I strongly oppose the proposed Airport South Industrial Project. As a Westlake Park resident, I clearly see the proposed project is detrimental to environment and quality of life not only to the Westlake Park's 1600 residents in 934 homes, but also other residents of Natomas (please see the Letter of Opposition dated 10/16/25 from the member-elected Board of Directors of Westlake Master Association which was sent to Mayor and City Council). That letter itself stands for 1600 count for opposition. In short, the proposed project is unmindful and rampant commercialization by developers. Your "No" vote on 2nd December, will carry a profound message to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. sent by Ketan Shah

I have been a Westlake resident for 23 years and completely opposed this project. It is not the right location for this project due to the proximity to our homes and school. Air pollution is a huge factor that will impact our community leading to asthma and respiratory problems. In addition, long-term exposure correlates with higher rates of cardiovascular disease and premature death for nearby residents. That alone should be why you vote NO!

For everyone who wrote letter supporting the project because of bringing jobs to Sacramento that is NOT a reason to jeopardize the health and well-being of the residents of Westlake and the children of Paso Verdes Elementary School. There are other locations in Sacramento that are already zones for warehouse so why this parcel?? Why this land when there are many warehouses across the freeway that are still vacant. The only reason is the land owner and developer are pushing for what they want. The land is farmland, zoned for farmland and agreed upon for years that it would remain that way. Value the plans that were made for Sacramento and vote NO!

If you haven't driven out to the actual site, I urge you to see for yourself how ridiculous this proposal would be for Sacramento! Let's protect the health of school children and residents! Vote No, it is the only decent vote!

Debra Ryan
Westlake Resident

I am a resident of North Natomas and I do not support the development of Airport South Industrial Annexation. We need to preserve our natural habitat and farmland that remain, as there is very limited space to enjoy nature. We have so many locations already that aren't occupied and available; therefore it makes little sense to create new infrastructure that we will need to fund and support while we are already in a deficit.

We need to think about the future we want for Natomas; is building more warehouses the best use of our resources, when we could invest in making improvements to our existing infrastructures such as our public libraries, and community center. Do we want more warehouses when we could have third places, or places for communities to gather, and things for our kids and young adults to do? And are these warehouse jobs going to pay our community enough that they can afford to work and live within Natomas? Or will it be more low wage positions that require long commutes on our already congested roads and highways? Not to mention the additional wear and tear this will have on our crumbling roadways.

It appears that those who have the most to gain from this project are the wealthy developers who wont have to live with the choices they make. Therefore I strongly oppose this development and hope that we as a community are heard. We are speaking out not only for ourselves, but also the generations to come that will ultimately inherit the choices we are making.

Hello,
I am writing to ask you to vote no on this project. We do not need more sprawl. We need to finally abide by our planning documents like both the City and County General Plans, and the Urban Services Boundary. Did you realize that this project is next to a school? The County has done nothing but roll over for developers for years. Please don't help them do it again. Vote no on Airport South Industrial Project.
Sincerely,
Luke Wilson

I am a resident of North Natomas and I strongly oppose the Airport South Industrial Annexation for several reasons.

The first is the environmental damage this will do to our increasingly shrinking natural world around us. The land is critical habitat for the endangered Swainson Hawk, Giant Garter Snake, Western Burrowing Owl, and home to many others who find their habitat increasingly shrinking. Neighbors complain about the Coyotes walking around Natomas, but if we keep developing land like we are, where do we expect them to go?

The second is why are we going to turn prime farmland into another paved over urban horror? People keep saying we don't have enough warehouses, but one thing we can never get back is fertile soil. We can pave over anywhere, but we can't recreate soil fertility.

Third, we already rank 7th for worst air quality in the state. Adding more industrial within the community will continue to bring down the air quality and harm the health of residents within the region. In addition, it hasn't been clear what kind of warehouses these will be. If these end up being Data Centers, the amount of harm that will be done to our communities health will be irreparable. In addition to consuming power, they also consume fresh water, a critical resource we are short on.

Finally, we keep hearing that this will create needed jobs. However, the recent jobs data shows that "warehousing led all industries in October cuts, announcing 47,878 job cuts". A major reason for these job cuts was warehouses being automated or converted into data centers. Are we willing to risk our health, our environment, and our well-being for a potentially empty promise of more "jobs"?

I am writing to ask you to vote no on the Airport South Industrial Project in Natomas.

I oppose this project because the infrastructure of North Natomas does not match the current growth and more does not need to be added. We should be not adding a busy industrial area near schools and neighborhoods. This will only cause more traffic, and change the environment of an established neighborhood. The wildlife area Natomas is beautiful and should be protected.

This warehousing project is located next to a school, homes, and wildlife habitat. Impacts to neighbors include noise, lighting, air pollution, traffic, more trucks in the neighborhoods and more trucks on I-5.

The Plan is inconsistent with the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan, City General Plan, County General Plan, SACOG Blueprint, Urban Services Boundary, Air Quality Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

The City should not develop farmland into warehouses, there are better, industrial-zoned locations for warehousing projects. It should pursue infill and renovation of aging facilities such as Blue Diamond and Arden Arcade. Or should put additional warehouses at Mather because there is an airport there already.

More warehousing outside the urban core sucks jobs and business out of existing industrial areas.

I object to putting developer profits over sensible growth and community health. Only the property owner/developer benefits from this project.

The project will be bad for the health of Natomas residents, particularly the children at the next-door Paso Verde school and the neighboring residential community.

I am writing to respectfully oppose the Airport South Industrial Project as currently proposed. I have lived in Natomas for many years, and my children have attended Paso Verde School.

I have serious concerns about the impact on public health, quality of life, environmental sustainability, loss of habitat for wildlife, and the long-term planning for future land use in Natomas and Sacramento.

The massive placement of warehouses and diesel truck operations directly beside family homes and a K-8 school is a public safety and environmental hazard.

This project creates significant and unavoidable impacts on the air we breathe, is harmful to children who attend school right next door and play outside, and on the families, including vulnerable seniors, who live in the region.

The 125-foot dirt strip buffer being proposed is ineffective. Diesel exhaust and pollution do not stop at 125 feet, it should be at least a mile buffer, if not more.

Children, families, residents, elderly, teachers, and workers will be breathing the results of diesel pollution for years to come if the project is approved. Paso Verde School’s children should not be in close contact with the increased noise, pollution, and traffic. Wildlife will continue to flee the area.

Why must we industrialize an area directly next to existing homes and a school? Can’t infill or other already zoned development land be used to revitalize economic areas instead?

I strongly urge you to protect families and schoolchildren from the harmful effects of noise, air pollution, and increased traffic congestion, and to reject this project at this location next to a school. Paso Verde School’s teachers, kids, families, and area families that use the park, play outdoors, and live in the region deserve better.

Build further out, drastically increase the buffer, or use land that is already being used for that purpose and revitalize areas that need it. Please vote no and preserve our open space, air quality, and protect our school kids.

As a resident of Natomas. I strongly urge you to vote no on this project. This project is too close to neighborhoods and schools. There are other better areas that can be redeveloped for a project like this. Natomas does not have the insfrastructre to support this project and with current budget deficit the city is facing it will not be remedied anytime soon. It is not a well-thought-out project. We do not need additional warehouses in our region (so many nearby are still empty), and we especially do not need them near our neighborhoods and schools. The noise, air, and environmental pollution that this project is sure to cause, would destroy our home and property values, as well as harm local residents and school children. We should be protecting the natural habit around Natomas that makes it great not develop and destroy it. Please put yourself in our shoes and vote. No for this project. Thank you.

Good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor and kCouncil. This project is a huge plus for Sacramento and the Natomas area. Permanent jobs, careers, construction jobs will be created but this project. Sacramento and the Natomas area is rapidly growing with the all the housing projects being built in the area. A project like this is greatly needed, I urge the Council to fove yest because this is a win win for this community! Thank You Alexander Hampton

People keep posting attachments about this dumb warehouse project, but I have not yet seen the design of the alternate use, which is the nudist colony. Can someone post that map please? I have known the Leone sisters since they were young and new in the business. If they think this resort plan is a good idea, I'm all in.
-Frank

As somebody who has traveled the world and witnessed projects that are far more economical and worthy, I really hope the city Council votes this proposal down in a big way. The merit’s not withstanding, this thing looks like it was put together like a Saturday morning cartoon show.

My sister Sunny and I have lived in Westgate (coincidentally right down the street from Lisa Kaplan) - and I have never read a more outrageous building proposal in all my life. I hope the council rejects this idea. Too much traffic, not enough oversight.

Last I checked, farmland is a dwindling resource, not only in Natomas, but in the entire region. Building a warehouse does not make any sense at all. As somebody who has raised a family in this area for the last 33 years, I urge the council to vote No.

I oppose the proposed Airport South Industrial Project. We don’t need another fancy looking building in Natomas that will end up looking like a dump in a few years.

The opposition to the Airport South Industrial Project is both deep and region wide. Your constituents have demonstrated their desire for you to vote NO on this project in letters sent directly to you and e-comments sent to the City Clerk.

Attached is a document visualizing the 1,550 signatories who petitioned against this project.

I urge you to vote no on adopting Airport South Industrial as part of the city. Why are we using up all our prime farmland to build distribution centers for Amazon? Why are we violating our long-held Urban Services Boundary for the sake of the commercial interests of a few investors?

According to the EIR on this project, the additional traffic and trucking could easily take the particulate pollution over the acceptable level and trigger a mitigation. This dirty project will back up against an elementary school and neighborhood, exposing the residents to diesel pollution.

The industrial footprint this project will put species of birds, reptiles and animals at risk by removing the habitat that has protected them for over 25 years. Also, putting a large industrial development in the middle of farmland will further devalue the surrounding land and make it more vulnerable to development. It is a lynchpin.

Once we lose the natural and agricultural land, it will be gone forever. It is not worth it. It is bad for the city. Please vote no on ASI.

On behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, please see our attached letter of support for the Airport South Industrial Annexation Project. Thank you for your time and consideration.

On behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, Please see our attached letter of support for the Airport South Industrial Annexation Project. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am opposed to the ASI annexation & project. See Attached Comment letter and Powerpoint slideset. This site is TWICE the size of the Railyards. There is no compelling tenant or need to build on this much AG land right next to residents and a school when plenty of Metro Air Park & Natomas vacant MFG land is nearby. This site has far more "climate" value as ag & wildlife habitat. The EIR identifies many Significant Unavoidable health & air quality risks to local residents from ASI. Also its estimated water demand is a huge 280,000 gal/day & electricity usage is ~198,190 KWh/day - which means ASI could become an AI data center. The EIR did not evaluate for this use. Conditions need to be imposed to protect residents from utility rate increases due to ASI water & utility needs (a problem in other cities). Also, the applicant knew this land was outside the USB when bought. If approved, this precedent will cause every other developer to buy cheaper land and request USB changes too. Then Natomas's vacant land will be bypassed. This unwanted annexation demonstrates yet another City "Broken Promise" for Natomas. The City "pretends" there is a North Natomas Community Plan but rarely follows it.

Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A
Sacramento, CA, 95820, as well as q spa, located at 4215 Norwood avenue, suite #12, sacramento, ca, 95838, They will all claim that they are too busy for you.