I would like to call this meeting of the Sacramento local agency formation commission to order.

Thank you so much for coming tonight.

My name is Lisa Kaplan.

I am the chair of SAC LAFCO.

The commissioners are locally elected officials who are designated by their respective home

agencies to serve LAFCO.

Our role is to oversee boundary changes of cities and special districts, the formation

of new agencies, including incorporations of new cities and districts, and the consolidation

or reorganization of special districts and cities.

The broad goals of the commission's directive are to ensure the orderly formation of local

government agencies, preserve agricultural and open space land, and to discourage urban

sprawl.

Commissioners must, by law, create municipal service reviews and update spheres of influence

for each independent local governmental jurisdiction within their countywide jurisdiction.

Our meetings are always open to the public and regularly scheduled meetings are shown

live on Metro Cable Channel 14, webcast live on the Metro Cable TV website, and posted

on the county's website.

Comments are welcome.

Tonight, for the agenda, we are commissioners.

We're going to take on public hearing items.

We're going to take the consider and approve the proposed budget first before we get to

the item six.

And then for those submitting public comments, public comments are going to be two minutes.

We are accepting public comments now, so make sure you submit your request to speak.

At the time that I recuse myself and my vice chair takes over in this item comes up, we

will no longer at LAFCO be accepting public comments on this item, so please make sure

you get them in.

I would now like to direct the clerk to do roll call and establish a quorum.

Thank you.

Commissioners Liddle.

Here.

Carter.

Here.

Hume.

Here.

Jones.

Here.

Desmond.

Here.

Pratton.

Here.

And Chair Kaplan.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you so much.

And clerk, do you have any meeting statements?

Yes, I do.

This meeting of the Sacramento local agency formation commission is live and recorded with

closed captioning.

The Sacramento local agency formation commission fosters public engagement during the meeting

and encourages public participation, civility and use of courteous language.

The board does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures or other inappropriate

behavior including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to make a public comment and are limited to making

one comment per agenda or off agenda item.

Please be mindful of the public comment procedures to avoid being interrupted or disconnected

while making your comment.

Please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to the clerk staff.

The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda or off agenda item and direct

the clerk to call the name of each speaker.

When the clerk calls your name, please come to the podium and make your comment.

If a speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of public comments, the

speaker waives their request to speak and the clerk will file the speaker request form

in the record.

The clerk will manage the timer and allow each speaker two minutes to make a public

comment.

By email, you may send a written comment by email to boardclickatsaccounty.gov.

Your comment will be routed to the board and filed in the record.

If you need an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or for medical

or other reasons, please see clerk staff for assistance or contact the clerk's office

at 916-874-5451 or by email at boardclerkatsaccounty.gov.

Thank you in advance for your courtesy and understanding of the meeting procedures.

This concludes your announcement.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And if you're able, can everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

all.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, is there any objection to hearing the budget item 7 before 6?

Okay.

So moving forward with our agenda is our public comment.

Madam Clerk, do we have any public speakers for items not on the agenda?

Not on the agenda.

We do not.

No, we do not.

Other for item 6.

All right.

Now moving on, can you read for the next items, please?

Items, the consent calendar, items 2 through 5 to be approved.

Any public comments?

No public comments.

Move consent.

Second.

Seconded.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Are we voting or all in favor?

No, we're going to vote.

You may vote.

Your vote is unanimous and your motion passes.

Great.

We are now moving on to item 7 and we'll come back to item 6.

Madam Clerk, can you read item 7 into the record, please?

Yes.

Item 7 is public hearing to consider and approve the proposed budget for fiscal year 2025-26.

Madam Chair and commissioners, I'm going to try to make this quick because nobody wants

to sit around for a budget talk.

The LAFCO budget is here for your consideration, the draft budget.

As you know, the LAFCO budget is adopted in a two-stage format.

Right now it's the draft.

You would be approving a proposed budget, which would be distributed to all of the funding

agencies.

And then in May, you will be hearing the final budget.

Overall, the budget is the agency contributions have been increased to 5% due to additional

costs associated with operations personnel.

And we tried compensating on the operational costs, but still it warranted a 5% increase.

Page 2 of your staff report, you'll see a side-by-side comparison of essentially what

it looks like from the budget, both from the revenue side and on the expenditure side.

As you know, there are four main funding sources for LAFCO.

One is the interests that the money that we set in the bank garner.

Then we have agency contributions, project revenues, and prior year fund balance.

The project revenues typically are about 5% to 6% of the budget.

They really don't differ that much.

And it's always based upon the level of activity that the LAFCO experiences year over year.

As you know, applicants, when they apply, they are supposed to be compensating LAFCO

for time and expenses for any costs associated with their project.

And so we typically have different rates based upon the salary and benefits for analysts

and for the executive officer, but it's always on a time and materials basis.

We keep track of that.

And typically, like I said, it's about 5% or 6%, never more than that.

Everything else, the bulk of the budget is the agency contributions.

A third is paid by the county.

One sixth is paid by the city of Sacramento.

One sixth is paid by SMUD.

And then the one sixth is paid by the remaining six cities.

And one sixth is paid by the remaining 63 special districts.

And those are all proportionally based upon the revenues that they have gathered over the year.

As I indicated before, the main drivers for the costs are just simply things that are more expensive,

including your staff.

But we tried offsetting as much as we could off by limiting some other expenditures as well.

We don't really expect to have any major surprises in the coming year.

And I recommend that you adopt the proposed budget.

Commissioners, any questions?

Seeing and hearing none, do we have any public comment on this hearing?

Not on this hearing.

I will entertain a motion to open and close the public hearing.

Madam Chair, I so move.

Second.

Moved and seconded to open and close the public hearing.

May I vote?

Your motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And then those who have entered, if you have not turned in a request to speak on item six,

please do so now.

This is your last call.

As many of you know, I am going to have to pursuant to a disqualifying interest as determined

by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

I have a conflict of interest in the Lafko Sphere of Influence matter due to my real property

being located within a thousand feet of the Sphere of Influence and this project.

So according to FPPC regulation 18707, I am publicly disclosing this conflict for which

I cannot remain in the room and that I have to recuse myself from these discussions and

I cannot be counted towards obtaining a quorum in this matter.

So I am going to, when I leave, I am turning this matter over to the Vice Chair and Council

member Phil Pluckybaum will join the dais as a voting member.

Madam Chair, I do have an announcement.

We received 79 written public comments and there are still more coming in by email.

Those will be received in file.

Thank you so much.

And so at this point, I will, Vice Chair, you got to pop over to the chair's seat.

This is yours with the notes and I will be leaving the room.

Madam Clerk, do we need to take a brief recess?

Mr. Chair, would you like to take a recess while you switch over?

I think we're good.

We're good?

Okay.

Are you ready for item six?

I'm not Lisa Kaplan.

And he's not Chris Little.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I was just informed we do have to take a recess because they have to switch

on the computer.

Okay.

Switch out their names.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Metro Crabel, could we get assistance, please?

Mr. Chair, may I call Rolls?

Yes.

I'd like to call Rolls to reestablish a quorum.

Commissioner Little.

Here.

Carter.

Here.

Hume.

Here.

Jones.

Here.

Desmond.

Here.

Pratton.

Here.

Pluckin' Ball.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

So item six.

Item six is public hearing to consider and certify the environmental impact report

and approve the respective amendments to the Spears of Influence for the City of Sacramento

and Sacramento Area Sewer District, LAFCO Project 2023-03.

Mr. Chair and commissioners, I'm going to ask first if the presentation can be pulled

up on the screen, please.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and commissioners and members of the public, we're here to review the certified,

certified environmental impact report and consider the approval of the Spears of Influence

Amendment for the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Area Sewer District.

So the background, before we get into the project, I think, for people who don't know

what LAFCO is.

LAFCO essentially is a regulatory body that reviews the changes in service areas for most

local districts.

Essentially the background on this is that there is a high population growth in the state

as a result of the end of the World War II, and it created a challenge for California,

first to finance and extend services to new areas.

There was also a conscious effort by some agencies to exclude disadvantaged and or minority

populated communities.

This created what was deemed at the time octopus type of districts where you had tendrils extending

all over the place, but they were purposely excluding some communities, so they were just

being done in a very inefficient manner.

So in 1963, LAFCOs were created by the state in order to essentially regulate the growth

of local agencies that provided most municipal services.

And LAFCOs have four missions.

It is to encourage orderly urban growth and development to prevent urban sprawl, leapfrog

development and scattered urbanization, to encourage the logical formation and determination

of boundaries and coordinate property development standards and encourage timely urbanization,

to ensure the affected populations receive adequate and efficient government services,

and to guide development away from open space and agricultural land uses.

As you can see, some of these items can be in direct conflict with each other.

The state does not give preference to one or the other.

It basically gives the commission the discretion to evaluate what factors you should be reviewing

as part of any individual project and make that decision based upon the individual facts

of the case.

So LAFCO is a hybrid entity.

We are a state agency, but with local representation, we do not report to the governor.

We do not report to the legislature.

You are your own body.

So there are two main regulatory functions that require or that you have discretionary

decision making over.

One is to set the sphere of influence for each agency, which is defined as the probable

ultimate physical boundaries of a service area of a local government agency.

And number two, to alter the service boundaries of local agencies.

Most people think of it as growth, but in some cases, it could be the dissolution or

the removal of service area depending upon, again, the factors that are before you and

the facts that are before you relating to service.

And in fact, for folks who are interested in the last commission meeting, you actively

dissolved a district.

You voted to dissolve it because it was not providing sufficient or adequate services

to its residents.

And you annexed that service area into a district that has had a proven performance of being

able to deliver good, portable water.

So it's not just growth, but it's also reviewing how the service is being provided.

Just for the audience to know, LAFCO has no jurisdiction over land use.

That policy area is strictly reserved for cities and the counties.

That means that LAFCOs cannot say we will put 300 homes instead of 200 homes.

That's the purview of a city or a county.

What LAFCOs can do is to decide whether or not there are sufficient resources to be able

to provide service to a proposed land use.

The courts have kind of made it very difficult for you because you're not supposed to be

looking at land use, but you also can't ignore it either.

So what the courts have basically indicated is that you are to review a certain proposed

use of land.

And based upon that proposed use, can an agency provide services to that area?

So while you can't ignore that the current project maybe have houses or hotels, what

you do know is that because that is a proposed land use for this area, you get to evaluate

whether or not there are sufficient resources to be able to provide services based upon

that land use.

So all LAFCO actions for changes in boundaries, which is number two in that slide, must be

consistent with an agency's sphere of influence, number one.

So you always have to make sure that the sphere of influence reflects any future annexation.

These are, and for the members of the audience, you should know these are two separate actions.

One does not beget the other.

And we'll talk about that a little bit later in the presentation.

So just because a sphere of influence is approved does not mean that annexation is imminent

and does not mean that annexation is guaranteed.

An action considered today is setting the sphere of influence for the city and Sacramento

and Sacsour only.

That is your only question tonight.

So what factors do you use for the spheres of influence?

The main factors are included in government code 56-425.

I'm not going to repeat them.

They're up on the slide.

They're on the staff report.

But essentially you're looking at essentially two basic questions.

Again, does an agency have the ability and the capacity to extend services to an area

without having a detrimental effect upon its existing customers?

So it all boils down to those two questions.

Because if you find that an agency cannot extend services without being harmful to existing

residents in terms of the ability to, let's say, providing water, or let's say that you

remove staffing for one fire station, in those instances you cannot or should not approve

that sphere of influence change.

But what determines whether or not you have the appropriate services?

That's what a municipal service review is.

It's included as part of your staff report.

And what a municipal service review does is that it reviews an agency and how it's providing

services right now.

And then based upon that data, it extrapolates how much it's going to be providing services

in the future.

So based upon the data of how it's performing now, you use it to try to make reasonable

conclusions about what's going to happen in the future.

A targeted MSR was prepared for this project.

And this is because of timing.

When the application was started, the city had already started its general plan update,

but it had not been completed yet.

And the general plan update, the draft of it included a section that indicated that

the city was going to initiate a citywide municipal service review upon adoption of

the general plan.

And so because the timing wasn't quite working out and a citywide MSR was going to take so

long, the decision was made to do a targeted MSR.

So that it would look at the services that are being provided by the city in that specific

general area of the sphere of influence amendment.

So that because typically that's where the sewer lines are going to be extended.

That's where the water lines are going to be extended.

That's where the fire or police are going to be dispatched.

So the targeted MSR is intended to look at not the citywide as a whole, but more of the

northwestern edge of the city of Sacramento and whether or not there's sufficient facilities

to be able to extend services to that area.

And then you use that data to extrapolate the sphere of influence.

So the project description, talking specifically about this.

It is 472.4 acre.

It currently consists of undeveloped agricultural land.

It is currently located within Sacramento County outside of the city's urban services

boundary and the urban policy area.

That is the, sorry, the county's urban services boundary and urban policy area.

The county's USB and UPA does not hinder the city of Sacramento from being able to go beyond

those lines.

That is a county planning line, not a city of Sacramento line.

The site is bound to the north by I-5 and it's east of the, in the east side by the

city of Sacramento, by the west by Powerline Road.

The south of the project areas the Paso Verde K-8 school and additional agricultural land

that is in Sacramento County.

The request before you basically are two sphere of influence amendment requests, the city

of Sacramento and for Sac sewer or the Sacramento area sewer district.

This is a map of the land.

As you can see, to the western side there's active or already developed land.

To the north there's the active Metro Air Park project that's administered by the county

of Sacramento.

To the northwest is, you can see a portion of the airport.

And then to the west right now it's agricultural land but it's slated to be a charging port

or charging station for electric vehicles.

The proposed used is, as you can see from this map, essentially includes warehouses

and hospitality with some retail associated with it.

The retail and the hospitality are pretty close to the existing Metro Air Park interchange.

And then the industrial facilities are located just a little bit beyond that.

This is a map of the area.

The project site is bounded in black.

So it's the same area as the aerial but you can see in here that essentially the development

as proposed is going to be along the power line, Metro Air Park interchanges.

And then the parcel to the southeast right now is part of what's called non-participating

parcels.

The non-participating parcels are essentially the areas owned by Caltrans and again that

large parcel to the southeast.

So the background again on the project in May 2021, the application for the sphere of influence

amendments was submitted to LAFCO and on July 31, 2021, the city of Sacramento and LAFCO

entered a memorandum of understanding relating to the preparation of a coordinated environmental

review process for this project.

CECA essentially requires that you don't essentially have multiple environmental reviews.

Instead, you're supposed to have one that encompasses the entirety of all the discretionary

actions that are supposed to be taken by all agencies.

Given that spheres of influence and annexations and there's entitlements involved and the

timing, it was determined at the time that the best course of action was to just jointly

create the environmental review for this project and the EIR was prepared.

And what you're certifying tonight specifically is the EIR for the sphere of influence amendment.

The EIR itself encompasses all other discretionary actions as CECA requires, so it would include

the entitlements that will be before the city of Sacramento should you approve the SOI

amendment and it will also include the future annexation should an application actually be

received by LAFCO to annex this land.

So CECA requires that you have all those that you review, all of the environmental effects

for all of these discretionary actions, but for tonight specifically it's only on the

certification of the EIR is really specifically only to the action that you're taking tonight

which is the sphere of influence amendment.

So the targeted MSR was prepared to evaluate the SOI amendments for the city and the SAC

sewer.

The city of Sacramento will be conducting a citywide MSR as I indicated.

That's part of the city's 2040 general plan.

The SAC sewer had actually also had a municipal service review conducted as part of its reorganization

with the then Sacramento area sewer district and the then Sacramento regional county sanitation

district.

The commission approved this MSR in 2023.

So the sphere of influence amendment again it's the pertinent government codes 56076

and 56425 which was up earlier.

The question should be whether or not the SOI should be expanded.

The city needs to consider the capacity and capability of the agencies to expand the services

without compromising the services of existing residents.

If the SOI is expanded does that mean that the site to the annexation of the site to

the city is a foreground conclusion?

The answer is no.

We discussed it in the staff report but essentially it boils down to this.

Number one, LAFCO can approve an SOI but it doesn't mean that you're foreshadowing annexation.

That is there's no timetable.

You're not approving.

You're not signaling a future annexation.

All you're doing is whether or not extending the SOI makes sense at this time.

Second, it's not annexation is not a foreground conclusion because LAFCO has competing goals

and because of that the law requires you to make each decision based independently and

considered based on its own facts.

The facts that you're considering tonight are relevant to 56025 which are the factors

for the sphere of influence and the appropriate policies and standards in your policy standards

and procedures and those are included in attachment F to the staff report.

Here is a map of the sphere of influence for the city of Sacramento.

It's designated in the black line and currently in that area.

It's concurrent with the city limits.

So the black line that you see that is associated city of Sacramento, that is the extent of

the SOI of the city and the yellow portion is the airport south industry which is the

sphere of influence amendment you're considering tonight.

For SAC sewer, their service area currently also encompasses the airport and so the shaded

area is the entire service area and the sphere of influence for SAC sewer at the moment.

The yellow area again is what you're considering tonight.

So the California Environmental Quality Act, LAFCO and the city of Sacramento prepared

a joint environmental impact report.

The notice of preparation was sent out on March 4th and it was open through April 4th, 2022.

A notice of availability of the draft EIR was released to the public in May 21st through

July 17th.

You yourself actually received public comments on the draft EIR at the June 12th, 2024 hearing.

The EIR provides an evaluation of all the potential environmental impacts associated

with the development of the project area.

Environmental impacts are less than significant or less than significant with mitigation

with the exception of the following sections, aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality,

greenhouse gases and energy.

Then the Tomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan is included in here.

The conservation plan was designated to protect the endangered species and their habitats

within the Tomas Basin.

It is shared effort by various agencies to balance the development of urban areas and

the preservation of natural ecosystems.

Mitigation requires the preservation of offsite farmland at a ratio of one farmland acre converted

to urban uses outside of the NBHCP policy area to half an acre preserved, which combined

the biological resource mitigation results with an overall preservation of one-to-one

ratio.

I do have a small correction to make on the section of the staff report on page seven.

Essentially the strikeouts are relating to the county overseeing or having anything to

do with the Habitat Conservation Plan.

The county observes the HCP, but there's not a signature to the HCP.

As a result, they don't actually coordinate or ensure that the HCP's requirements that

are here.

That was an error in the staff report.

Essentially that paragraph for Sacramento County should read, the county is a key local

agency overseeing land use, planning, zoning, and development in the region.

However the county is not directly required to offer other properties outside of the designated

in the Tomas Habitat HCP area for development mitigation.

This is because in the Tomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan specifically outlines a

framework for mitigation within the plan's boundaries.

The county's role primarily involves enforcing local land use regulations.

Period.

So your S.Y. determinations.

The proposed sphere of influence are consistent with Cartesian-Nutz-Wirchberg.

This is your staff's evaluation.

There's a detailed information provided in the report packet.

The determinations include the president planned land uses, president probable need for public

services and facilities, present capacity of public facilities, and adequacy of public

services.

The existence of any social economic opportunities of interest in the area and the president

probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated

community.

Those are all consistent with the government code 56025.

Sorry, 56425.

So the staff recommendation is that you adopt resolution LAFC 2020-509 making findings and

certifying environmental impact report, including adopting the statement of overriding considerations.

And mitigation monitoring and reporting program consistent with the California Environmental

Quality Act and directing staff to file a notice of determination and compliance with

CEQA.

You're also to adopt resolution LAFC 2025-10 to approve the request of sphere of influence

amendment for the city of Sacramento.

Adopt resolution LAFC 2025-11 to approve the requested sphere of influence amendment for

the Sacramento area sewer district to direct the executive officer to complete the necessary

filings and transmittals and to determine the effective date of the approval to be five

working days.

So typically your public comment period after you ask questions of staff is two minutes

per person.

There was some slight confusion.

Back in the summer of 2024, the ECOS had requested to provide a presentation to you on the Natomas

basin.

Time was granted as a separate presentation on this agenda.

And we coordinated with the applicants to, or sorry, with ECOS to present for about 15

minutes on the habitat basin.

And this is based upon the sample of the presentation that was provided last summer.

And though it touched upon the item tonight for the sphere of influence amendment, primarily

it was directed about the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan.

So that's why arrangements were made to have a separate agenda item for them to make a

presentation.

When staff received the outline of the presentation, it was very clearly specific to airport south

and the sphere of influence amendment.

Because of that ECOS presentation couldn't be a separate item on the agenda.

It had to be rolled under this item.

So due to the confusion, staff recommends the LAFCO still honor their request to speak

and present to the commission with the allotted time that we had specified.

So this is the recommended process for providing comment on this item.

Staff presents the staff report, which we just finished.

The commissioner then questions, commissioner questions and comments to staff.

Then after that ECOS is allowed to make their presentation.

Then it would be the agency representative for the city of Sacramento.

An extension to speak was also granted to SACSU or which they declined.

Then the applicant representative, if so desired, is allowed to make a presentation.

And then all other members of the public who would like to speak have two minutes.

And I believe your Madam Clerk has received all the requests to speak.

And they will be taken up in the order in which they were received.

So that ends my presentation.

Be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions?

Mr. Hume.

You covered a lot of this in the PowerPoint, but I just want to kind of pick out some pieces

for edification for the members of the audience and also as a refresher for those of us up

on this diast.

Who is entitled or what is the process for initiating a sphere of influence application?

That's a very good question.

Essentially, there are three main categories of people who can initiate an SOI.

One could be an agency.

City Sacramento could have asked for that.

The other ones could be registered voters that are in the area.

They could also petition to have that SOI or the landowners.

In this specific case, it was the landowners who requested the SOI amendment.

Okay.

And then obviously there has not been a hearing or a public discussion at the city on this

item.

U.S.

The same thing about MOU to prepare the EIR, the city let the contract for that firm to

prepare the EIR.

They have managed that process themselves.

It was essentially overseen by both entities.

We're specifically talking about the EIR but also the MSR is strictly the LAFCO purview.

Correct.

We reviewed the MSR, we didn't prepare it,

they was prepared by a private consultant.

Sure.

But it was done under our direction, under staff's direction.

Which the two documents are fairly different

in their purpose and in their execution.

And the MSR simply says,

is there the available utilities and services

to be provided to this area?

Were it to develop?

Whereas obviously the EIR says,

if this is to develop in this manner,

these are the impacts that it will create

and how those impacts will be mitigated.

That's correct.

Right, so one's just sort of like, can it happen?

And the other one is, if it happens,

this is offsetting things that can be initiated.

And so then that brings me to this question,

which is you said the EIR encompasses essentially

contemplates all of the entitlements

that would be associated with this project.

However, our purview is only the determination

on the sphere of influence boundary.

And then it would go to the city to be processed

as a project application.

And the city at that point obviously

has the land use discretion,

but because the EIR has already been prepared,

I assume that would be the threshold

for the maximum allowed impact.

And the city could only whittle down, they couldn't pile on.

Correct.

And the city also has to certify

that EIR is part of their process as well.

Okay, so as a separate action.

Correct.

Laugh code certification again is specific to the SOI.

It doesn't certify the EIR for the city.

The city still has to take that action on its own.

Okay, that's all I have for now.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Desmond.

Thank you.

And thank you, Commissioner Hume.

Some of the same questions about the EIR.

I really appreciate you taking the time

to explain the process.

I think that's really important,

especially for members of the public to understand

really what the scope is of our decision-making tonight

as a Laugh Code body.

And I think that's a great point

that Suvarsha Hume brought out,

that we are not making a decision on the annexation

or the entitlements.

Correct.

We are making a decision about the completeness of the EIR

and whether the municipal services

can be accomplished in this area.

I did have a question,

and maybe you can explain it a little more.

You touched on it, how this area is outside

the urban services boundary for the county,

and it's not even contemplated, obviously, for the city.

Explain what that interplay is

and what Laugh Code's role in evaluating that

in this process.

Sure, so it's not part of the city's general plan in 2040,

simply again, because of the timing.

By the time the application was being processed

and the request came in,

and the city might, when the representatives up here

can probably share more insights,

and she was here, but I was not.

But my understanding of the timing is that

the parameters of the general plan

had already been established and determined,

but the general plan itself had not been completed

when this application came to be.

And so it was a matter of timing that

it was too far into the process

for the city's general plan to backtrack

to accommodate the project,

but it was not far enough to be able to basically shut

the door and say you're done.

So I guess my question is what implications does it have

for our decision that this is outside

the county's urban services boundary

and not even included in the city's general plan?

If any, does it have any weight or bearing

on the decision we make with respect to the EIR

and the sphere of influence?

It can, it can because the reality is that

you're contemplating as part of this process,

annexing land that could be developed

that is both outside of the general plan for the city,

and it's outside the urban services boundary

for the county.

It is really a greater thing to consider

at the annexation phase versus the SOI,

but clearly an SOI essentially is down this path, right?

But as I indicated earlier, there's no,

you taking action on the SOI right now

doesn't immediately say this land is annexed.

It doesn't say it's gonna get annexed tomorrow,

and it doesn't say that it'll ever be annexed.

You're just indicating whether or not

it makes sense to include it in the sphere.

But that can be a factor you can consider tonight

because of the fact that it's not,

the entitlement process will be part of amending

the general plan as well.

So at the moment that has not been contemplated,

and it is outside the county's determination

for an urban service boundary line,

the county at this moment still considers this to be

agricultural undeveloped land.

So it can be a factor in your consideration tonight.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

All right.

If I may ask to have the presentation by Ecos pulled up

and ask former mayor Fargo.

Good afternoon.

Good evening.

The microphone?

Okay.

Okay, now am I close enough to the microphone?

Okay.

Good evening.

My name is Heather Fargo,

and I am here tonight speaking on behalf

of the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

I am the president for 2025 of Ecos,

but I am also the former mayor of Sacramento.

I'm the president for 2025 of Ecos,

and I am also the former mayor of Sacramento

and former council member for this area and many others.

And I served on the city council,

being council member and mayor from 1990 to 2008.

And not only were we involved in a lot of issues

throughout the city and specifically downtown and midtown,

but Natomas was a big issue at that time.

And I'm also a resident of South Natomas

and have been for a few decades.

And I've spoken with all of you about this project

in the past, so I really wanna thank Jose

for giving me an opportunity,

giving Ecos an opportunity to present some of our concerns

about this project and about the decisions

that are before you tonight.

We formed a group,

I guess it would have been right after this item

initially went to the city council.

I sort of have an odd habit of occasionally,

maybe more than occasionally looking

at the city council agenda to see

what they're up to these days.

And I found on the consent calendar this item

that had to do with an annexation

in the non permitted land of the Natomas basin conservancy

and it kind of caught me by surprise.

I talked to some of my environmental friends

who were also involved in establishing

the Natomas basin habitat conservation plan

and they hadn't heard about it either.

So we asked it to be pulled from the consent calendar

so we could address the council on it

and express our concerns and have a,

what we hope would be a robust discussion

about whether or not the city even wanted

to annex land in the farmland.

Unfortunately, it was pulled off the agenda.

We asked it to be pulled off the consent calendar

but it was pulled off the complete agenda

and it never went back to the city council.

So this item, I just want to be really clear

that you're voting for something that the city of Sacramento,

which really can only be expressed by the city council,

not by the city manager or staff

has not taken a position yet on.

They have not, there has not been a public hearing.

This is the second public hearing that we've had

on this item and both of them have been here at Lafko.

None have been before the city of Sacramento.

And I hope that you consider that and discuss that

as you go forward.

I was also chair of SACOG when we established

and the region supported and voted on the SACOG blueprint,

which also established a boundary for development,

kind of encouraging where development should be

and where it shouldn't be.

And this particular project runs counter

to both the conservancy of the Habitat Conservation Plan

as well as the SACOG blueprint.

But at the time, we thought because we had been so concerned

about the habitat of Natomas and the farmland

that we had taken care of the boundary issues.

We thought that by having a city limits,

by having the urban services boundary line in place,

by establishing the Habitat Conservation Plan

and the SACOG blueprint that we had made it really clear

as a region and as a community,

not just in Natomas community, but the city of Sacramento,

that we weren't gonna build anymore

in the farmland of Natomas,

that that was going to be preserved.

And we thought that was especially true

because the city signed a contract

with the state and federal wildlife agencies

that they would not build in the farmland.

That was the contract that we had to sign

in order to develop North Natomas.

It was a requirement for the city to engage in the Natomas,

sign on to the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan,

which we did and we did willingly.

And we signed a contract saying that we wouldn't build

in the farmland and we wouldn't build

outside of the permitted areas.

This project is outside of the permitted areas.

We signed, Senator County signed,

Sacramento County chose not to sign

because at that point in time,

we also had an agreement called the Natomas vision

where the county agreed they would take care of the airport

and the farmland and the city

would do the development in Natomas.

And there wasn't a question of the county building

in the farmland because they had decided

that wasn't what they were going to do.

So I wanna give you a little bit of an understanding.

I know not everyone here, in fact,

there was no one on the dais now that lives in Natomas.

I'm sure you drive through it on your way to the airport.

But this is in fact the Natomas basin.

The general outline of the Natomas basin

is shown there in black.

The blue line is the county's urban services boundary line.

It clearly includes the airport and Metro air park.

It clearly includes the city limits of Sacramento,

both North Natomas and South Natomas.

But none of those pink or green projects or areas

are out or within the urban services boundary.

They are all outside

of the county's urban services boundary line.

And the areas that are hatch tagged are the permitted areas.

Metro air park has permitted areas, obviously,

and the city of Sacramento.

Sacramento County has zero, other than the airport,

because they chose not to be a part of the agreement,

of the plan.

And as Jose said, there are really only two decisions

before you tonight.

One is whether or not you think that EIR is worth certifying

and whether or not you feel comfortable

issuing the statement of overriding considerations

that you're going to have to do.

And also whether or not you want to change

the city's sphere of influence.

So those are the things that are really before you.

And one of the reasons that we are specifically concerned,

airport South, and does this have a pointer?

Probably not.

Oh, it does.

Okay, right there, if I can hold my hand steady.

Airport South is this smallish project,

small by Natomas standards, I guess.

It's only 450 acres, I guess today I found out

it's 472 point something acres.

We've wandered between 450 and 475.

But that project is the one that you're voting on today.

The other two projects in salmon color

are projects that we're very concerned about,

that this could be a precedent setting action

that would give those two projects some kind of a red light

that we're all okay going outside

of the urban services boundary line

and building in farmland once again.

When we have an agreement not to do that.

So what we want you to do today is to use your policies.

Let's see if this goes up.

Say that again, the bottom one.

No, that just goes backwards.

What am I supposed to be aiming at?

Maybe I'm not aiming in the right location.

What am I, what is, what am I, I'm aiming at the picture.

I shouldn't be aiming at the picture.

Okay.

So this is forward, right?

Yes.

Yeah, that's what I was pushing.

Okay, so here's the airport, South Industrial Project.

And so obviously it's in salmon at this point.

And what you see in the reason that a lot of people

lined up behind me are gonna be speaking to you tonight

is they either live in the Westlake area

ameliorately to the East here,

which is an existing neighborhood,

or they send their kids to the elementary school,

which is just south of these proposed warehouses,

or they care about the habitat,

which is being preserved just also

to the south of the project.

So I want you to see just how close

these million square foot warehouses are going to be

to where people currently live

and where they were promised it would be

open space behind them,

and where people are sending their children to school.

Obviously this is not the right location for this project.

What we want you to do when you,

okay, maybe I'm supposed to put this one.

Jose.

Towards what computer?

Where is the computer that I'm aiming towards?

Oh, you're done, you just press it.

Over?

Yeah, just the.

Okay, I must be pressing in the right place on there.

Okay, so I want you to actually see

what the site looks like.

This is the land, it's called vacant,

but it's really not, it's nature, it is habitat.

This is the housing of the Westlake neighborhood,

right adjacent to the project site.

And as you can see, there's a pile of hay

over to the far side there,

clearly still agricultural land.

You know, my legs aren't good, but my hands are okay.

I don't know why this is.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry about that, everybody.

Okay, so the project boundary,

the southern edge is on the left side of your screen

and the northern edge of I-5 and Bayou Road is on the right.

Part of why I wanted you to see the canal

is that this canal shows you that these aren't

the standard canals in Sacramento County

that are paved and concrete,

and you know, there's really nothing living in them.

These are actually habitat still,

and they are homes to a lot of critters

that take advantage of them.

Next slide.

And I wanted you to see what tomatoes in the Thomas look like

before their for sale at Perry's.

And, but obviously,

clearly it's still considered prime farm land,

both in your EIR as well as by the County Farm Bureau.

Next slide, please.

And then I wanted to remind you of these.

Jose went through these as he was going through this,

and these are the main goals of Lafko

that we want you to consider when you look at this decision.

You're supposed to be looking at orderly formation

and an orderly process.

We do not consider, as you can tell by the confusion

of the discussion already,

this has not been an orderly process.

But your main two goals are preserving open space

and prime farm land and discouraging urban sprawl

are very important,

and we don't think that this project meets the criteria,

and we hope that you will join us in opposing it.

This is a developer initiated project, as you heard.

There are several ways it can be done,

but I need to mention again,

this has not been to the city council,

and I hope that you make, that you discuss that.

But regardless, you can't ignore your own goals and policies.

We wanna make sure that you respect

other agencies' decisions as well.

Next slide.

Because a lot of things have led us to this point.

We have a county urban services boundary line

that is rarely crossed.

We have an Atomous Space and Habitat Conservation Plan.

We have a county transportation,

regional transportation plan and the Saacog Blueprint.

We have the Atomous Habitat Conservation Plan

and the city general plan and the county general plan.

Now, you mentioned the city general plan,

and yes, this project came in late,

but we just spent a lot of time at the city

producing a new general plan.

This project was never discussed.

A lot of public hearings where it could have been brought up,

it never was.

This project is not in any way in the city's general plan.

So, why is ECOS opposed to the EIR?

Let's go to the next slide.

Again, we think this is the opposite

of orderly development.

City council has not requested this SOI.

The city council has never held a public hearing on it.

Lafko cannot adopt a statement of overriding consideration,

which has all kinds of things written in it that says,

the city will do this and the city will do that.

When the city hasn't done it,

that's what you're being asked to approve tonight.

I hope you read it closely.

And Lafko alone should have been the lead

on the SOI amendment and on the EIR, we believe.

We don't think it should have been a dual agency,

a dual lead.

We think that has led to a very confusing process,

which is gonna make your decision harder, I believe.

The EIR downplays the growth inducing aspects

of this project.

It downplays, it pretty much doesn't even mention

the Natoma Space and Habitat Conservation Plan

and the impacts that this project will have on that plan.

It identifies several issues, significant issues

that cannot be mitigated to less than significant,

as mentioned, air quality next to a school

and a neighborhood and also the loss of farmland.

It doesn't come back.

We have so much farmland.

It's a huge part of the Sacramento County economy.

We should try to remain the farm to fork capital

and you can't have farm to fork if you don't have the farms.

So we think it's important to hold on to this land.

So we don't see how you justify this project.

We think that the EIR also didn't pay enough attention

to alternative sites because of the way the applicant

who is the one who came in for the SOI,

their objectives are the ones that are being sought,

not the city's objectives.

And so the way the developer wrote the objectives,

you really can't meet them anyplace else.

But if you wanna build warehouses to serve the community,

you can build those elsewhere.

There's space available, other places,

there's places that are already zoned,

there's places that are already available.

In fact, we see these warehouses as competing

with existing people and existing developers

that have followed the rules,

that have built buildings where you ask them to build them

as opposed to this site,

which there is no demand for other than

by the project applicant.

So next slide please.

Again, we're asking you to vote no

on both the EIR and the SOI.

Next slide.

Oops, I skipped ahead of this

and went ahead and talked about it anyway,

but it's a nice picture, so take a moment

to look at Natomas and the coastal range in the background.

Okay, next slide.

We're actually very concerned about your statement

of overriding consideration, so please look at that.

And please look at the fact

that there were other sites were not considered.

Okay, next slide.

So we also want you to vote no on the SOI,

obviously the EIRs, first SOI, second.

We consider this to be precedent setting.

And when you look at how that finger goes out there

of the airport south, out on its own,

it kind of indicates that maybe that's the direction

we want the city to grow, and it isn't.

It hasn't been in the past and there is no

really consensus that that's where we should go

in the future.

Clearly one of your major roles

that we've all relied upon you for decades for

is to save farmland and reduce sprawl, and this is both.

We think that the impacts haven't been clearly documented

or mitigated.

You'll hear more about all of this

from other people speaking today.

And I think one of the big things for me,

having been involved in so many of these plans in the past,

is it undermines the decades of planning we've done

that have gotten us to this point.

Next slide.

One of the things I want to mention

about the TOMA Space and Conservancy

is that the TOMA's Habitat Conservation Plan,

we have what's called a one half to one ratio,

where for every acre that is developed in North TOMA's,

we are required to set aside a half an acre

of open space and habitat.

And that's a good deal from the state and federal agencies.

Typically it's one to one or more.

And maybe it should have been in this case,

but we got the one to one and a half

because we had agreed to save the farmland.

The farmland in TOMA's is foraging habitat and habitat

for the 22 species that we are trying to protect

as a part of that conservancy,

which once again is a contract between the city of Sacramento

and the state and federal agencies,

as well as Sutter County.

Next please.

So this shows you the urban services boundary

and it's a county wide policy

that clearly much more has been preserved

in the southern part of the county

and a lot of that has to do with the Delta.

Of course, when the urban services boundary was established,

they were looking at natural dividing lines,

areas that should be developed versus not,

natural areas, looking at prime farmland.

And so those are the parcels that are still being retained

in Natomas, which of course is very small compared

to the rest, but they're very significant

and they're very key.

The biodiversity in this area is really extreme

and you'll be hearing more about that as well.

Next slide.

So the Natomas based and Habitat Conservation Plan,

there's just a couple of pictures here

of the critters that we're trying to keep.

There's a lot of threatened species up there.

I've already mentioned it's a legal contract

and there's 22 species we're trying to protect.

Next slide.

And then we also think that there is an ample supply

of land elsewhere to build warehouses

if that's what the city decides they want.

This is just one picture of many,

you'll be seeing more of places

that this sign is out there at Metro Air Park

trying to finish the project.

And we've listed a number of sites

that we're not looked at in the EIR as alternates.

And so then the question is,

why does ECO suppose the project?

Why wouldn't we want to have warehousing?

And we're not opposed to warehousing,

we're just opposed to the location.

And so this is, as Chris Little's real estate industry

would say, it's location, location, location.

And this is the wrong one.

Our concerns have to do with the increased air pollution,

especially near a school and neighborhood,

the increased noise and light pollution

that this is gonna create and devalue the livability

of the neighborhood next door,

the increased traffic,

which is gonna make the congestion on I-5 and I-80

even worse than it is today and less safe,

the loss of farmland and foraging habitat,

the impact on climate change due to the loss of open space,

and the safety issues for the airport

because we're gonna be attracting more birds

in the strike zone of the airplanes.

So this is six million square feet of warehouse

in the wrong location.

And we are hoping that you will join us

in not certifying the EIR and not certifying

and not approving the SOI.

And lastly, I wanna let you know

that ECO is not alone in its opposition.

We've had a petition on our website for a couple of months

and we stopped it today.

Well, we didn't stop the petition.

If you haven't signed up, you still can.

But as when we printed it,

and I have a copy to give to the clerk,

we had, I believe, 893 signatures already.

And I do have a map here as well,

which shows where the predominant number of people have signed,

but it really is throughout the region.

And so we wanna make sure you realize

that there are a lot of people concerned

about open space in Sacramento

and a lot of people that don't want you to do this.

And at this point, I would like to ask the people

in the audience who are opposing this project

to please stand or wave their hand,

because I think you will see that

you probably recognize some of them.

We've been working on this for quite a while

because this has been going on now for about four years.

But I really wanna thank you for your time and attention.

And if you have any questions for me,

I'd be happy to answer them.

But thank you again, Jose, for the time.

And please join us in voting no.

Thanks.

Can you give this to you?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any,

any comments from up here?

Hearing none, I'll queue up the next presentation,

which will be by the city of Sacramento.

If that can be pulled up, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good evening, Chair and commissioners.

My name is Cheryl Hodge,

the new growth manager with the city of Sacramento.

I oversee anything related to the city's boundary.

And I also manage the implementation

of the city's Natoma Space and Habitat Conservation Plan.

The city's existing sphere of influence

was adopted by the Sacramento LAFGO in 1981.

And since that time, it's been periodically updated.

The proposed sphere of influence amendment

is consistent with the city of Sacramento,

2040 general plan that provides policies relevant

to sphere of influence areas, logical boundaries,

annexations and provisions of provision

of city, municipal services, excuse me.

The sphere of influence amendment is located

within the area designated as Natomas Space and Study Area

per the city's general plan.

The city's adopted North Natomas Community Plan

overlaps the sphere of influence amendment.

The community plan was originally adopted back in 1986.

The sphere of influence amendment is also located

completely within the Natomas Space and Habitat

Conservation Plan area,

which covers the entire Natomas Space and.

I appreciate the earlier presentation and concerns raised

about the potential future growth in Natomas Space

in relative to the Habitat Conservation Plan.

And I'll refer to it as the HCP.

The sphere of influence amendment provides a future,

I'm sorry, the sphere of influence amendment provides

an opportunity that can benefit the city's HCP

rather than handle it.

The city is the only land use jurisdiction

in the Sacramento portion of the Natomas Space

that is a signatory party to the HCP.

Yet none of the unincorporated Sacramento County area

of the Natomas Space and is located within our SOI.

Leaving the area outside of the city's SOI

does not provide any assurance that the area

won't be developed in the future.

And it certainly does not provide HCP protection of the area.

Sacramento County is not a party to the Natomas Space

and Habitat Conservation Plan, but the city is

and has been committed to the Habitat Conservation Plan

for over 25 years.

To get a better understanding of the early days of the HCP,

this graphic shows that in 1999,

the Natomas Space and Conservancy acquired 1,317 acres.

That was the ownership of open space for HCP

that they had been able to purchase.

Also mentioned that the HCP requires the Conservancy

to acquire a total of 8,750 acres that provides

the complete mitigation acres to cover the allowable

combined development of Sutter County,

the city of Sacramento and Metro Air Park.

Fast forward to 2025,

the Natomas Space and Conservancy now owns over 5,300 acres.

This vast majority of acreage that's been acquired

has been a result mostly from the city's development

that's occurred in North Natomas and South Natomas.

An incredible achievement in the completion

is the completion of a 2,500 acre HCP Reserve Block,

which is required by the HCP to be completed

by year 2052, but it's already been,

that milestone has already been met.

The areas shown in yellow on this exhibit

depict the city's remaining development

that is subject to the HCP.

As you could see, there is not much remaining

that will be subject to HCP impact fees and mitigation.

The Sphere of Influence Amendment acreage,

if potentially annexed in the future,

does not cause any HCP exceedance

of the city's 8,050 acres of development maximum.

The basis for consideration of a Sphere of Influence Amendment

pertains to urban sprawl,

preservation of farmland and open space,

efficient provision of municipal services

and orderly development.

Three sides of the Sphere of Influence Amendment

are bounded by urban development.

The Sphere of Influence Amendment area consists of lands

and proximity to Sacramento International Airport.

In 1957, over 6,000 acres in Natomas Basin

was acquired for the airport

and to also provide open space

for the protection of the airport

from encroachment by urban uses.

Urban sprawl is typically not characterized

as development occurring in an area

bounded by multiple sides of existing urban uses.

The Sphere of Influence Amendment adjacent urban uses,

and you've heard this earlier, includes Interstate 5 Freeway,

Metro Air Park Interchange, roadways,

nearby storage facility, residential development,

Paso Verde School, and across Powerline Road

is the county-approved 100-acre Watt EV

innovative freight terminal slated to start construction

in the fall of 2025.

Agricultural uses in the Sphere of Influence Amendment area

has been minimal, especially following urbanization

of the adjacent areas.

Agricultural and the media area has been challenging

due to the complaints raised by nearby residents

regarding rodents, dust during harvest,

as well as concerns about the use of pesticides.

This in turn has resulted in the productivity potential

of the area being limited.

If the Sphere of Influence area were to be annexed

in the future, the provision for agricultural

open space lands for mitigation would be in a location

better suited for farming activities,

and the mitigation lands would be preserved

through conservation easements or similar mechanisms.

One of the objectives of determining a Sphere of Influence

is to distinguish the capability

for providing efficient municipal services.

The city's capacity to provide such services

is addressed and documented in the municipal services review.

The Sphere of Influence Amendment acknowledges

that the municipal services review,

municipal services could be provided by the city.

The Sphere of Influence Amendment does not approve

any development of the area,

but it does provide for the city and its residents

to have a greater role in the future planning of the area.

I've provided a lot of information.

This is the CliffsNotes version,

probably could do quite a bit more

on the Habitat Conservation Plan,

but to recap some main points, please consider the following.

Sphere of Influence Amendment area is recognized

in multiple adopted plans,

including the city's 2040 general plan,

the North Nathomas Community Plan,

and the Nathomas Space and Habitat Conservation Plan.

The Sphere of Influence Amendment area is an area

that could receive efficient municipal services from the city.

The Sphere of Influence Amendment will not impact

the ability of the HCP Conservation Strategy

to be completed, but can potentially help aid

in advancing it.

Any changes in land use, zoning, proposed development,

or potential annexation, all would be subject

to required public hearings and actions in the future

by the city of Sacramento and Lafko.

Any actual development of the area, if it were to occur,

would be subject to applicable approvals

from the Wildlife Resource Agencies,

which are the same agencies that are signatory parties

to our Nathomas Space and Habitat Conservation Plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the commission.

City staff is available to answer any questions

you may have.

Greg Sanlin, the city's planning director,

is in attendance this evening

in addition to our city project team.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Hume.

Thank you.

I have a quick question,

because a lot of what you lined out seems to tell

a little different story than Mayor Fargo

speaking to the Habitat Conservation Plan

and the agreements that were in place.

So in these plans that you say this area is contemplated

within the city documents, the general plan and such,

when was the last time that the city council

affirmatively made any sort of decisions in that regard?

Well, I would say when they adopted and updated

our 2040 general plan was done,

part of that and comments that actually came into the city

was related to designating Nathomas Space

and as a study area.

And it was previously, it's been designated that

for quite a while, it was previously identified

as Nathomas Joint Vision

because of the County City Joint Vision from years ago.

But it basically reaffirms that the city has an interest

in Nathomas Space and the future of it,

any planning, any potential development.

And we also of course have our Habitat Conservation Plan,

which we've been committed to for over 25 years.

We don't wanna do anything that hurts our own HCP

and we want it to be successfully completed.

So I would say as part of the 2040 general plan,

that designation of Nathomas Space and if it,

the actual study area is described in general plan

as an area that is of interest to the city.

And that the area or parts of may potentially be annexed

in the future.

And I'm sorry, this may have been mentioned earlier.

When was that decision made,

that the adoption of the current general plan?

That actually happened after the application

for airport South was filed.

So I would say February of last year.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay.

And then my next question is,

and if you can answer this, Greg certainly could,

if there were a major project coming forward

in the city specific plan or something

that's pretty massive undertaking

and it were initiated by the developers

or landowners or independent parties,

they would file an application

and process that through the city

and do all of the required documents

and background studies.

And then it would come to the council for a vote.

That is correct.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

If the next presentation can be queued up

and represent for the applicant,

can come up to the podium please.

Okay.

Good evening, Mr. Chair,

members of the LAFCO commission.

My name is Nick Abdes.

I'm with the law offices of Abdes and Kuchy

on behalf of AKT Development

and applicant, a co-applicant

of the airport South Industrial Project.

We of course initiated the SOI amendment

by submitting an application directly to LAFCO

and we separately submitted directly

to the city planning application.

We appreciate the opportunity to be before you

this evening with the proposals to amend the SOIs

for SAC sewer and the city.

This project has been several years

in the making with countless hours of work.

And I would like to express my gratitude to your staff

as well as the staff of the city.

Land use entitlements are never straightforward, never easy.

And I just want to take a moment to acknowledge

and appreciate the work of a lot of people

to get this item before you for a decision today

in a legally sufficient comprehensive manner.

I know I have more gray hairs from this exercise.

On that note, I'd like to introduce our project team.

I'm gonna go to the next slide here.

As I mentioned, I'm with Abdes and Kuchy

and I'm a rep or second AKT development

and our development partner, North Point representative

is here, Jeff Griffin, who'll be speaking with you shortly.

The rest of the team on the list is on the list

and many of them are here this evening

to help answer any questions that the commission might have.

At this point, I want to hand it over to Jeff Griffin

to tell you a little bit about himself and North Point

and then I'll be back to run through a few slides.

Good evening commissioners.

And I second what Nick said for all the staff time

that's been put into this.

Our firm really appreciates everybody

that's spent a lot of hours on this.

As Nick said, I'm Jeff Griffin

with North Point, I'm the West region partner.

Although our firms headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri,

I'm actually a Sacramento native

and I opened the North Point office here in Sacramento

in 2018.

Our firm is a privately held real estate operating company.

We specialize in industrial data centers

as well as multifamily developments across the country.

Our nine offices employ roughly 400 people

while our national development span 26 states.

We currently own approximately 150 million square feet

of class of industrial space

as well as 6,500 multifamily units across the country.

Through the years, our developments have helped create

over 110,000 long-term operational jobs.

That's a fact that I point out in every presentation I make

because that's what I'm most proud of,

all the jobs that we create.

In addition to this,

move forward to the slide,

you'll see the typical tenants that we work with.

That's just a representation of many.

We've built good reputation with a lot of the folks

that you see on the slide,

as well as a lot of other credit tenants across the country.

And we do a lot of multiple projects

with each and every tenant.

As well on this slide,

we show several charities that we choose to invest in,

some of which are locally based here.

So I'm particularly proud of that as well.

Specific to what we've done here in Sacramento,

again, I opened the office in 2018

and our first project was in West Sacramento.

We purchased 60 acres and went on to develop

a three building project of roughly 600,000 feet.

While we were building that in 2018 to 20,

we purchased our first site within Metro Air Park

and started developments out there.

To date, currently we have seven assets

that we've developed out there

to the tune of about 3.9 million square feet.

And most recently in 2022,

we purchased land on the former Aerojet campus

in the city of Rancho Cordova

and have completed our phase one project,

which was two buildings consisting of roughly 715,000 feet.

What I believe makes North Point different

than a lot of other developers

that choose to develop nationally.

When we choose to invest in a community,

we do our due diligence

and we plan to become a community member.

Me being a native here,

it was easy for our firm to do that.

But again, we keep ownership of our assets long term.

Makes us a little different than

a lot of the merchant developers out there.

But we do feel blessed to be here in the Sacramento community

and we plan to be here for many years ahead.

So thank you again for your time.

I'm gonna turn back to Nick for the rest of the presentation.

All right, thanks for your indulgence

and sort of running a few more slides.

So I really wanna direct, draw attention

to what's happening in the vicinity,

as you see on the board there.

This is a vicinity map and aerial from 2015.

Not a lot is going on.

Obviously the interchange where it's located today

has kind of been circled with the white circle there.

It wasn't immediately foreseeable at that point

and Greenbrier, now known as North Lake,

hadn't commenced construction, just not a lot going on.

In 2018, moving on to the next slide,

you see the first building being delivered

in Metro Air Park, roughly 900,000 square foot

Amazon fulfillment center, which at this point,

I wanna do extend my kudos to the County of Sacramento

for securing Amazon at that location.

Securing Amazon really kicked things off

in terms of development at Metro Air Park,

which stagnant and undeveloped for close to 30 years

and really initiated the establishment

of a premier logistics hub in the region.

And frankly, the direct reason

of why we're here before you this evening,

and it's no question as to why the intersection of I-5

and I-80 being really close by as well as the airport

being immediately adjacent created synergies

that allowed that Metro Air Park development to flourish.

But as you see, there's still no interchange in 2018.

So moving on to 2021, you see now that five buildings

at Metro Air Park have gone up in the beginning of a sixth.

That's roughly on the screen there,

four and a half million square feet.

So just in a small timeframe since the Amazon project

went vertical, really the activity really went

into high gear and 2021 also saw the opening

and the christening of the new interchange

and the North Lake subdivision commenced development

of phase one.

So that project by reference is immediately adjacent

to industrial plan and zone properties,

not dissimilar from the airport South side.

The next slide shows what was going on in the ground 2023.

There are now 16 buildings identified as assets

on this slide totaling over eight million square feet.

The interchange while not built out

is obviously fully operational.

And of course, the North Lake subdivision

has continued to build out its phase one improvements.

Here, I believe they're just over a thousand units,

home sites on the ground.

Moving on to the next slide here, 2024.

Again, Metro Air Park is really building up steam,

28 buildings are now vertical

at nine and a half million square feet.

You see the interchange has really evolved

into the big gateway into Metro Air Park

and the North Lake subdivision

is completing its phase one build out.

2025, this aerial right here is about from a month ago.

You see the activity map,

29 buildings have now gone vertical

at almost a million, a 10 million square feet.

And then commencement of phase two

of the North Lake subdivision,

permanently known as Greenbrier.

So as you can see, Metro Air Park has become

a logistics hub for the region.

And as you can see from the build out

in these various exhibits,

there's a growing scarcity for large logistics sites

to serve the needs of people already here.

As of this year, there's really only about one parcel of land

that can accommodate a million square foot building.

The rest of the site is really much smaller parcels

and highly fractionalized ownership.

So with that in mind, I wanna go to the SOIA area

that we're here to discuss this evening

and the opportunities it presents for the city

and frankly, the region.

It really is, as you can see from this exhibit

and prior exhibits that were shown this evening,

it's a logical place to grow.

It makes all the sense to take advantage

of the opportunity airport South presents immediately adjacent

to a $30 million piece of infrastructure

in the form of the Metro Air Park interchange

as well as other city services

immediately adjacent to the site.

You can see here that North Lake, again,

subdivision is complaining it's build out of phase two.

And here, as mentioned earlier,

is the 100 acre Watt EV project that was approved

by the county last year.

And my understanding, I think it was,

as the city just mentioned that ground is breaking

on that site this year.

And that is immediately adjacent to our project.

And so really, as you can tell from this exhibit

and the narrative, the SOIA area really presents

the last piece of developable property

between the existing city limits of Sacramento

and the airport.

It really is sandwiched in between existing development

on three sides and on the South,

it will be, you know, no urban development will be permitted

because there are lands in permanent conservation.

So it really is the last piece of undeveloped land.

So with what you heard about today from your staff

in the city of Sacramento and what's included

in the staff packet, it really answers the question

of is this the right place to expand the city's sphere?

It is absolutely yes.

The answer is yes.

And thank you.

We're here to answer any questions you might have

this evening of us and our consultant team

is obviously available as well.

Do any questions?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen.

So Mr. Chair, unless there's any other questions for staff,

then we can move on to a public comment.

Okay, we'll begin public comment.

Like to let everyone know that we have quite a few people here

and we've heard a lot from folks already.

If you have something to say, you'll have two minutes,

you'll be called in the order that your name was in.

Your name was received.

And we would ask that if you be mindful of trying

to keep your comments, I want everyone

to have a chance to be heard.

So we've got a lot of people here.

And if we're going two minutes apiece,

it could take us quite a while to get out of here.

So if you do start to hear people that have said what

you've said, if you just want to come up to be part of the record

and put your name in and say you agree with whatever

the position, that would be fine too.

So you'll be on record, okay?

So with that, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Chair, we have several.

And fear of me messing up anyone's last name.

I'm going to call them by their first name.

When I call you by your name, will you

please step forward to the podium and make your comment?

First, we have Earl.

Earl, would they come?

Would they come?

Thank you.

Who do we have on deck?

Could we have on deck Kent and Laurie, please?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,

my name is Earl Whithicombe.

I'm a registered civil engineer in the state of California.

I have practiced as an air quality consulting engineer

for over 50 years.

In my volunteer life, I spent two terms on the board

of supervisors of Sierra County.

And I was put more than 30 years into serving

with the boards of directors of Breed, California, Sacramento

region, and the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

The EIR for this project is deficient.

It fails to address the health impacts and emissions

of ultrafine particulate.

The final EIR claims that emissions of PM 2.5,

particles smaller than 2 and 1 half microns, and PM 10,

can serve as a surrogate for that.

The health impacts of ultrafine particulate

that makes it all the way through the Alveoli, the small

aerosacs, and the lungs that enter the bloodstream

is not the same as the lodging of PM 10 and 2.5 in the upper

and lower respiratory tracts.

The parcel eight is zone industrial.

There's very little question in my mind

that it will also be developed for warehouse work.

If that's the case, the health risk assessment

in the final EIR is deficient, because the addition

of warehousing and more trucks in that corner right next

to the residential area will put the health risk of the increased

chances of contracting cancer for the nearest residents

to that boundary.

Above 10 in a million, which is the threshold for significance,

an additional mitigation will be required under C.

Will you please wrap up your comments?

This project is not the right project for this location.

This hive of cancer-causing diesel trucks

should be located away from any residential area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can't please come to the podium.

The next speaker.

Kent Lason.

And on deck, Madam Clerk.

On deck, we have Laurie Tinolpe.

Tinolpe.

Hello there, gentlemen, and hello audience.

First, I just want to say I really feel grateful that we

are sitting here rationally discussing an important topic,

and we're giving it good thought.

And so I love everybody here for doing that.

I think that's wonderful.

And I'm happy to be able to talk to you now.

I'm not an expert on growth and development in Sacramento

by any means, but the way Sacramento has managed growth

has shown me that unless people in positions of power

and trust and public trust start resisting large developer

inspired projects, we will permanently sell off

all our natural habitat and all our farmland.

To this end, I'd like you to consider resisting

the approval of Airport South.

The project is outside the city boundaries.

It will increase sprawl and pave over 450 acres of greenfield

for warehouses.

To pave over good farmland, ruin the habitat for many species,

and take away areas on the Pacific flyaway

for migrating birds seems like a bad idea.

Can't we put the warehouses in a less environmentally

sensitive place?

I'm not against growth, but as I'm sure you understand,

let's do it in a way that harms the environment less.

The city and county have both developed climate action

plans and other environmental documents

ostensibly demonstrating their interest

in moving our region to a more sustainable footing.

The words have been going in the right direction,

but the actions have not.

Inch by inch, acre by acre, our region is getting paved over.

Those pictures we just saw looked like a cancer

metastasizing to me.

I urge you not to approve this project.

Do not take our precious natural habitat and viable ag land

and pave it over for warehouses.

I ask you to stand up for doing things a different way.

Please wrap up your comments.

Thank you.

A better way than we have now.

All this development has gotten Sacramento

terrible air quality and ever shrinking open spaces.

Can't we find a better way?

Thank you.

We have Lori to the poem and we have on deck Lori Stetson.

Hi, I'm Lori Tanhope.

I'm a North Atomis homeowner and I've

lived in Atomis for 24 years.

Thank you for this opportunity.

This warehouse project is not needed at this time,

but more important, it's inconsistent with the LAFCO

criteria needed to justify jurisdiction boundary revisions.

It encourages sprawl.

And it violates the requirement to preserve open space

and agricultural land.

The developer should not be allowed

to hijack the process that established

the urban services boundary.

The USP was thoughtfully developed

and then adopted in the general plan, the Natoma Space

and Habitat Conservation Plan, and others.

These plans balance the desire for development

with the desire to preserve open space.

And they prioritize lands most critical for habitat

preservation versus land most suitable for development.

I think I said that twice.

Sorry about that.

As a resident of Sacramento, I'm thankful that these agreements

exist and I hope they're honored.

I enjoy the opportunity to experience nature

in our community's backyard.

I value visits to local farm stands,

bird watching among the wetlands, and cycling

on the levee roads in the Garden Highway.

I believe that future generations should be able to experience

this as well.

Please say no to sprawl and yester conserving

our quality of life.

I respectfully ask that you vote no

on Airport South Industrial Final EIR

and the sphere of influence agenda items.

Thank you for your time.

[?].

[?].

We have Lori and on deck Susan please.

Hello, I'm Larisse Stetson.

I'm a resident of Sacramento and a local activist.

But I'm here tonight to share with you my background

as a advocate for the Department of Conservation

and with the Resources Agency.

The Department of Conservation monitored agricultural lands

that were lost, soil qualities, Williamson Act,

conservancies that are going to try to save agland.

And at the time that I lobbied, LaFGOS

were looked at to take action and preserve agland.

And it's one of your goals tonight,

a proper logical process and protection of agland.

This land was used for mitigation for the airport.

And to renege on that now, I think,

is a sad state of affairs.

And I also noticed that the staff has done a good job,

but it's sort of like finger pointing.

Like if you do this tonight, the city

doesn't have to do anything.

But the city has already started the EIR here.

So it's really questionable how this project,

even the landowner, can apply, should

be considered in this sort of finger pointing process.

We're not doing bad here at LaFGOS.

The city will decide.

Maybe they will or maybe they won't.

It's very confusing.

And I think you shouldn't take action

and have the city do their due diligence first

on this project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Susan.

And on deck, we'll have Joel.

Good evening.

LaFGOS members.

I am Susan Wigley.

And I live in Natomas within a mile

of the proposed Airfort South Industrial Project.

I ask that you vote no for this project

for the following reasons.

The ASIP project is projected to be constructed within a half

mile or less from hundreds of homes located

in the adjacent Westlake Homes community.

Additionally, this project is also

scheduled to be constructed immediately

behind the newly built Paso Verde Elementary School, which

has 1,000 students, K through 8.

These homeowners and students deserve

a quiet and healthy environment in which to live and learn.

Free of idling big rig noise and diesel fumes pollution.

I urge you to vote no on the Airports South Industrial

Project in the city's sphere of influence

and have the current EIR amended.

Thank you.

Joel, and we have on deck Carol Mark.

Good evening.

My name is Joel Leong.

And me and my wife have been a residence of Westlake

for 23 years.

She couldn't be here this evening due to some health issues.

But I just wanted to, I can't say anything more eloquently

than what Mayor Fargo has presented here.

This evening.

So I just want to echo all of our arguments.

You have seen the presentation.

I'm sure you have written documents also.

But I just want to comment more broadly

that we have seen the impacts of the Amazon fulfillment

center and the traffic.

And also, I know that the expansion of the airport,

the second terminal, was a good thing.

But that I-5 corridor traffic has gotten worse.

And we feel it.

And I think that this project is going to just not improve

things.

And I think the developers tonight, in their arguments,

are kind of second what Mayor Fargo was trying to say,

that you approve something and it just starts a momentum.

And therefore, why stop it?

Because like someone else said, the cancer keeps growing.

So let's just keep it going and keep it growing.

So I think you have to ask yourself

why an out-of-state developer is so interested in this little

relatively small piece of land for them.

Follow the money and I think you'll have your answer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Carol.

And on deck we'll have Christine.

Good evening.

My name is Carol McKee-Mark.

And I serve as the climate chair of the League of Women

Voters Sacramento County.

The League strongly opposes this proposed industrial

development in Atomas.

Our organization across national, state, and local level

advocates for responsible land use decisions

that prioritize environmental protection and sustainability.

It is our understanding that the LAFCO

is committed to preserving open space and agricultural

resources while discouraging urban sprawl.

This industrial complex would not only degrade our environment

but also threaten a fragile and protected ecosystem.

We urge you to vote no on this project.

Thank you.

Christine and on deck we have Rita Donahue.

Hello.

My name is Christine Schmeckle.

I'm a native of Sacramento.

And I've lived in the Atomas area for half my life.

What I do want to request that you deny the annexation

and what's on this agenda item for all the eloquent reasons

that our folks here have said, I also

want to talk about the individual impact of residents

in this area.

And that is more trucks on the roads,

more of the congestion that pushes all of the people

on Google Maps or how can I get home

onto more of the infrastructure of the smaller roads.

So we have a risk.

And it's already, I don't know how you're

going to fix the infrastructure.

And again, as folks have said, the city,

it seems like the process here is a little backwards

that the city has not weighed in yet.

And so I'd like you to consider that.

And I really appreciate your time here.

Thank you very much.

After Rita, we'll have Liz, please.

Commissioners, my name is Rita Donahue.

And I'm a former resident of South

New Thomas for over 20 years.

I currently reside in West Sacramento.

I'm also a former planning commissioner

at the time that the North New Thomas community plan was

being developed.

And this was not certainly something

that they would consider in hindsight.

I'm concerned about the process.

Normally something like this would come actually

before the planning commission and then

before it into the city council.

And I think that should have happened in this case

and still can if you vote no for this project.

And on the SOL, no project, no build alternative on the EIR.

Secondly, I'd like to point out I

did write some comments that are probably in your packet.

But I would like to expand upon the fact

that I don't think there's any urgent need for this.

That it has not been indicated.

As I said, I live in West Sacramento.

I deal with the traffic daily.

Daily.

I mean, we have the Port of Sacramento.

We have a Port of West Sacramento now.

And the Metro, of course, a post office,

a Sacramento post office there.

We have the warehouses on Southport Parkway.

And we also have, of course, the other UPS facility there.

So daily as we leave our residents,

we are confronted with semi trucks.

And also, the trucks leave UPS at 9 o'clock every day.

So it's not like this is on a random basis.

This is something that happens at a specific time

when the trucks load up.

Thank you for your consideration.

We'll have Liz and then Robert, please, on deck.

Good evening.

I'm Liz Bergeron.

And as a former Westlake resident for 10 years,

I'm very familiar with the area that you're considering

tonight.

And I urge you to vote no on the expansion of the sphere

of influence and the EIR.

One thing that's, and I support what people have said already

tonight, and what really stands out

is the inadequate process, the inadequate EIR,

the significant impacts to the residents,

the nearby students.

And making these decisions seems like these decisions

are being made piecemeal without considering the projects

that Heather mentioned, the larger projects in the area.

What also it makes me wonder is, I

know that the old Fry's electronic store off of Northgate

and I-80 is being converted into warehouse space.

And are these additional warehouses for this area really

needed?

Aren't there other areas that can be converted,

such as the old Fry's electronics space?

They're converting that.

They're adding another warehouse.

And I believe it's going to result in close to 300,000

square feet of warehouse in an area that's already

been impacted.

So thank you for your time.

Robert, and then Megan, please.

Robert Bernes.

Robert Bernes.

Yes, I couldn't hear my name very well.

And then we'll have Megan Elsie.

Good evening.

Robert Bernes, resident of Sacramento City,

involved with EcoCR Club and other organizations.

I'd like to really ask just two things.

One is that you keep in mind the dual purpose of LAFCO.

There's been a lot of focus on the services for the sphere.

But a big part of this is also the mandate

to protect open space and agricultural land.

And this will have impacts not just on this project area,

but also on the entire Natomas Basin.

It creates inflationary price expectations.

It reduces the land that is available for purchase.

It doesn't reduce it beyond a critical path.

But we have other projects in line that could do that.

I'd also ask you to maintain a big perspective, big picture

perspective of this project in terms of how it relates

to the Natomas Basin Conservancy, how

it relates to the Sacramento County General Plan, the fact

that it is outside of the urban service boundary,

and that that was a very seriously considered decision

that was made in 1993 as part of the general plan.

And that you recognize that this vote sets in stage

a rationale, a justification for some much bigger projects

that are in line to follow, and particularly

the Upper West Side project, which is a county project

granted.

But approval of this project sets in motion a rationale,

sets in motion a greater likelihood

that a larger project of 20,000 potential residents,

quite a bit of commercial space, will be approved.

And that, I guarantee you, will have very significant impacts,

particularly if you ever want to try to get to the airport

via I-5.

Megan, and then we'll have Kevin McRae.

Good evening.

I'm Megan Elsie.

I'm a member of 350 Sacramento, which

is a climate justice organization.

Warehouses worsened the climate crisis

because of increased greenhouse gas emissions

from the trucks, but also from the workers.

My husband works at the Amazon Fulfillment Center

at Metro Parkway.

There are 4,000 employees there, and that's just

one of the warehouses.

There's many warehouses there.

So that's a lot of cars, a lot of greenhouse gases.

We do need jobs, as I'm sure you're

going to hear from these fine people here.

But we don't.

There are no jobs on a dead planet.

So with those greenhouse gases increasing,

we increase the chances for fires,

like they had in the LA area, which caused 250 billion

in damages or floods, like they had in Asheville, North

Carolina, which caused 50 billion in damages.

Do we really need more warehouses?

There's a for sale sign on a warehouse at Metro Air Parkway.

In addition, if we build on farmland,

then we take away the chance for that land to sink carbon.

That's another way you can mitigate climate damage.

But if there's warehouses, you cannot sink the carbon

in the soil.

And the EIR does not take account into those opportunities

to mitigate greenhouse gases by sinking carbon in the soil.

Also, open land can recharge the water table.

If you build warehouses there, that

will not be able to recharge the water table.

And the climate crisis increases the chance of severe drought.

So please vote no on the Airport South Industrial Project.

The EIR is insufficient.

Thank you.

[?].

Kevin.

And then on deck, we'll have Harriet Steiner.

Kevin McRae.

And then Harriet Steiner on deck.

Kevin.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

I'm Harriet Steiner.

I'm a resident of North Nautomus.

My husband and I moved there about four years ago.

Many years ago, I was just a resident of North Nautomus.

I was a resident of North Nautomus.

I moved to North Nautomus.

About four years ago.

Many years ago, I was general counsel of SACOG.

When many of the plans you've heard about today

were first put into action and thought

about the air quality plans, the Metropolitan Transportation

Plan, the SACOG Blueprint, and the HCP,

so many of these plans, they took probably decades

to actually finish.

And when we were done, though I had moved on at that point,

we were sure or hopeful that Sacramento would have

a more dense development, that it would have compact development,

that it would not sprawl onto open space and agricultural land

the way it was planned back before we started

all of these plans.

And that we would be forward thinking

so that we would preserve agriculture,

take conservation seriously, preserve what

was left of the flyway.

And keep our area and our region a better place

to live than potentially some of the other metropolitan areas

in the California area.

And so now we get to this.

And we have this project and two other projects

that are waiting in the wings.

For on proper, and this particular property

is on project that was designated agriculture.

The county said this is not urban development property.

The city potentially looked at this property along

with other properties in its 2040 general plan

and did not choose to take any actual affirmative action

with respect to this project.

It left it in open space.

That open space could be open space.

It could just be agricultural.

It could be the top of, or the little,

the tip of the iceberg.

We don't need more industrial.

Satter County can have all the industrial that it wants.

We already have traffic to beat the band.

And I would suggest to you, as many others have tonight,

that this project was not processed correctly.

That the EIR hides things like the urban service boundary

and doesn't show you what the true impacts are.

And that your job is made even harder.

And you should say no, because the city of Sacramento

has not said whether it wants its sphere expanded

in this manner.

Thank you very much.

[?].

[?].

?]

Judith, and then Jim Peckle.

Just a reminder that we are trying to keep it

to less than two minutes as much as possible.

Please, thank you.

I'd like to cede my space to someone who has to leave.

Her name is Dawn Whitney.

I'll come at the end, because I'm not going to leave.

Thank you very much.

My name is Dawn Whitney.

I'm a resident of District 6 in Sacramento.

I am a retired attorney retired from the CHP

as attorney for in 2019.

My question is apart from that, though.

It's a different area.

What is the process by which LAFCO commissioners as a body

or individuals determine whether they

have received contributions from participants, agents,

or parties that require recusal from decision making

under government code section 84308, also known as the Fair

Pay to Play Act?

And I hope to get an answer from you.

I have two specific questions after that.

I'm going to be very brief.

I have noted that Nick Avdis, who is here tonight representing

the developer, donated $2,050 to Commissioner Pluckybomb

on June 4 of last year.

Michelle Smira, who was PR for the project,

donated $250 on an unknown date in the last year

to Commissioner Pluckybomb.

Were those considered and decided to not require recusal,

or it's this first impression?

Thank you.

Jim, and then James, please.

Good evening.

My name's Jim Pachel, representing Friends

of the Swenson Hawk.

Except today, I want to talk about waterfowl versus airplanes.

The Sacramento Airport and the project site

are located beneath the Pacific Flyway.

That's millions of waterfowl headed south during the winter

season.

Aircraft using the airport sometimes

collide with the geese or ducks, which can cause a crash.

It hasn't happened yet, but it's not an impossibility.

Sacramento has one of the highest bird strike rates

in the nation, which is a considerable concern

to the airport.

This project is located about 4,600 feet

from the south end of the South runway.

The project engineer prepared a preliminary drainage plan,

which calls for 96 acres of detention basins.

This is open water, 10 feet deep.

The area gets a lot of water.

96 acres detention basin actually makes a lot of sense.

The detention basins do will attract waterfowl, passing

waterfowl, having them so close to the end of their runway

will increase the likelihood of a tragedy caused

by a waterfowl collision.

This project can be easily located

at a much less risking location.

Please, Rev, will you comment?

A bit of a distance from the airport.

Maybe just east of the drainage of the NEMDEC

distance from the airport, where drainage and groundwater

are smaller issues.

And the odds of a bird strike created by this

are simply not much smaller.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I have James and then Robert, please.

James Thore Walker.

And Robert Rosenbaum.

Chair and commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity

to be here this evening.

My name is James Thorewachter, and I represent.

I work with the California State Council of Laborers.

We represent about 80,000 men and women statewide

who build California's energy, transportation,

and water infrastructure.

We provide pathways to the middle class.

And I'm not going to get too much into the arguments

of why we support this, because I'm

confident that my colleagues behind me will do that.

Instead, due to time constraints,

I want to talk about AB 98, which is a bill that we

sponsored last year.

And this created very aggressive and pragmatic mitigation

measures for developers to implement these measures

for projects just like this.

Some of the, we're calling this 21st century warehouse design

and build standards.

And what this will include, not limited to,

but truck loading bays that will be oriented away

from sensitive receptors.

This goes to the direct air quality concerns that

were brought up today.

A lot of the environmental communities throughout the state

weighed in on this.

This is very important to know, because a lot of these concerns

that we're hearing about the environment,

I employ everybody to read AB 98.

It also requires new minimum distances

between loading bays and residential areas,

updated mitigation standards for noise and light pollution

using screening and buffering.

And it will incorporate energy efficient features,

such as EV charging infrastructure, PV solar panels,

and battery storage, cool roofing and high efficiency HVAC

systems.

Now, these centers are already being built in Southern

California and to an extent in Central Valley.

It's imperative that we remain competitive here in Sacramento

and in the nearby region.

This is going to create jobs.

This is responsible.

And we commend the developer here today for taking this

into consideration.

So thank you today.

Thank you.

Robert Rosenbaum and then Laurel Agard.

Laurel.

I will be brief.

I agree 100% with all of the people

who have recommended voting no.

For all the reasons that were stated,

I would like to express one thing.

I believe all of you said that you do not reside in the North

Anatomus area, correct?

I would like to ask that each of you try to drive north

from downtown up by five past the airport any given afternoon.

It is stop and go.

It is highly impacted.

Going the other way in the morning is the same way.

If we are putting more trucks out on that road,

it will be horrendous.

And all the other impacts as well.

I grew up in Southern California.

There was suburban sprawl.

When I left, when I was growing up,

there was open space between Ventura County and LA County

and LA County and San Diego County.

That open space is all gone.

Once you build ungreen space, it's gone forever.

So I urge you to vote no.

Dana Swartz and Pam Harder.

Dana Swartz.

Dana?

Excuse me, Dana.

Hi.

I appreciate you giving me this time to talk.

I'm a resident in North Anatomus.

And like Laurel, I agree with all the people who have been opposed

to this project for all the reasons.

I don't see why we need more warehouse space right next to a school

and all these homes.

There's so many other places for warehouse space.

Plus, there's a lot of empty rooms.

Plus, there's a lot of empty warehouse space right now.

I just do not see any reason for this

and how this at all is aligned with Lafko's goals.

It's totally opposed to what you stand for.

So please vote against this.

Pam and then Monica Sanchez.

Good evening.

My name is Pam Harder.

And I live in Heritage Park, which is a senior development

and very close in proximity to this development,

to Metro Air Parkway.

And we experienced terrible problems already with traffic.

And I'm very concerned about my neighbors, my community,

and the environment.

I really am worried about more air pollution.

And we already have to pay very high flood insurance.

And if you pave over more open land,

that water has nowhere else to go.

And so we're already in an area according

to the reclamation district.

We have the second highest flood potential behind Louisiana.

So let's not pave over more open land, please.

And I agree with everybody else that's already

talked about the environment.

Thank you so much.

Monica Sanchez and then Patricia Johnson, please.

Take these off.

Good evening, commissioners.

As community members and residents of Natomas for 17 years,

my husband and I care about the future of the community.

Regarding the Airport South Industrial Project,

we understand that growth is inevitable.

However, we have concerns about the final EIR, which

states that the proposed project would

result in significant and unavoidable impacts related

to, one, substantial degradation of visual character

or quality of public views, which is impact 4.1-3.

Two, cause long-term changes in visual character associated

with cumulative development of proposed project

in combination with future buildout of City of Sacramento

2040 general plan and Sacramento County General Plan,

impact 4.1-5.

Three, convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland,

of state importance to non-agricultural use,

which is impact 4.2-1.

Cause impacts related to compliance with the Cortesey-Knox

Hetsburg Act, impact 4.2-4.

Cause cumulative loss of agricultural land,

which is impact 4.2-5.

Conflict with or obstruct implementation

of applicable air quality plan, impact 4.3-2.

And lastly, result in cumulatively considerable net

increase in criteria pollutants for which region is non,

which region is in non-attainment, impact 4.3-6.

Further, due to the shallow depth of groundwater in the area,

if a release of hazardous materials did occur,

a toxic plume would likely impact

the surrounding residential communities and schools

for decades to come.

All of this for an industrial development

next to a quiet neighborhood and school in the area

where the City of Sacramento has not requested the expansion.

Please wrap up your comment.

Thank you.

Maps on the screen do not fully depict the impacts

to over 900 homes and thousands of Westlake residents

and elementary age children.

We request the commission to vote no

on the impact on the project of the, excuse me,

the sphere of influence and final EIR.

And I thank you for the opportunity

to provide comment today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Patricia Johnson.

I'm here representing Wellstone Progressive Democratic Club

of Sacramento County, and we're opposed

to the proposed Airport South Project.

And we already suffer many days a year of poor air quality,

and our dirty air harms the lungs of children

and susceptible individuals

with life-threatening respiratory events.

We want Lafco to put the health and wellbeing

of Sacramento's first, and we oppose both.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, excuse me, Mr. Chair,

at the request of the executive officer,

can we please take a recess?

Yes.

I could take one too, thank you.

Wow.

How long?

10 minutes please.

10 minutes, thank you.

Hello, everyone.

Is this on?

All right, there we go.

Excuse me, everyone, can we?

Shh, please.

Let's get back to order so that we can move along.

Madam Clerk, who do we have next to speak?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to call the roll

to reestablish a quorum.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, commissioners Little.

Here.

Carter.

Here.

Hume.

Here.

Jones.

Here.

Desmond.

Here.

Pratton.

The members present.

Okay, I think you have something to say.

A question was raised as to potential conflict

for campaign finance contributions.

I reviewed my contributions.

I received a contribution from Nick Abdes

more than a year ago,

a contribution from Michelle Smira

about a year ago under $500.

But even just to avoid any appearance of conflict,

I'm going to recuse myself.

Thank you all for a lovely discussion.

I look forward to watching the rest on TV.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we take another recess

so that we can switch the names on the computer again.

Oh, yes.

Okay, just a brief recess.

Thank you.

Really great.

They've already taken care of it.

Okay, thank you.

Our next speaker, please.

Our next speaker is Daniel Garcia.

And on deck we'll have Alan Green.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

Of the board, my name is Daniel Garcia.

I'm a resident of Sacramento

and a proud member of Labor Local 185.

I'm here this evening in strong support

for the proposed airport self-industrial project

and urge you to do the same.

This property is strategically positioned

for industrial development

with easy access to the major highways

and the international airport.

The project will create enormous job opportunities

during the construction and long-term operations,

strengthening our region's economic stability for everyone.

This project stands to benefit not only my union brothers

who are here tonight,

proudly showcasing their Launa Orange,

but also others in our community.

It will provide opportunities for apprentices

eager to build their careers,

young people entering the trades,

formerly incarcerated individuals

and returning veterans from service

looking for a second chance.

I know this because I was once in their position.

But thanks to the union,

I was able to turn my life around.

The union gave me the structure and support I needed

to build a better future for my family.

However, success in this industry often comes with sacrifice.

As I spend two to three hours a day commuting to work

outside of my local area,

losing valuable time with my family and loved ones

that I can't get back.

But I believe we can create better opportunities for others

and minimize these sacrifices.

As board members, you have the power to bring good,

well-paying jobs closer to home

and improve the lives of countless hardworking families

in our community.

I respectfully urge you all to move forward

with this project without delay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alan Green.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Alan Green.

I am a trade instructor

for Northern California Construction Training.

We are a state-approved pre-apprenticeship program,

a parole probation and general public program.

We place hundreds of our students,

some of them are homeless, formerly incarcerated,

and some are just looking for that career change.

I completely approve this project out there

in North Natomas.

It's gonna open up the doors for lots of opportunities

for some of my students that are in various programs

around the Greater Sacramento area.

I'm a proud Laborers Local 185 member,

and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

We'll have...

Kevin Carmichael and on deck, Susan Hare.

Is Kevin here?

Good evening, commissioners and staff.

My name is Kevin Carmichael,

and I'm here on behalf of Sacramento residents

for responsible development.

It has an unincorporated association

of individuals and labor organizations

who are concerned with the environmental

and public services impacts from industrial development,

such as this project, and are also concerned

with the health and safety risks

to the public and on-site construction workers.

Now residents submitted comments on the DEIR in January

and supplemental comments on the DEIR in September of 2024,

and those comments were supported by expert testimony.

In those comments, we identified deficiencies

in the DEIR's analysis of the project's air quality,

greenhouse gas, noise, and transportation impacts.

Now the DEIR prepared for this project

does respond to residents' comments.

However, in our review, we found they do not fully address

the concerns that we raised in the DEIR comments,

and the DEIR does not fully evaluate

the additional feasible mitigation measures identified

that would reduce the project's significant impacts.

Despite the foregoing, I am pleased to report

that residents are in productive talks

with the DEIR first to enter into a settlement agreement

to address the continuing concerns with the project,

and we hope to have an agreement finalized

within the next week.

Thank you.

Laura Warren and Kevin Carmichael.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Chair Little and commissioners, good evening.

I'm Susan Harree, architect and urban planner

and resident of Nathomas and immediate past president

of ECOS.

First, I'd like to bring to your attention factor four

of the factors that Executive Director Jose listed for you

as factors that you should consider

when you're deciding tonight.

Factor four is the existence of any social

or economic communities of interest in the area.

If the commission sees them as relevant.

Okay, now I'll come back to that.

In our Sacramento region, we have some pieces of planning

that are worth celebrating.

I'll list what I think are the top five

in chronological order.

The American River Parkway was conceived of in 1915

and established in 62.

Then the county's urban services boundary adopted

in 93.

Then the Nathomas Habitat Conservation Plan adopted

in 97.

Then the Seikag Blueprint adopted in 2004

that for the first time was to integrate land use

and transportation that was nationally touted.

And then number five, the South Sacramento

Habitat Conservation Plan adopted in 2019.

There are possibly more, but I don't know of any

of this scale and significance.

So broadly, they were about making our city stronger

economically and socially, avoidance of risk of flood

and fire and preserving open space for agriculture habitat.

These are now key pieces of our regional identity.

Please wrap up your comment.

And back, so the South airport industrial project

in its proposed location is a bad fit for these.

It's inconsistent with three of the five.

And I would say that there is a community of interest.

That's factor number four.

The community of interest is the group of people

over the past 100 years or so that worked so hard

to create that planning legacy and our regional identity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Karen O'Hare and Ruben Galvin.

Good evening, my name is Laura Warren

and I live directly across Del Paso Road

from the school in question Paso Verde.

I am a member of a 600 community of senior citizens

and just 600 homes and just south of us

is West Shore, probably 2000 homes.

We are directly impacted by this project.

We can see the land in question.

First of all, although the developer says

there's going to be retail space there,

I highly doubt that.

Who is going to travel up five to go clothes shopping?

No one is.

The only retail that might possibly be there

is a candy counter at a convenience store or a gas station.

We know that what's primarily going to be there

is warehouses and who services warehouses?

These do.

I took these photos over the last six months

under safe conditions with my own cell phones

of rogue trucks that already come into our neighborhood.

This picture right here is at the intersection

of Scholar Boulevard which goes down to Paso Verde.

This photo was taken two days ago.

The white truck was broken down

and the red truck came, these trucks are like 50 feet long.

This truck, this cab abandoned its trailer.

There's a photo of it right here.

Also on Del Paso Road, across from the school,

kids pass these trucks every day.

Please wrap up your comments.

On this side is Havnanean,

which goes down,

goes down past Blackbird Park.

Next to Blackbird Park is another school.

Thank you.

These are trucks that have randomly parked on Havnanean.

All I'm saying is that with these warehouses,

we're sandwiched between the truck stop on Arena

and these warehouses.

This project is going to drastically increase

this kind of situation in our neighborhoods.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

In the interest of fairness for everybody,

I'm gonna cut off that microphone

when you hit that two minute mark

if anybody's still talking.

So we're just trying to keep it flowing,

but we need to understand that in order to get through here,

we have to do that.

Thank you.

I'm Karen O'Hare, and I'm here to testify

and ask you to vote no on both certifying the EIR

and on the sphere of influence.

I'm here because I'm a resident of Westlake.

I've lived in Atomas since the 80s,

and I'm a former land use planner for Seacock.

This proposal flies in the face of good planning.

It also violates and is in conflict with your goals.

And I appreciate everything LaFCO does

to get good development in the region.

But this proposal is prevent,

your goal is to prevent urban sprawl,

one of them, and protect open space.

This proposal does neither of those.

It is also in conflict with existing land use plans.

There are no resources to serve this area,

which is why they wanted annex.

There's no water available for this project.

And the proponents showed pictures

of their other warehouse developments

in the valley in Sacramento.

They did not show any next to schools or residences.

This is right next to residences and a school,

and it should be voted no on for both of these,

and I appreciate your vote on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ruben Galvin and then Patricia Solari.

Good evening.

My name is Ruben Galvin.

I have been a proud union cooperator since 2013.

My concerns about this development are

if workers on this project will be paid fair wages,

and will they be provided health insurance benefits.

I am a firm believer in training and apprenticeship programs

that can be considered for this

and other future developments.

Having a part of a four year apprenticeship program

that has given me the essential knowledge,

tools, and confidence to do the job right.

All while the same time,

getting the experience from the job site,

these programs are an essential pathway

for local workers to receive the training they need

for good paying jobs,

and they help ensure that the project is built safely

and to the highest standards.

These workers are part of our community.

Let's not forget about these important standards.

I worry we'll be overlooked on this development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Patricia Solari and Sean Worth.

Good evening.

My name is Patrick Solari.

I represent Sierra Club, Ecos,

and Friends of Swainsons Hawk.

I previously submitted detailed comments

regarding the draft EIR.

I don't see time.

There we go.

Numerous informational deficiencies

regarding both the draft and final EIR,

but I'm not going to talk about those.