We support the approval of the Airport South Industrial Project.

I fully support this project and the positive economic impact on the region, job creation, construction and new businesses and tax revenue. Our area needs more logistics infrastructure and there is no better place.

This project appears to have a great economical impact for the construction industry, as well as public school districts, & Sacramentos workforce. With exponential job offerings, accumlative tax revenue I fully support this project.

Sacramento City Council Members,

I am writing to express strong support for the Airport South Industrial Project. This project represents a significant opportunity for Sacramento to strengthen its economic foundation and expand long-term employment prospects for local residents.

The projected creation of approximately 5,400 long-term jobs and 3,700 construction job-years will provide meaningful, sustained economic benefits for our community. In addition, the project is expected to generate over $10 million in annual tax revenue, supporting essential city services, and contribute more than $4 million in fees to the Unified School District, helping reinforce educational resources for local students.

These combined benefits highlight the substantial positive impact the project will have on Sacramento’s workforce, fiscal stability, and public institutions. I encourage your continued consideration and support of this important development.

I’m writing in strong support of the South Port Annexation because it represents one of the most important economic development opportunities. By bringing this area into city limits, it has the ability to attract a diverse mix of commercial and industrial companies that will provide high-quality local jobs, expand the tax base, and strengthen the long-term economic stability of the area.

The annexation area is ideally suited for a new generation of clean, modern industries—such as advanced manufacturing, logistics and distribution, food processing, renewable energy infrastructure, and technology-based operations. These types of businesses are increasingly looking for well-located, entitled land with strong transportation access, utilities, and workforce availability. Airport South Annexation offers exactly that: proximity to major highways, access to skilled labor from surrounding communities, and the potential for infrastructure upgrades that can support growth for decades to come.

Bringing in this mix of companies will create a wide range of jobs from electricians, operators, and warehouse technicians to engineers, project managers, and administrative professionals. These are sustainable, middle-class careers that help local families thrive while reducing commute times and supporting other small businesses like restaurants, service contractors, and retail. Every new industrial and commercial project generates ripple effects that benefit our entire local economy.

I have been a resident of the Sacramento area for 30 years, and fully support this project. It will create construction and long term job opportunities, not to mention tax revenue for the city / community! I strongly support this project. Thank you.

I am in favor of this construction project and its anticipated positive economic impact on the region. New Developments like this are needed to support the ever-growing need for commercial infrastructure and warehousing. Its location near the airport is ideal for generating revenue for local businesses along much needed tax revenue.

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.

Mayor McCarty and Council members,

My name is Stacey Scarborough. I am a 20+ year North Natomas resident and a current North Natomas homeowner. I strongly oppose the Airport South Industrial Annexation Project due to its significant environmental and practical harms.

There is no evidence that this project will deliver meaningful long-term economic or community benefits. Approving it would be short-sighted and would cause permanent, irreversible damage to North Natomas, the City of Sacramento, and the greater Sacramento region. Developers have many alternative sites available; there is no justification for sacrificing this critical conservation area. If this land is developed, the environmental, quality-of-life, and public-health impacts cannot be reversed.

Environmental Concerns

The Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) was created to balance development with the protection of 22 sensitive species through managed marsh, upland, and rice-land preserves. The Plan ensures:
• Mitigation of habitat loss at a 0.5:1 ratio.
• Protection of species impacted by urbanization, agriculture, and infrastructure operations.
• Maintenance of essential open space that supports local agriculture, wildlife, and regional quality of life.

This project would irreparably undermine the NBHCP, which has already been weakened by recent farmland conversion north of I-5 for additional warehouse development. Sacramento is already among the worst air basins in the nation, and this project would further degrade air quality—particularly harming surrounding communities.

Practical Concerns

The project offers no tangible benefit to North Natomas, the City of Sacramento, or Sacramento County. Any short-term financial gains for the developer will come at the long-term expense of residents, public health, and the environment. Claims that it will strengthen the local economy are unsubstantiated. Additional warehouse space does not guarantee the high-paying, long-term jobs needed for true economic growth for the City and Natomas residents —especially given current vacant warehouses and acres of vacant land already zoned for industrial projects in Metro Air Park.

The City of Sacramento already struggles to provide adequate police, fire, parks, community programs, and transit services. Revenues from this project will not cover the additional service costs it will generate. The city’s current budget deficit is the direct result of past decisions that favored short-term gains over long-term sustainability.

As a city official, you have legal, ethical, and fiduciary obligations to act in the best interests of residents and the long-term health of the city. Approving a project that harms the environment, degrades quality of life, strains city services, and provides no lasting benefits would be a clear failure to uphold those responsibilities. We need economic growth, but this project does not deliver.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote NO on the Airport South Industrial Annexation Project.

I am a homeowner, longtime resident and my children attend the nearby elementary school. This project does NOT meet the goals and objectives for North Natomas, nor is it what Natomas residents want for our community. As our representatives, please consider what is best for the residents and not for the business developers pushing this project through. We want thoughtful growth that takes our youngest residents into consideration. This project is bad for the community we have built. We know best the needs of our community, and this project is not it.

eComment received by the City Clerk's Office prior to the meeting.

This development adjacent to residential housing and an elementary school is unnecessary. Many of the large warehouses in the current development across the highway have remained vacant for years. There is no commercial or development need for this project.

Mayor and Council Members:
Please support this project. The path forward for Sacramento is growth through increased infrastructure and job creation. Our community has increased in population and, in turn, we need an increase in middleclass jobs to help families find affordable housing. The Greater Sacramento area is in dire need of additional industrial space and the Airport South project is perfectly located from both a workforce and a logistics perspective. In addition, our schools need funding and this project will afford an estimated $4M/year to the unified school district.

I strongly support the Airport South Industrial Annexation project. The project is thoughtfully planned by a developer with vast experience building industrial and advanced manufacturing facilities in Sacramento and around the country.

If you look around the country at other regions similar in size to Sacramento, you will see a large portion of their industrial developments are near their airports. This allows quicker delivery times, fewer truck miles, fewer emissions and a lower carbon footprint. Our population continues to grow as does the demand for e-commerce. This project promotes smart industrial growth, creates jobs and creates new tax revenue. Please vote YES and support smart industrial growth in our region.

As a Natomas resident of 23 years I strongly oppose this project.
Say NO to Overdevelopment in Natomas – Preserve Our Community!
We, the residents of Natomas, strongly oppose the proposed development of 9,300 new homes on precious farmland in our neighborhood. This is not just about "growth"—this is about preservation, quality of life, and protecting the character of our community.
Our current infrastructure is already stretched:
• Crime is rising, with daily reports of mail theft and property damage.
• Police presence is too limited to respond effectively.
Roads are in disrepair, bike trails are decades old, and our parks are inconsistently maintained—with basic needs like dog waste stations neglected.
How can we support thousands of new households when we can't meet the needs of those already here?
We are not against thoughtful progress—but this is unchecked sprawl, driven by developer interests rather than what’s best for Natomas.
NO to the Upper Westside Development. NO to paving over farmland. NO to ignoring the people who live here.

I am a homeowner in North Natomas and STRONGLY OPPOSE the Airport South Industrial Annexation Project based on environmental and practical considerations.

Summary

There is no proof this project, if approved, will provide long-term economic or other benefits. Voting to approve this project is short-sided and will result in irreversible long-term damage to North Natomas, its residents and businesses, the Greater Sacramento Area, Northern California, and the State.

Developers can develop in numerous locations; there is no need for them to develop in this particular location. Once you allow development of this conservation land:
• The environment will never be the same.
• People’s quality of life will never be the same.
• Public health will never be the same.
• The negative impacts of the project, which far outweigh any positive ones (which appear to be baseless spin), will live on forever, to the detriment of the health and quality of life of regional residents, which will have long-term negatives impacts on the Greater Sacramento Region, Northern California, and the State.

Environmental Considerations

The Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) was created to balance urban development with the conservation of species and habitats and allows for the limited take of protected species by creating a preserve system of managed marsh, upland, and rice lands to mitigate the effects of development and farming. The Plan:
• Balances development and conservation to allow for urban growth while mitigating the loss of habitat of 22 different species.
• Protects species that could be affected by urban development, agricultural practices, and the operation of irrigation and drainage systems.
• Requires a 0.5-to-1 mitigation ratio, meaning for every acre of habitat disturbed, a half-acre of mitigation land must be provided.
• Establishes a reserve system composed of managed marshes, upland habitats, and rice lands to preserve and enhance habitat values.

The Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) is important for the community and the regional economy. It is important for local food supply, local wildlife species, maintenance of open space and quality of life.

The proposed project would gut the NBHCP. And it will exacerbate the region’s air quality and climate change problems by increasing air pollution. Sacramento is already one of the dirtiest air basins in the country and this project will worsen that problem with particularly adverse impacts on those who live in the surrounding areas.

Why would you support a project that would greatly harm the region’s environment, particularly at a time when (1) there is increasing scientific evidence that harming the environment harms public and individual health and (2) there is a dramatic decrease in federal support for healthy environments?

Practical Considerations

This project will do nothing to benefit North Natomas, the City of Sacramento, or Sacramento County. It will provide short-term benefits for the developer at the expense of North Natomas, the City, the County, its residents, and the environment.

Supporters who claim the project will bring long-term jobs could not be more wrong. There is no evidence to support their erroneous claim and evidence to support otherwise. Business space does not equate with long-term jobs. This is clearly exemplified by Downtown Sacramento, which still has not been able to adjust to changes in the way people work and is having trouble generating revenue. What are the developer’s claims that this project will anchor economic growth in the region and provide a more stable, stronger future for its residents based on? The same outdated model that claimed that Downtown Sacramento would never suffer from changes in the economy?

While the developers will realize short-term monetary benefits and improve their corporate profitability, nearby residents and the region will suffer negative long-term consequences of this ill-conceived proposed project.

The City of Sacramento currently cannot keep up with services including, but not limited to, police, fire, and other public safety services; parks and recreation programs; community centers and programs; and public transportation needs.

The city faces a long-term structural deficit with expenses growing faster than revenues. Building in this area is fiscally irresponsible at best. How exactly is a city with a structural deficit going to provide services to a new additional area when it cannot provide services to its existing areas? The taxes generated from this area will not offset its new service costs to the city. One of the major reasons Sacramento currently has a budget deficit is because your predecessors voted for projects with what they thought would have short-term gains. Why would you even consider contributing to city budget woes by taking similar short-sighted actions? Particularly a short-sighted action that would permanently harm the environment?

North Natomas residents are already suffering from tremendous noise pollution and roads/transportation needs that cannot be met. Why are you going to support a project that will exacerbate these problems?

If this project moves forward, it will greatly diminish the quality of life for residents and the community. For what purpose? To support short-term gains for multimillion and multibillion dollar developers? To appease a few workers who have been sold snake oil by being told by the developers that they will have long-term jobs from this project?

As a city official, you have legal, ethical, and fiduciary responsibilities to make decisions in the best interest of the city and its residents. Making decisions that are determinantal to the environment, diminish the quality of life for residents, further harm the city budget, and provide no long-term benefits to the city or its residents, would be a blatant dereliction of your duties. I urge you to vote NO on this project.

And if you are not willing to consider the legal, ethical, and fiduciary responsibilities of your role, then consider a selfish view – if you vote yes for this project, your legacy will be the destruction of conservation lands and ecosystems, and negatives impacts to those you serve, their communities, the greater region, and the state.

I urge a NO vote on this project.

I fully support the annexation of Airport South Industrial. This project brings much needed future industrial development to the area that will be able to service advanced manufacturing and logistics needs that we loose to other markets. The developer has done a wonderful job adhering to the development guidelines in place and have been willing to work on modifying the site plan to meet the requests of the local community. This project will bring much needed construction jobs to the area which is a major industry driver for the region. This project will give Sacramento the ability to attract more Fortune 500 companies to select Sacramento for their advanced manufacturing and distribution operations which will also bring much needed tax revenue to the region. We hope to see the city vote in favor of this project.

As a Natomas resident of 14 years I strongly oppose this project. It shows a lack of foresight for the future of the city. There are land areas within the city limits already which remain unoccupied and an eyesore. Annexing county land into the city limits does not solve any existing problems, only creates problems for existing residents. Please listen to your voters and vote no.

As a large industrial general contractor in the Northern California region (and a resident of Rocklin, CA), and located within 20 min of the Sacramento industrial market, this project is needed to take on the current and future demand of the region for large scale distribution. Sacramento is a key market for shipping and distribution due to its location directing shipments and storage of goods from the San Francisco Bay Area ports to locations up and down the West Coast and East to the other Western states' main population areas. Sacramento is a gateway to the North and South Central Valley of California, Oregon and up into Washington, as well as Reno, Salt Lake City and Denver. Each year, our staff meets with major brokerage clients and developers in the area to discuss the status of the market. Currently, the demand for large distribution is high, and the vacancy rate for Nor Cal is coming down from the past few years. However, that vacancy is not in newly constructed large distribution facilities, but rather in older generation buildings that do not meet the current requirements of the advancing design of distribution facilities. This project is located with immediate access to the West Coast population centers, population centers in Northern Nevada, Salt Lake City proper, and on into the Denver area. We fully support this project and look forward to City Council's approval to move forward with developing the site as soon as possible.

Please PLEASE PLEASE do not vote for this. I live here. We don't want more industrial area we want wildlife. We want walkable neighborhoods, we want connection not trucks rumbling down our road forever.