Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome back to our 5 o'clock council meeting. Please call this being an order. Please call the roll.

Members of the audience, please take your seat.

Council Member Kaplan.

Council Member Dickinson.

Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Council Member Plekibom.

Thank you.

Council Member Maple.

Mayor Pro Tem Gada.

Council Member Jennings.

Council Member Vang.

And Mayor McCarty.

Here.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

Okay, first item.

So we're going to go to special presentations.

The first is International Day of Elimination of Violence Against Women,

and Council Member Kaplan will be presenting that.

Thank you.

I really want to appreciate everyone being here for our special presentation,

which is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

I think now more than ever, it is critically important

that we reaffirm our commitment to ending violence against women and girls,

that we redouble our efforts in the face of new challenges

to keep our community's women and girls safe.

With almost one in three women globally having experienced physical or sexual violence in their lives,

violence against women remains one of the most pervasive

and damaging forms of human right violations in the world today.

The disturbing continuity of these trends have expanded dangerously in the recent years

with an unprecedented backlash against women's rights,

dramatic restrictions of freedoms and liberties that have dehumanized

and further jeopardize the safety and well-being of women and girls around the world and even here locally.

Violence against women has also taken on a disturbing new trend with the forms that we find on the Internet,

where one in four American women have been made targets of online abuse ranging from bullying,

threats to sexual harassment, to a bunch of other horrific things that we can't even talk about.

I am a survivor of domestic violence. I am also the mother of two girls. I don't want them to

experience what I've had to experience. We have to, when we want a society where we dream about

where we want our children to grow up, it is a place that is equal for all women and girls to

live, grow and thrive in. And I'm thankful for my colleagues who feel the

same as I do. That is why we are recognizing November 25th as the

International Day for Elimination of Violence Against Women. Specifically as

we go into this next year, it's really understanding what the violence looks

like online. How AI has taken it to new levels and the responsibility of

of every single person not only in this room but in our families our brothers our sisters our dads

our uncles our grandfathers of a responsibility to stand up and protect women because when women

are treated as equal and partners we have a society that thrives and i know that sacramento can do that

so i'd like to thank representatives from the sacramento county commission on the status of

of women and girls, the Sacramento Regional Family Justice

Center, WEAVE, Women's Empowerment,

the City of Refuge, and my sister's house,

who have come here today.

Thank you for the invaluable work you do every day

to uplift and stand in solidarity with our women

and girls, especially those who have faced violence,

trafficking, and every other form that should just not exist

and where we should all be treated equally.

So it is now my honor to invite Tamiza Walsh,

Chair of the Sacramento County Commission

on the Status of Women and Girls,

and Joyce Ballou, the Executive Director

of the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center

to speak briefly on tonight's resolution.

If you want to come up.

Good evening, and thank you ladies and gentlemen,

colleagues, partners, and friends.

Today we gather with a shared purpose and an urgent one.

The International Day for the Elimination

violence against women is not simply a date on a calendar it is a global call to action.

It is a day that demands that we acknowledge the truth confront the harm and commit ourselves

fully and without hesitation to building a world where women and girls live free from

fear from violence and free from the systems that silence them. Violence against women

is not inevitable it is not cultural it is not private it is a human rights violation

It is a barrier to equality, a threat to health and well-being, and a profound loss of human potential.

Violence against women is one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the world.

It transcends geography, income, race, and age.

Yet its consequences are deeply personal, reverberating across families, communities, and generations.

And while this global issue, the data makes clear that Sacramento County is not immune.

Between 2015 and 2020, there were an estimated 13,079 victims of sex trafficking in Sacramento County,

a staggering number that reflects not only the scale of exploitation,

but also the vulnerability that traffickers target and the systems that fail to protect women and girls.

Those are not abstract figures.

They represent lives interrupted, childhoods stolen, and futures reshaped by trauma.

At that rate black girls and and and brown girls are affected at higher rates

We also know that women face disproportionate danger from those closest to them in

Sacramento Sacramento County women are more than twice as likely as men to be killed by someone they know

with 65% of female homicide

victims compared to 20%

26% of male victims losing their lives at the hands of acquaintances or intimate partners.

These numbers are unacceptable and they demand urgent action.

We also commit as partners to supporting survivors with dignity, with compassion,

and with the services they need to rebuild their lives.

Access to health care, legal support, safe housing, financial independence, and trauma-informed care

is truly essential and it's not a privilege or nearly even an afterthought.

Lastly, just to move forward, ending violence is not the responsibility of women.

It is the responsibility of us all.

Every individual has a role to play speaking out, intervening safely,

challenging harmful behaviors, and raising the next generation to do better.

Because until black girls are safe, until brown girls are safe,

until indigenous girls are safe, none of us really are truly safe.

Today we honor the lives that are lost to violence. We hold space for the survivors still healing

From harm and we uplift advocates and organizers who are doing this work

And in just real quick just three points are our movement forward must be rooted in truth

one every survivor deserves safety dignity and belief to

Prevention starts early if it starts with us and lastly liberation for women and girls must include racial justice

Thank you

First I gotta say thank you all for your service you have a tough job

My name is Joyce blue, and I have the honor of serving as the CEO of the Sacramento regional Family Justice Center

Every day there we meet survivors who walk through our doors carrying more than fear

They carry hope hope that someone will finally believe them hope that someone will protect them

hope that their lives and their children's lives can still be rebuilt.

And yet across Sacramento, we are confronting a painful truth.

High-risk domestic violence is rising.

We are seeing more strangulation, more stalking, more firearms used as tools of terror.

These are the cases that keep us all up awake at night

because we know they're the ones most likely to end in tragedy if we do not act.

And today violence doesn't always leave bruises.

It can hide inside a phone, a camera, or a smart home device.

Survivors tell us their lights flicker at 2 a.m.,

their thermostats jump to 90 degrees,

or their every move is tracked without their consent.

This is digital violence,

and it's growing faster than any of us ever imagined.

Yet despite this rise in danger,

I am also surrounded by extraordinary courage.

I see survivors who refuse to give up.

I see advocates, officers, nurses and community partners who show up again and again because they believe every life is worth fighting for.

At the Family Justice Centre, we are responding with everything we have,

training law enforcement and health care partners to recognize high-risk indicators like strangulation,

working with legislators to address technology abuse and providing survivors with safety.

planning, legal services, therapy, and hope all under one roof.

But the truth is none of us can do this alone.

It takes every system, every discipline, every heart in this room

to change the trajectory for families living in fear.

When we work together, when we identify risk early and choose collaboration over silos,

we don't just prevent violence, we save lives.

So today as we recognize the international day for the elimination of violence against women

I'm asking each of us to choose courage over comfort

If you are in law enforcement in this room lean into the evidence-based tools that save lives

If you are a health care provider ask the extra questions that open the doors to safety

If you are an advocate trust your instincts, you are often the first lifeline a survivor has

and to all of our policy makers and community leaders,

help us build stronger protections against both high-risk violence

and the digital abuse we know is escalating.

Every one of us has a role, every one of us has power,

and every one of us can be the reason a survivor is still alive tomorrow.

So let us stand together loudly, boldly, and relentlessly

until every survivor in Sacramento knows they are safe,

they are believed and they are not alone thank you thank you

thank you councilman ring thank you mayor i actually wanted to take this opportunity to

say thank you to councilwoman lisa kaplan for being bring a really important resolution

for the mayor and council to consider so thank you for uh just being being a champion always for

for women and for all women. And I just want to just to say, also want to thank all the advocates

and the allies on the ground. You're really on the front lines every day doing what you can to

protect our loved ones and our community. So I really want to thank you for your advocacy.

You know, violence against women is not just a personal tragedy, but it's a global crisis,

right? That impacts families, communities, and entire societies. And no woman, no girl should

ever have to live in fear. And we know that this is a reality for so many women and girls in

Sacramento and across our country and globally. And so I just really want to take this opportunity

to say thank you for all the great work that you both do and thank Councilwoman Lisa Kaplan

for bringing an important resolution to the mayor and council.

Council Member Guerra. Thank you, Mayor. I just also wanted to thank also specifically Joyce,

You started off at the Family Justice Center from day one and where it's grown and particularly to this point where my sister's house was looking at how to, you know, they were in need.

How do they expand?

How do they continue to serve people?

And FJC and through your help and organizing everyone, now there's an amazing partnership helping those women in need in the Asian Pacific Islander community as well.

So I wanted to personally thank you for that.

And thank you, Council Member Kaplan, for bringing this today.

And as a termed out board member of the FJC, don't hesitate to call me back in for extra work.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor, would you like to join me?

All the advocates, come in the middle for a picture.

I know I guess you guys can see over me huh?

Is that what you're saying?

Thank you.

Thank you.

We now move to our second special presentation, Sacramento Hmong New Year, presented by Council

Member Dickinson and Council Member Vang.

Thank you, City Clerk.

Today I have the opportunity to recognize the celebration of our annual Hmong New Year.

year's theme is celebrating 50 years of freedom and it's the theme is a powerful reminder of how

far our Hmong community has come from arriving as refugees to planning deep cultural and economic

roots in Sacramento and across our country. Our story, the Hmong story, the American story is

one of perseverance and hope. As the first Hmong woman elected in Sacramento, I truly feel honored

to carry the hopes and dreams of my ancestors, my parents, my grandparents, and so many refugees

and their stories with me every single day as I govern and work with the community. Their

struggles and sacrifices and dreams are truly the foundation of my commitment to equity, justice,

and opportunity for future generations. And I am always inspired by the Hmong community's

resilience and I really look forward to the next 50 years of progress in the U.S. Now this November

and every November we actually take time to celebrate Hmong New Year. So what is that? It is

really a time to honor our culture and our heritage, the harvest season, celebrate our community

and really welcome new blessings and a fresh start. And this year we're hosting again the

Sacramento Annual Hmong New Year that's hosted by Shiny and I'm going to have them come up here

and say a little word in a little bit.

But SHINee's mission is to preserve culture,

to support our young people,

and really uplift the Hmong community.

I especially want to acknowledge Kathy Yang in particular,

who was the SHINee's first ever Hmong woman president.

Because in the Hmong community,

it's also a very patriarchal community.

And this is the first time that SHINee actually has

a Hmong woman president as part of their organization.

So I wanted to take this moment just to wish you all,

and on your left one a healthy and joyous Hmong New Year.

And I will hand it over to Council Member Dickinson,

who represents a district that has a very, very large Hmong community.

Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you, Council Member Vangen.

Having attended Hmong New Year celebrations over the years,

I can't tell you how delighted I am to be sitting in this chair this year

where I can proudly say that for the 20th annual celebration of Sacramento Hmong New Year,

it will once again be at Cal Expo in the heart of District 2.

This is one of our city's largest cultural gatherings,

bringing together literally tens of thousands of people over three,

used to be four, now three days, to celebrate Hmong New Year.

And I know it's just one of literally hundreds of celebrations that go on with clans

and sub-clans and probably sub-sub-clans throughout the days and the weeks surrounding this time of year.

Last Saturday, we celebrated at Grant High School Hmong New Year,

and I came away with a great prize that I'm going to put on,

which is my Grant High School Hmong Club Medal.

So, to celebrate.

But for those who have not had the opportunity to enjoy Hmong New Year, it is a special event, to say the least.

It is colorful.

It is joyful.

It's performances.

It's food.

It's all kinds of great experiences.

And the opportunity is unparalleled.

It's what makes Sacramento special that our communities come together to celebrate culture, heritage, food, shared values.

And this festival, and especially, is a testament to the unity, resilience, and vibrancy of the Hmong community.

And we are so proud to celebrate this each year with you.

It's one of the occasions I always look forward to.

I can't wait to join you.

and we're here tonight to celebrate.

She gets you off to a great,

well, you've already been started at it for a while.

So Kathy, why don't you come up

and tell us a little bit more.

Yes.

Hello, thank you.

I am so honored to be here today

in front of all of you guys, especially.

I'm very grateful to have Maya Vang

as part of the seat council,

as well as Roger Dickinson.

and as well as Kevin McCarty because you three are the three main people that we always talked about in our community.

And we are looking forward to this event, 50 years in the United States.

We have been here for 50 full years and we are celebrating this year with a blast.

And I would love to have all of you guys to attend this event with us.

I know that Kevin McCarty will be there as well as Roger Dickinson, as well as Mike Vang.

They will all be here.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite the rest of you that have not been there.

Reach out to my event.

She'll contact me.

You'll get VIP.

Trust me.

You'll get VIP to get into the grounds.

This cultural event is educational as well.

Like Roger Dickinson said, it's a lot of food, a lot of vibrant color, a lot of cultural

presentations, a lot of dancing, a lot of singing, a lot of ball tossing.

I mean, you name it.

You got everything.

And this whole weekend, it's going to be November 28th until November 30th.

It's going to be a three-day fun-filled event from 8 to 5 o'clock.

We have beauty competition.

We have dance contests, singing contests.

And you know what?

You're not going to miss anything if you're there.

But if you're not there, you're missing everything about every culture that could possibly be there

because I'm going to tell you, we have so many people around the world that will be attending this event.

You're talking about three-day event full of 40,000, 50,000 people from around the world just to join this event.

And I'd love to say this to you guys.

I want to see every single one of you there at this event this year.

If you never attended or if you're not planning to attend in the future, please attend this year because this year marks our golden year.

And I would love to have it if you guys are all there with us.

Thank you so much, everybody.

Great. Why don't we take a quick photo real quick?

I'll be able to, not shown that not, we'll take a quick photo.

All right, one, two, three.

One, two, three.

Thank you all.

So council member maple has the next special presentation I believe we're going to postpone

but you have some comments. Yes thank you madam clerk. So tonight was going to be our

resolution for seek awareness month. We worked with the community and we're going to be postponing

this item mostly because it is the desire of the community that we move forth and pass

an ordinance related to Kerpons first so that it's really clear who can be in these chambers

and that they can have their articles of faith with them. As folks may know that passed unanimously

through the Law and Legislation Committee recently and it's my hope that we can get

this ordinance agendized at the full city council as soon as possible so that we can move forward

and hopefully celebrate Seek Heritage Month in April. So with that, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member. We now move to the consent calendar, items 1 through 6.

Are there items that anyone wants to pull or comment on?

Seeing none, I have no public comment speakers.

I have a motion by Council Member Maple and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Guerra.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Thank you. It passes unanimously.

Lastly, we now move to item 7, which is proposed minor text amendments to the 2040 general plan.

This is a public hearing, and on behalf of Council, I will open that public hearing.

For the record, I have no public comment on this item.

Hi, good evening, council members and mayor.

My name is Amy Yang.

I am a senior planner with the community development department.

and today I'd like to provide an overview of some minor text updates staff are proposing to the 2040 general plan.

The purpose of today's presentation is to make a motion that we waive the presentation for this

and I'd like to make a motion to move the item with respect and thank you so much for your presentation.

Open and close the hearing and move the item.

The hearing has been opened and closed.

Motion by Maple and a second by Plucky Baum.

I have no speakers.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Thank you.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

We move to item 8, which is housing and dangerous building cases, fees, findings of fact for special assessment.

and mr. Lemos sometimes you'll take eight and nine together but then we have

a separate motion I do have one public commenter on item nine and may I open

the hearing for both item eight and nine yes good evening mayor McCarty and

members of City Council I'm Peter Lemos I'm your code chief for your city of

Sacramento Community Development Department. The items before you are the

neighborhood code compliance and housing and dangerous buildings fees and

penalties for special assessment and or personal obligation. Item number eight,

the housing and dangerous building case fees staff report lists an amended total

of 162 properties with a total of $150,749.15 of unpaid fees scheduled for

liens against the properties. Seven of the properties listed in Exhibit A of the

staff report have been removed from the report and are identified as items 16,

27 and 28, 45, 85, 105, 140, 206 and 207. For item number nine, the Community

Development Department Administrative Penalties and Neighborhood Code

Compliance Case Fees, staff reports listed an amended total of 393

properties with a sum of $1,126,834.75 of unpaid fees and

penalties scheduled for special assessment and or personal obligations

against the property. 12 properties listed in Exhibit A of the staff report have

been removed from the report and are identified as item line numbers 79, 173,

173, 178, 246, 283, 317, 496, 533-534, 604, 605, 618, 641-642,

and 676. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the two resolutions

separately as amended to allow the city collect the unpaid fees by placing

special assessment levies and or personal obligations upon the properties.

That concludes the presentation. I have no speakers on item 8. We'll entertain a

motion. Mr. Mayor I'm happy to close the hearing and move item 8. Motion and a

second. No public comment. All in favor please say aye. Aye. He knows or abstentions

Hearing none. Item passes. Next item.

So item nine, I have one speaker, Justin Wilson.

Hello, council. Hi, mayor. I didn't prepare anything to say today, but this has to do with a property that we got some fees and fines on.

I'm here representing my 93 year old grandmother and this is a case that's

been going on for quite a while some of you are familiar with it I'm gonna try

to get it as much out as I can but it's impossible to do in two minutes but one

of the things I did want to talk about is the treatment that we've gotten through

this process this process has been going on for over two years we've tried to get

compliant with the code. The property that she owns is zoned for the use that it's being used for

now. We were working with a supervisor at code before. We had a plan before we even got any fines

on the place. Unfortunately, the person that we were working with moved, got a new job, and after

After that, the city went back to,

or the code enforcement went back to enforcing on us,

ordering us off the property.

Instead of allowing us to develop the property.

I come to a law and ledge committee meeting

and they talk about how do we get these vacant lots

and people that own these vacant lots

to develop the properties and we tried.

And we were told no.

So I feel like it's very unfair that we've been trying to get compliant the entire time

and we get fees and fines like this and we're ordered off the property.

When the solution is to just develop the property, that's the solution, just to pay it.

And, you know, when we had, when we first got, when we first got a notice, we had an open.

Thank you for your comments, but your two minutes is complete.

Council Member Guerra.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was going to ask if our code staff could reach out there.

And if I could ask the person who testified what address that was, and that way we could have the maybe appropriate council district staff from the right council district work with them.

The address is 1248 Clare Avenue.

12?

It's an M1S zoned light industrial property.

You know it's Dickinson?

It's Roger Dickinson's.

Okay.

District 2.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

I met you.

Yes.

Roblin.

Yep.

Yes.

We met before, yeah.

Yeah, we have.

Okay, thank you.

Noted, we'll follow up.

Do we have a motion and a second on this?

So moved.

Close the hearing.

Second.

Close the hearing and a motion by Maple, second by Guerra.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any no's or abstentions?

Seeing none, item passes.

We now move to item 12, which is SMUD substation J transmission facilities permit.

And I will, at this time, open the public hearing.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Sarah Peterson, project planner for the application before you tonight for a proposed

SMUD substation J. At a public hearing on October 9, 2025, Planning and Design Commission

unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the resolution relating to CEQA and

a resolution relating to entitlements for the transmission facilities.

This concludes my presentation. SMUD representatives are in attendance tonight, and we are

are available for any questions you may have at Tim Patton the regional and

local government affairs manager with smud would also like to introduce

himself. Good evening mayor and council Tim Patton regional and local government

affairs manager at smud we have additional smud staff here as well

including Eric Poff who's in charge of our substations planning team along with

Patrick Garvey and Dennis Linder as part of the substation planning team

Additionally, we have Eric Crane as part of the government affairs team to speak on this event or item as well

Just wanted to thanks city staff Carla Felix and Sierra Peterson for all the hard work that they've done on this project

The substation substation J is needed to meet the electrical needs of a rapidly growing area

Which includes the new Kaiser Permanente Center and the Sacramento Republic football stadium

We believe we have a project that will not only ensure that Sacramento and very specifically the downtown rail yard

has reliable electricity going forward,

but can also meet the desire to have something,

the city's desire to have something unique

and has a lot of visual interest.

If you have any questions,

we are here to answer them at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I have one public commenter, Devin Strecker?

Mr. Strecker here?

Nope.

Devin Strecker?

I don't see Mr. Strucker. His public comment speakership says he's in favor of this item.

Okay. Thank you. Council Member Pluckibom. I'll move status recommendation. Okay. We have a motion

and a second. That includes closing the public hearing, correct? And that was a motion by

Council Member Pluckibom and a second by Vice Mayor Talamontes. Thank you. All of the affairs

please say aye. Aye. Any no's or abstentions? Seeing none, I didn't pass this. Thank you.

We now move to item 11, which was Airport South Industrial Annexation.

Mayor, esteemed council members, I wish to disclose a conflict of interest as determined by the Fair Political Practices Commission

regarding this upcoming agenda item as it relates to Airport South Industrial Project.

The nature of my interest is ownership of property within a thousand feet of the proposed development.

So due to this conflict, I am required by state law, as set forth in Government Code 87100, etc.,

to recuse myself from this discussion, recuse myself from the voting on this matter,

and I will now leave the dais in the room until this matter is concluded.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Maple. Thank you Mr. Mayor. After consulting with our city

attorneys it's been concluded that I too will recuse myself. My spouse sits

on the Board of the Environmental Council of Sacramento which has an active

lawsuit on this project so I will be recusing myself and moving the room.

Okay. Okay thank you. Then there were seven. Let's get going. Okay please begin

staff. All right. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor.

No, I've got to leave. All right.

Okay, go ahead. All right. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and

Council Members. My name is Matthew Ayala, Assistant Planner, and I will

provide the staff presentation for the airport.

Matthew, if I may take a pause, I'd like to open the public hearing at this time,

just for the record. Okay. Thank you. All right. Please proceed. I apologize. I will provide the

staff presentation for the Airport South Industrial Annexation Project. The project

consists of annexing approximately 447 acres from Sacramento County into the City of Sacramento.

The proposed development includes up to 5.2 million square feet of light industrial uses

comprised of warehouse distribution and research and development on approximately 237 acres.

This can be seen in the parcels highlighted in purple.

Up to 98,000 square feet of highway commercial uses on 15.7 acres

that is anticipated to include a gas station, drive-thru restaurants, and a hotel.

This can be seen in the parcels highlighted in pink.

There are four non-participating parcels included within the annexation area

that are not included with the development application.

These properties total roughly 83 acres and have the potential to be developed with 1.4 million square feet of light industrial uses.

This can be seen in the parcels highlighted in the bluish gray color.

Remaining acreage is devoted to stormwater detention, utility pump stations, and a SMUD substation.

This can be seen in the parcels highlighted in green and in yellow.

Lastly, there is a Caltrans remnant parcel just south of I-5.

This can be seen in the parcels highlighted in gray.

The annexation area is in an unincorporated Sacramento County and is located southeast of Powerline Road and I-5.

The property abuts the city limit boundary on the east and a portion to the north.

Currently, the property is designated agricultural cropland with Ag-80 zoning in the county.

The project is adjacent to the Metro Airpark Industrial Complex and the Sacramento International Airport to the north,

the Westlake neighborhood to the east, and Paso Verde K-8 school to the south.

Also, the county approved the Watt EV truck terminal project directly to the west,

which includes development of 100 acres for electric truck charging and services.

This application has been in process for roughly four years.

The application was first submitted to the city in May of 2021.

There has been a tremendous amount of work that has led up to this evening,

which includes significant outreach efforts, an EIR scoping meeting,

a review and comment at the Planning and Design Commission in April of last year,

releasing the draft EIR, preparation of the final EIR, a recommendation by the

Active Transportation Commission in March of this year, two Sacramento-Lafco

hearings on the Sphere of Influence Amendment, and a recommendation of

approval from Planning and Design Commission in June. At their May 7th

hearing, the Sacramento-Lafco approved the Sphere of Influence Amendment,

bringing the proposed annexation area into the city's Sphere of Influence.

The proposed project includes several entitlements. These are annexation into

the city limits, general plan amendments, pre-zoning to establish zoning designations,

two development agreements, one for each participating property owner, establishment of

plan unit development guidelines and schematic plan, a master parcel map, public facilities

finance plan that establishes the funding framework for the required infrastructure,

amendments to the city's bicycle master plan for the proposed bicycle infrastructure,

and a water supply assessment to ensure adequate water supply to serve the development.

The city has also prepared a final EIR and mitigation and monitoring reporting program, which includes analysis of the proposed project as well as land use assumptions for the non-participating properties.

LAFCO is the final decision maker on the annexation and will consider the annexation after the city acts on the land use entitlements.

The project proposes to amend the 2040 general plan by establishing land use designations, floor area ratio standards, the circulation element to identify new roadway classifications and include the area within the North Natomas community plan.

This designation includes roughly 420 acres of employment mixed use for light industrial and commercial areas and roughly 6.7 acres of open space to serve as a 125 foot buffer along a portion of the eastern and southern boundaries adjacent to Westlake and the Paso Verde School.

the proposed pre-zoning includes rezoning from the county's agricultural 80 zone to roughly 336

of light industrial or m1 pud roughly 15.5 sorry 15.7 acres of highway commercial or hc pud

roughly 70 acres for light industrial or m1 on the non-participating properties and roughly 6.7

acres of agriculture open space for the 125 foot buffer along a portion of the eastern and southern

boundaries adjacent to Westlake and the Paso Verde School. The project includes the creation

of new planned unit development guidelines and schematic plan that would apply only to the

participating properties. The PUD establishes the regulatory development framework with prescriptive

development standards for building design and site layout as well as a schematic plan that

identifies land uses. The guidelines specifically address building

orientation height and setbacks, landscaping and screening requirements,

parking and circulation standards, architectural design elements and

monument signage. The PUD provides additional restrictions on the eastern

edge closest to Westlake that include maximum building height, maximum building

size, orienting all truck bays away from the eastern property line and requiring

an additional 125-foot building setback to serve as an additional buffer to the city-owned buffer

property. Because the non-participating properties are not part of the PUD, staff is proposing to

split zone the parcel closest to Westlake and Paso Verde school with a 125-foot open space buffer

as previously described in the pre-zone and general plan exhibits. This split zone parcel

is often referred to as parcel 8 or the Scalora property. The split zone designation provides

assurances that the land cannot be developed with light industrial uses and therefore creates an

additional open space buffer to match the building setback as provided in the PUD. This is accompanied

by an existing 200-foot buffer between the Westlake neighborhood and the eastern edge of the annexation

area. Through a future city process, this area could be enhanced partially with park impact fees

provided by this project. Similar to the city-owned buffer property, there is an additional 180 to 200

foot buffer between Paso Verde school and the non-participating property. This buffer area is

within Sacramento County and has limited development potential because of its zoning and unique

configuration. It is important to note that it is not unusual to see light industrial uses that

accommodate heavy truck bays that are adjacent to residential. This first example is a research and

development spec building that was approved in the employment center zone which is directly across

from residential along Duckhorn Drive. The distances between employment activity and

residential buildings are 120 feet and 107 feet respectively in the examples shown on screen.

This next example is in the Panhandle subdivision that was approved north of the Pan area along Del

Paso Road. On the southern end of this project the nearest proposed residences are 240 feet from the

closest light industrial building. On the western end of the project the nearest proposed residences

are 70 feet from the Natomas Charter School. Finally, this is the Greenbrier or North Lake

residential development in which residential parcels are located 250 feet from parcels

zoned for manufacturing and distribution use within the metro air park. The applicant proposes

to subdivide the participating property into 25 master parcels. This includes 11 parcels including

237 acres, six highway commercial parcels totaling 15.7 acres, eight utility parcels for detention

basins, pump stations, and a smud substation. The map also creates the proposed roadways including

Airport South Industrial Drive, Metro Air Parkway Extension, internal circulation with A and B Drive,

a roundabout at A Drive and Bayou Way to discourage truck traffic from heading east towards West

Lake and the abandonment and realignment of a portion of the existing Bayou Way. The map includes

comprehensive conditions of approval for infrastructure requirements, public facilities

and financing, utility connections and easements, flood protection and future maintenance obligations.

An environmental impact report has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental

Quality Act with the city being co-lead agency with LAFCO. This process began in March of 2022

with the notice of preparation and a public scoping meeting.

The draft EIR was released for public review in May of 2024

and LAFCO held a public hearing on the draft EIR in June of 2024.

The final EIR is complete and LAFCO certified the final EIR

with the sphere of influence that was approved in May of this year.

The City Council will also be required to certify the final EIR with city entitlements.

Mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce most impacts to less than significant level.

However, even with mitigation, some impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable

and were related to visual character, farmland and agriculture policies, and air quality.

If there are significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency must adopt a statement of overriding considerations

and can consider economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits to certify the EIR.

The benefits of this project include revitalizing underutilized lands,

providing additional retail near residential, creating permanent employment opportunities,

near places of residence, generating property tax and sales tax revenue for

the city, and providing funding for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

I will now hand the presentation over to Cheryl Hodge, Principal Planner and New

Growth Manager, to discuss the project as it relates to the Natomas Basin Habitat

Conservation Plan.

Hi, good evening. My name is Cheryl Hodge, Principal Planner with the Community

Development Department. As the city manager's designee for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation

Plan, which I'll refer to as the HCP, I am responsible for ensuring the city successfully

implements the HCP and fulfills its obligations to mitigate for its authorized development as

outlined in the plan. The HCP was adopted in 2003 and pertains to the Natomas Basin,

which is approximately 53,537 acres in size.

Our HCP partners include Sutter County, California Department of Fish and Wildlife,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Natomas Basin Conservancy.

The HCP identifies 22 covered species and provides for the conservation of these species

through the acquisition and protection of open space lands located within the basin.

The Conservancy is responsible for the acquisition of the open space lands,

enhancement and management of these lands in perpetuity.

The Conservancy has acquired and manages over 5,300 acres of protected open space

shown on the exhibit as gray shaded properties.

the city of sacramento will not oh i'm sorry okay um the hcp allows for urban development

to occur while ensuring that habitat values are maintained and increased within the basin

the city's authorized development per the hcp is 8,050 acres the city will not be exceeding

the 8,050 acres of authorized development with the proposed

annexation. The proposed development of the annexation

area would provide 200 acres of protected open space in the

basin, payment of over $13 million in

HCP fees, and compliance with the HCP requirements

such as pre-construction biological surveys and implementation

of avoidance and minimization measures for species.

This exhibit identifies open space land shown in the green color that are adjacent to and near the annexation area.

The Conservancy-owned land, totaling roughly just over 300 acres, is shown in dark green,

and the crosshatched area shown is 117.59 acres that has been acquired by the project applicant,

the developer North Point, that would be dedicated to the Conservancy,

enabling a 400-acre HCP reserve block to be completed, which is a requirement of the HCP.

This slide provides three different scenarios for comparison.

These include a scenario with annexation and development occurring in the city of Sacramento,

a scenario with development occurring while remaining unincorporated land with the county, and then a no development scenario.

As shown, the only scenario that would provide for payment of over $13 million in HCP fees

would be the scenario if the area is annexed and developed within the city.

The HCP financial long-term stability is reliant on the completion of the authorized urban development acres,

which provides the protected open space in perpetuity in the basin supporting the 22 covered species.

No productive agriculture would occur with the development of the property,

and that would be if it's developed with the city or with the county,

and limited agricultural if the property remains undeveloped.

With all scenarios, there will be an increase in traffic from surrounding areas as those develop in the future.

For road improvements, there would be guaranteed improvements with the Airport South Industrial Project

occurring in the city, potential improvements which are unknown if developed with the county,

and no improvements with the land remaining undeveloped.

Like the payment of HCP fees, the only scenario that provides for the dedication of HCP open space lands

is with the annexation scenario.

No HCP protected lands would be provided to the Conservancy with development occurring with the county

or if the land remained undeveloped.

Of the three scenarios, the future development, if with the city, is the only one that would be considered HCP compliant.

If the development were to occur within the city, there would be consideration of nearby uses.

It's unknown what consideration would be given in the area if developed with a county.

And with no development scenario, there would still be surrounding future land development occurring, such as projects like Watt, EV, and others.

The HCP has been successful because of the strong commitment of the HCP partners.

An important aspect of this is always looking ahead to ensure its continued viability long term, which is vital for the conservation strategy.

The saying actions speak louder than words is true, especially when describing the city and the HCP.

Based on our track record of commitment, I'm confident that future actions by the city will continue to support the HCP to ensure its success.

Thank you.

This concludes staff presentation and my understanding is that the project applicant, North Point, is prepared with a presentation.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council.

My name is Nick Abdus.

I'm with the Law Offices of Abdus and Coochie,

and I'm here on behalf of AKT Development.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Airport South project.

This is an effort shaped by nearly five years of detailed planning,

technical analysis and sustained community engagement. We're excited to finally be here

before you today. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge the collaborative effort that has

brought us to this point. Large complex development projects like the Airport South Project naturally

and justifiably generate discussion and differing viewpoints, but they also reflect a tremendous

amount of professional work. We're grateful to the dedication shown by everybody involved and

particularly the city's exceptional planning staff. Their expertise, responsiveness, and

steady guidance have been invaluable throughout the process. Countless

collective hours have been spent on this project. On that note, I'd also like to

recognize our project team. Their commitment, depth of experience, and

attention to detail have been instrumental in shaping this proposal.

Many of these professionals and their respective teams are here this evening

and stand ready to assist to respond to any questions you may have.

Collectively, they bring decades of land use, engineering, environmental, and planning experience to this project.

At this point, it is my pleasure to introduce AKT's development partner, North Point Development.

Representing North Point this evening is Jeff Griffin, who walked through a project with you,

and I'll return later in the presentation for additional comments.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to introduce our firm and discuss our proposed project.

As Nick said, I'm Jeff Griffin, the West Region partner with North Point Development.

North Point Development is a privately held real estate operating company

headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, founded in 2012 by our current CEO, Nathaniel Hagedorn.

Personally, I'm a Sacramento native born in Woodland and joined North Point Development in 2018 and opened our Northern California office here in the Sacramento market after spending 16 years with another local industrial development firm learning the industrial sector trade.

Our firm specializes in industrial, data center, and multifamily developments, and our current national portfolio consists of over 153 million square feet of Class A industrial space and approximately 6,500 multifamily units.

We have nine offices across the country employing roughly 400 development staff.

Our development span 27 states and helped create a home for over 110,000 jobs nationwide,

the single biggest fact that I'm most proud of on this slide.

This slide also shows a representation of some of our national clients, several of which are Fortune 50 companies.

Additionally, we show many charitable organizations that we help support nationally as well as locally.

In the Sacramento community since 2018 we have developed over 5 million square feet of industrial space of which approximately 4 million square feet is in the Natomas community at Metro Air Park.

In 2018 we started our local developments within the Southport Business Park of West Sacramento a three building project across 60 acres.

Then in 2019 we acquired our first land site and commenced our first Metro Air

Park project and have gone on to develop seven assets within the park over the

past five plus years across 245 acres. Additionally in 2021 we purchased

roughly 100 acres from Aerojet in the Rancho Cordova community and have

redeveloped that property into two assets with an additional 30 acres to

develop. Locally our projects represent an approximate 700 million dollar

investment in the community while helping create approximately 4,000 long-term jobs,

not to mention thousands of construction jobs that support the development of our projects.

This job creation is accomplished through teamwork, working closely with municipalities,

capital partners, the contracting industry, in addition to and most importantly the ultimate user.

I think it's worth noting that North Point development is different than most other

national development firms because our business model is to own our projects long-term.

in contrast to many other firms that develop, stabilize their assets,

and typically dispose of them to institutional investment firms

that mostly have no community presence.

We've been a part of the Sacramento community since 2018

and plan to be here a very long time.

The Sacramento community has been a terrific market for us to develop in,

and we will continue to live into our core values

and do our very best to deliver high-quality projects

which provide substantial community benefits.

now I want to take a little time to provide a brief overview of the airport

south area of Sacramento and its build out over the last 10 years this slide is

an aerial from 2015 note there is limited development around the airport

with no interchange at I-5 and Metro Air Parkway and no assets within Metro

Air Park you fast forward 10 years and you'll see the extensive development that

has occurred in this northwest corner of Sacramento. There's now a new interchange

at Metro Air Parkway and I-5 which is a 30 million dollar piece of infrastructure

which opened in 2021 to serve the logistics function at Metro Air Park.

There's now the North Lake subdivision which is mostly complete and Metro Air

Park is now the home to 29 developed assets totaling almost 10 million square

feet of Class A industrial space. Also Costco has recently commenced

construction of their 92 acre site. I wanted to highlight this site as an

example of how much land is absorbed with a single 1 million square foot

facility. It's without a doubt that Metro Air Park has become a premier

logistics location due to its proximity to I-5 and the I-80 interchange so

goods can be moved efficiently north-south and east-west across the country.

Additionally has become a county economic engine generating well over 20 million dollars annually in property taxes and assessments

Not including the tens of millions of annual taxes generated from the Bradley burns local point-of-sale sales tax

On this next slide we wanted to highlight more closely the build-out that has occurred within Metro our park over the last seven years

Remember this is ten years ago and this next colored overlay

provides you an image of what is currently developed the years each asset

was developed and the remaining to be developed buildings at Metro Air Park

which are represented by the dark navy blue boxes currently the industrial zone

districts within Metro Air Park are now at 76 percent build-out it's important

to recognize how there are no sites showing a conceptual 1 million square

foot logistics facility and most of the to be developed assets will be less than

300,000 square feet which is far different than what is conceptualized

by our Airport South land plan on this slide we wanted to highlight the

International Airport's planned development property overlaid in red the

county's Metro Airport boundary overlaid in blue identifying the proposed annex

area we call Airport South. Note the $30 million interchange dumps directly into the project area.

The North Lake subdivision and the county's approved Wadi V project which will assist in

providing needed infrastructure to a future of CARB compliant electric truck fleets. For these

reasons we believe our proposed project is the appropriate use of this land in addition to its

proximity to housing for jobs to reduce vehicle miles traveled as well as being

situated under the FAA's flight path for the airport and most importantly the

lack of large entitled sites to meet the large-scale requirements. This slide

represents the initial conceptual plan that we began with in 2021 which became

the basis for the environmental impact analysis. Note 4.4 million square feet of

industrial and a highway commercial component at the interchange. We show you

this slide to allow you the opportunity to understand how much public outreach

we performed in an effort to be a good neighbor. Speaking of outreach, this slide

breaks down the extensive amount and transparent nature of how we approach

soliciting stakeholder feedback in an effort to steer our final projects

vision which we are processing here tonight. Over the course of the past four

years while soliciting District 1 community feedback we ended up making

substantial changes to the easternmost portion of the project area. Zooming into

that parcel you'll see represented here that we reduced the scale and

voluntarily restricted the height of the buildings in closest proximity to the

Westlake community designing much smaller buildings and in turn these

types of smaller assets could house community amenities such as bounce house

kids play zones residential service providers such as electricians plumbers

etc which was requested on multiple occasions by the community

representatives in addition to these in addition these types of assets could be

utilized for research and development as well as light assembly facilities

similar to those such as the local Nivijan home located on Duckhorn not too

far from our project site next we relocated the north-south connector

road further away from the residential community as requested and we designed a roundabout to direct

truck trips toward the I-5 interchange while additionally slowing down vehicular traffic

moving eastbound into the residential community which we heard has been ongoing concern.

Additionally we have also provided for in the PUD required 125 foot setback on the easternmost

portion of the project which will place any vertical asset some 340 feet from

the Lanfranco properties in the Westlake community. All right so separate and

apart from the project before you and in response to and as a gesture of

goodwill to the immediate neighborhood North Point assisted by fully funding a

Parks Department effort to conceptualize an extension of the existing Egret

Park by improving the city-owned buffer which lies between the proposed airport

south project and the Westlake community. After extensive public outreach and

input in that effort, the community told us it wanted a passive tree-line

multi-use path that also incorporated native plantings. As you can see here,

the concept would include an improved trail connecting the north section of

existing egret park trail with substantial landscape features we have

also provided while not shown on this exhibit an easement on our current

tentative parcel map for a future bike ped connection into the airport south

property as a proposed trail location should the city proceed with improvement

of this buffer area we now want to show you a simulation video of what the view

from Westlake could be if this area was improved as you see on your screen right now.

So we're starting on our drive on the south end of Lanfranco Circle.

And looking west, you see the conceived landscape features within the city-owned buffer area.

Please note as you drive north, you can see how the conceived landscape element mostly shields the airport south project from the residential views.

To provide a visual of the architecture for the proposed project, we wanted to include these renderings.

In working with the planning staff, we landed on these concepts for our logistics facilities,

some of which are contained within the PUD design guidelines.

Note, the top two display the requested roofline and wall plane articulation with multiple paint schemes to break the massing of the buildings.

The bottom left represents the smaller buildings in the eastmost project area with more glazing along with articulation features to represent more of an office building look.

And on the bottom right, we show a basic concept of a proposed four-story hotel, which would be allowed within the highway commercial area at the interchange.

Now we'd like to show you a two-minute video which simulates the proposed project if developed as currently conceived.

Hope these videos are helpful for you.

Here we are dropping onto the I-5 interchange at Metro Air Parkway, looking southward.

Now panning west, you'll see a representation of the highway commercial component.

And now panning east, you'll see the proposed four-story concept hotel.

Now moving southbound along Metro Air Parkway and looking west.

and now to the east, you can visualize the large logistics facilities planned.

As we turn and head east along Airport South Drive,

take note of the substantial landscaped corridor

with generous landscaped setbacks along the road

fronting these large logistics facilities.

Here you get a representation of the detention facilities planned.

And now we are entering the easternmost portion of the project that we redesigned with much smaller buildings in mind due to the community feedback.

Please note the loading bays are oriented to be out of the view from the residential community.

And these even smaller buildings have been designed to be shorter with greater aesthetics in mind, including more glazing akin to more of an office finish.

And as we pan a little further east, you'll see how the landscape city buffer could obscure most of the project from residential views.

next we wanted to provide these pictures to show actual north point development assets across the

country some similar to our airport south concept while others designed specifically for certain

client needs also we wanted to provide a brief representation of what the interior warehouse

components of these logistics building look like please keep in mind these are no longer industrial

warehouses but high finished workplaces containing assembly lines research and development spaces

as well as high-tech logistics facilities that are clean safe professional with advanced material

handling equipment and often with some level of robotics to compete in today's logistics industry

comes down to optimizing automation for quicker and more efficient processing and delivery of goods

Last on the buildings, the office component of these assets is important to know.

They are often similar in nature to Class A office space for the employment retention factor.

These photos are actual North Point Development client facilities,

some of which also house cafeterias as well as exercise areas for the employee health and enjoyment.

Now I'll hand it back to Nick to take us to the end.

Thank you again for your time.

So we're getting close here. We're in the home stretch. So we've touched on the nature and the setting of the project. I'd like to touch now on the economic benefits.

For this, we sought out a respected economics firm. Economic planning systems, EPS, provided an independent economic impact analysis regarding Airport South and derived the information that you see on this slide.

Notice that the total investment of half a billion dollars in the site providing substantial public tax revenues based on increased property values, and that's just property taxes.

Note that school fees are not insignificant.

Natomas Unified will enjoy over $4.5 million without a single student being generated from this site.

And obviously the big potential here is an e-commerce user.

As we know, those sales tax dollars are significant.

Our current estimates are $10 to $50 a square foot.

So for a million square foot building, that's $10 to $50 million on an annualized basis in sales tax revenue alone.

So as represented in the previous slide, this project represents a massive investment in the community.

while estimated to pay over $120 million in fees over the course of the development

as represented in the public facilities finance plan.

Let me be clear that not a penny of city funds are needed for this project.

Also derived from the EPS analysis, this project represents the potential to create

over 5,400 long-term operational jobs while creating over 3,700 construction job years.

This project could become an employment hub for the community, all immediately adjacent to diverse housing opportunities already being provided for in Atomas.

I think it's very important to take the opportunity to highlight here and something we're extremely proud of, and that's the fact that we have full organized labor support on the project.

This assures delivery of additional significant economic benefits to our local workforce through agreements with organized labor.

These agreements ensure that a large pool of skilled craft workers will be employed in building the project, providing sustained employment opportunities and protecting established living wage levels and working conditions that support middle class families in our community in addition to enhancing career opportunities.

I'd like to take a moment to recognize the folks here this evening.

They won't all be speaking.

I'd ask all those in favor of the project to please stand up and be recognized,

and I want to extend my personal appreciation to Labor for being here, each and every one of you.

Thank you.

So as we move into the closing remarks here, and again, promise this is the home stretch,

I want to directly address several of the key concerns and misconceptions circulating about this project.

Over the past days weeks months and years I've heard a lot of statements that don't align with the facts or the record and it's important both for this council and for the community that we ground this discussion in accurate fact based information.

This is a significant project for the city and it deserves to be well evaluated on the merits based on data planning policy and the extensive technical work that's been done over nearly five years.

So I'd like to take a few minutes to clearly and concisely walk through the major issues that we've heard

And provide some factual context behind them

Why here this location as we've seen is dictated by regional infrastructure and a planning reality

It sits next to a brand new 30 million dollar interchange designed specifically to serve logistics

It's adjacent to an existing logistics hub next to an approved

electric charging facility close to the intersection of I-5 and I-80 and next to

an international airport. It is a fact that this is precisely where the region

is planned for and where it is logical for this employment-based growth to

occur. Regarding the HCP, I don't think I can say anything beyond what your staff

has said. I will say that the nearly $14 million in endowment revenue

represents nearly a third of the total endowment revenue received by the

and Natomas Basin Conservancy over the last 25 years.

The big takeaway here is we're consistent with the HCP and support it.

On ag conversion, I personally am a part of a third-generation farming family in Natomas,

and I can tell you this land has very limited agricultural viability

due to its geographic constraints that already can restrict crop dusting,

pesticide use and creation of ongoing conflicts with adjacent sensitive receptors including

residents in the school regarding dust noise and pest issues and that's just to name a few.

Meanwhile this project will permanently preserve higher value ag land at a ratio of one to one

in perpetuity therefore protecting farmland that has currently zero permanent protection.

Regarding traffic and community impacts we listen carefully and redesign the project accordingly.

reducing development intensity again adjacent to Westlake as you see in the site plan,

much smaller footprints, shorter buildings, relocating roadways and truck bays from existing neighborhoods,

and incorporating a roundabout to further direct truck traffic towards the map interchange.

Relative to illegal truck parking, we hear this concern often.

The reality is that illegal truck parking occurs when logistics demand outpaces modern regulated facilities.

facilities. Purpose built professionally managed buildings like these actually

reduce illegal parking by giving operators properly designed loading areas

and firm lease controls. This project is a solution and not a cause. On air quality

and airport safety our health risk assessment shows impacts below

established thresholds for nearby schools and the nearby school and

neighborhoods. Regarding detention basins the EIR determined bird strike risk

would be less than significant and will implement a wildlife hazard management

plan in coordination with airport personnel. This is identically the approach used successfully

by other Natomas projects. We've heard Natomas lacks infrastructure to support more jobs or homes.

This project does not add homes. It does not burden schools and does not require the city to

expand any off-site infrastructure. The EIR confirms the existing infrastructure has capacity

and the project is fully funding its share through the PFFP. Regarding light pollution and general

environmental impacts I think we've incorporated design elements relative to lighting and

and setbacks and buffering as well as the conclusions of the health risk assessment

those speak for themselves. Regarding the trucks concerns about trucks near residential areas

as mentioned earlier we've designed the entire eastern region of the project

in in in consideration of those concerns. We've heard that neighbors want more investment in

parks. While not required, this project voluntarily funded an effort by the city to conceptualize an

expansion of Egret Park and provided the easement necessary for future bike trail connectivity.

This project offers limited benefits to Natomas. Respectfully, I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

The EPS analysis shows more than $120 million in fees, substantial tax revenue, potential

in the tens of millions, over 5,400 long-term jobs, labor agreements guaranteeing local middle

class construction jobs. This is the largest private party labor project in Northern California.

The level of economic uplift is not limited, far from it. It is actually transformational.

Here's the reality. This is the last significant assemblage of vacant parcels between the city

boundary and the airport property. Surrounded on three sides by existing or planned development.

The question isn't whether this land will be developed. It's immediately adjacent to the

airport and has all the features that we've talked about ad nauseum. It's whether we do it thoughtfully

with community benefits, workforce protections, environmental stewardship, or we're going to wait

for some less desirable proposal. We're excited about this project's potential to strengthen our

community, our city. We hope that you share our vision. Thank you for your time this evening. I

would also like to reserve some time at the end of public comment to provide any rebuttal if

necessary. Thank you.

We will now begin with public comments.

We have roughly 50 speakers, so a couple hours here and then deliberation from the council.

We ask you all be respectful.

If you don't want to use all your two minutes, that's perfectly fine as well.

Number one.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm going to call a few names at a time.

Please feel free to line up in the middle aisle.

There will be a timer behind me.

And again, if you don't need your entire two minutes,

our first is Alan Green, Doyle Radford, Lionel Berrigan, Matt Beeson, Kyle Swarins.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members. Good to see everyone. Thank you for all the work that you're doing. My name is Alan Green. I'm a proud Labor's Local 185 member and I'm a trade instructor with Northern California Construction Training.

We just celebrated our 31st year of making a huge impact in the community,

working with folks who didn't live next door to that superintendent.

Might have been in recovery, might have been incarcerated.

I'm in favor of this project.

I love it when one of my students graduates our programs,

they get into the union trade that they decided to join,

and they get to work locally.

There's work all over California,

but when we could be a part of a project this size, this close to home,

it only makes all the sense in the world.

Thank you for your time.

I know there's 52 people standing behind me that are looking forward to saying hi to everyone.

So thank you.

Doyle Radford.

Good evening, Mayor McCarty and respected city council.

I mean, if I could have used a little more cowbell, you know, I was listening.

So, yeah, it's not as distracting as it was earlier, but I want to commend everyone for, you know, sticking with us tonight.

And, of course, our friends Nick Advis and Jeff Griffin for the tenacity to continue to move forward with this project.

Like I said, my name is Doyle Radford.

I have the distinct privilege to represent the men and women of Liuna Labor's Local 185.

We've been proudly building this community since 1929.

Including this building. We're in we did the major overhaul two decades ago some of these retirees back here

I think worked on it. Hensel Phelps built it. They're over there building our Kaiser facility

So no real substantial project is built in this city without our men and women

quality craftsmanship

And I'll tell you what this developer here

They are terrific. We've worked with them on several other projects throughout the region

They build with local labor standards. They build with our local employers

More importantly, they build with our local men and women.

And we keep those dollars in the community, and we proudly build this community.

And we're excited to build this project.

And I'm here tonight to encourage you to vote yes in favor of the annexation and building the Airport South industrial project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lionel Berrigan and Matt Beaston.

Good evening, respective.

Mayor Han. Council members, my name is Lionel Berrigan. I've been a long-time resident of

North Natomas. Projects like the airport south and deskt has given me the opportunity to work

here in Sacramento instead of commuting to the Bay Area. I support this project because it will

continue to create local jobs and allow more workers like me to stay closer to home and spend

more time with our families and friends, as well as giving back to our community.

Thank you for your time and I hope you consider these projects and projects like this are the ones that pay the bills. Thank you.

Matt Beeston, Kyle Swarins, Melissa Brougham.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Matthew Beeston. I am a representative of the NorCal Carpenters Union.

Tonight I am speaking on behalf of my membership in favor of the Airport South Project.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to you tonight, an opportunity to illuminate the needs of my fellow members, your constituents,

and we need thoughtfully planned construction projects with employment benefits that invigorate the local workforce and stimulate the local economy.

We are carpenters.

You see us building everything from bridges to high-rises as you drive down the road.

You see us supporting communities and fighting for workers' rights as you browse social media and local news.

And tonight you see us in the Sacramento City Council Chambers engaged in civil liberty.

We are an informed group, we are an organized group, and we know the benefits of this project.

We know that at full build-out, Airport South is projected to provide well over $500 million worth of construction impact,

$14 million in annual public tax sector revenues, $9.3 million of which is annual property tax alone,

over $4 million in school fees generated to benefit the Natomas Unified,

and nearly 4,000 construction job years.

We know the benefits of this project.

Airport South will create a city-based employment hub,

keeping good jobs in the community for years to come thanks to a strategic phasing of the project.

The NorCal Carpenters Union strongly supports this project and we urge your support as well.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kyle?

Good evening, Council, staff, and residents.

My name is Kyle Swarnes.

While I'm a proud union carpenter, I am here tonight as a 15-year resident in Natomas in District 1, a family member, and a father.

I'm here to speak in favor of the development in front of us tonight.

This development has significant impact to our community from the groundbreaking to the years after development is completed.

I myself am proud to have a chance to work on some projects in Natomas from the SAC report six-story parking garage being my first project,

my second project being the fire station off of club center drive and my fifth project in the

trades was being a water treatment plant built in metro air park while some will say the projects

once the project is done the construction workers move on i would like to say that's not true i

moved to the tomas after these projects i have become a productive member of the community

including growing my own family my point tonight is we are part of this community often we are

brushed off, don't forget about the workers building these projects. When these projects

are completed, they will help Natomas grow. Natomas is known as a community where restaurants

will open their doors and many of them finding their self-closing. I strongly believe it's

because we need more businesses in our community. These developments will bring in workers who

will spend their hard-earned money in this community. I also have family members who

travel 45 minutes to an hour to work at warehouse jobs like the ones in front of us tonight.

While many will say this will cause more traffic, I know having these businesses in Atomus will

cause shorter travel time, creating less traffic locally because individuals aren't traveling

through Atomus taking the I-5 to Woodland to get around the Davis traffic. Instead,

they'll be traveling in Atomus to work. Having this development in Atomus gives them the advantage

to use the airport to bring in goods or send goods out.

Again, helping the traffic we face in Atomos and in Sacramento.

Please support this development going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Melissa, then Mark Dimitri.

Melissa, then Mark Dimitri, then Michelle Stoffel.

Following Michelle is Tyler Kircher, then Kent Leighton.

Hi, thank you.

I am here on behalf of the Cuyoca and Scalora families who are owners of Parcel 8, which was purchased and has been owned by us since 1960 and was farmed for over 50 years and then came homes on our east and a school to our south.

We are losing our land little by little by surrounding it with other uses and then being told we cannot develop our land because of those other uses.

As for the North Point requests before you, we need to differentiate participating versus non-participating parcels.

Non-participating, that just means our parcel has not been committed as a financial project applicant or participant to the North Point Development Project.

Although the environmental evaluation and recommended mitigation for the potential future development includes calculations that attribute certain amounts of traffic, pollution, and other items to our property that are for calculation purposes only.

The issue raised concerning our property are habitat, traffic, and pollution.

As for habitat concerns, our property is already covered by the Natomas HCP.

As for the suggested traffic pollution problems, we have not proposed any roadways or anything that creates or emits pollution on or from our property.

There are no roads proposed on the east, Westlake side, or south school side of our property.

Regarding barriers and berms, there's already a barrier on the east side of our property

between us and the Westlake development that is approximately 200 feet wide.

In addition, we have been cooperating with the city staff and have been agreeable to

provide an additional buffer that results in a greater open space separator.

We believe it is only fair and reasonable to go forward and follow the city's recommendations

and we should be given the same opportunity for future development of our property as

was granted to the development that became our residential and our school

neighbors. Thank you so much. Mark Dimitri then Michelle Stoffel.

Got to beat the shot clock. Good evening Mayor McCarthy, members of the Sacramento

City Council. My name is Mark Dimitri. Thank you for the opportunity to speak

with you in person this evening. I'm grateful for your time and your

continued commitment to the Sacramento community. For more than 40 years I've

exclusively in the Sacramento industrial market representing landlords developers both local and national tenants

I've served an industrial leader for the teams at CBRE

JLL collars international

I've had the privilege to work with and have worked with almost every major industrial developer in the region

Early in my career. I worked closely with Joe Benpenuity and his company JB company developed roughly a hundred

Industrial buildings representing a million square feet in the Natomas market those buildings created significant employment

employment opportunities for Sacramento residents in sectors ranging from light industrial,

manufacturing, research and development, logistics, distribution, and data centers.

Airport South represents a similar and equal important opportunity for all of us.

Until Metro Airpark began to build out seven or eight years ago, Sacramento struggled to

compete with the Bay Area and Central Valley or large industrial users simply because we

didn't have the site of scale strategically located for regional distribution.

Metro Airpark changed that.

Because of proximity 80 and 5, major tenants, local, national, Fortune 100 companies have chosen to locate to keep the logistics running at optimal efficiency.

Most recently, my team represented the Fortune, excuse me, 50 company, Costco Wholesale Corporation,

acquired 92 acres in Metro Airpark to expand their strength in regional area.

Airport South will build on that momentum.

You've often heard the phrase location, location, location.

Airport South meets the standard.

Airport South will allow companies to serve nearly 50 million people within a one-day trip.

Projects of this scale are hard to find, strategic, increasingly rare,

and when we don't have sites like this available, we lose good companies along with jobs,

economic stability, and what they bring.

I'm confident this project will be successful.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Michelle Stoffel and Tyler Carrechter.

Good afternoon. I am Michelle Stoffel and a member of Local 340. I am currently a teacher

at Northern California Construction Training, teaching a pre-apprenticeship. Today I ask

you to support this airport project. I've had an opportunity as a union member to work

locally these past couple of five years. There's been a lot of projects and I've been super

blessed. What this career has meant for me is I have gone from homeless to a homeowner and I

teach that to people. I'm like having local work means that we can bring more people into our

it means that we can bring more people into a good paying trade. Union trades is something

that can literally bring people out of like I don't know what I'm doing with my life into a

position to where they can actually be a functioning member of society and actually

contribute to it. So projects like this really give us like a stronghold of, you know,

building stronger communities. Thank you so much.

Tyler, then Kent. Good evening. I'm Tyler Kircher, and I'm a member of the IBEW. Today,

we ask you to support the Airport South Industrial Project. This project, if approved,

represents a critical investment in our region's future.

It proposes 400 acres of modern industrial logistics space,

a development that is not merely about construction,

but about strategically positioning our community

for the evolving economic landscape.

For IBW Local 340, the benefits are tangible and immediate.

This project guarantees significant work

for our skilled electricians,

translating to approximately 120 high-quality,

family-sustaining jobs over the next four years.

These are not just numbers.

there are local residents, taxpayers, and community members who will directly contribute

their wages back into our local economy. This project is precisely the type of forward-thinking

industrial space that we need as consumer habits shift increasingly toward the delivery-based

systems. A logistics center at this location is not a luxury but a necessity. The location

is just outside the urban core, the airport, and a major interstate with a planned charging

station for the hauling industry. This project will enable our region to adapt and thrive.

It demonstrates a commitment to creating well-paying jobs, fostering economic resilience, and embracing the new logistical demands of our region.

We urge the council to support this project, not only for the benefit of our union members, but also for the broader economic development of the entire region.

Thank you for your time today.

And next speaker is Kent, then Troll's Adrian.

Hi, council.

Thanks for hearing me today in these kind of trying circumstances.

First, I'd like to say that I've been a resident of Sacramento since 1954.

And coincidentally, I have had a business for 54 years that required a lot of physical labor.

So I respect and appreciate the value of physical labor.

I have to say, though, my concern is that I feel like in Sacramento, after all these years, I've watched it get eaten up part by part.

And I've watched the landscape change from natural landscape to basically San Jose, Los Angeles, or any other anonymous American city.

And it bothers me because I think we're losing something.

We have such a small amount of natural land left in our region that gives it its identity.

Why sell it out?

Why would we use our prime farmland and natural land that we can't replace to build warehouses and industrial?

Isn't there somewhere else we can put this?

We don't have much left.

I feel like if we put this industrial development here in the middle of farmland,

it will devalue the whole area, which I see this happening,

and make it more vulnerable to development.

Like, why not? It's already gone.

The airport's south industrial property is an important linchpin.

If it goes, more developments will follow.

Once we lose our natural and agricultural land to millionaire developers

and big box business, it will be gone forever.

So I think the people of Sacramento

don't need more warehouses right there.

What we need is to save what we have left

of our natural surroundings.

You've wisely made the right decision

to decline the Upper West Side project for the...

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Trolls Adrian, then Joe Blass.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor McCarty, Vice Mayor Talamantes, members of Council.

I'm Charles Adrian here with the Greater Sacramento Economic Council,

speaking in support of this really, really important project.

In the 2 o'clock meeting today, Council approved economic development

as a top priority strategically for the city for a number of reasons.

And it is, I think, quite fortuitous that this evening you have an opportunity

to take a major vote in the direction of advancing economic development,

not just for the city of Sacramento, but for the region overall.

The Airport South Industrial Project, it's not often that an urban core

has a chance to approve a project this size and scope that's going to have such an impact.

Our pipeline of the Greater Sacramento Economic Council right now is 65% industrial.

Many of the companies that we work with are R&D.

they are advanced manufacturing companies. They are paying very high

wages and they're looking for places in the region to locate, they're looking for

places in the region to hire people and this could be the next

great place to do that, not only in the City of Sacramento but in Greater

Sacramento overall. The success of nearby Metro Air Park and the fact that we

work with Nivijin to locate in Natomas speaks to this demand and to the

opportunity before you. In Metro Air Park of course there are many logistics

centers and we support logistics and distribution but unbeknownst to a lot of

people there are also some of these really amazing advanced manufacturing

companies like Orca Bio for example or Sparks or Rivian and two additional

battery projects that we're currently working on and we haven't announced yet.

So the R&D portion of this dovetails very nicely with our regional strategies

and what we're seeing in the market. This project meets the market where it's at,

It's the right location. It's the right team behind it. High quality.

And we strongly urge you to approve it, to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Joe Blass.

And Joe is Femi Lampkins and Corinne Garthur.

Hello, Mayor Kevin McCarty and Council Members. My name is Joseph Blass.

I know you don't know me. Kevin McCarty, I shook your hand.

I went door knocking for you on a very cold October morning.

I just want to say thank you first off because you guys are the ones that gave me a job.

My first job working for the union was the Golden One Center.

Without them, I wouldn't be a journeyman today.

I support the airport annex and I hope you do the same.

Thank you for your time.

Next speaker is Femi.

Fahmey, then Corinne.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members.

My name is Fahmey Lampkins, and I'm here tonight as a lifelong resident of Sacramento County

and on behalf of the NorCal Carpenters Union to express our strong support for the Airport South project in Natomas.

As a union representative, my priority is advocating for projects that not only stimulate growth in our city,

but also uphold high standards for the working men and women who help build it.

The Airport South project stands out to me because of its commitment to responsible development

and to the people who make it possible.

We support this project in part because our labor standards will be in effect throughout its construction.

First and foremost, workers will be paid the prevailing wage, ensuring fair compensation that reflects their skills and hard work.

This isn't just about putting money in pockets, it's about dignity and respect for our local workforce.

Second, the project provides health and welfare benefits for workers and their families.

Access to quality health care is essential, and these benefits mean that the men and women building Airport South can care for themselves

and their loved ones without compromise.

Finally, the project will employ apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs.

This guarantees that young people in our community have a pathway to good careers,

learning from experienced mentors, and gaining valuable skills on the job.

It's an investment in Sacramento's future workforce and economic stability.

When we choose to support Airport South, we aren't just choosing a new development.

We're choosing to set an example for what responsible growth looks like in Sacramento.

Fair wages, health and welfare for your family, and support for our next generation of workers.

Thank you, council members, for your time.

Thank you.

Corinne and Art Mendoza.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

As a resident of the Westlake neighborhood, I actually live on Lanfranco circle

which is one of the

Streets that you saw in the video simulation that the developer had on earlier

So my property faces the open space that this project is going to you know propose to pave over

I know you're not voting tonight, but I urge you to not support this project and vote know when the vote comes up

The cons of this developer initiated project. I'm just going to list a few

few. Noise, air and light pollution, loss of open space and farmland, diminution of property values,

aesthetic appeal and quality of life for Westlake and the surrounding community,

demonstrated adverse health impacts for the children and families in the adjacent school

and residential neighborhood, even more heavy truck traffic clogging the nearby freeways and

residential streets, no demonstrated need for more warehouses in this area. Maybe some of you

have seen that there are vacant warehouse signs at Metro airpark now

inconsistency with the city's general plan and the north and homeless community

plan inconsistency with campaign promises that many of you made and I'm

looking at mayor McCarty about protecting children this project does

not protect children the cons of this project so far exceed the pros that I

am outraged that city staff has championed it from the beginning and I'm

Frankly appalled that the City Council is even considering it. Please listen to the serious concerns of the residents and stakeholders

Including the Westlake homeowners association and the North Natomas community coalition will be most directly affected by this proposal

I understand that the developer has made some concessions, but with respect

It's not enough if you do make the misguided decision to green light it

Please require a much larger setback than they're currently proposing because as I said, it's not enough. Thank you

give your comments Art Mendoza and John Hershey. Good evening city council members my name is Art

Mendoza I'm with Local 340 been a member there since 1982. I'm here this evening to ask you to

vote yes on the airport south industrial annexation. During my career as the IB with the IBW I've had

the privilege to work on many local projects Sacramento County Sewer Rancho Seco Hyatt Regency

the first, second, and current arenas, UC Davis and Sutter Hospitals, to name a few.

I know firsthand how investment in local union projects has helped support my family and provide me a secure retirement

where I get to continue to support my family by helping care for my grandchildren.

I understand this project is controversial, but I also know that development is inevitable,

so we should focus on how to create something that currently works for our community.

As a city, we must decide whether to invest now at a time that makes sense and keeps us competitive

so we can attract the business and revenue needed to secure for our future

or risk losing economic growth to other communities.

The Airport South project is a magnet for economic development.

It will attract logistics centers, manufacturing facilities, and high-tech industries

which bring long-term investment, tax revenue, and jobs to our region.

IBEW Local 340 supports the Airport South annexation because it will drive large-scale development projects that require complex electrical systems translating directly into high-quality, good-paying union jobs for our members.

I grew up in Northgate and could remember

riding my bike as a young teenager to the end of Truxell Road,

looking past San Juan Road into a big field,

thinking how nice it would be to have a McDonald's closer than the one on Arden Way.

The only reason that this area has not been built out, in my opinion,

is because of the floodplain restrictions.

This is the last frontier of Sacramento.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is John Hershey then Tim Atten.

So John Hershey, Tim Atten, Marbella Sala, Heather Fargo, Ms. Mackenzie Hollander.

Good evening Mayor and members of the council. My name is John Hershey here on behalf of UA

Local 447 Plumbers and Pipe Fitters here in Sacramento. Just in the interest of time I

would just like to say that our approximately 1800 plumbers, pipe fitters, and HVAC techs are

ready to help build out this approximately 447 acres of development and we ask that you support

this project. Thank you. Next speaker is Tom and Marbella. Tom first and then Marbella. Thank you.

Good evening Vice Mayor and Council Members. My name is Tom Aiden, a resident of the City of

of Sacramento and a proud member of the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 447. I'm here tonight to

speak in strong support of staff's recommendations for the Airport South project, a project that has

already earned approval from the Planning and Design Commission. This is exactly the kind of

responsible forward-looking development Sacramento needs. We are fortunate to have a development team

willing to make such a significant private investment in our city, an investment that

reflects confidence in Sacramento's future. Local 447 is excited and ready to

build this project. It meets all of the city's environmental standards and it

represents the kind of thoughtful sustainable growth that benefits

workers, residents, and the region. The Airport South project will generate

hundreds of good construction jobs and create even more permanent jobs once it

is fully built out. And when the project is up and running it will be a major

contributor to the city's general fund bringing in substantial sales tax and

property tax revenue that supports essential public services.

The location near the airport is ideal, strategically positioned, well planned, and aligned with

the long-term development vision for that corridor.

For all these reasons, we strongly urge you to support staff's recommendations and move

this project forward.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Arbea Salen and Heather Fargo.

Good evening, Vice Mayor, Mayor, Council Member.

I'm Arbella Salah and I'm the president of Garneland Northgate Neighborhood Association.

And I'm really happy that we're having this hearing because it's very informative.

And I learned things about this project that I was not aware of.

So lesson for me is always try to listen first before making decisions or opinions.

But that being said, the thing that I've been struck with the most is you talk about,

and I didn't attend the 2 o'clock meeting, but you talk about the importance of economic development.

And I agree, economic development is very important.

And in North Sacramento, we're getting that economic development.

Our community in District 1 is flourishing over all of the development.

But then we have other areas in Sacramento, and that's in South Sacramento,

in District 8 and some of District 6, which needs economic development.

They need this kind of development to create jobs, to create small businesses.

everything that we just described here that's going to happen in North Natomas and District 1,

that's what's needed in South Sacramento because the people there need that kind of economic development.

The schools need all that money that's going to bring in.

You're still going to get money into the city,

but you're going to really work at developing those communities that need it.

Right now, what I see is that we have a divided Sacramento.

There's District, I forgot District 2.

Yes, District 2.

District 2 that is struggling.

We have Gardening Land Northgate, but because we're in District 3

and we have an amazing councilwoman, we're getting ahead.

And then you have the flourishing District 1.

We should have one united community that's flourishing under economic development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Heather Fargo, the Mackenzie Hollander.

Ms. Fargo, do you prefer the handheld mic?

Probably.

Thank you.

I'd rather not see me.

We'd love to see you.

Heather, can we have the handheld mic, please?

Thank you for that.

It's a little hard to hear out there, but it's really nice that the drumming finally stopped.

Good evening to all of you.

My name is Heather Fargo.

I'm speaking here tonight on behalf of the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

We are here to oppose this project very strongly, and we're here to ask you to vote no.

We had hoped to have a workshop kind of a format where we would be able to have conversations with you,

as the developer will, where we might be able to rebut comments.

But we know we're only being given two minutes each,

so we will try to be as clear as we can on our two-minute sound bites.

When I was mayor, I worked very hard to balance the development of North Natomas

with the preservation of farmland and wildlife habitat.

We were required to do that by the state and wildlife agencies

in order to get the flood protection funding we needed to protect the Natomas Basin.

We worked together and we created the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan,

and it's worked for 25 years.

This proposal before you is not consistent with that plan or the city's general plan

or the county's general plan or the SACOG blueprint.

How can all those plans that were developed with community input be so wrong

when this project that was not developed in a collaborative way be so right?

It's on and next to Habitat that will be harmed.

It's next to neighborhoods that will be harmed.

It's next to schools where children and staff will be harmed.

It's not infill. It's sprawl.

There are better sites where other neighborhoods, as Marbella said, would welcome this and be valued by it.

We don't think you should put developer profits over sensible growth and community health.

Please vote no.

Your comments?

Mackenzie?

Mackenzie Hollander, then Jim Pichelle, then Judith Lamar.

Good evening.

I'm Mackenzie Hollander, a high school junior at Natomas Charter School, and I'm against Airport South Industrial.

I've talked with the Natomas Charter School Ecology Task Force Student Club,

and we are all very concerned about the Airport South Industrial project

because it will displace wildlife, increase noise and air pollution, and increase our city's carbon emissions.

As the youth and the people who are going to see these developments happen in our communities,

please hear our concerns and oppose Airport South Industrial.

I am a well-established birder and a board member of the Sacramento Audubon Society.

I have been birding on that parcel of land many times and have observed for myself this summer

one of three nests of the state-threatened Swainson's hawk on the land and have counted up to 13 Swainson's hawks in one morning.

The area is used by multiple other species of grassland birds and a group of birds which,

according to the State of the Birds 2025 report, are the group of birds that are facing the steepest

declines of any bird group due to habitat loss. All of these organisms have a right to exist

and do not deserve displacement. We as a city are known for being a place where people and nature

coexist, and that is evident through our slogans as the City of Trees, as the farm to fork capital.

Developing on land that fish and wildlife already spent decades forming an agreement

to preserve for our nature is just not what the City of Sacramento stands for.

I urge you to oppose Airport South Industrial to not just preserve our wildlife, but to

preserve a part of what makes Sacramento Sacramento, our culture of coexistence, and to preserve

part of our enjoyment of our unique place in the world.

Please choose life and coexistence over money and vote no on Airport South Industrial.

Thank you very much.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

To members of the public, please respect the speakers that are coming up to do their two minutes of public comment.

Everyone gets an opportunity.

Please respect the speakers that are at the podium.

Our next speaker is Jim, then Judith.

Good evening, council members and mayor.

My name is Jim Pachel on behalf of Friends of Swenson Hawk and Sierra Club.

The effectiveness of the NBHCP conservation program is based in part on city limiting development to 8,050 acres within the city's permit area.

The city's permit area is drawn on a map, easy to look at.

About two-thirds of the project site is outside the city's permit area

and therefore would be a violation of the HCP

unless the city obtains an incidental take permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

the HCP says that prior to approval of any related zoning or pre-zoning which is a necessary to

annexation shall the trigger reevaluation to plan so forth and so on and issuance of incidental take

permits to the permittee for the additional development the city has done a reevaluation

The city has not yet applied for or obtained incidental take permits from the federal or state wildlife service.

Nonetheless, the city is proposing to proceed with a pre-zoning and rezoning, which is a necessary part of annexation, even though the HCP specifically says that incidental take permits for the new development need to be done before pre-zoning or rezoning.

I respectfully suggest that perhaps the city's staff has placed the cart before their horse.

They need to sit back off, see if the wildlife agencies are willing to issue.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Judith, then Ralph Proper.

Thank you, Jim.

Jude Lamar, representing the Swainson's Hawk.

just delighted to be able to and feel privileged to be able to represent the

interests of the Swainson's hawk threatened species and we believe that

the the preparer the habitat plan the mitigation plan that's been prepared for

you is in error in number of different ways have submitted written comment I

think our comments on record out of base of mitigation isn't allowed in the NB

The Greenbrier standard that was established by the city was one-to-one mitigation.

This doesn't meet that standard.

You're counting land that's inside the project as mitigation, canals.

That isn't allowed in the NBHCP.

And there's no protection for the GGS connectivity.

So I will also point out that two of these parcels have been given a special status by the staff against the state law 654581A, which says no community plan is going to include land that's outside the city limit.

I really must spend some of my time to protest two things tonight.

One, the exclusion of Councilmember Maple from this deliberation because her husband is a board member of one of the nonprofit advocates.

Typically, what happens is that conflict is defined by economic benefit.

Her husband gets no economic benefit from being on the ECOS board.

ECOS receives no economic benefit from suing LAFCO.

But the staff put us in that position by using an illegal joint agency EIR process requiring us to file against LAFCO before you were hearing the problem.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Ralph Proper, then Len Lenzi.

Hello.

Yeah, I'm a board member of Breeze, California, Sacramento region.

and we have a clean air agenda that specifically recommends not developing outside the urban services boundary

because of the increased air pollution that results from development there.

I was an air pollution research specialist at the State Air Resources Board

and I led the effort to identify diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant

and published research showing that it's the number one cause of cancer in California from airborne emissions.

The proponents of EIR shows that emissions from diesel trucks would cause a significant

cancer risk to nearby residents.

My work also focused on near road air pollution health effects such as ultrafine particles

which the EIR does not discuss.

Trucks emit a lot of these ultrafine particles which based upon many peer reviewed research

studies show major impacts on children such as more respiratory infections, their lungs

don't develop fully, high blood pressure, and a lot more asthma. And older folks like

me, they cause more heart disease, and these tiny particles easily get into our brains,

causing mental deterioration. Maybe you've noticed already. The proponents suggest a

barrier near the school, but a national two-day conference I helped organize in Sacramento

with Breathe shows that tall evergreen trees are needed to capture these particles, and

and these would take many years to grow to an effective height.

The final EIR calculates the risk of nine and a half excess cancer cases per million

caused by the fine particles from diesel trucks, just below the threshold for mitigation,

but that assumes no development on porcelain closest to the elementary school.

It is not included in the project.

The EIR does mention that porcelain could be developed with warehouses and 100 trucks a day

that would make the health risk skyrocket.

So it would be too late for this project to analyze it after you approve this.

So please don't.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Lynn Lindsay, then Lori Tenhope, then Susan Harry.

Lynn?

Following Lynn is Lori Tenhope, then Susan Harry, and Ivan Sake.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council.

My name is Lynn Lindsey, 23-year resident of Westlake,

president of North Atomus Community Coalition.

After careful review, NNCC unanimously opposed as proposed.

We outline numerous reasons in our letter,

highlighting many unanswered questions and concerns.

We have been without representation as our council member is recused.

Vice Mayor Telemontis, District 3, stepped in in August of this year.

And there has been inadequate effort by the city and developer to engage with the community to discuss mitigations that could reduce the most egregious project impacts.

We ask for a facilitated process.

Examples of previous engagement by the community developer the city to find common ground before coming to council for a final vote include Panhandle, Del Paso and Sorrento Roads annexation into the city to build housing.

Collaboration mitigated impacts to Valley View Acres and Natomas Park residents.

Raley Shopping Center on Freeport.

Collaboration mitigated impacts to Tahoe Park and Land Park residents.

Aggie Square Research Innovation Hub and Housing collaboration with Oak Park to reserve the area, mitigate detrimental effects, and provide commitments to the residents.

Don't we, your constituents, deserve the same facilitated process for annexation of 450 acres and over 5 million square feet of warehouses?

schematic layout, air pollution, diesel truck traffic,

truck traffic on residential streets,

allowable uses, noise levels, buffers.

We ask for the same opportunity to engage

and collaborate on conditions for approval.

This project will have enormous and lasting impact

in North Natomas, Westlake Community,

and Paso Verde School.

As our elected officials, you vote on our quality of life.

We want a seat at the table before you do.

Thank you.

Comments?

Next speaker is Lori, then Susan.

Good evening.

I'm Lori Tenhope, a member of North Atomus

and also a resident of North Atomus and a member of NNCC.

There's 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 and not just a two-minute voice but a chance for

deliberative dialogue with substantive give-and-take. Please direct the staff

and developer to engage in a productive dialogue with the community to hear

concerns and work to mitigate them. Examples of project revisions that could

be discussed in such a process include incorporating the common sense measures

embodied in AB 98 and SB 415,

which was just handed out to the members.

These common sense measures

would reduce community health impacts,

especially on children,

and lessen the visual and traffic impacts on neighbors.

Other project revisions that could be discussed

include reviewing alternative land uses

and buffers for Parcel 5 and 8.

Restrict certain uses, such as data centers

and toxic manufacturing.

But 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 NNCC letter and in Lynn's comments,

other significant land use proposals

have successfully engaged the community,

the developers, and the city council

to find common ground to mitigate adverse impacts.

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

I believe we can do better for the Natomas community in our city.

Give us a chance to make that a reality.

Thank you.

Susan and Ivan.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.

I'm Susan Harree from ECOS.

I'm here to tell you that there are alternative sites for Airport South.

For example, if less land was planned for offices at Metro Airpark, it could absorb Airport South.

The Airport South environmental document did not evaluate alternative sites for the project.

And we know there are good alternative sites, sites that do not remove agricultural land that's protected by the urban services boundary and the HCP.

Metro Airpark is one such site.

It's just across the street from Airport South, and it was conceived in 1965 as a regional industrial resource that is airport adjacent.

Today, however, only half of the 1,900 acres is planned for industrial.

Only half.

The rest is offices and open space, frittering away a precious space and wasting public funding that's coming through the EIFD.

North Point claims that there's not enough room for its needs at Metro Airpark.

But if you increase the amount of industrial, there would be enough room to accommodate the airport south of this world.

The plan for Metro Airpark should include more industrial space as was originally envisioned in 1965.

This change would allow us to achieve multiple regional objectives for industrial, for agriculture, and for habitat.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Ivan Saik and then Luz Lim.

Hello. Thank you for your time today. I'm Ira Shaik, policy staff with ECOS. I'm here

along with many to urge you to reject Airport South Industrial Project and its annexation

into the city. Approving this project would mean amending the general plan, expanding city

infrastructure and violating the intent of the NBHCP. All to allow warehouse development

We simply do not need at this location, which is shown through the document that was just handed out to you guys.

I identified plenty of sites totaling over 1,113 acres of vacant and underutilized industrial zoned land already within five miles of the airport, which are available for use.

Additionally, 65% of that land is within just two miles of the Sacramento airport.

These parcels are closer to existing services, don't put pressure on

pressure on wildlife preserves, and don't place diesel truck quarters near the two

neighboring elementary schools and neighborhoods, all of which are within

the one-minute average mile walk within Airport South. That one minute is

also the buffer that was included in the plan and roughly is a length of that

wall to the wall behind me. And to urge to the argument that even if there is

existing warehouse nearby, Airport South still addresses needs of commercial sites

and hotels. I would like to remind us that Metro Air Park still has 472 acres

of available for build-out and or purchase for the same reasons. To bring

that into perspective that is more than the entirety of Airport South with 6.5

million square feet zoned for industrial use and that is still half of Metro

Air Park remaining undeveloped and ready for more industrial warehousing. This

This project is not meeting a gap.

It's replacing smarter options with more harmful ones.

State planning guidance under SB 375

and the memorandum of use between the city

and the county for Natomas require you to avoid

inducing sprawl when feasible alternatives exist.

And here they do.

This project does not pass the environmental

or planning test when better options

are available on the table.

This is not a valid basis for the general plan.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Luz Lim and Edith Batcher.

Luz Lim, I hear, is not here.

Edith and then Rosie.

And I brought something to pass out, a map that I wanted to share.

I'm here to talk about the strength of opposition

and to try and quantify that a little bit for you.

And I want to thank you for your time,

and I want to thank you for this special session to have this discussion.

So in the e-comments, there were a lot of comments in defense.

I mean, sorry, in opposition, probably 70 or 80.

You've received a number of letters.

There's probably 25 or 30 people here who want to speak in opposition to the project.

I just came from the Board of Supervisors meeting where there were 155 speakers.

I hope you guys are happy.

They are all here.

And so I think that is a strong statement that people are very concerned in Sacramento about protecting our open space.

ECOS created an online petition to allow people to register their opposition to the airport south.

I've given you a handout since March of this year.

1,550 people from all over the region have signed that petition.

We've provided a map that shows where the signatories are and also zip codes by zip code.

And as you look at it, you'll see the two zip codes closest to the project have over 1,000 people who wrote in in opposition.

But please note, your constituents oppose this project, too.

Ours of District 1 has been recused, but your constituents also oppose this project.

So I hope you will all vote no, and I hope someone will take the responsibility of representing us, the unrepresented neighbors.

Thank you very much.

I have 20 more speakers.

The next is Rosie Yakub, Mark Chisholm.

Again, I have 20 more speakers.

The next is Rosie, then Mark Chisholm, then Sean Graves, then Drew Sens.

Hi.

My name is Rosie Yakub.

I am a resident of District 7, not one, and I'm here concerned about the development and the South Industrial Development.

I want to basically shorten the load tonight by saying everything that Ira said back there, I double on that, on all of those concerns.

And I would like to see before anything further happens that the setbacks be evaluated and also the vacancy rate of industrially zoned stuff that we actually take a deep look at what she said there.

because if your job is basically to provide planning, provide boundaries, right, to unneeded sprawl, the reduction of habitat.

And so in order to do that, those ideas should be evaluated because we may already have what we need in terms of space and not need this as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Chisholm and Sean Graves.

Good evening, members of the board.

I'm Mark Chisholm.

I am a, well, it might not look like it.

I'm a long-term Natomas resident.

I've lived here in Natomas over 20 years of my life now.

I'm here to say no to the Southern Airport Developmental Project.

There was a time where my friends and I, because of the moratorium,

We used to run out in these open fields with all the wildflowers, all the nature, the birds flying around.

And ever since 2015, it just seems like these fields are a fleeting memory.

Everywhere we look, there are houses being developed with no thought of what the Natomas residents have to say about this.

We just keep seeing houses and increased numbers of traffic through car traffic.

And it's when will this slow down?

Natomas used to actually be a lake basin.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with this, but it used to be a lake basin

where the many native species of birds, insects, native trees, native wildflowers used to thrive.

It soon then became agricultural land, and now we're seeing it become suburban sprawl.

Houses are being developed left and right,

and soon I'm worried that these lands that insects, rabbits, birds used to thrive on

will just be a fleeting memory. And I really think we should vote no on this because we need to give

back to these lands that are being oh so easily taken away from us. And it's really crucial to

this next generation, especially because of technology, they're just going to be viewing

these things online when they could go in person and view these animals, touch the wildflowers,

just enjoy nature. And I feel like Natomas really gives back in the sense that there's a lot of

nature to see and I just feel like tonight we should vote no on this because while these things

are here they won't be here forever and it's our duty to keep these things here for the future.

Thank you for your comments. Sean Graves.

Hello my name is Sean Graves. I've been a member of Local 340 for the last nine years.

I've been contributing and building this community for the last nine years.

This is how we the working class feed our families. That is why I stand with labor and support this project. That is all

Our next speaker

Next speaker is Drew sense then the Lorax then Karen O'Hare

Hello and good evening Mayor McCarty and City Council

My name is Drew sense and I am the executive vice president and general manager for Deakin construction of California

I'm also a local resident born and raised in the Sacramento region as a Sacramento contractor for nearly

45 years, our firm completes approximately $300 million of work throughout Northern California

and the greater Sacramento region annually. On behalf of Deakin Construction, I want to voice

our strong support from North Point and the Airport South Industrial Project. Deakin has had the

pleasure to build four projects with North Point within the Metro Air Park development over the

past five years, and I can personally attest to North Point's professionalism and how they embody

their core values. Put people first, take ownership of every situation, do the right thing every time,

maintain financial discipline, and live generously. North Point has been a tremendous partner with

Deakin for several years, and I'm positive that they will be a good partner to the city of

Sacramento and a good neighbor to the Natomas community. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

The next speaker is the Lorax, then Karen, then Matt Calagra.

Hello there. I'm the Lorax. You might know me as speaking for the trees, which I was doing over at the county. But here I'm, I'm here to speak for the environment in general, but also to tell you humans that there is no conflict between the need for jobs, as our lovely people and their lovely orange, yay, are here for, and the environment. That is not a conflict.

We can have jobs and a safe environment.

We could have jobs by building infill housing, which all the carpenters and electricians will be needed to build.

But a harmful environment is harmful to jobs.

You may remember the L.A. fires.

That was this year.

Those fires got worse and were maybe caused by climate change.

If we're building warehouses that we don't need, that is going to worsen climate change because of all the greenhouse emissions in building the warehouses in the trucks and these green spaces where people are talking about hawks and flowers.

And I love hawks and flowers and all that.

But the main thing about those green spaces is that they sink carbon.

So if we're paving over, that's another way we're making climate change worse, which is going to kill jobs.

So please vote no on the Airport South Industrial Project.

I'm also from 350 Sacramento, which is also against the project.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Karen O'Hare.

After Karen is Matt Calagra, then William Hammond.

Good evening.

On August 12th, I was here to thank you for strongly protecting our city and its residents

by opposing the flawed and poorly planned Upper West Side development that would harm Natomas,

our city, and the region.

Today, I'm requesting that you continue to protect our city and its residents by rejecting

the Airport South project, which is flawed, poorly planned, and unnecessary.

I strongly agree with and support the previous speaker's observation and comments about the proposal's negative impacts.

I would like you to focus your attention on something that may have totally slipped your mind.

That is a potentially devastating impact of the proposal.

Should you choose to approve this development, you may be allowing the siting of an Esparto-type warehouse.

We all know that the recent explosion cost lives and millions of dollars in damage.

Such an explosion is not just associated with fireworks,

but other chemicals and substances that are stored in warehouses.

Should any disaster occur at this proposed site,

it will involve not only the proposed development,

but neighborhoods for miles around.

You know that there is an existing school,

dense residential neighborhoods,

and a busy interstate highway bordering the proposal.

If an evacuation due to a disaster is necessary, there's no infrastructure to allow it.

You are the decision makers who must represent us and protect our community.

How would you feel if your children, grandchildren, parents, or other loved ones lived next to this project?

Please think about it.

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's a travesty.

We are all counting on all of you to protect us, make the best decision, and deny this proposal.

Thank you.

Matt Calagra, William Hammond, Debbie Orr.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Matt Colonia.

I have been in commercial real estate and industrial real estate for 29 years.

I had comments prepared, but most of those have been covered by the proponents in several ways.

So I'd like to focus on maybe some of the factual things that have been discussed tonight.

When I started 29 years ago, I started in research.

And back then, the average vacancy for industrial was 7% to 15% in any market cycle.

In this last market cycle, we approached vacancy rates down in the 2% range.

And the high point now is closer to 6% or 7%.

What that means is the demand has increased.

The demand has increased substantially for industrial space,

and our folks with economic development are trying to bring new people into town,

and a lot of folks have been turned away because we don't have the newer stock of buildings that are required.

The same newer stock of buildings that would also be a lot safer relative to things like fires and things of the sort.

As it relates to Metro Air Park and the vacancy in Metro Air Park and the build-through,

that was supposed to have been a 20- or 30-year project.

It took 20 or 30 years to get the thing approved.

If it takes us another 20 or 30 years to find another project and get another project approved,

we're going to be out of space.

So when you talk about not having enough inventory, this isn't going to get built tomorrow.

This is going to get built five or ten years down the road.

That 20-year build-out of Metro Airparks is likely going to happen in 15 years based on the current build-out.

Those sites that were designated as office some of those have already been redesignated as more warehouse oriented property

So I you know and this concept of citing things elsewhere as it relates to going elsewhere

If we want to go to South Sac, we're going to drive through neighborhoods

The city needs to take some leadership here. You have a site immediately off the freeway

interchange and infrastructure are there

Electrical charging stations. Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. William Hammond and Debbie Orr

William Hammond.

I'm not seeing movement.

Dovey Orr.

Tim Mathis.

Tim Malaka.

Okay.

It looks like I have Tim.

Following Tim is David Ingram.

Then Dana Schwartz.

Hello.

I am Timotalka.

I'm a resident of the West Lake community.

I am not sure what I was going to come and say.

I wanted to hear a lot of things first.

And I'm glad I got the opportunity to.

I am opposed to this project.

I am not opposed to what it seems a lot of folks here who are representing labor want, which is more jobs, more economic opportunity.

But I'm the one who has to live across from this site.

This is my neighborhood.

This is the place that me and my wife decided to move into and buy our first home.

and this is going to be built next to it now.

I don't know why 1,000 feet couldn't have been done.

Maybe my representative could be here.

Maybe a longer road would have made it more,

at least enough distance from where we live

so that we don't have to worry about

the kind of operations that are going to be done there

at God knows what hours of the day and night.

And if this project is approved,

I understand that the developers have an interest

in presenting this in a way that is, you know,

this is your choice.

You either take it or you leave it,

and if you leave it, something worse comes.

I understand that that would be their point.

What I don't understand is why the city staff,

I read these recommendations that it mirrors what the developers are saying.

They call it a logical choice.

They call it consistent and complementary to the existing residents.

That's us. That's me.

It's not complementary.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete.

I have 10 more speakers.

The next is David Ingram, then Doug Orr.

Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I'm David Ingram.

You probably know me from River City Waterway Alliance, our all-volunteer group that I and three friends co-founded two and a half years ago.

We've now removed over 3.4 million pounds of trash from local waterways for free.

I and the others who oppose this project are here for free to oppose this project, not because we have a financial interest in it, but because it's the wrong plan for this.

North Point prides itself in giving to communities and giving back to communities and improving the quality of life in communities.

Well, they're not going to improve the quality of life for anyone in Natomas by building this project at this location.

If they would like to go to District 2, there's a lot of rundown areas that need help, and they need financial infusion, North Point.

Why is your business, I saw your projects, why are they all in open spaces?

Where's your redevelopment?

Where is the redevelopment plan to help the communities, the depressed communities, the District 2 communities?

Put your money there.

It's cheaper to, you know why? Because it's cheaper to pave over our open spaces.

Why are we letting an out-of-state corporation come in and pave over our open spaces?

And conspire with the city staff to come up with these odd findings without consulting the community and the residents.

It's laughable.

I don't like to get emotional at this, but this is ridiculous.

I have sat for 30 years in Washington, Thomas, be paved over and never said a word.

But I'm tired of it.

And the people out here, they're tired of it, too.

And these are your constituents.

These folks deserve a right to work close to home, but they also deserve a right to have their communities where they live have equal infusion of economic interest and investment.

Put some money in some of the economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, and everyone will win.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Doug Orr.

Doug Orr. Following Doug is Dana Schwartz, then Harriet Steiner.

Good evening, Mayor McCarty, Council Members.

My name is Doug Orr.

I'm here representing the Thomas Unified School District.

More importantly, I'm here representing 1,000 students and staff that attend and work at

Paso Verde Elementary School.

It's a K-8.

Part of what I'm here to talk about tonight has been mentioned in this room.

City staff tonight told you that the air pollution mitigation can't be handled.

That's why there's a setback.

150 feet.

Somebody pointed out earlier tonight, that's not very big.

It's like from one end of this building to the other.

Now, parcel eight, we don't know what's going to happen in there,

but if you approve this tonight with the light industrial designation,

how are we going to figure that out later when it's already designated?

We need a bigger space.

Natomas Unified is imploring you guys, we need 1,500-foot setback.

1,500 feet, okay?

A couple things to think about. The airport mitigation requires the firing of blanks to keep the birds away.

We're going to fire blanks next to a K-8 school where students are present, cause confusion.

We have active shooter things happening across the country. We don't need to fire blanks.

If that's a mitigation strategy, it's a non-starter. Think about that.

Secondly, the air pollution. Some of our staff spend their entire day out on the field.

A lot of our kids are out there multiple times a day playing, running around, doing physical education a couple hundred feet from where there could be potentially many diesel trucks.

They said 100 diesel trucks on parcel 8.

We need you to amend the plan for a 1,500-foot setback, and we also need the mitigation efforts of firing blanks and of the deploying of aerosols to keep birds away.

Those cannot happen next to a school. Thank you.

Next speaker is Dana Schwartz.

Hi, my name is Dana Schwartz.

I'm a resident of North Natomas.

And my first question is, is I do not understand why the people in favor of this got over an hour of their time

to present what they wanted and the people who are against it get two minutes. Why didn't we get

time to put up beautiful maps and tell you why this is a terrible project? I don't understand

that. It does not feel fair. And as you can tell, I strongly approse this project. It's

inconsistent with the Totomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, the City General Plan,

the SACOG Plan, the Urban Services Boundary Air Quality Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Why are you approving something that obviously you all disapproved of at one point? It's dangerous.

It's violating long-held Urban Service Boundary Plan for the sake of some commercial interest.

We do not need these warehouses next to schools, next to where Lisa Kaplan lives.

This is your own person who's on the district, and you're not going to help protect her and her home and her children?

I just don't understand it.

And even its own EIR says that it's going to increase air pollution, traffic, trucks.

it's not it's a dirty project that will be adjacent to an elementary school in a neighborhood

exposing children and adults to diesel pollution please do not approve this and start having a

fairer way to talk about it not where one side gets all the time and the other side only gets

two minutes. Not very fair.

Next speaker is Harriet Steiner, then Oscar Belagre.

Good evening. I'm Harriet Steiner, and thank you very much for hearing from us.

I don't disagree with the process, having lived my professional life with this process.

I think it is unfair, and it tends to come up with projects like this project, where

the most important part of this project is money.

This project we sat in rooms at Sacaga and other places 25, 30 years ago figuring out how not to turn Sacramento into San Jose or Los Angeles or San Diego, which was rapidly becoming impossible to drive through except now they have highways that have 47 lanes.

And we went through in the Thomas what should develop what should stay now how do we keep our open space?

How do we how do we safeguard the birds that come through every year?

How do we make a fair distribution and we set forth an urban services boundary?

They set forth the HCP and a series of plans that you have heard people talk about all of which this project is

inconsistent with yet this project was purchased by developer and I don't

disagree it's a right on the freeway but it also makes Sacramento different when

you get out of an airplane and you drive down to San Diego Sacramento you

actually see some open space on the way there and you see some birds and you see

some you know things vistas that you won't see anymore what you'll see is

tilt up warehouses and diesel trucks this project is not a project that you

should approve. It's inconsistent with all your existing plans. It is not a do or die project.

In fact, I can't figure out what the good parts for the community really are for this project.

What is the wow factor that you would want to take, you know, your grandchildren and say,

look, we did this project. It has a million square feet of warehouse and lots of trucks.

You know, I don't know if it's a little boy, I probably like the trucks. But I have to tell you,

I think you should go back and you should say to these people, we need to save open space.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Oscar, then Sheila Harrington.

Hi, I'm Oscar Balaguer with 350 Sacramento.

Good evening, council members, Mayor McCarty.

Amid the other demerits of ASI, I'd like to remind you that if it's approved, its hotels

and restaurants will surely become leverage for more high VMT residential development in

North North Thomas.

That would be on county land beyond the county's increasingly permeable urban boundaries.

Cooper Westside and Graham Park are surely not the only examples of speculative land

banking.

Parcels held with the expectations that local governments will slowly fold as each project

increases development pressure for the next one.

This, of course, is contrary to the Natomas vision of coordinated planning.

Unfortunately, the county's current unratified but de facto policy seems to walk away from that vision.

The county asserts in a passive voice that, quote,

the Natomas Joint Vision Project has been withdrawn,

and individual landowners have moved forward with their own projects.

Well, certainly nothing the county can do about that.

Please take the long view. Consider what it is that you want on the city's doorstep in the next decade or two and vote accordingly. Thank you.

Next speaker is Sheila Harrington and Andy Sawyer. I have six more speakers.

Good evening, council members. My name is Sheila Harrington and I live in District 7.

I'm worried that the outcome of this hearing might be a foregone conclusion for two reasons.

One is that it seems as though money always rules the day,

and there's no way that undeveloped land can ever compete with these huge development projects.

But secondly, so many people seem to consider undeveloped land as underutilized,

and they see an area that doesn't have buildings or roadways on it as, you know,

not having any assets. And following from this assumption is another one that it's a foregone

conclusion that that land is going to be developed. And so we might as well grab this project because

it's probably the best that we're going to get. And to this I say really this project that we just

saw I mean with all due it's fine for what it is but with all due respect it looks much the same as

multiple other development projects that I've seen across the country.

There's nothing really special about it.

There's nothing that's going to put Sacramento on the map.

And I think Sacramento should be on the map.

You know, we're the capital city of the fifth largest economy in the world.

We should be a great city.

And in a lot of ways, we're on our way to that.

But great cities always have great parks.

And these great parks are always big.

We have wonderful parks, but we need more of them.

I see my time is running out. So quickly, please think big for that land. We could do something amazing with that. We could do something that would be a fabulous park, green space, habitat protection with gondolas, who knows what from the downtown area to get there.

This land is a jewel, and when it's gone, it's gone.

What is being proposed is just more San Jose, as other people have said.

So please join.

Thank you for your comments.

Andy Sawyer is our next speaker.

And Janet Olizek.

Mayor McCarty and city council members, I am Andy Sawyer,

chapter chair of the Sierra Club Muddle Load chapter.

We have submitted written comments.

I'd like to highlight two areas.

habitat and air quality. The Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan has a relatively

low mitigation ratio. The rationale for that was that agricultural lands in the area are

suitable habitat and they're protected by agricultural zoning, hence relatively little

additional land needs to be protected. But since that time, rezoning, including the Greenbrier

project, has eliminated a lot of agricultural land that was assumed to be protected. So the

foundations of that mitigation ratio have been eliminated. It makes no sense under the best of

circumstances to argue, as your staff did, that the mitigation fees should be looked as a benefit.

By law, they can only mitigate, not enhance.

But here the mitigation fees are inadequate.

In addition, as Jim Pachel showed, demonstrated the incidental take permit doesn't cover the entire area of Airport South Industrial Project.

On air quality, the Sierra Club has successfully sued several warehouse projects based on the air quality impacts.

And legislation has been enacted to set requirements to limit the air quality impacts of warehouse development.

Those requirements take effect on January 1st, 2026.

At the very least, if you make the mistake of approving this project,

you should require it to comply with all the requirements that will apply to approvals after January 1st, 2026.

Our next speaker is Janet, then Ryan DeAngelis, and then Chris Perros will be our final speaker.

Good evening.

My name is Janet Slote-Olezak.

I am the daughter of the purchaser of 0000 Bayou Way in Natomas.

And I am here to represent the other owners, landowners, of our little tiny piece of property between the project and Highway 5.

Our interests are going to be negatively affected, though our interests are small compared to this large project, which we don't actually disapprove of.

But what we do hope will not happen, and so far it has not been clear that it won't happen,

is that access to our land to be used in light industrial context will not be available from the east.

It will be available through a cul-de-sac, which really doesn't help much in our ability to utilize that of value.

And therefore, we ask that you take a look at how the access to our little tiny piece of land,

which we have owned since 1959, have some future of commercial use.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Ryan DeAngelis. I'm a proud 30-year resident of Sacramento. I'm here tonight in support of Airport South. I've spent my 25-year career at CBRE specializing in industrial properties.

I have personally assisted the largest logistics and consumer brand companies in the world and have been directly involved in over 3 million square feet, roughly a third of all leasing activity at the neighboring Metro Airport.

The occupiers that have located within Metro have done so due to its outstanding location and transportation infrastructure.

Locations like Metro and, with your help tonight, Airport South,

help companies optimize their transportation models,

which in turn reduce cost, reduce cost to consumers,

improve delivery speeds, and lower their carbon footprint

when delivering goods within our region and within the state of California.

Airport South is in front of you tonight at an opportune time.

Metro Airpark now has over 10 million square feet of developed space,

equating to roughly 700 acres of development.

With the success of Metro,

only two sites remain that can accommodate a user in excess of 500,000 feet.

Airport South is the next scalable site that will allow our city to compete

for the next wave of large industrial and R&D occupiers.

Finally, I think it's worth mentioning,

and some people have tonight that, you know,

people think Metro Airpark or Airport South,

and it's just simply logistics, and that's just not true.

Airport South is home to several high-tech companies,

Orca Bioscience, Cunetic, Sparks Energy,

are all driving advancements in fields such as cell therapy,

power storage, battery technology.

Airport South will continue this trend

and bring innovation and jobs to our region.

I hope you support the project tonight.

Thank you.

Chris Peros, Robert Bernice, Patrick Benkert, Jamie Torres, and then Lamaya Coleman.

Chris?

Chris Peros?

Chris Peros, then Robert Bernice.

I thought I was the last one.

Good evening.

My name is Chris Peros.

I'm a resident of 25 years in Natomas and a member of the North Natomas Community Coalition.

I oppose the project for many reasons, not so much for what it is, because I like jobs,

but where it is, it doesn't belong where it's at.

But I've decided to focus on some key concerns and requests that I want you to consider tonight.

First of all, I want you to think about the size of the project.

At 474 acres, it is almost twice the size of the rail yards.

So the next time you look at the rail yards, think about that.

And also I said, well, if it's so big, why is it so big?

And when we've got all this land over, if there are tenants who want to be there, why aren't they going to Metro Air Park?

So I started to look at some things.

And one of my requests is that you take a good hard look at the water use.

Per the EIR, they use 315 acre feet per year.

When I calculated it out for a 24-7, 365-day operation,

it came out to 280,000 gallons of water per day.

Okay, that's a lot of water,

and that is close to what a midsize AI data center uses,

per what I've looked at online.

So I, first of all, want, as a rate payer,

to be protected from any rate increases in our water

and also our electricity,

as has been happening around the country

from AI data centers or any kind of e-commerce center.

Secondly, I mentioned the electricity.

The usages, they gave some exponential number,

but it came out to 198,190 kilowatt hours per day

for a 24-7, 365-day-a-year operation.

That's the least amount.

So again, I do not want to see our residential rates going up

because of this project's suckers.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Robert.

Following Robert is Patrick, then Jaime, then Lamaya.

Good evening. I would like to brief Robert Ness with the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

I'd like to focus a little bit more on something Oscar talked about briefly, and that's the optics of your decision tonight.

One of the major challenges that is facing you is the county's proposal for development of a good portion of the entire Natomas Basin and all of the issues that it presents for you.

for you to go ahead and approve this particular project,

which is similar in that it is expanding on land that is supposed to be part of the habitat protection plans,

availability of acreage for mitigation.

You are undermining that particular argument.

And I would ask you to think twice about your approval of the project at this time in respect to that project.

I also would point out that it also sends the message that the city is open for expansion of the urban service boundary and the development in the Natomas Basin in select areas.

and already developers have acquired agricultural land outside of the urban service boundary

and north of Greenpoint or whatever the development is now.

So I think you want to give some serious consideration to this project

and the implications of it for some other issues that are part of your responsibility

to implement the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan

and protect your interests with respect to county growth.

I think that's worthy of your consideration. Thank you.

I'll give you a comment. Patrick.

Following Patrick is Jaime Torres.

Patrick. Patrick first and then Jaime.

Mayor McCarty.

You're a king. Thank you for your mercy.

Tell him about days, Dickerson.

I think the back is trying to get between us.

I do love this town, but I think some guys, maybe their names are Russell Bull and Ernest Tuttle, this guy Parker.

They took my love object of our town away from me today.

We have constellations and stars in our mind.

They point towards the heavens and towards each other.

I discovered this myself.

in our minds of those we love.

It points to the heavens,

reaches the stars,

the world,

when a TV and mirror,

they're trying to hurt our love story.

And thank you, by the way.

Thank you so much

for your vulnerability

and for your courage

and for beating me up

with your kindness.

Thank you so much.

They tortured me because I'm black,

because they saw me cry,

because my beloved was Jewish.

They've been torturing me

at work all day today.

But I want you to know that

they don't like us

because we care about each other.

They yell into a computer and call me a nigger and threaten to kill me.

It's been 10 years they've been doing this.

They yell into their computers and the AI just does anything they want it to.

It's that easy for them.

And I'm just a small man.

I'm nobody and I know it full well.

They make me feel sick.

They jerk my body severely.

They put any image and word into my body and mind.

I called pediatricians in Folsom and they said someone named Inez Gomez was in trouble.

So I went out there and I was so scared.

I was like, I'm going to go out there and try to protect this person.

I went there to talk to the pediatrician and told them to contact you all if she needed help.

The cops gave me directions to Folsom High School and I went out there and I told them.

I said, if there's any.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Jaime Torres, then Lamaya.

Your time is complete.

Please take your seat.

Jaime, then LaMaya.

Hello, Mayor and Council.

Thank you very much for staying late, working into tonight.

So Jaime Torres, District 3 resident of Sacramento.

Greatly appreciate the efforts to actually hear this project.

I'm here in support and as an advocate to the South Industrial Project

We have an opportunity here to actually have revenue for the city of Sacramento, both by taxpayers, people being employed on this, you know, at this job site, both during the construction and during the life of the buildings that are going to be built out there, the facilities.

Also, we have the tax revenue for property taxes that I'd like to see the city cash in that way when the city is faced with cuts.

There's different alternatives and different sources of funding for the city and the different pleasures that we have been here in the city of Sacramento.

These job opportunities are going to be created, are greatly appreciated.

Not all kids are designed to go to college.

Not everybody has that interest in life.

These jobs have to be fulfilled.

The fact that there's opportunities for somebody here locally to actually engage in their career is a great pleasure to see.

Thank you very much for your support.

Luz Lim is our final speaker.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, and I apologize for the delay not being here earlier.

Thank you for staying and listening to me.

My name is Luz Lim, and I'm the Policy Analyst for the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

As you have heard, we are opposed to this project.

This is a complex planning issue with great history, so I really appreciate that we're taking the time to get a little bit more information tonight.

I just want to address one major point of discussion that swayed the Planning and Design Commission,

including the commissioners who expressed deep concern regarding the conversion of this agricultural land.

And that is the idea that should the city turn down this project, the applicant will take the project and develop it with the county.

and I can understand why the city wouldn't want that

considering the economic opportunity the project could bring

and the fact that the county didn't sign on to the NBHCP.

I understand that.

That being said, that begs the question,

would it be possible for this project to be built in the county?

And I'm just posing this before you

because I think that that really requires some serious consideration

and examination and considering that feasibility,

if this is a threat and a part of the conversation.

This project has applied for city services, including water,

because they will not get the water they need from the county.

Of course, we don't know what the water demands of this project are yet,

as we don't know what will go on the land,

but there are various complications with securing enough safe water from the county,

including the treatment required to clear the high levels of arsenic in Natomas groundwater.

This is made evident by the fact that Sacramento International Airport and Metro Airpark

use city water as their potable water source.

Groundwater from on-site wells would not be enough,

and the city would still hold a role in the approval of this project.

Additionally, the county would need to consider the amendment of the urban services boundary,

which has not been amended since 1993.

So please consider the complications involved.

Don't let this strong arm you.

Don't let this be a decision of fear.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mayor, I have no more speakers on this agenda item.

Okay.

Well, are you sure?

No more public comment?

Last chance.

Yes.

So a few things I want to say from the get-go is that first,

there was a question and it was an inquiry from some of the individuals

opposed to the project.

Would there be equal time to present under law or city policy?

This is only an opportunity for the applicant as well as the city staff

to present.

So public comment was just for the two minutes per individual.

So that is the law of the city of Sacramento.

And we alerted individuals.

So I just want to make sure that people were aware of that.

There wasn't any unfair trying to going back and forth.

That leads to the second issue is that I know this is a very contentious issue.

Hence, we had 50-something speakers here tonight.

Council members will undoubtedly have a lot of questions and ideas and back and forth.

so I recommend that we don't hear this in a one night setting,

that we've scheduled this for a second hearing

on the 2nd of December.

So we'll have a chance to deliberate, engage,

and then potentially further that deliberation

on the 2nd of December.

We're not coming back next week

because of course it's Thanksgiving weekend.

So I know there'll be many opportunities

for council to engage tonight.

I just want to probe on two issues,

two overarching issues and maybe city staff

can engage for a little bit back and forth

to set the record straight,

has some better understanding.

The first is on the setback issue

and different characteristics

as far as what it really is,

what it is compared to the other project up north,

Metro Air Park,

and the neighborhood up there in North Lake.

So can you describe what the setback is,

what it is in comparison to the project to the north,

as well as what the setback requirements are

under the new state law,

which we passed, I believe, two years ago.

So there are multiple space restrictions

that are placed upon the project,

both in the form of a setback

as well as the form of a buffer.

I think we should make that distinction clear.

So if we're looking at parcel five,

which is the northeast section.

Can we put that up on the map?

Staff, can you put up the city's PowerPoint?

Let's see.

And while it's coming up, I use the term setback and buffer interchangeable.

So if you want to clarify that as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

so in the northeast corner portion of the project where you see that black hashed line

that is the setback so that's spaced at 125 feet from the edge of the property line within that

setback there is an allowance for parking there's allowance for landscaping features but no structures

can go. That differentiates between the buffers which do not allow the same parking and do

not allow the same landscaping features. On the further east side from that setback you

have the city buffer. That's an existing 200 foot buffer that's on a city owned property

that separates the existing agricultural use from the West Lake neighborhood. That would

remain in place below that on the southern end closest to the Paso Verde

school is an existing buffer within the county that depending on where you

measure is between 180 and 200 feet both of those are zoned to not allow for any

sort of structured development within them additionally on parcel 8 which is

the southern portion of this graphic here it's the non-participating parcel

where you don't see any structures.

That is going to be split zoned as part of the pre-zoning.

The larger part of the parcel, which isn't indicated here,

is going to receive light industrial M1 pre-zoning.

The area where it says Scalora parcel buffer

is additional 125 feet of ag open space,

which would not allow for any sort of structures.

Okay, and then what is the state law

that was passed two years ago as far as buffer setback?

It was, this exceeds that, correct, this proposal?

It gets a little bit complicated.

I don't know if there's an easy answer to that question.

I'll try.

So there is a portion of the annexation area

that I would kind of characterize as grandfathered in

because there was a request for entitlements

and it was filed, the application, prior to the legislation being approved.

So any new development that comes in, for example, with the non-participant parcels,

those future developments would have to be evaluated in relation to AB 98.

That would include parcel 8.

And that, because there isn't a request for entitlements at this time or a specific project,

that future project if brought before the city

and there was an interest by the landowner to develop the land

would go through an entire process.

Another environmental review,

go back to Planning Design Commission,

it would come back to City Council

and it would be evaluated.

But it's fair to say that this proposal

which staff supports has further protections

than this SB 415.

Yes, yes.

and that parcel eight landowner has voluntarily agreed

to the additional restriction on their property

and zoning with a buffer.

Okay, then another issue that came up quite frequently,

and we heard it today and during our time to talk

to people in opposition to this project

is there's a development just to the north,

next to Metro Air Park, and I believe it's North Lake?

North Lake.

and there's a buffer slash setback,

whatever you want to call it,

the distance between a building and a home

is that greater or less than the 250 plus 125 to 375 feet

you see here between the buildings and the home.

So that distance between,

I still refer to it as the Greenbrier annexation

and what is zoned for Metro Air Park

is less than what is being provided here

at the proposed Airport South project.

So there's more of a buffer here.

Yes, more of a buffer here.

With the setback plus the city buffers, those two things come up.

That's correct.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

And then one thing that I did want to really zero in on, and look, I get it.

We are a society, based upon the testimony tonight,

that has an ever-increasing demand for retail goods from Target and Best Buy and Costco

go and more importantly delivered to our house.

And you know, most of our households utilize that

unfortunately way too often, more than we ever had before in the past.

So the demand is insatiable. And so I get that.

And so, you know, a few years ago in the legislature, we had a big debate

and mainly focused on these logistics operations up and down the Central Valley

and having close proximity to neighborhoods where they're,

sometimes they were just feet away, feet away.

And idling trucks and so forth had obviously air quality impacts

that I'm sure our Mayor Pro Tem could talk about

during his experience on the Air Resources Board.

So we did set a policy having some standards.

And so I understand the issue that some of our neighbors up there,

Natomas and Westlake, and by the way,

I just want to know this is one subset of the issues.

I know there are habitat issues and others.

I'm just drilling down on these two issues, setback and the uses.

It was reported by the proponent that there are alternative potential uses in some of the buildings there.

And even when I talked to some of the opponents, they said, well, having a Nivigen-like activity,

where a few of those of you who don't know, across from the Costco on I-5 is this amazing 100,000 square foot.

warehouse that is a local Sacramento business guy Jay Shukla with his own

money is building to be basically a pharmaceutical manufacturing hub right

here in the core of Sacramento and so we talked about would more of those

Jason the neighborhood be somewhat satisfactory and I'm not going to point

people's names and who they were but generally it's like yeah that's way

better than having an Amazon logistics center going 24 hours a day with trucks

and noise and particulates and air pollution and that.

So I want to probe whether or not the city,

as far as our deliberation, could potentially limit

the far eastern buildings on what their uses will be.

In other words, have some type of prohibition

against logistics, warehouse, 24-hour truck activity

and have more of a light manufacturing,

medical office, what have you.

Which still would have, as we know,

sometimes the trucks back and forth,

but not the overall impact of the logistics centers.

Would that be something that we could look at

during our deliberation?

And what would that look like?

I think staff, can you speak up?

Sorry about that.

I think staff could take a look at that

and then we could report back on December 2nd.

Yeah, I get, can you maybe talk more about that?

What would we do?

What could that look like?

So maybe give a bit more flavor for us right now.

So for parcel eight.

Can we bring up the map so I can have some more clarity

what I'm looking at?

So for parcel eight,

there is not a specific development project planned

at this time.

so that definitely would have to come back through a process.

Maybe we can just time out here so we can all see what we're looking at.

So there's four big purple buildings.

So that would be the parcelates, the large gray square there at the bottom on the right.

There's two purple ones up and down, and the four on the northeast quadrant, those four buildings.

That's parcel five.

So those buildings have been sized, I think, to almost by the nature of the size of the buildings would not accommodate an Amazon or that type of large distribution use.

I think to look at the square footages of those buildings and what potential uses could go in there, we could take a look at that a little bit more closely.

But the way, I mean, that was part of the reason for the change in the original site plan that was filed with the city that did show a large purple color building on that parcel that could have accommodated that type of use.

And I think hearing a lot of the concerns from the residences, it was, you know, re-evaluated.

And working with North Point, they came back with this revision to be responsive to that.

So with that, you're saying for practical purposes, not likely that they'd have Amazon Fulfillment Center and Costco operations.

But in addition, could we potentially, the belt suspenders model, have further clarification that none of those type of logistics activities could be permitted there?

We could take a look at that as part of the PUD design guidelines and the uses allowed.

We could look at that.

Yeah, we could look at that.

And then if that was the case, then it seems that the next one further to the west would be,

I can't tell if I hear, but 1,000 plus feet away from the Westlake residences.

Yeah, I think it probably is.

We'd have to measure that out.

I think it is.

The line you're seeing from the far right, that kind of bolded line that separates the edge of the annexation area from the neighborhood,

If you go from there all the way to the road below the roundabout, that's about 655 feet.

So you're looking a little bit probably over 700 to 800 feet between the edge of the annexation area to that larger parcel you're referring to.

Plus the 250 buffer from the city.

Yes, or the 200-foot buffer.

200-foot buffer.

That's almost 1,000.

Okay.

And then if we did entertain that, which you're saying we could take a look at that, some type of condition,

what would be the options for us to do a similar type endeavor to the, like, south and the west,

like an inverted L, which further focuses on that Westlake community.

In addition, it goes up against the elementary school.

Okay. Are you suggesting like restricting the size of the buildings potentially in the future for Pursulate?

Well, both. I mean, we're talking about, well, they restricted their own size of the building.

Right.

And they're saying by doing that, they limited their ability to do that.

And so I guess if we're going to talk about doing this, it makes sense to have that same policy all the way around.

Yeah, I think we'd have to take a look at that a little bit more closely because there isn't a specific entitlement application before us.

whereas there is on parcel five.

And so the buildings are plotted and that kind of thing.

So we have something to work with.

We don't know that yet for parcel eight.

So I think we're gonna have to probably research it a little bit more and see

what are the options if we were to put those kinds of restrictions on future uses

that we're not sure what might come forward.

But we could.

Or size for buildings.

Yeah, I guess that's replying to the application.

but could we put restrictions on just the land as far as an amendment to the unapplicant proposed land up there?

Well, there's allowable uses per that pre-zoning.

So I think almost with the zoning, they could come in.

Well, this is why I wanted this over to you.

Right. I understand.

I don't want to spitball this right now, so can we research this?

Yes, absolutely.

And come back and look how we can potentially have further protections.

All the way to the north, going down to the edge by the elementary school, and then all the way to, I guess, it's like a little creek or something there to the edge of the school.

Yeah, we can do that.

Yeah, so that's what I want us to explore and for us to think about before we come back.

Absolutely.

We'll need some time to, yeah, that'll be better for us to come back on second and, you know, provide some feedback.

and some options.

Okay.

Those are my only two issues for now.

I will reserve the right to come back later.

I know my council colleagues have plenty of questions.

I'd now like to have our vice mayor,

who's all things Natomas tonight,

engage in a series of back and forth.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

Let's see.

So I watched the LAFCO meeting,

and I watched the planning meeting,

and now this meeting, so I feel like I'm an expert at the public comment

and everybody here tonight and opinions and the varying opinions on this project.

And like Mayor McCarty said, our goal here is to ask a lot of questions,

get clarity, and provide direction for it to come back to us in December.

And as a Natomas Council member, I feel like it's my responsibility

to stand up and ask the questions for the neighbors.

I did a town hall at Westlake Community Association after I found out that

Councilman Kaplan had to recuse herself from this project and I had a lot of

questions that had gone unanswered from the community in addition to the North

Atomus Community Coalition who has been around for many years and they have a

long history of all things in Atomus so I did talk to the project applicants and

I let everybody know that I would be reading all the questions that the

North Atomus Community Association has that they feel have gone unanswered today.

So bear with me because we have a lot of questions and whether that's the applicant,

Mr. Avdus or a city team that can come up here and help us answer.

And if neither of you guys have the answer to go back and do research and come back with

the additional things that Mayor McCarty has asked.

So my first question is, you know, I did look at the timeline and there has been a lot of

door-to-door canvassing, met with North Otomas,

Heritage Park, a lot of the HOAs.

When is the most recent interaction

with the North Otomas Community Coalition?

When did you guys last meet with them?

I need to go back and look at our summary

to double-check the exact date.

But sometime, I believe there was an update

sometime in calendar year 2025, I believe.

But I will want to confirm that.

Okay. And then as this project moves forward or doesn't move forward, depending on the will of the council, if it were to move forward, would you and your team make a commitment to the North Atomus Community Association to continue meeting quarterly?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. That's it for now.

Okay. For city staff, where, and these are all questions from our North Atomus Community Coalition.

Where in the city's general plan and the North Atomus conservation plan does it call for 450 acres of large industrial warehouses to be built in residential neighborhoods and adjacent to schools?

Can you repeat the second part?

You said the general plan, but what was the other document?

The North Atomus community plan.

Does it call for 450 acres of large industrial warehouses to be built in residential neighborhoods and adjacent to schools?

So what we heard a lot from public comment from a lot of the neighbors is this is the North Atomus community plan.

It was built out for a reason.

There was smart growth and set asides for land use for the Atomus habitat conservation plan.

So, you know, the community wants to know when did we decide to reverse our original plan?

I don't think there's ever been really a decision to reverse it.

There's a portion of this property, and this is kind of connected to the HCP as well, that falls within the North Atomus Community Plan.

So it's parcel five and parcel eight.

I think like any project that might be outside the city boundary, those landowners are interested in coming into the city limits.

There is a process and an evaluation.

The same thing with projects like the Panhandle and Greenbrier annexation.

annexation. So I would say that that's why there's a pretty comprehensive EIR and this

project's been vetted for nearly five years. So I don't think any decision's been made

on it other than at this point the area's brought into our sphere of influence. But

our own general plan does acknowledge future annexations and a process for that. So any

landowner interested in receiving municipal services from the city is

encouraged to come in and request annexation and go through an annexation

process and that's what this landowner has done. Where is the economic analysis

to justify the need for more warehousing outside of Metro Airpark given that

Metro Airpark is is the master plan business park designed for logistics

and distribution centers for its proximity to the Sacramento

International Airport. I think what wasn't mentioned tonight is just the question you're

asking, right? The vacancy rate, where are we? You know, how is the stability of the market?

So we've looked at a historical chart of 25 years. The average vacancy is almost 9% over that 25

years before the COVID acceleration we were certainly more prone to be in that

range of 10 to 12 percent when COVID accelerated and a lot of warehouses were

constructed and demand was very high at vacancy rate I think you had an expert

speak tonight was driven down to about 2 percent we're currently at 7.2 percent

vacancy in one of the brokerage houses reports.

That's probably the highest of all the brokerage house reports that I've seen.

What that really means is if you look at the whole historical 25 year trend,

that's a tight market,

meaning there is going to be a need in the near future for more product to be

built.

So it's a very healthy market to answer your question.

Can I add to that too?

With our original project application,

we submitted a needs analysis that was submitted prepared by EPS,

sort of bringing together and summarizing and analyzing what Jeff just talked about as well.

Thank you so much.

I think, well, tonight we had two different property owners that are within this area that are not part of this project.

But the decision that we make in December will impact their own property.

I think somebody said that she had 1952.

and then another landowner that also came

and I don't remember them coming to Planning Commission.

I don't remember that moment.

But can you tell me how does this project impact their property

and then what can we do so that all the neighbors talk to each other

because they need to

and how do we cannot be part of the condition of approval

to make sure that they're all working together

if it were to be approved?

Okay, that's a really good question.

I appreciate that.

I think it's a little confusing because of the references to non-participant property owner versus the applicant,

which is North Point and JTS Engineering that has applied for entitlements in this process.

So the two landowners that spoke this evening was the landowner for parcel eight,

which we were just talking about earlier,

and then a smaller parcel that is one of the non-participants as well

along I-5 freeway.

And we have been meeting throughout this process

with the non-participant landowners,

keeping them engaged where we're at with the project,

when we've had any kind of changes with the circulation

from the initial plan filed.

I see us continuing to do that.

They're part of the annexation area,

and we've explained that they're not getting any entitlements other than the required pre-zoning

for their property as part of the annexation which is required by LAFCO so I could look at

that as a condition of approval that continued coordination with those landowners yeah so if

the property owner of parcel eight decides to pursue development in the future how would that

be handled and will they have to do a new EIR to assess its impact?

We they will have to have an environmental evaluation depending on so when the project

is filed with us there's some level of environmental analysis with this project.

I think that landowner mentioned that the modeling assumed a certain amount of square

footage and things like that.

So but that would have to be evaluated depending on when they come in with an application.

if it's 15 years from now or five years from now,

and then there would be a determination

of what the appropriate CEQA documentation

for that proposed project would be.

It could be an EIR.

Yeah, we wouldn't know until that project was actually filed

and we could take a look at it.

Okay.

Mr. Avedis, do you guys want to add anything to that

in terms of communication with the other property owners

in the neighboring area?

Yeah, so in terms of the non-participants,

meaning the parcel owners that are shaded in gray

on the exhibit up there.

We've had numerous meetings over the course

of the last five years with owners

and their representatives,

keeping them informed of the process.

And so I believe we have had a channel of communication.

I didn't catch the, there is a parcel on the north side

that has numerous property owners associated with it.

I don't recognize the individual that spoke this evening.

I'm happy to speak with her.

I know we've had extensive conversations with other representatives of that parcel.

So I don't know if they're not communicating amongst each other, but, you know, we do believe we've made an effort to be in constant communication relative to the project.

Okay.

Yeah.

And so I guess for me, Cheryl, looking into December, it's how will communication continue with all the different parcel property owners?

I mean, if there's a project that's happening impacting another one and closing down a road, I mean.

Right, right.

So I'll take a look at the conditions of approval related to that.

But we have been communicating very closely with all of the property owners within the annexation area,

including the property owners that have spoke this evening.

I've been keeping them updated actually inform them about this hearing date and December 2nd

have answered questions they've met with myself and public work staff to talk about circulation

and what might you know what they might expect in the future so but I think to get to your question

is you know what will that coordination look like in the future as this project may if it moves

forward as it develops and how that will take place.

Okay.

And then there's a lot of questions about the actual need for warehouses,

three, four, and five on the list of North Thomas Community Coalition plan.

And we did hear from the developer on the analysis on the need for warehouses.

But my ask to city staff for economic development is to come back with your

own report too.

We should have that data available to us.

So please come back with that data.

Okay.

The staff report refers to the project as light industrial

and highway commercial development when the applicant has proposed to construct

and operate 6 million square feet of industrial warehouses next to schools and homes.

This will bring an increase of large diesel semi-trucks and hundreds of truck trips a day.

They're a major source of air pollution, increased health risk, traffic congestion,

environmental degradation, and increased noise levels.

So how does the city of Sacramento plan to address the large semi trucks parking near residential neighborhoods?

So the truck traffic will be prohibited from traveling, I'm going to say away from Sacramento International Airport into the residential community area.

So it will not, there's a storage center that is next to Westlake residences.

They would not be able to go past that.

There's going to be no truck traffic going on that road.

That's going to be prohibited.

One of the reasons for the traffic roundabout is to provide that opportunity for any truck driver who inadvertently goes in that direction

to be able to turn around and head back towards Powerline Road and the Metro Air Park interchange.

So that would, you know, I think there's gonna be a program also of the different users of the various buildings,

of educating their staff and truck drivers of the truck routes and that prohibition of driving near Westlake through those roadways by the residences.

If I may add to that, it's already part of the conditions of approval along with that roundabout that the applicant shall provide all needed signage and pavement to restrict that drug access.

So it won't just be the roundabout, but there will be some sort of visual indication that they're restricted from entering any residential area.

I would also just add that there is some inability to drive trucks at least through portions of Westlake because it is gated.

Okay.

And what's the plan for emergency vehicles and fire engines to maneuver through the roundabout?

Or did they, I'm assuming they blessed it.

The, I mean, public works can probably speak on this better than myself,

but the turning radius of the roundabout, I think,

was designed in order to accommodate any sort of emergency vehicle access.

Okay.

And then does the city have a tax exchange agreement with the county yet on this project?

No.

We are in continued discussions in the tax exchange agreement.

That would be brought back to city council as a separate item.

Okay.

The tax exchange agreement would be required for the annexation to be completed.

Do we have a goal for when that will be completed?

I would say last week, if you ask me.

That's my goal.

But I hope in the beginning of the year, maybe the first quarter of this year, if possible,

given that we're going into the holidays.

City Manager?

So we've been working.

This is as of yesterday, day-to-day on this.

And my goal is to bring something on the 9th.

I don't know if we'll get there.

I know I said that to people,

but I think we're going to have an agreement soon.

Okay.

And then there was a request from the Intimus School District

to do 1,500-foot setback,

which is a lot bigger than what we have right now, the 272 feet.

Is that something that the applicant would be willing to consider?

No.

Okay.

And that's all my questions for right now.

Mayor.

Yes, Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

Some of the things that I was interested in inquiring about have been spoken to, but

but there were a couple other things and maybe just to cement a couple of things.

I wanted to ask a few questions.

Coming back to the northeastern separation,

so the setback on that, is that parcel five?

Is that right?

The northeastern?

That's correct.

That entire quadrant.

Yeah, that's 125 feet, I believe you said.

Yes, for the setback.

And within that 125 feet, you made reference to parking would be permitted.

Within the setback, yes, not the buffer.

So is there any limitation to that, either in terms of how far from the buildings,

in terms of distance outward the parking could be?

Any limitations in terms of vehicles?

The PUD guidelines encourage that the parking be close to the buildings, but as far as specific restrictions, if there's anything you had in mind, staff would be open to looking at that.

So they encourage it but don't require it?

That's correct.

Okay. And why do the guidelines permit parking on that side of the structures? Why is that not just an unimproved or landscaped setback?

That's a great question. So that parcel is very close to I-5 and Bayou Way. And actually a good portion of it is, if you look at the city buffer, is across from the storage center.

So that parcel is probably the furthest away from residences in terms of facing towards it.

And then that's why the restriction for the setback is not putting any buildings in the setback or having any large truck docking bays or anything like that.

But that would still allow for some surface parking, landscaping, and some of those uses that are less intensive.

Okay, hold that.

It looks to me from the diagram, you can't quite see it in what's up on there,

that there are houses not right to the northern end,

but as you move south directly across from.

Right, there are some on Lanfranco that face that area.

Okay, so I would just ask the question,

if there's not sufficient space on the west side of these buildings

to accommodate whatever they're parking.

I don't know if they, we're not residential, obviously, no parking requirements.

I don't know what their parking requirements are, but I'd ask the question if there's not sufficient space to accommodate whatever parking would be required on the west side of those buildings.

So the west side of those foremost eastern buildings, is there not, would it be your contention that there's not enough space on the west side of those buildings to accommodate whatever the parking requirement or demand might be?

So the conceptual design of these building footprints, of course we don't have actual designs.

These are just building envelopes we've identified.

We had planned to reserve some space within that buffer for potential employee parking,

but we're not at a design level at this point.

Again, we did a level of analysis given where we're at today,

and we would like to have the option to locate some employee parking within that 125 feet.

But, again, it's pretty preliminary at this point.

Okay.

I appreciate the answer.

I would ask that this aspect, if we can examine it to a greater degree between now and the next time we have the pleasure of talking about this,

we can get some further analysis of that.

And whatever the parking requirement, assuming there is one, what that is, what would be for these buildings.

Recognizing that they are conceptual in an envelope.

But we're also going to look at potentially restricting the uses with PUD so all this fits together, I suppose.

We'll add it to it.

It's all related, yeah.

But in this 125 feet, is there any landscaping requirement under the PUD?

There is landscaping requirements in a plant palette, as far as I know, in the PUD guidelines.

Including trees?

trees and shrubs and there's a whole list okay I don't necessarily want to dig all the way into

that tonight but if if that's something you can also highlight for us as you come come back I

would appreciate that um and I wasn't quite clear in your answers to the to the mayor whether you

said the

buffering,

I gather if you combine what the

city buffer is

with the setbacks

that we're

talking about all the way down and

around to the

Scalora parcel.

Did you say that exceeds

what would be required under the state legislation

that was approved?

I was comparing it to

the setback between Greenbrier and Metro

Airpark that it was greater. Oh, I got that. You said that was about 250.

So the AB 98

most likely would not apply to the parcels

that are being requested with the entitlements with North Point

and Parcel 5 because that application

was filed before the legislation

was approved. And when you look at

AB 98, yeah. So parcel

8, we don't know yet.

It most likely would apply to parcel

8, so there could be quite a bit of restriction

placed on parcel 8

by complying with

AB 98, depending on

the project coming in.

For a moment, I want

you to forget the effective

date of AB 98.

And that's not necessarily in the moment, but again,

tell us, as you come back,

Do these, the combined buffer with the city land

plus the setbacks on these either meet

or exceed the AB 98 setbacks or buffers

that would be required?

If you could do that, that would be appreciated.

I wanted to ask for a little bit more illumination

on the absorption question.

We've had EPS and some brokers say

we're busy absorbing, especially Metro.

And we're running low or will run low on space.

We've had contention in opposition to that,

that there's really plenty of land.

We don't have an absorption problem.

if you look both here and more broadly across the urban landscape of the city.

And I gather, and this was following up a little bit on Vice Mayor Telemonti's question