shall not be used for structural support of buildings.

e. Man-made alteration of sand dunes that would increase potential flood damage is prohibited.

f. The Director and/or the Public Works Director shall obtain and maintain the following records.

(1) Certification by a registered engineer or architect that a proposed structure complies with Subsection D.3.a.

(2) The elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings or columns) of all buildings and structures, and whether such structures contain a basement.

Source: www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/Land+Use+Ordinances/ Title+22+-++Land+Use+Ordinance/01+-+Title+22+-+Land +Use+Ordinance+-+Article+1+through+8.pdf, sec. 22.14.060. ◀

s

apa-pas560-05.indd 54 5/14/10 11:56:17 AM

Chapter 5. Integrating Hazards into the Implementation Tools of Planning 55

FROM THE CLINTON COuNTY, OHIO, SuBDIvISION

REGuLATIONS FOR CLuSTER AND CONSERvATION

SuBDIvISIONS AND PLANNED uNIT DEvELOPMENT

410.00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 410.01.1 GENERAL STATEMENT The Planned Unit Development is a contiguous area to be planned and developed as a single entity containing one or more struc- tures to accommodate residential, commercial and/or industrial uses in accordance with the applicable zoning regulations. Zoning approval of a planned unit development does not constitute sub- division approval. The procedure for approval of a planned unit development is subject to the approval of these Regulations.

410.02 PURPOSE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A planned unit development of land may be permitted in order to provide a means for a more desirable physical development pattern than would not be possible through the strict application of zoning and subdivision regulations. The Regional Planning Commission will permit certain variety and flexibility in land development to encourage the subdivider to adjust design to irregular topography, economize in the construction of utilities, and create architectural variation as well as attractive and usable buildings and building sites.

410.03 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. The gross area of the tract to be developed under the planned

unit development approach shall comprise not less than ten (10) acres, unless otherwise approved by the Regional Plan- ning Commission.

B. The total ground area occupied by buildings and structures shall not exceed eighty (80) percent of the total ground area, unless previous development in the neighborhood has a greater ground coverage, in which case the plan may increase the ground coverage of buildings and structures to correspond with the average in the neighborhood.

C. A minimum of ten (10) percent of the land developed shall be reserved for open space and similar uses such as an inter- nal park network under these Regulations. Lot widths and required yards may be reduced to eighty (80) percent of the requirements of these Regulations.

D. The minimum lot size shall not be less than 70 percent of the lot area per family or use, which would otherwise be

required under these Regulations. Lot widths and required yards may be reduced to 80 percent of the requirements of these Regulations.

E. The design of the internal circulation system shall provide for convenient access to dwelling units and non-residential facilities, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, shall be adequate to carry anticipate traffic, including access for emergency vehicles.

420.00 CLUSTER OR CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT 420.01 PURPOSE A. It is the intent of this section to the Subdivision Regulations to

be sufficiently flexible to carry out the conservation develop- ment objectives of the County. Conservation development is intended to encourage more efficient use of land and public services through unified development that is principally intended to conserve community resources, preserve open spaces, and protect the health and safety of the community. These objectives are achieved through land development techniques set forth in the Clinton County Zoning Resolution that permit flexibility in the arrangement and construction of dwelling units and roads. Therefore, this section establishes standards and criteria to likewise permit sufficient flexibility in the development of subdivisions to be consistent with the County’s conservation development regulations, to maximize the achievement of the conservation development objectives and to promote the following purposes:

1. Minimize development on and destruction of sensitive natural resource areas;

2. Reduce the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff from expected development;

3. Maintain natural characteristics such as woods, hedgerows, natural vegetation, meadows, and streams;

4. Reduce the amount of disturbed land and conservation of natural areas to landscaped areas for lawns and intrusive vegetation; and,

5. Maintain a traditional rural settlement pattern character- ized by compact groupings of development in otherwise wide-open spaces.

Source: http://co.clinton.oh.us/regional_planning/clinton-county-subdivision- regulations-2006.pdf/view. ◀

s

apa-pas560-05.indd 55 5/14/10 11:56:17 AM

56 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

property vulnerable to hazard risks? Will the implemen- tation of the capital improvement program encourage unsafe development proposals by facilitating access to dangerous locations? If unsafe growth appears likely, are there feasible land-use or regulatory alternatives that could be considered?

Safe growth is a straightforward concept. It can be sum- marized in a few simple principles (Beatley 2009, chap. 6):

Create a Safe Growth Vision. A safe growth strategy needs a vision of the future community safe from natural hazards. To create such a vision, institute a community dialogue about hazard exposure and vulnerability, coupled with frank discussion about the ways that growth is likely to increase risks. Acknowledge that public intervention may be necessary to mitigate risks and ask how existing plans, policies, and programs might be changed to accomplish such mitigation.

Guide Growth away from High-Risk Locations. A safe-growth analysis requires the use of maps of hazard areas. These high-risk locations—fault zones, flood zones, landslide hazard areas, erosion zones, wildfire zones— show where development should be discouraged or allowed only with special protections. Any public actions that ignore their impacts on development in such high- risk locations contribute to unsafe growth. Similarly, any public actions aimed at redevelopment in such locations should be scrutinized for increased risk.

Locate Critical Facilities Outside High-Risk Zones. Critical facilities need to be protected from hazard risks. Continued operation of water and sewer systems, roads and bridges, hospitals and medical facilities, power plants, and public safety facilities is critical to safe growth. Critical facilities in high-hazard zones not only pose a danger to their own operation but also put other develop- ment at risk. However, often it is necessary to locate such facilities in high-risk areas—for example, gravity-based sewage treatment plants must be built at low elevations and so may be subject to flooding—so protective mea- sures must be incorporated into their designs.

Preserve Protective Features of the Natural Environ- ment. Natural ecosystems need to be protected against unsafe growth practices. Removing vegetation from steep slopes for new buildings decreases the soil’s ability to resist erosion and mud slides. Bulldozing mangroves for new beachfront projects decreases the ability of natural systems to absorb floodwaters. Filling riverine marshes for agriculture increases future flood flows. Retrofit Buildings and Facilities at Risk in Redevel-

oping Areas. Redevelopment in existing areas needs to be protected against hazard risks. Many older buildings were built prior to building codes containing higher safety standards. Often, these areas also are located within hazard zones, as in the case of small beachfront communities. For them to accommodate higher densi- ties and intensities of future development, their existing structures and facilities should be strengthened or elevated during the redevelopment process.

FROM THE KING COuNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE

DISTRICT PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

Program Summary: The vast majority of the proposed District work program and budget is dedicated to implemen- tation of major maintenance and capital projects. This work includes managing and implementing major maintenance, repair and new flood protection facility design, permitting and construction projects; home buyouts and acquisitions; and home elevations.

Construction of flood protection infrastructure has allowed considerable residential, commercial and industrial economic development in flood hazard areas. The flood protection infrastructure has reduced the frequency of flooding and severity of erosion, and contained flood flows within levees that has allowed for significant economic growth by promot- ing development of historical floodplains, as exemplified by the industrial and commercial development lining the lower Green River. However, these areas will always face the potential risk that the flood protection facilities could be overwhelmed, resulting in serious flood damage, significant impacts to the regional economy, or personal injury and death. While the costs of flood protection facility construction and maintenance are borne by the public, the value to the economy is a regional benefit.

The Capital Improvement Program will complete high priority and regionally significant flood hazard management capital improvement projects to significantly protect public safety and reduce flood risks to the regional economy, trans- portation corridors, and public and private infrastructure and property. These capital improvement projects include retrofits and repairs to levees and revetments; levee setbacks to improve slope stability and increase flood conveyance and capacity; and targeted acquisition of repetitive loss properties and other at-risk developments. The District’s Comprehensive Plan recommends approximately 135 capital projects for the ten-year period, of which approximately 95 are construction projects and 40 are acquisition only.

Source: www.kingcountyfloodcontrol.org/pdfs/2009%20kc%20flood%20 district%20work%20program.pdf ◀

s

apa-pas560-05.indd 56 5/14/10 11:56:17 AM

Chapter 5. Integrating Hazards into the Implementation Tools of Planning 57

BASIC SAFE GROWTH AuDIT

QuESTIONS

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Land Use

• Does the future land-use map clearly identify natural-hazard areas?

• Do the land-use policies discourage development or redevel- opment within natural-hazard areas?

• Does the plan provide adequate space for expected future growth in areas located outside of natural-hazard areas?

Transportation

• Does the transportation plan limit access to hazard areas?

• Is transportation policy used to guide growth to safe locations?

• Are movement systems designed to function under disaster conditions (e.g., evacuation)?

Environmental Management

• Are environmental systems that protect development from hazards identified and mapped?

• Do environmental policies maintain and restore protective ecosystems?

• Do environmental policies provide incentives to development that is located outside of protective ecosystems?

Public Safety

• Are the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan related to those of the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Plan?

• Is safety explicitly included in the plan’s growth and develop- ment policies?

• Does the monitoring and implementation section of the plan cover safe-growth objectives?

ZONING ORDINANCE

• Does the zoning ordinance conform to the comprehensive plan in terms of discouraging development or redevelopment within natural hazard areas?

• Does the ordinance contain natural-hazard overlay zones that set conditions for land use within such zones?

• Do rezoning procedures recognize natural hazard areas as limits on zoning changes that allow greater intensity or density of use?

• Does the ordinance prohibit development within, or filling of, wetlands, floodways, and floodplains?

SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

• Do the subdivision regulations restrict the subdivision of land within or adjacent to natural hazard areas?

• Do the regulations provide for conservation subdivisions or cluster subdivisions in order to conserve environmental resources?

• Do the regulations allow density transfers where hazard areas exist?

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES

• Does the capital improvement program limit expenditures on projects that would encourage development in areas vulner- able to natural hazards?

• Do infrastructure policies limit extension of existing facilities and services that would encourage development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards?

• Does the capital improvement program provide funding for hazard mitigation projects identified in the FEMA Mitigation Plan?

OTHER

• Do small area or corridor plans recognize the need to avoid or mitigate natural hazards?

• Does the building code contain provisions to strengthen or elevate construction to withstand hazard forces?

• Do economic development or redevelopment strategies include provisions for mitigating natural hazards?

• Is there an adopted evacuation and shelter plan to deal with emergencies from natural hazards?

Source: Godschalk 2009 ◀

s

apa-pas560-05.indd 57 5/14/10 11:56:17 AM

58 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

Develop Knowledgeable Community Leaders and Networks. Safe growth needs the knowledge and actions of all community stakeholders, including nongovernmental institutions and social networks. Governments alone cannot ensure safe growth. Thus, a Safe Growth Audit needs to look at how community stakeholders share knowledge about hazards and make decisions relative to growth. The goal is to ensure strong community net- works and community leaders prepared to make safe decisions concerning growth both before and after disasters.

Monitor and Update Safe Growth Programs and Plans. Safe growth needs up-to-date programs and plans. Natural hazard and vulnerability estimates change as new information becomes available from updated analyses and as the result of learning from disasters. Growth conditions also change, as new development trends emerge and new projections are made. Safe Growth Audits should be revised and publicly reviewed on a regular basis to ensure their continued validity, in conjunction with scheduled updates to the comprehensive plan and hazard mitigation plan.

NOTES 1. Building codes set engineering standards for building safety in the face

of hazard stresses. They are administered by local governments, but they are written and revised by building-code councils. For example, the International Code Council (ICC) publishes the International Building Code, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publishes Mini- mum Design Standards for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-02), and the National Fire Protection Association publishes the Fire Code. Some states also publish building codes. For a general overview, see the Whole Building Design Guide, National Institute of Building Sciences, available at www.wbdg.org/design/resist_hazards.php.

2. The California Natural Hazards Disclosure Act requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a “Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement” when the property being sold lies within one or more state-mapped hazard areas. These seismic haz- ard zone maps are distributed to local governments for use in planning and controlling construction and development. These regulatory zones encompass areas prone to liquefaction (failure of water-saturated soil) and earthquake-induced landslides. If a property is undeveloped, a site-specific investigation by a licensed engineering geologist or civil engineer may be required before the parcel can be subdivided or before most structures can be permitted. If a significant hazard exists at the site, then measures must be recommended to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. See www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/shzp/Pages/SHMPrealdis.aspx.

3. California’s Senate Bill 375 (2008) seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions by curbing urban sprawl, reducing commute times, and encouraging infill development. Essentially a growth management law that ties trans- portation funding to growth patterns, the bill requires each California region to create a preferred growth scenario that will enable it to meet regional greenhouse gas–reduction targets derived from the statewide reduction goal. Each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must prepare a “sustainable communities strategy,” which will be the land-use allocation in the regional transportation plan. The strategy is to identify land-use patterns and housing needs and set forth a forecasted develop- ment pattern, which when integrated with the transportation network and policies will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve the approved reduction targets. Implementation is delegated to the regions, and land-use regulation authority remains with the cities and counties.

apa-pas560-05.indd 58 5/14/10 11:56:18 AM

60 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA David r. Godschalk, faicp A low-lying county facing the Gulf of Mexico, Lee County faces significant natural hazards of flooding and hurricanes, as well as wildfires, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and other hazards. In attempting to remedy the impacts of decades of urbanization on its natural environment while also managing continued growth, the county has adopted a collaborative Joint Unified Local Mitigation Strategy that coordinates mitigation for the county and its five municipalities. The strategy is integrated with the comprehensive plans of all the jurisdictions and is implemented through development regulation, as well as through governmental expenditures. The county’s approach can be viewed as a model for dealing with coastal hazards in urbanized counties with significant natural areas.

Purpose and Method Because the unified strategy brings together the mitigation efforts of the county and its five municipalities, it can serve as a model for regional coor- dination. Additionally, because it directly integrates hazard mitigation and the local comprehensive plans, it can be viewed as a model for integration of mitigation into comprehensive planning. Last, because it carries out haz- ard mitigation through both development regulations and governmental expenditures, the strategy can be viewed as a model for prioritizing and implementing mitigation initiatives through such tools. This collaborative strategy has both strengths and problems.

Florida governments are required to prepare five plans (or parts of plans) that involve mitigation and land use:

• Local Comprehensive Plan—a local policy plan defining future land-use and growth patterns

• Coastal Element of the Comprehensive Plan—a section of the comprehensive plan focusing on protection of the coastal environment and communities from natural hazards

• County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP)—an opera- tional plan defining emergency management procedures

• Local Mitigation Strategy—a plan required by both the state and the federal government

• Postdisaster Redevelopment Plan—a plan for the postdisaster recovery period

Background: Hazards, Geography, and Institutions The context for hazard mitigation planning—natural hazards, geographic setting, and regulatory environment—sets the context for mitigation imple- mentation. Lee County faces significant natural hazards and occupies a low-lying environment with large areas of wetlands. In response, it has created agencies and procedures to mitigate its hazards, conserve its envi- ronmental resources, and manage its future development.

Lee County lies on the southwest Gulf Coast of Florida. As seen in Figure 6.1, the county includes five municipalities: Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, Cape Coral, and Bonita Springs. It is split by the Caloosa- hatchee River, which flows west from Lake Okeechobee into the Gulf of Mexico, and it has an extensive shoreline, exposing all of its urban areas to the threat of flooding.

Hurricanes, tropical storms, and drought are the major natural hazards in Lee County, along with thunderstorms, tornadoes, floods, and wildfires.

This case study focuses on the following documents:

• Joint Unified Local Mitigation Strat- egy for Lee County, Florida (2007), which fulfills the state and federal local hazard-mitigation plan requirement

• The Lee Plan (2007) and the Febru- ary 25, 2009, Amendment to the Hurricane Evacuation/Coastal High Hazard Area

• Lee County Master Mitigation Plan (Environmental Quality Investment and Growth Mitigation Strategic Plan) (2007)

Mitigation documents describing the State of Florida’s natural-hazard mitigation plan and local mitigation guidelines are also reviewed.

The following officials reviewed this case study, to ensure the accuracy of its description and interpretation:

• John Wilson, Lee County Public Safety Director

• Mary Gibbs, aicp, Lee County C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t Director

• Bill Spikowski, aicp, planning consultant and former director of the Lee County Growth Manage- ment Department ◀

s

apa-pas560-06.indd 60 5/14/10 11:56:42 AM

o f

s p e c i a

l

i n t e r e s

t Planning for Wildfires

PAS 529/530. James Schwab and Stuart Meck. 2005. 126 pp. $60.

Wildfires are both dangerous and costly, yet people continue to build in wildfire-prone areas. This poses challenges for governments and planners, who must decide whether to permit development in such areas and how best to design developments that are allowed. This report explores both issues, outlining how knowledge of wildfire risks can be incorporated into comprehensive planning and identifying best practices for development in at-risk areas.

Planning for the Unexpected

PAS 531. Laurie Johnson, Laura Dwelley Samant, and Suzanne Frew. 2005. 60 pp. $48.

Typical plans include only about half of the elements necessary for a safe, hazard-resistant community. How does your plan stack up? Does it manage environmental, capital, economic, social, and institutional risks? Can it adapt to emerging risks? This report describes the tools planners have to identify and manage risks related to land use. These tools include many common planning approaches such as comprehensive or general plans, specific or area plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, capital improvement plans, budgets, and environmental impact reports. This report demonstrates that these familiar techniques can be used to better screen for risks, reduce many risks to acceptable levels, and control risks before they become unmanageable.

Landslide Hazards and Planning PAS 533/534. James C. Schwab, Paula L. Gori, and Sanjay Jeer, eds. 210 pp. $60.

This report will help planners minimize the risk landslides pose to life and property by determining where not to build and the best ways to build in landslide-prone areas.

Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction PAS 483/484. Jim Schwab et al. 1998. 346 pp. $44.

The first all-hazards guide for developing local plans for post-disaster recovery. It includes a model ordinance and case studies of five different disasters—flood, earthquake, tornado, wildfire, and hurricane. It helps you identify local natural hazards, assess risk, and outline the process of developing and implementing plans for post-disaster recovery.

560_Cover3.indd 153 5/5/10 12:29:33 PM

back.indd 1 5/5/10 1:16:20 PM