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.

Dear Mayor McCarty and Council Members,

I am your constituent and I live at near this area.

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.

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.

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.