LAND USE IN THE CONTEXT OF GROWTH

The future of our region will be determined in large part by the way in which we accommodate an expanding population and economy. How and where we build our homes, factories, and office buildings will determine how much time we spend in traffic, the quality of our air and water, and how much open space remains available to us.

A significant portion of the land anticipated for development is on the periphery of the region. Here the earth is covered with meadows, forests, orchards and fields. Gradually, large portions of these areas will be transformed by market forces and local planning policies that encourage, or even subsidize, low-density development on inexpensive land.

Land Designated for Development 1995-2020

{Development 1995-2000}

Single-family homes are planned for more than half the land earmarked for residential development. Although some communities have zoned their land to allow more buildings per acre, the projects being approved typically fall well below those densities. As a result, residential, and consequently commercial/industrial development, is being pushed ever outward.

THE PRICE OF LOW-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT

This pattern of low-density development exacts a high cost on the environment, as well as its inhabitants. Research has shown that suburban sprawl generates more solid waste, as well as water and air pollution, than compact development. It also requires major infrastructure investments: new roads and highways, water and sewer-line extensions, and additional reservoirs. This type of land development is more expensive for the region. Yet these costs typically are not included in the development fees levied on new projects. As a result, residents of older cities are subsidizing sprawl.

ARE LAND-USE PATTERNS CHANGING?

Current state environmental review procedures provide a structure for evaluating the impact of specific developments. However, the broader implications are often overlooked. For example, an urban community’s decision to reduce development intensity is likely to spur sprawl in undeveloped areas. Job-rich communities that restrict residential development may compound traffic congestion elsewhere in the region.

In an attempt to control the pace and direction of development, some communities have adopted urban growth boundaries. According to the Greenbelt Alliance, 11 Bay Area communities had adopted such boundaries between late 1996 and early 1998. Another nine are considering adoption in 1998. Other communities, principally less urbanized ones, are using growth limitations (limits on the number of new units approved per year), local plan revisions, and conditions on development approvals to control development.

Many cities at the heart of the region’s transportation system are exploring ways to encourage their redevelopment. Some of these efforts have been stymied by site contamination , neighborhood opposition, and the need to assemble small, noncontiguous parcels to achieve greater design flexibility. The extent to which communities such as San Francisco, Oakland, and Richmond are able to increase infill development—the reuse of vacant and underused lots—may release development pressure on communities at the region’s periphery.

Urban Growth Boundaries Recently Adopted or Under Consideration

{Urban Growth Boundaries}