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.

The process for this application has been flawed from the beginning. Please read the attached Bee editorial on the flawed process.

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 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.

eComment received by the City Clerk's Office.

As a long time veterinarian of the industry, I agree with Sunny Leone and Johnson Sizemore. We need a high quality clothing optional resort like Laguna del Sol in our community, as long as it's tastefully done. It would be a great place for weddings, bar mitzvahs and photo shoots. And don't listen to Teri Burns. Isn't she one of the uptight school board members who tried to stop the erstwhile Hooter's restaurant from coming into Natomas? That establishment gave many Natomas Unified graduates their first job opportunities. Laguna del Sol is sure to do the same!

I am in support of this project. It will bring jobs and economic growth to the city.

I am an industrial real estate broker and I strongly support the Airport South Industrial Annexation. The proposed development will create jobs for builders, those in the trades and eventually up to 5,000 positions with end-user occupiers. Furthermore, industrial zoned warehousing, distribution and manufacturing facilities are needed to support the growth of Sacramento city and county and to provide valuable services to its citizenry. Contrary to popular belief, there is not an abundance of industrial zoned land available for development to meet current and future demand in the region. In fact, developable industrial land in the Sacramento region is extremely limited. West Sacramento's Southport area is now near completely built out and Metro Air Park is on track to be fully developed by the time the proposed Airport South project might get underway.
There is a serious lack of viable alternative options given that the only local areas with excess zoned industrial land are located too far from the confluence of major east-west and north-south freeways. Most remaining industrial infill land within the city or county of Sacramento is either too small or too close to residential or other sensitive receptors to make sense for a comparable development that will meet the needs of the city moving forward. The passage of Assembly Bill 98 last year has only compounded the issue and will restrict development in many otherwise logical infill locations. This project seems well positioned away from most existing sensitive receptors and will have substantial buffers from those already in place on the eastern edge of the project.
It appears that NorthPoint has been extremely thoughtful in the planning and design for this project and has clearly taken the concerns of citizens into account. Truck loading and unloading will not take place within 500' of any sensitive receptors and will also be screened from view and to prohibit any noise. This distance exceeds what is required in most areas. They plan to implement 125' setbacks in addition to a 200' city buffer near the school and existing neighborhood and erect a noise barrier. Truck traffic will likely not effect the neighborhood as the most efficient route in and out of the project will be via Interstate 5.
For all of the reasons outlined above it seems to me that support of this project is a no brainer.
- Jeff Kvarme

Hello Mayor and Sacramento City Council, I am in opposition to the Airport South Industrial Annexation Project. The title says much: it is an "industrial" project, being proposed in the wrong location. The City should stick to its long-term vision for this area, consistent with the Natomas HCP and the general plan. Protect this valuable habitat and do not bend for the financial interests of the landowner. Annexations should follow long-term planning processes (i.e., the City's current general plan), not haphazard pursuits of biased individuals/landowners. This project will be adverse for everyone but the landowner: degrade air quality, obliterate habitat for important species, degrade economic values for north Natomas and the Westlake neighborhood in particular. A vast amount of similar projects have been constructed near the airport. Time will tell if more are needed, and that time should be taken - a project like this should not be rushed. Additionally, a more appropriate location should be identified if the need is actually there. I urge you to follow the general plan, to follow the HCP, and protect the economic interest of all of the other landowners (1,000+) in the immediate area. This is not a good project. Thank you for your consideration, Gregg Ellis

I oppose this project because it’s going to give undo traffic in the area. I’ve lived in Westlake for nearly 20 years and have witnessed one bad decision after another. A lot of very interesting comments on this thread. Teri Burns .. haven’t seen this name pop-up since the infamous protest against Hooters, say about 15 years ago I imagine.

RE: Airport South Industrial Project and Annexation – Oppose

Dear Mayor McCarty and Members of the City Council:
Please honor the City’s commitments under the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) by rejecting the Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP) and related approvals when you meet on Tuesday, November 18, 2025. The proposal violates both the substance and the procedures the City agreed to in the HCP.
In 2003, the City signed the updated HCP agreement governing the conservation and development of 54,000 acres of land in Sacramento and Sutter counties. The HCP is a scientifically-based plan that attempts to preserve specific sufficient habitat for twenty-two covered sensitive wildlife species including the Threatened Swainson’s hawk, while allowing a greater part of the Basin to be developed. Under the HCP, the City of Sacramento is allowed to permit the development of about 8,500 acres (Sutter County is allowed to develop an additional 7,467 acres). The City has already approved development proposals for about 87% of its allotment with about 1,064 acres remaining. Under the HCP, 8,750 acres are designated for preservation to mitigate the impact of development projects within the Basin.
In return for the City’s agreement to implement the HCP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife provided the City with an “Incidental Take Permit” under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. The permit has and continues to allow the City to approve developments that are are consistent with the HCP.
The heart of the HCP is the map that the City agreed to that designates areas for development and areas for wildlife habitat conservation. The ASIP clearly violates the HCP because 73% of the acres proposed for the development are located within the HCP areas designated for habitat conservation.
Furthermore, the ASIP is before the City Council for approval before required studies, analysis, and review of the HCP is completed violating express procedural requirements of the agreement.
By presenting clear violations to the HCP, the ASIP presents a significant risk that the City’s Incidental Take Permit could be voided jeopardizing other development projects in the Basin the City may wish to approve later, including significant housing developments.
Furthermore, the ASIP breaks faith with the public by violating the compromise that requires that lands proposed to be part of the HCP reserve system be protected in return for the Incidental Take Permit the City received. That permit has and continues to allow development in designated parts of the Basin. It is especially inappropriate for the City to approve the ASIP after it has already approved development of about 87% of its allotted developable acres.
The materials you are being asked to approve includes unsupported findings that are facially incorrect. For example:
• The agenda materials reference General Plan provision E-5 that provides that 90% of growth be infill development with a priority on housing. The agenda materials conclude that: “The action items associated with the measure are specific to supporting infill housing projects. The proposed project does not include residential development.” First, this is not an infill project. The subject property is primarily bordered by protected habitat lands, agricultural properties, and other undeveloped lands. Constructing a large industrial development on this land that will generate significant diesel truck traffic will discourage additional housing developments in this general area, rather than encouraging them. And the project does not include any residential units. It is clear the project is neither an infill project or a project that supports residential development. (Staff report, page 10 of 14)
• The agenda materials claim the project “(p)rovides an opportunity to benefit the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan by supporting the long-term objectives of the Conservation Strategy.” This is clearly wrong. The ASIP represents a significant violation of the HCP and destroys hundreds of acres of wildlife habitat that the HCP designates for preservation. The claim this supports the HCP is ludicrous. (Staff report, page 13 of 14)
• The agenda materials also claim that “(i)mpacts related to Biological Resources would be greater under the (no project) alternative.” This assertion is also ludicrous. The project will result in a loss of 447.19 acres of habitat, 73% of which is designated in the HCP for preservation. The project does not create any replacement habitat, so this is a net loss of significant sensitive species habitat. (Draft City Council Resolution Exhibit A, page 88)
Many questions remain whether the HCP compromise is strong enough to meet its stated wildlife protection goals. Projects like the ASIP further threaten the HCP‘s efficacy, threatens the viability of the City’s Incidental Take Permit, and breaks faith with the public.
There are many other reasons to reject this project including its proximity to the Paso Verde School and the availability of significant warehouse-appropriate lands in other parts of the Basin.
There are many reasons why I am urging you to reject this ill-advised project.
Sincerely,

Corey Brown
510 21st Street
Sacramento, CA 95811

Wait, nobody from the city told me they were going to stick a nudist colony in my backyard! You guys are some sick pups. This is NOT an appropriate thing to put right next to our children. Also, these nudists lounging in the sun will be in full view of planes taking off from the airport. This will cause more jet noise, when the pilots swoop low for a good look. For Heaven's sake, how can we stop such deviant behavior in our community?

As a NUSD trustee who voted to approve the Paso Verde school site, I based that decision on the understanding that the adjacent land would continue to be open space per the pre-approved habitat conservation plan. I would never have supported an elementary school site so close to commercial truck traffic and the associated noise and air quality concerns.
I am concerned that infrastructure is significantly under capacity to serve the truck traffic associated with the project. Already WAZE and other traffic apps re-route traffic onto the surface streets if the freeway backs up. This would make neighborhoods truck routes.
I urge to you to reconsider this project for an area already approved for commercial construction. Thank you

Dear Sacramento City Council:
My name is Lynne Randolph and I live about a mile and a half from the Airport South site down El Centro Road.
I oppose putting thousands of square feet of warehousing in this residential neighborhood, next to an elementary school and across the road from another school. Del Paso Road is already congested, and this would only make it worse with hundreds of semi-trucks added into the mix.
The air quality would also be severely affected, leaving residents at the mercy of noise and constant exhaust fumes. At another public hearing, I heard one of the paid union members cite legislation that would require truck exhaust pipes to point away from residences. But with all respect, that so-called solution would be like claiming secondhand smoke doesn’t cause cancer if you don’t blow cigarette smoke directly into the face.
Simply put, developing the Airport South land with warehouses that could be placed elsewhere, would cause blight and have a permanent detrimental effect on the neighborhoods, quality of life, and land values in West Natomas forever.
As a City Council, I expect that you not simply decide where developments should be, but also protect those who are already there.
Thank you.
Lynne Randolph
470 Forastera Circle
Sacramento, CA 95834

Please review Joyce Wolff’s comments. I agree with her 100% the north Natomas area has been bombarded in recent years with new development that has had the effect of running out most of the wildlife; that has brought way more traffic to the area, making the air, more deadly, making cycling in the area, risky and giving us a lot of noise pollution as well. Are we a Progressive city, like we used to be or has the Almighty dollar going to win over the health of our citizens?

I stand firmly against the industrial park, but would be open to a clothing optional development. This is a good idea, why isn't it getting any coverage? How can we get the City Council to amend this proposal to give us more freedom of expression?

It would be in Natomas' best interest to support this upcoming project. This will be a economic boost for the community, bringing in many work opportunities. Not just for the construction individuals, but for the jobs that this development will create.

A YES vote would be greatly appreciated.

I strongly encourage the council to support this project. It will bring good jobs with good benefits and economic stimulus during construction and operation. Thank you for your consideration.

I greatly oppose this project!

Hello Council members,

I urge your support for the Airport South Industrial Annexation project. This project will bring much needed construction projects to our local community as well as long term jobs for Sacramento County residents. Local construction projects like this help keep our commute times down, which in turn cuts down on excessive traffic and added air pollution. Local jobs also boosts our local community by keeping workers close to home allowing them more time with family and in our local businesses. I again urge your support by voting yes on this very much needed project.

Thank you,

Lloyd Reber

Arsche Lecker’s Casa del Sol idea as a location for this has legs. The expansion would penetrate into several facets of the economy. My good friends Jade Venus and Eva Maxim would gladly volunteer to head up the permitting process.