Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, everyone.

Welcome to tonight's meeting.

Thank you for coming.

My name is Chris Little.

I am the chair for the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission, also known as LAFCO.

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

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

Our meetings are always open to the public.

Regularly scheduled meetings are shown live on Metro Cable 14.

Webcast Live on the Metro Cable TV website and post it 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.

Um, why don't we have our our commissioners introduce themselves since we have a new commissioner here?

Oh, we'll take roll call.

May I take roll call, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioners plucky bomb.

Uh it's Wickard, but yes, I'm here.

Wickard.

Desmond Pratton.

Here, Jones, and Chair Little.

Here.

You have a quorum with the members present.

Okay, thank you.

All right, can we please stand for the pledge?

One nation under God and the visible justice for all.

Thank you.

That was a very robust uh pledge.

So we have we have uh a new commissioner, and I'd like to uh ask him to stand up, please.

And maybe raise your right hand, please.

I think I Robert Wickard.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend.

You solemnly swear that I will support and defend.

The Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Of the United States, the Constitution of the State of California of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.

That I take this obligation freely without any purpose of evasion or mental reservations.

And then I will well and faithfully that I and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties on which I am about to enter.

Discharge the duties upon which I am about to answer.

Okay, do we have any announcements?

Yes, you do.

Mr.

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

It is cable cast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and Direct TV Uverse Cable Systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro 14 Live.gov.

Today's meeting will play Sunday, March 8th at 2 p.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.

To make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to your 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 waves 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 board clerk 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 see clerk staff for assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-874-5451 or by email at Board Clerk at SAC County.gov.

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

This concludes your announcement.

Thank you.

Uh we please read the first item.

That next item, item two is the public is encouraged to address the commission concerning any matter not on the agenda.

Public comments are limited to three minutes.

The commission is prohibited from discussing or taking any action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.

We do have one speaker, Mr.

William Cho.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, Supervisor Desmond.

I think perhaps I should have chosen another night to address the commission in deference to the labor group and Mayor Fargo.

I'm William Cho serving on the Arden Manor Park District Board.

And in a reference to your special district committee and its uh commissioners, uh who are typically filled by my counterparts at fire, water, and other special districts.

Uh though I believe parks are just as important to our communities.

Uh while we're all special districts, we're not all the same.

We have different challenges, uh, different and unique challenges.

And I'm here to make an introduction and uh invite some conversations to talk about our unique issues and also how to address the common issues that we all share that don't stop at lines on a map.

So it's easy to think uh about government policy in our own little bubbles, but uh we can't, and we don't operate in silos, and we can't be as effective if we are.

So I look forward to some good conversations with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, we do not have any other public speakers or speaker slips for item number two.

Okay.

So next item.

The next item is the consent calendar to approve items three through seven.

Mr.

Chair, I move consent.

Okay, thank you.

Please vote.

Your vote passes unanimously six to zero.

Thank you.

Um, the next item, please.

The next item is item eight, public hearing to consider and approve the environmental review and the airport south industrial reorganization for the detachment from the Thomas Fire Protection District, Sacramento County Water Agency Zone 13, and County Service Area 1 and annexation into the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Area Sewer District.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, uh, my name is Jose Enriquez.

I'm the executive officer for Sacramento LAFCO.

And I have a brief presentation for your consideration in addition to the staff report that's already part of your packet.

Uh first a background for those who are not familiar with what LAFCO does.

Uh LAFCO was created as a result of um a significant uh amount of population growth that occurred post-World War II.

And in addition to um a half-hazard extension of services that were created that were um being pursued by uh local agencies as a result of the grow of the population growth.

And in addition there was also a conspicuous uh effort by agencies to exclude disadvantaged from minority uh populated communities uh governor Pat Brown convened a uh commission to basically look at this uh uh at this phenomena and thinking that there's got to be a more orderly way to do this and so lafcoats were created in 1963 to provide regional growth management in each county with four missions uh in no particular order uh to encourage orderly urban growth and development to prevent urban sprawl leaf frog development and scattered urbanization to encourage local formation and determination of boundaries to coordinate property uh development standards and encourage timely urbanization to ensure that affected populations receive adequate and efficient governmental services and to guide development away from open space and prime agricultural land uses those are your four missions they are not in any particular order um for folks wishing to read more about it it's under government code 56000 uh and uh at sequitur I believe it's 56,001 but uh lafco is a hybrid entity meaning that you are a state agency but with local representation um by the nature of your composition of city special districts county and a public member um the legislature essentially has determined that you are not in conflict um should you be considering a a um a project that affects your home agency as a lafco commissioner you're expected to act independently um and take into account what the government code um uh requires and uh advises you to follow so this particular project is a 472.4 acre project uh located in undeveloped agricultural land uh it is currently within the boundaries of the city of sacrament sorry the county of Sacramento outside of the county's urban services boundary line and outside it's the urban policy area the site is bound uh by uh to the north by I-5 to the east by the city of Sacramento to the west by power line road um south of the project area is the the Passover K through eight school in additional agricultural land that is in Sacramento County the project site is located within the sphere of influence uh for the city of Sacramento and Saksue approved by the commission on May 5th May 7th 2025 the reorganization includes um essentially uh a change of jurisdictional boundaries to facilitate future development and the provision of municipal services the reorganization um for folks in the audience who may not know it essentially means two or more changes of organization contained within the single proposal in this specific case you have three three separate actions first action is the annexation of the project site uh into the city of Sacramento's jurisdictional boundaries for the provision of municipal services including water law enforcement fire suppression parks and street lighting it number two the annexation of the project area into the Sacramento area sewer district for uh wastewater services and number three the detachment of the project area from uh various agencies uh such as the Thomas Fire Protection District Sacramento County Water Agency Zone 13 and a county service area one this is an aerial photograph of the project site it is bounded by white uh on the photograph that that you have in here essentially again to the north is um is I-5 but beyond I-5 you have the Metro Air Park uh industrial uh commercial area uh to the north sorry to the northeast is the North Lake formerly Greenbrier development to the west is West Lake sorry to the east is West Lake uh to the south is the uh Paso Verde school which you can you can see sort of in that photograph it's the little white fuzzy area um to the south uh to the southeast um agricultural land uh immediately to the south.

To the west, it's currently agricultural.

However, the site is going to be the the new Watt EV uh SWIFT project approved by the county of Sacramento, which will be a um uh a um recharging station for um commercial uh truck vehicles.

This is a proposed site plan for uh for the project uh this is not within your um decision point it this is for the county, but it's shown as for illustrative purposes, so you know ultimately what the development is going to be.

It's going to be essentially south of the south of the Metro Air Parkway, Metro Air Parkway.

It will be hotels and warehouses of various square footage.

Smallest one being about 562, 562,000 square feet.

The largest one is 1.021 square feet.

And then you have a smaller warehouses to the to the east.

And then as a concession to residents, there's smaller buildings immediately adjacent to the Westlake development.

There will be a buffer area that's already there of agricultural land.

I believe there's going to be additional buffer area.

And that gray area that's to the southeast of the parcels in between the warehouses is what's called the non participatory parcels.

Meaning these are landowners who are generally supportive of the annexation.

However, they are not part of the development plan, but they are included as part of this reorganization in order to make an orderly boundary.

Again, you have the Metro Air Park to the north, the North Lake and Westlake communities, and then the South Wad EV to the west.

So the project background is that on May 25th, 2021, an application for the SOI amendment was submitted to the SOI amendments, I should say, because it was for the city in SAXU or were submitted to Sacramento LAFCO.

A municipal service review and a sphere of influence amendments were approved by LAFCO on May 7th, 2025.

The reorganization application under consideration tonight was submitted to LAFCO on November 26, 2025.

The City of Sacramento certified the final environmental impact report and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program on December 2nd, 2025.

For LAFCO considerations, basically they're all encompassed under 5668 of the government code, and you're also LAFCO policies.

Those are discussed in your staff report and also included as attachment A to your staff report.

Essentially, that government code section and the policies require that the commission review specified factors when considering a reorganization proposal.

And for those who are not familiar with LAFCO, essentially the formissions that I uh that I outlined earlier, those are included in 5668 in a way that's basically broken down uh as a way of for the commission to consider uh the formations as part of each proposal.

And in addition, the commission then further adopted policies to further define what's already in the government code, and the government code allows for the commissions to have specific policies relating to how they're gonna implement the uh implement the government code.

So these factors are used to analyze the impacts and help assess the determinations for the recommendations, they included services, cost and revenue, boundaries, potential effect on others, and comments from stakeholders, land use, population, and planning.

Um for the service area here, uh the project site requires the extension of urban services to support the planned industrial site.

The adopted targeted municipal service review identified and analyzed the municipal services that would be needed to extend, and specifically the water service circulation roadways, the uh animal care code compliance, law enforcement, fire protection, solid waste, storm drainage and flood control, parks and recreation and libraries.

Uh costs and revenues.

Uh, property tax exchange agreements pursuant to revenue and taxation code 99 and government code section 56810.

Uh property tax exchange agreement is required in connection to the proposed reorganization.

The exchange reallocates property tax revenues among the affected local agencies to reflect the change in service responsibility resulting from the annexation into the city of Sacramento and the Sacramento Area Seward District.

The Sacramento City Council adopted a resolution on December 9th, 2025, authorizing the city manager to enter into the agreement.

And the Sacramento Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the county executive to execute and administer the agreement on January 13th, 2026.

So the boundaries, the project side is within the sphere of influence for both the city and SAC sewer.

The annexation of the site represents, in staff's opinion, a logical contiguous extension of city limits.

The project site share points of adjacency with the existing city boundary, which is a requirement under the law.

And it avoids an unincorporated pockets or irregular islands.

To the left of the picture, you will see the uh airport south industrial area as it relates to the city of Sacramento.

It's um it's an extension to the west.

And for area for the SAC sewer service area, to the picture to the right, you will see that it adjoins the the Saks Sewer service area on two fronts.

The adjacent areas, both the city and the county anticipate expanded industrial and commercial development development in the project area and in the area surrounding the Sacramento International Airport.

Community services, the project is not expected to result in a significant adverse effects on community services for existing customers of either entities, the city of Sacramento or Saks Sewer.

And comments andor objections from other agencies and the landowners.

Relating to the sphere of influence amendment that you receive that you authorized last May and the entitlements of land use by the city of Sacramento that they um that they uh approved in December.

See the proposed uh project will lead to an overall loss of farmland.

Uh mitigation measures were to include the applicant area purchasing and dedicating the ROSA properties and um to the Thomas Basin Conservancy.

The prezone of the project area was approved by the City of Sacramento on December 2nd, 2025.

Pre-zoning is also a requirement under the law, um so that's been in compliance with um with that requirement.

Uh for the environment environmental uh quality act, the um LAFCO and the City of Sacramento cooperated to prepare uh an environmental impact report pursuant to the agreement as described as section 15051D of the CECO guidelines.

The EIR was certified in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program was adopted by the City of Sacramento on December 2nd, 2025.

Two errata sheets uh have been prepared to implement minor administrative edits and clarifications to the final EIR.

The errata sheets do not affect the adequacy of the environmental analysis or the findings made by LAFCO to support its certification, which are part of the final EIR.

I'm going to speak briefly to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan because that's an area that's been brought up by both project opponents and supporters.

Um the conservation plan was designed to protect endangered species and their habitats within the Thomas Basin.

It is a shared uh effort of various agencies to balance the development of urban areas within the preservation with the preservation of natural ecosystems, and the mitigation requires the preservation of off-site farmland at a ratio of one farmland acre converted to urban land use.

It's outside of the MBHCP policy area to 0.5 acre uh preserved, which combined the biological resources mitigation results in an overall presentation of the one-to-one ratio.

The map that you see in the area is essentially the the um the the Thomas conservation um habitat plan area, and it expands basically from uh it goes along the Sacramento River north of the American River through the Sacramento County line up to Sutter, up to Sutter County.

The dark areas I believe are preservation lands that have been uh put away in mitigation preservation for for the habitat um for Natomas.

Um waiver the conducting authority hearing uh typically when you have a 100% landowner consent um you waive the conducting authority hearing.

What that is is essentially uh a protest hearing for uh landowners or registered voters if there are if the area is inhabited.

Uh to process the commission action should you approve this project.

Um the conducting authority hearing can be waived if you have a hundred percent landowner consent.

Um to date we have not received any opposition from any of the landowners.

Um and so the notice was published both on the website on the newspaper and um uh and uh physically at our office, basically saying that uh that the commission can uh um uh can waive the conducting authority hearing under 5663 C if no written opposition is submitted to the by the landowners of the petition site by the time that the commission closes the public hearing.

Um to date, staff has not received a written opposition by a landowner of the project site.

So uh LAFCO staff recommends the waiver of the authority hearing since the only people who can protest the commission action are registered voters or landowners of the project site um and no one else.

Uh project determinations bear with me.

This is a long slide.

Um the subject territory is inhabited per government code, uninhabited, sorry, per government code 56079.5.

Uh the application of this project is made um subject to government code 56650 at Sequitur by landowner petition.

The territory proposed for the project is within the spheres of influence for the city of Sacramento and the Sacramento Area Sewer District and is contiguous to the existing boundary.

The project uh will provide more logical and order boundary for both agencies.

The project will not result in negative impacts to the cost and adequacy of service otherwise provided into the area, and is in the best interest of the affected area and the total organiz uh organization of the local government agencies involved.

The project will have an effect on agriculture and open space lands, but impacts will be mitigated as required by CEQA and implemented by the certified EIR and the uh mitigation monitoring reporting plan.

The project will not result in the decrease in water supply available for the build out of regional housing needs determined by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and will not have a significant foreseeable effect on the ability of the county or the city to adequately accommodate its fair share of those uh of those housing needs.

So the recommendations will be to waive the protest hearings pursuant to 5663 and local policies, adopt LAFCO resolution LAFC 2026-04, adding any additional conditions the commission finds appropriate, and approve the airport south um industrial reorganization.

Direct the executive officer to complete the necessary filings and transmittals as required by law, and determine the effective date of the approval for this action to be five working days after the recordation of the county recorder of the executive officer certificate of completion, provided that the imposed conditions are met.

Staff presents the staff report, which we just did.

The commissioner questions and comments to staff, uh the applicant representative, if so desired, speaks, followed by commissioner questions.

The agency representative from the city of Sacramento, if so desired speaks, followed by the commissioner questions, and then all other members from the public who would like to speak will have two minutes.

That concludes the report.

Um I wanted to add a huge thank you to uh your policy analyst Christy Graybo, who um uh was very key in the preparation of this item, and uh my thanks uh sincere thanks go to her for um for being able to complete the project.

So I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have questions, you don't have to have one.

All right, uh Mr.

Chair, I don't have any questions at this time, but I think all of us reserve the right to be able to uh ask questions of staff as more information comes forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, given that um uh my recommendation would be um to allow the uh applicant to speak and address the commission if um if they so desire.

Mr.

Chair, members of the commission, uh Nick Abdis, on behalf of AKAT development uh this evening.

I uh we have a presentation um to provide you.

Can we get that on the screen?

So much for paying our cable bill.

Metro Cable, could we get the PowerPoint up, please?

No Jeopardy music right now.

Can I ask you Madam Clerk, is this the clicker up here for the that we have a clicker here for you?

Make sure it's working for you.

Perfect.

Sorry, thank you.

Like does somebody have a phone, they can email it.

Staff has it, should have it.

It was sent.

I have the microphone.

Do you want to grab it?

Do you know which now is it for thirty two seconds?

We sent it, we sent it to you.

We sent it to you.

Christy acknowledged.

It was the other day.

Oh no.

Sorry.

Can we email it to you?

We got it up here.

This is this went to Christina last third.

Yeah, but forward forward.

It's Metro 14.

They have it.

That's uh county.gov.

You know what?

Add me too just in case.

Todd, I can just handle it from there.

Is there now?

Oh, there we go.

There it is.

That's right there.

Yeah, that's what I should.

Oh wait, oh I'm sorry, I thought I saw it.

Sorry, I thought I saw it.

I think they're trying to set it up in the back as I set it up here.

Let's see if I can just start it.

And we just send it.

What's that?

On the last Thursday, twenty-sixth.

I was saying, Mitchell, could we get assistance outside, please?

Mr.

Chair, may we call it brief recess while we fix the technical difficulties, please?

Yes, that would be.

Thank you.

Thanks, everyone, for your patience.

Five five minutes, I think, to get this done.

Hello.

Quietly.

It works.

Okay.

Thank you.

We're back.

We are back now with our present presentation.

Please.

Well, excuse me, Mr.

Chair, may I call roll to re-establish a quorum, please?

Commissioners Pucky Baum.

Wickard here.

Desmond.

Here.

Pratt.

Jones.

And Chair Little.

Here.

You have a quorum with the members' present.

Now you need to continue presentation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right.

Mr.

Chair, members of the commission, thanks again and thanks to the Metro Cable folks.

Kind of a thankless job.

We appreciate it.

Technical difficulties happen.

In any event, my name is Nick Abdis.

I'm with law offices of Abdus and Cushy on behalf of AKT development this evening.

Thanks for the opportunity to present our project to you.

This is an effort shaped by nearly five years of detailed planning, technical analysis, and sustained community engagement.

We're excited to finally be here before you today.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the collaborative effort that's brought us this point, you know, large complex development projects like Airport South, naturally and justifiably generate discussions and differing viewpoints, but they also reflect a tremendous, tremendous amount of professional work, and we're grateful for the dedication showed by everyone involved, including your staff.

This next slide is important because it frames uh the scope of tonight's action.

I know staff cover this a little bit, but I think I want to highlight just a few things.

Distilling it down, LAFCO's role is very limited and focused.

This proceeding is about boundaries, service responsibility, and orderly growth.

It's not a rehearing on land use entitlements, site design, or approvals already granted by this body and by the city of Sacramento.

Uh second, the airport south uh territory is entirely within the city of Sacramento's adopted sphere of influence, reflecting prior LAFCO policy determinations about the appropriate area for future municipal services.

Third, the action before you today is an implement is implementation focused.

It aligns the jurisdiction with the municipal services and implements the planning and infrastructure framework already adopted by this body uh previously and the city of Sacramento's approval of the land use entitlements, including their certification of the EIR.

With that framing, I'd like to introduce AKT developments uh development partner and North Point development and represented here this evening uh by Jeff Griffin.

Thank you, Nick.

Uh good evening, Chair Little and LAFCO commissioners.

It's good to see you all again.

I'm excited to be here tonight, so thank you for the time.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to introduce our firm and discuss our proposed project, which has been a work in progress for the past five years.

I'm hoping tonight brings it to conclusion.

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

North Point Development is a privately held real estate operating company headquartered in Kansas City.

Founded in 2012 by Nathaniel Hagadorn, our CEO.

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

Our firm specializes in industrial and multifamily developments, and our current national portfolio consists of roughly 153 million square feet of class A industrial space and 6,500 multifamily units.

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

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

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

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

Additionally, we show many of the charitable organizations that we help support nationally and here locally.

In the Sacramento community, we have developed over 5 million square feet of industrial space.

Approximately 4 million square feet is in the Natomas community at Metro Air Park.

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

Then in 2019, we acquired our first land site and commenced our first metro air park project and have gone on to develop seven assets within the park over the past five plus years across 245 acres.

Additionally, in 2021, we purchased roughly 100 acres from Aerojet and the Rancho Cordova community and have redeveloped that property into two assets with an additional 30 acres to develop.

Locally, our projects represent an approximate $700 million investment in the community while helping create over 3,000 long-term jobs, not to mention thousands of construction jobs that support the development of our projects.

This job creation is accomplished through teamwork, working closely with municipalities, capital partners, and the contracting industry, in addition to, and most importantly, the ultimate user.

I think it's worth noting that North Point development is different than most other national development firms because our business model is to own projects long-term, in contrast to many other national firms that develop, stabilize their assets, and typically dispose of them to institutional investment firms that have mostly no community presence.

We've been part of the Sacramento community since 2018 and plan to be here for a very long time.

On this next slide, we wanted to highlight more closely the build-out that has occurred within the Metro Air Park over the past seven years.

Excuse me.

I wanted to take time first to provide a brief overview of the airport south area of Sacramento and its build out over the last 10 years.

This is conclusive evidence of the tremendous growth occurring in this northwest corner of Sacramento and why this annexation request aligns with and supports orderly and logical growth for the community.

This slide is an aerial from 2015.

Note there is limited development around the airport, no interchange at I-5 and Metro Air Parkway, and no assets at Metro Air Park.

Fast forward 10 years, and you see the extensive development which has occurred.

Now there is a new interchange at Metro Air Parkway, a $30 million piece of infrastructure which opened in 2021 to serve the logistics functions of Metro Air Park.

The North Lake residential community, which is now mostly complete, and Metro Air Park now is the home to 29 developed assets totaling almost 10 million square feet of Class A industrial space.

Also, Costco has recently commenced construction on their 92-acre site.

I wanted to highlight this as an example of how much land is absorbed with a single 1 million square foot facility.

It's without a doubt that Metro Air Park has become a premier logistics location due to its proximity to I-5 and the I-8 interchange, so goods can be moved efficiently north-south and east-west across the country.

Additionally, has become a county economic engine generating well over 20 million dollars annually in property taxes and assessments, not including the tens of millions of dollars of annual taxes generated from the Bradley Burns local point of sales sales tax.

Now we're on to this slide.

We wanted to highlight uh more closely the build out that's occurred over the last seven years at Metro Air Park.

Remember, this is 10 years ago, and this cover colored overlay provides you with an image of what is currently developed, the years each asset was developed, and the remaining to be developed buildings at Metro Air Park represented by the Navy blue boxes.

Currently, the industrial zone districts within Metro Air Park are at 76% build out.

It's important to recognize how there are no sites showing a conceptual one million square foot logistics facility, and most of the to be developed properties will be less than 300,000 square feet, which is far different than what is conceptualized by our airport south land, which Nick will touch on momentarily.

On this slide, we wanted to highlight the international airport plan development property, boundary overlaid in red.

Sacramento County's Metro Air Park overlaid in blue, the proposed airport south project boundary.

Note the 30 million dollar interchange dumps directly into the project area, the North Lake subdivision, and the aforementioned Wadi V project location, which will assist in providing needed infrastructure to a future of carb compliant electric truck fleets.

For all of these reasons, we believe our proposed annexation request should be approved.

In addition, our team believes our vision is the appropriate use of this land considering its proximity to housing for jobs to reduce vehicles mile traveled, as well as being situated under the FAA's flight path, and most importantly, the lack of large entitled sites to meet the large scale requirements, which continue to land in Sacramento.

Most recently, the Costco distribution center.

Now I'll hand it back to Nick.

Thank you again for your time.

All right, just have a few more slides to work through.

So I think this next slide is uh is intended to convey this is our initial uh site plan that we submitted in 2021 that became the basis for the environmental analysis in the AIR.

This next slide breaks down the extensive amount of outreach and transparent nature that uh in terms of how we approached soliciting stakeholder feedback in an effort to steer our project uh to a final vision.

Uh this next slide represents the uh changes uh uh that were made taking into account uh the comments and feedback um we received with over five years of outreach and primarily the changes are uh within the easternmost part of the project area.

Um, we are committed to the ongoing outreach and dialogue with our community, and to that point have we have voluntarily agreed to further outreach during the construction and development phase of our project as a uh enforceable condition of approval uh with our city entitlements.

Zooming in there to the east end uh of the project site, um you will see represented here that we reduce the scale and voluntarily restricted the the height of the buildings that are in closest proximity to the Westlake uh community, designing much smaller buildings, and in turn, these types of assets could house um community amenities such as bound houses, kids' play zones, residential service provisors such as electricians, plumbers, etc., which uh was requested on multiple occasions by the community representatives during our outreach efforts.

In addition, these types of assets could be utilized for RD as well as light assembly facilities similar to those uh with the local Nivogen project on Duckhorn, not too far away.

Uh, furthermore, we relocated the north-south connector road further away from the residential community as was requested, and we designed a roundabout to direct truck trips towards the I5 interchange while additionally slowing down uh vehicular traffic moving eastbound to the residential community that we heard on many occasions was an ongoing concern.

Additionally, we have provided for uh additionally, we've provided for in our planned unit development approval where we voluntarily imposed a hundred and twenty-five-foot setback on the easternmost portion of the project, which will place any vertical assets some 340 feet from the Lan Franco properties, which is that uh single loaded street that you see next to the city owned buffer there in that exhibit.

Um, and just to put that into context, that's larger than a football field.

Um slide 14.

Uh again, this is our closing slide in the in terms of um of LAFCO.

Uh, this annexation supports orderly growth growth as we as we talked about.

The project has been refined substantially through years of outreach and responsiveness.

And most importantly, for tonight, the site lies uh within the city's adopted sphere of influence area and as such implements prior city and lafco policy dec decisions regarding future urban service provision to this area.

And before I conclude, I I do want to take a moment to thank the men and women of labor.

I'll give you a guess as to who they are here tonight.

I want to extend my deep, deep gratitude.

I mean, a lot of what I do sometimes feels like pushing paper.

You know, these people are gonna build this project.

They're committed to their families, they're committed to their work, and they're committed to making this project something we can all be proud of.

So with that, we appreciate this opportunity to present this item, and we ask for your support of the staff recommendation, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Anyone have any questions for them?

Thank you for the presentation.

Uh appreciate it, gentlemen.

Uh couple quick questions.

Somewhere in my staff packet, my uh agenda packet, there was a picture of the buffer land uh to the southeast, and I didn't see that represented in uh these slides.

Could you please elaborate the southeast?

Yes.

So if you see on let's see, I see at one level of green, but that looks like what it was uh a while ago.

And what I saw in my forgive me, I did I, well, I might have noted the page.

However, it was like a uh backwards L.

There was a U shape.

That's on the non-participating owner's property, which isn't represented here, it's just south of the Yeah.

There's there's uh an exhibit in your staff report.

Let me see if this pointer works that shows an open space ag zoned area along here.

That was something that right around here.

Yes, and that was supposed to uh um uh represent a buffer in response to concerns about the closeness of uh potential industrial uses to the southeast of the project area, including uh the school that's there.

Uh thank you for that clarification.

Then I might have a quick question for staff as what well that as well as the rows of properties that were mentioned in the staff report.

What is the status now of that those areas?

Because in this it says that that's supposed to be set aside, etc.

etc.

And uh I'd like to know what their status is today.

Uh I think Mr.

Atlas can um uh describe what the status is of the of the rosa properties, but he pointed the um keep he pointed to the to the properties that that would be used for mitigation as a result of this project, which would be uh this area um delineated there by the red dot.

Um essentially you have um a square.

If you picture airport south to the southwest corner, the parcels immediately south um become the the mitigation for both habitat and agricultural is that a done deal.

Well, we've purchased the property and we own the fee interest, and you know, if this project is approved, we will uh donate that property to the conservancy.

Is I don't mean to be too abrupt or whatever.

I'm looking for the guarantees that this is gonna happen.

Is there a contract?

Is there an MOU or some agreement?

It's an or a mitigation measure in the EIR.

Yes, it's enforceable.

We will not be able to grade unless we satisfy the commitments we have made in this project.

And that includes the non participating property to the east?

So the non-participants don't have any entitlements other than being annexed into the city.

They will have to uh process their approvals through the city when they have a proposal for the project.

Okay, so that's another issue.

But within the the rows of properties, that is part of this whole package.

A firm.

Correct, correct.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Yes.

In the CEQA, there was a mitigation that a sound wall be added.

Is that still in the project?

Yeah, if it's on a non-participating owner's property.

Yeah, I believe the sound wall is on the non-participating owners' property.

If I may ask Rod Stitson from Rainy Environmental, who actually prepared the EIR.

To comment on this point, not to put you on the spot, Mr.

Stenson.

And again, the only reason I'm asking is because you didn't mention it, and you mentioned the other or at least a couple other mitigations.

So I was curious if that was still in the project.

Yeah.

So we project we processed programmatic approvals for the non-participants, and by virtue of that, there are mitigation measures that would apply in the future to uses on those properties.

So that's what you saw.

Good evening, Chair.

Yeah, Rod Stinson, Randy Planning and Management.

We prepared the EIR.

The um requirements, the mitigation requirements that you're referring to from the noise study.

Those are all still part of requirements for the project.

So any future development that has an area where there is a requirement for that sound wall, it'll be required to be analyzed or included in the improvement plans.

So that's still the requirement.

That's why that's right.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, if we could invite the uh representative from the city, uh, if they wish to address the commission.

Good evening, LAFCO commissioners.

My name is Cheryl Hodge.

I am the City of Sacramento's new growth manager with the community development department.

I am also the manager for the city's compliance and implementation of the city's Natoma Space and Habitat Conservation Plan.

This evening, you'll be considering the annexation of the Airport South Industrial Project, which we refer to as the ASI project.

The proposed annexation has been through a comprehensive process consisting of existing uh extensive environmental studies, coordination with numerous public agencies, as well as significant public review and input.

This has been a collaborative, objective, and transparent process.

After careful consideration, the city council on December 2nd, 2025, approve the ASI project.

The city's approval comes with over 120 project conditions of approval, numerous mitigation measures, modifications to the future development, including, for example, building height limitations, increased setback buffers, limitations on uses, transportation circulation improvements, all of which are responsive and reflective of public input, LAFCO's held hearings and action on the SOIA, as well as the city's planning and design commission and city council.

Tonight your commission will consider the annexation aspect itself.

The proposed annexation will provide for a logical boundary, orderly development in line with the 2002 city-county MOU for Natomas Basin, and efficient provision of local government municipal services.

The annexation and future development within the city of Sacramento would support the success of the Notomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, which we refer to as the HCP.

By providing payment of nearly 14 million dollars in HCP fees, in addition to habitat and agricultural lands to be protected in perpetuity where there are currently no such guarantees.

A property tax exchange agreement, a TEA, between the county and city is a requirement of annexation among the many hurdles, and the TAA is a difficult one.

The county and city TA agreement is completed.

Annexed areas are required to be pre-zoned by the receiving city.

The Sacramento City Council has pre-zoned the land proposed for annexation based on its planned and probable use.

In closing, we appreciate your consideration of the proposed annexation.

City staff members are in attendance this evening and available for any questions you may have for us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hodge.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Chair, since this is a public hearing, I believe we have public comments.

Unless the commission has questions before we get to public comments.

All right.

I see we have a number of people listed here.

Correct.

And uh, would you like me to call them in threes?

Uh yes, that would be good.

Thanks.

Okay.

Well, I'll call the first three names up.

Please forgive me if I mispronounce your name.

Would you please make your way to the podium?

You have two minutes to make your public comment.

First, we have John Hershey, Heather Fargo, and Dude Lamaire.

Good evening, Commissioners and Chair Little.

My name is John Hershey, and I'm here on behalf of UA Local 447 Plumbers and Pipe Fetters based here in Sacramento.

I would like to also ask that our 447 members stand up, some of whom uh live in Notomas and would be potentially uh be uh beneficiaries of this project to proceed.

So while tax and economic benefits for local government and community are well documented, environmental concerns are adequately adequately addressed and have been previously recognized as satisfactory per relevant local authorities.

Additionally, as our region grows and is projected to do so, uh there will be an increasing need for skilled and trained workers.

Projects like these provide the support needed for local apprenticeship programs by providing those apprentices with critical on-the-job training required to graduate as skilled and trained journey workers who will be needed for future major projects in the region.

Um, furthermore, the wages paid to our members pay local rents, mortgages, and taxes, and contribute to local economic activity with an appreciable appreciable amount of purchasing power.

Some of our members here tonight are in Thomas residents, as I had said, and uh, I'm sure they would also be very thankful.

And so, on behalf of all of our members at UA Local 447, uh, we ask that you uh vote in favor of this, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Chair Little and Commissioners uh and Jose and his staff.

Um, my name is Heather Fargo.

I am currently the environmental president or the president of the environmental council of Sacramento.

Uh, I'm a former mayor of the city of Sacramento and was mayor when the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan was approved to help mitigate for the growth of North Notomas.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in opposition of the Airport South Industrial Project.

We strongly uh recommend that you postpone your decision until after the city has received the incidental take permits that they are required to get per the Notomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, and that they do not yet have.

If you cannot postpone the meeting, we obviously hope that you will vote no.

The staff report upon which you are asked to make this decision, we believe is incomplete and misleading.

Uh LAFCO staff is asking you to ignore state law and your own policies, to ignore the significant negative impacts to children and other residents of Notomas, to ignore all the local plans that have been approved in the region, including the city and county General Plan, the air Quality Plan, the SACOG Blueprint, and the Notomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

There have been a lot of myths about this project that have been circulated, and we have others that will address some of those myths that your approval seems to be based on, which include that there are no other places for this project to go, that rezoning will bring jobs, that this project will fix the city's budget gap, that this project will be built in the county if the city doesn't approve it, that the project won't hurt the Natoma Space and Habitat Conservation Plan, that it is inevitable that this farmland be developed, and that air pollution created by this project is no big deal.

Again, we ask you to postpone your decision until after the city has applied for and received, if they are able to, the incidental take permits that are required by law and by the contract they signed.

Actually, that I signed.

Remember that your one of your major roles as LAFCO is to preserve agricultural land and open space.

Obviously, this project doesn't do that.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Well done.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I'm Jude Lamar.

I'm with the environmental community.

And I want to just address tonight a couple of myths that this project has come forward with.

Does rezoning create jobs?

Of course not.

Jobs will come to our region because of major economic forces that will bring the jobs to the region that are far outside local control or influence.

Jobs will follow those forces, whether this land is rezoned or not rezoned.

There's plenty of land zoned for industrial and warehouse use within the urban services boundary.

This is a major reason why we oppose this annexation.

The applicants claim that this site is superior, but before dirt can turn, this site has to have three feet of fill over hundreds of acres to bring it up above the floodplain.

It has 96 acres of detention basins that have to be excavated to 10 feet.

This is major infrastructure change.

And the air, the air pathway out of SMF.

So the proponents talk about the assets of the airport location.

All those assets are from public money.

So we are looking at what public benefits does this project actually offer and what is guaranteed.

And we have found this uh to be far below what is uh what your staff believes it to be, what you believe it to be.

And we prepared a letter and submitted it yesterday to cover the policies which we think this annexation does uh abrogate and ask you to vote no on the annexation tonight.

Thank you.

Next we'll have Susan Hare, Jim Pachel, and Lou's Lim.

Please come to the podium.

If you have two minutes for your public comment, start your time over.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners and Director.

I am Susan Hari with Ecos, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

The map that I have just I'm showing here and have distributed to you, and hopefully you have, shows that there are over 4,000 acres of land in Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento that are currently zoned industrial and identified as vacant.

So they meet those two criteria.

They're zoned industrial and they're identified as vacant on the county parcel map.

You can see clusters of parcels, such as those in the northeast counter count corner of the city near McClellan Airfield that are equivalent in size to the land for Airport South.

And so if you look on page three, that becomes clearer.

That if you could blow that up more, that would be great, ma'am.

That red cluster is exceeds the size of the parcel now for Airport South.

Our attorney said in his April 2025 letter on the FEIR for this project that the environmental document failed to include consideration of alternative locations, that is off-site alternatives that were not owned by the applicant.

This violate CEQA.

So a question.

And in light of your goals to preserve agriculture and open space.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jim Pachell, please come to the podium.

If not, if Lou's limb is available, please come to the podium.

Followed by Lloyd Reber and Sean Rees.

Good evening, uh Chair Chairman and Commissioners.

On behalf of Francis Swenson Hawk.

The in 2003, the city, Sutter County, uh, Metro Air Park landowners and the wildlife agencies entered into an agreement that allowed limited development in the Thomas Basin within designated permit areas, totaling 17,500 acres, with the rest of the land for agriculture and habitat mitigation.

Cities permit area was 8,050 acres within defined boundaries of the city's Notomas Community Plan.

The proposed airport south project is 474 acres.

About a quarter of that amount is within the existing Natomas uh HCP permit area, and consequently, it is covered by the HCP's mitigation measures.

About 75% of this is outside of the city HCP permit area for development to proceed uh the HC outside the HCP.

There must be an amendment new or to which sets forth new mitigation measures uh in an amended incidental take permit issued by the wildlife agencies.

The HCP says that prior to approval of any related rezoning, pre-zoning, uh there must be uh studies and issuance of incidental take permits by the wildlife agencies to the city for that additional development, which probably would require a good deal more mitigation than what's been offered now.

Uh the and this must be done before the city pre-zones.

Unfortunately, the city reversed the process, they pre-zoned without first obtaining issuance of the excuse me, can you make up the take permits?

Uh solution to the city's noncompliance would be as described by Mayor Fargo, would be for LAFCO.

Excuse me, Mr.

Michelle, will you please wrap up your comments?

Until the ITPs are issued and then it can go back to LAFCO.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Lou Slim and I'm the policy staff for ECOS.

Uh, I too will use my time today to discuss one of the myths that has gotten the airport south Industrial project to this point of the approval process, and that is the myth that this project would be approved and built through this uh in the county, if not through the city.

So, why does this myth matter to you as LAFCO and to other deciding bodies involved?

It matters because it is part of LAFCO's mission to preserve open space and agricultural resources and to discourage sprawl.

Now, if this project were definitely no other choice written in stone to be approved and built, then I definitely understand the appeal of this project going through the city, as it has the contract with the NBHCP compared to the county which has no contractual obligations to support the Natoma Space and Conservancy.

However, the scenario falls apart when considering whether or not this project would feasibly operate in the county.

We are seeing other development proposals in Sacramento County that are being stalled through the approval process because they don't have a viable water service plan.

This project is no different, and the assertion that the county would be able to find water for this project where it has not for others is unsubstantiated.

Please don't allow yourself to be strong armed into betraying LAFCO's mission by nothing more than myths.

Each one of you on the commission today has a role in deciding whether this open and agricultural space is paved over and developed in favor of your mission and the Natomas Basin Conservancy.

We ask that you wait until the city has received the incidental take permits from wildlife agencies as required by the NBHCP, or deny the annexation and sprawl of city development for this project.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, members of the public.

My name is Lloyd Reber, uh resident of Sacramento County, and I'm here with the Carpenters Local 46 and the North Coast Carpenters Regional Council.

I'm here to ask you to support this project for the workers and the community.

I would like to share a little about what the union has provided for me and my family over the years.

As an apprentice, I was able to earn a fair wage while learning my trade.

This allowed me to be debt-free for my education.

Some call it the other four-year degree.

Though I graduated from the apprenticeship many years ago, uh the training and education haven't stopped there.

We offer member advancement classes that both benefit members of the job as well as in their communities.

Classes such as leadership training, public speaking, and more.

We offer multiple safety training courses as well.

These lead to safe job sites and safe individuals.

I've not only used the safety on the job, but in my home.

Having had a daughter with mental health issues, we have had to use them multiple times.

We've had many different counseling efforts and multiple hospital stays and ambulance rides, all with the minimum out-of-pocket copay.

Sorry.

When she spent the last week of her life in the ICU, I didn't have to pay a dime.

All thanks to the collective bargaining of my union.

This project has made commitment to the community to provide such things as apprenticeship, area standard wages, and medical.

So again, my request of you today is to vote to approve this project for the community and for the workers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the commission.

My name is Sean Reese.

I'm a field representative for the North Coast States Carpenters, as well as vice chair of our veterans committee called Valor.

I'm here tonight to speak in strong support of the Airport South project and in particular the opportunity it creates, putting our veterans to work.

When men and women step up, step forward to serve our country, they commit themselves to something bigger than their own interests.

They learn discipline, leadership, teamwork, and how to perform under pressure.

These are exactly the qualities we need in a major infrastructure effort like this one.

Supporting this project isn't just about concrete and steel.

It's about honoring service with opportunity.

Across the country, cities that invest in infrastructure while prioritizing veterans have seen real results.

Programs supported by organizational labor consistently emphasize the importance of connecting veterans to skilled trades and long-term careers.

The Airport South project gives us a chance to do that right here at home.

This project will put veterans to work in well-paying, skilled positions, jobs in construction.

These are not temporary dead end roles.

These are meaningful careers that translate military experience into civilian success.

Equally important, this investment keeps good jobs in our community for several years.

Instead of watching talent leave our city in search of opportunity, we can build that opportunity here.

Local hiring means local spending.

It means family supported, small businesses strengthened, and a tax base that grows responsibly over time.

Supporting the Airport South project is a practical decision and a moral one.

It strengthens our infrastructure, grows our economy, and honors the service of those who have already given so much.

Let's move forward with a project that builds more than facilities.

It builds futures for our veterans and prosperity for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Castle.

My name is Will McKee.

I represent IBW Local 340.

Could I have all the trades stand up actually?

Everyone here for the trades?

Thank you so much.

I've been a member of IBW for 11 years, and I currently teach at our training center.

Uh today I ask you to support the Airport South Industrial Project.

During my time as a union member, I've had the opportunity to work on projects from hospitals to data centers to government office buildings to large industrial jobs in our region.

My ability to have a career has made it so my family has never had to worry about whether we have health insurance, whether I can retire when I get to retirement age.

I have a job where I can reap the benefits of organized labor, such as fair and equitable working conditions and guaranteed wages.

During my time as a training center instructor, I can tell you that these major projects are not only economic drivers for the future, sustainability for our city.

They are learning environments where our apprentices get the opportunity to learn on state of the art projects that will help define their careers as electricians.

They offer the kind of scale and complexity that prepare our apprentices for a lifetime in this trade.

I've seen the difference it makes when a student learns something in the classroom and then is immediately able to use that knowledge in the field as a skilled tradesperson.

When there's not enough local work, our apprentices sometimes must travel incredibly long distances just to get their hours.

This project keeps their talent and that income right here in Sacramento.

Please support the Airport South Industrial Project so we can move the process forward and continue to invest in Sacramento.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

All right, good evening.

Uh, I'm Tyler Kircher.

I'm with the IBEW also, Local 340.

Uh, today we're asking to support the Airport South Industrial Project.

This project, if approved, represents a critical investment in our region's future.

It proposes 400 acres of modern industrial logistics space, a development that is not merely about construction, but about strategically positioning our community for the evolving economic landscape.

The IBW for IBW Local 340, the benefits are tangible and immediate.

This project guarantees significant work for our skilled electricians, translating to approximately 120 high-quality family-sustaining jobs over the next four years.

These are not just numbers, they are local, these are not just numbers.

They are local residents, taxpayers, and community members who will directly contribute their wages back into our local economy.

This project is precisely the type of forward-thinking industrial space that we need as cons as consumer habits shift increasingly towards delivery-based systems.

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

The location is just outside the urban core, the airport, and a major interstate with the planned charging station for the hauling industry.

This project aligns with the logical growth in this uh northwest corner of Sacramento and supports the growth that has been happening here for the past five to ten years.

This project will enable our region to adapt and thrive.

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

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

Thank you for your time today.

All right.

Good evening, Chair Little and respected uh LAFCO Commission.

My name is Doyle Radford.

I am the business manager of Labor's Local 185.

We've been proudly building the Sacramento and surrounding communities since 1929.

That's an awful long time.

Several of our local members are here tonight.

Um I thank them for being away from their families.

They see the importance of projects like this.

This is how we provide for our families, right?

We get up early in the morning uh before most, and um we get ready, we go off there, and we build good responsible developments like this one.

And we we've haven't changed our stance on it.

We were here before you last year.

Uh this is a good developer.

Um, they build with us.

We probably built those other three communities, and they not only build with our local workforce, they do with the other trades, and they use good local contractors as well.

And I also grew up in the region.

Uh, like uh my friend Mr.

Griffin from uh North Point.

I was in Roseville, small town, and I'll tell you what we've done in this region.

We've grown responsibly.

If you look outside some of these other communities where they're not growing positively, um, it's a dying community.

We see this development as a responsible development, good growth, and we're here to stand in support of it.

We thank you for your time and consideration.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Matthew Beeston.

I'm a representative of the North Coast State's regional council of carpenters.

Uh, I appreciate your time today to give comment on the airport south industrial reorganization.

This proposal is about aligning governance, infrastructure, and long-term planning to support efficient, responsible growth in Sacramento County.

The detachment from Natoma's Fire Protection District, Sacramento County Water Agency Zone 13, and County Service Area One and Annexation into the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Area Sewer District creates a unified service structure for the airport south industrial area.

By bringing the area into the city, land use authority and municipal services are coordinated under one agency that reduces fragmentation, improves accountability, and ensures infrastructure planning and development approvals move forward together.

Annexation also supports infrastructure readiness.

The city and the Sacramento Area Sewer District can provide the urban level utilities and sewer capacity needed to attract employers, generate jobs, and strengthen local tax base.

Importantly, the environmental review ensures this growth occurs responsibly with full evaluation of potential impacts and consistency with state law and regional goals.

This reorganization advances LAFCO's core mission, orderly develop orderly development, efficient service delivery, and avoidance of unnecessary duplication.

For these reasons, approval of the environmental review and the airport south industrial reorganization is a practical and forward-looking step for the community.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Commissioner Sanchair.

Uh, my name is Dunel Barragan.

I'm a longtime resident of Notomas.

Um I've seen the Thomas grow a lot.

Projects like this has given me the opportunity to raise a family in the Thomas, not only that, but create fair wages, um, be able to afford to have my kids in sports and do a lot more things that I wouldn't been able to do if it wasn't for this union.

So I really consider you guys uh for this project.

Um, this project is looks way better than the playing field.

I mean, I live five minutes away, and I'm tired of seeing that playing field versus a nice developed area.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mike Hayes.

Is he coming followed by Ralph Proper and James through Watcher?

Yes, thank you.

Uh Michael Hayes.

I uh I am a proud uh former union member, but I have to say that I am actually opposed to this project, and I will tell you why.

Uh I have seen in my lifetime uh the county grow more than double in size and population.

And despite that growth and population growth and uh wealth generation, the end result is that the cost of living has tracked right alongside uh all the growth we've had.

So the growth really has uh essentially enabled and uh caused the cost of living to accelerate.

Uh I've seen multiple iterations of the our road system uh have to expand to accommodate all the growth.

And of course, the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for all this.

So I'm opposed to all this urbanization, and just seeing all the the costs uh grow over these decades.

Uh, it's just going to continue to get worse.

Uh, urbanization essentially leads to inflation and more cost to the taxpayer.

So that's why rural counties tend to have a very low uh cost of living in a uh low tax base, and urbanized uh counties tend to be uh very very expensive.

Um I would encourage my uh uh union uh members uh to think forward about this because there is literally 20,000 homes that are being projected to be built in this area, uh, tacked onto this whole project.

And what do you uh all these people?

That's what 40, 50,000 more people.

You're gonna be competing with all these other people for uh whatever jobs that may or may not be out there.

You can have you could have a brand new building, and uh company might go bankrupt.

So I'm very much opposed to all this growth because it just leads to more cost for everyone.

Thank you, Mr.

Hayes.

Thank you so much.

Ralph Proper.

Hello, Commissioners.

Yeah, I'm Ralph Proper and I serve on the board of uh Breed California Sacramento region.

I was an air pollution research specialist at the Air Resources Board and led the effort to identify diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant.

Uh diesel exhaust is the number one cause of cancer from airborne emissions in California.

It's also a major source of ultra fine particles, which cause major impacts on children, like increased uh infections, respiratory, reduced lung function persisting into adulthood, more asthma, and and older folks like me.

They also have other uh problems.

Uh, how many people live nearby?

Premature births and low birth weight babies for pregnant women, high blood pressure, heart disease, dementia, cancer.

And just last month it was conclusively shown that it uh these fine particles hurt the brain and cause Alzheimer's disease.

So uh the proponents suggest a space between parcel eight and the elementary school, but we had a national conference in uh Sacramento that showed that evergreen trees are needed to capture these particles.

But the proponents uh said told the city council they can't provide water needed for those trees to grow in that buffer land.

The EIR calculates a risk of excess cancer cases caused by the project that's just under the 10 in a million threshold needed for mitigation, but that it seems no development in Parcel 8, which is closest to the school.

The IR also mentions that parcelate could be developed with a warehouses and over 100 trucks per day.

That would make the health risk skyrocket.

So therefore I suggest you either exclude Parcel 8 from the annexation or call for a subsequent EIR that considers the diesel emissions would result uh from uh the development near Parcel 8.

Please protect the health of our Nathomas neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Little and uh Commissioners.

My name is James Thurwactor, and I'm with the California State Council of Laborers.

I'll be very brief.

I think my brothers from Local 185 and from the other crafts in the room did a very good job at articulating the critical need for this project that was discussing today.

Briefly, I just want to take a moment for us to commend the developer.

You know, this has been a long, exhausting and arduous process, but time and again they have demonstrated their commitment to this very community.

So thank you.

This is this is gonna be a big win for not just a local tax base, but a win for local, I mean, excuse me, for union members and working families, and a win from the local community and the greater Sacramento region.

So thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Any more public comments?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes our public speakers for item eight.

Do we have any comments from the commissioners?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see the request.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Desmond.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I want to first start out thanking everybody who turned out today.

Uh appreciate the advocates from the environmental community.

And I think to myself, I'm also a life lifer sacrament and uh remember when there was virtually nothing out in the Thomas.

And I think of the the advocacy of your community and and the mitigation, the the results that you have in terms of of the mitigation efforts that we see in so many projects.

And uh I thank you for your advocacy.

This is not a decision I certainly I take lightly.

Um also want to thank everybody here from uh from the trades, uh everything you do for our communities.

I'm just honored to have you in the community and appreciate the work you do.

Also, want to thank the applicant and the developer uh for a very intentional, thoughtful, uh very robust engagement, and and I appreciate that too.

Um I I am, if there are no further comments from from commissioners, I am prepared to uh move approval of staff recommendation.

I I think that the four factors have been addressed appropriately by the reorganization and the environmental document.

Um so I move approval with of staff recommendation with the resolution as uh as drafted.

Do we have a second?

Second of it by Mr.

Pluckerbaum.

Okay, please vote.

Your motion passes unanimously six to zero.

Thank you all.

I uh I too want to thank everyone for their comments, both for and opposed.

Um, it's it's good to have this kind of discussion in our community.

Okay, it's our next item.

Mr.

Chair, our next item is item nine.

Public hearing hearing to consider and approve the final budget for fiscal year 2026-2027.

Do we have any public comment?

We have no more public comment for item eight, and we are waiting for public comment for item nine.

We don't have anyone sign up so far for it.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

We might as well stick it out.

I mean, it's only like it's thanks for sending that link though.

Turn off the DCP to it.

I think I have to redo.

Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please?

Yes.

Commissioners Kaplan.

Wickard?

Yes, ma'am.

Desmond.

Here.

Pratton.

Here.

Jones.

Here.

And Chair Little.

Here.

You have a quorum with the members present.

Fantastic.

All right.

We're on item number nine.

Again, item number nine is public hearing to consider and approve the final budget for fiscal year 2026-27.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, I'll do a brief overview of the budget.

As indicated in the February meeting, your you approve a budget on the two-step process.

We bring a draft for you to approve as a proposed.

And then we bring back the proposed for you to approve as a final.

And the budget that's before you is substantially similar to what you received in the February meeting, with the exception that some of the items are adjusted at the request of uh city of county of Sacramento staff.

They had requested for us to see what we can do about trimming the budget, given that the other county departments are facing at least a two percent budget cut.

And LAFCO is not a county department.

However, you know, we take the comments from our funding agency seriously.

Uh I wish I could cut some more, but unfortunately the um the reality is that the um we are expecting some unexpected expenses uh in the next fiscal year.

Um no offense to council, but uh we will be needing council services a lot.

Um some of them can be reimbursed, uh some of them cannot.

Uh we would have to absorb the budget, the the cost.

So there is a uh reduction in the agency contributions instead of seven percent as presented in February, it's gonna be six percent.

Um I cut what I could, but um the the I'm trying to be extremely conservative.

There's really no fat in this budget at all.

Um I run my agency's lien and um every cent is accounted for uh and uh unfortunately uh the budget is still uh 1.2 million.

That's that's instead of 1.218, now it's 1.209.

Um but uh essentially the costs uh were driven substantially by um not just pension but also um salaries and of course health benefits, which just skyrocketed uh over the last year, as you know.

Um operating costs.

We're expecting to have some uh one-time uh expenses uh relating to a uh potential move uh of the LAFCO offices and again the aforementioned uh legal expenses.

Um so with that uh I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Um about the budget, seeing none, no.

I will open and close the public hearing for the budget.

Thank you.

Got a second.

Do we have we have a second?

Oh, second.

Okay, thank you.

So it was moved by Kaplan, Commissioner Kaplan, and second by Commissioner Desmond.

Correct.

Okay, please vote.

Your motion passes unanimously with six to zero.

Okay, next item, please.

Mr.

Chair, your next item is update on the Cal LAFCO 2026 Special corporate Business meeting held on February 23rd, 2026, presented by executive Officer Jose Henriquez.

Uh Mr.

Chair, this is just an update to the discussion that you had at the February 4th meeting relating to the Calavco special business meeting.

Um if you recall, there were a uh few bylaw changes to the um uh to the Calafco uh bylaws that needed to be approved by the membership.

A meeting was held last uh last Mark last Monday, and um the recommended changes uh were approved by the membership forty to uh 40 uh 40 lafcos to two no's um uh for the most part the controversial issues seem to be the uh the the opening up of the um uh be making uh executive officers eligible for um to serve on the board um that generated a lot of discussions but ultimately again the the amendments were passed 40 to 2 and um uh and we'll proceed forward the uh all current members of the board of directors will be up for election in October.

Um so commissioner Jones, um you're you're even though you just got re-elected, you will be running for um for that seat again if you so choose um and uh um that's it.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have um about uh uh about um the meeting.

Seeing none, we'll go on to the next item.

We do not have any public comment for this item as well.

Uh item number eleven is report on the selection of public member to LAFCO.

Uh Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, uh, specifically, Mr.

Chair.

Your term is up at the end of this uh calendar year.

Um so we will begin the process of um uh uh deciding what to do.

The last time um you were appointed uh back to a new four-year term back in 2022.

Um it's up to the commission to determine uh how it wants to proceed.

Uh this is not an item for you to discuss or or uh take a position on uh at all at this one.

We I wanted to move that discussion to to April um given the the the airport south industrial project being considered on this agenda, and I wanted to keep it light.

So um this will be uh for further discussion next uh next um commission meeting, and uh we will be bringing um all the relevant uh policies that it relates to the selection of the public member.

Um and this also goes uh this is the same goes for alternate public member uh Tim Murphy.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

No public comment, correct?

We have no public comment.

Item number 12 is executive officer commission counsel, the astral street and correspondence.

Jose Henriquez.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Um I'll bring up uh just the astro sheet uh and and speak with the to the correspondence um that we receive.

But the astro sheet um it's been updated.

Uh you will note that there's been several projects that we are uh processing SACSUR has submitted their application to annex the communities of Hood and Franklin.

Um this was as part of part of your approval for extending services by contract to those areas.

They had to come back with an actual uh annexation proposal, so they so they've launched it.

Uh they hope to come before the commission in May.

I I've told them that that date has now moved because you because they uh uh I anticipated them to initiate the project in January.

Um, but since they've now started it essentially in March, those dates will be moved, but it will be uh coming to you um later this year.

Um the um MSRs for uh SAC Metro are proceeding uh uh on time.

Same thing with the um Almachimney Hartnell water district.

Um the Florent County uh uh county water district will be uh considered um in uh the adoption of that MSR will be considered at the at the May meeting.

And then we also uh will have the Florent Resource Conservation District uh detachment, which actually is going to end up being a reorganization.

The district has now subsequently uh requested to be turned into a county water district, which is more in alignment with the services that they actually provide.

Um several MSRs have also been added to um uh to your astra sheet, and um uh hopefully those will be coming in on a steady basis um uh from here on out.

Um I want to say that there was another project.

Oh, uh yeah, we did receive another project um a potential project that's coming in uh as well, one relating to the city of Folsom.

And it's it's actually a correction of a boundary issue.

Apparently, there's a little notch that is not part of the Saxur service area.

It's in their sphere, but not in the SAC sewer.

I have no idea whether that's a map glitch or there's actually an issue that needs to be fixed.

So we're in the process of researching that.

Um actually the other project that I was thinking of was the Saxeur annexation of Hutton Franklin.

But we're pretty busy at the staff level.

Second, for correspondence, we have the Department of Finance Annual Investment Policy Memo.

That's the that's our typical, that's our annual uh notification about the performance of their funds, which is that's where LAFCO's funds are deposited at the moment.

And um, in terms of also what's on the horizon, the personal ad hoc committee uh will be meeting on March 19th to discuss um uh various issues that may come back to the commission um later on at a subsequent agenda.

So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

You're very busy.

It is a lot.

You're very busy.

No public comment.

We have no public comment.

Commission, okay, go ahead.

I forgot to be ready for item 13.

I am, yes.

Commission uh chair, commissioners, anyone have comments?

Uh I have only one comment myself, and that's the to welcome once again um Bob Wickert to uh the commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

No, sir.

Okay, all right.

We move into a closed session in hearing room one up over there.

Yes, all right.