Posted Apr 21, 2008, 7:42 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 65
|
|
|
Climate change may alter bay growth patterns
Quote:
The worldwide issue of climate change has a local twist: It's altering the Bay Area's long-running debate over how and where to grow.
Some officials are suggesting that some bayside areas may need to be abandoned in light of studies that indicate San Francisco Bay could rise several feet by 2100 because of sea level changes. Conversely, other areas along the bay could be developed so that new projects shield low-lying existing communities.
At the same time, the call to reduce carbon emissions - a factor in global warming - is being used to argue for dense new development in the region's urban core, rather than on the outskirts of auto-reliant suburbs. "Global warming isn't just a problem for penguins in Antarctica and polar bears in Alaska," Will Travis, executive director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, told a gathering of local government officials this week. "We need to take a hard look at how our region is growing."
The BCDC was established in 1965 because of concerns that the bay was shrinking - nibbled away by developers and municipalities that saw shallow marshes as ideal spots for everything from high-rise buildings to sprawling dumps.
Now the situation is the reverse. Maps released by the BCDC last year show that rising sea levels of about 1 meter (3.28 feet) would submerge many of the wetlands that now ring much of the bay. Left unchecked, the water would also cover portions of the Oakland and San Francisco airports and other developed locales.
"We need to abandon our notion of restoring the bay to the way it was in the past," said Travis, who has been making similar speeches to local groups in recent months. "We need to put the conditions in place that will let us react to the future the way that we want."
Travis was one of several speakers at "Preparing for Rising Sea Levels in the Bay Area," a daylong conference in Oakland on Wednesday. The forum was a first for the region, and much of it focused on steps that can be taken to lessen the region's current energy use as part of larger efforts to slow or reverse global warming.
But the main emphasis was the overlap between local land-use and global climate conditions.
The clash is strongest along the water, where land will recede without aggressive - and expensive - intervention.
As far back as 1990, a study by the Pacific Institute said it would cost the Bay Area $940 million to adapt to a 1-meter rise in water levels, with an additional $100 million annually in maintenance. The costs were related to higher seawalls and levees and the rebuilding of roads and rail lines at higher elevations.
Institute President Peter Gleick told officials on Wednesday that the cost estimate is "hugely conservative" today. "The status quo around the margins is going to be unsustainable," said Gleick, whose institute is now updating the study. "We're in trouble long before we get to a meter."
Buying out landowners
Gleick did not say specifically that it might be cost-efficient to buy out some landowners along the bay. The BCDC's Travis did.
"There are places where it might be better to remove developments and restore wetlands. Wetlands are wonderful for flood control," Travis said. "Clearly, we can't allow our cities to go under water ... (but) we shouldn't build levees everywhere."
Travis did not give specific examples of where such retreats might be advisable; any such studies are years away.
Yet Travis also said the changing conditions might make bayside growth desirable in selected locations. Large-scale projects could serve as a sort of buffer to what already exists on landfill.
"We need a more nuanced approach" rather than simply banning bayside growth, Travis suggested. "There's a lot of low-lying development we need to protect ... we need a new type of more resilient development."
Inland development patterns also could shift because of efforts to trim greenhouse gas levels.
For decades, critics have complained suburban sprawl covers farmland and causes air pollution because of increased automobile use. They now point out that those long commutes boost the amount of vehicle miles traveled - a major factor in carbon emissions.
Also, inland housing tracts tend to be in communities where summers are hotter, boosting energy consumption per capita.
The flip side: Much of this sprawl has occurred because of growth limits imposed by cities near the bay. But according to regional planning officials, older communities are becoming more receptive to infill development.
Higher-density growth
At the forum, Ken Kirkey of the Association of Bay Area Governments described how 50 jurisdictions have applied for grants that would be used to help map higher-density growth in neighborhoods near bus and rail lines. Together, these areas contain space for 395,000 housing units - 50 percent of the region's projected housing needs through 2035.
Afterward, Kirkey said climate change alone won't cause people to change their attitudes on growth. What's new is an understanding of local land use's larger ramifications.
"There's a willingness to discuss the way we grow because of climate change," said Kirkey, ABAG's planning director. "People get the connection."
As for what comes next, "This is a region that thinks of itself as a leader," Kirkey said. "If we want to be a leader in responding to climate change, we can't just buy Priuses. We need to talk about where and how we live."
E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
|
Source: SF Gate http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...feed=rss.jking
|
Prev
"Burkha?" That's pretty funny. I like that 
!
Linear Mode
