As a mother of two small children living in the Westlake neighborhood I oppose this project for the same reason as many of my neighbors. For our health and safety.

I have commented before and have little more to add, except this: the city stands to gain nothing of substance from this project, while the citizens of the North Natomas area suffer a diminished quality of life.

I support this initiative. The positive economic impact for the community of this Airport South project is real.
* Strategic Location & Infrastructure: Metro Air Park’s success is driven by its prime location and robust transportation network, enabling efficient logistics and reducing costs for businesses.
• Economic & Environmental Benefits: Sites like Metro AP and Metro South help companies optimize transportation models, improving delivery speed while lowering carbon emissions across California’s most populous region.
• Proven Track Record: Metro AP now spans over 10 million square feet across 700 acres, attracting major occupiers and leaving only two remaining sites for large-scale users—Metro South is the next critical opportunity.
• Innovation & Job Creation: Metro AP is home to leading high-tech and R&D firms such as Orca Bio Science, Qnetic, and Sparks Energy, driving advancements in cell therapy, energy storage, and battery technology. Metro South will continue this trend.
• Regional Competitiveness: Supporting this project strengthens our ability to attract world-class companies, fueling economic growth and innovation in California’s Capital.

This community has more than enough apartments and warehouses. North Natomas has a generous supply of warehouses and land. Don't intrude with more of what we don't need. I have lived in Natomas since 1980 and clearly it has been overly developed.

As a resident of District 1 and someone who travels on I5 South to get to work I strongly oppose this project. New warehouses should not be built next to a school and existing neighborhood. This will cause more air pollution and traffic congestion of already congested areas. This will also cause higher rates of traffic right by a school where children should be able to safely walk to and from school without the worry high traffic. People move to Natomas because of the open spaces and chances to see wildlife. There are already existing vacant warehouses that can be used throughout Sacramento there is no need to destroy farmland and area animals seek refuge.

The noise and air pollution, increased of commercial trucks traffic, too close to schools (NP3 and Paso Verde) and residential area (Westlake and senior housing), destroying the wildlife habitat

I've lived in this neighborhood for 23 years. It has become increasingly crowded with these types of industrial sites. Sites like the one proposed erode our natural areas, impact protected species, affect our air quality and severely damage our roads. The part of Del Paso connecting Garden Highway to Bayou Road is already almost drivable. This is also next to a newly built elementary school. All of these industrial sites can't go in North Natomas. We are just asking you to consider other locations that also makes sense so that our neighborhood does not take all of the severe environmental impact from their presence.
Diana Craig

I am writing to oppose this proposal and to share my concerns about the Airport South Industrial Annexation.

If the City is being asked to introduce industrial zoning beside a school and established neighborhoods, the minimum expectation should be a clear depiction of where major features, such as warehouse buildings, loading areas, truck courts, and truck circulation routes, would actually be placed. At this point, none of that information has been provided.

What troubles me most is that the applicant has not identified the location of a single structure or operational area. With no site plan, the most impactful and disruptive uses could be positioned anywhere within the boundary, including in the areas closest to Paso Verde School and the Westlake community. The absence of this basic information creates a level of uncertainty that is inappropriate for a project of this scale and sensitivity.

The environmental review documents even acknowledge that the ultimate layout could differ from the assumptions used for modeling impacts. That alone highlights why proceeding without a concrete, enforceable plan is risky and premature.

It is difficult to understand how any jurisdiction could consider granting industrial entitlements directly beside homes and a school without first knowing what would be built and where it would go.

Distance is another major concern. Paso Verde School and nearby homes sit roughly 240–250 feet from the project line—far too close for comfort when diesel trucks and warehouse operations are being contemplated. That distance does not function as a sufficient protective buffer.

Research from public-health agencies makes this point clear: diesel exhaust, ultrafine particles, and related emissions can remain concentrated and harmful within 1,000 to 1,500 feet of distribution centers and heavy-truck activity. A minimum of 1,000 feet is supported by the science; 1,500 feet offers even stronger protection. Anything significantly below that range puts children and residents at unnecessary risk.

Given the lack of a detailed plan, the uncertainty around where high-impact uses might be located, and the very small distance between the site and our homes and school, this proposal does not feel safe or appropriate for those of us who live here. Unless and until genuine safeguards are established, including a meaningful 1,000 to 1,500 foot buffer, I cannot support this project.

Dear Mayor and Council:

I oppose this project because the loss of a farmland refuge to development will harm hawks, blackbirds, migratory ducks and geese, deer, raccoons, coyotes and reptiles. Kindly find a methodology to preserve the habitat of protected species in the Natomas area. Vote no on this project.

Catherine Frankeberger
Fair Oaks, California

As a neighbor, I’m urging the Council to pause and reconsider the Airport South Industrial Project.

North Natomas is one of the few neighborhoods in Sacramento where kids can still walk to school, where families bike around the lakes, where clean air and open space are part of the daily rhythm of life. Placing 6 million square feet of warehouses next to Paso Verde Elementary and Westlake threatens that rhythm… not in theory, but in real, measurable ways.

Diesel truck traffic doesn’t stay on one road.
It travels into lungs, into playgrounds, into classrooms.
Into our homes.

We all want economic opportunity, but it cannot come at the expense of our children’s health or our community’s long-term livability. Any project of this scale and this proximity to schools deserves a far more thoughtful, community-centered review.

I want to echo and uplift the detailed concerns raised by the North Natomas Community Coalition. Their analysis is clear: we can pursue growth without sacrificing the wellbeing of the neighborhoods that make this city vibrant.

I’m asking the Council to vote NO on this project as currently proposed and to work with residents on a plan that aligns with our shared values of health, safety, and sustainable development.

Our kids deserve nothing less.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017). After reviewing the details of the project and considering its proximity to surrounding communities, I believe this annexation poses significant and avoidable risks to public safety, environmental health, and long-term community well-being.

1. Proximity to Schools and Safety Concerns
The proposed industrial development would be located near [insert school name if known], exposing students to increased traffic, noise, air pollution, and industrial activity. Schools should be surrounded by safe, healthy environments—not heavy truck routes and industrial operations. Placing large-scale industrial uses near a campus is incompatible with student safety and wellness.

2. Impact on Wildlife and Natural Habitat
The annexation area includes open land that currently supports local wildlife. Expanding industrial operations into this zone would result in habitat fragmentation, displacement of species, loss of open space, and long-term ecological harm. Once this land is developed, the environmental damage is irreversible.

3. Severe Traffic Impacts on an Already Overburdened Highway
The corridor surrounding this project is already known for frequent, extended congestion, with highways routinely backed up for miles during peak hours. Adding industrial truck traffic and employee commuting flows will significantly worsen travel times, increase emissions, and raise the likelihood of collisions. The proposal does not adequately address how these impacts will be mitigated in an area already operating well beyond capacity.

4. General Negative Community Impacts
Beyond traffic and environmental harm, the annexation brings additional concerns:
• Increased noise and light pollution
• Strain on surrounding infrastructure
• Reduction in quality of life for nearby residents
• Long-term incompatibility with surrounding land uses

Sacramento has the opportunity to pursue smarter, more sustainable development options that align with community needs and preserve our remaining natural spaces. This annexation does not meet that standard.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to vote against approval of the Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017).

Thank you for your time and consideration.

As a neighbor, a parent, and a member of this community, I’m urging the Council to pause and reconsider the Airport South Industrial Project.

North Natomas is one of the few neighborhoods in Sacramento where kids can still walk to school, where families bike around the lakes, where clean air and open space are part of the daily rhythm of life. Placing 6 million square feet of warehouses next to Paso Verde Elementary and Westlake threatens that rhythm… not in theory, but in real, measurable ways.

Diesel truck traffic doesn’t stay on one road.
It travels into lungs, into playgrounds, into classrooms.
Into our homes.

We all want economic opportunity, but it cannot come at the expense of our children’s health or our community’s long-term livability. Any project of this scale and this proximity to schools deserves a far more thoughtful, community-centered review.

I want to echo and uplift the detailed concerns raised by the North Natomas Community Coalition. Their analysis is clear: we can pursue growth without sacrificing the wellbeing of the neighborhoods that make this city vibrant.

I’m asking the Council to vote NO on this project as currently proposed and to work with residents on a plan that aligns with our shared values of health, safety, and sustainable development.

Our kids deserve nothing less.

Hello, my name is Pete Sheehan and I’m with the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. We submitted a comment letter to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Our letter identified several deficiencies with the EIR.

During these turbulent times, we as citizens expect and deserve our local government’s elected and appointed officials to protect us from environmental and social injustice, to aid in the preservation and rehabilitation of the environment in which we all share, and to ensure accountability and responsibility regarding the environmental decisions they may make.

We stand by our comment letter and believe the EIR is flawed, and a new EIR must be drafted and circulated for public review. In closing we call on this Commission to be a leader on the aforementioned issues and be the first line of defense for our citizenry and environment. Only by working together can we continue to be excellent stewards of our environment, outstanding stewards to our citizens and each other.

To the Honorable Mayor McCarty and City Council Members:

I am an unrepresented resident of North Natomas living directly across the street from Paso Verde School and south of the proposed Airport South Project. As a retired state employee, project analyst, project lead, and author of two major project reports to the California Legislature, I am appalled by the deficient city staff work that has been done on the Airport South Project.

This project has been under consideration for many months and it is shocking that no council member or staff member BEFORE DECEMBER 2 even thought to ask or research important questions such as the locations and vacancy rate of existing industrial warehousing in the Sacramento area, or to consider the impact of AB 98, an effort by the California legislature to safeguard against exactly this kind of blatant disregard for public health.

AB 98 goes into effect on January 1, 2026 and establishes new design, operational and environmental standards for logistics facilities, particularly warehouses, to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion near sensitive areas like schools and residences. To ignore the intent of this legislation just 28 days before it goes into effect would be unconscionable and leads one to conclude that our city council really doesn't care about the negative consequences of this project on the public health and the environment. The Airport South Project is exactly the kind of development that is addressed by AB 98.

Second, it is shocking and totally inappropriate for the main staffer on this project to proclaim in a public hearing that in her opinion the only reason for congestion on Highway 5 in North Natomas is the construction occurring on the Yolo causeway and that when this construction is over, traffic will "return to normal." Seriously, this comment by a staffer who is supposed to present neutral facts? There will be no return to uncongested traffic on Highway 5, there is only a new normal in which thousands of autos and big rigs congest Highway 5 everyday, all hours of the day. Constructing industrial warehouses along Hi 5 that will depend upon and draw even more big rigs to Highway 5 will only compound the problem. I find the staffer's comment to reflect an underlying bias about this project...a project which violates environmental agreements established by a multitude of agencies.

This project, if allowed to proceed, opens up the City of Sacramento and its fragile budget to many future potential lawsuits, including but not least, those by homeowners and families with children who might develop environmental related diseases and who chose to place blame on the toxicity caused by this project. To hope this is not the case is folly.

This is the most consequential vote that you will take during your tenure on city council. I urge you to vote no and stop this process because Sacramento County will move this project forward if you allow it to proceed.

Laura Warren
Resident District 1

I strongly oppose this project. The Metro Airpark Special Planning was approved by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on August 25, 1993 to support isolated industrial development in the North Natomas area.. The developer argued that the development was sorely needed and provided supporting documentation. However, 28 years after the SPA approval, this development appears to be only at 50% build out. The potential negative impacts of the proposed project are massive. Don’t be swayed by developer justification for more industrial development in this area. it’s not needed now. Please vote No.

This massive industrial project will, in fact, cause more traffic deaths and injuries!

More trucks and workers will of course add to already congested freeways and roads.

4,000 DIE ANNUALLY on California freeways and roads.

Could be your own family, you, and others!

MORE TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY TRUCKS, MEANS MORE TRAFFIC FATALITIES AND INJURIES!!

And, there is NO PRESSING NEED for this industrial complex. We are not suffering without it. And, the Union workers are not facing mass unemployment! UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW IN THIS AREA!!!

You want to be responsible for more traffic deaths?

Being good stewards of the land it is hopeful that members of the City Council will take the following into consideration when making decisions about the Airport South Industrial Annexation:

1) The open space acreage of farmland helps support migratory birds in the Pacific Flyway, and loss of that farmland to development would potentially harm migratory birds that are part of the ambiance of living in the Natomas area.

2) Loss of farmland would also be a loss of the potential to use farmland as a carbon sink and help fight climate change that is bringing about unusual weather such as severe flooding.

3) Commercial and residential development would eventually clog the area and possibly lead to panic if evacuation from the area were to occur due to disasters such as flooding, earthquake or fire. There are only three roads to be used for evacuation if the need were to occur for whatever reason.

These are reasons my wife and I as residents of Natomas oppose the overly ambitious Airport South Industrial Annexation project proposal.

Sincerely,

Rick Dow, MS Zoology

I am your constituent, I live in Westlake, and I’m imploring you to not allow the Airport South Industrial Project to move forward. When my husband and I moved from Sacramento County into Westlake two years ago, we did so believing the lands around us near the airport were protected from development because of the sensitive habitats they contain. We would have never bought a house here if we’d known the City was going to go back on their word to protect these habitats and instead surround us with pollution, industrial facilities, and heavy truck traffic. We have recently retired from public service and had hoped to spend our golden years surrounded by the beautiful nature here in Natomas. My husband and I both spent our careers as environmental scientists and policy makers trying to protect Californians who were disproportionately impacted by air pollution. And now, we find ourselves in a similar situation, hoping someone will have the sense and decency to afford us those same protections.

We know how harmful this project will be to our health and the health of thousands of families around us if it is allowed to move forward. There is no way to mitigate the harmful pollutants that would come from this project to not make it a health nightmare for nearby residents. Please do the right thing, and vote no on this project.

Please keep the open space. The area is beautiful and adds to the value of all of us who live near it. We don't need the traffic, noise or extra pollution the project would cause. Thank you.

I oppose the Airport South Industrial Annexation, because the area serves as a buffer between Natomas and the Sacramento River. Paving this area will result in more storm runoff during rainstorms and increase the risk of flooding in Natomas.
Howard Knudsen, CPA