When they adopted a new general plan in 1993, Sacramento County supervisors approved what would now be called "smart growth" policies. The general plan established an urban growth boundary (called an urban services boundary), encouraged dense residential development, and designated a number of areas for transit-oriented development. Thus far, the county has blocked development outside the urban services boundary, despite attempts by developers to bust the boundary. But implementing higher densities and transit-oriented developments has proven difficult. "Neighbors just don't want to see higher density housing, and the board has gone along with that," said Ann Baker, a senior planner on the county's long-range planning team. "But we see a need to be more efficient with our land use." So the county is undertaking a general plan update that focuses on the public facilities element and the community plan element. The county might also create a new element that considers ways to address older communities, some of which have become neglected, Baker said. The Board of Supervisors was scheduled to conduct the first general plan update workshop on June 28, at which time planners hoped the scope of work would become clearer. But they are not anticipating a complete overhaul. "Our intent is not to unravel the general plan. We want to keep the land use element and transportation element in tact," said Baker, who will manage the two- to three-year project. Under the 1993 general plan, areas with specific plans were supposed to average six homes per acre. Instead, the board, bowing to constituent lobbying, has been approving specific plans averaging about 4.5 units an acre. The East Franklin Specific Plan area, for instance, offers about 4.3 units per acre. Baker said that planners hope to undertake an extensive public education campaign to explain the advantage of denser development — namely the preservation of natural resources and less expensive provision of public services. The county likely will appoint a steering committee containing civic leaders, who would spread the word. Planners also hope to extend their message via existing community groups. But planners also recognize that the county's current infrastructure financing policy might inadvertently promote the low-density, fringe development that the general plan discourages. For example, while a developer pays to extend sewer lines to new homes, the county as a whole funds expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Planners would like to eliminate this sort of subsidy for rural area development. Planners also are just beginning an east county resources study to determine what the county ought to protect, Baker said. The fast-growing City of Folsom in eastern Sacramento County wants to expand its sphere of influence, a proposal that the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission has thwarted so far. The general plan update also will embrace a new umbrella policy for protecting open space and agriculture. Growth is moving toward the southwestern portion of the county, which is prime farmland. Plus, as more communities incorporate — Citrus Heights in 1997, Elk Grove this year, and Rancho Cordova could be next — the county "is going to be left being keepers of the open space and ag land," Baker said.