Sacramento General Plan Update
Public Workshop
North (North Highlands and Antelope)
Date: September 28, 2006
Time: 6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Location:N. Highlands Parks / Recreation
On September 26th, approximately 51 stakeholders gathered to discuss the future of the North Sacramento area and SacramentoCounty. The North Sacramento meeting was one of ten workshops being held around the county designed to gather input for the Sacramento County General Plan update. Meeting results are summarized on the following pages with additional photographs and full results for the policy card activity in the photo album (saved as a separate document). Please see the website, listed below, for a copy of powerpoints and handouts from the meeting.
After a brief introduction where stakeholders learned about the planning process, participants worked in six small groups at tables and completed three activities. The first activity asked questions about several issues the county will face over the next 25 years. Participants chose one of four preprinted answers (labeled with a “suit”) or wrote their own response. The cards with the chosen answers were posted on the wall. See page two for results.
The suits represented a continuum of different policy solutions for accommodating projected new growth. Specifically, clubs represented a potential policy of accommodating most growth on currently undeveloped land through an expansion of the Urban Policy Area (UPA). At the other end, spades represented the least amount of UPA expansion and accommodating most growth in existing corridors. Diamonds and hearts represented policies in the middle, with diamonds representing a little more expansion of the UPA and hearts representing a little less.
The second activity, preceded by a powerpoint explanation, allowed residents to comment and change information on a County-wide map. This map looked at scenarios for how corridors (i.e. key roadways and their surrounding development patterns) around the county might change. Corridors were divided into one of four categories based on the choices participants made in the policy card exercise and the associated potential intensity of use that may be appropriate for each corridor. The categories (or characterizations) were: suburban retail (color-coded as red for the county-wide mapping exercise), neighborhood mixed use (yellow), community mixed use (green) and transit supportive (blue). Residents had a chance to comment on or change the maps. Results from this exercise are summarized for each small group on page four.
The final activity looked at things to preserve, things to change and things residents would like to see in the North Sacramento area. Answers are listed on page six.
If you missed the meeting but want to participate, please visit the Sacramento County General Plan website at:
where you can learn about the planning process, find out about future meetings, and even play an interactive land use game that will help shape the general plan.
Policy Card Exercise
1) Should SacramentoCounty grow inwards or outwards?
0 – Clubs - Locate new development outside existing communities to protect neighborhoods.
8 – Diamonds - Locate some development in existing neighborhoods, with most future development in planned and new communities.
13 – Hearts - Locate most development in commercial corridors and new communities, with some development in existing neighborhoods.
7 – Spades - Promote new development in commercial corridors and existing neighborhoods to reduce or eliminate the need for new communities.
2) Where should the County encourage new stores, jobs, and mixed-use development?
3 – Clubs - Keep and improve existing shopping centers and offices, rather than attracting new commercial development.
13 – Diamonds - Encourage new stores and jobs in existing shopping centers and office parks.
16 – Hearts - Encourage new stores, job centers and mixed-use development in both commercial corridors and new communities.
8 – Spades - Encourage new stores, job centers and mixed-use development wherever possible.
3) Should the County preserve its agricultural and ranching lands?
3 - Clubs - Farmers and ranchers should be able to develop their properties if they choose to do so, regardless of location.
12 – Diamonds - Farmers and ranchers should be able to develop their properties only if the property is very close to an urban area.
19 - Hearts - Actively seek to keep farms and ranches by limiting urban development in rural areas.
7 - Spades - Actively seek to keep farms and ranches by prohibiting any more development in rural areas.
4) How should the County preserve open space for public use and/or for wildlife habitat protection?
2 - Clubs - Establish the minimum amount of permanent open space required by law.
10 - Diamonds - Establish permanent open space beyond what the law requires, but only where new development is not practical.
19 - Hearts - Establish permanent open space beyond what is required by law, including some areas that might otherwise develop.
12 - Spades - Permanently protect all existing open space and prohibit future development there.
5) Should the County’s land use and transportation policies try to address issues like higher gas prices, auto emissions, or climate change?
2 - Clubs - Land use and transportation decisions should not try to address these concerns because there are more appropriate solutions.
2 - Diamonds -These concerns should have a minor influence on land use and transportation decisions.
16 - Hearts - Addressing these concerns is an important part of land use and transportation decision making.
20 - Spades -These concerns should drive land use and transportation decisions because these decisions affect people’s ability to walk, bike, and take transit.
6) How should the County encourage residents to get around in the future?
4 - Clubs - We should support mostly automobile travel and maintain our current public transit, walking, and biking opportunities.
7 - Diamonds - We should support mostly automobile travel while slightly expanding our investment in public transit, walking, and biking opportunities.
20 - Hearts - We should support automobiles, public transit, walking, and biking opportunities equally.
10 - Spades - We should support mainly public transit, walking, and biking opportunities, and encourage residents to avoid driving.
7) What should be the heart (or town center) of your community?
1 - Clubs - A community park or neighborhood gathering place.
5 - Diamonds - A neighborhood center with a few stores and entertainment options, but little or no residential development in it.
16 - Hearts - A village or community center with a number of stores, some compact homes, and some entertainment options.
17 - Spades - A new town center with a wide range of stores, homes, job opportunities, and entertainment options.
8) By 2030, what types of housing should be available in SacramentoCounty?
2 - Clubs - SacramentoCounty should focus on the “American dream,” and help residents own single-family homes on moderate--to-large sized lots.
5 - Diamonds - A majority of single-family homes on large lots with a few small lot single-family homes, granny flats, town homes, condominiums and apartments.
30 - Hearts - A mix of housing types: single family homes on both large and small lots, town homes, mixed-use development, condominiums and apartments.
9 - Spades - Primarily town homes, mixed-use communities, condominiums, and apartments, with less emphasis on single-family homes.
9) Do you support requests from private property owners to develop land outside the UPA and/or USB by 2030?
2 - Clubs - We should accept all requests received from property owners to develop their land, regardless of the location.
5 - Diamonds -We should only accept requests for properties that are located inside the USB.
19 - Hearts - We should only accept requests that are consistent with the proposed growth management strategies (e.g., lands south of Mather along Highway 16).
6 - Spades - We should not accept any of these requests from owners to develop these lands.
Question 1
[Card is a combination of spades and hearts.] 50% spades, 50% hearts
[Two points] 1) Build roads prior to allowing development, use Roseville’s (?) example; 2) build in all the empty lots prior to expanding
Managed growth from infill – NOT large developments outside existing communities. Planning should drive development, not the converse.
Question 2
Keep and improve existing shopping centers and offices and encourage new stores, job centers and mixed use in both commercial corridors and new communities.
Question 3
Spade with additional note: #3 but county should offer some type of incentive for farmers to stay in business.
Prohibit ranch/agricultural development unless land needed for growth. Managed growth.
Question 4
Heart with additional note: with market value compensation to current property owners affected.
Include sidewalks bordered by parkways to expand and link to open space.
Question 5
Tradeoffs are more than economic – this issue impinges on sense of freedom. Increase availability of public transit. Better design policies.
Impossible to use public transport. Busses do not traverse my street.
Question 6
[Card is a combination of spades and hearts.] 50% spades, 50% hearts
We have no grocery store closer than four miles from my home. If I was healthy I would either ride my bike or walk to the nearest place I frequent.
See spades plus transport for disabled and feeble folks.
Question 7
[Card is a combination of spades and hearts.] 50% spades, 50% hearts
Heart with additional note: A “firm” or business should not be the center of a city.
TownCenter should be shopping/activity center, peripheral residential with bike/path ways, smaller parking lots.
“Village Green” or “Village Square” (a central park) with shopping surrounding the green, just like in New England.
I refuse to support the downtown arena in the rail yard.
I like more of a mixture of park and mixed use – no single dwelling but have the housing above the commercial. This isn’t represented in any of the cards. (hearts and clubs)
Question 8
Heart is closest, but proper planning should eliminate a lot of negatives (tradeoffs)
More emphasis on single family homes of a logical size for first time buyers instead of the runaway construction of mega homes that are not affordable. Decrease the policy of building on every square foot of small lots.
Include planning for parks to be built with any new homes.
Question 9
Growing inwards with some outward growth depends on whether old neighborhoods will have to have lesser money spent on homes. MIX them up – have some poor and some rich in all neighborhoods.
Spade with additional comment: requests should be accepted for review, and those with the proper zoning should be granted.
Maintain the UPA and USB as a general rule. However all requests should be considered on an individual basis. Requests outside the UPA/USB should be accepted if it could prove it would greatly benefit the county.
I think that it really depends on the condition or situation.
North Highlands
Table 1 - Heart
General Comments
Watt redevelopment should continue North to county line
Need to look at traffic impacts from PlacerCounty
Need regular, frequent transit
Wider sidewalks, separated from street with large trees
Corridor boundary should extend further from the street
Community income may not support high-end retail
Lots of resistance to developing west of Watt “C” area
Need alternative route, beside Watt, to I-80, freeing Watt for local residents
Watt needs Macy’s , Denny’s etc, so people don’t have to drive to Roseville
Area A expansion area (Jackson) OK if smart development used
Area A: MatherAirport noise will poise challenge
Changes to corridor characterizations
Fair Oaks Blvd East change from suburban retail to neighborhood mixed use
Natomas needs more neighborhood mixed use. It’s all houses
Auburn West needs more restaurants- so does the corner of Greenback and I 80
Winding Way is an important link to AmericanRiverCollege
Needs to be smart development /issue of noise from cargo planes [Zone A]
Change Fair Oaks Blvd. East from red (Suburban Retail) to yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use)
Connect corridors [talking about connecting Auburn Blvd. East with Watt Ave. North through Madison Ave.]
This half [talking about making the Auburn Blvd. East south of Madison Ave. a blue (Transit Supportive Corridor) type of development as compared to the green (Community Mixed-Use) proposed for the rest]
Good add, more restaurants [talking about the yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) characterization for the Auburn Blvd. West corridor]
Need different travel route to I-80 than Watt [talking about development in Zone C]
Create corridor with transit connection between Watt Ave N and Auburn Blvd East to connect American River Collage, a major destination, with Watt Ave
Table 2 - Heart
Watt Ave Commercial Corridor
Concerned that people won’t use higher end shopping
Change to neighborhood mixed use
OK with transit supportive
Fair Oaks Blvd Central
Keep neighborhood mixed use
Walking a concern for transit supportive
No buildings above three stories
Want variety of transit options
Express way to reduce traffic
New growth areas:
Housing for homeless/ mixed use with employment
Housing opportunities for released inmates
Develop new open space instead of infill
Ok with development, mixed use pleasemixed use
Express way [along Roseville Rd.]
Change Watt Ave. North from blue (Transit Supportive Corridor) to yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use)
Table 3 - Heart
Exercise 2- Countywide Corridor Mapping
Concern about large shopping areas- big box retail equals traffic
Too much multi-family units draw low income, crime
Balanced density and development types desirable
Vancouver is excellent example of mixed use but expensive property
Not enough transportation infrastructure to support growth in Area A
Widening surface streets does not solve the problem
There is no light rail on 80 where all commuter traffic comes from, needed
Build a beltway around
Area D, big problem
Need flood plan protection
Dry Creek
No development in flood plains, creek areas
Focus on where not to build (creeks, natural areas)
Severe lack of adequate effective public transit
Increase in better planning roadways and transit, long commute
Put high density housing near employment centers (mixed use)
Build the types of commercial that the neighborhood needs, decent grocery stores, restaurants
Auburn, Industrial, auto construction, does not draw local residents
Designated communities should always be given opportunities for representation/public comments on redevelopment
Support S. Sac. HCPS [arrows pointing north and south from the intersection of Grant Line Rd. and Sunrise Blvd.]
No transportation system to support this in residential [talking about Zone A]
Close to Folsom but not a good idea [talking about Zone D]
Support redevelopment bring people with more local [large bubble enclosing Auburn Blvd. East and Auburn Blvd. West corridors]
No development in flood plain, creek beds. Create buffer. Protect creeks, no development [pointing to a creek west of Zone C]
Table 4 - Heart
Exercise 2- Countywide Corridor Mapping
Concerned about light rail scale residential development being built without additional roads
Development driving county planning has created traffic crisis
Roseville builds roads and utilities before development
SacramentoCounty doubled their work because building development, building roads, rip up road to build utilities, repave. This is a waste of time and money
County need to address traffic needs through wider streets or new friendly
Consider how growth in Placer/Marysville will affect North Sacramento
County needs to address how growth affects traffic flow thru/in our neighborhood
Building toll booth at Rio Linda
Watt Ave is the only good north-south road
Table 5 - Heart
Exercise 2- Countywide Corridor Mapping
Match development types between cities and counties on adjacent areas, at least sensible transitions
West of Watt should be growth area
Change Watt Ave Central to transit supportive
Change intersection of Madison and Auburn to transit supportive
Agree with development Areas A, C and D
Change Watt Ave. Central from yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) to blue (Transit Supportive Corridor)
No Table 6
Table 7 - Heart
Exercise 2- Countywide Corridor Mapping
Rapid transit, make it more affordable
We like the density proposed for Watt North (transit supportive) but not with seven floor buildings
Take out more right of way to allow for rapid transit
Watt Ave bring back theaters, entertainment, arcade, recreation, restaurant
Create another small golf course in Area C
Watt Ave Central - Should be transit supportive to make all of Watt a main transit route
Create a Light Rail that circles all proposed areas A,C, and D. Create a grid of good public transit (N-S direction)
Create a bridge that connects Fair Oaks and Bradshaw
Improve visibility and security in some of the corridors
Parking lots in the back of buildings out of sight
Auburn Blvd
Should increase development as a through fare to downtown
Make it community mixed use
Fulton Ave make it community mixed use
Due to increased density of growth proposed for 3 corridors we think area A does not need to be large (East of Bradshaw do not develop)
Connection + bridge [connecting the south end of Fair Oaks Blvd. Central to the north end of Bradshaw Rd.]
Do not develop the east portion of Zone A (east of Bradshaw Rd.)
Change Fair Oaks Blvd. Central from yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) to green (Community Mixed-Use)
Change Fulton Ave. from yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) to green (Community Mixed-Use)
Change Auburn Blvd. West from yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) to green (Community Mixed-Use)
Change Watt Ave. Central from yellow (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) to blue (Transit Supportive Corridor)