Sacramento fights back and opposes the county’s terrible Natomas project | Opinion
In the first time in modern history, and perhaps ever, the Sacramento City Council on Tuesday voted to oppose a housing project contemplated in neighboring Sacramento County.
It was the right thing to do. A proposal to build a 25,000-person community next to Garden Highway known as Upper Westside, on lands the city long ago had designated for preservation, is contrary to so many things Sacramento stands for. But it places its relationship with the county in new and unfamiliar territory.
The county isn’t accustomed to being told by the city what to do. Then again, it was a different board of supervisors 23 years ago that unanimously agreed to place the city in charge of future growth decisions in the 60,000-acre Natomas Basin surrounding the Sacramento International Airport.
One of those supervisors at the time was Roger Dickinson, who represented Natomas. Now Dickinson is in his first year on the city council. He was among the eight council members voting to send this yet-to-be-drafted opposition letter. And he hopes the current board of supervisors will constructively listen.
“When we take action that expands the urban footprint in a significant way, we undercut our own commitment to try to ensure we have a liveable, breathable future for the generations that follow us,” Dickinson said.
Developing here or on any of the county farmlands in Natomas, Dickinson said, was never contemplated by the county during his 16 years on the board. “The county,” he said, “was to be the agent of preservation.”
But now, in Sacramento County’s growth politics, the roles are dangerously reversed.
It has been the county in recent years, led by Dickinson’s successor, Phil Serna, that has become the agent of additional growth in Natomas. And the city now finds itself challenging the development ambitions as directed by Serna, who made his living in the development community until taking this public office in 2010. Serna’s Natomas growth agenda conflicts with the city’s own commitments to prevent growth within a mile of the Sacramento River and for any urban expansions to be led by the city, not the county.
An agreement taken seriously
Nick Avdis, the Sacramento attorney representing Upper Westside, told councilmembers Tuesday that 2002 city-county growth planning strategy, known as the Natomas Joint Vision, “was a non-binding agreement.”
But most city council members seem to think that agreement means something important to this day.
“I absolutely take it very seriously,” said Karina Talamantes, the councilmember representing South Natomas. “It was a resolution that was adopted by two bodies of government.”
Upper Westside is the first major development under review by the county to get close to a vote. Supervisors could consider the project as early as August 20. This city council waited until the final minute to find its voice in defense of Natomas. But it did.
“Why are we moving forward with (Upper Westside) when it’s ass backwards?” asked the councilmember to the project’s north, Lisa Kaplan. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
She is, of course, right. In her comments, Kaplan spoke of how Upper Westside does not have a committed water supply from the city. It has no agreement with the Natomas Unified School District to help pay additional funds for four needed schools. There are also questions about whether interchange widenings would ever get built at Interstate 80 and El Camino Avenue or I-5 at Garden Highway.
“This may be an unprecedented move to pass a resolution like this,” said Heather Fargo, a former mayor and project opponent. “But this project is also unprecedented.”
The only councilmember to oppose sending the county the letter was Phil Pluckebaum, representing downtown and East Sacramento. Pluckebaum received the legally maximum contribution from Avdis’ spouse, $2,050, in his successful bid to wrest the council seat from incumbent Katie Valenzuela. Money from Avdis and other development interests proved crucial to narrowly ousting Valenzuela in the March 2024 primary.
As for the city’s stated concerns about Upper Westside, “none of these are, from my point of view…absolute deal killers for this project,” Pluckebaum said.
Pluckebaum was conveniently avoiding how two pillars of city planning are in complete conflict with Upper Westside. One is how the city’s general plan envisions providing services like water only when lands become part of the city, allowing the city to decide how and whether to grow as opposed to the county determining that in advance. And the other is how the city agreed to preserve that mile-wide river corridor for habitat as part of a 50-year plan with wildlife agencies that has enabled the stunning growth around the airport in recent decades.
An awkward position
That the county has so disrespected city planning by advancing Upper Westside now puts them all in an uncomfortable position. And on Tuesday afternoon, Councilmember Mai Vang was feeling it.
“I hate that we have to be in this situation, when we could be in partnership,” Vang said. “When things like this happen, it really just erodes the trust of the public, when public entities aren’t working well together.”
Dickinson, who is the elder statesman of county politics, sees a ray of hope. He longs for an opportunity where “we can take a step back for the moment and re-imagine what is the outcome that can serve all of us to the maximum extent possible.”
Is Dickinson onto something? It would require the county to table or outright kill Upper Westside.
Serna, looking more out of touch by the day, clearly doesn’t get it.
Can something good happen from a bad idea? Let’s hope so. We will soon find out. More to come.
This story was originally published August 12, 2025 at 6:51 PM.