Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Upper Westside Specific Plan with conditions to limit Garden Highway impacts
Summary
After a multi‑hour hearing and more than 70 public comments, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors approved the Upper Westside Specific Plan with amendments that restrict a Radio Road connection, require traffic‑safety work along Garden Highway and set aside funding for public art and future implementation steps.
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on June 16 approved the Upper Westside Specific Plan, a 1,524‑acre proposal to add housing, parks, schools and commercial areas in the Natomas area, after conditioning the plan to reduce traffic impacts and add community funding. The vote followed a full day of staff and applicant presentations and a marathon public‑comment period that ran more than three hours.
The plan would allow a mix of housing types — including high‑density units concentrated near a proposed town center — an extensive green‑belt and a linear canal park. Staff and the applicant said the project would deliver up to about 9,356 dwelling units, approximately 3.5 million square feet of employment space and 17 acres of a central park, with an emphasis on transit access and on‑site amenities.
“Good planning,” the applicant told the board in closing remarks, urging supervisors to approve the plan as a model of growth close to jobs and transit. Opponents warned the project would put new residents near freeways, reduce farmland and strain water, habitat and evacuation capacity. The hearing drew both organized opposition from conservation groups, City of Sacramento staff and many nearby residents, and strong support from landowners, builders, labor and community groups.
After deliberations the board adopted staff’s recommendation with several explicit changes. The most significant is the adoption of a circulation alternative that prevents Radio Road from becoming a full vehicular through‑route to Garden Highway; the approved version makes Radio Road emergency‑vehicle‑access only and requires traffic‑calming measures on San Juan Road and Bright Bend Road. The board also added conditions directing a safety audit and a list of potential traffic‑calming and shoulder improvements on Garden Highway, including a fair‑share funding element should traffic thresholds require shoulders between San Juan and Powerline Road.
Supervisors also asked staff and the applicant to incorporate a $500,000 minimum endowment for public art into the development agreement and financing plan, and to continue negotiating with the Natomas Unified School District to address the gap between project‑level school costs and available district resources. Staff said the DA already obligates the project to pay the county’s in‑fill fee and the project financing plan identifies the applicant’s own fair share; the board directed that the DA/implementation level financing plan return with more detail on mechanisms to prioritize funds that could accelerate the town‑center build‑out.
On habitat and biology, county environmental analysts said the project’s proposed mitigation exceeds baseline requirements under the Natomas Basin mitigation framework for several species and that the EIR found impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Conservation groups and state wildlife reviewers urged caution, saying permitting from state and federal agencies remains separate and could require additional mitigation during the regulatory phase.
On water, staff circulated an Alternative Water Supply Assessment including options with Natomas Mutual and Natomas Central water companies and noted that state approvals (e.g., water‑rights or urban‑conversion steps) would be required before later entitlement phases could proceed. The board conditioned the project to require the legal agreements and SB‑610/SB‑221‑style water confirmations at the later entitlement steps.
The planning commission and Natomas CPAC recommended approval. Board members said they voted in favor because the plan met General Plan performance criteria, brings different housing types near major job centers, and because the amendments address community traffic and funding concerns. The board’s motion passed unanimously with the added conditions.
What happens next: the development agreement and implementation‑level financing plan will be finalized and return to the board; subsequent subdivision maps and building permits will be subject to the DA, site‑specific infrastructure studies and the state/federal permitting processes described by staff.
