Sacramento council authorizes mayor to oppose countyUpper West Side specific plan over habitat, water and infrastructure concerns

The Sacramento City Council voted to authorize the mayor to send a letter opposing the Upper West Side specific plan, a Sacramento County proposal to urbanize roughly 2,000 acres in the Natomas Basin, and directed city staff to press county leaders for solutions to unresolved habitat, water and public‑services concerns.

The motion, which the council adopted by a recorded tally of 8 yes and 1 no, directs the mayor and city attorney to prepare a formal letter expressing the city's objections and gives staff authority to continue negotiating with county staff on mitigation, services and financing. Council member Pluckettbaum voted no; the council did not record individual yes votes during the roll call but stated the motion passed 8 to 1.

City planner Cheryl Hodge, principal planner and new growth manager in the city's Community Development Department, briefed the council on the Upper West Side proposal and the larger set of county projects in the Natomas Basin. Hodge said Sacramento County currently has three pending development proposals that together total more than 7,400 acres and roughly 34,000 residential units. Hodge said the Upper West Side specific plan alone covers just over 2,000 acres, proposes about 9,356 dwelling units, an estimated future population of just over 25,000 residents and about 3,100,000 square feet of commercial uses.

"Upper West Side would result in exceeding the development cap of 17,500 acres for Natomas Basin," Hodge told council, citing the City of Sacramento's Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan and the incidental‑take permits that underlie the plan. She added the proposal would encroach into the one‑mile Swainson's‑hawk buffer zone and affect roughly 975 acres of Swainson's‑hawk foraging habitat.

Why it matters

The city framed its opposition around three interlocking concerns: (1) legal and biological commitments under the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and a 2002 memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the county that the city says designates the city as the appropriate urbanizer for Natomas; (2) no signed service or water agreement with the city for the scale of development proposed; and (3) transportation and public‑safety infrastructure that the county's plan assumes but has not guaranteed.

Hodge told the council the county application assumes water service would be provided by the city of Sacramento under a future agreement that "does not exist today nor has there been any formal commitment to provide that water supply." She also noted fire protection assumptions that rely on the Natomas Fire Protection District and an initial reliance on City Station 43 in North Natomas, and a projected need for 25 sheriff's officers and a future sheriff substation if the plan proceeds.

Public comment

The council heard 35 public speakers. Speakers included environmental groups, longtime Natomas residents, farmers and business and labor representatives. Many speakers urged council to oppose the plan, citing threatened habitat, flood risk, traffic and the lack of funding for schools and other public facilities. Heather Fargo, president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento and a former Sacramento mayor, asked the council to "approve the resolution before you and send a letter to the county clearly opposing the Upper West Side project." ECOS representatives and multiple neighborhood speakers described the proposal as sprawling greenfield development that would undermine regional infill and the HCP's mitigation framework.

Several speakers, including farmers with property in the area and representatives of a construction labor union, urged a different approach. Doyle Radford Jr., a construction union official, asked the council to remain neutral and to encourage the city and county to cooperate rather than escalate the dispute. Farmers who farm the Boot/Upper West Side parcels said portions of the land are no longer viable for agriculture and argued the project would preserve other farmland elsewhere as mitigation.

Council debate and findings

Council members emphasized the city's long history of engagement in Natomas. Council members noted the 2002 MOU, the 2003 HCP, and the incidental‑take permits that the city says rely on a development cap in the basin. Several council members said those agreements link habitat mitigation to development that has already been authorized for portions of the basin and that additional uncoordinated development could jeopardize the mitigation strategy and the city's ability to issue permits for previously authorized projects.

Council members also focused on gaps in the county's planning documents as presented to the city: the absence of a signed water service agreement, an unfunded or incomplete strategy for roads and interchange improvements (including impacts to Garden Highway and the I‑80/West El Camino area), the need for new fire and law enforcement capacity, and school facilities. Cheryl Hodge told council staff have had more than 20 meetings with county staff and project representatives since the county filing in 2018, but that key issues remained unresolved.

Motion and vote

The council's motion authorizes the mayor to work with the city attorney's office to prepare and send a letter opposing the Upper West Side specific plan and authorizes city staff to continue working with county staff to address the city's concerns about habitat, land use, transportation, fiscal impacts, services and water supply. The motion passed with a recorded tally of 8 yes and 1 no. Council member Pluckettbaum said during debate, "I will not be supporting this letter." A second to the motion was recorded; the council did not attribute the motion or second to specific members in the posted minutes.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Authorize the mayor to execute and deliver a letter of opposition to the Upper West Side specific plan and direct staff to continue negotiations with county staff over outstanding concerns. - Outcome: Passed, 8 yes — 1 no. - Recorded no vote: Council member Pluckettbaum.

Next steps

Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors was scheduled to consider the Upper West Side specific plan on August 20. The city's letter will be submitted to the county as part of the public record and city staff said they will continue to meet with county staff to seek resolution of the listed concerns.

What the city did not decide

The council did not approve annexation, infrastructure financing, water service commitments or any development agreements. Council members repeatedly said they remain open to working with the county on a solution that protects habitat and addresses infrastructure and fiscal commitments but that the specific plan as presented leaves key questions unanswered.

Ending

The council vote formalizes the city's opposition as the county moves to consider the proposal. City staff said they will deliver the letter and continue outreach to county leadership and to the wildlife agencies that oversee the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.