introduction

Voices as disparate as Vice President Al Gore, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, and California State Treasurer Phil Angelides have been sounding a call in support of a concept called smart growth. Major newspapers and magazines have written dozens of articles about it. Non-profits, governmental organizations and foundations have been pressing for it. What's it all about?

The way we have used land has helped shape our society. But, until recently, the question garnered little attention in the popular press or our national consciousness. That is beginning to change. More people are taking note as they confront the problems created by past land use decisions. Problems such as dwindling open space, traffic congestion, air and water pollution, and inner city decline. Moreover, we are gaining a more sophisticated understanding of how land use decisions affect the quality of our lives: time with family, community participation, educational opportunities, neighborhood diversity.

Our current pattern of development tends to consume a disproportionate amount of land relative to the population growth it accommodates. The increasing distance between employment centers and homes leads to longer commutes while stratifying the population. Congestion becomes unmanageable, communities lose their identities and quality of life suffers as people spend more and more of their free time in cars. The demand for services in cities rises while their ability to fund those services decreases-fueling the cycle of urban decline and suburban sprawl.

While land use decisions are not the sole cause of poverty, urban decay, and other long-standing social problems, they are clearly linked. AS a result, some believe a strategic shift in the way we use land could ameliorate, if not solve, many of them. That approach is called "smart growth."

What is Smart Growth?

There is no single definition of smart growth: its meaning depends on context, speaker and timeframe The common thread among different perspectives of smart growth is development that revitalizes central cities and older suburbs, supports and enhances public transit and preserves open spaces and agricultural lands. Smart growth is not no growth; rather it creates communities that are more livable by developing efficiently within the already built environment.

To a parent this might mean living in a community with sidewalks, narrow tree-lined streets and a good school within walking distance of home. A commuter who can catch a nearby train or bus directly to work night feel her community has grown smarter. Smart growth to a CEO might mean the ability to attract employees because housing is available and affordable. To someone living in a rundown section of an inner city, smart growth might mean investments and the creation of affordable housing in his community. Being able to see and walk in undeveloped hills nearby might be another sign of smart growth.

From a regional perspective, the objective of a smart growth campaign is to create a fiscal, regulatory and political environment that encourages new development that is compact, sustainable and less automobile dependent than current growth patterns, while discouraging suburban sprawl. Meaningful public involvement - by local residents, businesses, and elected officials - is key to the success of any smart growth efforts.

Focusing new housing and other growth within already developed areas requires less public investment in new roads, utilities and streetscape amenities. Families that live within easy walking distance of shops, schools, parks and public transit, drive and pollute less. Sidewalks in such neighborhoods provide informal opportunities for social interaction and are safer and more inviting than in those new suburbs where the transportation facilities are designed solely for the car. Investment in the urban core can reduce crime, provide needed affordable housing and create vibrant central cities. All of these attributes reduce traffic congestion, particularly on tile region's freeways and highways.

The Bay Area will grow by over one million residents in the next 20 years. This growth will require thousands of local decisions about where to site housing, employment, schools and shopping; which roads and public transit to maintain and enhance; and how to preserve the natural beauty that makes the San Francisco Bay Area a much admired region. By agreeing to make growth and development decisions within the framework of smart growth, the region will be taking the first step toward sustainability.

But consensus is not enough: the real challenge is to develop a region-wide strategy that curbs sprawl and revitalizes existing Bay Area cities. What can each city do to create a more livable community for local residents? How could state regulations create incentives for well-conceived and designed compact development within existing communities? What regional policies would protect open space and prevent our region from spreading ever outward? These are the critical questions that must be addressed.

Why is Smart Growth Important in the San Francisco Bay Area?

Eight million people will live in the Bay Area by 2020, approximately one million more than now. One of the region's draws has been its phenomenal job growth, particularly in Silicon Valley. However, the burgeoning economy has produced more jobs than housing units, especially in the Bay Area's job-rich communities. As a result, the price of renting or purchasing a home has soared. Given the amount, location, and type of housing being planned in the Bay Area, housing costs are expected to remain among the highest in the nation. Limited investment in mass transit, the economic pull of Silicon Valley, and increasing numbers of residential developments built on the fringes of the region and beyond are likely to compound traffic congestion as well as air and water pollution. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission projects a 249 percent increase in traffic congestion in the region between 1990 and 2020.

What Can Be Done?

This document catalogs smart growth initiatives such as compact development, urban revitalization, affordable housing, and open space protection at the local, regional, and state level in the Bay Area, elsewhere in California, and the in rest of the country. Many of the initiatives were in place long before smart growth became a movement; others were developed more recently. All provide lessons that can help communities steer toward smart growth.

We hope to provide real examples of how states, counties, cities, towns, nonprofit organizations, and businesses have developed and implemented smart growth strategies. It would be an overstatement to say that any of them have achieved the smart growth ideal, but they all are moving in that direction. Since land-use decisions are made at the local level, all of the strategies may not be appropriate for every jurisdiction. What works for a large urban area may not work for a small rural community.

This is a compendium of brief case studies. It is not a how-to guide. Efforts were made to include a diverse array of strategies. However, the report is not exhaustive. It does not include strategies that address the disincentives, subsidies and laws that fuel traditional development. Those issues, though critical, are beyond the scope of this report.

A final caveat. The issues smart growth seeks to confront are complex and deeply entrenched. There are no silver bullets. Most of the case studies represent efforts to address one or two dimensions of a multidimensional problem. The challenge for decision-makers at all levels is to determine what combination of strategies is appropriate for their community.

The Case Studies

Diversity was a key criterion in selecting case studies. We included programs from all around the country, although our emphasis was on the San Francisco Bay Area. See the maps on the next page for geographic coverage. As many different approaches as possible are included. For example, there are more transitoriented developments springing up every day. However, only a few transit-oriented developments are presented. We also chose highly successful programs. However, we also included some as yet unproven but highly promising and creative programs.

Another important selection factor was reproducibility. The once-in-a-lifetime project is less instructive than those supported by standing policies. We view the policies as particularly instructive because they are flexible. A policy used to build a transit-oriented development can be applied in another city to facilitate infill housing. Each case study includes policies or programs that can be replicated in any community. In each case we have attempted to make clear why the programs described are successful and where they are limited.

The case studies range in scale from neighborhood to statewide. One common element is the need for community support, no matter the size of the endeavor. All of the programs in this document were accomplished with some level of citizen participation. However, the commitment and involvement of elected officials, non-profit organizations, and businesses are just as important.

Another common theme is the interdependence of the strategies discussed. The open space protection strategies will only succeed in promoting smart growth if they are accompanied by infill development. Otherwise, limiting urban growth can push growth to other, perhaps less appropriate locations. These tradeoffs are extremely important and are pointed out in the case studies wherever possible.

The case studies have been grouped into five categories: compact communities, urban revitalization, housing supply and affordability, land conservation, and comprehensive. Case studies characterized as comprehensive address more than one category.

The categories can help readers focus attention on the areas of most interest to them. However, readers should be cautioned that few of the case studies fit exclusively into one category. So, for instance, those interested in housing supply and affordability may find useful information in the examples of urban revitalization.

In addition to the major categories, the top right corner of each case study lists the mechanism employed, such as tax incentives, specific plans, or infill development. The community is described in an adjacent box, with the scale of the program, whether the area is urban, rural, or something in-between, and the approximate size of the population served. The lead organization is specified at the top of each case study, allowing readers to look for organizations similar to their own. The year initiated reveals how long the program has had to achieve results. Finally, the body of each case study includes a description of the program, the policies that support it, and highlights of the program's results to date. The programs' vital statistics follow along with other details to help the reader understand that individual program.