Date: September 13, 2006
Time: 6:00 - 9:00 pm
Location:OrangevaleCommunity Center
On September 13th, approximately 57 stakeholders gathered to discuss the future of Orangevale and SacramentoCounty. The Orangevale meeting was one of ten workshops held across the county 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 County website, listed below, for a copy of PowerPoint presentations and handouts from the meeting.
After a brief introduction in which 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 responses. 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 countywide 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 countywide 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 asked participants to identify things to preserve, things to change, and things residents would like to see in the Orangevale area. Answers are listed on page six.
If you missed the meeting but want to participate, please visit the Sacramento County General Plan update website at . 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 Update.
Policy Card Exercise
1) Should SacramentoCounty grow inwards or outwards?
6 – Clubs - Locate new development outside existing communities to protect
neighborhoods.
14 – Diamonds - Locate some development in existing neighborhoods, with most future development in planned and new communities.
17 – Hearts - Locate most development in commercial corridors and new communities, with some development in existing neighborhoods.
8 – 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?
11 – 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.
21 – Hearts - Encourage new stores, job centers and mixed-use development in both commercial corridors and new communities.
4 – Spades - Encourage new stores, job centers and mixed-use development wherever possible.
3) Should the County preserve its agricultural and ranching lands?
11 - Clubs - Farmers and ranchers should be able to develop their properties if they choose to do so, regardless of location.
7 – 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.
12 - 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?
4 - Clubs - Establish the minimum amount of permanent open space required by law.
6 - Diamonds - Establish permanent open space beyond what the law requires, but only where new development is not practical.
23 - Hearts - Establish permanent open space beyond what is required by law, including some areas that might otherwise develop.
15 - 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?
3 - Clubs - Land use and transportation decisions should not try to address these concerns because there are more appropriate solutions.
5 - 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.
24 - 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?
0 - 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.
22 - Hearts - We should support automobiles, public transit, walking, and biking opportunities equally.
17 - 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?
7 - Clubs - A community park or neighborhood gathering place.
8 - Diamonds - A neighborhood center with a few stores and entertainment options, but little or no residential development in it.
18 - Hearts - A village or community center with a number of stores, some compact homes, and some entertainment options.
14 - 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?
6 - Clubs - SacramentoCounty should focus on the “American dream,” and help residents own single-family homes on moderate--to-large sized lots.
9 - 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.
2 - 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?
11 - 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.
16 - Hearts - We should only accept requests that are consistent with the proposed growth management strategies (e.g., lands south of Mather along Highway 16).
15 - Spades - We should not accept any of these requests from owners to develop these lands.
Handwritten answers from policy exercise:
Question 1
Distribute new housing needs to towns that need to grow, minimize new growth in existing communities.
When there is no room at the inn – the inn is closed.
No (?) sprawl inward, growth limited
by space and resources without rezoning of Agricultural and natural lands - direct growth to communities that opt to grow.
I like the spade with creative solution for local traffic
Planning should be done on a regional not county basis. Ag Land should be preserved. We should built (sic) in the Foothills, and on hilltops, and connect by high speed rail. Existing neighborhoods should maintain their character.
Make Infill mixed use Denser
Allow mixed density and income
Leave the Building codes as they are (?)
Leave than land along – Fixed and upgrade commercial prop (?)
Question 2
Encourage new stores, job centers and mixed-use developments in
1)Commercial corridors
2)EXISTING Comm Areas
3)New communities
IN THIS ORDER 1-2-3
The alternatives neglected the opportunities for people of modest means to open businesses, “Over development” kills opportunities and raises costs.
Make existing residential Commerce and office mixed use
Question 3
Again, planning must be regional.
Framers should have their property rights.
Sprawl creates affordable housing.
Tax the unearned increment on rezones
Remove the financial incentives to sprawl
Question 4
How much do you want to mix wildlife & homes?
Question 5
Air Quality in the valley is polluted primarily from Bay area and EastBay area polluters.
Walking should clearly be a priority.
Transit would require far less subsidy with greater ridership.
A new method to establish gas use to furnish our cars, etc (sic)
Question 6
People will not walk or ride bikes unless they are safe from speeding cars , drunk drivers and thugs. We need more police protection.
How many auto trips are really necessary?
Will parents have to drive so much if their children used transit, etc?
We should demand use of alternative fuels and more efficient engines
Large increase in costs for transit, sidewalk improvements, roads, bike lines last.
The choice between hearts and diamonds is not the only one, bell curve (sic
Question 7
Between clubs and diamonds
Retiring, and later aging, baby boomers will want an urbane lifestyle.
The charter of each “town center” would dictate how each center would be.
A community park with or and community center and entertainment options (?)
Question 8
A large variety of housing types.
Change building codes to allow smaller rooms, etc.
A mix of housing types on both large and small lots, town homes, condos, apartment, and mixed use BUT in planned areas, not mooshed together.
Preserve the (farms) current agricultural and natural habitat, build subdivision somewhere else.
Establish infrastructure first then make decision to build.
Question 9
Same as 9-1 (club) as long as the development fits with the surrounding area.
Use 9-1 with the limit that flood prone areas are not developed.
Only if a parcel of approx 1 or 5 acres is not farmable – apply for variance to build.
1) The county should always take request of landowners under consideration.
See photo album for responses broken down by table.
Corridor Characterization Exercise
Are you comfortable with the characterization of future development in the corridors on the map?
TABLE 1 (Heart)
Need for county to help fund transit on corridor
Need public transit near Sierra College/Hazel corridor
Would open space save the county, any $ or generate additional $
SacCounty free transit on spare the air days
Co should also consider health impacts
We need more bike trails
Greenback
Slate for 6 lanes
Would make it difficult to be a commercial shopping street
6 lanes not ped/bike friendly
Make it an elevated freeway
Improve it with landscaping like WinCo
Need for more places to walk/bike to much congestion
Northern area of county should be agricultural residential
Maybe downgrade part of Greenback to suburban retail (use de-intensified)
Transit on Greenback
Eastern part of greenback is a development area
Mixed use from Greentop to Chestnut on Greenback
TABLE 2 (Heart)
How would these corridors change?
Neighborhood m-u corridors sound like a good idea
If there was something nearby to walk, we would
Local, concentrated bus should run more frequently
Lots of vacant land opportunities- could look like different parts of the other corridors (yellow, green and blue)
Traffic concerns (Greenback too saturated)
For busses to be viable, need homes as part of corridor.
Not a lot of vacant land, but there could be MU
2 suggestions to change Greenback to green
The more people separated from home and shop the more traffic
Fair Oaks
Has development opportunity
Greenback
Replace existing poor quality commercial would increase quality of life because Greenback is already developed, could improve to a green dot.
Need improved waling trails. (use intensified)
Fair Oaks Boulevard Central changed from neighborhood mixed use to community mixed use (use intensified)
Greenback Lane changed from changed neighborhood mixed use to community mixed use (use intensified)
Fair Oaks Boulevard East changed from suburban retail to community mixed use (use intensified)
TABLE 3 (Heart)
Concern about becoming like Bay Area
Concerned about transit safety
Must work on case by case, no one size fits all
Consider demographics
No room for small, independent businesses
Fix roads before people come to area, $ increases as population increases
Current development doesn’t seem to make sense
How will this plan be different?
No big box stores
More community oriented commercial (Feed Store)
Incentives for redevelopment
Concern continued growth effects on Agricultural residents.
Need more opportunity for public input in development locations
Mixed use good, but doesn’t fit in all areas
Must be planned in advance
Possible Main St. Corridor
Piece Meal Road widening congests surface streets
Corridor Characterization Exercise
TABLE 4 (Heart)
Greenback Lane
Widening concern
Like it less dense (keep suburban retail)
Want it to look more appealing
Look at corridor development at Madison and Hazel
Stockton
Most want dense/transit oriented
Some opposed to this idea
Fair Oaks East
Unsure about vertical mixed use (General Comment)
Would like to see 60 yellow
OldTown/ walk able feel
Fair Oaks Central - Changed from neighborhood mixed use to community mixed use (lots of votes for green) (use intensified)
New growth area C = Good for transit development
Stockton goes green
Auburn Blvd West goes green
Watt Ave N Stay Blue (like transit)
Fair Oaks West visually appealing now
Ok with new growth in ‘A’
Fair Oaks Boulevard changed from Neighborhood mixed use to Community mixed use (use intensified)
Greenback Lane changed from Neighborhood mixed use to Suburban retail (use de-intensified)
Auburn Boulevard changed from Neighborhood mixed use to Community mixed us (use intensified)
Fair Oaks Boulevard East changed from Suburban retail to Neighborhood mixed use (use intensified)
Stockton Boulevard Central changed from Community mixed use to transit supportive corridor (use intensified)
TABLE 5 (Heart)
Need to improve existing infrastructure (water)
New growth occurring by sub diving and selling by younger generations
Don’t want to touch anything North of Elm or Central
Don’t like ability to build accessory dwellings
More comfortable with suburban characterization
Should be more growth along Greenback
Would like to see corridor wider with commercial on Street, residential only behind (mixed use on corners)
More bus service on Hazel to reach light rail
Like Easton and West of Watt being developed
Some development along major roads in Jackson Highway, don’t develop whole area.
Would be ok with intensity some corridors for less Jackson development
Would like to see some different corridor characterization
No growth in flood plains
Fair Oaks Boulevard Central changed from neighborhood mixed use to community mixed use (use intensified)
Greenback Lane changed from neighborhood mixed use to suburban retail (use de-intensified)
Watt Avenue Central changed from neighborhood mixed use to community mixed use (use intensified)
TABLE 6 (Heart)
Greenback
Keep as is
Fair Oaks (including old Fair Oaks) Could be blue (use intensified)
Maybe a yellow is more appropriate for Old Fair Oaks
Fair Oaks- intimate, pedestrian scale
Preserve character
Auburn
Not a nice area
Is already mostly commercial- should be blue (use intensified)
Close to services, freeways, etc…
People already leaving there
Reduction of cost of housing
Watt Ave
Keep blue
High density living can become slums
Transit oriented works well for residents and users
Folsom Ave
Increased housing is good
Characterization as blue works well
Community Mapping Exercise
Things to preserve in our community
TABLE 1
N of Oak Area, rural character
Orchards, one owner recently passed way
One off of Filbert
Tomich property
Maybe parks department could help
Preserve area ranch
Already developed/approved
Preserve part of Orangevale open for Park/Rec use.
TABLE 2
Replace mobile park
Make it easier to walk and stay fit
Do not want to widen roads from 2 to 4 lanes
Remove fence on Shemy Dr to make it easier to walk
Don’t segment roads- keep the grid. Don’t block it off. Blocking forces all traffic on main roads, more time and traffic ends up on that road.
Fewer restrictions the better (except smoke stacks)
Land use types should be revised to support yellow, green, and blue options
Lots of dilapidated building should be ended
Traffic on Greenback needs to be addressed
BRT and LRT linking from Folsom, over River, onto Greenback then linked to I-8 to complete loop
Keep the Parks and add more
Pay attention to safety