This location is a great addition to Sacramento's Industrial Commercial Real Estate needs. The increased economic activity generated by this property will provide long-term fiscal benefits, helping support public services and community investments.

I am opposing this project because it is too close to residential property and we have not yet developed all the industrial land we already have just north of I-5 from this project.

Dear City of Sacramento Councilmembers,

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the city council to decide whether to annex the property from the County for the Airport South Industrial project (ASIP). Breathe California Sacramento Region (SacBreathe) has been active in the greater Sacramento area for over 100 years working for clean air and healthy lungs. In 2002, our Board of Directors approved our Clean Air Agenda, which outlines strategies to achieve healthy air quality for the region’s citizens. This guiding document is still used when we consider policy and land use decisions, especially with projects of magnitude such as the ASIP project.

While the concerns with this project are many, we would like to highlight a few that have been deemed as unable to be mitigated, resulting in harmful air quality impacts.

The Airport South Industrial project and other large developments currently being proposed in the Natomas basin, conflict with other long standing governmental plans, including the Air Quality Plan and General Plans. These developments would significantly reduce open land in Natomas and change Sacramento County's General Plan from agricultural to residential/commercial uses, which has a significant impact on traffic and air quality. In addition, the project would impede our ability to comply with state and federal air quality standards and interfere with implementing the Air Quality Plan. In the ASIP, it is made clear that the project's air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable. If our region fails to meet health-based air quality standards, we will lose federal (and state) transportation dollars, compounding the air quality and traffic crisis already present in the region.

Breaking through the Urban Services Boundary (USB) at this point is unacceptable. This boundary, established three decades ago, is based on jurisdictional, natural, and environmental factors that contain urban growth. It is intended to be a permanent growth boundary and is a crucial component of our region’s air quality strategy. This proposed project would breach the USB, which is meant to be adjusted solely for "extraordinary projects." It seems unreasonable to think that all available land within the USB has been exhausted for development.

The Airport South Industrial project conflicts with SACOG's Blueprint. For those that remember engaging with the SACOG Blueprint process, this was a community-driven activity. The residents gave feedback in multiple settings on how they felt the region should grow. They clearly expressed their preference for how dollars should be invested in communities first before jumping over long standing and agreed to growth boundaries. It still holds true today. As of April 2024, SACOG's selected land use scenario for the 2025 MTP/SCS does not include the Upper Westside, Airport South Industrial, or Grand Park - it excludes all future development.

We urge City of Sacramento to be leaders in the quest for sustainable development. By not investing in our existing communities and developing on land already approved for these uses seems irresponsible. Leap frog development with unavoidable health and environmental impacts will not make Sacramento a desirable destination. Our air will suffer and so will the residents that live and breathe here.

We respectfully request that City of Sacramento not approve any projects that contain unavoidable health impacts. We know that we can do better and we welcome the opportunity to work together for a healthy, connected region.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Finton, CEO

Whoa, as Snoop Dog would say,”hold on just a minusle.” This project is plan to be next to school kids, right? And a bus stop, right? Have y’all even thought about the traffic mess it would cause? And building a warehouse would only attract a bad element. I oppose - and hope you do too.

To the City Council, please consider:

This development is too close to the elementary school and the residential neighborhood. It could be relocated further north or to another parcel. There are many vacant parcels in the area around the airport. Most of the comments favoring this proposal come from those who don't live in the area but are wanting jobs that will be involved in the construction of the project. There are many residents and parents of school children who have voiced important valid concerns about the impact of this project. In the best interests of the citizens of North Natomas, please vote "No."

As a long time truck driver, I agree with Sunny Leone and Chris Brown. 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!

There are several reasons that this project should be supported. While well intentioned, i dont believe that many in opposition to this project truly realize and understand all of the key reasons why this project and this location are better suited for industrial development versus most other properties in the region. While i could cite dozens i will just name a few here.
*Proximate and near a flight path - cant build more housing under flight path and the ag land viability compared to other ag sites in the region is limited at best. Most of this land has been fallow for years. I would ask and argue.... what better use could you build on this site...
*Metro Air Park Across highway was supposed to be a 20-30 year build out. In less than 10 years over 60% of the industrial land has been built and the currently vacant property will be absorbed in the next couple of years. Sacramento does NOT have a bunch of extra industrial land laying around (as many opposition folks suggested).
*Immediate access to highway and proximity to I-5 & I-80 & airport (you couldn't ask for a better situation) - this means less truck miles traveled, not driving miles off freeway to warehouse, proximity to related services cutting down trip miles.
*Proposed development is separated by not only a drainage canal but a large buffer of land between the projects. its not like the truck would be driving through their neighborhoods.
*These industrial projects take years to get approved. if we dont have sufficient supply of land for future development then Sacramento becomes less competitive

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.

Sacramento needs to grow smarter rather than just bigger. Please focus on in-fill projects that can be done within the City limits. The Airport South project is building out thus creating more traffic issues and air quality degradation. The proposed development is on land set aside from natural habitat protection. Also, the housing being built will not be affordable to many Sacramento residents and will continue to attract people from outside the area and encourage urban sprawl. Please focus on affordable housing that protects the environment. Regional Transit does not have the funds to keep expanding into new areas and our traffic congestion air pollution will get worse. On top of this, the warehouses in the area are already congesting the roads and eventually necessitate more freeway miles. Please stop the madness.

I am in support of the proposed Metro South project. Annexation of this site represents a strategic opportunity to align land use, infrastructure investment, and economic development that benefits both the city and the surrounding community.

Bringing this property into the city limits will allow for essential modern industrial operations, facilities that attract high-quality industrial users who contribute to the local tax base, support job creation, and strengthen the region’s position in logistics, warehousing, and advanced manufacturing. In addition, the increased economic activity generated by this property will provide long-term fiscal benefits, helping support public services and community investments.

Respected Council Members,
Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood Association (GNNA) is in strong opposition to the current Airport South Project.. : We want to stress the adverse effects on the local community's quality of life, including increases in traffic, and the transformation of the community character. GNNA Suggest exploring alternative sites that are better suited for industrial development without the associated risks and conflicts. We encourage the use of already zoned industrial areas and infill opportunities that would not only meet the need for industrial space but also contribute to the revitalization of areas within the city.
Additionally, GNNA would like to see residents, especially those directly affected, participate in public meetings, submit comments, express their concerns and come up with viable solutions. GNNA would like to see the planning commission and developers work together to find a solution that balances economic development with community safety, environmental sustainability, and quality of life.
GNNA believe by presenting a well-rounded argument that incorporates these elements, you can make a compelling case to the planning commission and local officials to reconsider or modify the proposed project to better align with community values and legal standards

Marbella Sala
Marbella Sala, President
GNNA

Hon. McCarty and Council Members,

I strongly support the Metro South project and the proposed annexation. This initiative represents a strategic opportunity to align land use planning, infrastructure investment, and economic growth in a way that benefits both the city and the surrounding community.

Bringing this property into the city limits will enable the development of modern industrial facilities totaling nearly 5 million square feet, attracting high-quality businesses that strengthen Sacramento’s position in logistics, warehousing, and advanced manufacturing. At full buildout, the project is projected to create over 2,500 permanent jobs, providing employment opportunities for local residents and contributing to regional prosperity.

In addition, the economic activity generated by this project will deliver substantial fiscal benefits, including millions of dollars annually in property and sales tax revenue, helping fund public services and community improvements.

For these reasons, I believe annexation is in the best interest of the city and its residents, and I respectfully ask for your approval of this project.

This location is a perfect addition to our growing Industrial Commercial Real Estate Needs. This growth in this area creates the density needed to draw tenants from around the state and the nation. This successfully addresses the growth that we need for businesses moving to Sacramento from the Bay Area and growing from locations around the country, to bring jobs and revenue to the area to service our growing needs.

This project is vital to this area's economic development and the developer has done a good job reworking based on the feedback from the neighbors. This project is needed to help bring more advanced manufacturing to area and will bring much needed tax revenue to the region.

Attached is a note on warehousing from the previous meeting from ECOS: I’m here along with many to urge you to reject the Airport South Industrial Project and its Annexation into the City. Approving this project would mean amending the General Plan, expanding city infrastructure, and violating the intent of the NBHCP — all to allow warehouse development we simply do not need at this location
I’ve identified plenty of sites — totaling over 1113 acres — of vacant or underutilized industrial-zoned land already within 5 miles of the airport which are available for use. Additionally, 65% of that land is within just 2 miles of the Sacramento Airport. These parcels are closer to existing services, don’t put pressure on wildlife preserves, and don’t place diesel truck corridors near the 2 neighboring elementary schools and neighborhoods all of which are within an average 1-minute walking distance of the planning site. That one minute would include the buffer the plan accounts for which is roughly the length of this room.
And to the argument that even if there is existing warehousing nearby, Airport South still addressed the need of commercial sites and hotels, I would like to remind us all that Metro Air Park still has 472 acres available for buildout for the same reasons. To bring that into perspective, if even half of that was to be allocated to hotels with 200-300 rooms, we could have 23 hotels in the area.
This project is not meeting a gap. It’s replacing smarter options with more harmful ones. State planning guidance under SB 375 and the Memorandum of Use between the City and the County for Natomas require you to avoid inducing sprawl when feasible alternatives exist. And here they do. This project doesn’t pass the environmental or planning test when better options are on the table. This is not a valid basis for General Plan amendments, annexation, and rezoning.
Today, you set a precedent for how Sacramento handles future development. A “yes” to this project tells the public that speculative warehouse sprawl is more important than the health of our neighborhoods, our children, our farmland, and our wildlife. It says that a developer can submit an Environmental Impact Report that ignores critical legal and environmental obligations — and still get their way.
Please stand with the public, not against it. Vote no. Thank you.
Thank you.

As a resident of the City of Sacramento, former Wildlife and Fisheries Biologist, a retired Emergency Preparedness Manager and an interested citizen, I urge you to reject this proposal.
The proposed project flies in the face of good land use planning. It would site huge industrial warehouses next to an existing school and residential neighborhood, in close proximity to a Federal Interstate Freeway, close to other existing warehouse development and the Sacramento International Airport.
How would you feel if this project were located next to your children’s, grandchildren’s, or your school or home? Would you recommend that your friends or loved ones invest in homes or property in the nearby area? Please learn from the devastation caused by the explosion in the Esparto warehouse. Had that happened in these proposed warehouses next to a school, a dense residential area and busy highway, hundreds of our city’s precious children and residents could have been killed or injured. The incorrect storage or use of chemicals, not necessarily fireworks or explosives could result in the same or a more devastating disaster.
Evacuation due to any disaster would result in an additional disaster!!! Risking more lives and property is NOT the smart direction to take! YOUR decision is critical and must be well thought-out. YOU are charting the route for the future of this area.
In addition, this proposed project is located outside the Urban Services Boundary and conflicts with existing land use and habitat plans; creates airspace hazards, detrimental noise and wildlife impacts; poses major safety issues; eliminates agricultural land and open space. Is there water available to support the development or for emergency use? The proposal is for up to 6,609,300 square feet of industrial uses for which there has not even been a demonstrated need. In fact, there are existing vacant industrial sites located to the north of I-5 as well as zoned industrial areas within The City of Sacramento to accommodate any need and provide infill, a goal of good urban planning.
Ignoring the safety hazards to the neighboring residences and school children, existing land use plans, multi- jurisdictional habitat plans and the urban services boundary, as well as losing prime agricultural land and habitat for this development proposal would be a detriment to the neighboring communities, the city, the airport, the county and the region. The citizens of the region will suffer from your incorrect decision.
Please reject this proposal- it is a travesty! Thank you, Selby Mohr

Although the area adjacent to the proposed project is not in your district, you still have an ethical obligation to city residents to follow the pre-existing agreements that are in effect for the proposed project location.

Please vote no on the Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP) in Natomas.

I strongly oppose this project because:

It's outside the Urban Limit Line in an area where agreements were made that development would never occur. The Plan is inconsistent with the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan, City General Plan, County General Plan, SACOG Blueprint, Urban Services Boundary, Air Quality Plan, and Metropolitan Transportation Plan. If approved, it will set a dangerous precedent for approving more projects outside the Urban Limit Line. Why are we violating our long-held Urban Services Boundary for the sake of the commercial interests of a few investors?

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

According to the EIR on this project, the additional traffic and trucking could easily exceed the acceptable level of particulate pollution. This dirty project will be adjacent to an elementary school and neighborhood, exposing children and adults to diesel pollution.

The environmental document did not evaluate alternative sites for the ASIP project. There are more appropriate industrial-zoned locations for warehousing projects. You should consider alternatives, such as pursuing infill and renovation of aging facilities such as Blue Diamond and Arden Arcade, or the area previously occupied by Mather air force base.

The construction industry is already benefiting from the many new projects planned at Metro Air Park. There are plenty of additional appropriate sites for this project on the north side of I-5. The industry will not suffer from fewer jobs if this site is not chosen for this project, as the work will be available regardless of where the project is placed.

Thank you for your consideration of these points.

Hon. McCarty and Council,
I am in support of the proposed Metro South project. Annexation of this site represents a strategic opportunity to align land use, infrastructure investment, and economic development that benefits both the city and the surrounding community.

Bringing this property into the city limits will allow for essential modern industrial operations, facilities that attract high-quality industrial users who contribute to the local tax base, support job creation, and strengthen the region’s position in logistics, warehousing, and advanced manufacturing. In addition, the increased economic activity generated by this property will provide long-term fiscal benefits, helping support public services and community investments.

I believe this annexation is in the best interest of the city and its residents and respectfully encourage approval of this project.

Sacramento City Council,
I write this in strong support of the proposed Airport South Industrial Annexation. This is a significant economic opportunity not only for the City, but for the entire region to attract new jobs, revenue, and generate further economic output. Immediate access off a major freeway as well as nearby proximity to the airport makes this site ideal for new and growing business occupancy. In prior hearings, the existing farmers and landowners have reiterated that traditional agriculture on this land is no longer viable due to nearby airport restrictions and increasing residential encroachment. This project puts the underutilized land to its highest and best use, delivering industrial and professional occupancy opportunities that are already in short supply throughout the region. By doing this, it will strengthen Sacramento’s competitive position in not only the logistics and supply-chain economy, but in many other ancillary businesses. Overall, the impact of the expanded the tax base, thousands of quality jobs, and ongoing contribution to the region cannot be understated.

I submit in favor of this project. In order for Sacramento to continue to move forward as a City on the rise we need to bring additional Employers here that aren't the government. In order for that to happen we need to provide additional warehouse space so future employer's do not venture to central valley, reno and/or other areas. Sacramento has so much to offer as a wonderful place to live.