RANCHO CORDOVA, CA (MPG) - The City Council’s and the Planning Commission’s work session on Aug. 27 was on the ongoing General Plan Update, aimed at guiding Rancho Cordova’s growth and development through 2045.

Chelsey Payne and Darcy Goulart presented the update and sought input from the city on proposed changes to planning areas and sub-area boundaries. The General Plan, which serves as the city’s long-term blueprint, is updated to reflect new economic conditions, housing needs and state requirements. The current update, initiated to address evolving community and environmental factors, builds upon the last update adopted in 2006.

“The proposed changes to the General Plan include reducing the planning area from 96 square miles to 68 square miles,” Payne said. “We evaluated the boundaries and considered areas with limited recent planning efforts and existing development potential. Our goal is to focus on growth within current city limits.”

However, members expressed concerns about removing those areas.

“I don’t want to lose any of those areas,” said Councilmember Garrett Gatewood. “I don’t see the need or the benefit.”

Mayor David M. Sander, Ph.D., emphasized the importance of historical and political contexts in defining boundaries.

“Our original intent was to establish logical boundaries. We must consider if maintaining these areas aligns with our long-term vision or if focusing on more immediate needs is more practical,” Sander said.

Commissioner Lee Frechette said, “If we give up those planning areas, we cut off the possibilities of having conversations about future expansion. We want to keep all our options on the table.”

On the other hand, the proposal to add areas was generally supported. These additions are intended to accommodate future annexation and ensure potential future expansions.

“Any area that the city intends to add to the sphere of influence in the future should be included in a General Plan planning area,” said Payne. “The main reason to include an area would be a desire to consider the annexation of that area.”

Said Councilmember Donald Terry, “If we were to incorporate and annex those existing communities, there are two equations to look at. Either the unincorporated counties vote to incorporate themselves into the city, along with the sales tax increase which makes that question way tougher to get a yes on, or you annex them in without the tax increase and then the rest of us are paying to get the level of service up there at the cost of the city.”

The session also introduced the concept of dividing the General Plan planning area into sub-areas, allowing tailored policies for each section.

Public comments reflected a range of perspectives. James Garcia voiced support for the update but urged the city to revisit existing development agreements to ensure they are being met.

“We can’t just sit on out city limits; we need to grow as a city,” said Garcia when commenting on the proposed area changes. “If we don’t, we are going to be gobbled up. We need to protect our borders.”

Larry Lad highlighted the importance of environmental justice, a principle that the city was founded on.

“I would like all economic planning along and in the parkway to ensure that development with access within and adjacent to the American River Parkway be designed to reduce as much visual intrusion and to complement the naturalistic amenities of the parkway,” said Brenda Gustin in a letter to the council. “Choosing to ignore the Preservation Act threatens our economy and out ecology.”

The meeting consensus was to maintain all existing boundaries with the exception of deleting a sliver within the city of Sacramento and going forward with the proposed area additions. It was also agreed to implement the proposed sub-area divisions to more effectively tailor policies.