Five years ago, some local leaders sought to chart a different path for the Sacramento region. Instead of more of the same – endless suburban sprawl and ever worsening traffic congestion – they unveiled an alternate vision for 2050, one that seeks to confine the region’s urban footprint, encourage mass transit and preserve open space and farmland.
That alternative future, known as the Blueprint, has been embraced by many local governments across the six-county region. The Legislature followed up with Senate Bill 375, which steers transportation funding to transit-friendly projects.
Both efforts have drawn national attention to the Sacramento region’s plans to “grow up, instead of out.” That’s why hundreds of community leaders, planners and others will gather today to celebrate the Blueprint’s five-year anniversary.
But it’s way too early to pop the champagne. The next five years will be even more telling for the Blueprint’s ultimate impact, so its champions need to keep up their guard.
Because the worst recession in decades hit soon after it came out, the real test will come as development picks up again when the economy rebounds. There is cause for concern that smart-growth principles will fall by the wayside as officials seek to replenish local treasuries.
On the plus side, nearly 70 percent of new housing built in 2008 was on small lots or condos and townhouses, compared with just 20 percent in 2002, according to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and Valley Vision, the two groups that led the charge for the Blueprint.
SACOG cites a roster of projects across the region, either completed or proposed, that follow the Blueprint. Much of the business community remains on board. And in a crucial vote last year, the Sacramento City Council approved a 2030 general plan in line with the Blueprint. So did Yolo County supervisors.
But what made the Blueprint so easy to embrace – it is voluntary – is also its biggest shortcoming.
The Environmental Council of Sacramento, among others, says the Blueprint does not include enough carrots to encourage or sticks to prod elected officials to stay true to it in their land-use decisions. Indeed, in some of the most undeveloped areas where the Blueprint is most needed, it has gained the least traction.
Elk Grove is Exhibit A. The city, barely a decade old, has grown to more than 100,000 people but is looking to expand even more by laying claim to thousands of acres south to the Cosumnes River.
For every Blueprint-friendly proposal like Township 9 north of downtown Sacramento, there’s a sprawl engine like Placer Vineyards next to west Roseville. If the housing market shifts back to large lots in the suburbs, developers are ready with tens of thousands on vacant land.
Looking ahead, a key yardstick will be whether Sacramento County supervisors will hew to the Blueprint when they update the county’s general plan this year.
There are other open questions: Will bigger urban infill projects in Sacramento and elsewhere come to fruition? How damaging will the precarious funding for Sacramento Regional Transit and other transit systems be?
One thing is certain: The fiercest battles over the Blueprint are yet to come.