Rural Roots Sunday - Growth and Preservation Can Coexist
Develop where we have planned to develop. Preserve where we have promised to preserve.
"…The Rural Area is valued in our community for its aesthetic and cultural significance, as well as the economic and educational opportunities that agriculture provides. Our commitment to maintaining the Rural Area is clear and codified in core planning documents…" Elk Grove General Plan, December 2025.
continued below
Elk Grove is going to grow. The question is not whether development will occur, but where that development belongs.
Fortunately, Elk Grove has already planned for that. The City has designated areas specifically intended to accommodate greater residential density, while other areas—including Rural Elk Grove—were intentionally planned for much lower-density rural living.
There is another important point that should not be lost in this discussion: Elk Grove has places specifically planned to accommodate greater residential density.
The City's own planning framework recognizes that not every part of Elk Grove should develop in the same way. Rural Residential areas are designated for very low-density development, generally ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre, with lots typically ranging from two to ten acres. Other areas of Elk Grove are specifically designated to accommodate substantially greater residential densities and mixed-use development.
That distinction matters.
It demonstrates that protecting Rural Elk Grove is not the same thing as opposing housing or opposing development. It is about appropriate development in appropriate places.
And Elk Grove has already planned for growth.
The Southeast Policy Area — SEPA — encompasses approximately 1,200 acres and is described by the City as the last large-scale development area within the urbanized portion of Elk Grove. It was comprehensively planned for residential neighborhoods, employment, commercial uses, parks, circulation and infrastructure.
As developers continue looking for opportunities to build in Elk Grove, those planning distinctions should matter.
Why designate some areas for greater density and others for rural preservation if we are simply going to erase those distinctions when development pressure arrives?
The issue is not whether Elk Grove should grow. It will.
The issue is whether that growth follows the thoughtful planning the City has already undertaken.
There are places in Elk Grove specifically intended to accommodate greater density. There are also places intentionally designated Rural Residential.
Both have a place in Elk Grove's future.
Good planning does not require sacrificing one to achieve the other.
Develop where we have planned to develop.
Preserve where we have promised to preserve.
Leanne E., Rural Elk Grove resident
