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

Dear Mayor and Council,

We write to address your vote on the biggest environmental decision to come before the City Council in decades, again. We believe you should vote no on the Airport South Industrial Project.

ECOS has previously submitted a number of letters and e-comments expressing our concerns about the project.

To reiterate:
1. The review process has been flawed.
2. The EIR is flawed.
3. Adequate protections from air pollution, particularly fine and ultra fine particles, is not included in the applicants’ plans for the neighbors and elementary school
4. Neighbors have not been adequately included in the design process. If this flawed project is allowed to proceed, a process should be developed that gives neighbors real teeth, backed up by the Planning Commission, in the process of moving from a conceptual design to the actual project design.
5. Finally, the regional logistics resource, Metro Air Park is not fully developed. According to County officials (quoted in a Sacramento Business Journal article, Nov 21, 2025 by Ben van der Meer) 13 million square feet of industrial space remain to be built out. In an October 25 article, van der Meer discusses the County’s interest in building hotels, gas stations and restaurants at Metro Air Park – a clear indication of not enough business for this logistics hub.

In closing, we wish to restate that the optics of the City agreeing to this project are terrible. It sends the wrong message about the City’s planning processes and environmental reputation.

Thank you for taking the challenges of this project seriously and asking staff to provide answers to multiple outstanding questions on December 2. Please do not vote if your questions remain unanswered.

Sincerely,

Heather Fargo
President of the Board of Directors

December 1, 2025

Honorable Kevin McCarty, Mayor
Honorable Members of the City Council
Ms. Cheryle Hodge, Principal Planner
Mr. Matthew Aijala, Assistant Planner

Re: Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017)
North Natomas Community Coalition Conditions for Acceptance

The North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) is a community-based group consisting of residents from various neighborhoods and homeowner associations (HOAs) in the North Natomas area.
The Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP) was discussed at NNCC’s October 8, 2025, board meeting. The member representatives voted unanimously to OPPOSE the Airport South Industrial Project, as proposed. The NNCC sent a letter to the City Council stating our opposition and concerns dated November 14, 2025.
Although NNCC has opposed the project as proposed, we have asked several times in testimony and letters for a facilitated process to engage with the developer and the City to discuss conditions and mitigations that could reduce the most egregious project impacts.
We respectfully ask again for the opportunity to engage and collaborate on CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL before your final vote.

Conditions for the project include:
1. Our preference is to have Parcels 5 and 8 excluded from the development and remain open land.
2. If Condition 1 is not an option as the primary solution, we propose Condition 2 as the second-best approach, a setback of 1,000 feet of developer land from the Westlake community and Paso Verde School.
3. A double row of live redwoods or other tall, evergreen should be maintained by the developer between the project and Westlake and the school to further protect residents andschool children from air pollution. A parking lot and its visual impacts is not a true buffer.
4. The parcels closest to Westlake should be used as a transition to the warehouses. Move many of the highway commercial contained in Parcels 6 and 7 to Parcel 5. In other words, hotel, restaurant, coffee shop should be placed closer to Westlake to provide amenities to the community and to act as a buffer to the large industrial warehouse complex.
5. The project’s extension of Egret Park and bike/pedestrian trail, allowing easy access by the community to retail amenities, needs to be funded and built by the developer prior to any approvals and future construction of the industrial warehouses.
6. Land uses should be limited to reduce their possible impact to residents-i.e., no toxic chemicals, data centers, fireworks warehouses etc.
7. As much mitigation as is possible by law, including CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(a)(1)(B) as well as AB 98 and SB 415 should be applied to the project. We believe this will help to address noise, traffic management, electrification, idling and other topics. We look forward to hearing from staff how these laws would apply.
8. Make clear the CEQA requirements for Parcel 8 and the other non-participating parcels. They should not be evaluated separately, but if they are annexed with Airport South Industrial, should be considered a part of it, particularly in terms of mitigation of traffic, air pollution and noise.
9. Representatives of the school have expressed concern about the management of the detention basins. We also have concerns about the use of noise-makers, other methods to deter birds and the possibility of mosquito breeding. Management of detention basins should be subject to NNCC approval.
10. As the project design goes from conceptual to reality, we would like representatives of NorthPoint to hold working meetings with the NNCC to gather community input and answer questions and that there be a collaborative avenue with the Planning Department to find solutions to mitigate detrimental effects to the residents.
Please think about where you live, your communities. Your neighbors would not want to live next door to six (6) million square feet of industrial warehouses.
The NNCC does not want to see the Airport South Industrial project built. We do not want to live next to warehouses, a constant stream of diesel trucks, their fumes, noise, traffic, polluted air and worse, as we have described in hearings and letters. We also object to the project as it does not comply with the City General Plan, North Natomas Community Plan, and the NBHCP. This project is not good for the community or the environment. This project will have enormous and lasting impact to North Natomas, Westlake community and Paso Verde School.
Many questions remain unanswered in regards to this project. We encourage the City Council to get answers to all of them before bringing this project to a final vote. As our elected officials, you vote on our quality of life – we would like a seat at the table before you do.
Thank you for your consideration and for taking our concerns into account during your deliberations.

Respectfully,
Lynn Lenzi, President, North Natomas Community Coalition

As a resident of the Westlake neighborhood whose property looks directly out onto the open space and farmland that the ASIP would pave over, I am writing to voice my vehement opposition to this project. I second and wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my neighbor Jan Schori. If you are determined to make the misguided decision to greenlight this project, I implore you to require the developer to do more to mitigate the disastrous impacts the project would have on the Westlake neighborhood.
Corinne Gartner, Lanfranco Circle, Sacramento

Please consider attached supplemental comments on 3 items raised during your November 18 public hearing on this project. Jan Schori and Case Butterman, Lanfranco Circle, Sacramento

Re: Airport South Industrial Annexation
City Council Meeting, December 2, 2025, Item #23

Dear Mayor McCarty, Mayor Pro Tem Guerra, and members of the Sacramento City Council:

Please vote “no” on the Airport South Industrial Annexation in Natomas.

I oppose this project because:

The Airport South Industrial Project is inconsistent with the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan, the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, the County of Sacramento’s General Plan, the SACOG Blueprint, the Urban Services Boundary, the Air Quality Plan, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

It is merely performative if habitat conservation plans are enacted, only to have those plans rendered meaningless through exceptions made for developers. The end result is no real plan at all, relegating it to being a mere placeholder for future development.

In addition to wildlife habitat, the ASIP is also located near the Palo Verde school and a neighboring residential community, which will impact air quality, leading to adverse health outcomes due to pollution.

I object to putting developer profits over sensible growth and community health. Only the property owner/developer will benefit from this project. Please represent the interests of your constituents and vote “no” on the Airport South Industrial Annexation and Project in Natomas.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Best,

Francesca Reitano
Elmhurst, Sacramento 95817

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.