SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Sacramento County supervisors this week unanimously approved one of the largest housing developments proposed in the region in decades, authorizing a 9,300-home project west of Natomas that supporters say reflects California’s changing approach to housing production.
At the same time, the contentious debate surrounding the Upper Westside Plan underscored a competing reality: even as state housing laws increasingly push local governments toward approving new development, lawsuits, environmental concerns and local resistance continue to slow the construction of desperately needed homes.
The Upper Westside Plan would transform approximately 1,532 acres of largely agricultural land between Natomas and the Sacramento River into a mixed-use community featuring more than 9,300 homes, 3 million square feet of commercial development, educational facilities, parks and open space. Sacramento County supervisors approved the proposal Tuesday on a 5-0 vote following years of public debate and opposition.
Housing advocates increasingly point to votes like this one as evidence that California’s aggressive intervention into local housing policy is beginning to reshape decision-making at the local level.
For decades, California largely deferred land-use authority to cities and counties. Local elected officials faced strong incentives to respond to neighborhood opposition, and large housing projects often stalled or died amid concerns about density, traffic, environmental impacts and changes to community character.
Meanwhile, housing production consistently failed to keep pace with demand.
The result has been a statewide housing shortage that has contributed to soaring home prices, escalating rents and the displacement of working- and middle-class residents from many communities.
In response, California lawmakers over the last several years have enacted a series of reforms intended to increase housing production. State officials have strengthened enforcement of housing element requirements, expanded streamlining provisions and increased pressure on jurisdictions that fail to adequately plan for future housing needs.
Though controversial, those measures appear to be changing the political landscape — albeit slowly and with fits, starts, and barriers.
The approval of Upper Westside represents the type of large-scale project that many observers believe would have struggled to gain traction in a previous era.
Board Chair Rosario Rodriguez highlighted the project’s potential regional significance before casting her vote.
“This is an exceptional proposal,” Rodriguez said. “I think this is a project that will be a game changer for the region.”
Her comments reflected a growing recognition among policymakers that addressing California’s housing shortage will require substantial additions to the state’s housing stock.
Yet the circumstances surrounding the vote also highlighted why many housing experts caution against assuming that approvals alone will solve the crisis.
The meeting drew extensive public participation, with supervisors hearing 76 comments from residents and stakeholders before taking action. Because of the number of speakers, public comment periods were reduced from two minutes to one minute.
Environmental groups and neighborhood opponents argued that the proposal would come at too great a cost.
Former Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo, now president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento, challenged both the process and the project itself.
“You need to know the community opposes this project,” Fargo said. “We really feel we have not had a fair process here.”
Environmental organizations, including the Environmental Council of Sacramento and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, have opposed the proposal for years, citing concerns about habitat loss, impacts on sensitive species, wetland development and increased traffic.
The Sacramento City Council also opposed the project last year, arguing that although the development lies outside city boundaries, it could place additional strain on Sacramento’s roads and water infrastructure.
Those competing concerns illustrate the increasingly complex environment surrounding housing production in California.
Support for additional housing often collides with legitimate questions about environmental protection, infrastructure capacity and quality of life. At the same time, housing advocates argue that local opposition has historically contributed to the state’s inability to produce enough homes.
As a result, California now finds itself in a transitional period.
State policies have become more effective at encouraging — and sometimes compelling — local governments to approve housing projects.
Actually building those projects remains another matter.
County officials acknowledged that Upper Westside still faces significant hurdles before construction can begin.
Sacramento County Planning Director Todd Smith told supervisors that the proposal’s uniqueness means implementation will likely take time.
“Because this is unique and different, we know it may take some time to get off the ground,” Smith said.
He added that future modifications would need to remain consistent with the approved vision for the project.
Additional federal approvals related to wetlands development remain necessary before construction can move forward, according to county officials.
Nick Avdis, a land-use attorney representing the project’s landowners, cautioned that the timeline remains lengthy.
“It would be years before any homes would be built” under the Upper Westside Plan, Avdis told supervisors.
Legal challenges also appear likely.
According to reporting from the meeting, one speaker indicated she was prepared to contribute financially to a lawsuit challenging the project because she believed county leaders had already decided the outcome before hearing public testimony.
That prospect reflects a broader pattern playing out across California.
Even as local governments increasingly approve housing developments, opponents frequently turn to litigation, administrative appeals and additional regulatory reviews that can delay projects for years.
Housing advocates argue that such barriers undermine the state’s efforts to address affordability and homelessness.
Opponents counter that environmental safeguards and community participation remain essential protections against poorly planned growth.
The Upper Westside vote ultimately captures both sides of California’s evolving housing landscape.
State policies appear to be shifting the calculus of local decision-making and making approvals more likely for large housing projects once considered politically impossible.
At the same time, the path from approval to construction remains uncertain, shaped by federal permitting requirements, legal challenges, financing constraints and persistent local resistance.
The result is a housing system that is moving, but often slowly.
The approval of Upper Westside suggests California’s efforts to increase housing production may be having an effect.
Whether those efforts can overcome the barriers that continue to delay the homes themselves remains an open question.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
More housing for UC Davis employees to commute long distances into town.
Since when has Sacramento county EVER met a development that it didn’t like? To suggest that those a-holes are “suddenly” approving a bunch of developments because of state pressure is a lie. They’ve ALWAYS approved developments like this one – and would do so regardless of the state.
And the state has ALWAYS encouraged it (or at least did nothing to stop it).
The entire Natomas basin is a prime example of what Sacramento county approves. And prior to that, their Congressional representatives ensured that taxpayers nationwide paid for the levees which allowed that to occur.
Though in this case, they’re also apparently reneging on an earlier agreement to preserve that site.
“arge housing projects often stalled or died amid concerns about density, traffic, environmental impacts and changes to community character.”
Said as if those are irrelevant, of course.