Dear Council Members.
359 Sacramento supports the City staff's recommendation to oppose Sacramento County's Upper West Side Project. The attached letter summarizes our chief objections to the project.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue,
Oscar Balaguer, Chair, 350 CAP Team
I strongly support the City’s opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan. It violates the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan’s 17,500-acre cap, encroaches on the Swainson’s Hawk buffer, ignores the 2002 City/County MOU, and shifts costly service burdens to the City. Please defend our regional agreements, farmland, and habitat by sending the opposition letter to the County.
I live in River View Park at the corner of San Juan and El Centro Roads. I strongly oppose the Upper West Side project as a nearly 25 year resident. I raised my twins in River View Park. We spent many, many days, holidays, birthdays, play dates at the park. We bought strawberries at Perry's Farm, learned golf at Leader's driving range, and my children played nearly every day at Bastio's Pumpkin Patch in October when they were 8, 9, and 10.
We moved to West Natomas for these reasons and many more and I don't want other families to miss out on these wonderful experiences of knowing that farmland and nature are right in their backyard.
There are many other reasons to oppose this project such as:
Traffic - Currently, it can take as much as 10 minutes to get through the overpass at W. El Camino from South Natomas. Imagine what it will be with 9,000 new homes and no ability to widen the overpass.
Displaced Wildlife - Lately, Westlake residents complained of increased rodents resulting from the construction of new apartments on El Centro and Del Paso Roads. The project was probably less than two acres. Imagine the rodent problem from developing thousands of acres!
Ability to Evacuate in an Emergency - There is little to no room to expand access roads.
There are many other reasons such as breaking existing building moratoriums and agreements. Please consider our concerns as well as those of your staff and support a resolution of opposition to the county. There are other nearby areas to that are already approved to accommodate housing. Please don't allow the little farmland we have left to be paved over and lost forever.
Thank you.
Lynne Randolph
470 Forastera Circle
Sacramento, CA 95834
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Agenda Item 8. County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386, which is currently under consideration by the City of Sacramento.
After reviewing the materials made available through the city’s Granicus portal and considering its implications for our community, I have significant concerns regarding the Upper Westside Specific Plan. My objections are outlined below:
1. Lack of Transparent Community Engagement
A fundamental concern is the notable absence of meaningful outreach and transparent communication with Sacramento residents regarding the scope and impact of this proposal. The community’s ability to participate in decisions of this magnitude is impaired when information and opportunities for comment are limited or inadequately publicized.
2. Adverse Impact on Local Communities
The Upper Westside Specific Plan threatens to impose considerable burdens on surrounding neighborhoods, including increased traffic, strain on existing infrastructure, and diminished environmental quality. Relevant studies and local feedback underscore heightened risks of congestion and overextension of public resources, which have not been adequately mitigated or addressed.
3. Inconsistency with Established Agreements and Plans
The proposal appears to conflict with existing joint vision agreements and previously adopted plans governing land use, conservation, and responsible growth within Sacramento. Ignoring these carefully negotiated frameworks sets a dangerous precedent and could erode trust in city governance.
4. Environmental and Public Health Concerns
There are unanswered questions about the environmental review process, potential harms to sensitive habitats, and broader sustainability impacts. It is incumbent upon city leadership to ensure that current and future residents are not exposed to preventable environmental hazards or long-term degradation of shared resources.
5. Need for Better Regional Coordination
Sacramento’s ability to remain a collaborative regional leader is undermined when significant projects advance without proper alignment between city and county leadership, or when substantial community concerns go unaddressed. A more inclusive process is required to respect the intent of regional agreements, maintain the integrity of public engagement, and develop thoughtful, sustainable solutions for growth.
I respectfully urge the Board of Directors to OPPOSE County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386, halt any further advancement of this item as currently written, and facilitate a transparent public process that meaningfully incorporates community feedback, environmental due diligence, and regional cooperation.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter and your ongoing commitment to responsible, community-focused governance.
Here are my comments with regards to the proposed airport INDUSTRIAL project
I HATE IT!!!
Urban sprawl often leads to increased traffic congestion, longer commutes, and a higher cost of living. I don't want Sacramento to become Roseville or Elk Grove. Rather than expanding into our precious farmland, we should focus on building walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. Only 38% of the world's land can be used for farmland. Sacramento is "farm to fork" and you want to get rid of our farms?
Preserving green spaces should also be a top priority. Green spaces improve our mental and physical well-being and offer vital habitats for animals. This is a flood zone, I know because I live here, this isn't the place to build more suburban development. By protecting these areas from development, we safeguard our environment, contribute to climate resilience, and provide sanctuary for wildlife that is increasingly displaced by unchecked growth.
Suburban developments once they are completed are the best they are ever going to be. After that they decay, they cost the city more because they never adapt or grow. Never allowing more people to move into a neighborhood. Encouraging mixed-use zoning for current existing areas would allow for affordable housing options that are sorely needed, especially for low-income residents who are often priced out of traditional suburban developments. Why expand when we can do better and make Sacramento less like Elk Grove and Roseville and more like downtown.
I ask you to protect Natomas' farmland and instead prioritize urban planning strategies that emphasize walkability, mixed-use development, affordable housing, public transportation, and environmental conservation. Let's create a city where people and nature thrive together, rather than one where unchecked development diminishes the quality of life for all.
I am a resident o North Natomas. I strongly support the proposed motion to OPPOSE the Upper Westside Project. As stated in the city's staff report this project is inconsistent with established open space and conservation plans for this area, does not comply with the agreements between the City and the County of growth in Natomas and with have numerous adverse impacts on wildlife, traffic, and air quality and other issues. In particular this project is detrimental to species protection in the area, adversely impacts the wildlife that uses this land year round and migratory species that use this area as part of the Pacific Flyway. Also importantly the Upper Westside project will adversely affect traffic in Natomas both on local streets and on I-5 and I-80, all roads that are already at or close to capacity. I also believe that it is important that the City be the jurisdiction that governs Natomas so that public improvements, taxation; parks, schools and other important aspects of community be integrated within the city not split into two. The Upper Westside project and its EIR, with numerous unmitigated impacts that disregard impacts that will forever change our community for the worse, clearly illustrate that splitting jurisdiction between the city and the County will be detrimental to both existing city residents and the environmental protections already in place or this reason. All of the above is reason enough to oppose the Upper Westside project. Thank you. Harriet Steiner
Hello Sacramento County Supervisors, I deeply oppose this project. It is imperative that we preserve Natomas' habitat NOW. I urge you to NOT approve of the Upper Westside Project. This area houses native (animal) species that is vital to our ecosystem. They cannot speak to the devastation we are causing to their homes. We need to speak for them. Plus it is an area of great agriculture for the region that not only feeds our area and throughout Sacramento. We cannot lose this precious land and allow it to be paved over with concrete for buildings and more roads. It would only cause more congestion, population and increased poor air quality. We need this land to grow food for our growing population. Thank you.
I live in district 4, CM Phil Pluckebaum's district.Please vote for this resolution opposing the Upper Westside project. Please do not allow the County to destroy the balance between habitat conservation in Natomas and urban development. The City and County must work together to respect the existing agreements: climate change, and air quality demand this, and carefully worked out previous agreements demand this. We have an obligation to protect endangered species in Natomas. And open space will become more and more valuable to our city. Please preserve the current urbanizaion boundaries. Thank you very much.
I support the City's proposal to 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. Local governments need to respect existing land-preservation agreements which have been in place for decades. I oppose the development of the Upper Westside, as well as the proposed industrialization of the South Precinct, West Precinct, and build-out of Grandpark.
I reside on Turnstone Dr 95834.
Thank you and please vote FOR this resolution against Upper Westside. The City and County must work together. Please observe and respect existing agreements as described in the City’s analysis.
Do not allow the County to destroy the careful balance of urban development and habitat conservation in Natomas.
I oppose further development on greenfields in our region
I oppose urbanization of farmland by City and County
Climate change demands we stop urban growth and focus on infill as per the City General Plan
Respect current urbanization boundaries and the air quality plan.
We have an obligation to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species in Natomas
Open space is a high priority for people and quality of life - keep the balance of farms and habitat in Natomas
Mark Rodriguez, activist
at August 09, 2025 at 10:12am PDT
Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A
Sacramento, CA, 95820, as well as q spa, located at 4215 Norwood avenue, suite #12, sacramento, ca, 95838, They will all claim that they are too busy for you.
We have an obligation to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species in Natomas. I support the motion to have the mayor send a letter to the Supervisors opposing the Upper Westside Development Plan.
I support to have the Mayor send letter expressing to oppose the Upper Westside Development plan. Farm and natural habitat need to kept. Already too much has been lost
I support the 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.
Sacramento needs to focus on infill projects, like the Railyards, versus expanding into farmland and natural areas.
Thank you Mayor McCarthy and to all decision makers who are Not greed driven.
No Westside Project!
Dear Council Members.
359 Sacramento supports the City staff's recommendation to oppose Sacramento County's Upper West Side Project. The attached letter summarizes our chief objections to the project.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue,
Oscar Balaguer, Chair, 350 CAP Team
I strongly support the City’s opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan. It violates the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan’s 17,500-acre cap, encroaches on the Swainson’s Hawk buffer, ignores the 2002 City/County MOU, and shifts costly service burdens to the City. Please defend our regional agreements, farmland, and habitat by sending the opposition letter to the County.
I live in River View Park at the corner of San Juan and El Centro Roads. I strongly oppose the Upper West Side project as a nearly 25 year resident. I raised my twins in River View Park. We spent many, many days, holidays, birthdays, play dates at the park. We bought strawberries at Perry's Farm, learned golf at Leader's driving range, and my children played nearly every day at Bastio's Pumpkin Patch in October when they were 8, 9, and 10.
We moved to West Natomas for these reasons and many more and I don't want other families to miss out on these wonderful experiences of knowing that farmland and nature are right in their backyard.
There are many other reasons to oppose this project such as:
Traffic - Currently, it can take as much as 10 minutes to get through the overpass at W. El Camino from South Natomas. Imagine what it will be with 9,000 new homes and no ability to widen the overpass.
Displaced Wildlife - Lately, Westlake residents complained of increased rodents resulting from the construction of new apartments on El Centro and Del Paso Roads. The project was probably less than two acres. Imagine the rodent problem from developing thousands of acres!
Ability to Evacuate in an Emergency - There is little to no room to expand access roads.
There are many other reasons such as breaking existing building moratoriums and agreements. Please consider our concerns as well as those of your staff and support a resolution of opposition to the county. There are other nearby areas to that are already approved to accommodate housing. Please don't allow the little farmland we have left to be paved over and lost forever.
Thank you.
Lynne Randolph
470 Forastera Circle
Sacramento, CA 95834
Dear Board of Directors,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Agenda Item 8. County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386, which is currently under consideration by the City of Sacramento.
After reviewing the materials made available through the city’s Granicus portal and considering its implications for our community, I have significant concerns regarding the Upper Westside Specific Plan. My objections are outlined below:
1. Lack of Transparent Community Engagement
A fundamental concern is the notable absence of meaningful outreach and transparent communication with Sacramento residents regarding the scope and impact of this proposal. The community’s ability to participate in decisions of this magnitude is impaired when information and opportunities for comment are limited or inadequately publicized.
2. Adverse Impact on Local Communities
The Upper Westside Specific Plan threatens to impose considerable burdens on surrounding neighborhoods, including increased traffic, strain on existing infrastructure, and diminished environmental quality. Relevant studies and local feedback underscore heightened risks of congestion and overextension of public resources, which have not been adequately mitigated or addressed.
3. Inconsistency with Established Agreements and Plans
The proposal appears to conflict with existing joint vision agreements and previously adopted plans governing land use, conservation, and responsible growth within Sacramento. Ignoring these carefully negotiated frameworks sets a dangerous precedent and could erode trust in city governance.
4. Environmental and Public Health Concerns
There are unanswered questions about the environmental review process, potential harms to sensitive habitats, and broader sustainability impacts. It is incumbent upon city leadership to ensure that current and future residents are not exposed to preventable environmental hazards or long-term degradation of shared resources.
5. Need for Better Regional Coordination
Sacramento’s ability to remain a collaborative regional leader is undermined when significant projects advance without proper alignment between city and county leadership, or when substantial community concerns go unaddressed. A more inclusive process is required to respect the intent of regional agreements, maintain the integrity of public engagement, and develop thoughtful, sustainable solutions for growth.
I respectfully urge the Board of Directors to OPPOSE County Development Project: Upper Westside Specific Plan File ID: 2025-01386, halt any further advancement of this item as currently written, and facilitate a transparent public process that meaningfully incorporates community feedback, environmental due diligence, and regional cooperation.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter and your ongoing commitment to responsible, community-focused governance.
Respectfully,
Fabian Lara
Garden Hwy Resident
Here are my comments with regards to the proposed airport INDUSTRIAL project
I HATE IT!!!
Urban sprawl often leads to increased traffic congestion, longer commutes, and a higher cost of living. I don't want Sacramento to become Roseville or Elk Grove. Rather than expanding into our precious farmland, we should focus on building walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. Only 38% of the world's land can be used for farmland. Sacramento is "farm to fork" and you want to get rid of our farms?
Preserving green spaces should also be a top priority. Green spaces improve our mental and physical well-being and offer vital habitats for animals. This is a flood zone, I know because I live here, this isn't the place to build more suburban development. By protecting these areas from development, we safeguard our environment, contribute to climate resilience, and provide sanctuary for wildlife that is increasingly displaced by unchecked growth.
Suburban developments once they are completed are the best they are ever going to be. After that they decay, they cost the city more because they never adapt or grow. Never allowing more people to move into a neighborhood. Encouraging mixed-use zoning for current existing areas would allow for affordable housing options that are sorely needed, especially for low-income residents who are often priced out of traditional suburban developments. Why expand when we can do better and make Sacramento less like Elk Grove and Roseville and more like downtown.
I ask you to protect Natomas' farmland and instead prioritize urban planning strategies that emphasize walkability, mixed-use development, affordable housing, public transportation, and environmental conservation. Let's create a city where people and nature thrive together, rather than one where unchecked development diminishes the quality of life for all.
Thank you,
Amanda Burnitt
2874 bendmill way 95833
I am a resident o North Natomas. I strongly support the proposed motion to OPPOSE the Upper Westside Project. As stated in the city's staff report this project is inconsistent with established open space and conservation plans for this area, does not comply with the agreements between the City and the County of growth in Natomas and with have numerous adverse impacts on wildlife, traffic, and air quality and other issues. In particular this project is detrimental to species protection in the area, adversely impacts the wildlife that uses this land year round and migratory species that use this area as part of the Pacific Flyway. Also importantly the Upper Westside project will adversely affect traffic in Natomas both on local streets and on I-5 and I-80, all roads that are already at or close to capacity. I also believe that it is important that the City be the jurisdiction that governs Natomas so that public improvements, taxation; parks, schools and other important aspects of community be integrated within the city not split into two. The Upper Westside project and its EIR, with numerous unmitigated impacts that disregard impacts that will forever change our community for the worse, clearly illustrate that splitting jurisdiction between the city and the County will be detrimental to both existing city residents and the environmental protections already in place or this reason. All of the above is reason enough to oppose the Upper Westside project. Thank you. Harriet Steiner
Hello Sacramento County Supervisors, I deeply oppose this project. It is imperative that we preserve Natomas' habitat NOW. I urge you to NOT approve of the Upper Westside Project. This area houses native (animal) species that is vital to our ecosystem. They cannot speak to the devastation we are causing to their homes. We need to speak for them. Plus it is an area of great agriculture for the region that not only feeds our area and throughout Sacramento. We cannot lose this precious land and allow it to be paved over with concrete for buildings and more roads. It would only cause more congestion, population and increased poor air quality. We need this land to grow food for our growing population. Thank you.
I live in district 4, CM Phil Pluckebaum's district.Please vote for this resolution opposing the Upper Westside project. Please do not allow the County to destroy the balance between habitat conservation in Natomas and urban development. The City and County must work together to respect the existing agreements: climate change, and air quality demand this, and carefully worked out previous agreements demand this. We have an obligation to protect endangered species in Natomas. And open space will become more and more valuable to our city. Please preserve the current urbanizaion boundaries. Thank you very much.
I support the City's proposal to 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. Local governments need to respect existing land-preservation agreements which have been in place for decades. I oppose the development of the Upper Westside, as well as the proposed industrialization of the South Precinct, West Precinct, and build-out of Grandpark.
I reside on Turnstone Dr 95834.
Thank you and please vote FOR this resolution against Upper Westside. The City and County must work together. Please observe and respect existing agreements as described in the City’s analysis.
Do not allow the County to destroy the careful balance of urban development and habitat conservation in Natomas.
I oppose further development on greenfields in our region
I oppose urbanization of farmland by City and County
Climate change demands we stop urban growth and focus on infill as per the City General Plan
Respect current urbanization boundaries and the air quality plan.
We have an obligation to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species in Natomas
Open space is a high priority for people and quality of life - keep the balance of farms and habitat in Natomas
Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A
Sacramento, CA, 95820, as well as q spa, located at 4215 Norwood avenue, suite #12, sacramento, ca, 95838, They will all claim that they are too busy for you.
We have an obligation to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species in Natomas. I support the motion to have the mayor send a letter to the Supervisors opposing the Upper Westside Development Plan.
I support to have the Mayor send letter expressing to oppose the Upper Westside Development plan. Farm and natural habitat need to kept. Already too much has been lost
I support the 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.
Sacramento needs to focus on infill projects, like the Railyards, versus expanding into farmland and natural areas.