As a resident of Natomas for over 31 years, I strongly oppose more irresponsible and unnecessary development projects in Natomas and hope local leaders have the courage to send the developers and land speculators packing.

Sacramento must stop paving over critical riparian habitat while also creating irreversible traffic gridlock. Enough is enough.

Thank you.

To the City Council,
I support your OPPOSITION to the Upper West Side plan. The USB and the UPA were there for a reason: they acknowledged the importance of our natural land and our farmland to our mental health, and to our fight against climate change and urban sprawl. If we violate it now, it will be easier to violate it in the future, and on and on.
In doing so we will permanently lose the natural jewel of Natomas for the sake of a few more strip malls and expensive homes. It isn’t worth it.
Over the years many people have respected the UPA and USB. Developers, planners, architects and homeowners have made decisions based on the permanence of these agreements. To suddenly decide that there are now “extraordinary circumstances” that justify sprawl over these boundaries is wrong and doesn’t make sense.
There are plenty of sprawl developments already that haven’t built out. There are plenty of single family homes available already. Why ruin more natural habitat, incur more environmental risk and increase traffic by building more unnecessary, market-rate houses?
We need you to ACTIVELY support infill. We need you to creatively find ways to create conditions that will support infill. From an environmental standpoint it is far more useful and desirable than allowing another sprawl project to take over more farmland and natural habitat.
Sincerely, Kent Lacin

To the City Council
10 days ago, on Oahu, I was evacuating the North Shore along with thousands of other people. We thousands of people sat in traffic, often within yards of the tsunami-threatened shore, inching 30 miles in over 3 hours, from Laie to Haleiwa, and I thought about Natomas. The North Shore has a daily population of about 40,000 residents and tourists. The population of Natomas is 120,800.
If the 25,000 new residents of Upper Westside and the 75,000 or so of the two proposed Grandpark projects are added to a Natomas Basin evacuation, we will not be inching out of the area. We will be trapped. Even worse, Upper Westside does not plan make the improvements to roads that will be needed for normal daily traffic much less for an emergency situation. The developer’s plan is to wait until the traffic is bad enough that it will be someone else’s problem. This is only one of many poorly thought-out aspects of the Upper Westside plan which have been capably outlined in the City’s fine assessment for the City Council. Kudos to Cheryle Hodge and her staff.
I am a resident of Natomas and I hope the City Council will vote FOR the resolution to oppose the Upper Westside Project. In advance, I thank Mayor McCarty for courageously bringing this resolution to discussion. Clearly this action will not endear you to the County, but, Natomas is full of motivated voters.
Sincerely,
Edith Thacher

I strongly support the recommendation for the City to oppose the horrible Westside plan. It violates the SACOG Blueprint, Urban Service Boundary (intended to be the permanent boundary), Natomas Basin HCP, and is a posterchild for bad planning. Wildlife agencies should deny any permits requested for the project as direct undermining of the existing HCP. As the County points out, the City should have taken this step long ago. The area is prime farmland and the project proponents envision a dense urban district - but we all know these developers promise a vibrant mixed use area and then just build houses - see Laguna West, Anatolia, and the recent downzoning of Elk Grove's Elevate project as clear examples the region cannot build density when overabundant single family zoning exists. Thank you for taking a stand.
Sincerely, Steve Schweigerdt
Resident D7

I strongly urge the City Council to OPPOSE the proposed Upper West Side project which threatens to undermine the success and continued viability of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. PLEASE REVIEW the letter of the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board to the Board of Supervisors, April 10, 2025, submitted to the Clerk on 8/11/25, and separately posted, which addresses the damage that is very likely to result if the County approves the Upper West Side project.

There is more than enough vacant land within the Urban Service Boundary of Sacramento County to accommodate future housing needs without Upper West Side project. The only parties that would benefit from this project are some landowners and speculators.

Please see attached letter.

I strongly support the City Council’s OPPOSITION to the Upper Westside Specific Plan, and the City staff's identification of numerous concerns and issues related to the project. Specifically, your staff report which calls out the County for assuming "the role of approving urban development in the Natomas Basin instead of the role the County agreed to, which was to preserve open space, agricultural and rural lands" is especially gratifying. Thank you.

Dear City Council and Mayor McCarty;
Please vote FOR the resolution to send a letter to the County Board of Supervisors expressing the City’s opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan.

As caretakers of the earth and residents of Sacramento, we all have an obligation to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species in Natomas and elsewhere. Preserving open space is critical for protecting vulnerable wildlife as well as a good quality of life in the Sacramento region.

I oppose further development of greenfield in our region, and I oppose urbanization of farmland by the City or the County.

We need your strong, forward-looking leadership on this issue. Support the motion against the Upper Westside project.

Sincerely,
Karen Olson
Resident, District #7

UWSP is Unnecessary. Since 1969 the County has approved 13 large housing projects. This is far more than there is market demand for, and not one of these projects has yet completed building-out. Their available remaining capacity, with County-estimated available infill capacity, is 92,000 dwelling units - equivalent to 141 years of growth at recent growth rates. The County’s general plan’s time horizon is only 25 years. We need more housing, but since County approvals are obviously not what’s limiting construction.

As a 26 year old resident of Sacramento, I do not see the UWSP and similar developments that encroach on arable and habitat land as a sustainable or even personally desirable solution to the ever worsening housing crisis in Sacramento. One of the best parts of living in Sacramento is its wildlife and readily available outdoor recreation, especially on our beautiful rivers. Depleting that for the sake of cheaply built sprawls of single family homes threatens that, and it does not make myself and my peers excited about the future of the area we currently call home.

Please vote no on more urban sprawl that will not help with affordable housing needs.

Correspondence received by the City Clerk's Office.

I completely agree with the City's opposition to this County housing project which endangers the habitat of the area and promotes more growth outside the urban boundary line.

The City is right to oppose the Upper Westside SPRAWL project. The reality of the climate crisis dictates that we need natural riverbanks to protect us from floods and sequester carbon. The plants and rich soil on riverbanks sink carbon; carbon sinks mitigate climate change. Green space also recharges the water table. Most of the proposed housing is big homes on big lots, not dense housing, not low or even moderate income housing. We need true infill with true low income housing. We need to protect green fields, farms, and river banks. Increased danger of drought and floods demands thoughtful planning.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: As Natomas residents (Westlake) we support the proposal to authorize the mayor to send the county formal notice of the City's opposition to the Upper Westside project. The project violates every planning principle and commitment made by the City and the County over the last 25 years to protect habitat, particularly for endangered species, and agriculture in Natomas and would result in significant unmitigated air pollution, horrific traffic congestion (already a huge problem in Natomas) and huge strains on public support infrastructure such as police, fire, and schools. The City must stand up for the current Natomas community and oppose urbanized development by the County. Please formally refuse to provide water services to Upper Westside and any other urbanized development proposal by the County. We also continue to oppose the Airport South proposal for many of the same reasons. Jan Schori & Case Butterman

Please see attached correspondence.

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