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.

These property owners are mostly out-of-town land speculators. They aren't going to care about the impact to our community after they have paved over our farmland and made their millions.

Property Owners: NP Map Land Holding Company LLC, 3315 N Oak Trafficway, Kansas City, MO
64116; JTS Engineering Consultants Inc Profit Sharing Plan, 1808 J St, Sacramento, CA 95811;
Anthony J. Scalora Jr., Trustee of the Survivor's Trust and Family Trust, 18807 Allendale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070; Ashok Patel Family Revocable Living Trust, 10924 Cresson St, Norwalk, CA
90650; Michael S Isgur Separate Share Trust, 4621 Dorchester Ln, Granite Bay, CA 96746, Lolly R
Sangster Living Trust, 7654 Allegro Ln, San Diego, CA 92127

To the Honorable Mayor McCarty and Members of the Sacramento City Council:
I submit this written comment in strong opposition to the Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP) (Agenda Item 11), which seeks to annex approximately 447-475 acres of agricultural land into the City of Sacramento for development of up to 6.6 million square feet of industrial warehouse facilities. As a concerned citizen, neighbor of the proposed project, and stakeholder in the Sacramento region, I respectfully urge the Council to VOTE NO on this project due to multiple legal violations, violations of prior public promises, substantial environmental harms, and minimal public benefits to the City.
VIOLATIONS OF ESTABLISHED PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND REGIONAL AGREEMENTS:
1. SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICY AG-5 VIOLATION
Sacramento County General Plan Policy AG-5 requires mitigation for conversion of more than 50 acres of farmland on a 1:1 ratio for Prime and Statewide Importance farmlands. This project involves approximately 450 acres of agricultural land that has been historically used for hay fields and rice production. The project, however, has identified no adequate mitigation lands or conservation easements to satisfy Policy AG-5 requirements. This is a clear violation of applicable County law and planning policy.
Policy AG-5 specifically mandates: "Projects resulting in the conversion of more than fifty (50) acres of farmland shall be mitigated within Sacramento County based on a 1:1 ratio, for the loss of prime, statewide importance, unique, local importance, and grazing farmlands located outside the USB." The Board of Supervisors does not retain discretionary authority to override or waive impacts to Prime and Statewide farmlands. Yet this project proposes precisely such conversion without identifying adequate mitigation.
2. URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY (USB) VIOLATION - 32-YEAR COMMUNITY COMMITMENT
The proposed project is located entirely outside the Urban Services Boundary, established by Sacramento County in 1993 as a permanent and binding boundary for urbanization. The USB was created specifically with the intent and purpose to protect prime and important farmlands from conversion, preserve FEMA-identified flood zones, maintain agricultural operations and open space for future generations, and prevent inefficient urban sprawl.
The project site lies in an area explicitly designated to remain outside the USB due to its high agricultural value, flood risk, and environmental conservation significance. This boundary has been in place for 32 years and represents a fundamental and binding community commitment to future generations. As former Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo stated: "Developers are ignoring all of the past discussions and debates and decisions and want to build here anyway." Approval of this project would betray that long-standing promise made to the community to protect this land from urbanization.
3. 2002 NATOMAS JOINT VISION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING VIOLATION
On December 10, 2002, the Sacramento City Council and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors formally approved a binding Memorandum of Understanding establishing fundamental and complementary roles: the City as the primary agent of development within identified urban areas and the County as the agent of permanent open space, habitat preservation, and farmland/ranchland conservation outside the City's development envelope.
This project directly violates that core agreement by proposing urban industrial development in an area explicitly designated for agricultural preservation under the MOU framework. The 2002 MOU specifically recognized the public need to "accommodate future growth while preserving open space and agricultural lands through coordinated planning and regional collaboration." This project circumvents that carefully negotiated and agreed-upon collaborative framework and fundamentally breaks the public trust established over 23 years ago.
4. NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (NBHCP) VIOLATION
The NBHCP, legally adopted in 1997 and revised in 2003, established a development cap of 17,500 acres of urban development in the Natomas Basin. This development cap was divided as follows: 8,050 acres for the City of Sacramento, 7,467 acres for Sutter County, and 1,983 acres for Metro Air Park.
Most of the proposed ASIP project site is located outside the City Permit Area covered by the NBHCP and therefore falls outside the areas where urban development may occur under the plan's conservation protocols. This violates the legally binding conservation agreement negotiated among the City, Sutter County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental organizations confirm: "Its ongoing status as agricultural land is critical to maintain continued effectiveness of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan."
The NBHCP establishes requirements for preservation of one-mile Swainson's hawk habitat buffers, protection of foraging habitat for 22 threatened and endangered species, and specific mitigation ratios for any habitat loss. This project would directly impair these conservation objectives and undermine 25 years of collaborative habitat protection efforts by all participating public agencies.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DEFICIENCIES:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report identifies three significant environmental impacts that CANNOT be adequately mitigated to acceptable levels under CEQA standards and requirements:
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS: The project will generate hundreds of daily heavy-duty diesel truck trips, producing nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter causing asthma and respiratory illnesses in nearby residents and schoolchildren. Recent peer-reviewed studies show warehouses increase near-facility NO₂ levels by nearly 20 percent. Sacramento already suffers some of the worst air quality in the nation. Placing industrial warehouses next to Paso Verde Elementary School and residential neighborhoods poses unacceptable health risks to children and families in violation of environmental justice principles. Public Resources Code § 21081 requires that lead agencies make written findings that feasible mitigation has been adopted; none has been identified for this unavoidable air quality impact.
AGRICULTURAL LAND LOSS: The permanent conversion of 450+ acres of Prime and Statewide Importance farmland represents an irreversible loss of California's irreplaceable agricultural resources. Under CEQA Public Resources Code § 21060.1(a), agricultural land is defined as including "prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland." Conservation easements cannot fully replace lost agricultural land and are considered only partial mitigation under recent California court decisions such as V Lions Farming LLC v. County of Kern (2020).
AESTHETIC AND CHARACTER IMPACTS: The project eliminates open agricultural viewsheds and replaces them with up to 6.6 million square feet of industrial warehouse structures, fundamentally altering the rural character and open space values that define Natomas.
Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091 require that before approving projects with significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must make written findings demonstrating that either: (1) feasible changes have been required that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects; (2) changes are within another agency's responsibility; or (3) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make mitigation measures infeasible. City staff has not demonstrated that all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS:
Paso Verde Elementary School was designed to be adjacent to open space based on Habitat Conservation Plan promises. This project exposes children to diesel emissions linked to asthma, traffic hazards, and 24-hour noise and light pollution.
CONCLUSION:
Vote NO to honor past commitments and protect the public trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark B. Berry
(916) 704-2238
mb@deltacpm.com

Honorable Kevin McCarty, Mayor
Honorable Members of the City Council

Re: Natomas Resident Opposition to Airport South Industrial Project as Proposed

There has been inadequate community engagement between the developer and the community. The developer has not explained how they plan to mitigate impacts to nearby residents and the school.

We deserve a voice!

Please direct the staff and developer to engage in productive dialog with the community to hear concerns and work to mitigate them.

Examples of project revisions, or conditions of approval, that could be discussed in such a process include:
Incorporate the common sense measures embodied in AB 98 and SB 415 to reduce community health impacts, as well as lessen the visual and traffic impact on neighborhoods.*
Review alternative land uses and buffers for Parcels 5 and 8.
Restrict certain uses such as data centers (high water & energy use) and toxic manufacturing.

These are only examples. A thoughtful community engagement process would hash out these and other project revisions and/or mitigations.

Such a process is not unprecedented. As noted in the November 14, 2025 North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) letter, other significant land use proposals have successfully engaged the community, the developers, and the City Council to find common ground to mitigate negative impacts before final approval.

Community members like myself stand ready to roll up our sleeves and actively engage in solution-oriented dialog!

I think we can do better for the Natomas Community, for our city, and for the climate.

Give us a chance to make that a reality!

Respectfully,

Laurie ten Hope
Resident of North Natomas
Member of NNCC and ECOS

* SB 415 (Stats 2025, ch 316, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB415/2025)

The proposed project is an incompatible land use. You cannot have warehouses this close to a school. End of story.

Dear respected Sac City Council members,

I urge you to vote "NO" on this Airport South Industrial Annexation. You control the future of what Sacramento looks like. An industrial appearance is the least that visitors and our Sacramentans want to see at the airport -- a place that sends the first deep impression to all visitor and Sacramentans.

That's why wonderful places, e.g., Hawaii, Singapore, and many other attractive tourist cities will NEVER welcome their visitors and residents with industrial looks. Instead, they HIDE their industrial facilities far away from public views and beautify their major gateways with gardens, flowers, art works, and/or other tourist features.

The huge industrial Amazon warehouse does not deliver any joy while I drive on the I-99. I hope we do not add more industrial elements near our gateway.

Additionally, this land is not only zoned for wildlife but also adjacent to the K-8 Paso Verde School and North Lake as well as Westlake residential areas. The pollution, traffic jams, and noise will worsen the current situation.

Again, your vote will decide the important appearance of Sacramento for future generations, and I believe you will make a wise choice to say NO for this industrial project.

Respectfully,
Lena Hsieh and family at 335 Olivadi Way, Sacramento

Additional eComments received by the Office of City Clerk.

As a resident of North natomas I strongly oppose this project.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. How would you feel if this project were located next to your children’s, grandchildren’s or your school or home? Please learn from the devastation caused by the explosion in 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.

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. It proposes 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 north of I-5 as well as zoned industrial areas within the city to accommodate any need and provide infill.
Please do not pass this.
Dana Schwartz

To esteemed members of the city council: this project is nothing more than a huge windfall money maker for the developers. And who gets left holding the bag? Residence. This project and its buildings will completely change the landscape of Natomas. I moved away from the San Fernando Valley because of stuff like this. Vote no.

I’ve lived in Westlake for 19 years and totally oppose this project. It is too close to schools and neighborhoods and the additional traffic would be unbearable. Moreover, long-term exposure to vehicle emissions correlates with higher rates of cardiovascular disease and premature death for nearby residents. That alone should be why you vote NO!

I urge the City Council to support moving this Project forward as a viable option for this land. Do we currently have excess available warehouse space adjacent to I-5? Yes! As COVID has shown, during unforeseen events, these types of facilities become a source of saving grace for our population. Imagine how quickly we could have transitioned into online shopping had this infrastructure in place prior to January of 2020. Sure MAP projects North of I-5 were operational with several in varying stages, but we were still limited in providing adequate warehousing capabilities when so desperately needed. Proactive planning for the growth and needs of our community needs to take place now. Ensure we provide local jobs, and potential emergency life saving warehousing and manufacturing capacity while we have time. Not waiting until its too late . Thank You

I live in Natomas and am a neighbor to the project. I oppose it and hope you will too.

CEQA requires the consideration of alternative locations for a project. However, this EIR only considers one location which happens to be the 2 ½ mile by ½ mile property along Bayou Way, owned by Northpoint.

If the City wants more warehouses, construction jobs, warehouse jobs and many years of income, they can achieve that by pursuing development at other locations, within the City in an already approved industrial zone. These locations would require less investment from the City in order to achieve the desired economic benefits. They would have the additional benefits of contributing to the City’s commitment to infill and bringing jobs into already developed areas.

Of course, that is not how the process works. You are asked to consider this project, as presented. It would be different if you were taking a longer term view and considering regional development. It would be different if you could consider which parts of the city need investment, or how to reduce vehicle miles travelled and infill. Then you could consider the Blue Diamond facility.

It would be different if you could ask the developer to actually present alternative locations, including the property that Northpoint owns at Aerojet.

There are many flaws in the EIR – the alternative locations section is one. Vote NO on the Airport South Industrial Project.

As a former SACOG land use planner, neighbor to the proposed project and environmental attorney 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. How would you feel if this project were located next to your children’s, grandchildren’s or your school or home? Please learn from the devastation caused by the explosion in 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.

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. It proposes 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 north of I-5 as well as zoned industrial areas within the city to accommodate any need and provide infill.

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 community, the city, the airport, the county and the region.

Please reject this proposal- it is a travesty!
Thank you, Karen O’Haire

The Airport South Industrial Park is a proposal which will cost our community in terms of climate and public health, and is inconsistent with current plans.

This project is within the boundaries of the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan, land the City and County set aside to protect the Giant Garter Snake, our state snake, as well as other species.

It will increase traffic in the area of the airport, which is regularly congested now.

The diesel fuel use will increase hazardous air pollution exposing young students at the nearby Paso Verde School with and contribute to our ongoing community nonattainment status for air quality.

On top of that, the project will increase traffic which according to the City CAAP is the single largest contributor to GHG in our community and region.

I strongly oppose the Airport South Industrial Project, and I’m urging you to please vote no.

I’ve lived in North Natomas for 23 years, including the past five in Westlake. In that time, our community has experienced thoughtful, positive growth—but this project would do the opposite. It would bring unnecessary harm to a quiet residential area, especially when Sacramento already has numerous vacant warehouses available.

Industrial development does not belong next to neighborhoods and an elementary school. This project would increase noise, light, and air pollution and introduce constant traffic and unfamiliar individuals into an area where children should feel safe at home and at school.
We’re already dealing with large trucks illegally parking throughout Westlake at night. An industrial park would only worsen this problem.
Traffic is another serious concern. A drive that should take 10 minutes to Downtown often takes 20–30 minutes regardless of the time of day. I-5 is consistently congested. Even our interior Natomas streets are strained, and the roadway near the proposed project site is an old county road that cannot support industrial-level traffic.

We must also protect our wildlife and open spaces. This area is home to countless birds and animals that rely on this habitat. Development should occur on land already zoned and suitable for industrial use—not on farmland and open space that our community values.
When you vote, I ask you to consider this from our perspective. Would you want this project next door to your home? Would you want big rigs moving through your neighborhood day and night? Would you want your child attending school beside an industrial operation that brings pollution, heavy trucks, and unfamiliar individuals so close?

Please protect our neighborhood. Please vote no on the Airport South Industrial Project.

Thank you.
Laura Miramontes
North Natomas and Westlake Resident

Dear Council Members,

Please see the attached document regarding Airport South Industrial (ASIP) that discusses these issues:

1) The environmental document did not evaluate alternative sites for the ASIP project.

2) Metro Air Park is one such alternative site, just across the street from ASIP. Of the nearly 1,900 acres in Metro Air Park, only half of the acreage is planned for INDUSTRIAL USE. This is frittering away precious space and public EIFD funding. Metro Air Park should be developed as a REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL AIRPORT-ADJACENT RESOURCE - the original concept in 1965. This would reduce the pressure to develop nearby agricultural parcels that are meant to remain in agriculture via the USB and the NBHCP.

3) About 6 million square feet of space across 500 acres is available for lease today in Metro Air Park, not including the remaining 1,400 acres. Coincidentally, Airport South Industrial proposes 6 million square feet.

4) Construction jobs at Metro Air Park, just across the street from ASIP, will be needed for quite a few years to come.

Thank you for your consideration of these points.

Dear Mayor McCarty and Council Members,

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

I oppose this project because

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 takes 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.

Mayor Kevin McCarty
Councilmember Lisa Kaplan
Councilmember Roger Dickinson
Councilmember Karina Talamantes
Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum
Councilmember Caity Maple
Councilmember Eric Guerra
Councilmember Rick Jennings
Councilmember Mai Vang

Agenda Item 11. Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed on 11/07/2025;Published 11/07/2025; Passed for Publication 10/21/2025; Published 10/24/2025] File ID: 2025-01126

We need to protect communities and the environment near the Airport South Industrial Annexation. More importantly, the land outside the Urban Limit line is a highly valuable area, comprising some of the region's most fertile farmland and wild lands that provide habitat for many native plants and animals, including endangered species like the Giant Garter Snake and the Swainson’s Hawk. As it lies along the Pacific Flyway, it also serves as a stopping point for numerous migratory birds. It supplies much of our delicious ‘Farm to Fork' produce. For these reasons, it deserves permanent protection from development. If Airport South is approved, more projects will follow, and all this will be lost forever and beyond repair.

We urge you to vote NO on Airport South Industrial Annexation.

Thank you for your consideration and attention

Red, Black, and Green Environmental Justice Coalition

I urge the council to reject this project.

The proposed project promises vast quantities of pavement, covering precious agricultural land. In addition to all the potential harms listed by other commenters, all pavement reduces the carrying capacity of the planet, increases potential flooding, and is associated with fossil fuel emissions throughout its lifecycle.

In the face of climate chaos, wisdom bids us relocalize, and obtain most or all of our basic needs locally. This means shrinking our supply chains. Thus, the proposed project is inconsistent with a truly ecologically sustainable future.

I am convinced we will be needing more local farming and not more local distribution centers, truck traffic, offices, nor pavement. The No Project Alternative should be selected, and the natural environment retained in full.

The project as proposed represents business as usual, which would be the same old fossil fuel infrastructure. But this infrastructure and the attendant lifestyles are obsolete, and the idea of electrifying all the systems that are currently powered by fossil fuels is not feasible.

Manufacturing all the PVs, windmills and batteries necessary actually requires fossil fuels for mining and refining the metals and minerals. Like the planet as a whole, our species has depended on the energy of the giant fusion reactor in the sky for eons. We can do it again.

Indepth discussion of these realities may be found at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333581837_Is_it_true_that_'Small_Is_Beautiful'
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256048802_Sustainable_Investment_Means_Energy_Independence_From_Fossil_Fuels
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5stPFdegJpg

Thank-you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of these realities.