Tension between the city of Sacramento and Sacramento County over the future of the Natomas Basin was on public display on Tuesday, as the City Council voted 8-1 to send a letter opposing the Upper Westside Specific Plan. The controversial development plan would bring nearly 9,400 homes, plus schools and millions of square feet of commercial space to farmland along Garden Highway.
More than 30 spirited speakers urged the council to oppose the plan, with only a handful speaking in support.
The project area is nicknamed “The Boot” for its shape and is bordered by Interstates 5 and 80, in unincorporated county land. County planning documents estimate it could someday be home to about 25,000 people and 8,000 employees. That is nearly the size of the City of Galt.
The agreement at the heart of the dispute
At the center of the city’s opposition is a 2002 City and County Memorandum of Understanding. Under that deal, the city and county agreed to preserve the Upper Westside area as open agricultural space while expanding within city limits.
Councilmember Roger Dickinson, who helped negotiate that promise decades ago as a county supervisor, said on Tuesday the Upper Westside proposal breaks the deal.
“We have more than enough capacity to accommodate the housing we need within the already existing footprint of the urbanized area of the city and the county,” Dickinson said.
City staff said the plan also violates the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, adopted in 1997 to protect sensitive species and allow limited development in the region.
The plan requires a one-mile protected buffer for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. According to a city analysis, the Upper Westside plan pushes deep into the one-mile Swainson’s hawk zone.
Water, traffic, and service concerns
Councilmember Karina Talamantes opposed the development that could come to the district she represents on August 12, 2025.Tony Rodriguez/CapRadio
Under the county’s proposal, water for the new development would come from the city. The city’s fire department would handle fire and emergency services, while law enforcement, animal services, and parks would be the county’s responsibility. Councilmember Karina Talamantes, who represents the Natomas area, warned that there is no formal water service agreement in place and that the plan’s assumptions about city-provided fire protection, parks, and police support have not been negotiated.
“I'm concerned about transportation to and from. People getting to their homes, I'm concerned about police services, fire services, park services and how we're going to be able to respond to 911 calls out there,” Talamantes said.
Transportation impacts were another point residents raised. Widening and interchange upgrades may take years to fund and complete, according to Talamantes.
Preservation vs. development
Joe Yager, a resident for more than 15 years, said the plan oversteps the promise made to residents in the city.
“The county is breaking its promises and ignoring regional plans… The plan builds directly inside the one-mile protected buffer zone for the Swainson hawks, undermining a critical part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan that our city has honored for 25 years,” Yager said.
High school junior McKenzie Hollander warned that the project would harm grassland birds.
“The [Swainson’s Hawk is a] group of birds that are facing the steepest population declines out of any bird group in the world due to habitat loss,” Hollander said. “Developing on land that Fish and Wildlife spent decades forming an agreement to preserve for our nature is just not what the city of Sacramento stands for.”
Former Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo, now president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento, told the council the plan is a severe danger to the vital grassy areas of the city.
“There is no reason why we can’t include nature in our plans. There is no reason why we should think that we’re the most important species in the world, and that we don’t have an obligation to make room for other species,” Fargo said.
Supporters of the project argued that the land is no longer viable for farming and that the plan includes permanent preservation of other farmland.
Joe Brazil has a family that farms in ‘the boot’. He says they have been losing money through farming for several years. He said the city should not resist the effort, as it is no longer affordable farmland.
“Upper Westside is smart growth and it’s the right move at the right time because it makes housing growth and conservation all possible at the same time,” he said.
The county released an environmental impact report for the project that says it has already sought public feedback through written comments. County officials also received testimony at multiple public hearings and planning meetings.
CapRadio has requested comment from County Supervisor Phil Serna, who represents the Natomas area on the County Board of Supervisors and supports the project, along with the project applicants. Neither Serna nor the applicants immediately responded.
The Board of Supervisors is set to vote on the project on August 20th.
Follow us for more stories like this
CapRadio provides a trusted source of news because of you. As a nonprofit organization, donations from people like you sustain the journalism that allows us to discover stories that are important to our audience. If you believe in what we do and support our mission, please donate today.
Donate Today
