See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319644469

Position Paper of the Paglaum Sa Sugbo (Inc.) on the process of revising the
CLUP (Comprehensive Land Use Plan) of Cebu City, Philippines

Technical Report · July 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33905.17765

CITATIONS READS

0 1,466

1 author:

Ramon Cavada Sevilla

University of San Carlos (Philippines)
5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Megacities, Neo Liberal Urbanization, Urban Governance View project

Comprehensive Land Use Planning Philippines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramon Cavada Sevilla on 12 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Position Paper of the Paglaum Sa Sugbo (Inc.) on the process of revising the CLUP of Cebu City.
Ramon C. Sevilla

The Paglaum Sa Sugbo (Inc) express our concern on the lack of planning and development controls in
Cebu City that in the recent past has resulted in rapid growth under chaotic land use patterns and a
corresponding worsening of traffic. This untenable urban form of scattered, unpredictable land use
development will require a major effort not only to ameliorate the bottlenecks, improve mobility and
accessibility, reverse further deterioration in the overall urban fabric but also a major rethinking of the
guiding principles for future growth to better the quality of urban life for the residents. The breadth
and scope of our analysis and recommendations is limited by the little information we have access to,
relying mostly on the urgent urban issues of the day that are discussed in the news and mostly as a
synthesis of recent reports on proposed developments for our city. We also recognize the limitations of
a planning approach based on a individual city basis when growth has already created spillovers into a
metropolitan area with several autonomous local governments where development planning is difficult
to coordinate in the absence of a strong and effective metropolitan wide authority.

We present first the background information (context) in Part A, and in Part B, we propose a set of
general principles or development philosophy to guide the formulation of the CLUP (comprehensive
land use plan) for Cebu City.

Part A - Background

1. Recognize the physical limits of Cebu City’s expansion. This reality should be the starting point
for planning and be emphasized to all, not only decision makers, but to business, and the
general public given that the major constraint stems from the fact that:
 of the 315 sq. km land area of Cebu City [1] only 8% or 23 square kilometers is flat land
[2]. Given the distinctive topography of the coastal plain that is being urbanized,
growth pressures have exerted a linear north-south configuration that extends beyond
the city’s boundaries.
 Yet, according to JICA report, urbanization in Cebu City covers 49.7 sq. km ha or 15.2%
of the total land area of the city. This implies that there is already spillover on “lowland
or hilly terrain”. If the 23 sq. kms. area considered flatland in the city is accurate (this
figure from Cebu City website), that means (49.7-23=) 26.7 sq. km is already in the
lowland or hilly terrain of the city’s land area. According to JICA, of the total urbanized
land, 811 hectares or 8.1 sq. kms, 30.3% of the 26.7 sq.km in the lowland or hilly terrain
is considered hazardous [3].
 Since almost all lands suitable for urban use have been developed, according to JICA
there are only 3.65 sq. km of land remaining that is available for future urbanization [3].
Where that suitable land for urban use is located is not specified.

1a) Simply put, there is little or no more room for expansion on the flat lands of the city, unless
a land use inventory proves otherwise that shows further potential “infill” areas. An
examination of the “Composition of Added Area” of Cebu City comparing the periods 1993-
2000 and 2000-2014 based on sophisticated algorithm analysis (on a pixel by pixel basis) of
satellite data in the Atlas of Urban Expansion

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 (http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Cebu_City) shows clearly the expansion
within Cebu City appears to be mainly through infill. To accommodate further growth given
land constrains, growth has instead expanded beyond Cebu City’s boundaries to the
surrounding cities and municipalities. (If CPDO is interested in the original data set, let me
know so I can write Prof. Shlomo Angel, my former adviser at AIT who headed the study for
the book “Planet of Cities” if we can have access to the original data set to examine more
closely where growth actually occurred in those two intervening periods adumbrated
above.)

Metro Cebu 1993-2000

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 Metro Cebu 2000-2014

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

From the Table: Annual Growth Rates: Cebu City Barangays, 2000, 2010, 2015 (see attached in the
Appendix): the following describes the population growth patterns:

1b) Continued pressures for housing close to urban core has led to a proliferation of subdivision
development that has already begun on the flat to lower hilly north barangays on the
northern boundary of Cebu City which is still relatively accessible via Talamban Pit-os Road.
Growth rates overall are relatively high for 2010-15, especially in Barangays Binaliw (4.42%),
Pit-os (3.6%), %), Agsungot (2.8%), Lusaran (2.84%), Mabini (2.83%), and to a lesser extent
in Cambinocot (2%), Pulangbato (1.48%). This should be a source of concern given the
limited number and size of the access roads to these areas. There are no specific arterial
roads existing or planned to provide improved access to these fast growing growth areas.

1c) 9 of the 27 barangays (33.3%) identified to be located in “hilly”terrain have growth rates
(2010-15) over 2.5% . Binaliw (4.42%), Pit-os (3.6%), Taptap (3.57%), Kalunasan (3.15%),
Lusaran (2.84%), Mabini (2.83%), Agsungot (2.8%) %), Busay (2.71%), and Buhisan (2.68%).

1d) CPDO should make detailed inspections and determinations on the patterns of growth in
these hilly barangay areas, i.e., adequacy of service provision and unmet needs (water,
electricity, schools, market places, public transport, cell sites, etc.); densities; conformance
to building regulations, particularly slope provisions according to NIPAS Law [4] and HLURB
guidelines, and the impact of planned/unplanned development on drainage, resource
depletion (vegetative cover) on pollution, exacerbation of geohazards by developments; and
impacts on existing road capacity.

1f) By contrast, growth in the inner core of the city (i.e. flatland, central) is relatively low. Of
the 30 barangays identified to be in the flatland, central portion, 11 barangays (36.7%) have
experienced negative population growth from 2010-15 compared to previous decade, 2000-
2010. Core densities are therefore shrinking in relative terms. This phenomenon may be
due to conversion of former low residential zones and thus, loss of housing stock (R1/R2) to
higher density commercial developments (C1, C2), hotels (high rise) (R3, C1, C2, C3) or
condominiums (R5) considered as private speculative investments that have at present, low
building occupancy. This has to be studied in more detail to understand the actual
transformation process happening in the core. The remaining 19 barangays in the flatland,
central portion have 2010-15 growth rates below 1% to 2.6% with the exception of
Kalubihan (8.54% ) and Pahina, San Nicholas (16.81%).

1g) The 3 flatland, northern portion, Barangays Luz (1.51%), Kasambagan (0.09%), Mabolo
(0.14%) show even much lower growth rates for 2010-15 than the flatland, central a trend
no doubt related to conversion of former low density residential (R1) zoning categories to
hotels (e.g. Mabolo) and commercial development.

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 1h) Of the 13 barangays in the flatland, southern portion the majority had a growth rate 2010-
15 that ranged from less than 1% to less than 2% - Basak Pardo (1.71%), Inayawan (1.55%),
San Nicolas Central (1.35%), Tisa (1.13%), Kinasang-an Pardo (1.04%), Pardo (Pob.) (0.76%),
Basak San Nicolas (0.61%), Pamutan (0.57%), Mambaling (0.24%) Punta Princesa (0.08%).
The exceptions were Cogon Pardo with a 21.03% growth rate, Bulacao (2.45%) and Quiot
Pardo (2.13%).

1i) Land constraints as expressed in rising land values (we don’t have specific comparative time
series data to support this, but CPDO should have) may be a strong explanatory factor why
of all the big Highly Urbanized Cities (HUC) in Region 7, Central Visayas, Cebu City has the
lowest rate of annual population growth in the last 20 years. Note that in Table 4 below,
increasing scarcity of land (as expressed in rising land values - income data as well as
geographical distribution needed for detailed analysis) has manifested in Cebu City growth
dynamics that already showed much lower rates even during the 2000-2010 growth period
(1.88%). This rate went down even further during the period 2010-2015 (1.21%), indicating
that we have reached the limits of expansion, unless as suggested in the barangay analysis
above, we allow uncontrolled and unplanned urbanization (by default?) in the hilly
barangays particularly in the northern boundary of Cebu City above Pit-os where growth is
relatively high. Even under conditions of controlled development, government must take a
lead in opening up these “greenfield” sites and guide growth. This however will entail
enormous costs in setting up basic infrastructure (e.g., access roads, drainage, reliable water
supply, schools, public markets and other amenities, etc.) as well as mitigating infrastructure
(e.g., slope stabilization/protection) to reduce environmental damage in the event that
NIPAS and HLURB provisions are overlooked. It is doubtful too that the present setup of
CPDO has the required institutional resources to undertake such pro-active development
strategy by the city government.

Source: https://psa.gov.ph/content/population-region-vii-central-visayas-based-2015-census-population

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 2) Further limitations to future growth in terms of land constraints are also noted in the 2015 JICA
report where the consultants recommendations are very specific about new urban lands that
are to be provided along the proposed Metro Cebu Outer Circumferential Road, in SRP on a
limited scale, and lands above the suggested urban limit will not be developed [3]. There is
however no mention of the amount of land that will be added to developable urban land.

The green diagonal lines prescribes

the “Urban Limit”

Source: Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2014), Metro Cebu Development and
Coordination Board (MCDCB) (2014), The Roadmap Study for Sustainable Urban Development, INTERIM
– III REPORT, Volume II: Main Text, December, page 4-24.

2a) “Draft Urban Spatial Plans”(above) indicate land use is to be heavily biased on commercial
development along major arteries: strip development along N. Bacalso, northern part of
V.Rama in Guadalupe, as well as Bantal Rd; as well as cluster commercial development in
Osmena Blvd, Ayala, IT Park in Lahug, Gorordo/Salinas intersection and in the old core area
of Colon/Magallanes. We don’t have detailed information on the depth of this strip
commercial development along these roads (draft plans above appear to encourage strip
development pattern rather than the more efficient cluster development), nor the finer
categorization of both commercial (C1,C2) and residential (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) areas.

2) We should emphasize however that the crafting of the new CLUP and its realization must at
the same time be cognizant of the need for development of more professional and effective
institutions within the city government. According to JICA:
“Land use planning and control is very weak, and will remain so for a very long time.
Although LGUs are required to enact their own Comprehensive Land Use Plans and
corresponding ordinances, these are considered suggestions rather than prescriptions to be

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 followed seriously. A large property developer can always get an exemption from zoning
ordinance, if that is an obstacle. Thus, one can see the phenomenon of high-rise high-density
buildings accessed by narrow public roads designed for low-density dwellings. On the other
hand, the many poor who cannot afford decent housing locate where they can regardless of
zoning or building restrictions. Transport and urban planners often assume (or wish) that
land use controls would minimize road-side frictions and concentrate around transit
stations–something nearly impossible to effect in the Philippines” [5]. In short, the serious
implementation of the new CLUP must hinge on explicity stated preconditions of the
necessary institutional arrangements for its realization.

2c) The DoTC has also recognized the land constraints of Metro Cebu’s urban growth stating
that further growth will result to an “uncomfortable high population density” and therefore
should be managed through:
 intensive land-use, for an orderly high dense urbanization;
 Large up-hill urbanization should be controlled; and
 Urbanization should be directed towards the north and south corridors and Mactan
Island rather than to the hilly and mountainous area [6].

3) Yet, in spite of the absolute population growth trends 2010-15, and their specific geographical
incidence, population growth trends in the past have led to very high density rates in some of
the barangays, particularly in the flatland, central area. Although, I have not been able to
obtain additional income data, it seems likely that high densities are correlated with lower
income barangays that would indicate a clear pattern of segregation of poor communities in the
city, and thus, glaring urban spatial inequality. Therefore, a planned revitalization (urban
renewal) is needed in these barangays to improve the well being of these communities. We
recommend these areas should be rezoned to reflect higher densities, allow mixed use and FAR
(floor area ratio) with appropriate (tax) incentives in order to encourage the building of mixed
use medium to high rises in these areas with special emphasis on those areas traversed by the
BRT and planned mass transit systems.

(NOTE: data for the two tables below were obtained from Dr. Connie Gultiano of the Office of
Population Studies, University of San Carlos Talamban, (using PSA data). Density per hectare
(persons/ha.) values are translated to per square kilometer. The ranking of Dhaka as number
one most dense city comes from http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (2016
edition). In the 2017 edition (same link) Table 3 BUILT-UP URBAN AREAS BY URBAN
POPULATION DENSITY, page 53, the population density of Bangladesh (rank #1) has increased to
45,700 per sq. km.)

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 Table below: (data obtained from Dr. Connie Gultiano of the Office of Population Studies,
University of San Carlos Talamban, (using PSA data). The ranking of Mogadishu, Somalia as 10th
most dense city comes from http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (2016 edition). In
the 2017 edition (same link) Table 3 BUILT-UP URBAN AREAS BY URBAN POPULATION DENSITY,
page 53, the population density of Mogadishu moved up to 2nd rank at 26,800 per sq.km.)

4) By 2040, which is the approximate end of the effectivity of the new CLUP, there will be an
238,000 more people that will be added to Cebu City based on projected population by 2020
(see Table 6.2.15 below from the JICA report). This should be the basis for estimating the
amount, location and distribution of higher density areas R3 and above in consideration of road
capacity of traffic and mass transit alignments. This is done by working back using assumptions
of projected household sizes by income, housing floor area standards for low and middle income
households, and building height limits in order to reclassify existing lower density zoned
residential areas. It is clear that the meager amount of land available for future urbanization of
only 3.65 sq. km. as mentioned in (1) is insufficient for these additional populations especially if

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 we factor in the required amount for facilities (widening of roads, sidewalks), institutional uses,
and amenities (parks and recreation areas). In order further to assist reducing population
pressure, existing and new key institutional and commercial facilities should be discouraged
from horizontal expansion, such as universities, shopping malls and schools in order that they
may be encourage to move to other centers.

4a. Projecting land use needs in the next 10 years will require some idea of economic
development strategies to be pursued. Will Cebu City continue to rely on the BPO and KPO
sectors? Please consult with CIPO (Cebu Investment Promotion Office) what sectors they
plan to promote and why, and whether their assumptions are realistic that the new
population growth (across all labor segments) will be absorbed, how much is due to local
growth in employment demand and how much due to in-migration? What is the projected
housing supply stock required (both owner owned and for rent)?

Source: Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Metro Cebu Development and
Coordination Board (MCDCB) (2014), The Roadmap Study for Sustainable Urban Development in
Metro Cebu, INTERIM – III REPORT, Volume II: Main Text, December, page 6-15.

5) A key input to the planning of the new CLUP for Cebu City is to consider the planned and
committed mass transit projects. There is the soon to be implemented BRT. Its loan has already
been approved and signed. To date the BRT is the only project where the fix route alignment is
known, and recent information has indicated the specific locations of its stations.

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 Example: BRT Stations and plan for street widening.

Source: Power Point Presentation File: Cebu Bus Rapid Transit, Stakeholders Consultation, Department
of Transportation and Communications, TransCebu, kunhwa Engineering and Consulting, May 2017

The focus on higher density land use for Cebu City based on the previous background above of
population growth rates and densities would suggest that a Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
would be the most logical alternative to reduce job-housing imbalance and adapt to the serious
land constraints of the city unless the city is determinedly able to pursue a more selective
growth or slower growth strategy. The TOD concept will be reflected as mixed use, high density
development (residential, commercial, employment) in the immediate surroundings of mass
transit stations. However, in addition to the BRT, we are aware of more recent studies: an LRT
(by Singaporean consultants that is preferred by Presidential Assistant Dino and his announced
preference to cancel BRT) which appear to follow the alignment of the JICA proposed MRT
Central Line (Talisay = Consolacion) along N.Bacalso within Cebu City and following the
provincial highway.

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 According to Sunstar News, LINE 1 of LRT project will be from Talisay city to Consolacion, passing
by Cebu City and Mandaue City via N.Bacalso and MJ Cuenco Ave, based on where the
consultant engineers were undertaking boreholes [7].

Read more: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/local-news/2017/05/14/lrt-solve-cebus-traffic-woes-541746

Follow us: @sunstaronline on Twitter | SunStar Philippines on Facebook

There is also a proposed MRT Mactan Line (Cebu City–Lapu-Lapu City as well as an AGT-CML
line. The Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) is a medium-capacity LRT system suitable for a
ridership of 5,000–15,000 passengers/hour/direction that will operate on the route between
Cebu City center, Mandaue City center and MCIA. We, do not as yet know the actual locations
of stations of the LRT, nor the route of the Mactan AGT, nor more importantly whether the BRT
project will be cancelled or not, in either case, it will be more difficult to determine the
locational specifics of a land use strategy based on TOD. See below.

Source: JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA), METRO CEBU DEVELOPMENT AND
COORDINATION BOARD (MCDCB) (2015), THE ROADMAP STUDY FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT IN METRO CEBU, FINAL REPORT, MAIN TEXT, ALMEC Corporation, Oriental Consultants
Global Co., Ltd., June, page. II-51.

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

Central and Mactan Railway.

Source: JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA), METRO CEBU DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION BOARD
(MCDCB) (2015), THE ROADMAP STUDY FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN METRO CEBU, FINAL REPORT, MAIN
TEXT, ALMEC Corporation, Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd., June, page. II-53.

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

Part B - Recommended general principles or development philosophy to guide the formulation of the
CLUP

1) In recognition of the physical limits of Cebu City’s expansion, and the need to (strictly) abide by
the rules and provisions of NIPAS, HLURB and DENR that constrains further expansion to our
hilly lands and ECAs (environmentally critical areas), the only way for Cebu City to accommodate
future growth is through densification or vertical growth. This means a general reclassification
of permissible density standards for all types of residential uses. In other words, at the zoning
ordinance level planning, there should be consideration on how to encourage land consolidation
to build, multi-family dwellings as well as revise the standards for FAR and setbacks for single
unconsolidated lot sizes. To improve further the well being of existing highly dense barangays
is the need to widen the streets to minimum fire safety standards to allow access of fire fighting
vehicles in case of an emergency.

1a. This should also apply to areas surrounding institutional areas such as schools and
commercial areas to encourage or induce the supply of affordable rental housing for
students and workers.

1b. Higher densities should also be encouraged in new housing subdivisions due to land
scarcity but should only be allowed if access roads are commensurate to the increase
traffic flows in case there are no mass transit routes planned in the area.

1c. For this reason we recommend that no warehousing land uses should be allowed in
Cebu City, much like industrial and manufacturing land uses have already been
prohibited in the past.

1d. We recommend that no new institutional areas be allowed in Cebu City (such as
universities, hospitals). However, vertical expansion will be allowed for existing
institutional uses based on government institutional guidelines (e.g. DepEd) of open and
parking spaces.

1e. We recommend that no new high density commercial areas (C3) such as malls be
allowed in Cebu City. Only mixed use developments in principle will be allowed.

2. A key component for increased densities is the construction of mass transit system(s) to service
these higher density areas. Absent that, densification will only lead to an intolerable traffic
congestion that will increasingly worsen over time leading to system gridlocks, and a certain
irreversible deterioration of the overall quality of life and attractiveness of the city. Given the
implementation of the BRT, and in the future, other forms of mass transit modes according to
recent studies and the JICA plan (June 2015) the new CLUP must explicitly commit itself to a TOD
(transit oriented development) strategy in the “Urban Core Development zone”. Therefore,
comparatively higher densities should be allowed along the routes of these mass transit lines,
BRT and planned. The difficulty of specifying location of planned TOD clusters with higher

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 densities (up to R5) is that we do not know the exact location of stations (of proposed LRT or
MRT) except for the BRT. Therefore, along mass transit routes a higher range of densities
should prevail. A rule of thumb in planning for the extent of these higher density residential and
commercial clusters should be within a radius of 250 to 300 meters from station for walking
accessibility. Further studies should be made to plan indicative mixed use
structure/development standards, the gradation of density standards, as well as specific
incentives and ordinances that will encourage the formation of such specific clusters around
these mass transit stations.

 Land in SRP must be allocated for high density socialized housing incorporated in a TOD
cluster as well as public amenities such as parks.

 Further research by CPDO should be undertaken on parking and FAR standards,

minimum lot size and building height limits for low, medium and high rise housing to
accommodate projected populations (see Part A.4 above), in relation to road capacity,
particularly on collector roads that are not designated as mass transit routes.

i. 3) Commercial strip development (C1, C2) along arterial roads should be controlled by clustering
(as in #2 above) with areas designated for mixed use development and by changing standards
for frontage lengths to reduce the problem of frequent curb cuts that give rise to the intractable
problem of left turn conflicts at entrances/exits to these establishments.

4) Development of subdivisions, resorts, entertainment uses in hilly lands (“Peri Urban

Development zone”) should be discouraged unless it follows strict building and site
development controls and standards, and adheres to the concept of “urban limits” prescribed in
the JICA plans and NIPAS provisions regarding slope limitations for development. This is to
protect our watershed areas and so as not to exacerbate runoff and drainage problems in the
lowlands.

5) Further reclamation for land expansion of Cebu City should be avoided for reasons of negative
ecological and environmental impacts, as well as stop the destructive practice of quarrying hills
for filling materials in reclamation.

6) The lack of planning and strong development controls has resulted not only in sprawl but also
also random growth pattern of high density development and commercial centers that result in
difficulty of predicting system wide traffic impacts. This has led to severe congestion of a limited
number of arterial roads that are not suited for high density development. As for roads where
high rises have already been constructed, we recommend that no new high rises should be
allowed to be constructed unless new building height limits are in place.

7) As for the large number of informal settlers (an estimated 250,000 underprivileged people, or
41,000 families based on the 2010 Census of Population and Housing conducted by the National
Statistics Office, citing an average household size of 6.8 members for Region 7 living in danger
Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017
 zone areas like riverbanks, creeks and landslide-prone areas, roads, parks and other public
places)[8], only a low to medium rise housing strategy than a horizontal housing strategy will be
able to accommodate them where basic public amenities will be provided. We do not know
what lands are available (and where) for land swapping with other entities such as the provincial
government or purchase in other LGUs, therefore it is difficult to recommend the location of
socialized housing except that it should be as close as possible to their original locations
through some kind of land sharing deal with the landowners (based on other countries’
experience). All relocation sites must be adequately prepared with the required minimum
infrastructure for human settlements as well as social services.

We recommend however, that in order to discourage “professional squatters”, all relocation

land and all socialized housing units built must either be on a leased or pay-to-own scheme, only
to original registered beneficiaries. The government reserves all rights to purchase reselling,
and take over of lease in the event of death of original registered beneficiaries. This would
require however, a strong administrative mechanism with solid IT and database capabilities.

8) As for agricultural lands, we do not have sufficient information on the types of land within the
city boundaries, especially in mountain barangays (or what has now become “peri-urban”
areas) that are being used for agricultural production, nor the types of products being produced.
A survey of land suitablity for such uses should be made before a clear delineation of
agricultural land use can be made. Furthermore, in order to protect our watersheds, lands in
our mountain barangays according to NIPAS law provisions regarding slope and hazardous areas
must be classified as protected land such that even if it were classified as agriculture, conversion
to other urban uses would be strictly prohibited.

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

Reference:

[1] Land area of Cebu City = 315 Sq Kilometers. Source: http://nap.psa.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listcity.asp

[2] “TOPOGRAPHY and slope

The topography of Cebu City is rugged and mountainous with elevation reaching up to 900 meters
above mean sea level. Flat lands are found only along the shorelines that extend a few kilometers
inland. Cebu City’s flat land occupies about 23 square kilometers, representing eight (8%) percent of
its total land area but it contains over 40 barangays and about two thirds of its population. (see
Topographic Map)
Any land surface with steeply inclined slopes under climatic condition where rainfall exceeds the
water absorption capacity of the soil would suffer from soil erosion. This applies to Cebu City, a
larger part of which is subjected to severe erosion. This includes the critical watershed areas that are
mostly above 50 percent in slope. (see Slope Map)”
Source: https://www.cebucity.gov.ph/index.php/home-new/about-cebu-city

[3] JICA recommendations:

Land Use Policy: “New urban lands will be provided along the proposed Metro Cebu Outer
Circumferential Road and with SRP on a limited scale (see Figures 4.4.4 and 4.4.5). Hilly lands above
the suggested urban limit will not be developed. SRP will meet various urban uses such as
commercial, business,institutional, residential, recreational and open spaces. Congested informal
settlements located mainly along the coastline and riverines will be improved as part of river
improvement and social housing development programs.”

Urbanization: It covers 4,968 ha or 15.2% of the total territorial lands (32,610 ha). Among the
urbanized lands, 811 ha. is considered hazardous (hilly terrain or lowland). Since almost all lands
suitable for urban use have been developed, the remaining available lands for future urbanization
are merely 365 ha.

Source: Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2014), Metro Cebu Development and
Coordination Board (MCDCB) (2014), The Roadmap Study for Sustainable Urban Development,
INTERIM – III REPORT, Volume II: Main Text, December, page 4-24.

[4] LAND CLASSIFICATION AND PROTECTED AREAS

In the Philippines only lands with 18 % slope or less are generally declared as alienable and
disposable, where human settlements and cultivation of land are allowed. Higher sloping lands are
to remain as forest or other special uses. But while only 28 % of Cebu City is within the 18% slope or
less range, about 64 % of the city’s lands are classified by the national government as alienable and
disposable (see Land Classification Map). The rest are classified as forest or timberland. Lands
classified as timberland include areas that are within the critical watersheds and other protected
areas of the city.

Cebu City has 76.3 % of its land covered under the NIPAS or Nationally Integrated Protected Areas
System. These include the Mananga, Kotkot and Lusaran watersheds, the Central Cebu National

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 Park, Sudlon National Park and Cebu Watershed Reservation (Buhisan). The four watersheds are
considered important source of water for Cebu City and the rest of Metro Cebu.

Twenty-three of the city’s 80 barangays are totally or partially located in the four watershed areas,
now declared as Central Cebu Protected Landscape (CCPL). (see Protected Area Management Zone
Map)
(Text from the Cebu City, Philippines Profile published by the City Planning and Development
Office ©2007. All maps provided by the Cebu City Government GIS Center © 2010.)

Source: https://www.cebucity.gov.ph/index.php/home-new/about-cebu-city

[5] 5.66 (c) Land use planning and control is very weak, and will remain so for a very long time.
Although LGUs are required to enact their own Comprehensive Land Use Plans and corresponding
ordinances, these are considered suggestions rather than prescriptions to be followed seriously. A
large property developer can always get an exemption from zoning ordinance, if that is an obstacle.
Thus, one can see the phenomenon of high-rise high-density buildings accessed by narrow public
roads designed for low-density dwellings. On the other hand, the many poor who cannot afford
decent housing locate where they can regardless of zoning or building restrictions. Transport and
urban planners often assume (or wish) that land use controls would minimize road-side frictions and
concentrate around transit stations–something nearly impossible to effect in the Philippines.

Source: Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2014), Metro Cebu Development and
Coordination Board (MCDCB) (2014), The Roadmap Study for Sustainable Urban Development,
INTERIM – III REPORT, Volume II: Main Text, December, Page 5-22 to 5-23

[6] Metro Cebu Urban Growth Development

With an estimated population of about 2.4 million in 2010, the limited spatial capacity of Metro
Cebu because of its hilly geographical condition, i.e., only about 30% of its total land area is assessed
to be with less erosion, will result to an uncomfortable high population density in this area. Urban
growth should therefore be managed as follows:
 Intensive land-use, for an orderly high dense urbanization;
 Large up-hill urbanization should be controlled; and
 Urbanization should be directed towards the north and south corridors and Mactan Island
rather than to the hilly and mountainous area.

Source: Department of Transportation and Communications (2011), The Development of Public

Transportation Strategic Plan for Metro Cebu, Volume 2: Public Transportation Strategic Plan, 28
October, p. 64

[7] “LRT to solve Cebu’s traffic woes?”, May 13, 2017, Sunstar Cebu,
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/local-news/2017/05/14/lrt-solve-cebus-traffic-woes-541746

[8] “250T settlers for relocation”, The Freeman, June 10, 2015, http://www.philstar.com/cebu-
news/2015/06/10/1464260/250t-settlers-relocation

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

 Appendix Table: Annual Growth Rates: Cebu City Barangays, 2000,
2010, 2015
Barangay Population 2000 Population 2010 Population 2015 Growth rate* Growth rate* Location
2000-2010 2010-2015
Adlaon 2847 3647 4028 2.51 1.91 H
Agsungot 1746 1981 2290 1.27 2.80 H
Apas 15492 22566 24591 3.83 1.65 H
Babag 3526 4451 4452 2.36 0.00 H
Basak 13925 17756 19415 2.46 1.71 FS
Pardo
Bacayan 8604 14021 15919 5.00 2.45 FLHN
Banilad 5220 9903 7890 6.61 -4.23 FLHN
Basak San 31840 34313 35422 0.75 0.61 FS
Nicolas
Binaliw 2518 2722 3417 0.78 4.42 H
Bonbon 4343 5014 5632 1.45 2.24 H
Budla-an 2397 5100 5316 7.84 0.79 H
(Pob.)
Buhisan 9159 13032 14977 3.59 2.68 H
Bulacao 19887 26820 30450 3.04 2.45 FS
Buot-Taup 1678 2203 2475 2.76 2.24 H
Pardo
Busay 7244 11335 13048 4.58 2.71 H
(Pob.)
Calamba 10534 12417 11177 1.66 -1.98 FC
Cambinocot 2271 2658 3099 1.59 2 H
Capitol 12477 15308 11307 2.07 -5.60 FC
Site
(Pob.)
Carreta 7106 11211 12557 4.67 2.18 FC
Central 1334 1568 1213 1.63 -4.77 FC
(Pob.)
Cogon 3282 3337 3339 0.17 0.01 FC
Ramos
(Pob.)
Cogon 9170 7805 21276 -1.60 21.03 FS
Pardo
Day-as 3174 4851 4817 4.33 -0.13 FC
Duljo 15223 16387 17664 0.74 1.44 FC
(Pob.)
Ermita 7995 8291 8451 0.36 0.36 FC
(Pob.)
Guadalupe 45012 60400 61238 2.98 0.26 FLHC
Guba 4149 4771 4976 1.41 0.80 H
Hippodromo 9408 9673 9684 0.28 0.02 FC
Inayawan 16148 28329 30707 5.78 1.55 FS
Kalubihan 611 563 866 -0.81 8.54 FC
(Pob.)
Kalunasan 10168 22737 26756 8.38 3.15 H
Kamagayan 1898 2061 2170 0.83 0.99 FC
(Pob.)
Camputhaw 17867 21765 20030 1.99 -1.57 FC
(Pob.)
Kasambagan 6199 8389 8428 3.07 0.09 FN
Kinasang- 10145 14382 15185 3.55 1.04 FS
an Pardo
Labangon 27266 31643 33477 1.50 1.08 FC
Lahug 35275 35157 38584 -0.03 1.79 FLHC
(Pob.)
Lorega 10616 11178 11873 0.52 1.15 FC
(Lorega
San
Miguel)
Lusaran 2060 2530 2931 2.08 2.84 H
Luz 13062 16923 18313 2.62 1.51 FC
Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017
 Mabini 1435 1649 1909 1.40 2.83 H
Mabolo 27498 21842 22008 -2.28 0.14 FN
Malubog 1881 2441 2568 2.64 0.97 H
Mambaling 26417 32162 32564 1.99 0.24 FS
Pahina 6416 5227 5258 -2.03 0.11 FC
Central
(Pob.)
Pahina San 3482 1409 3196 -8.65 16.87 FC
Nicolas
Pamutan 1373 1807 1862 2.78 0.57 FS
Pardo 15151 12103 12596 -2.22 0.76 FS
(Pob.)
Pari-an 1727 1503 1574 -1.38 0.88 FC
Paril 1148 1412 1479 2.09 0.89 H
Pasil 7783 8591 8593 0.99 0.00 FC
Pit-os 3248 5185 6244 4.79 3.60 FLHN
Pulangbato 3617 5539 5988 4.35 1.49 H
Pung-ol- 1241 2357 2556 6.62 1.55
Sibugay
Punta 22482 22270 22369 -0.09 0.08 FS
Princesa
Quiot 13342 21659 24200 4.96 2.13 FS
Pardo
Sambag I 14860 11865 13434 -2.23 2.39 FC
(Pob.)
Sambag II 12992 13526 11223 0.40 -3.49 FC
(Pob.)
San 1919 2010 1928 0.46 -0.79 FC
Antonio
(Pob.)
San Jose 2782 5704 6870 7.44 3.60 FLHN
San 5296 6240 6694 1.65 1.35 FS
Nicolas
Central
San Roque 4847 4870 4444 0.05 -1.73 FC
(Ciudad)
Santa Cruz 2479 2522 2316 0.17 -1.61 FC
(Pob.)
Sawang 7077 7831 8259 1.02 1.02 FC
Calero
(Pob.)
Sinsin 2230 2111 2161 -0.55 0.45 H
Sirao 3000 3871 3456 2.58 -2.13 H
Suba Pob. 8286 9628 11026 1.51 2.61 FC
(Suba San
Nicolas)
Sudlon I 1959 2461 2777 2.31 2.33 H
Sapangdaku 4572 6904 7594 4.21 1.83 H
T. Padilla 9988 8113 7646 -2.06 -1.12 FC
Tabunan 987 1951 2138 7.05 1.76 H
Tagbao 1464 1951 1767 2.91 -1.87 H
Talamban 17844 28278 32139 4.71 2.47 FLHN
Taptap 1714 1741 2093 0.16 3.57 H
Tejero 16178 15204 14496 -0.62 -0.90 FC
(Villa
Gonzalo)
Tinago 8190 6554 6743 -2.20 0.54 FC
Tisa 29549 35600 37766 1.88 1.13 FS
To-ong 3079 3986 4178 2.62 0.90 H
Pardo
Zapatera 3871 3317 3146 1.53 1.00 FC
Sudlon II 2541 3579 3913 3.48 1.71 H
Source: Dr. Connie Gultiano, Office of Population Studies, University of San Carlos, using recent PSA
data. NOTE: *the growth rate was computed using the geometric formula which is what the census
uses.
Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017
 Legend:for Location:
H- hilly
FLHN - flat to lowland to hilly north
FLHC - flat to lowland to hilly center
FLHS - flat to lowland to hilly south
FN - flatland, north
FC - flatland center
FS - flatland south
NOTE: *the growth rate was computed using the geometric formula which is what the census uses

Paglaum sa Sugbo Inc. July 3, 2017

View publication stats