Urban plan, but city keeps options open
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 12:17 am PDT Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1
Print | E-Mail | Comments (1)| Digg it | del.icio.us
The new general plan in the works for the city of Sacramento marks a big departure from growth as usual.
Rather than embracing a future of strip malls and single-family homes, a draft map endorsed by the Sacramento City Council in June envisions a far more urban Sacramento than exists today.
Twenty-four-story buildings would punctuate the landscape in satellite downtowns near Arden Fair mall and Arco Arena. A university town would bustle at 65th Street.
Tired-looking arteries now devoted mostly to shopping would be transformed with thousands of housing units.
"We're looking at a different way to accommodate growth; it's not just going to be out, it's going to be in," said City Councilman Rob Fong.
Mayor Heather Fargo said the idea is to "correct some of the suburban, less functional parts of our previous communities and add enough density that there are things to walk to, and they're safer."
Yet even as the city plans a facelift of its older neighborhoods, Fargo and other City Council members have directed their staff to study the pros and cons of annexing thousands more acres of farmland -- the key ingredient for suburban subdivisions.
The city also is considering whether to pursue annexation of large swaths of unincorporated urbanized territory, such as the Fruitridge area, Arden Arcade, Rosemont and the town of Freeport.
That would give the city responsibility for additional aging neighborhoods that need redevelopment.
If Sacramento annexed all the areas it is studying, the amount of land within city limits would increase 75 percent.
City staff members working on the 2030 growth plan say all this land won't be needed for growth in the next quarter-century -- if the city sticks to the ambitious density goals under discussion. Those goals call for a 50-percent increase in population with just a 4 percent increase in land.
"Do we need the acreage? No," said Tom Pace, director of the city's long-range planning effort. "But it's a question of what kinds of homes people want to live in."
Bob Overstreet, strategic projects executive with the city, said Sacramento needs to offer large-lot housing for executives who might otherwise choose new homes in Placer County or elsewhere. "If we want new companies here, that's going to be really important," he said.
Sacramento's environmental community -- which has advocated more focus on existing neighborhoods -- is gearing up to oppose this expansionist vision, saying it undercuts the supposed thrust of the new general plan.
"The city's got God knows how many acres of land that it's ignoring or only giving lip service to in terms of revitalization," said Graham Brownstein, executive director of the Environmental Council of Sacramento.
If the city continues to focus on growing outward rather than on improving its existing neighborhoods, he said, "I see a potential future 50 years down the road where other than midtown and the central business district you just have this endless sea of Central Valley suburban mess."
Councilman Fong, however, said he thinks the city can have it both ways: rebuilding urban neighborhoods while continuing to build new ones on open ground.
Fong said the city should stake out its future borders, particularly because cities such as Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove continue to jockey for position. New suburban growth, he said, can produce fees to offset the costs of redeveloping inner-city neighborhoods.
Critics don't buy this argument. Jim Pachl, a lawyer for Friends of the Swainson's Hawk, noted that Bay Area cities with little or no room left for growth have focused on redeveloping existing communities with notable success.
"Local governments there still seem to be in business," he said.
The genesis for Sacramento's new urban focus lies in the Blueprint, a regional growth plan adopted in 2004 by Sacramento and other members of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. This plan aims to improve walkability of communities and slow the region's suburban spread.
The Blueprint is not binding on individual governments. Nonetheless, Sacramento is trying to stick to it, officials said.
The city is working on the environmental review and written policies for the general plan, and plans to have it ready for adoption in fall 2008.
Other jurisdictions, such as Placer and Yuba counties, already have deviated from the Blueprint. City staff members says this puts pressure on them to provide more suburban housing options with larger lots.
"Even if Sacramento stuck to our guns, it wouldn't matter because nobody else is," Overstreet said.
All of the areas being studied by the city are included in the Blueprint for eventual growth, he pointed out. It's a question of when, not if, they will develop.
Even without the new areas added for study, the general plan anticipates building on several large chunks of open land, including the 577-acre Greenbriar property just outside the northwest edge of the city, the 1,430-acre panhandle in North Natomas and the nearly 1,000-acre Delta Shores property, which lies between Sacramento and Elk Grove along Interstate 5.
Combined, these properties account for a 4 percent increase in the city's footprint.
In addition, the Sacramento City Council has designated as "special study areas" all of unincorporated North Natomas to the Sutter County line, a portion of the east county stretching to Excelsior Road, and land on its southeastern flank out to Elk Grove-Florin Road on the east and Calvine Road on the south.
Some of these same areas are also being studied by Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova for potential growth.
"They've got great interest in our interest," Overstreet said.
About the writer:
The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or
mlvellinga@sacbee.com.
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
2100 Q St. P.O. Box 15779 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 321-1000
Prev
Linear Mode
