Fair Oaks COMMUNITy. Date: September 19, 2006 Time: 6:00-9:00 pm Location: Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church

Transcription

1 Date: September 9, 200 Time: :00-9:00 pm Location: Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church On September 9th, approximately 5 stakeholders gathered to discuss the future of the Fair Oaks area and Sacramento County. The Fair Oaks 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 Fair Oaks 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. Thank you very much to all residents who attended the workshop.

2 P U B L I C OUTREAC H PROCE S S FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY 9/ WORKSHOP RESULTS POLICY EXERCISE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS : Should Sacramento County grow inwards or outwards? Locate new development outside existing communities to protect neighborhoods. Locate some development in existing neighborhoods, with most future development in planned and new Locate most development in commercial corridors and new communities, with some development in existing neighborhoods. Promote new development in commercial corridors and existing neighborhoods to reduce or eliminate the need for new 2: Where should the County encourage new stores, jobs, and mixed-use development? 8 Keep and improve existing shopping centers and offices, rather than attracting new commercial development. Encourage new stores and jobs in existing shopping centers and office parks. Encourage new stores, job centers and mixed-use development in both commercial corridors and new Encourage new stores, job centers and mixed-use development wherever possible. 3: Should the County preserve its agricultural and ranching lands? 2 2 Farmers and ranchers should be able to develop their properties if they choose to do so, regardless of location. Farmers and ranchers should be able to develop their properties only if the property is very close to an urban area. Actively seek to keep farms and ranches by limiting urban development in rural areas. Actively seek to keep farms and ranches by prohibiting any more development in rural areas. : How should the County preserve open space for public use and/or for wildlife habitat protection? 25 Establish the minimum amount of permanent open space required by law. Establish permanent open space beyond what the law requires, but only where new development is not practical. Establish permanent open space beyond what is required by law, including some areas that might otherwise develop. 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? Land use and transportation decisions should not try to address these concerns because there are more appropriate solutions. These concerns should have a minor influence on land use and transportation decisions. Addressing these concerns is an important part of land use and transportation decision making. These concerns should drive land use and transportation decisions because these decisions affect people s ability to walk, bike, and take transit. : How should the County encourage residents to get around in the future? We should support mostly automobile travel and maintain our current public transit, walking, and biking opportunities. We should support mostly automobile travel while slightly expanding our investment in public transit, walking, and biking opportunities. We should support automobiles, public transit, walking, and biking opportunities equally. 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? A community park or neighborhood gathering place. A neighborhood center with a few stores and entertainment options, but little or no residential development in it. A village or community center with a number of stores, some compact homes, and some entertainment options. 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 Sacramento County? Sacramento County should focus on the American dream, and help residents own single-family homes on moderateto-large sized lots. A majority of single-family homes on large lots with a few small lot singlefamily homes, granny flats, town homes, condominiums and apartments. A mix of housing types: single family homes on both large and small lots, town homes, mixed-use development, condominiums and apartments. 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? We should accept all requests received from property owners to develop their land, regardless of the location. We should only accept requests for properties that are located inside the USB. We should only accept requests that are consistent with the proposed growth management strategies (e.g., lands south of Mather along Highway ). We should not accept any of these requests from owners to develop these lands.

3 Policy Exercise Continued Hand written answers from policy exercise: Combination of spades and hearts - Promotes new development in commercial corridors and locates some development in existing neighborhoods with some in new None of the above. 3 Combination of clubs and hearts Likes that the clubs card says areas should be able to develop. Likes hearts limiting new development in rural areas. Productive farms protected. Non-productive, not worked lesser of a control. Analyze open space value for recreation, habitat, flood plains, agriculture, etc preserve open space with high value incrementally as urban development proceeds. We should support biking, walking and transit more than we do now, to make those options more attractive, without discouraging driving or avoiding road improvements needed to keep congestion at reasonable levels. Support the use of electric golf style vehicles for the 25 short trips. 7 Independent park districts. To include green areas for gathering / recreation (i.e. park/ greenbelt park for biking etc.). 9 The county should allow well-planned expansion of UPA and USB with a tougher test of reasonableness as long as open space

4 Corridor Characterization Exercise Table (Heart) Like it to be yellow (majority) 5 votes Red- strong minority 3 votes Are you comfortable with the amount of undeveloped land that would be developed? Don t want B developed because will just open up growth- E, G will come into this Easton- will just be taken by other cities, want growth in new areas controlled Flight Plan constraint Horseshoe drawn on map, light commercial in this area? Don t like C if farm area Favor of all suggested with reservation about C Other corridors are shown with characterization. Do you think these characterizations are appropriate for each area? Would like to see yellow upgraded to green or at least portions More housing Intensify Fair Oaks to keep pace with growth in other areas, more of a destination Table 2 (Heart) Too much we don t know- hard to make decision Where will new residents in Jackson area work? Fair Oaks Blvd Central Ripe for development Isolated area- shouldn t be a wide draw for shoppers Unanimous approval of neighborhood mixed use (as shown) Auburn Blvd East People won t go there to shop Not a good retail corridor Not a good place for homes Plan for other corridors first Fair Oaks Boulevard East changed from suburban retail to neighborhood mixed use (use intensified) Folsom Blvd Move parks and ride further out- closer to Folsom Need neighborhood shuttles to get people from neighborhoods to light rail stations (Folsom and Gold River and Arden Arcade) 2 votes for blue vote for green vote for green on west/none to east Folsom Boulevard Transit East changed from transit supportive to community mixed use (use deintensified) Proposed New Growth Areas D- Easton votes to develop if contamination is cleaned West of Watt Any development would impact residents to south Would support development if it does not impact McClellan Area C Residential uses with industrial and commercial along airport

5 Table 3 (Heart) Corridor Exercise - Continued Fair Oaks East- more mixed use, 99 cent has enormous parking lots (useless) Direct commercial development that neighbor support Has to be appealing to make people stop on buy streets Fair Oaks is commuter street Impressed with visual attractiveness in simulations (no big parking lots, stores on streets, well designed multi-story building) Would stay longer because I could visit several destinations at once. Feel safer not walking across large empty parking lots Not a lot of room for development on North end of Fair Oaks East because already residential Fair Oaks East should be yellow/green especially on South end Need more streetscape. Trees in center medians Not enough sidewalks and bike lanes Need to encourage more public transportation Like the idea of BRT? less of Bradshaw right-of-way Why no code for maintain décor of development when built? How do we address bad design before it happens? Have to maintain Fair Oaks Village atmosphere- need directions to develop and maintain this Address traffic problems at Auburn Don t develop A right next to runways Fair Oaks Boulevard Central is a commuter street, put parking in back. Fair Oaks Boulevard and Madison is currently shabby. Add sidewalks. Encourage walking. More streetscape improvements. Run down. Too much parking. Fair Oaks Boulevard East changed from suburban retail to community mixed use (use intensified) Table (Heart) Fair Oaks East Fair Oaks school, potential re-use Change from red to yellow neighborhood mixed use New Growth areas D-Easton seen as a good place for growth A- Jackson A. seen as unfit for a new growth area Region wide County Express busses (BRT) To major school and work centers Concerns Transportation Gridlock Other means of transportation Table 5 (Heart) Greenback Lane Red to yellow- Don t want too dense or too much mixed use but would like streetscape improvements Fair Oaks Blvd East North end take off map Not a commercial corridor- it s residential and they don t think it fits any of these characters- want to keep residential focus south end- Green General Fair Oaks Boulevard East changed from suburban retail to neighborhood mixed use (use intensified) Leave (northern section) Fair Oaks Boulevard East as is no change. Urban Service Boundary Area C: Ok and like it blue/green Don t want bus to take away any existing land if BRT is implemented Area A: No majority Some want no development definitely no Res Some are ok with new development-dense ok Preserve of O/S is a concern Presence of current industrial land Corridors of green/blue Area D Some disagree with extending USB Some ok with developing it densely possible TOD around near/ LRT Green ok with some Remaining corridors No dedicated BRT lane (on any existing lane) Want owner occupied units over renters- town homes ok senior housing a plus

6 Corridor Exercise - Continued Table (Heart) Hazel Ave could become a potential commercial corridor Traffic and circulation should determine land use Fair Oaks East Now residential- should not be suburban retail Should be yellow neighborhood mixed use Thoroughfare commercial affects traffic. Fair Oaks Boulevard East does not fit any corridor character! It is important to allow people to get in to the old town area. Maybe some residential uses, but keep the chickens. Greenback Lane and Hazel Both are very unattractive If Greenback will be improved also improve Madison Connect improvements on bridge to community corridors Preserve Hazel as a through traffic corridor Preserve Village feel on Fair Oaks East- Has a unique charm Fair Oaks Central Main traffic route- any commerce could conflict with traffic. Maybe corridor should not be so big. Jackson A Area Too many trucks and industrial character- not good for residential development Jackson B Area Requires circulation studies Need tunnel between Arden Way and Folsom Blvd Greenback Lane changed from neighborhood mixed use to suburban retail (use de-intensified) Could be mixed use at nodes (Greenback Lane and Fair Oaks Boulevard; Greenback Lane and Hazel) East of Hazel Ave keep auto uses. West of Hazel Ave should be residential. Circulation study in southeast part of area B Community Mapping Exercise Table Parkway, state park No San Juan Bridge Character of Old Town Fair Oaks (chickens) Change: More RT in whole area Sunrise- RT strip commercial past sunset Fair Oaks Blvd East corridor intensify but keep charm Yellow, strong red Hazel intensify use for RT access Things we would like to see: Arena (hah, hah) Live Theatre, increase, small venues only, community oriented, cultural amenities near existing community centers, parks More pocket parks Safe and convenient bike access to American River Parkway Other Corridors Hazel Sunrise pedestrian over passing in addition to- not instead of Strong Minority- Fair Oaks not corridor (3 of 7) Table 2 Communities without sidewalks Preserve view from river () Preserve neighborhood outside corridors while densifying corridors North Ridge Country Club Preserve private property rights- no eminent domain (2) Preserve single family neighborhoods (3) Historic buildings in Village area Existing parks

7 Table 2 - continued Things to change: Reinvesting in Fair Oaks corridor () More robust development More parks Possibly new bridge across American River to deal with corridor reinvestment (2) Hazel/Sunrise transportation improvements New residential/parks development in Gunn Ranch New uses in community Community downtown on Fair Oaks Blvd New community center Table 3 What we like: Topography, hills, winding roads, variety, large lots Gold River walk able to all necessities and transit Quiet neighborhood, feel safe Proximity to freeways Central location to shopping, libraries, church, etc. Small town feel, know people Things we want to change: Bring business closer to street Affordable senior housing More sidewalks, natural pathways like in Gold River More simple life, lack of safety, stress in traffic More wholesome entertainment New street names shouldn t conflict with existing names Table Don t want new curbs and sidewalks Limit Buildings along River Maintain density as is Change: More streetlights Safety, no light pollution More road maintenance Improved roads More sidewalks More sidewalks in senior areas and school areas Table 5 Low density throughout (except on major corridors) Parkway Old Town Fair Oaks Change: Add neighborhood shuttles Develop corridor smartly to keep new development out of neighborhoods Strong minority to Add sunrise Other corridors Possibly Sunrise as a commercial Corridor (this was not the majority opinion) Table Keep rural streets Keep parkway and River Character of Old Town Fair Oaks Golf Course What is the future of large- state owned parcel next to river? Would like to see it preserved historical Change Raley- Oppose for mix use Can t take more traffic No economic engine Extend character of Fair Oaks Boulevard North beyond highlighted area Elk Grove Traffic Mixed use opportunity at corner of Madison and Hazel Would like to see: Light Rail in the area Would like to see some (transit) lines feeding Folsom