I support this letter. The city can ill afford to support sprawl, chaining itself to infrastructure expansion that it can’t afford, while other areas go without infrastructure that desperately needs addressing and while the city is over a billion dollars behind on its infrastructure needs. Build dense. Build infill. Do not create more sprawl.
Who are the wizards who conjured up this project? First of all, traffic safety concerns cannot be overstated - it would be an unmitigated nightmare. For years. The skinflint developers will take a powder on this, if they haven't already done so. I firmly support the City sending a letter to the County in opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan.
I strongly support the opposition by City Council to the development of the Upper Westside District. Save the endangered riparian habitats, plant seeds in a garden you never get to see.
I support the letter from the city council opposing development of the Upper Westside Project. I erroneously as many eComments today, wrote oppose when they meant to write support as supporting the letter means oppose the development.
On behalf of the Wellstone Progressive Democratic Club of Sacramento and all nature lovers, current and future, please do not destroy the open space. Thank you,
Patricia Johnson
resident 1901 G St. Sacramento 95811
I am writing in support of the City Council issuing a letter to the County in opposition to the the Upper Westside Specific Plan. The project in its current form puts incredible pressure on the local school systems to build schools to keep up with the development of these homes without being offered adequate support from those who will profit greatly from this project. The developers will build and sell over 9000 homes and the shareholders of these companies will reap the rewards, however, these developers are not contributing an adequate amount to the development of schools. This will lead to overcrowding our schools and the need to divert funding away from student programs to increased facilities costs. This project in its current form will benefit developers at a great cost to our schools.
Protect all undeveloped land, protect the planet, fools. No no developments, jesus christ. Put all that money into fixing up and redeveloping and refitting current developments to fit the needs of the community. Be creative, be smart, protect our home and the people who live here, not b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. investors.
I am opposed to this Project and the Airport Project. The destruction of the natural lands to create more buildings and unfilled warehouses is unnecessary and unacceptable. These areas were agreed to be protected in perpetuity and that should be abided by.
Re: County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386 City of Sacramento
The city should uphold past agreements and planning made in good faith for the prudent development of the Natomas Region. The city must also challenge the County of Sacramento to take notice of, and honor, the planning that was years in the making.
N magazine, and me, publisher Dennis Spear, have always supported the prudent and proper development of the Natomas Region. I support the planning for Natomas made years ago by the proper vision of previous city leaders.
The Upper Westside Project, and the other large County projects, should not be allowed to affect the very nature of Natomas, and the reason we all live here. We should not, and cannot become another mirror of San Jose.
I am not not anti-developent, but pro-prudent planning and honoring those who saw the future and planned for it. Read the article on page 22 of the August issue of N magazine online at www.nmag.net
<@930185722978246666> brought up the good point that the county could build 9,356 ADUs in Arden Arcade with the right incentives and municipal financing structure right now, if it's a matter of adding housing. And that would not require any additional sewer, levee, or roadway infrastructure.
at August 12, 2025 at 1:47pm PDT
The people of Sacramento don't want more housing developments!!! Keep the farmland!!
I am writing in support of the City issuing a letter to the County in opposition to the the Upper Westside Specific Plan. The UWSP is deficient in a number of areas, including water supply, school funding, environmental protection and public safety. However, perhaps it is most glaringly irresponsible in the area of transportation. The UWSP Draft EIR specifically stated, "The DEIR Identifies Significant Safety Issues Related To Excessive Freeway Off and On Ramp Queues At Several Interchanges In the Project Vicinity. Because Of (the)Serious Nature Of the Issues Involved The Project Should Not Be Approved For Construction Until There Is Clear Agreement Among The Agencies Having Jurisdiction As To What The Actual Mitigation Plans Are, How Full Funding Will Be Accomplished And When Construction Will Take Place. The DEIR discloses that the Project would have direct significant impacts on excessive queuing and related safety on the I-80 eastbound and westbound off ramps to West El Camino Avenue." At the I-80 / West El Camino interchange, the developer proposes to reconstruct the interchange, widening West El Camino from 2 to 4 lanes extending extend the queue storage capacity to 1500 feet on each of the impacted ramps. This type of improvement is absolutely essential to any sort of development in the project area, however this response in the Final EIR from the developer indicates an unwillingness to come to an agreement with responsible agencies for these improvements prior to project approval, "It is unrealistic to expect all applicable agencies to agree in advance of the project’s approval to the precise mitigation, cost, and how full funding will be achieved." This is an unacceptable response and leaves existing and potential new residents open to years of construction delays and traffic congestion. For this reason alone, this project should not move forward, until there is a funding plan and construction agreement among all responsible parties for adequate improvements to the I-80/West El Camino interchange.
I am a long time resident of Midtown Sacramento and am strongly opposed to this proposed development. We do not need the loss of more farmland and greenfields in our region. We need to hold urban growth within existing boundaries and focus more on energy efficiency and sustainability, not developer profit. This is an opportunity to stop urban sprawl and focus on infill as described in the General Plan. This proposal would violate existing City/County agreements to preserve open space. This proposal would impact Natomas residents, sensitive and listed species of wildlife and the quality of life in our region. We need to protect and preserve open space. Please vote against this proposal.
RE: Agenda Item #8: County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386
Subject: Vote for the resolution against Upper Westside Project: Pass a Motion authorizing the Mayor to execute and deliver a letter addressed to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors expressing the City Council's opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan
Public e-Comment: As a resident of North Natomas for 17 years, and with family who has resided in various communities in the greater Sacramento area for over 30 years, I oppose various proposed urban development projects in the North Natomas areas such as the Airport South Industrial and Upper Westside Projects.
I oppose further urban development on farmland in the North Natomas region. Do not allow the County to destroy the careful balance of urban development and habitat conservation in Natomas. We need to look at all the Natomas area development proposals, past and present, and consider the greater community impacts.
The massive and pervasive housing development is the North Natomas area since the 7-year building moratorium ended in June 2015 has resulted in an increase of crime, traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, and road and highway deterioration. North Natomas does not have the infrastructure to continue to build housing and industrial warehouses in existing open rural areas.
1,000’s of community residents openly voiced opposition to the breach of existing urban/rural boundary lines and agreements between City and County governing bodies via petitions, presence at community Townhalls, Sacramento LAFCo meetings, and letters to Sacramento County Board of Supervisor and City Council members. Listen to your constituents’ concerns. Do not allow North Natomas to turn into the overly congested communities with poor air quality similar to fellow citizens in Southern California. Riverside County like Sacramento County has an international airport and industrial warehouse complexes in proximity of homes. I ask for you opposition to any development proposal to build an industrial and warehouse complex in open farmland that is near schools and residential communities.
A Sacramento labor statistics report the unemployment rate is currently at 5.3%. The job market should be an area of focus by government-elected officials to turn existing commercial buildings, warehouses, strip and shopping malls from empty buildings to thriving businesses to increase needed revenue conditions in the Sacramento area.
I totally agree with the staff recommendation to oppose approval of this project. There are many reasons - here are a few.
This 25,000 resident project needs Sacramento's water. There is no agreement to provide city water to this development and I am totally in opposition of any such agreement that would be proposed. As the city grows and infill housing is built in residential neighborhoods (Missing Middle Housing Interim Ordinance) and larger projects are being built and proposed for the Central City and urban corridors, this water will be needed as city infrastructure.
The City must uphold the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. There is a legal and ethical obligation to keep this agreement. Natomas is a natural flood basin, home to 22 protected species. The NBHCP is a good plan to preserve a mile-wide riparian area to preserve these species. It was entered into for good reason, not to have it fall to development interests and county interests in property tax.
This development is surrounded on three sides by the city. The impact on city infrastructure in addition to our water - roads, schools, access, is huge.
The city should not let the county bully us into allowing this development. We don't need all the effects of urban sprawl - on city resources as well as wildlife - that this project will impact. VOTE NO!
I am opposed to further development of the Natomas Basin. This is to serve as an environmental corridor to preserve open space by the river to preserve necessary habitat. Furthermore, the plan does not contain sufficient plans for water, education, and emergency services — let alone traffic management.
Please do all you can to oppose this development. We don’t need more sprawl, congestion, pollution, energy and water use, loss of farmland and wildlife habitat, health impacts, etc, that this project would cause. It’s time for the City Council to stand up for the residents of Sacramento, and stop rolling over for developers who don’t hesitate to destroy our quality of life for their personal profit.
I support this letter. The city can ill afford to support sprawl, chaining itself to infrastructure expansion that it can’t afford, while other areas go without infrastructure that desperately needs addressing and while the city is over a billion dollars behind on its infrastructure needs. Build dense. Build infill. Do not create more sprawl.
Who are the wizards who conjured up this project? First of all, traffic safety concerns cannot be overstated - it would be an unmitigated nightmare. For years. The skinflint developers will take a powder on this, if they haven't already done so. I firmly support the City sending a letter to the County in opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan.
I strongly support the opposition by City Council to the development of the Upper Westside District. Save the endangered riparian habitats, plant seeds in a garden you never get to see.
I support the letter from the city council opposing development of the Upper Westside Project. I erroneously as many eComments today, wrote oppose when they meant to write support as supporting the letter means oppose the development.
On behalf of the Wellstone Progressive Democratic Club of Sacramento and all nature lovers, current and future, please do not destroy the open space. Thank you,
Patricia Johnson
resident 1901 G St. Sacramento 95811
I am writing in support of the City Council issuing a letter to the County in opposition to the the Upper Westside Specific Plan. The project in its current form puts incredible pressure on the local school systems to build schools to keep up with the development of these homes without being offered adequate support from those who will profit greatly from this project. The developers will build and sell over 9000 homes and the shareholders of these companies will reap the rewards, however, these developers are not contributing an adequate amount to the development of schools. This will lead to overcrowding our schools and the need to divert funding away from student programs to increased facilities costs. This project in its current form will benefit developers at a great cost to our schools.
Protect all undeveloped land, protect the planet, fools. No no developments, jesus christ. Put all that money into fixing up and redeveloping and refitting current developments to fit the needs of the community. Be creative, be smart, protect our home and the people who live here, not b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. investors.
Hello,
I am opposed to this Project and the Airport Project. The destruction of the natural lands to create more buildings and unfilled warehouses is unnecessary and unacceptable. These areas were agreed to be protected in perpetuity and that should be abided by.
Thank you,
Lisa Sanchez
Re: County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386 City of Sacramento
The city should uphold past agreements and planning made in good faith for the prudent development of the Natomas Region. The city must also challenge the County of Sacramento to take notice of, and honor, the planning that was years in the making.
N magazine, and me, publisher Dennis Spear, have always supported the prudent and proper development of the Natomas Region. I support the planning for Natomas made years ago by the proper vision of previous city leaders.
The Upper Westside Project, and the other large County projects, should not be allowed to affect the very nature of Natomas, and the reason we all live here. We should not, and cannot become another mirror of San Jose.
I am not not anti-developent, but pro-prudent planning and honoring those who saw the future and planned for it. Read the article on page 22 of the August issue of N magazine online at www.nmag.net
<@930185722978246666> brought up the good point that the county could build 9,356 ADUs in Arden Arcade with the right incentives and municipal financing structure right now, if it's a matter of adding housing. And that would not require any additional sewer, levee, or roadway infrastructure.
The people of Sacramento don't want more housing developments!!! Keep the farmland!!
I am writing in support of the City issuing a letter to the County in opposition to the the Upper Westside Specific Plan. The UWSP is deficient in a number of areas, including water supply, school funding, environmental protection and public safety. However, perhaps it is most glaringly irresponsible in the area of transportation. The UWSP Draft EIR specifically stated, "The DEIR Identifies Significant Safety Issues Related To Excessive Freeway Off and On Ramp Queues At Several Interchanges In the Project Vicinity. Because Of (the)Serious Nature Of the Issues Involved The Project Should Not Be Approved For Construction Until There Is Clear Agreement Among The Agencies Having Jurisdiction As To What The Actual Mitigation Plans Are, How Full Funding Will Be Accomplished And When Construction Will Take Place. The DEIR discloses that the Project would have direct significant impacts on excessive queuing and related safety on the I-80 eastbound and westbound off ramps to West El Camino Avenue." At the I-80 / West El Camino interchange, the developer proposes to reconstruct the interchange, widening West El Camino from 2 to 4 lanes extending extend the queue storage capacity to 1500 feet on each of the impacted ramps. This type of improvement is absolutely essential to any sort of development in the project area, however this response in the Final EIR from the developer indicates an unwillingness to come to an agreement with responsible agencies for these improvements prior to project approval, "It is unrealistic to expect all applicable agencies to agree in advance of the project’s approval to the precise mitigation, cost, and how full funding will be achieved." This is an unacceptable response and leaves existing and potential new residents open to years of construction delays and traffic congestion. For this reason alone, this project should not move forward, until there is a funding plan and construction agreement among all responsible parties for adequate improvements to the I-80/West El Camino interchange.
I am a long time resident of Midtown Sacramento and am strongly opposed to this proposed development. We do not need the loss of more farmland and greenfields in our region. We need to hold urban growth within existing boundaries and focus more on energy efficiency and sustainability, not developer profit. This is an opportunity to stop urban sprawl and focus on infill as described in the General Plan. This proposal would violate existing City/County agreements to preserve open space. This proposal would impact Natomas residents, sensitive and listed species of wildlife and the quality of life in our region. We need to protect and preserve open space. Please vote against this proposal.
Please see attached correspondence.
Mayor and Council Members,
RE: Agenda Item #8: County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386
Subject: Vote for the resolution against Upper Westside Project: Pass a Motion authorizing the Mayor to execute and deliver a letter addressed to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors expressing the City Council's opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan
Public e-Comment: As a resident of North Natomas for 17 years, and with family who has resided in various communities in the greater Sacramento area for over 30 years, I oppose various proposed urban development projects in the North Natomas areas such as the Airport South Industrial and Upper Westside Projects.
I oppose further urban development on farmland in the North Natomas region. Do not allow the County to destroy the careful balance of urban development and habitat conservation in Natomas. We need to look at all the Natomas area development proposals, past and present, and consider the greater community impacts.
The massive and pervasive housing development is the North Natomas area since the 7-year building moratorium ended in June 2015 has resulted in an increase of crime, traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, and road and highway deterioration. North Natomas does not have the infrastructure to continue to build housing and industrial warehouses in existing open rural areas.
1,000’s of community residents openly voiced opposition to the breach of existing urban/rural boundary lines and agreements between City and County governing bodies via petitions, presence at community Townhalls, Sacramento LAFCo meetings, and letters to Sacramento County Board of Supervisor and City Council members. Listen to your constituents’ concerns. Do not allow North Natomas to turn into the overly congested communities with poor air quality similar to fellow citizens in Southern California. Riverside County like Sacramento County has an international airport and industrial warehouse complexes in proximity of homes. I ask for you opposition to any development proposal to build an industrial and warehouse complex in open farmland that is near schools and residential communities.
A Sacramento labor statistics report the unemployment rate is currently at 5.3%. The job market should be an area of focus by government-elected officials to turn existing commercial buildings, warehouses, strip and shopping malls from empty buildings to thriving businesses to increase needed revenue conditions in the Sacramento area.
Monica Sanchez
I totally agree with the staff recommendation to oppose approval of this project. There are many reasons - here are a few.
This 25,000 resident project needs Sacramento's water. There is no agreement to provide city water to this development and I am totally in opposition of any such agreement that would be proposed. As the city grows and infill housing is built in residential neighborhoods (Missing Middle Housing Interim Ordinance) and larger projects are being built and proposed for the Central City and urban corridors, this water will be needed as city infrastructure.
The City must uphold the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. There is a legal and ethical obligation to keep this agreement. Natomas is a natural flood basin, home to 22 protected species. The NBHCP is a good plan to preserve a mile-wide riparian area to preserve these species. It was entered into for good reason, not to have it fall to development interests and county interests in property tax.
This development is surrounded on three sides by the city. The impact on city infrastructure in addition to our water - roads, schools, access, is huge.
The city should not let the county bully us into allowing this development. We don't need all the effects of urban sprawl - on city resources as well as wildlife - that this project will impact. VOTE NO!
I am opposed to further development of the Natomas Basin. This is to serve as an environmental corridor to preserve open space by the river to preserve necessary habitat. Furthermore, the plan does not contain sufficient plans for water, education, and emergency services — let alone traffic management.
Please do all you can to oppose this development. We don’t need more sprawl, congestion, pollution, energy and water use, loss of farmland and wildlife habitat, health impacts, etc, that this project would cause. It’s time for the City Council to stand up for the residents of Sacramento, and stop rolling over for developers who don’t hesitate to destroy our quality of life for their personal profit.
Correspondence received by the City Clerk's Office.
Additional eComments received by the Office of City Clerk.
Please pass this motion to protect Garden Highway.