Why?: Contra Costa Measures K and P: Acres Gained As Good As Lost

Before I address your points, I must say that it is good to see a blog devoted to the issues related to land use, particularly one whose emphasis is Northern California.

That said, I need to correct some inaccuracies in your assertion about land use densities as they relate to San Jose, Oakland, Pittsburg, and Antioch.

“Comfortably fitting 10 homes on an acre,” is typically referred to as “medium density housing” and is consistent with townhome-type development (i.e., single-family attached units). While San Jose and Oakland have many areas of medium and high density housing, they also have many more areas (in terms of area) with lower density detached single-family units. In fact, most cities in the state follow this pattern. Thus, to expect that the suburban communities of Pittsburg and Antioch will have as much, if not more, medium and high density housing (percentage wise) as San Jose and Oakland is simply unrealistic.

But that is tangential to the answer to your question about land constraints in Contra Costa County. The answer as to why low-density residential housing is being proposed in Pittsburg and Antioch is simple: the General Plans for both cities designate the land in question for low-density residential. These particular lands are at the urban fringe and contain significant slopes and other site constraints that preclude high-density development. Hence, low-density residential (with a substantial amount of open space dedication) is the only practical development option.

Finally, in regards to your statement about the drawing of the Urban Limit Lines, keep in mind that the debate about where the lines should go has been going on for more than 15 years in Contra Costa County. Organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Greenbelt Alliance have historically supported constrictive lines while home builders have favored more lenient lines. Over the past two decades, these lines have been drawn and then adjusted several times, which has created a tremendous amount of uncertainty for property owners, cities, and others with a stake as to where the lines are drawn. Thus, it is hardly unusual for a home builder or environmental group to propose adjusting the urban limit lines to fulfill a particular aim. In the end, the final call lies with the voters.

Rick 9:04 PM | #comment

Sorry, I was referring to specific parts of San Jose when I said it could fit 10 homes on an acre. The Washington neighborhood, for example, does in fact contain single-family, detached housing at somewhere around 10 units per acre. Although it's not the most affluent neighborhood, they're still nice houses. (The density is actually somewhat higher, since apartment buildings are scattered throughout the neighborhood.)

Elsewhere, Albany, which is an affluent suburb, has about 11 detached, single-family houses per acre in places. Go there and have dinner on Solano Avenue--it's a great place, despite, or maybe because of, the density.

But, yes, in San Francisco, I was talking about attached housing (which shouldn't be dismissed, by the way).

And, yes, most communities in the state (most of San Jose included) do follow a low-density housing pattern. And that's a problem, especially when it's good farmland (like in the Central Valley) or wildlife habitat that's getting built upon, and especially when it happens because inner areas like the Bay Area refuse denser housing. I think we should start expecting more from communities--yes, even Pittsburg and Antioch.

And so what if their respective general plans, not necessarily the ballot initiatives, were responsible for the low-density designation? That doesn't change the notion that 2.5 units per acre is still really low. I only used the denser examples for comparison--if those places are doing quite well with much higher densities, would it really hurt other places to inch in that direction (e.g., 5 units per acre)?