Sacramento County: Choosing Urban Sprawl Over the Community
Thank you to Oscar Balaguer, 350 Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) Team Member, for supporting with and informing this piece!
On November 6th, 2024, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). In 2011, the Board had promised to adopt a CAP within one year, but only initiated the CAP in 2020 under pressure from environmentalists. The community urged the Board not to pass this version of the CAP. To no one's surprise, they didn’t listen, and passed it anyway.
What’s a CAP?
A CAP is a legally enforceable local plan detailing how a jurisdiction will meet California’s climate targets - 350 Sacramento CAP Fact Sheet
Building energy and passenger vehicles make up the biggest share of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions , each of which is controlled best at the local level. CAPs provide guidance to and commitment from local regulatory agencies for reducing GHG emissions, and can also serve to address environmental injustices.
So what makes this a bad CAP?
TL;DR: it paves the way for even more sprawl development within the unincorporated County
The importance of CAPs
California has a state law called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires that the County do the following when approving development projects:
...publicly disclose, analyze, and mitigate its potential environmental impacts, including its GHG emissions - 350 Sacramento CAP Fact Sheet
The County can mitigate (reduce the impact of) GHG emissions from developments on a project-by-project basis, or they can adopt a CAP to cover all projects, that sets the requirements for mitigating GHG emissions. Adopting a CAP streamlines the project approval process because, if a project meets CAP requirements, it does not have to go through another GHG emissions review process under CEQA.
Adopting a CAP can be beneficial because:
...they can be more detailed, can better address cumulative impacts, and can consider policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation at an early time when the agency can deal with basic problems. Properly done, CAPs can also provide co-benefits such as improved air quality, better health outcomes, energy efficiencies, better mobility options, and more equitable, livable communities - 350 Sacramento CAP Fact Sheet
Basically, a good CAP can ensure stronger and more meaningful protections against GHG emissions for new developments than would be present in a typical CEQA review process.
However, for that same reason, a bad CAP can be worse than none at all. A bad CAP can result in a streamlined process where projects’ inadequate GHG mitigation plans are approved, regardless of any weaknesses of the individual project plan. If the low standard of a bad CAP is met, these development projects will be considered to have met GHG emissions requirements.
The heart of the issue with Sac County’s CAP is the impact it will - or will not - have on the County’s sprawl development.
Sac County’s General Plan & sprawl development
Sprawl development is supported by the County’s General Plan (GP), and is typically characterized as:
…the rapid expansion of the geographic extent of cities and towns, often characterized by low-density residential housing, single-use zoning, and increased reliance on the private automobile for transportation. - Britannica
For more context, we need to look at the County’s General Plan (GP), which guides growth and development within Sacramento County. On November 9th, 2011, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors adopted an updated General Plan. The planning horizon of the County’s previous General Plan was from 1990 to 2010; the updated General Plan’s planning horizon looks out to 2030.
There are two important boundaries for development listed in the General Plan, the Urban Policy Area (UPA) and the Urban Services Boundary (USB):
The UPA defines the area within the USB that is expected to receive public infrastructure and services within the planning period.
The USB “indicates the ultimate boundary of the urban area in the unincorporated County.” The GP states that this boundary is “...intended to be a permanent growth boundary not subject to modification except under extraordinary circumstances.”
Pictured above: map of Sacramento County Urban Policy Area/Urban Services Boundary
In the 2011 updated GP, the County approved two new sprawl-friendly policies, choosing to let the free-market regulate where new growth would take place. The County abandoned its responsibility to set land use policy that would support and benefit the community.
The County states:
The County took a different direction with the 2005-2030 General Plan Update and instead of expanding the UPA in defined and discrete areas based on demand and capacity analysis, created policies to allow expansion of the UPA anywhere within the USB regardless of demand or existing capacity. Instead of the County defining areas of expansion, any applicant could make an application to expand the UPA. The County did not want to pick winners and losers by defining the areas where growth was to occur and desired instead to let the market determine the need and location for growth. - Sacramento County General Plan Basics p. GPB-3
These policies still govern the County’s growth planning. Although they are supposedly regulated by “Smart Growth Criteria” (Land Use Element policies LU-119 and LU-120 p .131), they have resulted, predictably, in increased urban sprawl.
What we’re currently seeing in regards to the USB, is project-by-project development approvals outside of its limit. The GP doesn’t need to be updated to approve these developments - they can be approved individually by the Board. The circumstances under which these large housing development projects are being approved are not “extraordinary”, as stated as a requirement in the GP.
The County has already approved 70 years-worth of growth capacity in infill development and already approved developments within the UPA (two other means of growth prioritized in the GP). The “new growth areas” approved and planned outside the UPA would allow 190 years of growth.
Note on the housing crisis: when the County is criticized for sprawl development they often argue that it’s necessary to address the housing crisis. We can see, just from the previous paragraph, that the County does not need to develop more market-rate housing. They have already approved more home construction than there’s a market for, for decades. To solve our housing crisis we need housing for all - and we specifically need affordable, low, and no income housing. What we don’t need is more sprawl development that will not house the people that are the most in need. This type of development is not alleviating the housing crisis. Be on the lookout for that particular lie.
Pictured above: “Rancho Cordova homes stand in the foreground as the ground breaking of Braden, a new planned community in Sacramento County, takes place Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024. The 2,667-acre development will include more than 8,000 homes after completion.” Source: Major new housing community breaks ground in Sacramento County. See drone video, maps
These housing development projects “mitigate” negative environmental impacts by claiming to be “mixed-use.” Mixed-use development projects are meant to function as self-sufficient neighborhoods, where the opportunities and resources folks need are accessible, local, and integrated within the community.
The GP defines mixed-use development as:
Mixing residential, commercial, office and other non-residential uses helps to develop a sense of community; balance land uses; encourage pedestrian and non-motorized activity; reduce regional vehicular traffic and vehicle miles traveled; support local commerce; and, promote social interaction - Land Use Element p. 10
Essentially, the advantages of mixed-use developments are:
Fewer gas emissions
Preservation of natural resources
Neighborhood cohesion
More amenable to affordable housing
Sounds nice right? Well, unfortunately, none of these approved projects are likely to be fully built out with the urban mass to support them, meaning that the “mitigation” from being “mixed-use” is effectively meaningless. Completing the build for these projects is expensive, so instead, speculators sell little pieces of their land here and there to home builders. This is known as “leapfrog development.”
Land outside the County’s growth boundary is cheap, and the County has the propensity to approve developments project by project outside the boundary - this encourages land speculation and gives developers a reason to buy up land for projects that won’t ever come to fruition. However, once the land is bought, the surrounding land increases in value - now speculators can sell that land back to home builders for smaller projects.
We’re left with land throughout the county that has been purchased, ostensibly to create mixed use developments, but that’s actually being sold piece by piece in a patchwork of small developments that are not linked to an urban mass to support them. This is the most inefficient way to construct housing, it’s high in GHG emissions, and is also fiscally inefficient because it’s difficult to provide services to these areas.
Back to the CAP!
These un-completed sprawl development projects have terrible GHG emissions, but the County claims they are mitigated by being “mixed-use” developments, ignoring that “mixed use” benefits will be indefinitely postponed, but increased GHG emissions auto commutes will start immediately. Based on this falsehood, the County claims they can meet CEQA requirements and bypass further emissions review.
This CAP promotes further sprawl development.
Pictured above: “New construction rises near finished homes and models in the Northlake planned community, located near Sacramento International Airport in the far northwest tip of the city, in June. “ Source: Sacramento supervisors are addicted to sprawl. It could cost our region dearly | Opinion
