Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025

E. All sections of Title 50 Code ofFederal Regulations, parts 13, 17.22, and 17.32, are conditions ofthis permit (Attachments 1 2, and 3).

F. The authorization granted by this permit is subject to compliance with and implementation of, the Habitat Conservation Planfor the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California (HCP) and the fully executed Implementing Agreement (IA); which are hereby incorporated into the permit.

G. The permittee and designated agents are authorized under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to incidentally take (injure, kill, harass, harm) the threatened giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), and the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). Take will occur within the 2,015-acre Metro Air Park project area as a result of urban development ofthe Metro Air Park site (including associated infrastructure improvements); rice farming; managing, enhancing, and monitoring ofreserves; and other scientific surveys and studies required under the HCP. Take is authorized to the extent that take ofthese species would otherwise be prohibited under section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations, or pursuant to a rule promulgated under section 4(d) ofthe Act. Take must be incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the urban development (including associated infrastructure improvements); rice farming; managing, enhancing, and monitoring ofreserves; and other scientific surveys and studies required under the HCP ofthe 2,015-acre Metro Air Park site within the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California, and with implementation of the HCP and IA, as conditioned herein.

H. The permitee and designated agents are also authorized under the Act should any ofthe following 12 currently unlisted species become listed in the future during the 50-year life of the Permit. These 12 species include two species formerly listed as threatened and endangered: the Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), de-listed on March 20, 2001, and August 25, 1999 respectively. The Permit also covers eight currently unlisted animal species, including the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), bank swallow (riparia), greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tubida), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Authorization to take two currently unlisted plants, to the extent that it can be granted, is extended to the Delta tule pea (Lathyrusjepsonii ssp. jepsonii) and Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii).

I. Prior to commencing any urban development on the covered lands, the permittee is required to transfer, to the Natomas Basin Conservancy (NBC), fees sufficient to purchase the 200- acre Swainson’s hawk nest tree reserve. Proof shall be provided to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, that the fees have been provided to the NBC.

J. The permit is not valid until the IA is fully executed by all parties.

K. Permittee will provide the NBC with monthly accounts oftire numbers of acres under development and the amount ofmitigation fees paid to the County. Permittee will also provide the NBC, California Department of Fish and Game, and Service with an annual accounting ofthe number of acres under urban development, mitigation fees paid, and the number ofrice farming acres under Certificates ofInclusion. NBC will include the MAP information in the annual report.

L. Permittee, or NBC on behalfofthe permittee, shall submit an Annual Report which details urban development activities: habitat acquisition, management, and monitoring activities; and financial status for the preceding year. The report will include, but is not limited to: (1) the number of acres under urban development or being farmed as rice; (2) the acreage, location, and type oflands acquired or proposed for acquisition; (3) the status of acquisition ofthe 400 acre minimum habitat blocks; (4) number of acres acquired in Sacramento County; (5) mitigation fees paid; and (6) other miscellaneous funding status accounts. The first annual report will also include the status of the 200-acre Swainson’s Hawk Reserve since MAP POA has to acquire up front or transfer money to the NBC to acquire the Swainson’s Hawk Reserve. The annual report is due 60 calendar days from the last day of each calendar year, or portion of a calendar year, during which the permit is in effect.

M. Upon finding dead, injured, or sick endangered or threatened wildlife species, the permittee or their designated agents must notify the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement (2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2928, Sacramento, California 95825; phone: (916) 414-6660) or the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (2800 Cottage Way. Room W-2605, Sacramento California 95825: phone (916) 414-6000) within 1 working day. Written notification to both offices must be made within 3 calendar days and must include the date, time, and location of the finding of a specimen and any other pertinent information.

N. A copy ofthis permit must be in the possession ofthe permittee and designated agents while conducting taking activities. Please refer to the permit number in all correspondence concerning permit activities. Any questions you may have about this permit should be directed to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the address and phone number above.

Attachments
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
North Central Region
1701 Nimbus Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
AMENDMENT NO. 1
(A Major Amendment)
California Endangered Species Act
Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2013-059-02-A1
Greenbriar Project Owner, LP
Greenbriar Development Project in Sacramento County

INTRODUCTION
On December 21, 2017, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Issued Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2013-059-02 (ITP) to Greenbriar Project Owner, LP (Permittee) authorizing take of giant garter snake {Thamnophis g/gas)(collectively, the Covered Species) associated with and incidental to the Greenbriar Development Project in Sacramento County, California (Project). The Project as described in the ITP originally issued by CDFW includes development If of 590 acres to create a residential subdivision, commercial property, and associated Infrastructure. The Project also Includes the creation/conversion of reserves. In Issuing the ITP, CDFW found, among other things, that Permittee's compliance with the Conditions of Approval of the ITP would fully mitigate Impacts to the Covered Species and would not Jeopardize the continued existence of the Covered Species.

The Project Is divided Into two phases, as described in the ITP on pages 2 through 6 with groundbreaking scheduled for July 2019. To mitigate for impacts to Covered Species, Permittee was required to provide full mitigation through Habitat Management (HM) Lands or provide security for such mitigation prior to the start of Covered Activities or within 30 days of the effective date of the ITP, or whichever occurred first. Despite continued work to fully mitigate, Permittee did not provide either HM Lands or security within 30 days; thus, the Permittee, is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval set forth In the ITP.

Following communication with CDFW throughout 2019, and an official request received on May 20, 2019, Permittee requested that the ITP be amended to revise the timing of mitigation and security requirements. For both phases, Permittee proposes to provide full mitigation or security 30 days prior to beginning Covered Activities within that phase and finalize mitigation funding and management within 24 months of beginning Covered Activities within a phase. Pennlttee proposes that vwth this amendment and continued coordination with CDFW to finalize HM Lands, compliance with CESA can be demonstrated.

This Major Amendment No. 1 (Amendment) makes the following changes to the existing ITP:

1. This Amendment modifies the Security requirement from 30 days from the date of the ITP to 30 days prior to the start of Covered Activities.

Rev. 2013.1.1

2. This Amendment modifies the date when mitigation components such as conservation easements must be recorded to 24 months from the date Covered Activities commence.

AMENDMENT
The ITP is amended as follows (amended language in bold italics-, deleted language in strikothrough):

1. The second paragraph in Section 9 of the ITP, page 17 (Habitat Management Land Acquisition and Restoration) shall be amended to read:

To meet this requirement and in accordance with the Greenbriar Conservation Strategy, the Permittee shall provide for both the permanent protection and management of 529.75 acres of Habitat Management (HM) lands pursuant to Condition of Approval 9.3 below and the calculation and deposit of the management funds pursuant to Condition of Approval 9.4 below. A minimum of 142 acres of the Spangler HM lands shall be established as managed marsh. Pennanent protection and funding for perpetual management of compensatory habitat shall be achieved in two phases. Phase 1 consists of establishment of the Moody (74 acres), Spangler (235.4) and Lone Tree Canal (28.3 acres) HMlands; and Phase 2 consists of establishment of the North Nestor (219.1 acres) HM lands. Phase 1 provides compensatory mitigation for 320 acres of permanent impacts, with up to 80 acres of temporary impacts, and Phase 2 provides compensatory mitigation for 190 acres.

Pemianent protection and funding for perpetual management of Phase I compensatory habitat, including restoration ofthe 28.3 acres oftemporarily impacted Covered Species habitat pursuant to Condition of Approval 9.6 below, must be complete before starting Covered Activities, or within 24 months of the effective dato of this ITP start ofCovered Activities ifSecurity is provided pursuant to Condition of Approval 10 below for all uncompleted obligations. Pennanent protection and management of Phase 2 compensatory habitat must be completed prior to impacting the remaining 190 acres associated with Phase 2 or within 24 months of start of Phase 1 impacts 2 Covered Activities if Security is provided pursuant to Condition of Approval 10 below for all uncompleted obligations.

2. MMRP Measure 8, Page 2 shall be amended to read the same as above.

3. Condition of Approval 10.3, pages 22-23 shall be amended to read:

The Security for each Phase shall be provided to CDFW 30 days before Covered Activities begin orwithin 30 days afterthe offective date ofthis ITP, v\^ichovor occursfirst, within titat Phase.

4. MMRP Measure 21, Page 8 shall be amended to read the same as above (MMRP attached).

5. Condition of Approval 10.7, page 23 shall be amended to read:

Incidental Take Permit
No. 2081-2013-059-02
Greenbriar Project Owner, lp
Greenbriar Development Project
The Security (or any portion of tiie Security tlien remaining) shall be released to the Pennittee after CDFW has conducted an on-site inspection and received confirmation that all secured requirements have been satisfied for a Phase, as evidenced by:

Written documentation of the acquisition of the HM lands; Copies of all executed and recorded conservation easements; Completion of the initial site enhancement and e^DNA sampling; Written confirmation from the approved Endowment Manager of its receipt of the full Endowment; and
Timely submission of all required reports.

Even if Security is provided, the Pennittee must complete the required acquisition, protection and transfer of all HM lands and record any required conservation easements for a phase no later than 24 months from the offeotivo dato of this ITP start ofCovered Activities within each Phase. CDFW may require the Pennittee to provide additional HM lands and/or additional funding to ensure the impacts of the taking are minimized and fully mitigated, as required by law, ifthe Pennittee does not complete these requirements within the specified timeframe.

6. MMRP Measure 51, Page 15 shall be amended to read the same as above.

7. MMRP Implementation Schedule for Measures 8-21, Pages 2-8 shall be amended to reflect the above changes.

All temns and conditions of the ITP and MMRP that are not expressly amended herein remain in effect and must be implemented and adhered to by the Permittee.

FINDINGS
Issuance ofthis Amendment willnot increase the amount oftake ofthe Covered Species compared to the Project as originally approved, but this Amendment may increase other Project impacts on the Covered Species (i.e., "impacts oftaking" as used in Fish and Game Code Section 2081, subd (b)(2)).

Discussion: This Amendment makes three (3) specific changes to the ITP and four (4) specific changes to the MMRP as originally issued including changes to the funding structure of the ITP. The resulting impacts to the Covered Species, however, including the timing, number of acres of habitat that will be lost, and amount of mitigation for of the Project, will remain the same.

CDFW has detennined that changes to the conditions of approval will not increase the amount of take or the severity of other impacts of the taking on the Covered Species. Given the circumstances of this Project, CDFW believes that the changes to the Project or Incidental Take Permit
No. 2081-2013-059-02
Greenbriar Project Owner, LP
Greenbriar Development Project
Conditions of tlie ITP described in this Amendment, including funding structure, will not increase impacts to the Covered Species.

Issuance ofthis Amendment does not affect CDFW's previous determination ttiat issuance ofthe ITP meets and is otherwise consistent with the permitting criteria set forth in Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivisions (b) and (c).

Discussion: CDFW detemnined in December 2017 that the Reject, as approved, met the standards for issuance of an ITP under CESA. This determination included findings that, among other things, the impacts of the taking would be minimized and fully mitigated and that the Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Covered Species. Those findings are unchanged with respect to this Amendment because the Project and ITP as amended: (1) will have no effect on the amount or severity of Project impacts on the Covered Species, as discussed above, and (2) does not substantively increase probability of take of the Covered Species. Permittee's continued adherence to and implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures set forth in the ITP's Conditions of Approval and MMRP will minimize and fully mitigate impacts of the taking on the Covered Species.

None ofthe factors that wouid trigger the need for subsequent orsupplemental environmental analysis ofthe Project under Public Resources Code section 21166 or California Code ofRegulations, title 14, sections 15162 and\l5163, exist as a result ofthis Amendment.

Discussion: CDFW issued the ITP in December 2017 as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) After, among other things, considering the 2008 Greenbriar Development Project EIR, (SCH No.:
2005062144), as well as the Addendum to the Greenbriar Development Project Final EIR, dated January 6, 2017, that the City of Sacramento, as the lead agency certified for the Project. As explained in the findings below, CDFW finds for purposes of CESA that this Amendment is a minor change to the original ITP. CDFW finds for the same reasons under CEQA that approval of the Amendment will not result in and does not have the potential to create any new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects than previously analyzed and disclosed by the City of Sacramento during its lead agency review of the Project, particularly with respect to the impacts authorized by CDFW pursuant to the ITP as amended. As a result, CDFW finds that no additional subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required by CEQA as part of CDFW's approval of this Amendment.

CDFWfinds that this Amendment is a t^^ajor Amendment, as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 783.6, subdivision (c)(5).

Discussion: This Amendment phases mitigationand security requirements and modifies mitigation implementation. As described above, these changes significantly modify the stnjcture of the mitigation. Therefore, this Amendment will significantly modify the scope or nature of the pennitted Project or activity, or the minimization, mitigation, or monitoring measures in the ITP. CDFW has detemiined that the change to the ITP constitutes a Major Incidental Take Peniiit
No. 2081-2013-059-02
Greenbriar Project Owner, LP
Greenbriar Development Project
Amendment as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 783.6, subdivision (c}(5).

The authorization provided by this Amendment is not valid until Pemiittee signs and dates the acknowledgement below, and returns one of the duplicate originals of tfiis Amendment by registered first class mail to CDFW at:

Department of Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Planning Branch
Attention: CESA Pennitting Program
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1260
Sacramento, California 95814

APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE on
Kevin Thomas
Regional Manager
North Central Region

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned: (1) warrants that he or she is acting as a duly authorized representative of the Permittee, (2) acknowledges receipt of the original ITP and this Amendment, and (3) agrees on behalf of the Permittee to comply with all terms and conditions of the ITP as amended^ fl By: C Date: 0'^/27/'*^
Printed lilame' Chahine -pj^lg. Authorized Representative Incidental Take Permit
No. 2081-2013-059-02
Greenbriar Project Owner, LP
Greenbriar Development Project
V-M
\
I
f
/
1 July 28, 2025
Email to Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, [email protected], President, Sacramento Audubon Society, [email protected], Conservation Chair [email protected]
RE: Recent Swainsons’ Hawk Nesting and Foraging Sightings near the Proposed Airport South Industrial Project
On July 9, 2025 and July 15, 2025, while bird watching, we had several sightings of Swainsons’ Hawks (SWHA), both adults and juveniles, in the area between Bayou Way and Del Paso Rd in Natomas. The sightings are supported by photos.

July 9
At the corner of Bayou Way and Powerline Rd, a tractor was working in the field. A number of SWHA were circling. At one time we counted 11 in the air. We watched SWHA hawks diving and capturing prey in the field at the corner of Bayou and Powerline.

On Natomas Basin Conservancy land, northwest of Del Paso Rd and west of the canal that feeds Fisherman’s Lake, are several trees. We identified an adult SWHA hawk in one of the trees as well as a nest with a juvenile SWHA hawk. We observed the adult drop off prey and saw the juvenile eating it.

Area of map according to Google maps: (38.6568177, -121.5610348) July 15
At the corner of Bayou Way and Powerline Rd, a working tractor was again attracting SWHA hawks. Again we counted numerous SWHA hawks.

We returned to the nest north west of Del Paso Rd. The juvenile SWHA hawk was standing on the edge of the nest. An adult was nearby in another tree. The adult called numerous times, but did not approach the nest.

Note on Other Birds - On March 22, while birding along Bayou Way, between 3800 Bayou Way and Powerline Rd we saw a nesting red tail hawk and a white tailed kite. On these three visits to this area we have seen and heard 60 species of birds.

MacKenzie Hollander made a video of her bird sightings. 2 Photos:

July 9 – Four out of 11 SWHA hawks following a tractor over the field at the corner of Bayou Way and Powerline Rd.
3 July 9 –SWHA hawk nest with juvenile
4 July 15- SWHA hawk juvenile
5 July 15 –SWHA hawk juvenile and adult
6 July 15 – SWHA hawk adult
7 March 22 White Tailed Kite, near intersection of Bayou Way and irrigation canal 8 These notes on our bird sightings are submitted by:

Mackenzie Hollander – Board member of the Sacramento Audubon Society Edith Thacher – neighbor to this property and member of ECOS Laurie ten Hope – Natomas resident and member of ECOS
If you have questions, please contact Edith Thacher at 916-397-2941 9 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
wc-83845

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 Recitals and Purposes.......................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................1

1.2 Parties’ Intent.........................................................................................................1

1.3 Coordination ..........................................................................................................1

1.4 Habitat ...................................................................................................................1

1.5 Mitigation ...............................................................................................................2

1.6 Integrity and Viability of NBHCP ............................................................................2

1.7 Reliance.................................................................................................................2

1.8 Local Land Use Authority.......................................................................................2

1.9 City, Sutter and TNBC as Permittees ....................................................................2

1.10 USFWS Authorities................................................................................................2

1.11 CDFG Authorities...................................................................................................2 2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................3

3. Obligations of the Parties ..................................................................................................3

3.1 City and Sutter .......................................................................................................3

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas ..............................................................................................3

3.1.2 Exclusion of Development from Swainson’s Hawk Zone...........................4

3.1.3 Timing of Mitigation....................................................................................4

3.1.4 Baseline Map .............................................................................................4

3.1.5 Restriction on Urban Development/Mitigation Alternatives........................4

3.1.6 Determination of Compliance.....................................................................4

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Conditions......................................................4

3.1.8 Full Compliance with the NBHCP ..............................................................5

3.1.9 Transfer of Mitigation Fees ........................................................................5

3.1.10 Enforcement...............................................................................................5

3.1.11 Relationship of TNBC to City and Sutter....................................................5

3.1.12 Certification of Urban Development Permittee...........................................6

3.1.13 Public Works Projects ................................................................................6

3.1.14 Assistance..................................................................................................6

3.1.15 Annual Report of Authorized Development................................................6

3.1.16 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................6

3.1.17 Overall Program Review/Independent Mid-Point Reviews ........................6

3.1.18 City and Sutter Liaison...............................................................................6

3.1.19 Implementation of other NBHCP Components ..........................................6

3.2 The Natomas Basin Conservancy .........................................................................7

3.2.1 Establish Mitigation ....................................................................................7

3.2.2 Acceptance of Mitigation Fees...................................................................7

3.2.3 TNBC Land Management; Site Specific Management
Plan/NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plans/Surveys ....................................7

3.2.4 Implementation Annual Report ..................................................................7

3.2.5 Implementation Annual Meeting ................................................................7

3.2.6 Funding ......................................................................................................7

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning.............................................................................7

3.2.8 Successor ..................................................................................................8 wc-83845

3.2.9 Transfer to CDFG ......................................................................................8

3.2.10 Operation in Perpetuity ..............................................................................8

3.2.11 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................8

3.2.12 TNBC Proceedings Open to Public............................................................8

3.2.13 Implementation of Other NBHCP Components .........................................8

3.3 USFWS..................................................................................................................8

3.3.1 Oversight....................................................................................................8

3.3.2 Technical Assistance .................................................................................9

3.3.3 Newly Listed Uncovered Species ..............................................................9

3.3.4 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits...............................9

3.3.5 Permit Findings ..........................................................................................9

3.4 CDFG ...................................................................................................................9

3.4.1 Oversight..................................................................................................10

3.4.2 Assistance................................................................................................10

3.4.3 New Species ............................................................................................10

3.4.4 CDFG Land Management........................................................................10

3.4.5 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit ..........................10

3.4.6 Section 2081(b) Permit Findings..............................................................10 4 Mitigation .................................................................................................................11

4.1 Mitigation Lands...................................................................................................11

4.2 Respective Permit Areas .....................................................................................11

4.3 Existing Development Exempt.............................................................................11

4.4 Mitigation Ratio....................................................................................................11

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development Projects................................................................................................................11

4.6 Satisfaction of Mitigation Requirement ................................................................12

4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................................................................................13

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes ....................................................................................13

4.9 Funding for Operating Conservation Program.....................................................13

4.9.1 Mitigation Fees.........................................................................................13

4.9.2 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Operating Conservation Program Other than Changes to the Managed Marsh Component ...................................................................13

4.9.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Changes to the Managed Marsh Component ..........................................14

4.9.4 Fee Adjustments for General Inflation .....................................................15

4.9.5 Failure to Adjust Mitigation Fees..............................................................15 5 Mitigation Lands ..............................................................................................................15

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands ................................................................................15

5.2 Setbacks and Buffers...........................................................................................15

5.3 In-Basin Acquisition .............................................................................................15

5.4 Coordinating Mitigation Land Acquisition with Agency Acquisitions ....................15

5.5 Timing of Mitigation Land Acquisition ..................................................................16

5.6 Acquisition of 400 and 2,500-Acre Blocks ...........................................................16

5.7 Accounting for Mitigation Lands...........................................................................16

5.7.1 Managed Marsh .......................................................................................16

5.7.2 Rice Land.................................................................................................16

5.7.3 Uplands....................................................................................................16

5.7.4 Proportion of Mitigation Lands as Marsh .................................................16

5.8 Conservation Measures.......................................................................................17 iii
wc-83845

6 Assurances .................................................................................................................17

6.1 USFWS................................................................................................................17

6.1.1 No Surprises Assurances ........................................................................17

6.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)............................................................18

6.1.3 Beneficial Effects with Respect to Future Listings ...................................19

6.1.4 Critical Habitat..........................................................................................19

6.1.5 ESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species ................................19

6.2 CDFG .................................................................................................................19

6.2.1 CESA Compliance ...................................................................................19

6.2.2 Adequate Mitigation under CESA ............................................................19

6.2.3 Assurances ..............................................................................................19

6.2.4 CESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species..............................20

6.2.5 Changed Conditions ................................................................................20

6.3 Limits on Future Revisions to NBHCP.................................................................20

6.4 Reservation of Rights Re: Subsequent Listing of Species ..................................21

6.5 Land Use Authority ..............................................................................................21

6.6 No Liability ...........................................................................................................21 7 Amendments and Remedies ...........................................................................................21

7.1 Revisions and Amendments to the NBHCP ........................................................21

7.2 Amendments to Agreement .................................................................................21

7.3 Land Use Changes ..............................................................................................21

7.4 Remedies in General...........................................................................................22

7.5 Third Party Enforcement......................................................................................22

7.6 Suspension or Revocation...................................................................................22

7.6.1 Suspension or Revocation by USFWS ....................................................22

7.6.2 Suspension or Revocation by CDFG .......................................................22

7.6.3 Status of Urban Development Permittees after Suspension or Revocation ...............................................................................................22

7.6.4 No Further Approvals by Permittees........................................................22

7.6.5 Severability ..............................................................................................23 8 Miscellaneous .................................................................................................................23

8.1 Term of Agreement..............................................................................................23

8.2 Termination..........................................................................................................23

8.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent ...............................................................23

8.2.2 Termination by USFWS or CDFG............................................................23

8.2.3 Termination by TNBC ..............................................................................23

8.2.4 Effect of Termination................................................................................23

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Termination ..........................................24

8.3 Binding Effect.......................................................................................................24

8.4 Notices.................................................................................................................24

8.5 Captions...............................................................................................................25

8.6 Counterparts ........................................................................................................25

8.7 Governing Law.....................................................................................................25

8.8 Complete Agreement...........................................................................................25

8.9 Federal Section 7 Consultations..........................................................................25

8.10 Conflict with NBHCP............................................................................................26

8.11 Other Permittees..................................................................................................26

8.12 Federal Appropriations ........................................................................................26

8.13 State Appropriations ............................................................................................26

8.14 References to Regulations ..................................................................................26 iv
wc-83845

8.15 Applicable Laws...................................................................................................26

8.16 No Partnership.....................................................................................................26

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit ............................................................................26 v
wc-83845

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Definitions
Exhibit B - CITY’s Baseline Map
Exhibit C - SUTTER’s Baseline Map
Exhibit D - List of Covered Species in Permit Area
vi
wc-83845

IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

THIS IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN is entered into as of the _____ day of _______________, 2003 by and among the UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, an agency of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America (“USFWS”), the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, a subdivision of the Resources Agency of the State of California (“CDFG”), the CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a chartered city (“CITY”), the COUNTY OF SUTTER (“SUTTER”), a political subdivision of the State of California, and The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Inc. (“TNBC”, or “Conservancy”), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, (hereafter collectively referred to as “Parties”). The CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are hereafter also referred to collectively as “Permittees” and each is individually referred to as “Permittee.”

1. RECITALS AND PURPOSES
The Parties have entered into this Agreement in consideration of the following facts and assumptions, intentions and expectations:

1.1 Purpose. This Implementation Agreement (“Agreement”) describes the mechanisms for implementation of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“NBHCP” or “Plan”) a cooperative federal, state and local program for the conservation of those plant and animal species listed on Exhibit D (collectively the “Covered Species”) and their habitats in the Natomas Basin.

The purposes of this Agreement are: a) to ensure the implementation of each of the terms of the NBHCP; b) to describe remedies and recourse should any party fail to perform its obligations as set forth in this agreement; and c) to provide assurances to the Permittees that as long as the terms of the NBHCP are properly implemented, no additional mitigation will be required of them except as provided for in this Agreement or required by law. This Agreement also establishes terms and conditions that support issuance of Permits by the USFWS under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and CDFG under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code to allow the taking of the Covered Species within the Permit Area a) by the CITY and SUTTER, and third persons under the CITY’s and SUTTER’s direct control, incidental to Authorized Development and b) by TNBC, and third persons under TNBC’s direct control, incidental to management activities for a period of fifty (50) years.

1.2 Parties’ Intent. The intent of the Parties, in addition to the purposes set forth above, is that a comprehensive conservation program be established, and be implemented under the auspices of TNBC for the conservation of the Covered Species and their habitats, to provide an opportunity for individual Authorized Development project proponents to obtain incidental take authorization, through CITY’s and SUTTER’s Take Permits, for a broad array of Covered Species under the ESA and CESA including both currently listed species and species that may be listed in the future; to minimize the review of individual projects by the USFWS and CDFG; and to standardize take mitigation and onsite take avoidance and minimization measures for projects covered by the NBHCP.

1.3 Coordination. The NBHCP will be implemented by the Parties through execution of this Agreement, subject to and in accordance with the Permits.

1.4 Habitat. The Covered Species may use or inhabit portions of the Natomas Basin area which is situated northeasterly of the confluence of the American River and Sacramento River.

Consequently, Planned Development of 17,500 acres, including CITY and SUTTER Authorized Development and Metro Air Park’s 1,983 acres of authorized development, related infrastructure, and government public works planned in this area over the next fifty (50) years may result in a loss 1 wc-83845

of habitat and takings of the Covered Species, incidental to the normal course of this Planned Development.

1.5 Mitigation. Implementation of the NBHCP through this Agreement is intended to avoid, minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable, and minimize and fully mitigate, the individual and cumulative impacts of take of Covered Species resulting from Authorized Development within the CITY’s and SUTTER’s respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. All required mitigation is specified in the NBHCP.

1.6 Integrity and Viability of NBHCP. While the NBHCP was developed as a comprehensive multi-species habitat conservation plan to avoid, minimize and mitigate for the expected loss of habitat values and incidental take of the Covered Species that could result from urban development, operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems, and certain activities associated with TNBC management of its system of reserves within the Natomas Basin when it is fully implemented, the biological viability of the NBHCP is not compromised by the failure of other Potential Permittees to participate in the NBHCP and execute this Agreement. The mitigation strategies provided in the NBHCP are designed to allow for separate and independent implementation of NBHCP mitigation measures by CITY, SUTTER or other Potential Permittees, and may be adjusted under the terms of the Plan if fewer than all land use jurisdictions or other Potential Permittees participate, so that the NBHCP is viable and will minimize and mitigate the impacts associated with take of Covered Species resulting from Covered Activities carried out within the Natomas Basin by each Permittee, even if the Plan is not implemented by other Potential Permittees.

1.7 Reliance. In reliance upon this Agreement, CITY and SUTTER are making long range plans and financial investments in public infrastructure improvements necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. Without the assurances identified in this Agreement, they would not enter into, support or approve any such plans or financial commitments.

1.8 Local Land Use Authority. The parties to this Agreement intend that nothing in the NBHCP or in this Agreement shall be interpreted to mean or operate in a manner that expressly or impliedly diminishes or restricts the local land use decision making authority of CITY or SUTTER, provided that the Parties acknowledge that should either CITY or SUTTER exercises its respective land use authority in a manner that conflicts with the terms of the NBHCP, this Agreement or the Permits, the Service and/or CDFG may suspend or revoke CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits pursuant to Section 7.4 of this Agreement and applicable laws and regulations.

1.9 CITY, SUTTER and TNBC as Permittees. This Agreement also establishes the conditions under which the incidental take granted to CITY and SUTTER under their respective Permits will apply to landowners and developers within their respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin as of the Effective Date (as depicted on Exhibits B and C attached hereto and incorporated herein) in order to allow the taking of the Covered Species incidental to Authorized Development. TNBC’s Permit will authorize incidental take of the Covered Species by TNBC anywhere within its Permit Area with respect to the management and other activities and responsibilities that TNBC or third parties under its control assumes on behalf of CITY and SUTTER under the NBHCP.

1.10 USFWS Authorities. USFWS is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the United States Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742(f) et seq.).

1.11 CDFG Authorities. CDFG is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to CESA sections 2080 and 2081.
2 wc-83845

AGREEMENT
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the recitals set forth above, which are incorporated by reference herein, the covenants set forth herein, and other considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
2 DEFINITIONS
Terms used in this Agreement with reference to the ESA shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA, or in regulations adopted by the USFWS, and terms used in this Agreement with reference to CESA, shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under CESA, or regulations adopted by CDFG. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the defined meanings specified in the NBHCP as attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein into this Agreement. Where additional terms are used in this Agreement, definitions are included within the applicable text. Any amendments to the definitions contained in this Agreement shall be deemed automatically to be amendments to the definitions contained in the NBHCP.
3 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

3.1 CITY and SUTTER.

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas. The NBHCP anticipates and analyzes a total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin, 15,517 acres of which constitutes Authorized Development within CITY and SUTTER. (An additional 1,983 acres of development is allocated to the Metro Air Park project in Sacramento County under the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan and is analyzed within the NBHCP.) CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement). SUTTER agrees not to approve more than 7,467 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to SUTTER’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit C to this Agreement). The Parties further agree:
(a) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating
Conservation Program is based upon CITY limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the CITY’s Permit Area, and SUTTER limiting total development to 7,467 acres within SUTTER’s Permit Area, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development within the Plan Area or outside of their respective Permit Areas would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program. Thus, CITY and SUTTER further agree that in the event this future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits in the event the CITY or SUTTER violate such limitations.
(b) For purposes of the NBHCP and this Agreement, CITY agrees that although the West Lakeside Annexation area is proposed by the landowners to be annexed to the CITY, this area currently is located within Sacramento County and is outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary and the City’s Sphere of Influence, and it is not included in the 8,050 acres of Authorized Development or within the CITY’s Permit Area. Thus, CITY agrees that in the event this annexation occurs, it shall, prior to approval of any rezoning or prezoning associated with such annexation, trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the City for that additional urban development, and/or possible 3 wc-83845

suspension or revocation of CITY’s Permit in the event the CITY violates such limitations without completing such reevaluation, amendment, or revision or new conservation strategy for that additional urban development.

3.1.2 EXCLUSION OF DEVELOPMENT FROM SWAINSON’s HAWK ZONE. With the exception of 252 acres included as Authorized Development by CITY in the NBHCP, the Parties agree that the CITY’s and SUTTER’s Permit Areas shall exclude a one mile wide strip of land adjacent to the Sacramento River within their respective jurisdictions known as the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (SHZ). The Parties further agree as follows:
(a) CITY and SUTTER shall not approve any future urban
development within their respective portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond the 252 acres of Authorized Development identified by CITY in the NBHCP. (b) Within One Hundred and Eighty (180) days of the Effective Date, SUTTER shall initiate a General Plan Amendment to remove all land within SUTTER’s portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from the Industrial/Commercial Reserve designation in the Sutter County General Plan and to redesignate such land for agricultural uses. (c) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP to adequately minimize and mitigate the effects of take of the Covered Species depends, in part, on the exclusion of urban development from both the CITY and SUTTER’s portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, except as otherwise explicitly allowed under the NBHCP, would constitute a significant departure from the Plan and would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments to the Plan and/or Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY or SUTTER’s Permits in the event CITY or SUTTER violate such restrictions.

3.1.3 Timing of Mitigation. CITY and SUTTER agree to comply with the NBHCP Chapter VI requirements applicable to the timing of acquisition of Mitigation Lands, including, but not limited to, the requirement to maintain a 200-acre cushion of Mitigation Lands, and other timing restrictions on approval of Authorized Development as provided in Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.4 Baseline Map. CITY and SUTTER have prepared, and USFWS and CDFG have approved, the Baseline Maps set forth in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which depict: (1) those land areas within their respective Permit Areas which are designated as “Exempt Area-Existing Development” and therefore not subject to the NBHCP, the Permits, or this Agreement; (2) those land areas designated as “Development Subject to 1997 HCP,” within their respective Permit Areas for which Authorized Development projects have been approved between 1997 and 2002 and have been developed in compliance with the Mitigation Requirements of the NBHCP in effect in 1997; and (3) those undeveloped land areas designated as “Development Subject to 2002 HCP,” within the Permit Areas which will be subject to the Mitigation Requirement of the NBHCP.

3.1.5 Restriction on Urban Development/Mitigation Alternatives. CITY and SUTTER shall not issue any Urban Development Permit for any Authorized Development project on a parcel of land in their respective Permit Areas, outside of those areas depicted as “Exempt AreaExisting Development” on the Baseline Map, unless the Authorized Development project proponent has satisfied the Mitigation Requirement specified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.6 Determination of Compliance. CITY and SUTTER shall ensure that an Authorized Development project proponent has complied with the Mitigation Requirements of Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP prior to issuing an Urban Development Permit for the Authorized Development project.
4 wc-83845

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Conditions. CITY and SUTTER shall include in any Urban Development Permit the on-site Take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures specified in Chapter V of the NBHCP (the “Conservation Measures”) to reduce or eliminate to the extent feasible, the direct and indirect impacts of Authorized Development on the Covered Species and shall include in such Urban Development Permit notice of the need to comply with the requirements of other agencies applicable to the project.

3.1.8 Full Compliance with the NBHCP. The Parties agree that for purposes of CITY’s and SUTTER’s determination that an Urban Development Permittee is in full compliance with the NBHCP, the Urban Development Permittee must: (1) comply with the Mitigation Requirement, (2) implement the Conservation Measures including any such measures that are required to be conducted prior to commencement of grading and/or construction (e.g., preconstruction surveys, species avoidance measures, allowing USFWS or TNBC to conduct transplantation and relocation of Covered Species, etc.), and (3) implement any measures specified in or provided for in Chapter V of the NBHCP which are required to be implemented after commencement of grading and/or construction, including but not limited to, pre-construction surveys, retention of Swainson’s Hawk nesting trees, and elderberry shrub preservation.

3.1.9 Transfer of Mitigation Fees. CITY and SUTTER shall promptly transfer all Mitigation Fees collected on account of Authorized Development to TNBC in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.10 Enforcement. CITY and SUTTER shall comply with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits and, following their applicable land use permit enforcement procedures and practices, shall take all necessary and appropriate actions to enforce the terms of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, the Section 2081 Permit, the NBHCP, and this Agreement as to themselves and all third persons subject to their jurisdiction or control, including Urban Development Permittees, that are subject to the requirements established by the NBHCP, the Permits and this Agreement, specifically including the urban permitting and approval requirements set forth in this Section 3.

Provided CITY and SUTTER take actions within their respective authorities to enforce compliance with the terms of the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits, a violation of the Permits by such third persons shall not be a basis to suspend or revoke the CITY or SUTTER Permits, unless USFWS or CDFG determine that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild or USFWS or CDFG determine that the violation renders CITY or SUTTER unable to implement successfully the NBHCP.

3.1.11 Relationship of TNBC to CITY and SUTTER. To comply with the requirements of the NBHCP, CITY and SUTTER have chosen to implement their Mitigation Requirement and other obligations under the NBHCP, including their reporting and monitoring obligations, in part, through the selection of TNBC as the Plan Operator. The Parties further agree:
(a) In the event that the Service determines pursuant to Section

7.6.1 of this Agreement, or CDFG determines pursuant to Section 7.6.2 that TNBC has violated the terms of the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall be considered a failure by CITY and SUTTER to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP. Provided, however, that if the violation by TNBC related to MAP mitigation acquisition or management requirements, or to other violations resulting from and solely pertaining to a violation of the MAP HCP, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply and neither City nor Sutter shall be considered to have failed to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing in the event USFWS or CDFG make the determination set forth in Section 3.1.11(a), CITY’s and SUTTER’s Permits shall not be revoked or suspended, if CITY and/or SUTTER implement corrective measures, within the period 5 wc-83845

specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG, to remedy TNBC’s violation which may include, but shall not be limited to (1) replacing TNBC with another conservation entity qualified to serve as a Plan Operator, (2) transferring the Mitigation Lands to CDFG in accordance with Section 3.2.12 of this Agreement, (3) implementation by TNBC of measures specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG as necessary to remediate the violation unless USFWS or CDFG determine that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild or USFWS or CDFG determine that the violation renders CITY or SUTTER unable to implement successfully the NBHCP; or (4) implementation by CITY and/or SUTTER of measures necessary to remediate the violation.
(c) Should the USFWS or CDFG determine that CITY or SUTTER has violated their separate obligations under the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall not be attributed to TNBC nor shall TNBC’s Permits be affected, so long as TNBC continues to properly implement its obligations under the NBHCP with respect to the Mitigation Lands, including its obligations as the Plan Operator.

3.1.12 Certification of Urban Development Permittee. Urban Development Permits (i.e., the grading permit or notice to proceed) issued by CITY and SUTTER shall constitute a certification to the Urban Development Permittee that the Urban Development Permittee has complied with the Mitigation Requirements of the NBHCP and will be allowed to construct, maintain and operate a public or private project which may result in the Incidental Take of the Covered Species consistent with the conditions in the Permits and the Urban Development Permit, on the parcels for which the Urban Development Permit was issued. The issuance of such certifications shall be considered ministerial actions for the purposes of the laws of the State of California.

3.1.13 Public Works Projects. CITY and SUTTER shall apply the Mitigation Requirement and Conservation Measures set forth in this Section and in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP to all public works projects in their respective Permit Areas.

3.1.14 Assistance. CITY and SUTTER shall provide staff members to serve on the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee.

3.1.15 Annual Report of Authorized Development. CITY and SUTTER shall each implement the Annual Report requirements described at Chapter VI of the NBHCP. In addition, at any other time during the Permit terms, CITY and SUTTER, at the request of USFWS or CDFG, shall provide within thirty (30) days, to the Wildlife Agencies additional information relevant to implementation of the NBHCP reasonably available to CITY and SUTTER.

3.1.16 Adaptive Management. CITY and SUTTER agree to abide by and implement all Adaptive Management provisions specified in, and subject to the limitations of, Chapter VI of the NBHCP, including, but not limited to, implementing revisions to management of Mitigation Lands, such as those which may be included in recovery plans for the Covered Species, in response to monitoring results in the Plan Area or to peer-reviewed new scientific information, in response to substantial land use changes in the Basin outside the Permit Areas and system of reserves, and Plan responses to Changed Circumstances.

3.1.17 Overall Program Review/Independent Midpoint Reviews. CITY and SUTTER agree to implement the Overall Program Review and Independent Mid-Point Reviews described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the NBHCP in achieving its biological goals and objectives.

3.1.18 CITY and SUTTER Liaison. CITY and SUTTER shall each designate a liaison to CDFG and USFWS for communications concerning this Agreement and the NBHCP. The CITY’s and SUTTER’s liaisons shall be responsible for reporting on their respective agency’s implementation of and compliance with this Agreement, the NBHCP, and the Permits. CITY and SUTTER shall notify CDFG and USFWS of the name, address and telephone number of the liaison within 30 days of the Effective Date and shall subsequently notify CDFG and USFWS within 30 days in writing if the name, address or telephone number of the liaison is changed. 6 wc-83845

3.1.19 Implementation of other NBHCP Components. CITY and SUTTER agree to implement each of the other components of the NBHCP identified in the Plan or this Agreement, specifically including enactment of and periodic revisions to the Mitigation Fee ordinances and Catch Up Fee ordinances or through other funding mechanisms except for the CITY or SUTTER general funds, as described in Chapter VI of the Plan as necessary to ensure the NBHCP is fully funded. The commitments set forth herein shall be subject to the limitation that implementation of such measures is within the CITY’s or SUTTER’s land use or other legal authority.

3.2 The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

3.2.1 Establish Mitigation. TNBC agrees that it will serve as the Plan Operator under the NBHCP, and will Acquire, locate, operate, manage, and maintain Mitigation Lands in accordance with Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and Section 5 of this Agreement. To the extent provided in the NBHCP, such activities shall be carried out in consultation with the TAC and with the approval of the Wildlife Agencies.

3.2.2 Acceptance of Mitigation Fees. TNBC agrees that it will accept Mitigation Fees from CITY and SUTTER and use them exclusively to implement its Acquisition, management, monitoring, reporting and other responsibilities identified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP.

3.2.3 TNBC Land Management; Site Specific Management Plan/NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plans/Surveys. TNBC agrees that it shall be responsible for implementing the following management obligations within its Permit Area:
(a) TNBC, in consultation with the TAC and subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies as provided in the NBHCP, shall prepare a Site Specific Management Plan for each Mitigation Land site acquired by TNBC under the Plan. Each Site Specific Management Plan shall be completed in accordance with the timing requirements specified in Chapter IV and VI, of the NBHCP and shall contain each of the elements described in Chapters IV and VI, E. of the NBHCP. TNBC agrees to implement the Site Specific Management Plans in accordance with the NBHCP and upon approval.
(b) TNBC, in consultation with the TAC and subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies as provided in the NBHCP, shall prepare an overall Biological Monitoring Plan consistent with the provisions of Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Upon approval, TNBC agrees to implement the overall NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plan in accordance with the NBHCP. (c) TNBC shall conduct annual surveys of the Covered Species on Mitigation Lands and periodic surveys of the Covered Species throughout the Plan Area as provided in the NBHCP, the Site Specific Management Plans and Plan-wide Biological Monitoring Plan.

3.2.4 Implementation Annual Report. TNBC shall provide the Parties with an Implementation Annual Report by May 1 of each calendar year the NBHCP is in effect. The Implementation Annual Report shall include all of the information identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, including the results of the Compliance Monitoring implemented by CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and the Effectiveness Monitoring implemented by TNBC during the prior calendar year, and provide an accounting of all Mitigation Fees collected, all Urban Development Permits Issued, and all Mitigation Lands Acquired.

3.2.5 Implementation Annual Meeting. On or before July 1 of each calendar year each Permittee, USFWS and CDFG shall meet to discuss the Implementation Annual Report submitted by the TNBC, and any concerns, comments or recommendations any of the Parties may have regarding implementation of the NBHCP.

3.2.6 Funding. At least annually, TNBC shall evaluate the adequacy of Mitigation Fees to fund implementation of the NBHCP and shall recommend to CITY and SUTTER adjustments to the Mitigation Fee as necessary to ensure the Plan is fully implemented.

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning. Prior to the end of each calendar year, the TNBC 7 wc-83845

shall prepare a budget and a plan for its proposed activities for the forthcoming year and provide copies to each Permittee, CDFG and USFWS.

3.2.8 Successor. With the prior written approval of CITY, SUTTER, USFWS and CDFG, the assets and obligations of TNBC may be transferred to any other non-profit corporation provided that the successor corporation assumes each of the obligations of TNBC as set forth under the NBHCP the TNBC Permit, and this Agreement.

3.2.9 Transfer to CDFG. In the event TNBC is unable to meet its financial obligations and is dissolved, becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt, and no other suitable successor is found, then the ownership of the Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements), accumulated Mitigation Fees and other sums designated for enhancement and maintenance of those lands, shall be transferred to the CDFG or a non-profit association or corporation organized for conservation purposes that is approved by USFWS, CDFG, CITY and SUTTER, which shall hold the Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements) in perpetuity and use the Mitigation Fees for the acquisition and permanent management, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and conservation of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with the NBHCP. In the event the ownership of Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements), accumulated Mitigation Fees and other sums designated for enhancement and maintenance of those lands are transferred to CDFG, CDFG shall have the authority to seek adjustments to the Mitigation Fee consistent with the provisions of the NBHCP.

3.2.10 Operation in Perpetuity. Subject to the requirements of Chapters IV and VI of the NBHCP, Mitigation Lands acquired to meet the NBHCP’s Mitigation Requirement shall function in perpetuity to provide Habitat Values for the Covered Species. TNBC shall establish a sufficient endowment from the endowment components of the Mitigation Fees adopted by CITY and SUTTER to permanently sustain management of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with the NBHCP following expiration or termination of the Permits.

3.2.11 Conflicts of Interest. TNBC shall establish and maintain by-laws which include, at a minimum, restrictions on interests in contracts by Board members and employees which are at least as stringent as those applied to government officers and employees by California Government Code §1090 and following, as well as restrictions on participation in decisions and requirements of financial disclosure which are at least as stringent as those applied to government officers and employees by the Political Reform Act of 1974 and any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

3.2.12 TNBC Proceedings Open to Public. TNBC agrees that its actions and proceedings shall be conducted in public, in a manner consistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq. TNBC may conduct closed sessions for real estate negotiations as permitted in its Bylaws, referenced in the NBHCP, as may be amended from time to time (“TNBC Bylaws”). Pursuant to the TNBC Bylaws, the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act regarding the disclosure of information with respect to real property transactions (including, but not limited to Government Code Sections 54954.5(b), 54956.8 and 54957.1(a)(1)), whether such transactions are pending or completed, shall not apply. As used herein, “real property transactions” shall include options to purchase or lease, purchases, and leases of real property, as well as farming contracts affecting real property that TNBC has acquired or is in negotiations to acquire.

3.2.13 Implementation of Other NBHCP Components. TNBC shall implement each of the other components of the NBHCP identified in the Plan or this Agreement, including but not limited to the conservation strategies and Take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, to the extent such measures fall under its authority and control.

3.3 USFWS.

3.3.1 Oversight. After issuance of each Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, the USFWS shall monitor the implementation of such Permit, this Agreement, and each Permittee’s activities thereunder, to ensure compliance with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits. 8 wc-83845

3.3.2 Technical Assistance. Subject to Section 8.12 of this Agreement, the USFWS shall provide staff to serve on the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), shall provide responses to TNBC as required under the NBHCP in a timely manner, and recommend, as appropriate, revisions to the NBHCP under the Plan’s Adaptive Management, Overall Program and Independent Mid-Point Reviews, and other applicable provisions, to ensure the viability of the Plan.

USFWS shall also make available USFWS staff for informal consultations and meetings with the staffs, boards or councils of the Permittees to assist with implementation of the NBHCP. Consistent with its legal authorities, the USFWS shall cooperate with TNBC in obtaining additional funding from sources including, but not limited to, existing and future state and federal grant programs and bond issues to augment the conservation strategies of the NBHCP. Such funds are in addition to, and not in substitution of, the funding required to implement the NBHCP as described in this Agreement.

3.3.3 Newly Listed Uncovered Species. Coverage and authorization for Take of newly listed species which are not covered under the Permits shall require amendment of the NBHCP and the Permits. Until and unless the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits are amended to cover the newly listed species, the Permittees shall adhere to the Changed Circumstances provisions applicable to the listing of a new species as described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Modification of the NBHCP as necessary to amend the Permits to authorize take of new species not previously covered by the NBHCP shall be at the discretion of all parties to the NBHCP, this Agreement and the associated Permits.

3.3.4 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits. (a) For purposes of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, as to each Land Use Agency Permittee, the USFWS and TNBC, the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date, following execution of this Agreement by that Land Use Agency Permittee, the USFWS and TNBC, that the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits are issued to that Land Use Agency Permittee and TNBC.
(b) Following execution of this Agreement, the Service will issue a Section 10(a) Permit to each signatory Permittee authorizing the Take of each listed Covered animal Species incidental to the Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits.
(c) For Covered animal Species not listed as an endangered species or threatened species under ESA as of the Effective Date, the Section 10(a) Permits shall become effective as to each such species concurrent with the listing of the species as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. The NBHCP also covers seven (7) plant species.

Take of listed plants is not prohibited under the ESA and therefore will not be authorized under the Section 10(a) Permits. Plants are included as Covered Species under the NBHCP and will be listed on the federal permits in recognition of the conservation measures provided for them under the NBHCP. Plant species covered under the NBHCP will also be provided assurances under the federal “No Surprises” rule.

3.3.5 Permit Findings. USFWS, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) The Taking of Covered Species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
(b) Implementation of the NBHCP by the Permittees will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the Incidental Take of Covered Species.
(c) CITY and SUTTER will ensure that adequate funding for the NBHCP will be provided and the NBHCP and this Agreement provide procedures for addressing Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances.
(d) The Take of Covered Species in accordance with this 9 wc-83845

Agreement will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Covered Species in the wild.
(e) The measures agreed upon by the Permittees and the
USFWS for purposes of the NBHCP will be met.
(f) Through this Agreement, the USFWS has received the
required assurances that the NBHCP will be implemented.

3.4 CDFG.

3.4.1 Oversight. After issuance of the Section 2081 Permit to CITY and SUTTER, CDFG shall monitor the implementation of the Section 2081 Permit, this Agreement and TNBC’s activities thereunder, including but not limited to, the modification, enhancement, operation and maintenance of the Mitigation Lands in order to ensure compliance with this Agreement and consistency with CDFG’s trustee agency duties pursuant to CESA, and recommend any amendments to the NBHCP CDFG deems desirable, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, under the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions as described in Chapter IV, Section E of the NBHCP or the Overall Program Review as described in Chapter IV, Section I of the NBHCP.

3.4.2 Assistance. CDFG shall provide staff to serve on the NBHCP TAC, and shall ensure the availability of its staff for informal consultations and meetings with TNBC and the staffs, boards or councils of the other Parties to this Agreement to ensure the appropriate monitoring of permitted activities which may lead to the Incidental Take of State Protected Species. CDFG will assist TNBC (to the extent authorized by the California Legislature) in obtaining additional funding from sources including, but not limited to, existing and future state and federal grant programs and bond issues to augment the conservation strategies of the NBHCP. Such funds are in addition to, and not in substitution of, the funding required to implement the NBHCP as described in this Agreement.

3.4.3 New Species. CDFG shall make available to Permittees information it has or acquires regarding new sightings or occurrences of any species in the Permit Areas which is state listed as threatened or endangered, is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered, or is otherwise likely to be state listed, and which is determined to be dependent upon habitat in the Permit Area, if such species is not otherwise described in Exhibit D hereof. Once a year, upon the request of TNBC, CDFG shall provide TNBC with updated information from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) covering new sightings and occurrences of any species not otherwise described in Exhibit D within the Permit Areas. At the same time, CDFG may propose any amendments to the NBHCP CDFG deems reasonably necessary to preserve Habitat Values for the benefit of such species.

3.4.4 CDFG Land Management. CDFG shall manage in perpetuity, in a manner consistent with the NBHCP, for the conservation of the Covered Species any Mitigation Lands conveyed to it by TNBC pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

3.4.5 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit. (a) For purposes of the Section 2081(b) Permit, as to each Land Use Agency Permittee, CDFG and TNBC, the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date, following execution of this Agreement by that Land Use Agency Permittee, CDFG and TNBC, that the Section 2081(b) Permits are issued to that Land Use Agency Permittee and TNBC. (b) Following execution of this Agreement, CDFG will issue a Section 2081(b) Permit or modification to an existing Permit to each Permittee authorizing the Take of each Covered Species incidental to Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NBHCP and this Agreement.
(c) As to each Covered Species that is not currently listed under CESA, the Incidental Take Authorization under the Section 2081(b) Permits shall become effective consistent with Section 6.2.4 of this Agreement.
10 wc-83845

3.4.6 Section 2081(b) Permit Findings.

CDFG, based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available, and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) Incidental Take. The authorized Take of Covered Species will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
(b) Minimize and Fully Mitigate. The impacts of the authorized Take will be minimized and fully mitigated.
(c) Roughly Proportional. The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized Take of Covered Species.
(d) Applicant’s Objectives. The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will preserve Permittee objectives to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the obligation to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take.
(e) Capable of Successful Implementation. All required measures will be capable of successful implementation.
(f) Adequate Funding. Permittees have ensured adequate
funding to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures, and for monitoring compliance with, and effectiveness of, those measures.
(g) No Jeopardy. The issuance of the Section 2081(b) Permits will not jeopardize the continued existence of any Covered Species. (h) Unlisted Species. Covered Species that are not currently listed as threatened or endangered under CESA have been treated in the NBHCP as if they were listed, and the NBHCP identifies measures to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take of such unlisted species. The findings in this Section 3.4.5 apply to all Covered Species, including Covered Species that are not listed. 4 MITIGATION

4.1 Mitigation Lands. Mitigation Lands will be established and managed pursuant to the NBHCP.

4.2 Respective Permit Areas. Developers of all lands within the respective Permit Areas that are developed pursuant to an Urban Development Permit, shall provide mitigation pursuant to the NBHCP for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of development upon Covered Species and their habitat. CITY and SUTTER shall require an Urban Development Permittee to provide mitigation for the conversion of land to Authorized Development in the respective Permit Areas, in conformity with the NBHCP and the following sections.

4.3 Existing Development Exempt. Parcels of land within the respective Permit Areas that are shown as “Exempt Area-Existing Development” and “Development Subject to 1997 HCP” on the Baseline Maps depicted on Exhibits B and C of this Agreement are not covered by the NBHCP, this Agreement, or the Permits, provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exempt such existing development from any applicable requirements of the ESA or CESA.

4.4 Mitigation Ratio. Mitigation for the conversion of land in the respective Permit Areas to Authorized Development will be required at the ratio of one half (½) acre of land protected or conserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development (the “Mitigation Ratio”).

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development Projects. The Mitigation Requirement for each public or private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Development (the “Mitigation Requirement”). The 11 wc-83845

land area converted to Authorized Development is determined as follows:
(1) For both private and public development projects, except as provided in (2) and (3) below, the gross area of a particular project is considered “land area converted to Authorized Development” whether the entire project is graded or not. The fees payable shall be calculated by multiplying the Mitigation Fees (in dollars per acre) times the land area converted to Authorized Development, prorated for fractional acres.
(2) For private development projects, a separate parcel or portion of a parcel which will be transferred to a public agency for a public use consisting of a park, school or other public building, is exempt. The Mitigation Requirement for such uses must be satisfied when the parcel of public use property is developed by the respective public agency owning the parcel. With respect to other lands designated for public use, the following criteria will apply: (a) Roads: where a road is included within the respective Land Use Agency’s finance plan for purposes of financing, the land transferred or to be transferred by fee or easement to the agency for the road project is excluded; where a road is not one which is financed pursuant to the agency’s finance plan, but is to be paid for entirely by the private landowner or developer of the project, even though ultimately it will be dedicated to the agency, the land transferred or to be transferred to the agency for the road is included; (b) Utilities: where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the respective Land Use Agency or another public entity (e.g., Sacramento Municipal Utility District), by easement or fee, land for a structure such as a pump station, outfall station, or similar structure, such land is excluded; where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the agency non-exclusive easements for utility lines (water lines, sewer lines, and similar lines), the land covered by such easements is included; if the easement is exclusive, the land covered by the easement is excluded, but the transferee agency will be required to provide mitigation upon development of the transferred parcel. With respect to each parcel or portion of a parcel exempted or excluded pursuant to this section, the Mitigation Requirement shall be satisfied by CITY or SUTTER at the time such parcel or portion of land is converted to Authorized Development. (3) For both private and public projects, excluded is any parcel or portion of the parcel approved as Mitigation Land by TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies in accordance with the NBHCP and which will be transferred in fee to TNBC or will be encumbered by a Conservation Easement in favor of TNBC for purposes of satisfaction of the Mitigation Requirement for the particular development project.

4.6 Satisfaction of Mitigation Requirement. The Land Use Agency Permittes each retains authority to require an Urban Development Permittee/landowner to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement by: (1) payment of the Mitigation Fees; or (2) subject to the approvals required by the NBHCP, transfer of Mitigation Land to TNBC, together with payment of all components of the Mitigation Fee except the Land Acquisition Fee as specified in the NBHCP. Credit against the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees is based on the number of acres of land being transferred and is not based on cost or perceived value of the land transferred. Where a Land Use Agency Permittee elects to require an Urban Development Permittee to transfer land to TNBC, (1) TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies must approve the transfer of each parcel of Mitigation Land considering its location, proximity to urban uses and roads, current land condition, and all other factors specified in the NBHCP, and (2) such land must be dedicated prior to authorization by the applicable Land Use Agency Permittee for dissturbance of the land resulting from the associated Urban Development Project. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is less than the Mitigation Land required for the public or private project, the landowner is obligated to pay the outstanding balance of the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is greater than the amount of Mitigation Land required for the development project, the landowner may choose one of the following credit options: (i) receive credit from the excess amount of land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for future Authorized Development of property owned by the landowner; or (ii) transfer credit from the excess amount of 12 wc-83845

land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for Authorized Development of property owned by another specified landowner. If either credit option is chosen, then prior to the transfer of Mitigation Land being finalized, the landowner shall inform CITY or SUTTER, as appropriate and TNBC in writing of the choice to receive or transfer credit and to whom the credit is to be transferred. Any transfer of fee title to lands or a Conservation Easement therein in order to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement shall be accomplished by a deed or grant of a conservation easement to TNBC in a form acceptable to USFWS and CDFG, in recordable form on or before issuance of an Urban Development Permit (i.e., a building permit, grading permit, or other permit which allows a disturbance of the surface of the earth for the public or private project). All land proposed to be transferred to TNBC in satisfaction of the Mitigation Requirement must meet the acquisition criteria specified in the NBHCP.

4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands. Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve any Urban Development Permittee desiring to discharge any fill or other material into any jurisdictional wetlands, of any requirement to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and comply with all the terms and conditions thereof. Take of Covered Species related to jurisdictional wetlands by the Urban Development Permittee shall be authorized through the incidental take permits issued to CITY and SUTTER and shall be subject to the requirements of the NBHCP.

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes. Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve any Urban Development Permittee desiring to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the CDFG, or use any material from the streambeds, of any requirement to comply with Fish and Game Code, Division 2, Chapter 6, commencing with Section 1600 (concerning Streambed Alteration Agreements). This Agreement and implementation of the NBHCP are intended to satisfy only site-specific mitigation requirements for impacts of taking Covered Species as a result of an Authorized Development project which may be imposed under Chapter 6 of the California Fish and Game Code, with the exception of mitigation specifically directed at those vernal pool species included on the list of Covered Species.

4.9 Funding for Operating Conservation Program. CITY and SUTTER shall fund the Operating Conservation Program in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

4.9.1 Mitigation Fees. Where an Urban Development Permittee selects payment of Mitigation Fees as its method of satisfying the Mitigation Requirement for the public or private project, the provisions of Section 4 shall govern the calculation and collection of such fees, and such Urban Development Permittee shall pay the Mitigation Fees as so calculated. The amount payable for the Mitigation Fee shall be the amount specified by ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the CITY or SUTTER, including but not limited to the “catch-up fee” ordinances or other ordinances or resolutions adopted prior to or after the Effective Date.

4.9.2 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Operating Conservation Program Other than Changes to the Managed Marsh Component. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, upon request of TNBC or upon the written request of USFWS or CDFG as supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and technical analysis, and as otherwise necessary, CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account costs of land acquisition and TNBC operations, to maintain or meet the Mitigation Ratio specified in Section 4.4 of this Agreement, and to meet TNBC management, monitoring, adaptive management, or related costs required to fund the Operating Conservation Program as set forth in Chapters IV, V and VI of the NBHCP. The decision to adjust the Mitigation Fees may include but is not limited to consideration of the following factors: (1) the market price of land being acquired as Mitigation Land; (2) the necessity to maintain the 0.5 to 1 Mitigation Ratio; (3) the need to fund ongoing and permanent management and monitoring costs in accordance with the NBHCP; (4) the necessity to ensure the 13 wc-83845

effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program; and (5) the availability of other sources of revenues, including the sale of hunting rights on Mitigation Lands, proceeds from the cultivation of rice on Mitigation Lands and other funds and grants. (a) Notwithstanding the foregoing and in accordance with, and subject to the limitations of, Chapter VI of the NBHCP, CITY or SUTTER shall be obligated to increase the Mitigation Fees to fund recommended changes to the Operating Conservation Program resulting from future recovery plans, monitoring results from the Plan Area or peerreviewed new scientific information relevant to the Plan only when such recommendations:
(1) Relate to the physical management of Mitigation
Lands;
(2) Would improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s
Operating Conservation Program by identifying relevant new information, approaches, techniques, or species protection needs;
(3) Can be implemented within the NBHCP Plan Area; and
(4) Fit within the overall intent and framework, are
consistent with the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives and would not exceed the established Mitigation Ratio of the NBHCP; and
(5) Would not substantially sacrifice habitat values for Covered Species that are not addressed by the recovery plan, the monitoring results or other peerreviewed new scientific information. (b) Adjustment of the Mitigation Fees pursuant to this subsection is independent of adjustments made on account of inflation/deflation pursuant to Section 4.9.4 of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or otherwise affect the discretionary authority of the Land Use Agencies with respect to fee adjustments under this Section

4.9.1. 4.9.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for purposes of Funding the Changes to the Managed Marsh Component. Upon written notification supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and technical analysis by USFWS or CDFG to CITY and SUTTER of the adoption of a future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or peer-reviewed new scientific information indicating an adjustment in the enhancement and management activities for managed marsh as specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account increased costs of TNBC’s enhancement and management of a higher proportion of managed marsh on Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the final Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan by the USFWS, the availability of peer-reviewed new scientific information or monitoring results from the Plan Area indicate an adjustment in the enhancement and/or management activities for managed marsh is warranted as specified and subject to the limitations contained in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The obligation to adjust the Mitigation Fees shall be subject to the following limitations set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP:
(b) the obligation to increase the Mitigation Fees shall be applied prospectively to future Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the Recovery Plan, in response to monitoring results from the Plan Area or in response to peer-reviewed new scientific information. (c) if the Recovery Plan, monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, or peer-reviewed new scientific information indicate a higher proportion of managed marsh (1) will improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to meet its biological goals and objectives, (2) is beneficial to the snake, and (3) will not adversely affect any other listed Covered Species.
(d) the maximum levels of managed marsh which may apply to future Mitigation Land acquisitions which occur after the results of monitoring from the Plan Area or 14 wc-83845

peer-reviewed new scientific information, or Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan adoption shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of such Mitigation Lands.

Adjustment of the Mitigation Fees pursuant to this subsection is independent of adjustments made on account of inflation/deflation pursuant to Section 4.9.4 of this Agreement. (Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or otherwise affect the discretionary authority of the Land Use Agencies with respect to fee adjustments under this Section 4.9.2.)

4.9.4 Fee Adjustments for General Inflation. On or before January 1 of each year, CITY and SUTTER shall review and, at the discretion of each, adjust the dollar amount of the Mitigation Fees (as adjusted from time to time pursuant to Section 4.4.1), to take into account the effects of inflation/deflation generally. Adjustments will be calculated as follows: the current Mitigation Fee shall be multiplied by the index for October of the year prior to January 1, divided by the index for October of the preceding year [e.g., 2003 Fee = 2002 Fee x (October, 2002 CPI Index/October, 2001 CPI Index)]. For purposes of making this adjustment, the index utilized shall be the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, All Items, San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose (1982-1984=100), as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or its successor. Technical adjustments made pursuant to this Section 4.9.4 shall be independent of, in addition to and not a part of adjustments to, the Mitigation Fee adjustments made pursuant to Section 4.9.2 and 4.9.3.

4.9.5 Failure to Adjust Mitigation Fees. CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that the failure of either CITY or SUTTER to adjust the Mitigation Fees as necessary to maintain the Mitigation Ratio and ensure implementation of each of the other requirements of the NBHCP identified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and/or in this Section 4 may result in suspension or revocation of their respective Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement. 5 Mitigation Lands

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands. TNBC shall locate Mitigation Lands in accordance with Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and this Section.

5.2 Setbacks and Buffers. All Mitigation Lands Acquired by TNBC shall conform to the buffer and setback requirements set forth in Chapters IV and VI of the NBHCP.

5.3 In-Basin Acquisition. All Mitigation Lands shall be acquired within the Natomas Basin as provided in the NBHCP.

5.4 Coordinating Mitigation Land Acquisition With Agency Acquisitions. Prior to the Acquisition of any parcel of Mitigation Land, TNBC shall provide written notice to the USFWS, CDFG, and both CITY and SUTTER of its intent to Acquire such lands. USFWS and CDFG agree that they will not knowingly interfere or compete with TNBC for the Acquisition or control of such lands and that they will consult with TNBC in formulating any Acquisition plans. As to those lands identified by USFWS or CDFG for acquisition, TNBC, likewise, shall not knowingly interfere with or compete with the affected agency for acquisition or control until TNBC is notified by that agency that it is no longer pursuing acquisition or control of the lands. 15 wc-83845

5.5 Timing of Mitigation Land Acquisition. TNBC shall comply with the requirements of the NBHCP relating to the Acquisition of Mitigation Lands in advance of approval of Authorized Development set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The Parties further agree that in order to ensure that Mitigation Lands are Acquired in an amount sufficient to meet the Mitigation Requirement that attaches to all Authorized Development under the NBHCP, TNBC shall establish a 200 acre cushion of Mitigation Lands prior to the approval of any Authorized Development by CITY or SUTTER under the Plan and shall maintain the 200 Acre Mitigation Land cushion until the approval of the last 400 acres of Authorized Development under the Plan. CITY, SUTTER and TNBC shall implement this requirement in accordance with the NBHCP, as follows. (a) No Urban Development Permits for Authorized Development shall be issued by CITY or SUTTER after September 30 of each calendar year until TNBC notifies CITY and SUTTER that it has Acquired Mitigation Lands which equal the number of acres necessary to meet the Mitigation Requirement attached to all prior Urban Development Permits issued by CITY and SUTTER plus an additional 200 acres of Mitigation Land. (b) Because TNBC is responsible for Acquiring Mitigation Lands for Planned Development, TNBC will credit mitigation fees collected under the Metro Air Park HCP (MAP HCP) along with all Mitigation Fees collected by CITY and SUTTER for Authorized Development. The collection of Mitigation Fees for Planned Development will be credited against the Mitigation Lands Acquired by TNBC, in chronological order, with priority given to the oldest project among those approved under the MAP HCP and the CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits to have paid Mitigation Fees.

5.6 Acquisition of 400 and 2,500-Acre Blocks. TNBC shall comply with those provisions of the NBHCP relating to Acquisition of Mitigation Lands to ensure that the Mitigation Lands are consolidated in minimum 400-acre habitat blocks and at least one 2,500 acre habitat block prior to the expiration of the Permits. The 400 acre minimum block requirement and the 2,500 acre minimum block requirement shall be applied in the aggregate to all Permittees and to all other approved HCPs in the Natomas Basin that are based on the NBHCP, so that the plans as a whole must achieve the identified habitat block consolidation requirements set forth in the NBHCP upon Plan completion. Notwithstanding the above, CITY and SUTTER each retain the independent obligation to provide 400 acre minimum blocks and one 2,500 acre minimum block prior to the date their respective Permits expire in the event the other Permittees cease participation in the NBHCP, or in the event the Potential Permittees choose not to participate in the NBHCP. None of the provisions contained herein shall be construed to prohibit the USFWS or CDFG from authorizing Mitigation Land acquisitions that do not comply with the minimum 400-acre minimum block size in the event that TNBC identifies potential Mitigation Lands which otherwise provide opportunities for the preservation of important biological resources.

5.7 Accounting for Mitigation Lands

5.7.1 Managed Marsh. Mitigation Lands acquired and converted to and managed as seasonal or perennial marsh, and existing marsh lands acquired by TNBC and managed as seasonal or perennial marsh, will count fully toward the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section

4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.2 Rice Land. Mitigation Lands in current rice production as Rice Lands will count fully toward the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section 4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.3 Uplands. Mitigation lands providing upland habitats will count fully towards the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section 4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.4 Proportion of Mitigation Lands as Marsh. Within three years of the approval of a Site Specific Management Plan a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands must be in managed marsh as specified in the NBHCP. Thereafter, a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands shall be in managed marsh until and unless that amount is increased up to a maximum of 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI 16 wc-83845

of the NBHCP. Pursuant to Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP, any increase in the amount of Mitigation Lands required to be in managed marsh shall apply only to Mitigation Lands Acquired to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development which are acquired after the USFWS or CDFG provide written notice and its accompanying documentation of Recovery Plan adoption, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or the availability of credible scientific information collected in the Plan Area. Provided the Wildlife Agency’s requested increase in managed marsh complies with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the failure of TNBC to adopt the increase in managed marsh as requested by either Wildlife Agency shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and possible suspension or revocation of the CITY and SUTTER’s Permits as set forth under Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

5.8 Conservation Measures. CITY and SUTTER shall include in each Urban Development Permit the Conservation Measures provided in Chapter V of the NBHCP. 6 ASSURANCES

6.1 USFWS

6.1.1 No Surprises Assurances.
(a) Unforeseen Circumstances. As provided in 50 C.F.R. 17.3, the term “Unforeseen Circumstances” shall mean changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the plan developers and USFWS at the time of the Plan’s negotiation and development, and that results in a substantial and adverse change in the status of a Covered Species. (1) “No Surprises” Assurances. Pursuant to the No
Surprises Rule at 50 C.F.R. Sections 17.3, 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), and provided that CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP, USFWS shall not require CITY, SUTTER or TNBC to provide additional land, water or other natural resources, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level provided for under the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits with respect to Covered Activities under the Permits without the consent of CITY or SUTTER. However, nothing in this Section or in the Assurances Rule shall be interpreted: (1) to restrict the authority of USFWS to take appropriate action under the ESA or applicable regulations to ensure that the NBHCP is properly implemented in accordance with this Agreement; (2) to apply to future Adaptive Management modifications for Mitigation Lands that are deemed necessary or appropriate by the USFWS or CDFG as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP and in consultation with CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, to respond to the results of monitoring in the Plan Area, or to new scientific information relevant to the NBHCP, (3) to apply to future modifications to the NBHCP as a result of future recovery plans as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, (4) to apply to the NBHCP responses to Changed Circumstances identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, or (5) to apply to changes anticipated to occur as a result of the Urban Development activities anticipated by the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, Section 2081(b) Permit, or as otherwise approved by the USFWS, provided that such actions, modifications and changes comply with the limitations and restrictions set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. If USFWS makes a finding of unforeseen circumstances, during the period necessary to determine the nature and location of additional or modified mitigation, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC will avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species and ensure that third persons under their control that are carrying out Covered Activities avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species. (2) Unforeseen Circumstances Finding. In the event that USFWS believes that Unforeseen Circumstances may exist in accordance with the “No Surprises” rule, it shall notify CDFG, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC in writing of the applicable specific facts described in Section 6.1.1 above. In the notification, USFWS shall clearly document the basis for 17 wc-83845

the proposed finding regarding the existence of Unforeseen Circumstances in accordance with the requirements of 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C). Within fifteen (15) days of receiving such notice, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, USFWS and CDFG shall meet to consider the facts cited in the notice and potential changes to the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program or management and operation of the Mitigation Lands. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and

17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C), USFWS shall make an Unforeseen Circumstances finding based on the best scientific evidence available, after considering any responses submitted by any other Parties pursuant to this section, and USFWS shall have the burden of demonstrating that Unforeseen Circumstances exist.
(3) Effect of Unforeseen Circumstances Finding. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), in the event that USFWS makes a finding of Unforeseen Circumstances and additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to such Unforeseen Circumstances, USFWS may require additional measures from CITY, SUTTER or TNBC where the NBHCP is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within the Mitigation Lands and the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program for the affected species and maintain the original terms of the NBHCP to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigation measures shall not involve the commitment of additional land, water or other natural resources without the consent of CITY and SUTTER. (b) Changed Circumstances.
(1) Changed Circumstances Defined. As provided in 50
C.F.R. 17.3, the term “Changed Circumstances” means changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that can reasonably be anticipated by CITY, SUTTER or TNBC and that can be planned for in the NBHCP (e.g. the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.) Changed circumstances and planned responses to those circumstances are described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. (2) Permittee-Initiated Response to Changed
Circumstances. CITY, SUTTER or TNBC, as appropriate, will immediately notify USFWS and all other Permittees upon learning that any of the Changed Circumstances listed in Chapter VI of the NBHCP has occurred, and shall provide written notice within seven (7) days. Permittees shall modify their activities and shall require third persons under the Permittees’ control to modify their activities, as appropriate, in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, to the extent necessary and feasible to minimize and mitigate the effects of the Changed Circumstances. CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and will report to USFWS on their actions. Such modifications will be initiated without awaiting notice from USFWS. Such changes are provided for in the NBHCP, and hence do not constitute unforeseen circumstances or require amendment of Permits or the NBHCP. (3) USFWS-Initiated Response to Changed
Circumstances. If USFWS determines that Changed Circumstances have occurred and that CITY, SUTTER or TNBC have not responded in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the USFWS in coordination with CDFG will so notify CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and, as appropriate, direct them to make the required changes. Within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice, CITY, SUTTER or TNBC, as appropriate, will make the required changes and report to USFWS on their action. Such changes are provided for in the NBHCP, and hence do not constitute unforeseen circumstances or require amendment of Permits or of the NBHCP.

6.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If during the term of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, an avian Covered Species which is protected under the MBTA is listed under the ESA, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits will also constitute Special Purpose Permits under 50 C.F.R. Section 21.27 for the “take” (for purposes of this Section, as that term is understood under the MBTA) of those Covered avian Species which are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and which are also protected by the MBTA. The take of such species in conjunction with any Authorized Development Project, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the NBHCP and 18 wc-83845

CITY’s, SUTTER’s or TNBC’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, will not be in violation of the MBTA.

Such Special Purpose permits shall be valid for a period of three years from the date the species is listed under the ESA provided that City's, Sutter's, or TNBC's Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, as applicable, remains in effect for that period. Such Special Purpose Permit will authorize take of any avian Covered Species listed under the ESA during the three year Special Purpose Permit term.

Such Special Purpose Permit shall be renewed as to each Permittee, provided that each Permittee continues to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. Each such renewal shall be valid for the maximum period of time allowed by 50 C.F.R. Section 21.27 or its successor at the time of renewal.

6.1.3 Beneficial Effects With Respect to Future Listings. To the extent permitted by the ESA and consistent with the provisions of the NBHCP, the USFWS shall consider the NBHCP and this Agreement in any future determination by the USFWS with regard to the listing of one or more of the currently unlisted Covered Species as an endangered species or threatened species pursuant to the ESA.

6.1.4 Critical Habitat. The USFWS further agrees that it will consider the NBHCP in its preparation of any proposed designation of critical habitat concerning any Covered Species and agrees that, consistent with 50 C.F.R. 424.12, the NBHCP incorporates those special management considerations necessary to manage the Covered Species and their habitats in a manner that will provide “for the conservation of the species involved” within the CITY, SUTTER’s and TNBC’s respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. Consistent with the No Surprises Rule set forth in Section 6.1.2(a), in the event that a critical habitat designation is made for any Covered Species and upon a determination that CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP, no additional mitigation in the form of land, land restrictions or financial compensation, beyond that required by the NBHCP, shall be required of any Permittee in connection with Urban Development in its Permit Area as a result of such critical habitat designation without the consent of that Permittee.

6.1.5 ESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species. In the event that one or more of the Covered animal Species that are not currently listed as an endangered species or threatened species are so listed pursuant to the ESA, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Urban Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is listed provided the CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP. The Parties expressly acknowledge that it is the intent of this Agreement that the Mitigation Lands will be administered so as to conserve and enhance the habitat values for all listed and unlisted Covered Species reasonably expected to be found in Natomas Basin , to the extent provided for in the NBHCP.

6.2 CDFG

6.2.1 CESA Compliance. CDFG shall consider adherence to the terms of this Agreement to be compliance with the CESA and the California Native Plant Protection Act for the impacts of Authorized Development on State Protected Species in the Permit Area. Take of Fully Protected Species is not authorized by this Agreement.

6.2.2 Adequate Mitigation Under CESA. CDFG shall consider adherence to the terms of the Section 2081 Permit, the NBHCP and this Agreement to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts associated with the Incidental Take of State Protected Species in the Permit Areas as authorized by the Section 2081 Permit and this Agreement pursuant to CESA.

6.2.3 Assurances. Except as otherwise required by law, no further mitigation from Urban Development Permittees and/or CITY and SUTTER consisting of land, additional land restrictions, or financial compensation beyond that described herein and provided for in the NBHCP, will be required by CDFG to address the impacts of Authorized Development within the respective Permit Areas on the State Protected Species, Covered Species which become listed in the future as State-protected species, or their habitats pursuant to the CESA. 19 wc-83845

6.2.4 CESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species. In the event that one or more of the Covered Species that are not State Protected Species are listed as an endangered species or threatened species or candidate species pursuant to the CESA (“Additional State Protected Species”), the Section 2081 Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Authorized Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is accepted and designated as a candidate species pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section 2074.2, upon confirmation by CDFG that substantial evidence demonstrates that the Section 2081 Permit will continue to meet the standards in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783,4 for the Additional State Protected Species. In the event CDFG determines that such standards will not be met, and the Section 2081 Permit does not become effective upon the designation of an Additional State Protected Species as a candidate, threatened, or endangered species under CESA, CDFG shall accept and give due consideration to the minimization and mitigation measures in the NBHCP and this Agreement in support of an application for a permit amendment or for a separate Section 2081 Permit authorizing Incidental Take of any such Additional State Protected Species. CDFG shall make reasonable efforts to review and process the application for an amendment to the Section 2081 Permit or a new Section 2081 Permit to authorize Incidental Take of an Additional State Protected Species to ensure, to the extent consistent with CESA, that the Incidental Take authorization is effective at the time the Covered Species is accepted and designated as a candidate species under CESA.
(a) The Parties expressly acknowledge that it is the intent of this Agreement that the Mitigation Lands will be administered so as to enhance their Habitat Values for all the Covered Species reasonably expected to be found in the Permit Areas. (b) To the extent permitted by the CESA, the CDFG shall consider the NBHCP and this Agreement in any future determination by the CDFG with regard to the listing of one or more of the currently unlisted Covered Species as an endangered species or threatened species pursuant to the CESA.

6.2.5 Changed Conditions. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Changed Conditions” shall have the same meaning as expressed in CESA and its related implementing regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 783.0. Prior to making a finding of Changed Conditions, CDFG shall provide notice to CITY, SUTTER, TNBC and other Parties hereto of any proposed amendments to this Agreement which CDFG proposes to remedy the Changed Condition. CDFG shall, to the extent feasible, meet with CITY, SUTTER, TNBC, and other Parties hereto at least ninety (90) days prior to making a finding of Changed Conditions to provide such parties with an opportunity to submit their comments and suggested revisions to the proposed amendment.

6.3 Limits on Future Revisions to NBHCP. The Parties acknowledge that the NBHCP expressly provides for revisions to the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program and Mitigation Lands as a result of monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, peer-reviewed new scientific information, or future recovery plans for the Covered Species, as part of the Adaptive Management program, in response to Changed Circumstances and for any other cause identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, provided that such revisions comply with Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Such revisions are provided for under the Plan and are therefore not subject to the restrictions on additional Mitigation contained in USFWS’s No Surprises Rule or agreed to by CDFG, nor do such revisions require amendment of the Plan or the Permits. Notwithstanding the above, such revisions shall be subject to the following limitations unless such limitations are waived in writing by CITY, SUTTER and TNBC.
20 wc-83845

(a) The modifications shall not require more than 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands to be converted to or maintained as managed marsh; and (b) The modifications shall not require the Mitigation Ratio to be greater than 0.5 acre mitigation to 1.0 acre development. (c) The modifications shall comply with the requirements, limitations and restrictions specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

6.4 Reservation of Rights Re: Subsequent Listing of Species. This Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights or objections that any of the Parties hereto or Urban Development Permittees may have with respect to the proposed listing of any Candidate Species under the ESA or CESA or of any of the other Covered Species described in this Agreement. The Permittee and the Urban Development Permittees reserve their right to oppose any formal listing of any Candidate Species or other Covered Species pursuant to the ESA or CESA. Likewise, nothing in this Agreement is intended, nor shall be construed to limit the authority of USFWS or CDFG to enforce or otherwise carry out their respective responsibilities under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts and other applicable federal and state laws.

6.5 Land Use Authority. Nothing in the NBHCP or in this Agreement shall be interpreted or operate in a manner that expressly or impliedly diminishes or restricts the local land use authority of CITY and SUTTER. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they have chosen to implement several of the commitments made by them under the NBHCP through the exercise of their respective land use authorities. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to exercise their land use authorities in a manner consistent with their obligations under the NBHCP could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and their respective Permits and could result in suspension or revocation of such Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

6.6 No Liability. All Parties hereto agree that under no circumstances shall CITY, SUTTER and TNBC have any liability whatsoever for any debts, liabilities or financial obligations incurred by another Permittee under the NBHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they are obligated under their Permits to fully implement the NBHCP, including funding each of the obligations assigned to TNBC as the Plan Operator under the NBHCP. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to fully fund TNBC’s obligation under the Plan could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and CITY, SUTTER and TNBC’s respective Permits and could result in suspension of revocation of such permits pursuant to Section 7.6 of this Agreement.
7 AMENDMENTS AND REMEDIES

7.1 Revisions and Amendments to the NBHCP. Revisions to the NBHCP shall be implemented in accordance with Chapter VI of the Plan. Revisions shall not require Amendment of the Plan or Permits. Amendments to the NBHCP shall require amendment of the Permits and shall be processed in accordance with the amendment provisions of Chapter VI of the Plan and all applicable laws and regulations.

7.2 Amendments to Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by written document signed by all of the Parties.

7.3 Land Use Changes. The Parties to this Agreement agree that the adoption and amendment of General Plans, Specific Plans, Community Plans, zoning ordinances and similar ordinances, and the granting of implementing land use entitlement by CITY or SUTTER pertaining to land in their respective Permit Areas, shall be matters within the sole discretion of CITY and SUTTER, and shall not require amendments to this Agreement or the approval of the other Parties to this Agreement. No such action by CITY or SUTTER shall in any way alter or diminish its obligations under this Agreement and the NBHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentences, CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they have chosen to implement several of the commitments made 21 wc-83845

by them under the NBHCP through the exercise of their respective land use authorities. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to exercise their land use authorities in a manner consistent with their obligations under the NBHCP could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and their respective Permits and could result in suspension or revocation of such Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

7.4 Remedies in General. The Parties acknowledge that each of the Covered Species is unique and that the loss of any of the Covered Species would be irreparable and that therefore injunctive and/or temporary relief may be appropriate in certain circumstances involving a breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Parties shall not be liable in monetary damages to any Party or any person for any breach of this Agreement, in the performance or failure to perform a mandatory or discretionary obligation imposed by this Agreement, or any other cause of action arising from this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing, the Parties shall have all of the remedies available in equity (including specific performance and injunctive relief) and at law to enforce the terms of this Agreement and the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit and Section 2081 Permit and to seek remedies for any breach thereof, consistent with and subject to the terms of this Agreement. It is expressly understood by the Parties that monetary damages will not provide an adequate remedy for material breach of this Agreement.

7.5 Third Party Enforcement. This Agreement shall not create in the public, any member of the public, or any other person or entity, including any Urban Development Permittee, any rights under this Agreement, nor shall it authorize anyone not a signatory to this Agreement to maintain a suit (1) in equity or law to enforce the terms of this Agreement and/or the NBHCP, Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 Permit, or (2) for compensation or damages under the provisions of the Agreement, NBHCP, or Permits.

7.6 Suspension or Revocation.

7.6.1 Suspension or Revocation by USFWS. The Parties acknowledge that the USFWS has the authority to suspend or revoke any of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, in whole or in part, in the event of a material violation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit and pursuant to any applicable federal laws or regulations that govern the permitted activity. The regulations found at 50 C.F.R. §§13.27 - 13.29 and 17.22(b)(8), or any successor regulations, shall govern the suspension or revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit issued by the USFWS.

7.6.2 Suspension or Revocation by CDFG. The Parties acknowledge that CDFG shall have the authority to suspend or revoke the Section 2081 Permit in the event of a material breach or violation of the Section 2081 Permit or any applicable California laws or regulations governing the permitted activity.

7.6.3 Status of Urban Development Permittees after Suspension or Revocation.

Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation of a Permittee’s Permit, CITY and SUTTER shall remain liable under this Agreement to carry out all of their responsibilities under the Permits and this Agreement arising from any Authorized Development approved, authorized, or carried out by CITY or SUTTER, within their respective Permit Areas between the Effective Date of the Agreement and the date a Permittee’s Permit is suspended or revoked. As to any Authorized Development project approved or authorized by CITY or SUTTER prior to the Permit suspension or revocation and that is in compliance with the Permit, but as to which construction activity has not commenced as of the suspension or revocation, so long as CITY or SUTTER and the Urban Development Permittee, if any, continue to fulfill their obligations under the Permit, the Permit shall continue in effect for that Authorized Development project until that project is completed.

7.6.4 No Further Approvals by Permittees. Subject to the provisions of section

7.6.3 above, if a Permit is suspended or revoked, CITY and SUTTER shall not have the authority to rely upon the Permit to approve or carry out any actions that would violate the ESA or CESA in the absence of such Permit. Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation, CITY and SUTTER shall remain fully liable under the Permits and this Agreement to carry out all of their responsibilities, 22 wc-83845

including the Mitigation Requirement, under the NBHCP, the Permits and this Agreement arising from Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out by an Urban Development Permittee within the respective Permit Areas between the Effective Date and the date the Permit is suspended or revoked.

7.6.5 Severability. The violation by CITY or SUTTER of their respective Permits shall not adversely affect or be attributed to, nor shall it result in the loss or diminution of any right, privilege or benefit under a Permit held by a non-responsible Permittee. Nor shall CITY and SUTTER be deemed to have violated the Permits solely as a consequence of the actions of an Urban Development Permittee or other third person subject to CITY’s or SUTTER’s jurisdiction and control, so long as CITY or SUTTER takes all necessary and appropriate steps, if any are available, to halt and correct the violation in accordance with this Agreement and consistent with their police powers and local land use authority. However, the violation by TNBC of its Permits shall be considered a failure by CITY and SUTTER to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP. In such event, CITY and SUTTER’s Permits shall not be revoked or suspended, if CITY and/or SUTTER implement corrective measures in accordance with Section 3.1.11 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, to the extent that action or inaction by a Permittee, an Urban Development Permittee or other third party subject to CITY’s or SUTTER’s jurisdiction and control, or TNBC prevents proper implementation of the NBHCP or compliance by one or more of the remaining Permittees with their Permits or results in a determination by the USFWS or CDFG that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild, such Permits may be suspended or revoked in accordance with applicable USFWS and CDFG regulations.

7.6.6 Validity of Permits. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction invalidates either City, County’s or TNBC’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) or Section 2081 Permits with regard to one or more Covered Species, other than the Giant garter snake or Swainson’s hawk, such action shall not be construed to invalidate the permits with regard to the remaining Covered Species. The requirements of the State and Federal Incidental Take Permits and the NBHCP shall continue to be implemented by each Permittee with regard to the remaining Covered Species. 8 MISCELLANEOUS

8.1 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of fifty (50) years from the Effective Date.

8.2 Termination

8.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent. CITY or SUTTER may, by mutual agreement with the Wildlife Agencies, terminate this Agreement as to itself. In the event that such mutually agreed-upon termination occurs, a written termination agreement shall be executed to ensure that the mitigation required under the NBHCP and this Agreement for all Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out prior to termination is carried out. Upon execution of such agreement and surrender of the Permits to the Wildlife Agencies, no further take shall be authorized under the terms of the surrendered Permits.

8.2.2 Termination by USFWS or CDFG. The USFWS or CDFG may terminate this Agreement upon revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or the Section 2081 Permit in accordance with Section 7.6.

8.2.3 Termination by the TNBC. The TNBC may terminate voluntarily its participation under this Agreement only if it has an agreement to do so with the CITY, SUTTER, USFWS and CDFG. Any agreement allowing TNBC to terminate its participation and its status as Plan Operator, shall contain provisions for assuring that the provisions of the NBHCP will be implemented.

8.2.4 Effect of Termination. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the USFWS or CDFG with respect to a Permittee, that Permittee’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or 23 wc-83845

Section 2081 Permit, as applicable, shall, subject to Section 8.2.1 above, be void. CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that, although the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program would mitigate for effects resulting from the Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities, because the percentage of uplands to wetlands differs between their respective Permit Areas, the NBHCP allows for the Operating Conservation Program provided for under the NBHCP to be reevaluated and revised in the event either CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits are terminated or revoked to ensure that the configuration of Mitigation Lands provided for under the NBHCP continues to adequately mitigate for the impacts of Authorized Development in the remaining jurisdiction.

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Termination. The Mitigation Lands are to be established in perpetuity. Management of the Mitigation Lands by TNBC in accordance with the NBHCP shall continue in perpetuity, notwithstanding termination, suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 Permit for any reason, unless the suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits is due to a violation by TNBC of its Permits. TNBC’s management activities shall be funded from the Mitigation Fees collected on account of past Authorized Development under the Permits which includes endowment components to fund permanent management. None of the assets of the TNBC, including lands or interests in land may be transferred, conveyed, or assigned to any person or entity, except as specified in Sections 3.2.11 and Section 3.2.12 of this Agreement. However, take previously authorized through Urban Development Permits or for public or private projects for which the Mitigation Requirement was been completed or is otherwise assured shall continue to be authorized. In the case of the federal Permit, upon notification from the Service that implementation of all minimization and mitigation measures identified in the termination agreement have been implemented, the permit shall be deemed canceled.

8.3 Binding Effect. The terms, provisions and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

8.4 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing, shall be deemed made upon receipt, and shall be given by personal delivery or by certified mail/return receipt requested, addressed to the Parties as follows:

City of Sacramento
915 I Street, Room 109
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: City Manager
County Administrative Officer
County of Sutter
1160 Civic Center Blvd., Ste. A
Yuba City, CA 95993
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of the Regional Director
Portland, OR 97232
with a copy to:

Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 95821-6340
24 wc-83845

California Department of Fish and Game Office of the Director 1416 9th Street, 12th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
with copies to:

General Counsel
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 9th Street, 12th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
and to:

Regional Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
The Natomas Basin Conservancy
1750 Creekside Oaks Dr., Suite 290
Sacramento, CA 95833
Attn: Executive Manager
Any Party may give notice to the others specifying a different address for notice purposes.

8.5 Captions. The headings of the various sections hereof are for convenience only, and shall not affect the meaning of any provisions of this Agreement.

8.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

8.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the ESA, the CESA, and other applicable state and federal laws. In particular, nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the authority of USFWS to fulfill its responsibilities under the ESA or CDFG under CESA or other applicable law, including but not limited to seeking penalties against CITY, SUTTER or TNBC. Moreover nothing in this agreement is intended to limit the legal responsibilities of USFWS as an agency of the federal government or CDFG as an agency of the State of California.

8.8 Complete Agreement. This Agreement, together with the NBHCP, constitutes the full and complete agreement between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, all of which shall be deemed to have been merged herein, it being the intention of the Parties that this be a completely integrated agreement. Specifically, this Agreement shall supercede the Implementation Agreement executed in December, 1997.

8.9 Federal Section 7 Consultations. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to eliminate or modify the obligation of a federal agency to consult with the USFWS pursuant to section 7(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)). To the maximum extent appropriate, in any consultation 25 wc-83845

under said provision involving CITY or SUTTER or a prospective or other Urban Development Permittee with regard to Covered Species, the USFWS shall ensure that the biological opinion issued in connection with the proposed public or private Project which is the subject of the consultation is consistent with the biological opinion issued in connection with the NBHCP, provided that the proposed public or private Project is consistent with the NBHCP. Any biological measures included under the terms and conditions of the Section 7 biological opinion shall, to the maximum extent appropriate, be consistent with the Mitigation Requirement imposed by CITY or SUTTER under the NBHCP as implemented by this Agreement, provided that, unless otherwise required by law, the USFWS shall not impose additional mitigation measures on the project proponent in excess of those that have been or will be required by the CITY or SUTTER pursuant to the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits.

8.10 Conflict with NBHCP. The NBHCP and each of its terms are intended to be, and by this reference are, incorporated herein. In the event of any contradiction, conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and the NBHCP, the terms of this Agreement shall control. In all other cases, the terms of this Agreement and of the NBHCP shall be interpreted to be supplementary to each other. Where interpretation is required, this Agreement shall be interpreted as a vehicle for implementation of the NBHCP.

8.11 Other Permittees. The failure of other Potential Permittees identified in the NBHCP to obtain Permits shall not preclude this Agreement from going into effect within the geographical boundaries of each Permittee , or on lands Acquired by the NBC, nor preclude the issuance of the Permits to such other Potential Permittees or to subsequent signatories of this Agreement.

8.12 Federal Appropriations. USFWS’s commitment to provide technical assistance under the NBHCP and to implement this Agreement, including the assurances provided herein, are subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act and the availability of appropriated funds.

Nothing in this agreement will be construed by the parties to require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the U.S. Treasury. The parties acknowledge that the USFWS will not be required under this Agreement to expend any federal agency’s appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency affirmatively acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.

8.13 State Appropriations. Implementation of this Agreement and the NBHCP and the assurances provided herein, is subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Nothing in this agreement will be construed by the parties to require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the Treasury of the State of California. The parties acknowledge that CDFG will not be required under this Agreement to expend any State of California agency’s appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency affirmatively acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.

8.14 References to Regulations. Any reference in this Agreement, the NBHCP, or the Permits to any regulation or rule of USFWS or CDFG shall be deemed to be a reference to such regulation or rule in existence at the time the action is taken.

8.15 Applicable Laws. All activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the NBHCP or the Permit must be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

8.16 No Partnership. Neither this Agreement nor the NBHCP shall make or be deemed to make any party to this Agreement the agent for or the partner of any other party.

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit. No member of or delegate to Congress shall be entitled to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise from it. 26 wc-83845

EXHIBIT A: DEFINITIONS
NBHCP Definitions
Terms used in the NBHCP and Implementation Agreement shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA and CESA, except as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein, but which are defined in the Plan, shall have the meanings specified in the Plan.

1. Adaptive Management. The term “Adaptive Management” means a method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable goals and objectives, and then, if necessary adjusting future conservation management actions according to what is learned to achieve those goals and objectives.

2. Amendment. The term “Amendment” shall refer to significant changes to the NBHCP, Implementation Agreement and/or Incidental Take Permit for circumstances as described in Chapter VI, Section 3(b) of the NBHCP. Amendments include activities which are more significant than and different from revisions (see also “Revisions”).

3. Area B (Out of Basin Mitigation Area). Area B shall refer to lands identified on Figure 20 of the HCP in which TNBC may pursue acquisition of Mitigation Lands under the specific terms described in Chapter IV, Section 2.b of the HCP, with approval of USFWS and CDFG.

TNBC shall account for all acreage acquired in Area B to ensure that the total amount of such lands does not exceed 20 percent of the total Mitigation Lands. The additional requirements for acquisition of mitigation lands in Area B (out of basin) apply only to Area B and do not apply to any acquisitions of mitigation lands located within the Natomas Basin or the outer “ring” of the Natomas Basin defined as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of the water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees. (Note: During the final NBHCP approval process by the City Council of the City of Sacramento and the Board of Supervisors of Sutter County, authorizationtopurchaseMitigationLandstooffset theimpactsofdevelopment waslimitedtotheNatomasBasinandthe “outer” ring around the levees of the Natomas Basin. No authorization to purchase lands to mitigate impacts of Authorized Development in Area B (out of basin) was granted by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors.)

4. Authorized Development. The term “Authorized Development” means that development for which incidental take is authorized for the City of Sacramento and Sutter County under this NBHCP. Authorized Development is limited to a total of 15,517 acres of Planned Development (as further defined below in Section III.A) under the NBHCP. Included within the City’s 8,050 acre portion of the Authorized Development are 28 acres of infrastructure development associated with the Metro Air Park (MAP) project in Sacramento County.

Included within Sutter County’s 7,467 acres of Authorized Development is 16.5 acres of proposed drainage channel improvements located within Sacramento County. Incidental take resulting from the 1,983 acre MAP project, including the 28 acres located in the City of Sacramento, is covered by separate incidental take permits issued by the Wildlife Agencies.

The 15,517 acres of Authorized Development related incidental take within the City and Sutter County combined with the 1,983 acres of development related take within Sacramento County for the MAP project represent a total of 17,500 acres of potential urban development in the Natomas Basin which has been analyzed in the NBHCP as Planned Development, as further defined below. Any development within the City of Sacramento 29 wc-83845

beyond the 8,050 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, within Sutter County, beyond the 7,467 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, or within Sacramento County beyond the MAP project, will not be covered under the respective incidental take permits and will trigger a reevaluation of impacts to and mitigation for biological and other resources in the Natomas Basin and amendment of the NBHCP and the incidental take permits or development of a new HCP and issuance of new incidental take permits to address such impacts and mitigation as appropriate.

5. Biological Monitoring. The term “Biological Monitoring” means the mandatory element of all HCPs that is designed and implemented to provide the information necessary to assess compliance and project impacts, and verify progress toward the biological goals and objectives for the Plan’s Covered Species and habitats.

6. Biological Monitoring Plan. Refers to specific monitoring requirements to be conducted in the Natomas Basin as specified in Chapter VI, Section E, Subsection 2, and includes both the overall NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program and the Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs.

7. Changed Circumstances. This term “Changed circumstances” is defined in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that can reasonably be anticipated by Plan Participants and the USFWS, and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.)” Changed circumstances addressed in NBHCP are outlined in Chapter VI, Section K of the HCP.

8. Compliance Monitoring. The term “Compliance Monitoring” means an itemized, task specific method of verifying that the Permittee is carrying out the terms of the NBHCP, Permit and IA.

9. Conservation Measures. The term “Conservation Measures” means that accepting and conveying developer mitigation fees, and possibly land dedications, as required under the NBHCP, the Land Use Agencies shall implement a variety of measures that will avoid, minimize or mitigate the take of Covered Species.

10. Covered Activities. The term “Covered Activities” means the Land Use Agencies Covered Activities and the TNBC Covered Activities.

11. Covered Activities, Land Use Agencies. The term “Land Use Agencies Covered Activities” refers to those specific activities identified at Chapter I, Section N.(1) of the NBHCP for which each Land Use Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Covered Activities generally means the conversion from vacant land or agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including related public and private infrastructure development and improvements by the City or Sutter County.

12. Covered Activities, TNBC. The term “TNBC Covered Activities” means those activities conducted by TNBC on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Permittees who may obtain take authorization pursuant to the NBHCP or an HCP based on the NBHCP, within TNBC’s Permit Area. These activities include acquisition, habitat creation, restoration, 30 wc-83845

preservation, enhancement, management and monitoring activities within Conserved Habitat Areas. TNBC’s Covered Activities are described at Chapter I, Section N (3) of the NBHCP.

13. Covered Activities, Water Agencies. The term “Water Agencies Covered Activity” refers to those specific activities identified in Chapter I, Section N (2) of the NBHCP for which each Water Agency Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Such Covered Activities generally include physical maintenance and operation of the Water Agencies’ existing facilities located within the Plan Area, including channel maintenance, vegetation control (where no herbicides are utilized), and construction or improvement of facilities where there is no increase to the footprint of the existing facility.

14. Covered Species. The term "Covered Species" means the Federally Protected Species, State Protected Species and the Other Species identified within Table I-1 hereto.

15. ESA and CESA. The term "ESA" means the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The term "CESA" means the California Endangered Species Act, as amended.

16. Exempt Area. The term refers to areas within the Natomas Basin, within the City of Sacramento which are already approved for development or already developed and as shown on Exhibit B of the Implementation Agreement.

17. Federally Protected Species. The term "Federally Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed by the United States (“U.S.”) under the provisions of ESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may be found, in the Permit Areas, as well as those other Covered Species listed on Table I-1 that the USFWS may list in the future.

18. Five Point Policy. The term “Five Point Policy” refers to an addendum to the HCP Handbook published by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Service on June 1, 2000.

The five point policy addendum provides clarifying guidance for conducting the incidental take permit program and for those applying for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

19. Habitat Values. The term "Habitat Values" means the capability of a land or water area or associated areas, where indigenous plant(s) or animal(s), individually or collectively, may occur and upon which the Covered Species are dependent, in whole or in part, to provide for some or all of their maintenance, growth and reproduction.

20. Implementation Annual Meeting. The term refers to the annual public meeting held jointly with TNBC, other Permittees, USFWS and CDFG to report on the progress of the HCP Conservation Strategy as described in Chapter VI. G of the NBHCP.

21. Implementation Annual Report. The term refers to the annual report prepared by the TNBC describing the compliance and effectiveness monitoring processes and findings and the status of the progress in implementing the NBHCP in accordance with the requirements of Chapter VI, Section G of the NBHCP.
31 wc-83845

22. Incidental Take. The term "Incidental Take" means any taking of Covered Species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activity.

23. Incidental Take Permits. The terms “Incidental Take Permits,” “ITPs” and “Permits” mean the individual permits issued to each Permittee subject to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act.

24. Independent Mid-Point Review. This term refers to the required review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the HCP by each of the land use agencies at a defined mid-point in the approval of Authorized Development and as more specifically defined in Chapter VI, Section J of the NBHCP.

25. Land Use Agencies. The term “Land Use Agencies” means the City of Sacramento and Sutter County. If and when Sacramento County submits and receives approval of its own ITP, Sacramento County would be considered a Land Use Agency as defined herein.

26. MAP (Metro Air Park) Habitat Conservation Plan (MAP HCP). This term refers to the approved Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project located in the unincorporated portion of the Natomas Basin within Sacramento County, specifically, “Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Metro Air Park Property Owner’s Association, Dated 2001.”

27. Mitigation Fees. As defined in Chapter VI, the term "Mitigation Fees" means the one time, up-front fees levied upon an Authorized Development site (in gross acres) that is used to pay for the Mitigation Land acquisition, enhancement, management, monitoring, and other activities required under the NBHCP. The Mitigation Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an Urban Development Permit by the Land Use Permittee. The components of the Mitigation Fee include: Land Acquisition, Restoration/Enhancement/Monitoring, Administration O&M, O&M Endowment Fund, Supplemental Endowment Fund, and Fee Collection Administration as defined in Chapter VI.

28. Mitigation Lands. The term “Mitigation Lands” means the reserve lands acquired through collection and use of Mitigation Fees from Authorized Development, and in some cases land which has been accepted for dedication from Authorized Development, which will be set aside and managed at a ratio of one-half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program will result in 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands to be established and managed by TNBC.

29. Mitigation Ratio. The term “Mitigation Ratio” means mitigation for the conversion of land in the respective Permit Areas to Authorized Development at a ratio of one-half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development.

30. Mitigation Requirement. The term “Mitigation Requirement” means the mitigation requirement for each public and private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Development as calculated in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter VI, Section 1. 32 wc-83845

31. Natomas Basin. "Natomas Basin" or "Basin" means that geographical area depicted in Figure 2, Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions.

32. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. The terms “Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan,” “NBHCP” and “the Plan” mean the year 2002 version of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

33. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, 1997. The terms “1997 NBHCP” and “1997 Plan” mean the previously approved City of Sacramento Natomas Basin HCP that was the original basis for this 2002 NBHCP.

34. No Surprises Rule. The term “No Surprises Rule” refers the terms and conditions specified in the February 28, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife final rule codifying its “No Surprises” policy into federal regulation (63 FR 8859). The “No Surprises” rule states, in part, that: “In negotiating unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] will not require the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon for the species covered by the conservation plan without the consent of the Permittee. If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] may require additional measures of the Permittee where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within conserved habitat areas, if any, or to the Conservation Plan’s Operating Conservation Program for the affected species, and maintain the original terms of the Conservation Plan to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigation measures will not involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under the original terms of the conservation plan, without the consent of the Permittee.” (50 C.F.R. Sections 17.22(b)(5)(iii) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii).) The No Surprises Rules is discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

35. Operating Conservation Program. The term “Operating Conservation Program” means the totality of the conservation and management measures provided for under the NBHCP to avoid, minimize, mitigate and monitor the impacts of take of the Covered Species as described in Chapters IV through VI of the Plan. The Operating Conservation Program includes totals the Permittees reporting obligations under the Permits and responses to Changed Circumstances described in Chapter VI.

36. Overall Program Review. This term refers to a required program review of the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program to be initiated at the point Urban Development Permits covering a total of 9,000 acres of development in the Natomas Basin have been issued by the Land Use Permittees and by Sacramento County for the Metro Air Park. The areas to be covered by the Overall Program Review are specified and described in Chapter VI, Section I of the NBHCP.

37. Permit Area, City of Sacramento. The term “Permit Area” as applied to the City of Sacramento means that area designated on Figure 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 8,050 acres located within the City of Sacramento city limits and in 33 wc-83845

certain locations (i.e., the Panhandle Annexation Area) within the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for the City of Sacramento is limited to this Permit Area.

38. Permit Area, County of Sutter. The term “Permit Area” as applied to Sutter County means that area designated on Figure 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 7,467 acres located within the unincorporated areas of Sutter County, and approximately 16.5 acres located within unincorporated Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for Sutter County is limited to this Permit Area.

39. Permit Area, Natomas Mutual. The term “Permit Area” as applied to Natomas Mutual means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-ofways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of Natomas Mutual and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for Natomas Mutual is limited to this Permit Area.

40. Permit Area, RD 1000. The term “Permit Area” as applied to RD 1000 means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-of-ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of RD 1000 and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for RD 1000 is limited to this Permit Area.

41. Permit Area, TNBC. The term “Permit Area” as applied to The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) consists of all lands within the Natomas Basin (the Plan Area), as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas.

42. Permittees. The term "Permittees" means the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual and The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

43. Plan Area. The term “Plan Area” means the entire 53,537 acres of land within the inside toe of levee of the Natomas Basin levees. The Plan Area refers to the portion of the Natomas Basin that is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the Natomas Cross Canal, on the east by Steelhead Creek (formerly known as Natomas East Main Drain Canal), and on the south by the Garden Highway.

44. Planned Development. The term “Planned Development” means the Authorized Development plus the development of the 1,983 acre Metro Air Park, which is subject to the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (“MAP Authorized Development”)

45. Plan Operator. The term “Plan Operator” means The Natomas Basin Conservancy, the entity responsible for implementing the NBHCP.

46. Plan Participants. The term “Plan Participants” means parties actively involved in implementing the NBHCP, including the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), the Permittees (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Mutual and RD 1000), and the Plan Operator (TNBC).
34 wc-83845

47. Potential Permittees. The term “Potential Permittees” refers to additional entities within the Natomas Basin that may decide to commit to the terms of the NBHCP and the Implementation Agreement and, through the issuance of Permits by the Wildlife Agencies, join as full Permittees at a future date.

48. Protected Species. The term "Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed under the State CESA and the Federal ESA.

49. Qualified Biologist. The term “qualified biologist” shall refer to a biologist which meets the training and experience requirements necessary to conduct assessments or surveys for specific species, and who has been approved by the Wildlife Agencies to conduct those assessments or surveys.

50. Reintroduction. The term “reintroduction” as used in the NBHCP refers to relocating individuals (or seeds or cysts, etc) of a Covered Species: (1). Either from one TNBC Reserve Site to another TNBC Reserve Site or from one location on a TNBC Reserve Site to a new location within the same TNBC Reserve Site; or (2) the relocation of an individual of a Covered Species from a site which will be impacted by Authorized Development to a TNBC Reserve Site to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts to Covered Species. The term “reintroduction” as used in the Natomas Basin HCP refers to the movement of animals or plants within the Basin and does not refer to the intentional introduction or recolonization of Covered Species from outside the Basin to inside the Basin.

51. Revisions. Refers to minor changes to the NBHCP as specified in Chapter VI, Section 3.a of the NBHCP. Revisions to the NBHCP are changes to the Plan provided for under the Operating Conservation Program, including Adaptive Management changes and Mitigation Fee adjustments. These revisions would not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved.

52. Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits. The terms "Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits" or "Permits" as used in this Plan means the permits issued by the USFWS under Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA which authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permit" may also be used in this Plan to collectively refer to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, and the Section 2081 Permits.

53. Section 2081 Permits. The terms "Section 2081 Permits” or “Permits” means the permits for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species, listed under the CESA, issued by the CDFG under Section 2081(b) and/or 2081.1 of the California Fish and Game Code, or any successor section to authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within 35 wc-83845

the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permits" may also be used in this Agreement to refer collectively to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and/or the Section 2081(b) or 2081.1 Permits.

54. Site Specific Management Plan. The terms “Site Specific Management Plan” and “SSMP” mean those plans that TNBC is required to complete for each reserve unit that it acquires.

SSMP’s shall include operations plans that address on-site habitat restoration, enhancement, maintenance and management activities that will be presented to the NBHCP TAC for approval on a three year basis.

55. State Protected Species. The term ‘State Protected Species” means those plants and animals listed by the State of California (“State”) under the provisions of CESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may found, in the permit areas.

56. Swainson’s Hawk Zone. This zone is defined as the lands which are not currently developed (excluding the 250 acres of land designated “Urban” on the City of Sacramento General Plan and the North Natomas Community Plan located within the City of Sacramento) and which are located within the Natomas Basin and within one mile east of the toe of the inside levee of the Sacramento River and extending from the Natomas Cross Canal on the north and Interstate 80 on the south. See also Figure 13 of the NBHCP.

57. System of Reserves. The term “system of reserves” means Mitigation Lands generally and includes all habitat conserved and managed for the Covered Species, including rice fields by TNBC.

58. Take or Taking. With regard to any activities subject to ESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in the ESA. With regard to any activities subject to CESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in CESA.

59. Technical Advisory Committee. The terms “Technical Advisory Committee” and “TAC” mean the advisory group of technical experts selected by the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies to assist TNBC Board with directing the implementation of the NBHCP.

60. The Natomas Basin Conservancy. The terms “The Natomas Basin Conservancy,” “the Conservancy” or “TNBC” shall mean the independent entity established for the purpose of implementing the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Potential Permittees. The TNBC is also a Permittee for purposes of implementation of the reserve system.

61. TNBC Mitigation Land or Reserve Area. The term “TNBC Reserve Area” or “TNBC Mitigation Land” shall mean those areas where TNBC is authorized to acquire and manage wildlife reserves subject to the provisions of the NBHCP. Such areas shall include all lands within the Natomas Basin, as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted 36 wc-83845

on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas. The TNBC Reserve Area and the TNBC Permit Area are coterminous.

62. Unforeseen Circumstances. The term “Unforeseen circumstances” is defined at 50 C.F.R.

17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS at the time of the NBHCP’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species. Unforeseen circumstances are discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

63. Urban Development Permit and Urban Development Permittee. The term “Urban Development Permit” shall mean the final authorization granted by the Land Use Agencies prior to disturbance of undeveloped land in conjunction with a public or private development project. An Urban Development Permit may also be used to refer to a grading permit or notice to proceed. An “Urban Development Permittee” refers to the individual, agency or company applying for approval, or receiving approval of an Urban Development Permit from the Land Use Agencies.

64. Water Agencies. The term “Water Agencies” means RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

Natomas Mutual is a private company and not a governmental agency.

65. Wildlife Agencies. The term “Wildlife Agencies” means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.
37 wc-83845

wc-83845
38 Baseline Map - Exhibit B
City of Sacramento
£7 1 // |_L 1 HI
□
1 1
TI
J.
n—t
hl

wc-83845
40 wc-83845
42 Exhibit D -List of Covered Species in Permit Area
TABLE I - 1

LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE NBHCP

AND/OR COVERED BY ITS ASSOCIATED PERMITS
# Species Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
1 Aleutian Canada goose
Branta canadensis
leucopareia
SC Grazes in marshes and stubble fields, roosts on the water 2 bank swallow
Riparia riparia
T Nests in river banks, forages for insects over open water, croplands, and grasslands
3 burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC Prefers open, dry grassland and desert habitats
4 loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
SC SSC Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, fences, and posts. Will use cropland.
5 Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
T Breeds in riparian forest; known nesting sites in trees along Sacramento River in Natomas Basin. Forages for
small mammals in grasslands and croplands.
6 tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
SC SSC Nests in marshes with bulrush, blackberry or cattails; three known occurrences in Natomas Basin. Forages on
the ground in grasslands and croplands.
7 white-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
SC SSC Forages in flooded rice fields
8 giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
T T Forages in marshes, low gradient open waterways and flooded rice fields, hibernates in canal berms and other uplands; several known occurrences in Natomas Basin
9 northwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata
marmorata
SC SSC Lives in permanent bodies of water; requires floating vegetation, logs, rocks or banks for basking. Hibernates and lays eggs is uplands.
10 California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
C SSC Winters in ground squirrel burrows or other holes; breeds in vernal pools, stockponds , and other seasonal
wetlands.
11 western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii
SC SSC Primary habitat is grasslands; breeds in shallow temporary pools
12 valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
T Lives and reproduces on elderberry shrubs found along rivers and canals.
13 midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
n. sp.

Vernal pool obligate often found in small pools; likely to occur in Plan Area
14 vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
T Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento County
15 vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
E Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento County
16 Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiaola heterosepala
E Low-terrace species found in shallow water margins of vernal pools
17 Colusa Grass
Neostapfia colusana
T Occurs in large deep pools with substrates of adobe mud but also in smaller pools; known in Yolo County
43 wc-83845

# Species Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
18 delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii ssp.jepsonii
SC Perennial twining vine occurs in both riparian and marsh habitats
19 legenere
Legenere limosa
SC Found in wet places or vernal pools below 400 feet in elevation
20 Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida
E E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
21 Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
SC Tuberose perennial likely to occur in drainage or irrigation ditches
22 slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
T E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
Key to Abbreviations
Federal
E = Listed as endangered C = Candidate for federal listing, data sufficient T = Listed as threatened SC = Species of Concern--informal category, formerly called candidate 2 species (data for listing
insufficient)
State
E = Listed as EndangeredR = Listed as Rare
T = Listed as Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern 44 wc-83845
AECOM Paso Verde School DEIR
Biological Resources 3.4-6 Natomas Unified School District Source: CNDDB 2018, adapted by AECOM in 2018
Exhibit 3.4-2. Location of CNNDB Wildlife Occurrences within a 2-Mile Radius of the Project Site

Date: 1/5/2024 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1547501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Biology\Figure04_CNDDB.mxd Sacramento River
Sacramento River
99 H ovn anian Dr
St emmlerDr
McNairCir
Lindbergh Dr
Barandas Dr
ger G Th atch Cir
Earhart Dr
W es tla ke Pkwy
N Bayou Rd
W River Dr
W
Wit ter Way
Road 119
Do n River Ln
N Bayou Way
RyndersWay
Oli vadi W ay
Duckhorn Dr
Alcant
ar Cir
Road 122
Reserv oir Rd
Farm Rd
H
wa
kcrestCir
Radio Rd
Wi ndso ng S t
County Road 126
County Road 124
80 5
Del Paso Rd
Power Line Rd
Aviation Dr
W Elkhorn Blvd
Arrivals
San Juan Rd
E
Com
merce Way
Bayou Way
Elkhorn Blvd
Metro Air Pkwy
Road 117
Old River Rd
Airport Blvd
El Centro Rd
Arena Blvd
Garden Hwy
5 8
6 7
10 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
11 2
2 9 9
9 9 9
9 2
2 11
11 11
9 9
2 2 2 2
9 9
9 9 9
3 4
9 9
9 9
9 9
11 9
9 2
9 CNDDB Occurrences
SMF Watt EV Project
SOURCE: ESRI Imagery 2023, CDFW 2023, Open Street Map 2019 0 4,000 2,000 Feet
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Project Buffer - 2 miles
CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences
1, American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus)
2, giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas)
3, great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
4, great egret (Ardea alba)
5, green sturgeon - southern DPS (Acipenser
medirostris pop. 1)
6, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)
7, Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus)
8, steelhead - Central Valley DPS (Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop. 11)
9, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
10, tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
11, valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus)
FIGURE 4
1 July 29, 2025
Mayor and City Council
City of Sacramento
915 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Via email
Re: Deficiencies in Analysis and Mitigation for Protected Species in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport South Industrial Project
Dear Mayor McCarty and Members of the City Council:

This letter summarizes the deficiencies in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP) as it relates to the Swainson's Hawk (SWHA) and Giant Garter Snake impacts, and the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP). We are quite alarmed that the City is on track to dismantle the Natomas Basin HCP. This letter speaks to the deficiencies in the City’s evaluation of impacts of the project on Swainson’s Hawks.

1. The City is not complying with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement, § 3.1.1 and § 3.1.1(a) which includes the following requirement:
"(a) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program is based upon CITY limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the CITY’s Permit Area, and SUTTER limiting total development to 7,467 acres within SUTTER’s Permit Area, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development within the Plan Area or outside of their respective Permit Areas would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program. Thus, CITY and SUTTER further agree that in the event this future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits in the event the CITY or SUTTER violate such limitations."
The City staff is scheduling the approval of the zoning and prezoning prior to obtaining the necessary Incidental Take Permits in direct violation of the provision quoted above. 2 2. The City previously developed beyond its permit area and obtained the required permits from the wildlife agencies for the Greenbriar project, now called North Lake. The City's FEIR does not use the same standards for ASIP mitigation that it used for the Greenbriar project.

How can the ASIP mitigation program be considered "mitigating impacts to less than significant" if it does not meet the standards met by previous similar projects? Attached is the latest version of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2081 permit for the City's Greenbriar Project which includes description of the mitigation required. • The mitigation program for Greenbriar preserves one acre of mitigation land in the Natomas Basin for each acre graded for the development. • The mitigation program for ASIP allows mitigation to be 10 miles from edge of the Basin and in another county. Swainson's Hawks during breeding season in Natomas typically forage within less than 8-10 km (5-6 miles) of the nest site (E. Fleishman et al. "Space Use by Swainson's Hawk [Buteo swainsoni] in the Natomas Basin, California, Collabra, 2(1):5, pp. 1-12, " The majority of adult Swainson's Hawks traveled distances up to 8-10 km from the nest throughout the breeding season." P. 1). The EIR's conclusion that foraging habitat outside this range is adequate mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant is not based on substantial evidence.
• The ASIP mitigation inappropriately counts detention basins, canal banks and freeway buffers as habitat mitigation; Greenbriar did not. This means the project doesn't mitigate for the loss of 136 acres of the habitat destroyed and then counts that 136 acres against the mitigation owed for the project impacts.

3. The ASIP EIR fails to consider how to protect the Fisherman's Lake/Lone Tree canal corridor in perpetuity for the benefit of the Giant Garter Snake, rendering the GGS habitat connectivity along this section of Lone Tree Canal ( between Parcels 8 and 6, crossing Airport South Industrial Drive, on the west side of Parcel 5 and under the freeway) very substantially degraded. The canal borders detention basins with levees that are likely to be treated with rodenticides to prevent burrows. The EIR simply turns a blind eye to the problems for the federally protected GGS here, and fails to follow the standards already set in the Basin.

The Greenbriar and Metro Airpark HCPs preserved habitat along the Lone Tree Canal, and took other measures to protect connectivity within the Basin for Giant Garter Snake (GGS). The City of Sacramento adopted a 250 foot buffer along the east side of Fisherman's Lake south of Del Paso Road. These investments in the corridor's habitat values are now disregarded and devalued with the ASIP's lack of protection in an important section of the corridor.

Please refer to the attached 2081 permit for Greenbriar which documents the habitat preservation measures required of that project that lies outside the original NBHCP/MAP HCP permit areas.

4. There is no identification of Swainson's Hawk nesting habitat in the ASIP EIR and no mitigation for impacts on nesting habitat except for the protections against "take", i.e. routine preconstruction survey and nest monitoring if nest is found within one-half mile. ASIP construction and operation would impact nesting on adjacent NBC preserves and Bayou Rd, but 3 there is no consideration of how these impacts could result in the loss of these nesting sites for future breeding and what the consequences of such losses would be. In comparison, the Metro Airpark HCP required 200 acres of nesting habitat be permanently protected for the loss of one nest site.

The Fleishman study cited above noted that: "population-level recruitment may be associated equally if not more closely with availability of nesting sites than with the current distribution of land cover." In other words, these nesting sites are valuable for the maintenance of the Swainson's Hawk population in Natomas.

Attached Exhibits of documents from the Watt-EV EIR (located adjacent to ASIP) and Paso Verde School EIR (located adjacent to ASIP) demonstrate that nesting activity has been well documented on and/or near the project site and this habitat has been identified and considered in EIRs for other projects. Audubon Society and ECOS volunteers have documented nesting at one of these sites in 2025; it is south of the project area on NBC property next to Fisherman's Lake (see attached report). Their report includes observations of foraging on the project site by Swainson's Hawk and the fully protected White Tailed Kite.

The Natomas Basin Conservancy's monitoring report for Swainson's Hawk nesting sites in 2024 shows two nesting sites on or near the project site. These are not new sites and have been reported in prior years. The City's Manager for the EIR is also the Manager for the Natomas Basin Conservancy and NBHCP and, as a result, should be fully aware of these nesting sites and should have included assessment of impacts on these sites in the EIR. The City staff continues to claim that this site is not good habitat because it is next to the freeway and airport. To the contrary, it is good habitat, a remaining fragment of what once was in Natomas, at a critical location, both buffering and serving the values of the preserved habitat to the south. The EIR and independent biological assessments submitted in the record have identified the habitat as high quality.

3. The removal of 447 acres of agricultural land in the Basin is inconsistent with the Conservation Strategy of the NBHCP which relies on 15,000 acres of farmland remaining in the Basin outside of developed areas and wildlife preserves. Numerous previous comments on this EIR have well documented the critical importance of the remaining farmland to the performance of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. The County of Sacramento General Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Air Quality Plan all support the maintenance of agriculture in the Natomas Basin and buttress the NBHCP land use assumptions.

There are other deficiencies in the mitigation program for ASIP which would be corrected in the permit process, which should be the next step for this project.

We urge you to put this project aside until it has complied with the NBHCP and the EIR amendments are prepared to conform to the state and federal permit requirements for habitat mitigation. Please reply by email to [email protected]. 4 Sincerely,
James P. Pachl Andy Sawyer
Legal Chair, MLC Sierra Club Chapter Chair, MLC Sierra Club Sean Wirth
Judith Lamare, Ph.D. Sean Wirth
Friends of the Swainson's Hawk Conservation Chair, MLC Sierra Club C: Cheryle Hodge, City Growth Manager
City Clerk to be delivered on flash drive with attachments.

Attachments (some references are excerpted in this letter and available as full size documents from the City Clerk; they will be delivered to the City Clerk's Office on flash drive.)

1. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement, § 3.1.1(a)

2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2081 permit for the City's Greenbriar Project

3. Endangered Species Act incidental take permit for the Metro Air Park Project, p. 1

4. E. Fleishman et al. "Space Use by Swainson's Hawk [Buteo swainsoni] in the Natomas Basin, California, Collabra, 2(1):5, pp. 1-12).

5. The Natomas Basin Conservancy's monitoring report for Swainson's Hawk nesting sites, Figure 5, 2024 Report.

6. SMF Watt EV Project EIR, Figure 4, CNDDB Occurrences (Dudek)

7. Paso Verde School DEIR, Natomas Unified School District, Exhibit 3.4-2, Location of CNNDB Wildlife Occurrences within a 2-Mile Radius of the Project Site (AECOM)

8. McKenzie Hollander, Edith Thatcher, Laurie Ten Hope, "Recent Swainsons’ Hawk Nesting and Foraging Sightings near the Proposed Airport South Industrial Project" 5 Attachment 1

IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN § 3.1.1and § 3.1.1(a)

3.1 CITY and SUTTER.

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas. The NBHCP anticipates and analyzes a total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin, 15,517 acres of which constitutes Authorized Development within CITY and SUTTER. (An additional 1,983 acres of development is allocated to the Metro Air Park project in Sacramento County under the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan and is analyzed within the NBHCP.) CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement). SUTTER agrees not to approve more than 7,467 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to SUTTER’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit C to this Agreement). The Parties further agree:
(a) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program is based upon CITY limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the CITY’s Permit Area, and SUTTER limiting total development to 7,467 acres within SUTTER’s Permit Area, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development within the Plan Area or outside of their respective Permit Areas would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program. Thus, CITY and SUTTER further agree that in the event this future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits in the event the CITY or SUTTER violate such limitations.
6 Attachment 2
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2081 permit for the City's Greenbriar Project, AMENDMENT NO. 1 (A Major Amendment) California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2013-059-02-A1 Greenbriar Project Owner, LP Greenbriar Development Project in Sacramento County
P. 2
(The full document will be available from the City Clerk.) "To meet this requirement and in accordance with the Greenbriar Conservation Strategy, the Permittee shall provide for both the permanent protection and management of 529.75 acres of Habitat Management (HM) lands pursuant to Condition of Approval 9.3 below and the calculation and deposit of the management funds pursuant to Condition of Approval 9.4 below.

A minimum of 142 acres of the Spangler HM lands shall be established as managed marsh.

Pennanent protection and funding for perpetual management of compensatory habitat shall be achieved in two phases. Phase 1 consists of establishment of the Moody (74 acres), Spangler (235.4) and Lone Tree Canal (28.3 acres) HMlands; and Phase 2 consists of establishment of the North Nestor (219.1 acres) HM lands. Phase 1 provides compensatory mitigation for 320 acres of permanent impacts, with up to 80 acres of temporary impacts, and Phase 2 provides compensatory mitigation for 190 acres. Pemianent protection and funding for perpetual management of Phase I compensatory habitat, including restoration of the 28.3 acres of temporarily impacted Covered Species habitat pursuant to Condition of Approval 9.6 below, must be complete before starting Covered Activities, or within 24 months of the effective dato of this ITP start of Covered Activities if Security is provided pursuant to Condition of Approval 10 below for all uncompleted obligations. Permanent protection and management of Phase 2 compensatory habitat must be completed prior to impacting the remaining 190 acres associated with Phase 2 or within 24 months of start of Phase 1 impacts 2 Covered Activities if Security is provided pursuant to Condition of Approval 10 below for all uncompleted obligations. "
7 Attachment 3
Endangered Species Act incidental take permit for the Metro Air Park Project, Feb. 21, 2002, p. 1 of 2. The full permit will be transmitted to the City Clerk's Office.) "Prior to commencing any urban development on the covered lands, the permittee is required to transfer, to the Natomas Basin Conservancy (NBC), fees sufficient to purchase the 200- acre Swainson’s hawk nest tree reserve. Proof shall be provided to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, that the fees have been provided to the NBC. "
Attachment 4
E. Fleishman et al. "Space Use by Swainson's Hawk [Buteo swainsoni] in the Natomas Basin, California, Collabra, 2(1):5, pp. 1-12), p.1. (The full report will be transmitted to the City Clerk's office.)
"ORIGINAL RESEARCH REPORT
Space Use by Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin, California E Fleishman, .J Anderson, B. G. Dickson, D. Krolick, .J A. Estep, R. L Anderson, C. S. Elphick, D. S.

Dobkin and D. A. Bell
We used satellite-based remote sensing to estimate home ranges for Swainson's Hawk, a species listed as threatened in California (USA), on its breeding grounds in the Natomas Basin (northern Central Valley, California) and to evaluate whether the species' space-use intensity (statistically derived density of telemetry locations) was associated with land cover, sex, reproductive success, or life stage of offspring. We differentiated seven classes of land cover-- alfalfa, annually rotated irrigated crops, developed, grassland, orchard / vineyard, rice, and water. From 2011-2013, we fitted transmitters with global positioning systems to 23 adult Swainson's Hawks. We recorded a minimum of six locations per day per bird from spring through early autumn of each year. We used a fixed, bivariate-normal kernel estimator to calculate a utilization distribution at 30-m resolution for each life stage of each individual within each year. We used a linear mixed model to estimate the associations between intensity of space use and land cover, sex, and reproductive status. The majority of adult Swainson's Hawks traveled distances up to 8-10 km from the nest throughout the breeding season. Median seasonal home-range sizes in a given year ranged from 87-172 km2. The association between intensity of space use and grassland was 50-139% stronger, and the association between intensity of space use and alfalfa 23-59% stronger, than the associations between intensity of space use and any other land-cover type. Intensity of space use did not vary as a function of sex, reproductive status, or life stage. Given our results and additional knowledge of the species' ecology, we suggest that reproductive success and, in turn, population-level recruitment may be associated equally if not more closely with availability of nesting sites than with the current distribution of land cover."
8 Attachment 5.

The Natomas Basin Conservancy's monitoring report for Swainson's Hawk nesting sites, 2024 Figure 5, 2024 Report. It identifies two nest sites quite close to the ASI project area. 9 Attachment 6
SMF Watt EV Project EIR, Figure 4, CNDDB Occurrences (Dudek). The project area referred to here is the SMF Watt EV project, located immediately west of the ASI project area. It identifies two nesting sites at the ASIP project area, signified with the number 9. Date: 1/5/2024 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1547501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Biology\Figure04_CNDDB.mxd Sacramento River
Sacramento River
99 H ovn anian Dr
St emmlerDr
McNairCir
Lindbergh Dr
Barandas Dr
ger G Th atch Cir
Earhart Dr
W es tla ke Pkwy
N Bayou Rd
W River Dr
W
Wit ter Way
Road 119
Do n River Ln
N Bayou Way
RyndersWay
Oli vadi W ay
Duckhorn Dr
Alcant
ar Cir
Road 122
Reserv oir Rd
Farm Rd
H
wa kcrestCir
Radio Rd
Wi ndso ng S t
County Road 126
County Road 124
80 5
Del Paso Rd
Power Line Rd
Aviation Dr
W Elkhorn Blvd
Arrivals
San Juan Rd
E Commerce Way
Bayou Way
Elkhorn Blvd
Metro Air Pkwy
Road 117
Old River Rd
Airport Blvd
El Centro Rd
Arena Blvd
Garden Hwy
5 8
6 7
10 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
11 2
2 9 9
9 9 9
9 2
2 11
11 11
9 9
2 2 2 2
9 9
9 9 9
3 4
9 9
9 9
9 9
11 9
9 2
9 CNDDB Occurrences
SMF Watt EV Project
SOURCE: ESRI Imagery 2023, CDFW 2023, Open Street Map 2019 0 4,000 2,000 Feet
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Project Buffer - 2 miles
CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences
1, American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus)
2, giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas)
3, great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
4, great egret (Ardea alba)
5, green sturgeon - southern DPS (Acipenser
medirostris pop. 1)
6, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)
7, Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus)
8, steelhead - Central Valley DPS (Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop. 11)
9, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
10, tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
11, valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus)
FIGURE 4
10 Attachment 7
Paso Verde School DEIR, Natomas Unified School District, Exhibit 3.4-2, Location of CNNDB Wildlife Occurrences within a 2-Mile Radius of the Project Site (AECOM), the Paso Verde School immediately south of the ASI Project area. It identifies two nest sites at the ASI Project area.

AECOM Paso Verde School DEIR
Biological Resources 3.4-6 Natomas Unified School District Source: CNDDB 2018, adapted by AECOM in 2018
Exhibit 3.4-2. Location of CNNDB Wildlife Occurrences within a 2-Mile Radius of the Project Site 11 Attachment 8
McKenzie Hollander, Edith Thatcher, Laurie Ten Hope, "Recent Swainsons’ Hawk Nesting and Foraging Sightings near the Proposed Airport South Industrial Project" Photos are attached in original, which is attached to the email transmitting this letter. 1 July 28, 2025
Email to Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, [email protected], President, Sacramento Audubon Society, [email protected], Conservation Chair [email protected]
RE: Recent Swainsons’ Hawk Nesting and Foraging Sightings near the Proposed Airport South Industrial Project
On July 9, 2025 and July 15, 2025, while bird watching, we had several sightings of Swainsons’ Hawks (SWHA), both adults and juveniles, in the area between Bayou Way and Del Paso Rd in Natomas. The sightings are supported by photos.

July 9
At the corner of Bayou Way and Powerline Rd, a tractor was working in the field. A number of SWHA were circling. At one time we counted 11 in the air. We watched SWHA hawks diving and capturing prey in the field at the corner of Bayou and Powerline.

On Natomas Basin Conservancy land, northwest of Del Paso Rd and west of the canal that feeds Fisherman’s Lake, are several trees. We identified an adult SWHA hawk in one of the trees as well as a nest with a juvenile SWHA hawk. We observed the adult drop off prey and saw the juvenile eating it.

Area of map according to Google maps: (38.6568177, -121.5610348) July 15
At the corner of Bayou Way and Powerline Rd, a working tractor was again attracting SWHA hawks. Again we counted numerous SWHA hawks.

We returned to the nest north west of Del Paso Rd. The juvenile SWHA hawk was standing on the edge of the nest. An adult was nearby in another tree. The adult called numerous times, but did not approach the nest.

Note on Other Birds - On March 22, while birding along Bayou Way, between 3800 Bayou Way and Powerline Rd we saw a nesting red tail hawk and a white tailed kite. On these three visits to this area we have seen and heard 60 species of birds.

MacKenzie Hollander made a video of her bird sightings.

Post Office Box 1526 | Sacramento, CA 95812-1526
City of Sacramento Mayor and City Council:

Mayor – Kevin McCarty – [email protected]
District 1 – Lisa Kaplan – [email protected] District 2 – Roger Dickinson – [email protected] District 3 – Karina Talamantes – [email protected] District 4 – Phil Pluckebaum – [email protected] District 5 – Caity Maple – [email protected] District 6 – Eric Guerra – [email protected] District 7 – Rick Jennings – [email protected] District 8 – Mai Vang – [email protected]
Dear Mayor and Council,
The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) is a coalition of environmental leaders, including the Sierra Club Sacramento Group, Sacramento Audubon, Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Sacramento Valley Chapter of California Native Plant Society, Save the American River Association, Save Our Sandhill Cranes, Friends of Swainson’s Hawk, Sacramento Area Creeks Council, and more. For over 50 years, ECOS has provided a space for action-oriented advocacy, and has fostered partnership between our members, communities, and elected officials. We thank you for the upcoming opportunity to meet with Mayor McCarty on July 31 to discuss the biggest environmental decision to come before the City Council in decades: the Airport South Industrial (ASI) project. Due to the complexity and gravity surrounding this proposed project, we wish to provide you vital information for your consideration ahead of our meeting.

We believe the approval of this project as presented by City Staff will cast a long shadow over the City’s and its elected leaders’ reputation for protecting citizens and the environment from harm.

Located immediately south of I-5, west of the Westlake residential neighborhood, north of the Paso Verde School, and east of active agricultural land, the 474-acre ASI project proposes to convert farmland and connected habitat into 6 million square feet of warehousing. The proposed project demands the amendment of the Sacramento City sphere of influence (SOI), the City boundary, the Urban Services Boundary (USB), and the Urban Policy Area (UPA). Such policy changes require the involvement of the Natomas Community Planning Commission, the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo), the City Planning and Design Commission, the City Council, and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

Location of the proposed Airport South Industrial Project. The project is located outside of the USB (blue dotted line). Natomas Basin Conservancy (NBC) preserve and agricultural land is depicted in the textured green areas. Areas that are purchased for development and that have provided in-basin mitigation in accordance with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) are crosshatched.

ECOS has been following the project since its first appearance on the City Consent Calendar back in June, 2021. We have submitted written and oral comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Draft Environmental Impact Report, and we attended the relevant LAFCo and City Planning and Design Commission meetings. As such, we feel equipped to provide an overview of the environmental and policy concerns that have been downplayed or misconstrued by the applicant and staff.

The Adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations Will Brand the City Leaders as Environmentally Negligent
If the Council certifies the EIR and approves the project, as part of CEQA compliance, the Council will have to adopt a statement declaring that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental harm.

The environmental impact report (EIR) acknowledges that the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on agriculture, air quality, and visual aesthetics, but we have also found inadequacies in the EIR in providing information, accurately assessing impacts, and sufficiently mitigating other impacts to less than significant. These inadequacies translate to:
• Increased cancer risks for children and families
• Conflict with the regional air quality plan
• Unmanageable traffic on I-5 and local roads
• Disregard for the City’s adopted habitat conservation plan • Destruction of habitat for many species, including the protected Giant Garter Snake and Swainson’s Hawk.
• Added risks to air travel due to the project’s 96 acres of detention basins and increased conflict with waterfowl.

Altogether, the environmental harm is heavy and should not be minimized by a statement of “overriding considerations.”
Plenty of empty warehousing and vacant land zoned for warehouse uses exist in areas like the Metro Airpark, McClellan Business Park, and elsewhere in Sacramento.

Is new industrial space more important than conserving agricultural land, or more important than honoring our commitments to the air quality plan and Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan? Of course not!
The proposed location next to a school and neighborhood, and on prime agricultural land, is unsuitable for this project.

Why Does Staff Support This Project?
The staff identifies the benefits of the project as the tax revenues the project produces for the City. This amounts to $4 million a year, according to the developer-prepared benefits report. The report, however, is an accounting of expected gross benefits and does not include the costs to the City to serve the project.

So, for less than $4 million a year, the City staff is recommending an aye vote.

Bad Public Process Taints The ASI Project with Bad Faith Thus far, the ASI project has been reviewed in hearings by the County’s Natomas CPAC, LAFCo, and the City Planning and Design Commission. All hearings have posed obstacles that have discouraged public engagement. Please don’t make this process worse.

The Natomas CPAC hearing was held in a room with a maximum capacity of 25 people. This left little room for attendees beyond the commissioners, the staff, and the presenting applicants. Approximately 50 overflow attendees stood in the hallway, where they struggled to overhear the applicant’s presentation. At the following NCPAC meeting, there was sufficient space for the attendees, but the allotted speaking time for public comment was limited to 1 minute per person, with no reduction to the applicant’s presentation.

The project passed unanimously and was passed on to LAFCo.

Similarly to the Natomas CPAC hearings, the April 2, 2025 LAFCo hearing was well attended, resulting in over 4 hours of testimony, the submission of 900 pages of comments, and 60 speakers opposed to the project. The hearing was continued to May 2, but the staff only made minor changes to the EIR that were not explained at the continued hearing. Public comment was then limited to 10 supporters and 10 opposers, and the commission voted unanimously to amend the SOI and certify the EIR, offering no justification for their votes. The lack of explanation from any of the commissioners made the vote an ambiguous, unjustified decision to the public.

Once again pushed forward, the project made its way to the City Planning and Design Commission for a recommendation. Despite the controversial nature of the project, made clear by the hours of testimony, hearing continuations, and overflowing written comments to both LAFCo and the Planning and Design Commission, the ASI project was scheduled during the same hearing as another controversial item (the Crocker Village housing project). The commission did not reach the ASI project item until 9:00 PM, after an hour and a half of staff and developer presentations. Public comment began at 10:30 PM, by which point many of the members of the public had left. Only then, at the request of Commissioner Deborah Ortiz, did the commission chair agree to continue the hearing to a later date, despite being asked to do so earlier.

At every step, the public has shown up and engaged in the process. We are not the only folks who have read the EIR, studied the impacts, and listened to the community members who are afraid of the cancerinducing toxins that their children will be regularly exposed to by diesel trucks, simply when they are at school or playing in their neighborhood. Over 1200 people have signed a petition addressed to you, asking you to deny this project. Petitioners are asking why the staff continues to push forward a project that is unnecessary and that requires the amendment of all local and regional plans. They ask why our local and regional leaders continue to ignore the deafening threat of climate change, an issue that we claim to care about in our plans but overlook in the face of this applicant-requested development project.

And they wonder if they can actually do anything to protect the beauty and integrity of the home they love, or if their engagement in public meetings simply contributes to an appealing facade of a democratic, representative process on an already done deal. A repeat of this kind of process at Council will further erode public confidence in City leadership.

To Discuss with City Staff
The EIR is deficient and we have addressed those issues separately during this process. There are three things you should discuss with staff now:
● Council is being asked to approve this project, which is in conflict with the City agreement with wildlife agencies for the NBHCP. The agreement requires agency permits before zoning (see attached excerpt). And yet, City staff has scheduled Council approval before complying with requirements of the NBHCP agreement. Council should insist the City follow the requirements of the agreement.
● The EIR doesn’t fully cover the environmental impacts of the parcel closest to the Paso Verde School (Parcel 8) and staff has promised a future Health Risk Assessment and added environmental review. However, recent law (SB 131) would likely exempt Parcel 8 from further review and mitigation because it exempts industrial parcels for “advanced manufacturing” from environmental review. Having no opportunity for public input regarding the use of facilities on Parcel 8 is not a good execution of public process, and it isn’t fair to the kids and neighbors.

Council should insist upon review, public hearing, and mitigation, if necessary, of any proposed uses on Parcel 8.
● Signed into law in September 2024 and effective January 1, 2026, AB 98 is part of an effort in California to regulate warehousing and trucking activity to reduce emissions and enhance community health by designating truck routes and establishing buffers, among other things.

Airport South could be grandfathered in – or the City Council could require the ASI Project to meet the AB 98 design standards.

Consider your legacy when you make your decision
On August 12, 2025, you will be asked to adopt a statement claiming that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts on residents and the environment. We urge you not to adopt such a statement.

Whether you consider this locally or regionally, the potential revenue to the City from the project is not worth the cost – to your legacy. There are better ways to balance the City budget than to override 30 years of planning for sustainability and flood the neighbors with air toxins.

Please consider the significant impact that this project would have on the residents, the local environment, our ability to meet regional goals, and on the growth-inducing precedent the City would set for other projects proposed in the Natomas Basin.

According to the EIR, twenty-five unique areas of controversy were raised in agency and public responses to the NOP (Page 3-1 and 3-2 in the EIR; Executive Summary). These concerns range from policy and process (e.g., regional planning conflicts; project feasibility; mitigation deferment) to tangible impacts the project would have on people and place (e.g., significant health risks and environmental degradation).

Despite its length, the list of concerns included in the EIR is incomplete. The list fails to identify the significance of the project’s conflicts with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and its conservation strategy.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to our meeting with the Mayor on Thursday.

Sincerely,
Heather Fargo
President of the Board of Directors

THE VOICE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA | AGC-CA.ORG June 26th, 2025
City of Sacramento, Design Review Commission
815 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support for the Airport South Industrial Project
Dear Chair Yeung and Members of the Commission,
On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California (AGC), I am writing to express our strong support for the Airport South Industrial Project.

AGC represents approximately 1,000 contractor and associated construction members throughout the state. Our members build our state’s critical infrastructure and represents the full spectrum of the construction industry. We recognize the critical role that well-planned industrial development plays in driving economic growth and creating sustainable jobs in our region. The Airport South Industrial Project represents a significant investment in Sacramento County's future—one that will generate thousands of construction and permanent jobs, while enhancing the County’s competitiveness in logistics, manufacturing, and goods movement.

With direct access to key transportation corridors and proximity to Sacramento International Airport, this project is ideally located to attract new businesses and support long-term regional economic expansion. It will help address the growing demand for modern industrial space while providing high-quality employment opportunities across a range of skill levels, including construction trades, operations, and facility management.

We urge the Commission to move this project forward and stand ready to support its timely development. This is the type of infrastructure investment that strengthens the local economy, broadens the tax base, and supports working families throughout the city of Sacramento.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Chris Smith
Senior Director, Government Affairs, Northern California Associated General Contractors of California
2025 EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT
Pat Kelly
Granite Construction
Company

PRESIDENT-ELECT
Ryan Aukerman
Griffith Company

TREASURER
Allison Otto
Otto Construction

VICE PRESIDENT

BUILDING
Matt Seals
Seals Construction Inc.

VICE PRESIDENT

HIGHWAY &

TRANSPORTATION
Mary Teichert
Teichert Construction

VICE PRESIDENT

UTILITY &

INFRASTRUCTURE
Brandon Pensick
Ferreira Construction
Company

VICE PRESIDENT

SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS
Henry Nutt III
Southland Industries

IMMEDIATE PAST

PRESIDENT
Steve Rule
Turner Construction
Company
CEO
Peter Tateishi
AGC of California

HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
3095 Beacon Blvd.

West Sacramento, CA 95691
Office: 916.371.2422
Fax: 916.371.2352
[email protected]
June 24, 2025
Planning & Design Commission
City of Sacramento
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Letter of Support - Airport South Industrial (ASI) Project Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce and our member businesses throughout the City of Sacramento, we strongly support the proposed Airport South Industrial (ASI) Project located near the Metro Air Parkway interchange, south of Sacramento International Airport.

The ASI Project represents a transformational opportunity for the Sacramento region—one that directly supports the Metro Chamber’s mission to drive economic growth, attract private investment, and expand job opportunities across the capital region. With over 4.4 million square feet of Class A light industrial space and 100,000 square feet of commercial development, this phased project will serve as a hub for logistics, bioscience, research and development, and clean manufacturing.

The anticipated benefits are substantial:
• Over $700 million in annual economic impact once fully operational • More than 5,200 new jobs and $303 million in annual employee compensation • An estimated $541 million in construction revenue, including wages and benefits for over 3,400 construction jobs
• Critical infrastructure upgrades and traffic safety improvements that will enhance regional connectivity
• Thoughtful open space buffers that support stormwater management and natural habitat preservation
The Sacramento region faces a historically low industrial vacancy rate, currently around 5%. The ASI Project will help meet urgent demand for industrial space while supporting smart growth near existing transportation infrastructure.

We are especially encouraged by NorthPoint Development’s commitment to responsible development, strong community partnerships, and long-term stewardship. This project embodies the type of forward-looking investment that positions Sacramento for sustained prosperity, resilience, and economic leadership.

The Metro Chamber strongly urges your support for the Airport South Industrial Project, and we commend the development team for their thoughtful and impactful proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert W. Heidt, Jr.

President & CEO
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Advocates for the Environment
A non-profit public-interest law firm
and environmental advocacy organization
June 24, 2025
Scott Johnson
Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Via U.S. Mail and email to [email protected] Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Airport South Industrial Project, SCH No. 2022030181
Dear Mr. Johnson:

Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Airport South Industrial Project (Project). The Project Site is located near the intersection of Southeast of Powerline Road and Interstate 5 in the City of Sacramento (City). The Project proposes to develop a 5,204,500 square-foot industrial park and 98,200 square feet of commercial uses, on the 353.5-acre Project Site. We have reviewed the DEIR prepared in May 2024 and submit comments regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR’s Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

On October 14, 2024, Advocates for the Environment submitted a comment letter regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Airport South Industrial Project (Project). The Project Site is located near the intersection of Southeast of Powerline Road and Interstate 5 in the County of Sacramento. The Project proposes to develop a 5,204,500 square-foot industrial park and 98,200 square feet of commercial uses, on the 353.5-acre Project Site.

This letter provides supplementary comments regarding the sufficiency of the EIR’s Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and violations of CEQA related to the EIR preparation and approval process. These additional comments are intended to supplement, but not replace, the comments in our original comment letter.

CEQA Requires a Single Lead Agency
CEQA allows only one lead agency for a project. The lead agency is responsible for preparing the EIR and for making determinations on whether the project would have any significant environmental impacts. Proceeding with project approvals under the framework of more than one lead agency contradicts with the express procedures and requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The lead agency is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” (Public City of Sacramento Community Development Department Page 2 CEQA Comments on Airport South Industrial Project June 24, 2025 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Resources Code Section 21067.) The project scope is relevant to the determination of an appropriate lead agency, because typically the agency with the highest degree of control over the project would be deemed the lead agency.

The Project in its entirety includes construction of a large industrial park, which is the express project purpose and the primary focus of the EIR. LAFCo is only involved in the project to approve the Sphere of Influence Amendment and later, after the City’s approvals, annexation of the Project site into the City limits. The development Project as a whole involves many more approvals and agreements which would be carried out by the City. Thus, the City is the appropriate lead agency because it has the principal responsibility for carrying out and approving the Project.

The City and LAFCo Entered into an Unlawful Agreement Assigning “Co-Lead Agencies”
In the event that the CEQA Guidelines leave questions as to which responsible agency should be the lead agency, disputing agencies may submit a question to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for an official designation of the appropriate lead agency. The OPR did not assign an official designation, indicating that neither LAFCo nor the City undertook the procedure of submitting a question to OPR to assign a single lead agency to this Project.

Violating CEQA’s requirement for a single lead agency to preside over a project, LAFCo and the City proceeded as co-lead agencies, as indicated by multiple references throughout the EIR and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in which they unlawfully agreed to be co-lead agencies.

While multiple agencies may voluntarily enter into an agreement to formally assign one of those two responsible agencies to be the lead agency for the project, there is no basis for entering an agreement to share the responsibility of the CEQA lead agency by acting as co-lead agencies.

The MOU expresses the agencies’ joint intent that the City is responsible for addressing “environmental issues associated with applications related to all land use entitlements and reorganization requests, except for the Sphere of Influence Amendment,” which LAFCo is solely responsible for. Dividing the responsibility in this manner is essentially dividing the Project into two separate projects which share the same EIR. Based on the MOU, LAFCo would only need to be involved with the Sphere of Influence Amendment. Yet, during the public hearing at which the EIR was certified, LAFCo made findings that the EIR was adequate as to the entirety of the Project, even though it did not have sufficient involvement in the other aspects of the Project to be qualified to make those findings. Neither agency has taken full responsibility for the Project as a whole due to the agreement to divide responsibility between two aspects of the Project.

The EIR Was Reviewed and Certified by an Inappropriate Lead Agency In circumstances where multiple agencies may be involved with a project, as here, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051 provide an outline for determining the appropriate lead agency.

City of Sacramento Community Development Department Page 3 CEQA Comments on Airport South Industrial Project June 24, 2025 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] LAFCo and the City did not adhere to these guidelines. LAFCo should not have approval authority as a lead agency because it is not the most appropriate lead agency under the CEQA Guidelines.

One important factor of assigning a lead agency is identifying what type of entity will be carrying out the project. “If the project is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the lead agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 (b).) While the approvals to the project involve multiple agencies, including the City and LAFCo, the Project construction and operation is to be carried out or delegated by the Applicant, a private, non-governmental entity.

Therefore, Section 15051(b) of the CEQA Guidelines applies and the public agency with the greatest responsibility for the Project as a whole is the most appropriate lead agency. The public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervisor or approving the project as a whole is the City, because it would be responsible for the majority of the land use entitlements and applications related to the Project, whereas LAFCo would govern a single entitlement related to the Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 (b)(1) provides further guidance, clarifying that the lead agency “will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose such as an air pollution control district or a district which will provide a public service or public utility to the project.” Accordingly, the City, as the involved governmental agency, is most fitting to be the lead agency in this circumstance. In comparison, LAFCo was developed with a limited purpose in mind, and is involved in this Project for the limited purpose to approve the Sphere of Influence Amendment and annexation, and would not oversee the Project as a whole.

Additionally, the City has more pressure to approve the Project now that the EIR has already been certified and one of the Project’s entitlements has been approved. There is undue pressure on the City, the second reviewing agency, to continue with the project, because of the time and resources that has already been expended. This concern is particularly severe because LAFCo was primarily focused on the impacts of the Sphere of Influence Amendment rather than the environmental impacts of the entirety of the Project, so the first approval and certification of the EIR should not be valid in these circumstances.

Overall, LAFCo was not an appropriate lead agency and should not have been granted the authority to certify the EIR and approve the Project. The City is the appropriate lead agency for the Project, and the failure to assign and proceed with the City as the sole lead agency caused inadequate review of the EIR and the impacts of the Project as a whole. Despite claiming co-lead agency status, LAFCo did not adequately consider the EIR in its entirety and the impacts of the Project as a whole at the Sphere of Influence Amendment hearing, because the unlawful agreement to sever lead agency responsibilities into two defined roles caused LAFCo to hone in on only one aspect of the Project.

City of Sacramento Community Development Department Page 4 CEQA Comments on Airport South Industrial Project June 24, 2025 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Preparing the EIR with Co-Lead Agencies Caused Deficiencies in the EIR The EIR should have been prepared by the City as the sole lead agency, with LAFCo serving as a responsible party for a limited preparation role of assisting in the areas related to the Sphere of Influence Amendment or any other entitlements under its supervision. The failure of either agency to take full accountability for the EIR creates the risk for gaps in analysis, evidence, and clarity because there is not a single agency overseeing the veracity of the EIR in its entirety. Thus, the unlawful colead agency designation could have resulted in the informational and substantive deficiencies in the EIR, such as the ones that were outlined in the comment letter sent to the City by Advocates for the Environment on October 14, 2024. In addition, the EIR was focused primarily on the development of the Project site, rather than the Sphere of Influence Amendment and the potential environmental effects.

The Assignment of Co-Lead Agencies Convoluted the EIR Preparation and Approval Process
CEQA’s requirement to assign a single lead agency ensures that a single entity takes full responsibility for an adequate EIR and fully considers the environmental consequences of the entirety of Project before approval and certification of the EIR. Proceeding with two lead agencies created a disorganized EIR preparation process, which caused the EIR to be inadequately prepared and reviewed. Each “co-lead agency” only took partial responsibility with respect to some aspects of the Project, and neither agency took full account for the Project as a whole. Even though the City is the most appropriate lead agency for this Project under the circumstances, appointing either one of the agencies to be the single lead agency would have resulted in a clearer CEQA process because there would be a single entity with full accountability for the contents and form of the EIR and CEQA findings.

Information Provided to the State Clearinghouse Did Not Reflect Co-Lead Agencies
Both LAFCo and the City assert claims as a lead agency for this Project, made clear by the Memorandum of Understanding in which the two entities agree to proceed with the Project as “colead agencies.” Yet, the Notice of Determination (NOD) does not mention the City as a co-lead agency. The NOD does not leave any space for identifying more than one lead agency because this is not warranted under CEQA. The Notice of Determination identifies LAFCo as the lead agency.

However, this contradicts the information provided to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), which posts information on CEQA projects for public information and review on CEQAnet. 1 On the
1 https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov
City of Sacramento Community Development Department Page 5 CEQA Comments on Airport South Industrial Project June 24, 2025 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] CEQAnet page dedicated to this Project, under “Contact Information,” only the City of Sacramento Community Development Department is listed as the agency name, with “Contact Types” designated as “Lead/Public Agency.”2 There is no contact for LAFCo or any other indication that the City would be sharing lead agency designation with LAFCo. Accordingly, Advocates for the Environment submitted a comment letter on the Project to Scott Johnson the listed contact and planner for the City. It is likely that many public commenters also submitted their CEQA comments to the City instead of LAFCo because of the lack of clarity about the lead agency. This likely deprived LAFCo of the opportunity to review all public comments before making the decision on Project approval.

There is an Active CEQA Lawsuit over this Project
On May 7, LAFCo certified the EIR and approved the Sphere of Influence Amendment—one of the Project’s required entitlements. Acting as the lead agency, and as the approval body, LAFCo filed a notice of determination (NOD) with the Sacramento County Recorder on May 9, effectively triggering the start of CEQA’s short 30-day statute of limitations period. If LAFCo was properly assigned as a responsible agency, rather than sharing approval authority as a “co-lead” agency, the May 7 approval of the Sphere of Influence amendment would not constitute a final approval and the CEQA start of the statute of limitations period would not be triggered until the City’s later certification of the EIR and approval of the Project, which is set for a hearing on June 26, 2025.

In the context of CEQA review, the process of approvals by multiple decision-making bodies is manageable and straightforward when there is a single lead agency that is wholly responsible for the contents of the EIR, and how it pertains to the Project as a whole. Despite the unwarranted nature of having multiple lead agencies for the same project, Advocates for the Environment erred on the side of caution by filing a lawsuit on June 3, 2025, within 30 days of LAFCo’s filing of the NOD. The City should consider continuing the approval hearing for a later date after the active litigation has been resolved, in the event that more environmental review is required before carrying out the Project.

There is some likelihood that litigation could potentially halt or significantly alter the Project, and delaying approval reduces the risk of unnecessary time and expense on a project which could later be changed.

Conclusion
LAFCo, acting as a “co-lead” agency, approved the Sphere of Influence Amendment and certified the EIR, triggering the start of the CEQA Statute of Limitations before the appropriate lead agency, the City, has finished considering and approving the Project. This procedure convolutes the process of exhausting administrative remedies and conflicts with CEQA procedural requirements of assigning a single lead agency. This failure to assign a single lead agency amounts to prejudicial 2 https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2022030181/2
City of Sacramento Community Development Department Page 6 CEQA Comments on Airport South Industrial Project June 24, 2025 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] procedural error because it caused the agencies to proceed in a manner not allowable by CEQA, rendering the EIR wholly inadequate, warranting the Project entitlements and the EIR to be set invalidated.

CEQA prohibits proceeding with project approvals by two lead agencies in the way that the City and LAFCo are attempting to do here. Some of the EIR’s inadequacies and deficiencies may be attributed to dividing the primary authority and responsibility of analyzing the Project’s impacts among multiple agencies, hindering the informative process that CEQA requires. Please notify Advocates for the Environment of any hearings or decisions for this Project. We make this request under Public Resources Code, section 21092.2.

Sincerely,
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
Executive Director, Advocates for the Environment
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Support powered by SpeakUp © 2025 Granicus 10000 of 10000 characters remaining
Select a Position:    Oppose     Neutral     Support
Submit Comment
Carlinn Reyes at May 22, 2025 at 10:02am PDT Oppose
As a resident who lives on Del Paso Road east of powerline Road, there has already been an increase in traffic over the past 5 years and numerous accidents and increase of illegal dumping. There are people constantly racing down the street and going way faster than the speed limit. We keep building and building and loosing the natural habitat and beauty of the area. The deer have started moving out of the area which is sad and I get that turning it into warehouses brings jobs but if we don’t stop building there will be no farm land left. Please say No!
Saphire Xiong admin at May 22, 2025 at 9:56am PDT
Additional eComment received by the City Clerk's Office.

Attachments: eComment_Item_06_Airport_South_Industrial_Annexation_-_PDC.pdf Steve Schweigerdt at May 22, 2025 at 9:53am PDT Oppose
Decades of planning point to this land being preserved in agriculture - Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, SACOG Blueprint, Urban Service Boundary, General Plans, 2002 MOU.... Developers are betting that you'll disregard all of that and allow them to make a bundle by converting it into warehouses. Prove them wrong and follow the plans - deny the project.

Labor groups will speak in favor of the project saying it will give them good jobs to grow our economy. Thing is, they'll get those jobs no matter where the warehouses are built. Wouldn't it be better to invest in existing communities with vacancies and underdeveloped properties and grow the economy where it benefits us instead of paving over more farmland? Landowners will say they can't farm and they have to do this or lose money and land. Thing is, they chose to pursue development instead of conservation. Not one acre in Natomas has been protected that wasn't required mitigation by the HCP, but funding sources like Sustainable Ag Land Conservation Program would pay appraised fair market value for easements or land and the owners could protect the land while making $13 million or more. They made the wrong choice but the conservation option is always available if they are willing.

Don't reward these gamblers. Stick to the plans. Protect farmland and nearby nature. Deny this project! Richard Furiosi at May 22, 2025 at 9:24am PDT Oppose
I feel this project is not suitable for this area for many reasons but one of the main arguments I agree with is that it is farmland and using this land for industrial use is not the way to go particularly because the land is a habitat for animals , it could pollute our water ways and our air as well as disrupt the way people live in that area and their quality of life since the proximity is so close to a school and established neighborhood. I do think we need growth but positive growth that’s good for the community and its residents not more warehouses and industrial crap
Jacquelyn Donahue at May 22, 2025 at 8:36am PDT Oppose
Here is the letter I submitted to Governor Newsome that explains my position on this matter as it will impact my quality of life.

Governor Gavin Newsom
California State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Newsom,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of the Westlake community in Sacramento. Our neighborhood is currently facing the looming threat of a large warehouse development being constructed immediately adjacent to our homes and an elementary school. This project poses serious risks to the quality of life in our area and raises significant concerns regarding environmental justice, public health, and infrastructure burden.

This proposed development sits within a flood plain near the Sacramento River—an already vulnerable area. In addition to the environmental risks, the influx of heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles from workers—many of whom may not be able to afford to live nearby—will increase congestion on Interstate 5. This will not only worsen commute times but also delay access to and from the Sacramento International Airport.

The residents of Westlake and the greater North Natomas area have consistently and strongly opposed this development. Unfortunately, our concerns have thus far fallen on deaf ears. It seems this project stands to benefit city revenue at the cost of our community’s health, safety, and well-being.

Governor, I am aware that you have signed legislation aimed at addressing the impact of warehouse growth on communities like ours, particularly with regard to environmental and public health protections. I ask that you please consider intervening or supporting our efforts to halt this development. There are alternative locations for such a facility that do not come at the expense of a thriving residential area and an elementary school.

We respectfully request your support in preserving the integrity and safety of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Donahue
Westlake Resident, Sacramento, CA
ralph propper at May 22, 2025 at 8:35am PDT Oppose
I'm Ralph Propper, speaking on behalf of Breathe-California, Sacramento Region; formerly American Lung Association. I was an air pollution research specialist at the Air Resources Board, where I worked for 32 years, and chemistry professor at UC Davis; and I have published scientific papers on toxic air contaminants, including cancer-causing diesel exhaust.

Based on emissions of fine particles from diesel trucks, the EIR calculates a risk of over 9-and-a-half excess cancer cases per million - just under the threshold for mitigation of 10 in a million.

However, this assumes no development in Parcel 8, which is closest to an elementary school.

The EIR states that if Parcel 8 is developed with over a hundred trucks per day, the health risk assessment for cancer would then be analyzed.

Children are especially sensitive to air pollution – young children inhale far more relative to lung volume than we do. Health studies show that inhaling fine particles prevents full lung development - leading to permanent shortness of breath and increased asthma. Ultrafine particles are even worse.

A thin buffer is now proposed between Parcel 8 and the school: Breathe Sacramento was involved with research at Arden Middle School that showed that a buffer with tall evergreen trees like redwoods could help capture fine particles; however, the buffer proposed here would not prevent toxic diesel particles from getting deep into kids' lungs.

We’ve seen better air quality here over the past few decades, but this EIR finds that this project is unable to mitigate significant air quality impacts, thereby putting our health at risk.

You are being asked to recommend to the City Council that they approve a resolution that this project “promotes the public health of the city”.

Please let us know what about this proposed project promotes the public health of the city. The EIR clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Laurie ten Hope at May 22, 2025 at 8:31am PDT Oppose
To: Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
From: Laurie ten Hope, Resident of North Natomas
RE: May 22, 2025, Agenda item #6 - Airport South Industrial Annexation I’m a North Natomas homeowner and have called Natomas home for 24 years. I enjoy the opportunity to experience nature in our community’s backyard. I value visits to local farm stands, bird watching among the wetlands, and cycling throughout Natomas. I believe that future generations should be able to experience this as well. The city cannot continue to expand the city boundaries without compromising these wonderful attributes. Please say no to sprawl, diesel pollution and traffic, and say yes to conserving our quality of life!
This warehouse project is not needed at this time. More importantly, it is inconsistent with the city’s climate goals. The proposed project encourages sprawl and pollution. It also violates the goals of preserving open space and agricultural land.

The developer should not be allowed to hijack the process that established the Urban Services Boundary that was so thoughtfully researched and then adopted in the General Plan, the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan and others. These plans balance the desire for development with the desire to preserve open space. And, these planning agreements prioritize lands most critical for habitat preservation verses land most suitable for development. As a resident of Sacramento I’m thankful that these agreements exist and I hope they are honored.

I respectfully ask that you vote NO on the Airport South Industrial annexation agenda item. seth howard at May 22, 2025 at 8:06am PDT Oppose
There is no commitment to hire local workers or contractors for this project. No commitment to provide health care or a living wage. There will also be terrible pollution from this project Joseph Perez at May 22, 2025 at 7:55am PDT Support
Suitable health care!
Lloyd Reber at May 22, 2025 at 7:46am PDT Oppose
My concern with this project is that there is no commitment to using local contractors that employ members of our communities.

There is also no commitment to paying a livable wage or providing health care for the workers. This can add undue burden on our local tax payers.

Falme Lampkins at May 22, 2025 at 7:08am PDT Oppose
I oppose this project because Sacramento needs housing not warehousing.

Marta Smith at May 22, 2025 at 6:55am PDT Neutral
I am opposed to this project for two reasons: 1) There are empty buildings all over town that could be re-purposed for business. 2) even if the land isn't being used for agriculture now, it could be in the future. This kind of over-building is , respectfully, short-sighted! Raman Dhillon at May 21, 2025 at 11:14pm PDT Oppose
I oppose this project for a few reasons. It’s too close to an elementary school so trucks are going to be coming in and out of the facilities at the same as the kids are arriving and leaving school which create worsen traffic in the area. Another reason is the increase in truck traffic will create more pollution and the kids at the school will be breathing in those toxic fumes leading to respiratory illnesses.

After that, there are plenty of other places throughout the Sacramento region that are better suited for an industrial project of this magnitude that are close to
highways. Then, the area is under the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan which is essential to preserve all living species who claim the land as their home and this proposed industrial project violates the conservation plan.

D S at May 21, 2025 at 10:19pm PDT Oppose
The current plan does not actually provide an economic benefit to the region and goes against already established plans such as the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan, City General Plan, and County General Plan, and is counter to the Governor's Climate-Smart Strategy.

Furthermore, there are better, industrial-zoned locations for warehousing projects elsewhere in the area.

Natural AND working lands serve as critical carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots, and bring significant health, wellness, and economic benefit to the region. We should be restoring these areas to serve us better, not eliminating what little is left of them.

PLEASE save our open spaces from development, and focus on areas that have already been developed in our region and stand to make more economic and environmental sense.

Daniel Sanchez at May 21, 2025 at 9:56pm PDT Oppose
The applicant makes no guarantees to provide a livable wage, health care benefits, or commitments or to use local apprentices on this project. This is going to hurt the Sacramento workforce by allowing lower wages on the project and little to no befenefits to workers. These types of projects are what force workers like myself to have to commute to the bay area for work to afford to live in Sacramento
Luz Lim at May 21, 2025 at 9:56pm PDT Oppose
Dear Commissioners,
Please read the attached letter, submitted on behalf of the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS).

Thank you,
Luz Lim
Attachments: ECOS_Attachments_on_ASIP.pdf
ECOS_Letter_RE-_Item_6._Airport_South_Industrial_Annexation__P21-017___Noticed_05_02_2025__File_ID-_2025-01031.pdf Rosie Yacoub at May 21, 2025 at 9:43pm PDT Oppose
Development of warehouses in this location goes against the land use policy that allowed for the development of Natomas; and is not needed as the nearby warehouse zone is replete with vacancies and undeveloped parcels. It will seriously impact the nearby community in terms of reduced road safety and increased pollution exposure This land should be left as agriculture.

Morgan Morrissey at May 21, 2025 at 9:31pm PDT Oppose
As a resident of Westlake community, I ask that you please don’t destroy this natural habitat for warehouses that in no way benefit our community. Warehouse zones already exist to the north of 5; consider expanding in that existing area. How does it make sense to destroy nature and encroach on the peaceful Westlake community and Del Paso K-8 school with warehouses? Please be a good steward of the land and leave this area untouched. At the very least, use the land for something to benefit the existing neighbors of the land.

Colin Tempelis at May 21, 2025 at 9:26pm PDT Oppose
I oppose the airport south project as this will over take area being used as flood control in an area that is at high risk for flooding.

Should the area become flooded it would knock out major lifelines to the entire state as it would take out I-5, I-80, and the airport. This area is the epicenter for the state’s commerce and would have devastating financial and supply chain effects felt throughout the state.

This area must remain as a flood control area to help alleviate the flood risks.

Carmen Pereira at May 21, 2025 at 9:19pm PDT Oppose
Hello, I am a long-time Sacramento resident, and I strongly oppose this project. I ask that you do the same. The area in question is vital farmland and essential wildlife habitat. Let's not be shortsighted and destroy farmland, open space, and vulnerable wildlife. The Sacramento City and County General Plans and the North Natomas Community Plan were developed over many years by many constituents who decided to maintain the area in question as agricultural land. Hard work and careful thought went into these plans.

Please give respect to these people and their efforts, and to these plans. The loss of food-productive land, habitat and wildlife, open space and natural beauty, the increase in air and noise pollution, and the decrease in stormwater drainage, are only some of the very important reasons why you should oppose the Airport South Industrial Annexation project. Thank you.

Meeting: Planning & Design Commission (Supplemental Material Updated 5/22/2025 @ 10:15 a.m.)
Meeting Time: May 22, 2025 at 5:30pm PDT
Disclaimer:

If you wish to attach any materials such as support letters or other informational items, please create and account and sign in. Once you have signed in you may attach up to three documents.

If you do not want your personal information included in the official record, do not complete that field.  Agenda Item

6. Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] File ID: 2025-01031 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Item 06 2025-01031Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] Item 06 2025-01031 Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025]  75 Public Comments
1 2 3 4 Next › Last »
City of Sacramento
 105 Comments  Comments Open
Home Discussions Meetings Select Language ▼ Sign In  Sign Up Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Support powered by SpeakUp © 2025 Granicus 10000 of 10000 characters remaining
Select a Position:    Oppose     Neutral     Support
Submit Comment
Rick Dow at May 21, 2025 at 8:55pm PDT Oppose
Being good stewards of the land, it is hopeful that members of the Planning & Design Commission will take the following into consideration when making decisions about the Airport South Industrial Annexation:
1) The 2,000 acres of farmland help support migratory birds in the Pacific Flyway, and loss of that farmland to development would potentially harm migratory birds that are part of the ambiance of living in the Natomas area. 2) Loss of farmland would also be a loss of the potential to use farmland as a carbon sink and help fight climate change that is bringing about unusual weather such as severe storms and flooding. 3) Commercial and residential development would eventually clog the area and possibly lead to panic if evacuation from the area were to occur due to disasters such as flooding, earthquake or fire. There are only three roads to be used for evacuation if the need were to occur for whatever reason.

These are reasons my wife and I as residents of Natomas highly oppose the overly ambitious Airport South Industrial Annexation.

Sincerely,
Rick Dow, MS Botany/Zoology
4318 Don River Lane
Sacramento, CA 95834
Rick Dow
[email protected]
Kayla Gomez at May 21, 2025 at 8:14pm PDT Oppose
Good evening, my name is Kayla Gomez, and I am a field representative for the Nor Cal Carpenters Union, Local 46 which covers Sacramento.

I’m here today to highlight the potential benefits projects like this one can bring to our neighborhood. However, my primary concern is whether this project will genuinely serve the interests of our local community. As a carpenter, it’s important to know if the developer plans to hire a responsible general contractor committed to fair wages, healthcare benefits, and accredited apprenticeship programs.

Fair wages are essential to address the high cost of living in our area. Ensuring health care benefits means my family and I, as well as my fellow workers, can access necessary medical services without financial strain. Local hiring practices are crucial not only to avoid long commutes but also to create jobs and strengthen our community.

I urge the developer to prioritize these values—fair wages, comprehensive health care, and local hiring. Also general contractors that hire from a state certified apprenticeship programs—so that this project can truly benefit our community. Thank you.

Karen Olson at May 21, 2025 at 7:47pm PDT Oppose
Dear Sacramento Planning Commissioners;
I urge you to NOT approve the proposed Airport South Industrial Annexation.

The proponents of this project claim new jobs are an important potential benefit. Currently, the unemployment rate in Sacramento County is historically low at 4.70%. This is lower than the long-term average of 6.46%. Source: YCHARTS.com (May 2025) So will the labor that is needed come from outside the Sacramento area? Second, what type of jobs will be available once the better paying construction jobs are no longer needed? I imagine they will be low-paying warehouse/fulfillment jobs.

On the other hand, it would be a terrible shame to pave over more farmland, open space and natural habitat to build more warehouses and “light industrial development”. We should respect and preserve our environment, quality of life, and health. Already, and increasingly, the continued expansion of development and freeway centric projects are decreasing our quality of life as we spend more time commuting and fighting traffic. Our health is suffering from increased air pollution. The priority should be infill projects rather than more sprawl.

Please don’t give-in to developers and speculators. Do not approve the Airport South Industrial Project. Stand for smart growth and maintaining a high quality of life in Sacramento.

Omar Hernandez at May 21, 2025 at 7:06pm PDT Oppose
I strongly oppose this project. We are in need of more homes, not warehouses. We don’t need facilities that are going to create more traffic and pollution in our environment. To give an example. A single Semi produces an average of 207 tons of Annual CO2 Emissions per year. A passenger car produces 4.7tons of CO2. These warehouses will be having an average of 2,000 semi-trucks per day! We in Sacramento need to focus on other, more important, pressing matters. Things like our roads, more homes, schools, etc. I trust that the Board will do the right thing, and do a “No” vote on this item. Thank you.

Matt Williams at May 21, 2025 at 6:40pm PDT Oppose
Dear Commissioners,
As both a local resident and Air Pollution Specialist with ten years experience working on heavy-duty emissions sources, I urge you to vote no on the proposed Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP). The ASIP will pave over natural and working lands, introduce new truck traffic, increase emissions of toxic air contaminants from vehicles and off-road equipment, and greatly diminish the rural feel of northern Natomas that many residents prioritized when moving to the area. The ASIP will result in substantial environmental damage, contrary to the City’s goals and to the detriment of the community. ASIP will destroy a large portion of a dwindling supply of wildlife habitat, expose residents to diesel particulate, and increase local traffic. To protect the environment, community health, and Natomas vibes, I urge the Commission to vote against and cancel the ASIP.

Alexandra Reagan ECOS Dir Ops at May 21, 2025 at 6:23pm PDT Oppose The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) opposes this annexation of farmland to build warehouses and asks you to recommend denial of the developers' request to the City Council. Please read the attached letter and its accompanying documents as part of our comments.

Attachments:

ECOS_Letter_RE-_Item_6._Airport_South_Industrial_Annexation__P21-017___Noticed_05_02_2025__File_ID-_2025-01031.pdf ECOS_Attachments_Re_Airport_South_Industrial_Project.pdf Hind Baki at May 21, 2025 at 5:55pm PDT Oppose
Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of the Carpenters Local Union #46 (“Local 46”), my Office is submitting these comments for the Sacramento Planning and Design Commission’s (“City”) hearing regarding the Sacramento Airport South Industrial Project (“Project”). (please see attached letter for more details)
Attachments: 20250522_Local46_Sacramento_PDC_AirportSouthIndustrialProject_CL_Signed_Combined.pdf Corinne Gartner at May 21, 2025 at 5:44pm PDT Oppose
As a District 1 constituent, concerned citizen, mother, and resident of the Westlake neighborhood whose home looks directly out on the open space upon which this appalling development project proposes to build millions of square feet of warehouses, I urge you to VOTE NO, for all the reasons articulated by my North Natomas neighbors in other comments.

Please consider that nearly every comment made on this agenda item opposes this project. Moving this project forward in the face of such overwhelming opposition will only serve to confirm that City staff made a dirty backroom deal with the developer years ago, without public input or proper authorization.

This Commission has the power to stop this ill-advised project in its tracks. Please do the right thing and do so. If you make the misguided decision to move the project forward, though, please require a larger setback from the Westlake neighborhood, at minimum 1/4 mile. Knowing that this project is guaranteed to result in adverse health outcomes for the children and families that live and go to school in the immediate area, requiring anything less would be unconscionable.

James Pachl at May 21, 2025 at 5:24pm PDT Oppose
Please read the attached letter which explains that the project's detention basin will invite aircraft waterfowl collision in the path of aircraft using SMF. This impact cannot be mitigated to less than significant despite the EIR claim.

Attachments: SACCITYPLANINGASIP52225.pdf FAA_150-5200-33C.pdf FAA.Airport_Sponsors_Assurances.pdf Melanie Herman at May 21, 2025 at 5:05pm PDT Oppose
The way the county is blowing past every law, ordinance and regulation makes me wonder why I shouldn’t do the same. I would like to actually send you a photo of a bobcat and a different one of a fox that I and my neighbor took over this winter. It was tragic to see two different foxes smashed by cars out on the Garden Highway.

I’m surprised now that you haven’t sold off the banks of the American river to cronies who will help you with money during the next election. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how low you’re willing to go.

Kyle Swarens at May 21, 2025 at 4:46pm PDT Oppose
Good evening Planning commission
As a longtime Sacramento resident and current homeowner in Natomas. I strongly oppose this development.

We need smart growth for our community in Natomas. Often I will be stuck in traffic 45mins to an hour trying to get from Woodland to Natomas area. This development will only cause more of a traffic jam that's already an issue and creating more pollution for our region with little to no gain.

We also need to take in consideration the workforce building these projects. We are a blue-collar community. Often we forget this. It's time we stand up for the blue-collar workforce in our community and demand better. Developments like this one tend to be a race to the bottom for the workers. Little to no benefits and low wages. Making workers who want to make a livable wage having to commute hours to the bay area. Please stand up for our community and stand up for the workforce when making decisions for the city of Sacramento.

David Grandstaff at May 21, 2025 at 4:32pm PDT Oppose
We are a 23-year Westlake resident and living within 150 feet of the proposed Airport South Industrial Project. We wish to go on record as agreeing with the numerous comments opposed to this project and do personally and strenuously oppose it ourselves.

David and Bunny Grandstaff
3867 Gresham Ln.

Sacramento, CA 95835
Sean Reese at May 21, 2025 at 4:32pm PDT Oppose
Strong opposition to this project due to its harmful impacts on the environment and potential to worsen local infrastructure issues.

The project would significantly increase air pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution, posing serious risk to our health. Especially those already at-risk. It would intensify traffic congestion along the already crowded I5 corridor, making my daily commute more difficult and just polluting everything around us. I urge the decision makers and applicant to consider these consequences and prioritize a more sustainable and community friendly alternative.

Chester Haley at May 21, 2025 at 4:30pm PDT Oppose
The applicant has made no guarantees that the vast majority of the construction jobs associated with this project would provide workers with health care or livable wages. There have been no commitments from the applicant to use local apprentices, which would help strengthen our workforce community. This project would have terrible effects on the environment - air pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution.

Chris Martinez at May 21, 2025 at 4:24pm PDT Oppose
I’m here to oppose this project.

Far too often, projects like this end up being crime scenes—plagued by wage theft, worker exploitation, and labor abuses. We’ve seen it here in Sacramento. Our own District Attorney recently held a press conference calling out the injustice faced by workers in these types of developments and the lasting harm it causes our communities.

The applicant has made no commitment to labor compliance, no guarantees for worker protections, and no access to a private right of action. Without clear, enforceable commitments, this project opens the door to more harm.

Sacramento doesn’t need another crime scene. We need responsible development that respects workers and protects our community. I urge you to reject this project as it stands.

Lynn Lenzi at May 21, 2025 at 4:17pm PDT Oppose
Dear Chair Yeung and Planning and Design Commissioners
As a 24-year resident of North Natomas, Westlake Community, I am registering my strong OPPOSITION to the proposed Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP).

As a former City Planning Commissioner, I am alarmed to see a proposal that is so incompatible with housing, schools, and other mixed uses has received support from staff. Annexation and extension of services to this land ignores existing land use plans, the City's General Plan, the North Natomas Community Plan, and multi-jurisdictional habitat plans.

Annexing 447 acres is NOT infill development, it is creating city sprawl. Can you tell me where the City of Sacramento has or is currently planning to zone 447 acres of industrial park with six (6) million square feet of warehouse adjacent to housing and schools? GOOD PLANNING MUST PREVAIL. There is no compelling reason to create urban sprawl, remove agricultural land and habitat when there is an abundance of land available in North Natomas and the City for development that includes uses for industrial parks. Think about where you live - would you want six (6) million square feet of warehouse, freight trailer truck traffic, noise and pollution next door? Please reject this proposal and vote no to annexation.

Lynn Lenzi
Lynne Randolph at May 21, 2025 at 4:13pm PDT
Dear City of Sacramento Planning Commission:

My name is Lynne Randolph and I live about a mile and a half from the Airport South site down El Centro Road.

I oppose putting thousands of square feet of warehousing in this residential neighborhood, next to an elementary school and across the road from another school. Del Paso Road is already congested, and this would only make it worse with hundreds of semi-trucks added into the mix.

The air quality would also be severely affected, leaving residents at the mercy of noise and constant exhaust fumes. One of the paid union members here cited legislation that would require truck exhaust pipes to point away from residences. But with all respect, that so-called solution would be like claiming secondhand smoke won't cause cancer if you don’t blow cigarette smoke directly into the face.

Simply put, developing the Airport South land with warehouses that could be placed elsewhere, would cause blight and have a permanent detrimental effect on the neighborhoods, quality of life, and land values in West Natomas forever.

As a Planning Commission, I expect that you not simply decide where developments should take place but also protect those who are already there.

Thank you.

Lynne Randolph
470 Forastera Circle
Sacramento, CA 95834
Thomas Roehrick at May 21, 2025 at 4:09pm PDT Oppose
Far too often these types of projects are crime scenes. Rampant with wage theft and other worker abuses. The Sacramento DA had a press conference in regards to this very worker injustice and how it affects us all. Avdis & Cucchi have made no commitment to compliance or access for private right of action. Without commitment and action you cannot support the project. We don’t need another Crime Scene project in Sacramento.

Mitchell Vinciguerra at May 21, 2025 at 4:06pm PDT Oppose The applicant has made no guarantees that the vast majority of the construction jobs associated with this project would provide workers with health care or livable wages, nor is there any commitments to hire from our local community. The project will also make traffic even worse than it already is on the Interstate 5 corridor. I would also like to caution against any project that does not make commitment to use local apprentices.

Lynn Duarte at May 21, 2025 at 3:45pm PDT Oppose
Stop further development in the open areas on the residential side of Hwy. 5. It is impacting the quality of life for the wildlife and people living here. It will only increase the noise and congestion and reduce our quality of life. Stay on the airport side.

Meeting: Planning & Design Commission (Supplemental Material Updated 5/22/2025 @ 10:15 a.m.)
Meeting Time: May 22, 2025 at 5:30pm PDT
Disclaimer:

If you wish to attach any materials such as support letters or other informational items, please create and account and sign in. Once you have signed in you may attach up to three documents.

If you do not want your personal information included in the official record, do not complete that field.  Agenda Item

6. Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] File ID: 2025-01031 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Item 06 2025-01031Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] Item 06 2025-01031 Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025]  75 Public Comments
« First ‹ Prev 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »
City of Sacramento
 105 Comments  Comments Open
Home Discussions Meetings Select Language ▼ Sign In  Sign Up Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Support powered by SpeakUp © 2025 Granicus 10000 of 10000 characters remaining
Select a Position:    Oppose     Neutral     Support
Submit Comment
John Burke at May 21, 2025 at 3:44pm PDT Oppose
Truck traffic on I5 is already suffocating from Metro Airpark and Amazon. Airport South will only increase that traffic in an area that is already heavily congested.

The Airport South project will create warehouses and truck traffic within 100 yards of an elementary school. Most trucks are still dieselpowered and will be spewing pollutants over the school. Do you really want young kids breathing in these fumes? Are they going to have to be kept inside all day?
In addition to the warehouses north of I5 by the airport, there are already several large warehouses along I5 just south of the I5/99 connection. Why do we need more warehouses?
The primary argument in favor of the project is that it will bring jobs to the area. If there really is a need for more warehouse space, the warehouses can be built north of I5. Does not solve the traffic problem but it does protect our kids and provide the same jobs. Or, how about further north on the other side of the Sacramento River which would at least mitigate the traffic issue.

Lastly, local residents feel we are not going to be represented on city council since our councilperson feels she must recuse herself because she lives near the proposed project and fears the city could be sued if she votes against it. How about leveling the playing field? Any councilperson who has accepted campaign money from the proposed developers should also recuse themselves. Seems to me that represents a significant conflict of interest. Perhaps it could also lead to law suits.

Florencio Rivera at May 21, 2025 at 3:35pm PDT Oppose
Dear Sacramento Planning Commissioners,
I want to express my strong opposition regarding the proposed Airport South Industrial Project. My opinions and reasons for this have been covered by others multiple times so I simply want to add my voice of opposition to this as I live right next to this area. -F. Rivera
Dan Branton at May 21, 2025 at 3:15pm PDT Oppose
Strongly oppose and hope you do too!!
Is this just another Developer Money grab?
The applicant has made no guarantees that the vast majority of the construction jobs associated with this project would provide workers with health care or livable wages. There is no commitment that they will hire construction companies and workers within our community to build the or maintain the project and further more you have no commitments from the applicant to use local apprentices, which would help strengthen our workforce community. Far too often these type of projects end up being crime scenes where wage theft, tax fraud and gross crimes against workers happen and affect us all. We have no indication the applicant will do anything to strengthen local workforce development. For these reasons and many more, I ask you to oppose this project as it stands.

James Pryor at May 21, 2025 at 2:36pm PDT Oppose
We write to you as the homeowner-elected Board of Directors of Westlake Master Association and seek your support in opposing the proposed Airport South Industrial Project, and hope you are committed to preserving the quality of life for residents of the Westlake community, which is part of North Natomas. Westlake is a residential community of over 3,000 residents living in over 925 homes and if approved the proposed Airport South Industrial Project would be immediately adjacent to and would negatively and significantly impact our community. ....continued.

Please read our entire letter and issues, attached. Thank you.

Board of Directors
Westlake Master Homeowners' Association
Attachments: 2025-05-21_Opposition_to_Airport_South_Industrial_Project.pdf Mary Ingram at May 21, 2025 at 2:12pm PDT Oppose
I do not want this project approved. To close to schools and housing. The land is for farming and wildlife. There is plenty of land on the other side of 5 that already is zone for storage warehouse etc. The only people who would benefit from this project are the land speculators. Please do not approve of this plan
Ed Jahan at May 21, 2025 at 2:02pm PDT Oppose
Dear Sacramento Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Airport South Industrial Project.

This development poses significant and unacceptable environmental and community impacts. First and foremost, it threatens to destroy critical wildlife habitat in the area—natural spaces that are rapidly disappearing and irreplaceable once lost. These ecosystems support biodiversity and serve as vital green buffers in an increasingly urbanized landscape.

Furthermore, the project jeopardizes water quality in the region. Construction and increased industrial activity will contribute to runoff and pollution, impairing local waterways and affecting both human and ecological health.

The increase in noise and air pollution from heightened truck and industrial traffic is also alarming. These impacts will degrade the quality of life for nearby residents and pose health risks, especially to vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly.

Traffic congestion is another pressing issue. This project will lead to more vehicles on already strained roadways, increasing commute times and making local streets less safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Perhaps most concerning is the impact on the neighborhood's peace and its proximity to a school. Our children deserve a safe, quiet, and clean environment to learn and grow. The industrialization of this area threatens their well-being and undermines the stability of the surrounding community.

I urge you to reconsider the long-term consequences of this project. Sacramento must prioritize sustainable, community-friendly development that respects environmental limits and protects public health.

With kind regards,
Ed Jahan
PA Davis at May 21, 2025 at 1:29pm PDT Oppose
The Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP) – would replace farmland and wildlife habitat with warehouses and place trafficinducing diesel trucks next to a neighborhood and school. The Planning and Design Review Commission should recommend that the City Council reject or require significant changes to the project.

Louise Gray at May 21, 2025 at 1:12pm PDT
“America’s farmland is irreplaceable.

It grows our food.

It supports wildlife and biodiversity.

It cleans our water, increases resilience to natural disasters like floods and fires, and helps combat climate change.

Our food, our water, our environment, our survival—it all depends on American farmland and ranchland.” https://farmlandinfo.org/why-save-farmland/
You obviously don’t care we get cancer, climate change gets worse, etc—- right? Cancer, increasing pollution, freeway deaths, etc. doesn’t matter? Judith Poxon at May 21, 2025 at 12:54pm PDT Oppose
Please oppose this project and preserve the existing farmland and wildlife habitat! Eric Webb at May 21, 2025 at 12:41pm PDT Oppose
As a long time Natomas resident I am deeply concerned about this precedent-setting decision.

There are innumerable reasons for opposition:

Firstly, this is a clear violation of the Natomas Basin Conservation Plan. It will gobble up important open space and habitat that includes the Swainson’ Hawk. Not only does it impact a vital ecological corridor, it also deletes important barrier land we need for flood control.

We have hardened enough of the Natomas Basin’s landscape; we need to preserve its balance.

This project also requires an exemption to the Urban Services Boundary. This boundary is based on a lot of wisdom.

Given that we have plenty of infill alternatives, including north of I-5, our default should be to respect our carefully crafted Natomas Conservation Plan and established boundaries.

Any economic benefit will be mitigated by increased pollution and traffic and the loss of buffer lands in the event of an inevitable flood disaster.

I collect acorns for the Sacramento Tree Foundation in this proposed area.

Finding valley oaks that have not been hybridized by our non-native urban forest is much harder to come by. I say this to emphasize our need to protect our open spaces in the urban setting. Our endemic flora and fauna is what makes us unique in California and beyond.

Certainly these landscapes distinguish us from other major cities in the United States. We need to orient ourselves to preserving our open lands.

Please reject this proposal.

Kate Lenox at May 21, 2025 at 12:19pm PDT Oppose
This proposed project is too near neighborhoods and schools. Noise and pollution will increase and affect nearby homes.

Moreover, it will destroy some of the finest farmland and habitat in the area.

I question the need for a trucking facility when tariffs and an unpredictable economy could make it redundant.

Pamela Schneider at May 21, 2025 at 12:12pm PDT Oppose
Please preserve and protect the open space we currently share with farmers, wildlife, and birds along the pacific flyway in the Natomas basin. The habitat is as developed as it should ever have been allowed to be— more will continue to erode the natural habitat and bio-diversity that makes California unique and beautiful. Please say “No.” Adele Logsdon at May 21, 2025 at 11:55am PDT Oppose
Please reject this proposal. It only benefits those who want to make money, and they can do so elsewhere. Don't wildlife, school children, and nearby residents count for anything? Please put yourselves in our places. Thank you for your attention.

Adele Logsdon
4536 Villa Del Paso Lane
Sacramento 95834
Byron Tucker at May 21, 2025 at 11:07am PDT
WOW! This is SUPER important! The land is very low and is a percolation area for rain. Cement will only make flooding here in MY community exacerbated! There are other large areas to the north and east within the County that have very good access for product access to the freeways and airport. Every projection and plan in the Sacramento history is absolutely opposed to this ASIA (P21-017).

This is just a big money slight of our efforts to protect our open land and wildlife (bird flyway and many other species) AND to protect our quality of family life. We moved to this area BECAUSE of the open space and ease of access to downtown and to the airport! The roads and Interstate 5 are already sadly extremely congested. The air quality would be severely compromised for our children in school and at home.

I urge you to reject all parts of this proposal hurting US, your constituency. My family and friends are watching and hoping this destruction of our quality of life won't be sacrificed for a few measly dollars.

Thank You for considering this plea.

Byron Tucker
4902 Brookdale Drive
Sacramento, CA 95834
Gee Weckerle at May 21, 2025 at 10:53am PDT Oppose
I recently moved into this area. I am already appalled by the diesel trucks parked overnight with their generators running one the streets practically in someone's home, often within 10 feet. I oppose the Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP). This project would replace farmland and wildlife habitat with warehouses and place traffic-inducing diesel trucks next to my neighborhood and school.

Please consider the long term ramifications of this and think what it would be like if this were to happen to your established neighborhood.

Karen OHaire at May 21, 2025 at 10:00am PDT Oppose
As a former SACOG land use planner, neighbor to the proposed project and environmental attorney I urge you to reject this proposal.

The proposed project flies in the face of good land use planning. It would site huge industrial warehouses next to an existing school and residential neighborhood. How would you feel if this project were located next to your, your children’s, or grandchildren’s school or home? It is a project that conflicts with existing land use plans and eliminates agricultural land and open space. In addition, the proposed project is located outside the Urban Services Boundary and proposes up to 6,609,300 square feet of industrial uses for which there has not even been a demonstrated need. In fact, there are existing vacant industrial sites located to north of I-5 as well as zoned industrial areas within the city to accommodate any need and provide infill.

To ignore existing land use plans, multi- jurisdictional habitat plans and the urban services boundary, as well as losing prime agricultural land and habitat for this development proposal would be a detriment to the neighboring community, the city, the airport, the county and the region.

Please reject this proposal- it is a travesty!
Thank you,
Karen O’Haire
Ona Saras at May 21, 2025 at 9:59am PDT Oppose
We do not want this near our neighborhood. There is so much other space away from neighborhoods that the project can go to.

This will cause extreme pollution to the surrounding neighborhoods and school that are very close proximity. This is a greedy, greedy, polluting project that is unnecessary, anti-health, anti-nature, anti-climate, and all around anti-ethical. Why not move this elsewhere or better yet, use existing infrastructure? I highly, highly oppose this project.

Wayne Watts at May 21, 2025 at 9:16am PDT
We do not need this, we already have space available at Mather and at McClellan Park. Better to use these existing facilities rather than destroy the open spaces that will never be recovered once they are covered in concrete and asphalt.

Judith Lamare at May 21, 2025 at 9:10am PDT Oppose
This proposal and its EIR do not comply with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan requirements applying to prezoning outside the City's permit area, includes other conflicts with the NBHCP such as counting detention basins as habitat, using out of Basin mitigation land, failure to mitigate 1:1 for loss of foraging habitat, and no assessment of impacts on adjacent NBC preserves.

City’s development in the Basin is subject to the 2003 NBHCP, and its Implementation Agreement, an agreement signed by the City, Sutter County and the Federal and State Wildlife Agencies. The 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement ("IA") §3.1.1 provides that "CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY's Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B. . . ." (see ATTACHED Exhibit B). See also 2003 Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan, ATTACHED Figure 2, "Land Use Agencies Permit Areas." The City also agreed in the NBHCP that "in the event that future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development and/or possible suspension or revocation of [Permit] in the event that the City or Sutter violates such limitations. " ((IA 3.1 (a)). (Emphasis added) NBHCP IA, p. 3 and Exhibit B attached.

The City Staff and the EIR have consistently and deceptively ignored this contractual obligation and are now arguing that the proposed project can be included within the NBHCP without amendment, thereby falsely claiming the effects on the NBHCP are fully mitigated by the EIR mitigation program.

Also attached is a letter from Natomas Basin Conservancy explaining why building on agricultural land in the Basin hurts the NBHCP.

We urge you to deny the project until it has fully complied with the NBHCP Implementation Agreement.

Attachments: NBHCPIA3_ExhB.pdf Natomas_Rules.pdf 25.04.17_Ltr_to_LAFCO.NB.pdf DoLee Spurgeon at May 21, 2025 at 9:07am PDT Oppose
Please do not pass the Airport So. Industrial Annexation (P21-017). It would be ridiculously irresponsible of you to put this complex so close to schools and so many homes. Not to mention destroying wild life habitats and farm land. Our communities suffer enough from air and noise pollution from the airplanes and large trucks on I-5. In addition you are already asking us to reduce our water and electrical usage. Families health and well being are more important than big business. Reduce government waste and you won't need the increase in tax dollars. Life in California is challenging enough without greedy government continuing to put more pressure on citizens.

Meeting: Planning & Design Commission (Supplemental Material Updated 5/22/2025 @ 10:15 a.m.)
Meeting Time: May 22, 2025 at 5:30pm PDT
Disclaimer:

If you wish to attach any materials such as support letters or other informational items, please create and account and sign in. Once you have signed in you may attach up to three documents.

If you do not want your personal information included in the official record, do not complete that field.  Agenda Item

6. Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] File ID: 2025-01031 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Item 06 2025-01031Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] Item 06 2025-01031 Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025]  75 Public Comments
« First ‹ Prev 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »
City of Sacramento
 105 Comments  Comments Open
Home Discussions Meetings Select Language ▼ Sign In  Sign Up Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Support powered by SpeakUp © 2025 Granicus 10000 of 10000 characters remaining
Select a Position:    Oppose     Neutral     Support
Submit Comment
John Gerken at May 21, 2025 at 8:54am PDT Neutral
May 20, 2025
Chair Enoch Yeung and City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commissioners 300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Re: Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017)
Dear Chair Yeung and Planning and Design Commissioners:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Airport South Industrial Annexation project (P21-017). The Natomas Unified School District greatly appreciates the revisions to the project and mitigation measures that have been made prior to this item coming before your body. We do have some additional minor requests, which are similar to those we shared with the City in letters dated December 5th, 2024 and March 14th, 2025.

The Paso Verde School is located adjacent to, and south of the project site and the closest school building is approximately 250 from the project site, as measured at the closest point. An outdoor play area is in the northwestern portion of the school site, approximately 240 feet from the project site, as measured at the closest point. We understand that the project before you is focused on the project applicant sponsored lands. However, we have some requests that pertain to one of the “non-participating” parcels – Parcel 8 (as mapped on page 3-6, Figure 3-3 in the Draft EIR).

We understand that the proposed prezoning would be Industrial (M-1) for the “nonparticipating” parcels, including the property adjacent to Paso Verde School. The Natomas Unified School District requests conditions to be applied at this stage since by-right uses under the proposed M-1 zoning include manufacturing, trucking terminal yard, and warehouse and distribution center (City of Sacramento Code of Ordinances, 17.220.110). While page 17 of 602 of the Planning and Design Commission Report for Item 6 notes that future development of nonparticipating parcels “will require additional planning entitlements and will be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,” it seems the City’s discretionary authority could be limited for uses that are allowed by right under the proposed zoning. Our requests are focused on two mitigation measures – Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 on air quality and Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) on hazards.

Air Quality - Mitigation Measure 4.3-3. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 requires a Health Risk Assessment prior to issuance of a building permit for development of Parcel 8 under certain conditions. This mitigation language has been revised to make it clear that the Health Risk Assessment shall include not only emissions sources proposed on Parcel 8 but also emissions sources for the entire project site. From page 40 of 602 of the Planning and Design Commission Report for Item 6:
"(Mitigation Measure 4.3-3) The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with SMAQMD guidelines, as well as the guidelines identified in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. If health risks associated with Parcel 8, **combined with the health risks calculated for the Industrial Park portion of the proposed project**, (see Table 4.3-11 of this EIR are determined to exceed the applicable SMAQMD thresholds, a qualified air quality consultant shall identify measures sufficient to reduce the project’s health risks to below the SMAQMD’s thresholds of significance." The Natomas Unified School District greatly appreciates this revision to Mitigation Measure 4.3.3. Please revise the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program to include the same text between the above, added asterisks. This added language is currently missing from the version of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 on page 4-11 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is page 138 of 602 of the Planning and Design Commission Report for Item 6.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a). This mitigation measure includes actions to prevent the establishment of resident populations of Canada geese on the project site. Among the preventative measures listed in Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) is the use of noise generators (e.g., pyrotechnic devices, blank cartridges) and the use of chemical repellents. City of Sacramento Municipal Code Section 8.68.060 prohibits exterior noise that is more than 20 decibels above the existing ambient noise level as measured on agricultural or residential property and prohibits noise generation of 15 decibels above ambient levels for impulsive noises.

It does not appear that the pyrotechnic devices or blank cartridges identified by Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) were analyzed for potential impact or consistency with the City’s noise ordinance.

If noise generators are to be used within the southern or southeastern portions of the project site when school is in session, please condition the project to notify the Paso Verde School in advance. Also, please have the applicant team characterize the approach for chemical repellents to clarify that this would not include any airborne chemicals that would leave the project site and condition future development of Parcel 8 appropriately.

Again, NUSD is very appreciative of the opportunity to provide comments on this item. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about our requests.

Sincerely,
Lalanya Rothenberger
Executive Director, Facilities and Strategic Planning
Natomas Unified School District
Scott Smith at May 21, 2025 at 8:51am PDT Oppose
Pacific flyway during winter months when thousands of waterfowl rest & feed. Food production among the acres- rice, hay. Clean air, enjoyable open space. Vs diesel pollution, congested freeways.

Diane Hovey at May 21, 2025 at 8:42am PDT Oppose
Please rethink what you are trying to do. When I built my house on the Garden Highway we had to schedule construction so as to not disturb the nesting Swenson Hawks. The area you are looking to "develop" is the small remaining feeding ground for these birds.

The original plan to keep this area open as habitat was well thought out. The present "rethinking" is not taking in the bigger picture. The freeway has already turned into a virtual parking lot because of this short term thinking. Please choose to refrain from adding to it.

Pat Schink at May 21, 2025 at 8:33am PDT Oppose
As a Natomas resident I wish to record my opposition to this project. It is ill considered and will not enhance the community. I agree with all the earlier posted objections.

Airrion Copeland at May 21, 2025 at 8:32am PDT Oppose
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As a resident of Sacramento in the North Natomas/Westlake area who lives near the proposed Airport South Industrial Project (ASIP), I am writing to express my strong opposition to this development.

This project threatens to destroy invaluable farmland and vital wildlife habitat, open spaces that not only define the character of our region but serve as crucial buffers against climate change and ecological loss. As someone who runs in this area regularly, I witness firsthand the beauty and biodiversity that would be lost if this project moves forward.

In addition to the environmental damage, ASIP would place a high volume of diesel truck traffic directly next to neighborhoods and a local school, risking serious health consequences for families and children. This is not just an environmental issue, it’s a public health and environmental justice issue.

Sacramento is known for its commitment to sustainability and “farm-to-fork” values. ASIP contradicts these principles by prioritizing short-term industrial gain over long-term community wellbeing, climate resilience, and responsible land use.

I urge you to recommend that the City Council reject this project or, at the very least, require major revisions that safeguard open space, public health, and the integrity of our local ecosystems.

Please help protect what makes Sacramento truly livable.

Sincerely,
Airrion Copeland
Sacramento Resident
Joyce Wolfe at May 20, 2025 at 9:44pm PDT Oppose
I’m writing as a resident of Westlake to urge you to oppose the Airport South Industrial Project.

Our neighborhood is made up of families who have made a home here because it’s peaceful, safe, and close to nature. The proposed industrial project puts all of that at risk. We’re not against development. We’re against development that puts warehouses before people.

This project would flood El Centro, Del Paso, and surrounding streets with semi-trucks. We’re talking about hundreds of diesel trucks passing near homes, parks, and schools every day. The Environmental Impact Report admits there will be health impacts — yet does little to protect us. That’s not acceptable.

This isn’t just about our streets and lungs. It’s also about our land. This area includes farmland and open space that supports wildlife and helps prevent flooding. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Sacramento claims to care about sustainability — this project flies in the face of that.

Reports show that Sacramento already has high industrial vacancy rates — some over 80% in newly built warehouses. Why rush to pave over more land when we can’t even fill what we’ve already built? If the project is approved despite the community’s overwhelming concerns, the city must commit to creating a substantial, enforceable buffer between Westlake and the industrial site. This is not just a landscaping issue — it’s about protecting the health, safety, and dignity of a residential community that didn’t sign up to live next to a logistics hub.

We are calling for a minimum 1,500-foot setback between any warehouse structure and the nearest residential property line. Our community deserves that much at the very least.

We chose to live in Westlake because it’s a safe, livable place to raise families. This project threatens everything that makes it special.

Please listen to the people who live here — the people who walk these streets, breathe this air, and call this place home.

Kathleen Ave at May 20, 2025 at 7:03pm PDT Oppose
The fact that this proposal has come as far as it has suggests that its supporters have succumbed to Shifting Baseline Syndrome in which a degraded and unhealthy environment is considered "normal" or "acceptable" because memories and knowledge of past conditions have faded. That can make it difficult to imagine a world in which these conditions could improve, but they certainly can if we push back on the continued proliferation of warehouses and the over-consumption of resources that they enable.

This Airport South project is proposed for land outside of Sacramento County’s 1993 Urban Services Boundary (USB) and on land not permitted for development in the 1996 Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP). For all the reasons that the USB was established - to mitigate flood and wildfire risk and support permanent preservation of agriculture, range lands, critical habitat and natural resources - it must be maintained. This is especially important now because the physical impacts of climate change are exacerbating many of these existing risks.

It is especially disturbing to see the City staff supporting a developer's proposal to build single family housing on a parcel currently zoned for multi-family that is directly adjacent to a light rail station (Item #5) and ON THE SAME AGENDA supporting this ill-advised attempt to build more warehouses on open space. These moves are the opposite of smart growth. I strongly oppose this proposal.

Matt A at May 20, 2025 at 4:00pm PDT Neutral
Does this development pencil out fiscally for the city long-term? No real opinion on the development itself (logistics/shipping are a necessary part of our world) but if the initial infrastructure needs to be debt-financed by the city ($92 million of new infrastructure liabilities!) - Is a large enough return expected from this development to fund repair and replacement of the infrastructure? (e.g. roads) As a taxpayer without any financial expertise it would be super helpful if staff could just high-level how the project is anticipated to offset the onging infrastructure liabilities we are taking on from annexing/building out the backbone infrastructure. Do the project revenues justify our new costs on an ongoing basis?
Jan Schori at May 20, 2025 at 1:08pm PDT Oppose
Dear Commissioners:

The Airport South Industrial Project is too polluting, too big and too close to current City Westlake residents and the Paso Verde schoolchildren.

The EIR describes and documents the expected increased cancer risk to neighboring residents and children as a result of the operation of the project’s heavy-duty diesel trucks. The map of the plume of diesel carcinogens extends well into multiple homes within Westlake.

The EIR in its alternatives analysis concedes that there is a need for a significant buffer between residential and industrial uses to avoid significant adverse impacts (such as exposure to toxic and cancer causing air contaminants and noise conflicts). It is unconscionable to be imposing this cancer increase risk on existing city residents; city government has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens and must not approve this project as currently configured which will put people’s lives and health at risk.

Please reject Airport South as currently recommended. If it is your intent to let it proceed, then it should include a significant setback of at least one quarter mile from the existing Westlake neighborhood residences and the Paso Verde elementary school. This setback buffer requirement must apply to the project and the non-participating parcels.

The latest project proposal as recommended by your staff includes a new 125 foot setback (see page 4, not in EIR?) to add to the City’s existing 200 foot dirt buffer between the residential neighborhood and the project, which is a step in the right direction but which is insufficient and inadequate to address the toxic air quality and noise impacts on Westlake and the Paso Verde school. Please see the EIR’s “reduced footprint alternative” analysis, which is the preferred environmental alternative, for a description of the significant environmental benefits of moving the project further away from residents and the school.

We ask you to require a much bigger setback of at least one quarter mile from residences and the school to lessen and mitigate the egregious multiple adverse impacts of this industrial development on its existing neighbors.

Additionally, the staff recommendation proposes to go forward with annexation and “pre-zoning” of the non-participating Cayucca parcel without doing a toxic air contaminant study, allowing the study to be avoided completely if certain representations regarding intended use of the property are made, or to be done at some point in the future after the property has been approved for industrial zoning. This parcel directly abuts the Paso Verde school and Westlake residents. The risk which must be studied by the City and this property owner is about daily cancer-causing toxic air contaminant exposure to school children from kindergarten through grade 8 and neighboring residents (all considered “sensitive receptors” in air quality analysis regulations). This study must be done now if the Cayucca parcel is to be considered for industrial pre-zoning. We are shocked that this attempt to bypass such an important issue has been included in the staff’s recommendation. The study must be a mandatory requirement on the developer and done before any action is taken relating to approval of industrial development on this property. The owner(s) should not be rewarded for his non participant status by allowing him to grandfather his project under this applicant’s studies, especially when development of this owner’s property will potentially have the greatest adverse air quality impacts on the neighborhood and the school.

Respectfully submitted,
Jan Schori & Case Butterman, 191 Lanfranco Circle, Sacramento Susan Herre AIA AICP, Immediate Past President, ECOS at May 20, 2025 at 12:29pm PDT Oppose Dear City of Sacramento Planning & Design Commissioners, Please see our letter re the Airport South Industrial project, and the PowerPoint on the Urban Services Boundary that is included.

Susan Herre AIA AICP
Attachments: 250520_LETTER_to_City_PDC_re_Airport_South_Industrial.pdf Jacob Bredberg admin at May 20, 2025 at 9:11am PDT
Additional eComments received by the Office of City Clerk. Norman PT 2 Attachments: 05222025_Item_06_2025-01031_Additional_eComments_received_by_the_Office_of_City_Clerk_--_PT_2.5.pdf 05222025_Item_06_2025-01031_Additional_eComments_received_by_the_Office_of_City_Clerk_--_PT_2.0.pdf Heather Brantley admin at May 20, 2025 at 9:09am PDT
Additional eComments received by the Office of City Clerk. Norman PT 1 Attachments: 05222025_Item_06_2025-01031_Additional_eComments_received_by_the_Office_of_City_Clerk_--_PT_1.0.pdf 05222025_Item_06_2025-01031_Additional_eComments_received_by_the_Office_of_City_Clerk_--_PT_1.5.pdf Cecelia Ventress admin at May 19, 2025 at 9:39am PDT
eComment received by the City Clerk's Office
Attachments: 05222025_PDC_eComment_Item_06.pdf
Odet Ford at May 19, 2025 at 9:05am PDT Oppose
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Odet Ford, and I am the parent of a student at Paso Verde Elementary School. I’m writing to express deep concern about the proposed Airport South Industrial Project adjacent to the school. This development poses serious risks to air quality, environmental health, and noise levels, directly impacting our students' well-being and ability to learn.

What’s especially troubling is that, so far, the School Board and school leadership have not publicly addressed the project or informed school families about its potential consequences. As a concerned parent, I strongly urge you to oppose this development and formally communicate that position to the City Council and Planning Commission.

If the project does move forward, I request that the Commission advocate for a minimum 1,500-foot buffer zone to help mitigate the harmful effects of air and noise pollution near the school.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I hope we can count on your leadership to help protect Paso Verde students' health and learning environment.

Sincerely,
Odet Ford
Mark Rodriguez, activist at May 17, 2025 at 10:36am PDT Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A Sacramento, CA, 95820, They will claim that they are too busy for you.

Meeting: Planning & Design Commission (Supplemental Material Updated 5/22/2025 @ 10:15 a.m.)
Meeting Time: May 22, 2025 at 5:30pm PDT
Disclaimer:

If you wish to attach any materials such as support letters or other informational items, please create and account and sign in. Once you have signed in you may attach up to three documents.

If you do not want your personal information included in the official record, do not complete that field.  Agenda Item

6. Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] File ID: 2025-01031 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Item 06 2025-01031Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025] Item 06 2025-01031 Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed 05/02/2025]  75 Public Comments
« First ‹ Prev 1 2 3 4
City of Sacramento
 105 Comments  Comments Open
Home Discussions Meetings Select Language ▼ Sign In  Sign Up From: John Roberts <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at 11:57 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Heather Fargo <[email protected]>, Kimberli Burns <[email protected]>, Jennifer Skupic <[email protected]>, Eric Dubovik <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Outside the 17,5000-acre Permit Area
Susan: thanks for the phone calls and conversations Friday.

I promised to recap my answers to the question you posed in that conversation. Your question regarded the logic behind the Conservancy’s views on the Airport South Industrial Project.

I hope this recap is helpful. My guess, based on your follow-up questions during that conversation, was that perhaps I wasn’t communicating very well. And I could tell you were taking notes as I spoke, so maybe some of what I said didn’t get heard. By responding in writing, perhaps the conversation could be made more clear so that you get the answers you deserve and requested.

Before doing this, I want to again state that your statement that the Conservancy supports Airport South Industrial Park (ASIP) is not accurate.

Founding Conservancy Board Chair Anne Rudin put us on this course many years ago: avoid taking positions for or against urban developments. The Conservancy serves at the pleasure of the “Parties” to the HCP, and as I said in our phone conversation, at any time, for cause or even without cause, the Conservancy could be replaced with a different Plan Operator.

The Conservancy has never advocated for or against urban developments. We will provide information relevant to the implementation of the HCPs to decision makers and interested parties if asked, but otherwise do not play a role in the land use decision making process.

So, here is what I tried to say in response to your question Friday:

1. ECOS says approval of the proposed ASIP would set a precedent. This is getting said a lot these days with regard to any approval of the proposed ASIP. As I noted, I believe the proverbial horse is out of the barn. As the Conservancy made clear to the City Council many years ago, in open session and elsewhere, the Greenbriar project did that. And did it in a major way. The Conservancy has been deeply confounded with this precedent.

So, we clearly understand the negatives that come with precedent.

2. Project setting and biological viability. We have to be realistic about the proposed ASIP.

Estimates by CalTrans for 2025 show traffic counts to the adjacent north of the proposed ASIP project site (on Interstate 5) at between 120,000 and 180,000 per day.

It’s hard to even conceive of that many vehicles in one day, let alone next to land that might serve as productive habitat land.

To the northwest, we have SMF with 1.2 million passengers expected to board aircraft in 2025. We have roughly 300 flight operations a day there, nearly all (depending on time of year) going overhead or in the vicinity of ASIP’s proposed development area.

To the adjacent west, the County of Sacramento has publicly noticed its intent to install a 122-acre “WattEV” industrial operation, with approximately 92 acres of reflective glass (solar panels), many in the NBHCP-established Swainson’s Hawk Zone.

To the east, we have industrial (warehouse and storage).

I am hoping we can all agree this location is not exactly top-rate wildlife habitat. I say all this to make this point: the Conservancy’s Fisherman’s Lake Reserve Area (FLRA) has been expensive and the results of all that investment and care for the benefit of the HCPs’ Covered Species has been disappointing. At some point, all the money in the world (proverbially speaking) and diligence cannot overcome the challenging effects of urbanization on the HCPs’ Covered Species. (We HAVE NOT stopped trying to make the FLRA biologically productive.) The Conservancy tries to be mindful of these factors in deciding where to focus its efforts to secure lands that will best support the HCPs’ Covered Species.

3. “High hill to climb.” The point is made that those developing outside the 17,500-acre Permit Area will have “an uphill battle” or, otherwise, a “high hill to climb” to evidence and acknowledge needs of the HCPs in mitigation (loosely stated by me and not intended to be legal interpretation). This was part of a theme that was stated in the NWF v. Norton case (2005).

ECOS and others may conclude that the Conservancy, as you say, supports the proposed ASIP project because we like to say the following:

In nearly all other cases of ground disturbance (urbanization) outside the 17,500-acre Permit Area, the Conservancy’s ability to implement the HCPs has been made more difficult and expensive. Some projects, however, make it easier and less expensive. (Loosely stated: they have climbed the proverbial high hill; they made peace with the proverbial uphill battle; in both analogies, that is, to some large degree).

Let’s take for example the case of the Natomas Levee Improvement Project (NLIP). This was and is a massive ground disturbance project. However, SAFCA conducted mitigation for the NLIP that has benefitted the Conservancy’s ability to implement the HCPs. Granted, it’s not all been without adversity, but overall, SAFCA and the other parties working with it, especially the USACE, have made improvements which further the implementation effort. Similarly, PG&E has done a project outside the Permit Area, cooperating fully with the Conservancy and the State and federal Wildlife Agencies. It actually added to the HCPs’ implementation advancement. These are the exceptions:
in most other cases, the results have been seriously challenging and detrimental to HCP implementation.

And so today we look at the proposed ASIP, keeping in mind the discussion in number one above, and we see ASIP’s proponents have taken numerous steps to reduce the proposed project’s impact on the Conservancy’s mitigation land work in the area. And also to enhance its HCP implementation effort.

We understand that the ECOS and others believe Conservancy acknowledgement of these steps to be an indication of support for the project. It is not. It is a realistic assessment of the situation. The public (and presumably ECOS) has come to trust information the Conservancy issues. We’ve strived to be transparent, and to ensure that we answer and respond in ways that are well grounded in fact. This is one such case.

But in no case can this be construed as support for the project. You are aware of our recent letter to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on development outside the 17,500-acre Permit Area. We stand by that letter. But we are not going to prevaricate as to the harmful or helpful effects we anticipate as to a proposed development if asked. We’re going to state the facts as we see them. Indeed, we believe authorities WANT the Conservancy to have a good and fair assessment of these proposals.

4. What happens if the City declines ASIP. We have no hard information to support what we’re about to say here, but we believe that if the City were to decline to annex and approve the ASIP, the next most likely next step would be for the landowners to submit the same or similar project to the County of Sacramento for consideration. With the City, the Conservancy will know that with its (that is, the City’s) commitment to the State and federal Wildlife Agencies (see the relevant “Implementation Agreements”), the City would most likely be cognizant of Plan Operator issues on this particular proposal. We do not know if that would be the same if this project were considered by the County. So, in the interest of doing what’s best for the HCP implementation effort and based on nothing more than our anticipation and expectation, the Conservancy wonders what happens next if it is rejected by the City.

Finally, and separate from the points I tried to make in our phone conversation, we emphasize there are many urban development proposals in the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin that are out for public review or are publicly declared. In all cases except the proposed ASIP, not one of those currently being considered have worked productively with the Conservancy on advancing or even minimizing impacts on the HCP implementation effort.

I have shared the information that I have on many of these projects with ECOS. For example, the County’s WattEV project, again, immediately adjacent to the proposed footprint of the proposed ASIP, will place approximately 92 acres of reflective glass in part in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Can you imagine what impact this will have on HCP implementation efforts? Despite our questioning, the County has evidenced zero interest in sharing details on what, if any, steps it would take to lessen the impact on HCP implementation efforts.

Indeed, Judge Levy wrote in his 2005 decision in federal court (NWF v. Norton) the following regarding urbanization outside the 17,500-acre Permit Area and inside the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin:

Thus, while plaintiffs contend that future development will vitiate the NBHCP, it is more likely that, if future development in the County will have this effect, the Secretary will decline to issue ITPs for development in the County or will insist on mitigation that may be considerably greater than that required by the NBHCP.” p. 22, NWF v Norton So we ask of these project proposals, what exactly will be the “mitigation that may be considerably greater than that required by the NBHCP?” We see “considerably greater” proposed on ASIP, we saw “considerably greater” with NLIP, we saw “considerably greater” with PG&E. We see stonewalling on nearly all others. These projects have not negotiated the “uphill battle” or the “high hill to climb” in terms of mitigation consistent with the court’s statement about the NBHCP.

So, that’s a better recounting of my answer to you. I hope this is adequately responsive to your inquiry.

John
March 14, 2025
To: LAFCo Commissioners, Commission Clerks and Planners; Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Planners; City of Sacramento City Council, Mayor, Planning Commission and Planners
Subject: Airport South Industrial Project (P21-017) proposed annexation into the City of Sacramento
The North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) is open to residents of all North Natomas neighborhoods. NNCC’s vision is to assure North Natomas maintains its desirability and quality of life.

NNCC has reviewed the Airport South Industrial project since August 2022 as the project worked to develop the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We have reviewed the Draft EIR and have some serious concerns about the use of the designated land, which is currently zoned for agricultural use, being changed to Industrial – Planned Unit Development and Commercial – Planned Unit Development. We provided these comments previously in July 2024 (see below).

Key points:
• The Airport South Industrial Project is located outside the Urban Services Boundary for Sacramento County and is located inside the Natomas Basin Conservation boundaries. • There are many other available Industrial – Planned Unit Development and Commercial - Planned Unit Development locations throughout Sacramento County. • The Airport South Industrial Project is adjacent to a long-time housing development and an elementary school, with negative environmental effects which cannot be mitigated.

One of the purposes of the Local Area Formation Commission according to its website is to “to exercise its authority to guide development away from open space and prime agricultural land uses unless such actions would not promote planned, orderly and efficient development.” Since this project seeks to repurpose agricultural land to industrial uses, it needs to provide evidence that this is the only location that can accommodate this purpose in Sacramento County.

The proposed Project is outside the Urban Services Boundary for Sacramento County. It is located on land which is currently zoned Agricultural – 80 acres. This area is the habitat for numerous protected species, which can coexist with agricultural land but will be displaced with the urbanization of the land.

Allowing projects of this nature outside the Urban Services Boundary will set a precedent for even more urban sprawl, which is the direct opposite of the purpose of both LAFCo and setting boundaries for urbanization.

There are many spaces available throughout Sacramento County within the Urban Services Boundary which are suitable for this development. Directly across the Interstate 5 freeway is Metro Air Park, with a large area of open space which has been designated for industrial/commercial use.

This area has already been partially developed with structures of similar sizes and uses as those proposed in the Airport South Industrial Project, and additional space is still available for this development.

Additionally, there are several other industrial/commercial properties which have adequate vacancy rates to accommodate the buildings proposed for this project. These include McClellan Park, the Northgate Industrial Zone and Mather Field.

All of these alternatives are located far enough away from residential developments that they do not affect the quality of life for the residents, nor would they affect the value of the homes adjacent to the development.

The area selected for this project does not have access to public transportation, nor is it part of any active transportation network which would provide non-vehicular access. This means that in addition to the large truck traffic in support of the facilities, there will be increased commuter traffic to the site. This increases the environmental impact of the project.

The location immediately adjacent to a highly populated neighborhood and elementary school also is problematic. Vehicular and industrial noise, traffic and possible accessibility to the nearby developed area will create the need for additional public safety services and code enforcement, at expense to the City of Sacramento, which already faces a budget shortfall. Additionally, in order to secure the facilities, additional lighting will be required which will create light pollution for the adjacent neighborhood and school.

Since tenants have not been identified, there is no way of knowing if the development will be providing warehousing, with increased big truck traffic, or industrial businesses, which may create hazardous waste, noxious odors and noise pollution. Either situation has environmental issues which cannot be mitigated.

Because of these issues, the North Natomas Community Coalition opposes the proposed project and asks LAFCo to deny the request, the City of Sacramento not to annex the property and the Planning Department of the City of Sacramento to deny the rezoning from Agricultural land to Industrial/Commercial.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Pray, President
North Natomas Community Coalition
Previous letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report July 16, 2024
To: LAFCo Commissioners, Commission Clerks and Planners; City of Sacramento City Council, Mayor, Planning Commission and Planners
Subject: Airport South Industrial Project (P21-017) Draft Environmental Impact Report and proposed annexation into the City of Sacramento
The North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) is open to residents of all North Natomas neighborhoods. NNCC’s vision is to assure North Natomas maintains its desirability and quality of life.

NNCC has been reviewing the Airport South Industrial project since August, 2022 as the project worked to develop the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We have reviewed the Draft EIR and have some serious concerns about the use of the designated land, which is currently zoned for agricultural use, being changed to Industrial – Planned Unit Development and Commercial – Planned Unit Development.

The Draft EIR lists in Table 2-1 the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Of the numerous impacts, 39 are rated as Significant. Three of those cannot be mitigated, particularly regarding the impact on the aesthetics of the properties adjoining the project site. People who bought homes on the west side of the Westlake subdivision will have their view to the west degraded, possibly impacting the value of their properties. Additionally, light pollution from the site could degrade the value of the properties adjacent to the development, along with noise and noxious odors which might be emitted from the occupants of the structures. Furthermore, the added large vehicular traffic brings noise and pollution to neighbors to the east of the project, based on prevailing winds.

Since no tenants have been identified, it is impossible to determine how significant these impacts might be.

Numerous others have commented on the environmental impact of changing agricultural land to industrial/commercial land due to loss of habitat and the necessity of creating drainage canals and the sewer and water infrastructure required.

Draft EIR Section 7.3 Selection of Alternatives analyzes other ways the project could be mitigated by reducing scale, feasible alternatives, or avoiding significant environmental impacts. Mixed-Use Residential Alternative explores the addition of adding a mixed-use housing component. This analysis rejects the residential alternative, finding that "development of portions of the project site with residential uses would prevent the proposed project from developing employment uses…and could result in conflicts related to the incompatibility between residential and industrial uses. Overall, a Mixed-Use Residential Alternative that could accomplish the project objectives is not considered feasible. As a result, the Mixed-Use Residential Alternative is dismissed from detailed evaluation.” Since this proposed industrial development is adjacent, adjoins and borders the Westlake Residential Subdivision and Paso Verde School, the conflict of incompatibility is inherent. The project has inappropriately been sited next to a residential community which is incompatible with the industrial uses. The EIR fails to analyze impacts to community sustainability and home values caused by putting what the analysis acknowledges is an incompatible industrial use within residential.

Finally, appropriate land is abundantly available just north of Interstate 5. This area is already being developed for industrial and commercial uses and provides the same access to connecting freeways, the airport and other services without impacting adjacent homes. There is no need to adversely affect the residences, parks and schools which will be near this proposed project.

North Natomas Community Coalition strongly opposes the annexation of this land to the City of Sacramento for the purposes analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. We urge LAFCo and the City of Sacramento to reject this request to modify the land use, rezone the parcels and expand the Sphere of Influence.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Pray, President
North Natomas Community Coalition
909 12th Street, Suite 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916-446-9255 • www.civicthread.org
December 18, 2024 VIA EMAIL
Matthew Aijala
Assistant Planner, New Growth Section
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017)
Dear Matthew:

Thank you for routing the following development to Civic Thread. The Airport South Industrial PUD Site Plan and proposed annexation plans to bring the proposed development and land under authority of the City of Sacramento while developing predominantly light industrial uses and highway commercial uses. The following review centers on the cyclist and pedestrian perspective within the circulation plan provided.

We want to commend the developer's inclusion of planter separated sidewalks wherever sidewalks are present. This allows for the planting of trees to provide shade, reduce Urban Heat Island effects, and support improved air quality, particularly where industrial traffic will likely be concentrated. In review of the proposed development’s circulation plan and roadway cross-sections, Civic Thread has several concerns regarding the provision or lack thereof of appropriate cycling facilities.

Recognizing the predominantly industrial uses and accommodating travel lane configuration, it is our opinion that except for Airport South Industrial Drive which possesses a 12’ sidewalk and can accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists, all other roadways provide either significantly inadequate cycling facilities or do not provide them at all. Additionally, the plans incorrectly label “A” Drive as possessing a Class II bike lane in the General Plan Bikeway Diagram yet the cross section for “A” Drive indicates no bike lanes planned. Instead, curb to center lane on each side indicates 3’ of curb and gutter, 17’ travel lane, and 6’ (doubled to 12’ when including both sides) as proposed landscape median or two way turn lane. Please see the details of our overall recommendations below.

Bikeway and Cycling Facility Recommendations:
• Where plans indicate the provision of “Landscape median or two way run lane” we recommend providing the landscape median.
o This will allow additional shade, permeable surface, and overall traffic calming opportunities within the development.