Welcome to tonight's meeting and thank you for coming.

My name is Commissioner Chris Little.

I'm serving as the chair for tonight's meeting at the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, also known as LAFCO.

The commissioners are locally elected officials who were designated by their respective home agencies to serve on LAFCO.

Our role is to oversee boundary changes of cities and special districts, the formation of new agencies, including the incorporation of new cities and districts, and the consolidation or reorganization of special districts and or cities.

The broad goals of the commission's directive are to ensure the orderly formation of local government agencies to preserve agricultural and open space lands and to discourage urban sprawl.

Commissions 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 14, webcast live on the Metro Cable TV website, and posted on the county's website.

Comments are welcome.

Please complete a speaker slip and return it to the county clerk.

Time will be limited to two minutes per person to keep the meeting timely.

We ask that you address your comments or questions to the commission.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

Let the record reflect that I was notified by commissioners Kaplan, Pratton, and Jones that they will not be present for tonight's meeting.

Now call roll to establish a quorum.

Thank you.

Commissioners Carter?

Here.

Hume?

Here.

Moore?

Here.

Desmond?

Here.

Karpinski-Costa?

Present.

Plucketbaum?

Here.

And Chair Little?

Here.

You have a quorum with the members that are present.

Thank you.

You've called the roll.

All right.

Let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

I.

Let the meetings to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, and by God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any announcements?

Yes.

I have a Metro statement.

This meeting of the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission is live and recorded with closed captioning.

It is cable cast on Metro Cable 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and DirecTV U-verse cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14live.saccounty.gov.

Today's meeting replays Sunday, May 11th at 9 a.m. on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com forward slash Metro Cable 14.

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 comment.

You may send written comments by email to boardclerk at saccounty.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 seek clerk staff for assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-874-5451 or by email at boardclerk at saccounty.gov.

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

This concludes your announcement.

Thank you.

Do we have...

Can you please read the first item?

First item is public comment off agenda, and we do have one person in the queue.

Thank you.

Last August.

Time does fly.

I was asked...

We were on agenda last August because I was asking for the municipal service review,

which is, I think, 17 years overdue now for cemetery districts in this county,

to be bumped up in order of priority to get it done,

because currently it's...

What I remember from the last meeting was set to be at the end of this year

or the beginning of next year, and I wanted it moved up.

This commission denied that request after some discussion,

but did indicate to staff that a public information gathering session should be had.

If you remember, I had brought district managers and trustees

from three of the four cemetery districts in this county to speak last time.

We also had some other morticians and so speaking on this matter.

The council had directed staff to have that kind of open discussion with the public by last November.

It never happened.

And so I'm here to get this back in front of you.

Mostly my ask is this, is that the chair or the designee check in with the executive director

to see if the MSR is actually indeed on track to be started at the end of this year.

It's a very simple ask.

The ask after that is, for the chair, if the staff here says no,

they're going to be delaying it further, that it be put back on the agenda

so we can now discuss why it's being delayed even further.

We know this is 21, the last MSR was done.

Excuse me, please wrap up your comments.

What's that?

Please wrap up your comments.

Thank you.

Oh, shoot.

I have handouts that I could leave.

This is where we're going.

It's the Meadowview Memorial Park Visionary Plan.

I hope you guys can look at it to see where we're going so we can get there.

I'm just going to leave these here for public or further.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I do not see any other public speakers for off agenda item.

Excuse me.

We had a question from the commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know we can't get back and forth about off agenda public comment,

but I do remember when this came before us last year,

we did have a discussion.

There seemed to be broad support about maybe agendizing a larger,

maybe a workshop about the status of the cemetery districts,

and so I'd like to kind of renew that request

that we get that on the agenda this year.

I know we've been very busy.

We've got a lot on our agenda at this commission in the interim,

but maybe we can do that sometime in the next few months.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, let me directly reflect that Commissioner Moore arrived,

has arrived at 546.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Aye.

Okay.

Next item, please.

Item 2 is approved consent calendar,

items 2 through 5.

Move approval.

Second.

I'm sorry, the first one was?

Karpinski-Fost.

Okay.

Thank you.

And the second?

Doesn't.

Thank you.

All right.

Item 7.

You may vote.

This is voting on the consent calendar.

Your motion passes unanimously with all the members of the present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

We're on 6.

Can you please read the next item?

Item 6 is continued public hearing to consider and certify

the environmental impact report and approve the respective amendments

to the spheres of influence for the city of Sacramento

and Sacramento area sewer district.

LAFCO project number 2023.

Excuse me.

I'm going to move item 7 up to ahead of item 6.

If you don't mind.

No one minds.

I think that that will, the budget discussion will be briefer than.

Okay.

Item 7 is public hearing to consider and approve the final budget

for fiscal year 2025-26.

And for those following along, it starts on page 633 of our agenda.

Mr. Chair and commissioners, if you recall,

LAFCO approves the budget on a two-step process.

You considered the proposed budget at the April meeting.

This is the final step, which is the approval of the final budget.

No changes have been made since the approved proposed budget.

The employee expenses is broken out in the staff report

and is $684,000.

That is to reflect essentially a new classification for me

as well as a step increase for one of the analysts

and then a COLA for the two analysts as well.

Please remember that the employee expense is listed here

as a separate category,

but then it moves to the other professional services

since it goes to compensate the county for staffing costs

since the commission contracts with the county for those.

But otherwise, the operating expenses will be going up

by about $10,000.

And then you also have an operating contingency on top of that.

We will be relying on applicant fees and carryover

as well as a 5% increase on agency contributions for next year.

There are no surprises here.

It's pretty much the same.

I think at a subsequent meeting, I'm going to request

if we can form a personnel, sorry,

either empower the current personnel ad hoc committee

or create a new budget ad hoc committee

to kind of discuss the LAFCO staffing in the next few years

given the increase in workload.

But that's not for discussion at the moment.

This is just to approve the fiscal year budget for 25-26.

We have a motion to approve.

So moved.

Do we do that first?

Do we have any public comment?

We do not have any public comment for item 7.

Okay.

Second.

All right.

Second by Commissioner Gerriten

and second by Commissioner Carter.

Correct.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Okay.

Now let's go to item 6.

Okay.

Item 6 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 number 2023-03.

Mr. Chair, before we begin,

I believe that there are three announcements

that have to be made.

One from Commissioner Pulkimum,

another one from Commissioner Kaspinski-Costa,

and the third from Commissioner Moore.

Thank you.

I've reviewed my campaign contributions,

and on the advice of counsel,

I am able to participate in tonight's hearing.

I've reviewed all the testimony from our last hearing

and prepared to vote.

For me, I am the alternate to the Galt representative,

but I was here last month for the entire thing.

I sat in the audience,

so I feel well-versed in the issue.

Sorry.

I'm not used to doing this.

I'm the alternate for Gay Jones and Lindsay Liebig,

and I have watched the entire tape from last month.

I have also spoken with Gay Jones at length.

I've spoken with Heather Fargo,

and I've spoken with Executive Director Enriquez.

So I feel like I've read all the material.

I believe I'm up to date, and I understand.

I'm going to be able to address the issues.

Thank you very much.

If the presentation can be pulled up, please.

Thank you.

This item, I'm going to repeat some of the information

from last month,

but I'm not going to go into exactly the same.

Just for purposes of background

for members of the audience,

and anyone else.

Essentially, LAFCO is a regulatory body

that regulates the boundaries

of most local agencies

in the state of California.

LAFCO was formed in 1963

as a regional growth management agency

for each county.

It's got four missions.

They're up on the screen,

but I'll read them as well.

encourage orderly urban growth and development

to prevent urban sprawl, leapfrog development,

and scattered urbanization.

Encourage local formation and determination of boundaries

to coordinate property development standards

and to encourage timely urbanization.

Ensure that affected populations receive adequate

and efficient government services,

and to guide development away from open space

and prime agricultural land uses.

Please note that these are the four missions of LAFCO

as designated by the state legislature.

However, the state legislature did not rank these.

These are all have equal value and equal weight,

and the government code under 56.425,

which is what the sphere of influence section is

under the government code,

provides the factors that the commission have to weigh

as part of your deliberations.

So LAFCOs have two main regulatory functions,

both discretionary decisions.

One is to set the sphere of influence for each agency,

which is defined as the probable ultimate physical boundaries

and service area of a local government agency,

and to alter the service boundaries of local agencies

consistent with number one.

LAFCO has no jurisdiction on land use.

The policy area is strictly reserved for cities and counties.

All LAFCO actions for changes in boundaries

must be consistent with an agency sphere of influence.

And the item before you today

is the setting of the sphere of influence

for the city of Sacramento

and the Sacramento area sewer district,

also known as Sac Sewer.

These are the factors that you are weighing

as part of this agenda item.

And that is the sphere of influence.

And as I indicated at the last month,

these five factors essentially boil down to

the two, can an agency reasonably extend services

to new areas?

And number two, can it do that extension

without harming existing customers?

And on the first factor as to whether or not

it can extend services,

that also finances play into a role

to ensure that essentially if you were to extend services,

can it be done so in a way

that does not negatively impact the finances

of a local government?

And again, the actions for an SOI

have to be consistent with your four missions.

Clearly, as indicated last month,

the four missions can conflict with each other

depending on the circumstances.

So you have to weigh each factor

and each action under its own merits

and based on its own facts.

The project description before you

is essentially the amendment

of the sphere of influence

for the city of Sacramento

and Sac Sewer

on a 474.4 acre project site

that currently consists

of undeveloped agricultural land.

The project site is currently located

in the Sacramento County,

but it's outside of the county's

urban services boundary

and outside of the urban policy area.

The site is bound by,

in the north by I-5,

to the east by the city of Sacramento,

to the west by Powerline Road,

and south of the project

is Paso Verde K-8 school

with additional agricultural land

that is in Sacramento County.

The sphere of influence amendment requests

come from R2,

the city of Sacramento,

and Sac Sewer,

as stated earlier.

Here is a map of the area in question.

It's bounded in white.

You can see the North Lake development

to the northeast,

also known as Greenbrier.

The West Lake community

immediately to the east.

The K-8 Paso Verde school

is just south of the picture here.

To the north is the Metro Air Park

that's being developed

under the county jurisdiction.

To the northwest

is the Sacramento International Airport.

And immediately to the east,

there will be the future side

of the recharging stations for semis

that the county is currently considering.

Here is a map of the proposed development

that's contemplated

in the Environmental Impact Report.

You may recall that last month

I said that you're kind of in a weird spot

because the law explicitly prohibits you

from considering land use

in your decisions.

However, CEQA and case law

have also said

that you can't entirely ignore land use.

This is the proposed development

as it stands.

As you can see,

it's basically composed

of a warehouse in retail

and hospitality

south of the Metro Air Park on ramp.

There is parcel 8.

That's the name of the parcel

to the north,

to the southeast.

That is not designated

for development

and is referred to

as a non-participating parcel

or non-participating project.

But essentially,

any uses in that area

most likely would be consistent

with the proposed

Airport South development.

Here is a land use map of,

sorry, not a land use map.

This is just a diagram map

of the project site bounded in black.

So here is the background

on the, on how we got here.

On May 25th,

an application was submitted

to the SOI amendments

by the landowners.

This is not unusual.

LAFCO actions can be brought up

by three parties.

It can be brought up

by registered voters.

It can be brought up

by landowners.

And it can also be brought

to you before by a public agency.

The government code

allows all three.

Just because it's,

a project is brought to you

by one party

versus another party

does not diminish

their ability to do so.

And it's not unusual.

On July 31st, 2021,

the city of Sacramento

and LAFCO

entered into a memorandum

of understanding

relating to the coordinated

environmental review

process for this project.

A targeted MSR

was created

in order to review

the, the extension

of services.

The municipal service review

is essentially a snapshot

of how well an agency

is currently providing services.

You then use that data

to extrapolate

for a sphere of influence.

A targeted MSR

was done

because essentially

the city was going

through its process

of a general plan amendment

at the time.

And one of the contemplated

actions under the,

under the general plan

was a citywide MSR

to be done.

But the timing

didn't quite work out

and so the decision

was made to create

a targeted MSR.

So that was for

the city of Sacramento

and for Sac Sewer,

which at the time

was composed

of two separate agencies,

Sac Sewer

and the then regional

county sanitation district

or regional SAN.

Those districts

were, were combined

into one in the fall

of 2023.

And so now

it's just Sac Sewer.

Here is a picture

of the current

sphere of influence

for the,

for the city

of Sacramento.

As you can see,

the, most of the

sphere of influence

is located to the east

and south,

southeast and south

of the district.

They do have one

island in the center

that's currently

surrounded by,

by the, by the city.

The, if I can use

the laser,

there we go.

The, the site

currently in consideration

is located right here.

Section of the dot.

Essentially,

I wanted to answer

two questions

and it's been brought up

at the staff level

and I believe it was brought

up at last,

last month's meeting.

Does the SOI

basically mean

that, that,

that the annexation

has foregone conclusion?

And the answer is no.

Because each action

is, is separate.

Each action

is different.

And again,

the law

and the case law

indicates that you have

to take each action

based on its own merits.

So you can't expand

an SOI

and not necessarily

approve an annexation.

There's actually two,

uh, relatively recent,

um,

examples of that.

The city of Folsom

had an SOI,

uh, application

in the late 90s,

early 2000s

for south of 50.

The annexation actually

was not considered

until 2015.

Uh, Elk Grove

currently has a,

an expansion

south of Camaro Road.

Um, and, um,

there, there hasn't been

any annexations

of that area

into the city.

So, you can't take

two separate actions.

Although related,

they don't necessarily

one beget the other.

Um, and, um,

because LAFCO

has four different missions,

the preservation

of Agland

is a mission

that you,

uh, that you must

consider,

but it doesn't take

any more precedence

or any more weight

than, uh,

the orderly formation

of government

or the reasonable

extension of services.

So, uh,

each factor

has to be considered,

uh, based on

what you have before you.

And, uh, again,

one doesn't beget the other.

One doesn't have

a greater weight

than the other.

So, for today,

your question is

whether or not

the SOI

should be expanded.

Um, and your

considerations

are on the capacity

and the capability

of Sac Sewer

and the City of Sacramento

to extend services

without compromising services

for the existing residents.

Here is the map

of the SOI

for the City of Sacramento

as it relates

to, um,

this request.

The, at the,

in that area,

the City of Sacramento's

SOI is concurrent

to its city limits.

Um, the area

that's gonna be requested

to expand

is the, um,

is the area

highlighted in red

and, uh,

colored in in yellow.

For Sac Sewer,

um, the shaded area,

it's its current, uh,

service area

as well as its SOI,

uh, Sphere of Influence.

It's gonna,

the, uh, request

is to, uh,

extend the SOI

for Sac Sewer

to the red line

and the yellow

highlighted parcels.

So, CEQA.

Um,

LAFCO

and the City of Sacramento

cooperated

to prepare

an environmental

impact report

pursuant to the agreement

described in,

um,

uh,

section 15

of 5.1

D

of the CEQA

guidelines.

Uh,

an environment,

a notice of preparation

for the EIR

was prepared

and released

to the public

on March 4th

with a comment

through April 4th.

The notice

of availability

of the draft EIR

was released

for public comment

from May 31st

to July 17,

2024.

And you,

yourself,

held a,

uh,

a meeting

on June 12th

specifically

to receive

public comments

on the draft EIR.

The EIR

evaluated

the potential

environmental impacts

and associated

with the development

of the project area

and, uh,

all impacts,

um,

are less than

significant

or can be reduced

to less than

significant

with mitigation

with the exception

of aesthetics,

agricultural resources,

and air quality

slash greenhouse

gases

slash energy.

So, um,

at the,

at the April meeting,

the, uh, commission

or staff

had requested,

um,

the continuance

to basically clarify

a few things

on the findings

of fact.

uh, basically

the, um,

findings of facts

and the, um,

statement overriding

considerations

did not adequately

differentiate

between LAFCO's

responsibilities

under CEQA

and the city's.

And so,

um,

and, and there,

and also stated

various legal standards

and requirements

under CEQA

that are not required

to be included

in the public agency's

findings

or certifying resolutions.

So, the May,

um, uh,

the May findings

of facts

and statement

of overriding

considerations,

um, were included

in your packet.

Those are the ones

before you today

for consideration.

Um, and, um,

I'll now go into

the Natomas Habitat

Conservation Plan.

The conservation plan

is designed

to protect endangered

species

and their habitats

within the Natomas Basin.

It is with shared effort

to various agencies

to balance the development

of urban areas

and the preservation

of natural ecosystems.

And the mitigation

requires that the preservation

of an offsite farmland

at a ratio of one

farmland acre

converted to urban land uses

outside of the MBHCP

policy area

to 0.5 acre reserved

combined with the

biological resources

mitigation results

and an overall preservation

at a one-to-one ratio.

The EIR discusses that

at length,

um,

and the,

um,

uh,

the,

um,

the mitigation

monitoring plan

includes that

as, uh,

that mitigation

in,

in,

in the plan.

Um,

so the main findings

of fact

and statement

overwriting

considerations

have been revised

by shortening

and simplifying them.

It added language

clarifying the

responsibility

of,

of the city

of Sacramento

versus LAFCO.

More clearly,

states LAFCO's role

under its discretionary

authority

on the certification

of the EIR

and it also removes

unnecessary legal

discussions.

So your SOI determination,

um,

the,

uh,

information is,

is included

in your staff report.

Um,

the information

that was

at the April packet

is,

um,

uh,

has not been changed

as a,

um,

for this packet

at all

is exactly the same

as was being

considered in April.

Um,

and then in addition,

so,

uh,

public comments,

uh,

were closed

and,

uh,

sorry,

the public hearing,

I'm sorry,

the public comments

were closed in April.

Um,

and normally

your deliberation

would occur

at this meeting.

Um,

but the item

was continued

on a few,

uh,

on a few things

for the findings

of facts

and the statement

of clarifying,

of overriding

considerations,

uh,

because it needed

to be clarified

like I stated

in the previous,

um,

in the previous,

uh,

meeting.

However,

uh,

staff is recommending

that you allow

public comments

and it's based

on two reasons.

Um,

while the public,

uh,

comment was closed,

the Brown Act

requires,

uh,

to provide the public

an opportunity

to comment

at each meeting

before an action

is taken.

And the public

can be granted

an opportunity

to comment

on the pieces

of this item

that have changed

between April

and May,

which,

again,

is the finding

of facts

and the statement

of overriding

considerations.

So staff

recommendations

are listed

above.

It's also

on,

uh,

page one

of your staff

report.

Um,

essentially,

it's to adopt

LAFCO Resolution

2509,

uh,

which includes

the,

uh,

certifying

the environmental

impact report,

including the

adoption

of the statement

of overriding

considerations,

um,

the mitigation

monitoring

reporting

program

consistent

with CEQA.

It's to adopt,

um,

LAFCO Resolution

2025-10,

which is,

uh,

approve the

requested

sphere of influence

amendment

for the city

of Sacramento

and,

uh,

adopt resolution,

uh,

LAFCO

2025-11

to approve

the requested

sphere of influence

amendment to the

Sacramento area

sewer district

and then direct

executive officer

to complete

the necessary

filings and

transmittals

under the law.

That concludes

my presentation

and,

uh,

I can answer

any questions

you may have.

Mr. Hume.

Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

Um,

I'm not gonna make

a big issue

of it tonight

because a lot

of people

took time

out of their

busy schedules

to come down

here,

probably after

reviewing the

staff report

showing that

public comment

was gonna be

allowed,

but I,

I disagree

with the first

finding in your

staff report

that when a

public hearing,

the public comment

period is closed

and the hearing

is continued

for deliberations

to a future

meeting,

you do not

have to take

comment again

on the entirety

of the item

or even portions

that were changed.

If there was,

uh,

something that needed

to be clarified

and that had to be

clarified between

now and then,

uh,

or then and now,

um,

then that can

happen.

And so,

to that point,

uh,

I just wanna be

clear,

um,

cause I had a hard

time following it

in the staff report.

On page,

uh,

nine,

you come to the

conclusion,

excuse me,

uh,

page,

yeah,

nine,

uh,

you come to the,

you talk about the

clarifications and then

you draw the

conclusion and then

you go on page

10 to the SOI

project determinations.

Is it within those

project determinations

that's the clarification

that happened between

the last meeting and

this meeting?

Or is there a separate

findings of fact

document that I did not

see?

Yeah,

it's part of the

environmental,

uh,

draft environmental

impact report.

It was attachment E.

Um,

embedded in the EIR.

Correct.

And then,

uh,

that was accessible via,

the QR code that we

included in,

um,

um,

in the staff report.

It's also available on

the website as a

separate document.

Um,

um,

for public review.

Okay.

Okay.

The,

the items that you,

that you,

that you referenced on

the SOI,

uh,

project determinations,

those have not changed.

Those have not changed.

And so,

um,

given that your

recommendation is that

the public comment only,

uh,

pertain to the

clarifications that

happened between the

April meeting and this

meeting,

I don't recall seeing a

slide that elucidated

those in any specific

fashion other than saying

it just kind of cleared up

responsibilities between

LAFCO and the city.

Correct.

The,

the,

the changes staff would,

uh,

argue are,

are clerical and non-

substantive.

But still,

um,

it's a,

it's a new meeting.

Um,

you know,

the public has the right to,

to comment before a decision

is made at,

at every meeting.

And for those reasons,

we figure that it,

it,

you know,

we can allow the,

um,

or the public should be

allowed to,

to provide comment to you.

Okay.

Again,

I disagree with that premise,

but I won't make a bigger

point of it than that.

Commissioner Desmond.

Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

And I appreciate the comments

from, uh,

Commissioner Hume.

I,

I agree with the comments.

And as a matter of fact,

at the last meeting,

we specifically asked this

question before we adjourned

and before,

I believe it was,

uh,

Commissioner Hume made a motion

to continue this.

Because I think otherwise,

if,

if,

if we thought otherwise

that we were going to have

to reopen public comment,

we would have just recessed

and,

and had council maybe make

those changes at that night.

Because I,

I agree.

I mean,

so many folks are here again

to repeat the same things.

And I think the chair is going

to have a very difficult time

in trying to limit public comment

to just what those changes are

if there is not a specific document

that he can be referencing.

Um,

so I understand it's staff's

recommendation.

that you allow public comment,

but I,

for one,

don't think that's necessary

on this item.

I think we could do what we

decided to do and what council

said we would able to be able

to do at this meeting,

which is deliberate and make

a final decision on this item.

So I guess it falls to me, huh?

Ha ha.

Ha ha.

Council may have some thoughts

on,

on that.

Uh,

uh,

uh,

understand your positions

with respect to whether or not

public comment should be open.

I think another factor

that wasn't mentioned,

uh,

is that,

uh,

upon review

of the CEQA findings

that were prepared

for the April meeting,

uh,

uh,

there were several changes

that needed to be made

and,

uh,

whether or not

those are

substantive

or non-substantive,

clerical or not,

uh,

is open to interpretation

and what your view of,

you know,

to some extent,

what your view of the project is

and what the law is.

And,

uh,

so,

one of the issues

that the commission is faced with

is whether

it wishes to open

public comment again

or,

uh,

run the risk

that that becomes an issue

that could,

you know,

be subject to litigation

in the future.

Uh,

and by

reopening public comment,

you take that issue

off the table.

Well,

as,

as a non-attorney,

I will,

I will just jump right in.

Um,

I,

I agree with,

unfortunately,

I kind of agree with

everybody that's spoken,

which means,

which means,

I feel like I have to split

the baby somehow here.

Um,

and,

and as much as I would like

to keep this

specifically to

those,

uh,

those issues that were,

the,

were addressed and changed,

which were

essentially non-substantive.

They were clerical

in,

in nature.

Uh,

I don't think everybody here

is aware of,

of those

specific,

unless you actually have a

slide that you can put up

that shows.

No,

there isn't a slide

that specifically shows

where the changes were.

Okay.

Um,

but,

like I said,

they,

they,

they fall under those

three categories that,

um,

that are,

that are specified

under this slide.

We better,

we clarified the responsibility

of the city versus LAFCO,

and,

and the last one,

um,

we don't believe that it,

it was specific

as to who was,

whose responsibility it was

to mitigate what,

and who's gonna be monitoring

and reporting that,

and so we made that more clear.

Um,

um,

and then,

um,

we,

um,

basically stated LAFCO's role

more on,

um,

on,

on,

on the items that you have

jurisdiction on,

and,

and your authority is on,

because,

uh,

again,

the April findings of fact

kind of fudged,

um,

uh,

land use and,

and,

and other items,

uh,

and,

and other discussions

that were not really pertinent

to,

to,

to,

to your discussion,

and so,

essentially,

we just paired,

um,

paired everything down

to what your role is,

um,

as,

as your findings of fact

and,

and consideration.

Okay.

May I?

Sure.

Uh,

I would just add that,

um,

comparing the two documents,

having looked at them

back and forth,

it does seem to me

that,

uh,

the document you have

before you tonight

is,

uh,

more clear,

more transparent

with respect to

LAFCO's role

and responsibilities,

uh,

and so,

a more,

uh,

appropriate

and defensible document.

Okay.

Well,

do we,

how many people

do we have listed

as wanting to comment?

Mr. Chair,

so far,

we have 17 in the queue.

Okay.

Um,

yes,

Commissioner.

I have a question.

So,

the way I understand this,

um,

what did I say?

What is that one was?

The change was,

the way I,

it was in amendment,

uh,

attachment F,

is that the one?

That says,

all the mitigation

is the duty

of the city of Sacramento.

Is that what I'm,

is that basically

what it says?

If you had had a slide

of clarifying

the obligations

and to seek,

well,

basically,

I read that all

the mitigation

and all the monitoring

and all of that

is the job

of the city of Sacramento

and not LAFCO.

Is that the way I read it?

That is one of the changes

that were made.

Yeah.

Under,

uh,

the Environmental Quality Act,

uh,

certain findings

are required

to be made

by the lead agency,

uh,

one of which is,

uh,

certain impacts

will be mitigated

by changes

in the project

that are described

in the mitigation measures.

But when you say

we're clarifying

the duties

and responsibilities,

that's what it was.

getting to that right now.

Shoving it over there.

Okay.

Yeah.

And another one

of the findings

that's available

is,

uh,

the,

uh,

authority

to impose

those mitigations

lies with another agency

and that that agency

should impose

the mitigation.

And there was

some confusion

in the first set

of,

uh,

the April findings.

So that's,

as you pointed out,

one of the changes

that was made.

It's an attachment F,

but you had to really

dig through the 665 pages

to find it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh,

I am going to propose

that we,

we allow

10 people to speak.

Five,

five opposed,

or five and,

and,

we,

we can do that.

And we have,

uh,

we had robust discussion

at the last meeting.

So,

I,

and I think

I'll leave it up

to those

to decide

which ones

they,

they want to put

forward to speak.

You get two minutes each.

Mr. Chair,

would you like me

to call their names

for those in support

or those opposed?

Correct.

Okay.

We'll go with the,

uh,

first three people

I'll call your names

for those that are opposed

to come up

to the lecture

to make your comment.

The first person

is Susan Hare.

Should I begin?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Uh,

good evening,

commissioners.

I'm Susan Hare,

immediate past

president of ECOS.

Um,

while you've been

told that the law

requires

you to make

each decision

independently

and that a decision

today won't affect

subsequent decisions,

I think it's naive

to think that.

In general,

we humans

think that building

one decision

upon another

is a good thing.

It's how we build

a life.

We choose our friends.

We choose a career.

And think about

the adage of

habits,

create character,

create destiny.

Things have to make

sense in the context

of the past

and how we see

the future.

At the site

of the proposed

Airport South project,

if we look back,

we see planning

for subsustainability

through the

Urban Services

Boundary

and the

Natomas Basin

Habitat

Conservation Plan,

both 30 years old,

both representing

broad regional

planning goals

to preserve

open space.

We're shaken

to think that

a yes vote

by you today

could undermine

decades of planning.

If we look forward,

we can't help

but think

that a yes vote

by you today

will make it easier

to justify

breaking again

through the USB

and the

Natomas Basin

Habitat

for the

Upper West Side

project

and the

future

Grand Park

project.

If the

Airport South

situation

were different

and then...

Ma'am,

please wrap up

your comments.

Thank you.

And the Upper West...

Sorry,

Urban Services

Boundary

and the

Habitat

Conservation Plan

did not exist.

One could

reasonably

consider a

yes vote.

But in this

case,

we do have

those two

important

planning and

sustainability

actions

and that

were done

literally

to preserve

open space.

So,

in this

case,

please vote

no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next

person in

opposition

would be

Heather Fargo.

Please come to the lectern.

Good evening.

First of all,

there was no

redline copy.

We asked for one,

so we don't know

the changes

any more than you do.

But it does seem

interesting to me

that you can ask

the city to do

mitigation

when the city

hasn't even weighed in

on whether or not

they want this

project.

And there's only

one person from

the city here,

Mr. Pluckybaum,

to respond to that.

I am interested

in knowing your

legal opinion as

to whether or not

if you certify

the EIR tonight,

is the City Council

of Sacramento

relieved of their

burden of

certifying EIR?

Is it done at

this point,

or will they have

to certify it

as well?

I do want to

clarify again

that the

LAFCO report,

the new LAFCO report

continues to falsely

claim that the

City of Sacramento

wants this project.

As you know,

this project has never

been before the

City Council.

There's been no

public hearing

before the City

Council,

no decision.

And we realize

this has put a

burden on you.

We also disagree

with staff that

if you are

approving this

tonight,

you're only

approving the

SOI.

It's very clear

that you're also

approving the

annexation and

the project.

So your vote

to approve the

SOI and the

EIR,

despite significant

and unavoidable

impacts,

will clearly

indicate your

support for the

ultimate Airport

South industrial

project,

which places

six million

square-hate of

warehouses next

to a school

and a neighborhood

and a habitat.

And we also

remain concerned

about the Natoma

Space and Habitat

Conservation Plan

despite the

staff's comments.

And now that

there is a

development agreement

which we

understand

from the

announcement of

a planning

commission meeting

set later this

month,

it seems to us

that since the

MOU called for

any development

agreements to be

reviewed in the

EIR,

you need to take

the EIR back

and review the

development agreement.

So we urge you

to not certify the

EIR and to not

approve the SOI.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

your next person in

support is

Richard Kuna.

Good evening.

I'm here on behalf

of the Kioca

and

Scalora families

who are property

owners,

parcelate,

which is within

the proposed area and we strongly endorse the city and staff's

recommendations and request that you adopt them and move all of the

properties into the sphere. Our property was purchased in 1960 and farmed until a

few years back when it became virtually impossible to farm in that area. The

issues raised to oppose taking the properties into the SOI are threefold

habitat pollution and traffic. For clarity sake for our property please

consider the following. As for habitat concern our property is already covered

by the Natomas HCP and there's no evidence to show that it will be

disregarded or violated. As for suggested traffic and pollution problems we have

not proposed any roadways or anything that creates or omits pollution on or

from our property. Further there is only one road proposed by North Point near our

property and that is at the northern edge of our acreage and there are no roads

proposed at this time on the east side Westlake side of our property or the

south side the school side of our property. Regarding the barriers and berms

there is already a barrier on the east side of our property between us and the

Westlake development of approximately 200 feet. Lastly one of the we are one of

the most contiguous parcels to the city which is approximately 100 200 feet away. As

said we agree with the recommendations and findings and urge you to follow them and

bring all properties included in this proposal into the SOI and allow us to

utilize our property in an appropriate manner. Thank you. Thank you. Our next

speaker in support is John Hershey.

Good evening commissioners my name is John Hershey I'm here with UA local 447

plumbers and pipe fitters based here in Sacramento. Our union would like to add

our voice in support of the expansion of the city of Sacramento sphere of

influence related to the question at hand. While the tax and economic benefits for

local government and the community are well documented we support this move as

it opens the door to future approval to approval to projects envisioned which

would be in this area and which would also provide local construction

opportunities to our apprentices and journey workers who live here in

Sacramento. The wages paid to our members pay local rents mortgages taxes and

contribute to the local economy and economic activity in an appreciable with

an appreciable amount. Additionally as our region grows it is projected and it is

projected to continue to do so there will be an increasing need for skilled and

trained workers and while the ASIP which would be involved in this does not

include language for such requirements this would nonetheless help to provide the

work experiences for apprentices to gain those job skills. Additionally more work

opportunities for construction professionals means support for local

apprenticeship programs that provide critical after-hours training.

Sacramento will need these professionals that gain experience on

projects like these to take the call to build out the health care and

educational infrastructure in our region that will undoubtedly be needed in the future.

So please vote in favor of this. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Mr. Chair our next speaker in opposition would be Judith.

Judith. Out of deference to the supervisors on the on the dais I will reserve comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair our next person in opposition would be Daniel McKelvey.

Thank you. Chair and commissioners my name is Daniel McKelvey and I live on garden high

highway. I will make this very brief. We have over the last two years lived in the area and absolutely loved it. What we've enjoyed about it is really the sparseness of the area where we don't feel like we are overrun by either office buildings or neighbors on top of us or you know other traffic if you will. We tried to get away from that. We came up from the Bay Area specifically for that reason. We know that in the area that there are multiple projects that are going on already. The traffic

and the extension of these projects into the area is only further dealing with you know the infrastructure which right now it seems like it's not only going to be overrun but it's going to expand considerably. And from that perspective it really decreases the value if you will of the area and the property value.

from our perspective so that I ask that you take in consideration of what these projects are going to do not just this one but the other property value.

So I ask that you take in consideration of what these projects are going to do not just this one but the other property value is going to be overrun.

and make sure that they don't turn this beautiful area into a and undesirable location.

and the other ones around the area and make sure that they don't turn this beautiful area into an undesirable location.

thank you.

Thank you.

our next question.

into an undesirable location.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

The next speaker in opposition would be Andy.

Thank you, Chair, and hello, Commissioner.

As well, and staff.

I want to be clear.

Development is inevitable in Sacramento.

We've shown unprecedented growth throughout the years, time over time.

So I'm not necessarily in opposition as a whole to the development, but more so on opposition

to the placement of the development.

We have an opportunity here to place a wonderful industrial development in an area that already

suits it.

Where north of the highway, there has already been an infrastructure established.

There has already been sustainable planning that has already been pumped into this area

that can be further extended.

And if we look over our year-over-year expansion and the need for growth coming for decades,

it provides an opportunity for that like-for-like development to further increase as we, as a

population in Sacramento, also further increase.

So my ask for you guys is that you take an opportunity to see placement in our year-over-year and

decade-over-decade organization of how we're going to be developing out in Sacramento and consider an

optimal location for it just north of the highway where we could still capture a beneficial socioeconomical

impact by leveraging opportunities that were discussed earlier, by ensuring that contractual

language is put in place.

for when these developments do progress, that PLAs and other types of agreements are in place so that we can

capture the proper socioeconomic impact that this community deserves.

So as a resident of the Garden Highway area and as a constituent, that's my ask.

Let's plan smarter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, your last speaker in opposition, your fifth speaker, would be Kathy Van.

Leefde.

Leefde?

Leefde.

Leefde.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Hi.

Thank you for hearing us.

I do want to reiterate what everyone has already said.

And I do want you to consider that we're not a corporation, but we are a community.

I've retired in that area because of the proximity to Sac County and the green space.

And we are a wonderful community there.

And this addition will create traffic.

And it will also create pollution for us.

And so I just want to reiterate what everyone has said.

And to please think of our side of things also as you consider this decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, your next speaker in support is Jaime Torres.

Thank you, Acting Chair and fellow board members.

So thank you for this opportunity once again.

This weekend I had the pleasure to enjoy working the job for Labor's Local 185, which I'm a proud member.

And one of the pleasures I had was actually enjoying youth coming up.

Youth that's ready to come into the workforce.

Youth that's ready to come and actually enjoy trade.

They want to be a taxpaying member.

They want to work the trades.

College isn't for them.

They're fully aware of the situation.

They want to follow the footsteps of their parents.

They want to follow the footsteps of the peers that are already engaged in this.

And some of these opportunities that we generate and constantly need proactive jobs that actually have an opportunity.

Some of them do want to go into the workforce.

They don't want, they dislike the responsibility and the obligation of being in college to be in debt.

Also, we, you know, within the building trades, Sacramento Sarah Building Trades, we worked for Natomas Unified School District.

And we were there with all the high school students ready to come into the workforce.

Kids that are actually kids of some of our members.

They want to engage.

They want to participate.

And these are local jobs that are actually guaranteeing these opportunities.

They want to be close to home.

They want to be near their loved ones.

They want to be a part of the community.

They want to leave a carbon footprint in the community they live in and enjoy.

So thank you for your consideration on this item.

And have a wonderful day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The previous speaker opposed spoke for less than half a minute.

May I have a minute and a half?

I'm sorry.

What was your question?

The previous speaker opposed spoke for less than half a minute.

May I have a minute?

We have, we've used up the five, the five people in opposition so far.

This is a very important point, though.

Every, everybody in here has a very important point.

I, I, I value them all.

We didn't have a full two minutes of the last speaker.

So I'm just asking to fill that gap.

Can you do it in 30 seconds?

All right.

That's what you get.

Let's go.

Speaking on behalf of the brief California Sacramento region, of which I'm a board member.

So parcel eight, we just heard, needs to be developed in a manner consistent to the rest of it.

But then we're almost at the limit for the requirement for mitigation based on the diesel exhaust cancer risk from the rest of the development.

So therefore, if you approve this project, I would suggest that you do it with the exclusion of parcel eight, because that will need to be analyzed later with another EIR with the development that does occur there.

Please wrap up your comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chancellor.

Thank you, ihrer.

And I Minseness and

many others in our community, such as apprentices eager to build their careers, young people

entering the trades, formerly incarcerated individuals, and returning veterans from

service looking for a second chance.

And I know this because I was once in their position.

Thanks to the union, that 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 spent years commuting

for work outside of my local area, losing valuable time with my family and loved ones.

But I believe we can create better opportunities for others and minimize these sacrifices.

As board members, you all have the power to bring good paying jobs with benefits for the

hardworking members of our community.

I respectfully urge you all to move forward with this project without delay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, our final speaker in support will be Rob Fong.

I think it's just good to be last.

My name is Rob Fong.

I'm here to speak in support of the project.

On behalf of UA Local 447, the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters,

we are super looking forward to building out this project when it's at that stage.

You know, it's funny, just the whole face of retail has changed significantly, right?

Especially since COVID and fulfillment centers are sort of supplanting a lot of brick and

mortar malls.

And I think the reason why this project is going where it wants to go is because it's next

to the airport and it's right across the Metro Air Park.

And so it's well positioned to kind of be an economic stimulus project for the city of

Sacramento and the county of Sacramento.

And we are very much in support of you all approving the staff recommendation to extend

the SOI to the city of Sacramento and to the Sacramento sewer district.

So thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, that includes your five speakers in opposition and your five speakers in support.

We have six left.

Is that correct?

Seven.

Seven.

No, six.

Six.

Six.

Six.

All right.

All right.

Your next speaker will be Kent Lason.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

I've spoken to you before.

I was going to say some stuff, but basically what's scaring me is bit by bit, piece by piece,

we are losing our natural habitat.

We are going to look like Phoenix, Arizona.

When you fly in, you're not going to see those fields.

You're going to see housing, you're going to see paved roads, and you're not going to see

just prime farmland, you know, beautiful natural habitat that's never going to come back.

I just don't think it's a wise thing to do.

And I know it's a complicated, and it's all baked into our economy because we're based on

money, and beauty has no place.

And that's sad because I think without beauty, we are going to be very unhappy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, our next speaker is Sheila Harrington.

Hi.

My name is Sheila Harrington.

I live in Sacramento about 10 miles from the proposed project.

And I'm going to be really quick and just say that I know that the mission of LAFCO is pronged,

and so there are four different missions that you all have.

But I just want to remind you that passing this tonight, this fear of influence and extending

it, would mean ignoring an agreement that was hammered out by environmentalists and developers

and the city years and years ago specifically to stop urban sprawl.

So I just want to point out the irony there.

And I know you have other things you have to consider.

But since I have 17 more seconds, I'm going to say really quickly, I also think that it's very unfair to other developers

because they have been respecting this.

Believe me, they've been looking at that land, too, and saying that's a prime piece of land.

But they respected the agreement.

This one did not.

Please wrap up your comments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ralph Proper, please.

Ralph Proper, please.

You only had 30 seconds.

I wouldn't tell.

You're wrong with the first place.

You have 30 seconds.

Next speaker.

Next speaker will be Doyle Stedford, Jr.

Good evening, Chair Little and respected commissioners.

Point of clarification, my name is Doyle Radford, Jr.

But I do like that new pronunciation.

That's cool.

So I have the privilege to represent the men and women in Orange.

I'm the business manager of Construction and General Labor's Local 185.

Quite a few of the members are here with us today, tonight.

And this is the type of projects they rely on to support their families.

We've been proudly building the community since 1929.

This is a good developer that builds responsibly.

Not just us.

Several other trades work with them.

And we've been working with them on other projects.

They have the core values that we hold dear.

Honor, justice, strength, as well as integrity.

And we support this project.

And we hope you see to pass it tonight.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Sandra Moore.

Sandra Moore.

Hello and good evening, Commission.

I'm a local 340 apprentice.

My name is Sandra Moore.

And speaking from the apprenticeship, I graduate next week.

Our representation in the industrial field right now is woeful at best.

I got spun from a job in two weeks because I had no industrial experience.

That means my brothers and sisters are not getting that experience as well.

That is not good for our future.

We need to invest in our students.

Our JATC is one mile from this job.

That is a growth pattern of years of good training for our people in local area that we could expand on.

So if you could please consider us with our training and our skills, I'd really appreciate it.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is Gleyoyal Saba.

Good evening, Commission.

My name is Gleyoyal Saba, and I'm a member of the 3rd Act Sacramento, Sacramento Climate Coalition, and 350 Sacramento,

all climate organizations working to speed up our transition of fossil fuels

so that we can take advantage of the small window of opportunity left to ensure a livable future for all species.

This project is wrong for so many reasons

and makes me feel that there's no sense of climate urgency considered by the developers in their proposal.

I'll make it brief.

I have 32 seconds.

Here are the bullet points.

We're in the sixth mass extinction.

This project area represents habitat for millions of migratory birds.

This is located in Greenfield and outside of the agreed-upon urban boundary.

It's disastrous for our urban sprawl problem, as many people have suggested.

And there's loss of valuable farmland, which can help significantly in nature-based climate solutions.

In closing, I'd like to ask all those opposed to this project who took the time to come here and show you our concern to please stand up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, that includes your public commenters for item six.

Thank you.

Supervisor Hume.

Director in this.

Director, I'm sorry.

Or Commissioner.

Commissioner.

I'll get you right.

I'll get it right.

Yeah, I had a quick question to ask.

I believe it was Mayor Fargo that brought up the question about the city certifying their own EIR.

And I can't remember if we asked this question last meeting or not.

And if we did, I can't remember what the answer was.

But is this considered more like a programmatic EIR?

And then they would do a project-specific EIR once they know the actual proposals.

And then my sort of part two of that question would be, given that there's whatever ambiguity with respect to parcel eight, I believe it was referenced, would that be an amendment to an EIR or to a future EIR?

To the first question, the commission is certifying the EIR that's before them.

And they certify it for three reasons.

They certify that it's been completed in compliance with CEQA.

That it was presented to the decision-making body, which reviewed and considered it before acting on the project before them.

And that it reflects the agency's independent judgment.

So the project before you is the sphere of influence.

You're certifying the EIR with respect to those three things.

Essentially, it complies with CEQA.

And you reviewed it.

And it reflects your judgment.

And if the city brings the project before it, at that time, it has the option of doing the same thing.

But we don't know what the city is going to do in the future.

And so for purposes of tonight, you're certifying it for those things.

Now, I'm not sure I followed your question with respect to Parcel 8.

So I'll restate that portion, but let me clarify what you just said there.

I understand what we are being asked to do.

And that as a part of that decision, we have to basically say, with respect to anticipated service delivery, etc., land use patterns, etc., that there is an EIR that is adequate in its study of that.

What I'm asking is, if it goes to Mr. Pluckybaum and his colleagues, what discretion do they have to either accept, tweak, or deny?

And then what would that trigger with respect to the new EIR?

And or would they simply do an environmental document that would tee off of this EIR as the baseline?

I would not anticipate any additional environmental document.

This agency is certifying that document that's before you as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA.

That means it examines the project as a whole.

It examines the potential environmental effects, makes determinations about whether those effects can be mitigated or not, and so on and so forth.

If a project comes before the city that is within the scope of this EIR, then they don't have to certify a new EIR.

They don't have to amend it.

They may want to certify it for some reason.

But if a project comes before them that is just like the one in this EIR, then they should be free to rely on this EIR, and it's been certified by this body as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA.

Okay.

One second.

A project that is in substantial compliance with what this EIR contemplated, correct?

A project?

Are you talking about the project that comes before the city?

I'm talking about a future hypothetical project.

Yeah.

Obviously, as the land use decision-making body, they have some discretion over what they determine to be appropriate or inappropriate for any project that they consider.

Right.

Assuming that differs from what we're certifying, there would need to be additionally.

To the extent that they decide that they want to approve a project that's different than the one that is described in the EIR, then they may have to perform some additional environmental review to account for those differences in the project.

Okay.

And what I wanted to add is that it's one of the reasons behind the MOU between LAFCO and the city.

So basically, the proposal was the starting point, and LAFCO and the city entered into an MOU to create an EIR that would encompass both discretionary actions.

What you're certifying here is to the discretionary action that's before you, which is the sphere of influence.

Right.

And then the city would then take that same EIR for their discretionary entitlement approvals.

Now, if the project ultimately goes before the city differentiates substantially from what the project description is in the EIR, then at that point, the city has the option of either creating a brand-new environmental review, amending the environmental review to encompass the new project, or if they deem that just further clarification is needed, they can add an addendum to it.

But the reality is that, again, as counsel has said, you're certifying the EIR for the action that is compliant with CEQA for the action that's before you with the sphere of influence amendment.

Then the project goes to the city, and then they have their discretionary approval process.

Yeah.

And I want to clarify something.

I think we're saying the same thing.

But you're certifying the EIR, just to be perfectly clear, read from the language of the guidelines, that it's been completed in compliance with CEQA, that it was presented to you, and that you reviewed and considered the information in it prior to approving the project that's before you.

Right.

And that it represents your independent judgment and analysis.

And it's that second point is why I'm teasing out this question, because the project before us is simply a sphere of influence amendment.

Right.

The land use decision rests with an entirely different agency, and to the extent they seek to exercise their judgment and determination over the types and locations of land use within their project determination may trigger additional environmental study.

It could.

And they, if they wanted to, could certify this document, recertify it, certify it again.

Now, the word project gets a little fuzzy in there.

And you're approving a project, and it's within the CEQA findings that really focuses on the project before you versus the project that's described in the EIR.

The EIR describes a large project, build out operation, and so on.

The project before you is the sphere of influence amendment.

And in the CEQA findings that are before you, you make certain findings with respect to the project before you, based on the EIR.

Okay.

Yes.

So then to the second part of my question, the gentleman that spoke about parcel eight, given that development of parcel eight is not contemplated within this EIR, so far I'm saying the truth.

I would say that development of parcel eight, and this is really a question for the EIR consultants or the applicants, but I would say that development was not evaluated in detail in the EIR,

that it arguably is contemplated because there are certain land use designations that are assigned to that property, right?

So it would be a little misleading to say, well, you know, development is not contemplated on that property.

But this EIR, as I have read it, does not support the issuance of building permits and things like that on that property.

And I'll touch upon this on, because it's discussed also on the MSR and on the EIR, is that when there is a certain level of items that are not known,

what CEQA requires is that you basically evaluate the impacts to the maximum allowable under the zoning.

So while there is no specific project specified for parcel eight, and I'm using not the CEQA definition of project, I'm using the development project, just to be clear.

Even though there is no development project for parcel eight, what CEQA requires you to do is to basically look at what would be the potential uses for that area,

and then evaluate the maximum allowable impacts for that use and evaluate that.

So basically you're setting up a ceiling and then the project might be below that.

But that's what CEQA requires CEQA to do, and that's what's done in the MSR to evaluate the impacts,

and that's what's done on the environmental review.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I know we do have a representative from the applicant here.

I don't know if there was any response about parcel eight, if that's necessary or not.

Okay, do we have any other comments?

Yeah, I see you have a question.

Okay.

I just wanted to say about parcel eight.

As I read, I think it was in the EAR, because I did read all 633 and some pages,

so I can't remember what page it was on, but I remember parcel eight,

when they were going through the mitigation of all of the different non-participating parcels,

they said the non-participating parcels will likely have the same mitigations as the participating parcels,

except for parcel eight, which will probably require, because they're going to be butted up against housing,

that would, because of the air quality issues, I think that was going to require additional,

as the mitigation, additional studies, you know, as they do the pre-do-ever evaluations,

surveys of the critters that live there.

They do all the surveying.

So I think that that's going to get addressed if parcel eight ever wants to do anything.

It'll probably end up getting additional look-see, is what I think.

When I read whatever it is I read, I read something.

Yeah, if that's a question to me, I would say that sounds right to me.

Again, I think it's, you know.

I wasn't worried about parcel eight, because, you know, parcel eight looks kind of like I wouldn't want to own it.

It looks like it's going to be answered when parcel eight decides to do something.

He's not, I don't think he's just going to get the same hoop that everybody else has to jump through.

I think he's going to get a bigger hoop.

What I heard you say was that some of the mitigation measures that apply overall would apply to parcel eight,

but there may be more that applies.

And I would say that sounds right to me.

But again, that is a question that might be better directed to-

In terms of their quality.

So it would be a quality issue.

To the consultants.

Okay.

Seeing no more comments, do we have a motion?

Mr. Chair, if I may.

Okay.

So I appreciate everyone coming out again tonight.

And I appreciate staff's judicious sort of effort at really buttoning up the language included in the findings of fact.

Yeah, I made a motion last meeting because having been a part of in the audience as an applicant for a LAFCO proceeding,

having been on the dais as a LAFCO commissioner for a sphere of influence proceeding,

and having been in the private sector for folks who are looking to go through the LAFCO process,

I have a pretty firm grasp of what LAFCO is considering versus what the ultimate land use agency will be asked to consider.

And so, you know, irrespective of the Natomas Basin Plan, irrespective of the county's urban services boundary,

which is not a planning tool that the city of Sacramento ever signed on to or agreed to abide by,

what LAFCO looks at is the logical assumption that the services can be provided to these parcels by the agency seeking that entitlement.

And so toward that end, I would move staff's recommendation to approve the respective amendments to the SOI

for the city of Sacramento and Sacramento area sewer district and certify the EIR.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Are there any further comments?

I need my vote.

Okay.

Seeing none.

Your motion passes unanimously.

Our next item, please.

Mr. Chair, your next item is receive update from general counsel on the Sacramento County reclassification

of the LAFCO executive officer and provide direction.

Mr. Chair, we don't have an update at this moment, so we will be returning something at the next meeting.

But, item seven, or excuse me, item nine.

Item nine is executive officer commission counsel astro sheet and correspondence.

Mr. Chair, your analyst, Christopher Graber, will be providing an update on the aster sheet.

But I just wanted to give you an update.

Some of you know that I've taken on the interim executive director role at Cal-AFCO.

I do that in the evenings and weekends.

I don't do that during work hours for Sacramento LAFCO.

However, I've already notified to the Cal-AFCO board of directors that this can't continue.

I've been doing it for the last three months.

I'd rather love my wife and enjoy spending time with her and the cats and my hobbies.

And I want to return to that.

That hasn't occurred since the last week of January.

So, Cal-AFCO will be recruiting someone else to take over to the interim executive director role.

And hopefully it will be soon.

But that's one of the updates.

The second update I wanted to give you again, Cal-AFCO related.

I forwarded to you an email earlier this afternoon relating to a discussion about what Cal-AFCO can be.

It's kind of an envisioning thing.

Staff and commissioners are welcome to attend.

It will be on May 16th in Manteca.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't a virtual option.

But if you wanted to participate and you had a free middle of the afternoon, you can take a nice pleasant drive down to Manteca and participate in those discussions.

Lunch will be provided.

Thank you to Cal-AFCO.

And hopefully it will be a good robust discussion about how to take the organization to the next level.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you.

We also staff participated in the Cal-AFCO staff workshop this past week.

And it was a really good event, I think, as the intermediary for Cal-AFCO.

But it worked really well.

We took policy analyst Grabo and your clerk, Lurice Washington, to participate in that workshop.

And it's basically a staff training skills development type of event that happens annually for staff.

And I thought it was a good program.

The Cal-AFCO conference will be later this year in October.

And I know that Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Desmond have indicated that they would like to attend.

If there are any other commissioners who want to attend, please let me know so that we can start planning accordingly.

Thank you.

Christy.

Hey, good evening.

So I just have a brief comment about the astro sheet.

Everything is still moving along.

We're still pretty busy.

I think Desiree is supposed to be coming back later this month.

So we're excited to have our policy analyst back.

Just some updates on our project real quick is that we released a RFP for the Umno Chimney Hartnell MSR application that we have going on.

RFPs are due on May 23rd.

Other than that, everything's still moving forward.

So that concludes my part.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything from commissioners?

Mr. Chair, I was going to say, yes, good job navigating this difficult.

The sun's still out.

And the sun's still up.

Good job.

And the other thing, I do want to just add a little additional context or comments about my statement I made after the off-the-agenda public comment or about the cemetery district.

I do think, and I know there's some certain information that you wanted from, I think, the districts before we had that workshop.

But I think there is some benefit in even just having a broader discussion about just kind of the landscape of the cemetery district serving Sacramento County, how they're structured, how they're funded, and maybe where some of the gaps are.

So I do think that would be helpful for us to have if we can squeeze it into the agenda before the end of the year.

Yeah, we'll try to do something in the fall.

We don't have any projects that are coming up for your considerations.

Maybe for the August or September meeting we can make that happen.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay.

With that, we can adjourn the meeting at 7.05.

Nice.

Full width.

Yeah.

Ooh.

Thanks coach people.

You, too, better be honest with our panelist and our recovers.

Same a symphony permettre ofасти and competing matters with not provision requires changes.