Freeport Boulevard. Both are examples of engagement by the community, developer, Planning and Design Commission, and City Council in discus- sions to find common ground to mitigate adverse impacts before final ap- proval.
Concern #3: Community Questions Remain Unanswered
As NNCC members analyzed the proposed ASIP, we identified many un- answered questions. Examples include:
• Where in the City’s General Plan and in NNCP does it call for 450 acres of large industrial warehouses to be built in residential neighborhoods and adjacent to schools?
• Where is the economic analysis to justify the need for more warehousing outside of Metro Air Park (MAP) given that MAP is the master-planned business park designed for logistics and distribution centers for its prox- imity to the Sacramento International Airport?
• Why doesn’t the staff report fully analyze Parcel 8? It’s a critical parcel due to its location – it’s directly adjacent to Paso Verde School and Westlake residential area. Parcel 8 is included in the annexation. How- ever, it is not part of the proposed development, PUD guidelines, or EIR.
If the property owner of Parcel 8 decides to pursue development in the future, how will review be handled? Will a new or revised EIR assess its impact? Will the community have input into the parcel design or mitiga- tion of potential impacts?
• Why is there no discussion of the types of jobs provided by warehouses that tend to be transitory and low paying? Has the city considered condi- tioning the ASIP uses to be employment hubs rather than warehouses?
• Is MAP being utilized to its highest levels to support the airport?
• Why does MAP include plans for an 18-hole golf course, hotel and retail uses if there is high demand for warehouse use?
• Why doesn’t the EIR and the City take into account, and as shown on the Buzz Oates real estate web site and the Greater Sacramento Eco- nomic Council web site, that of the 1,900 acres in the Park, MAP still has has 1,320 acres of fully-entitled, with completed environmental miti- gation, ready for immediate development?
How does this fit into the applicant’s assertion that there is a scarcity of large logistics sites in the region?
• Throughout our review, NNCC members struggled to see how such a massive warehouse project could be made compatible with homes and schools:
- Why does the staff report refer to the project as light industrial and highway commercial development when the applicant has proposed to construct and operate 6 million square feet of industrial ware- houses next to homes and a school? This will bring an increase of large diesel semi-trucks, and hundreds of truck trips a day, that are a major source of air pollution, increased health risks, traffic conges- tion, environmental degradation, and increased noise levels.
- Why does the staff report discuss compatibility with the Sacramento International Airport and not with existing neighborhoods, its resi- dents and the school? The proposed warehouses are within the overflight zones, which restricts certain land use developments for health and safety purposes. The City’s General Plan and NNCP lay out compatible siting and balancing residential, office, commercial, industrial, civic and open space areas. Nowhere in the land use classifications is there a call for six million square feet of warehouses in neighborhoods and adjacent to schools.
- Why doesn’t the staff report address how six million square feet of warehouses will change the neighborhood character and create negative and dangerous effects to the schoolchildren and residents?
- Why doesn’t the staff report discuss the type of allowable uses and purposes of the warehouses? Without conditioning uses, stored goods might be inflammable and/or toxic and could be dangerous to the surrounding residents, school, and businesses.
• Why doesn’t the staff report consider energy and water intensive uses such as data centers and its impact on city rates for water and electricity, as well as adequate availability?
• The staff report states the applicant will construct a roundabout at the northeastern edge of the property along South Bayou Way to prevent truck traffic from heading towards the residential neighborhood of Westlake. Why is there no mention that emergency vehicles and fire engines must be able to maneuver through a roundabout which would also make it accessible for a large truck to also move through? Homes
front Bayou Road, it is a two-lane road and street parking is allowed.
There is no discussion of how semi’s will be kept out of the neighbor- hood. This is problematic due to safety risks for walkers and cyclists, causing road and infrastructure damage and traffic disruptions.
NNCC respectfully urges you to take into consideration our concens and questions in your deliberations for this project that will have enourmous and lasting impact to North Natomas, Westlake community, and Paso Verde School.
Respectively,
Lynn Lenzi
President, North Natomas Community Coalition
*
Background on NNCP
The NNCP is the product of over 10 years of work by many individuals and groups which made up the North Natomas Working Group (that included North Natomas Land- owners Association and other property owners, developers, ECOS, Natomas Communi- ty Association, and City Planning staff), Sacramento City Council, City Planning Com- mission, and the North Natomas Management Committee “working in a consensus- building process” and establishing planning principles.
The NNCP was adopted by the City Council (Resolution No. 94-259) on May 3, 1994.
The result of this comprehensive and inclusive process is a blueprint for future Natomas development. The NNCP:
* Envisions “a new urban form that includes a well-integrated mixture of civic, residen- tial, commercial and employment uses,…”
* It outlines the shared vision of officials, developers and its citizens, of goals and pol- icies on how the City will approach growth,
* It articulates actions to achieve this shared vision, and * It ensures development is consistent with community priorities and values of pre- serving the natural environment to benefit residents as well as the existing plant and animal species.
Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS)
Letter Dated October 21, 2025
Introduction
The comments in the October 21, 2025 comment letter submitted by ECOS have been reviewed by City staff and the following responses are provided.
COMMENT RESPONSE
"Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
How are you going to assure the public and the wildlife agencies that what you propose does not compromise the
ability of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
(NBHCP , or HCP) to be implemented as approved? The City is a signatory to the Plan.
How will the approval of this project impact the ability of the Natomas Basin Conservancy (NBC) to implement its HCP?
Please provide more specific information about the number of acres of mitigating habitat required and planned for this Project, and their location with respects to the HCP boundary and the incorporated vs unincorporated areas of Sacramento County.
As discussed throughout the Final EIR, the proposed project will acquire and dedicate land in the Natomas Basin as habitat mitigation land to offset any loss of habitat for species covered under the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP). The success of the NBHCP does not require a certain amount of agricultural land remain in the basin. The NBHCP provides that before approving the annexation of unincorporated land in the Natomas Basin, the City is required to conduct an analysis of the effect on the NBHCP operating conservation program to determine if the change in the amount of agricultural land or open space compared to the conditions that existed at the time the NBHCP was adopted
compromise the
effectiveness of the NBHCP . As stated under Response to Comment 2-11 in the Final EIR, “ An extensive discussion of the project’s potential effects upon the Natomas Basin HCP Conservation Strategy is presented beginning on page 4.4 -71 of the Draft EIR and, as discussed therein, the Draft EIR concluded that the project would not reduce the effe ctiveness of the HCP’s operating conservation program or conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan.” As such, the conversion of the project site to the proposed uses would not impact the ability of the NBHCP to be implemented.
The Airport South Industrial Project - Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Lands Memorandum (Mitigation Lands Memorandum ), dated October 15, 2025, prepared by Raney Planning & Management, further clarifies how the proposed project would include the preservation of 117.59 acres located in the Natomas Basin and would allow The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) to complete a required 400-acre minimum reserve site consistent with the NBHCP .
The proposed project provides higher quality habitat preserves that will directly support and benefit HCP covered species when compared to the lower quality habitat that would be developed o n- site.
How will the City comply with the NBCHP’s requirements for projects outside of the current permit area?
With respect to the currently proposed project, Mitigation Measures
4.4-3(b) and 4.4-5(b) were revised under Response to Comment 2 -5 in the Final EIR to address potential impacts to NBHCP -covered species (giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk, respectively) located outside of the NBHCP permit area.
Has the City consulted with California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding their concerns about this project beyond the formal CEQA communication process? Will you discuss this project’s mitigation with the agency that is responsible for the City’s legal commitment to implement the Natomas Basin HCP, prior to voting on the project?
The comment letter submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the adequacy of the analysis of the Draft EIR for the proposed project is included as Letter 2 in the Final EIR. The Final EIR includes responses to all comments included in the CDFW letter, as well as further clarification and amplification regarding the off-site habitat preserves proposed in the Natomas Basin. The City shared the Final EIR and the responses to CDFW’s comments with CDFW in accordance with CEQA. .
AB 98
This issue was brought up by Commissioner Larry Lee of the Planning and Design Commission during their meeting of June 26, 2025. AB 98 goes into effect January 1, 2026. Much of AB 98 applies to a project like ASIP. It would make sense to wait to vote on the Project until after the new bill goes into effect.
The following language from Assembly Bill (AB) 98 is the only passage relevant to the proposed project : “The bill would except from those design and build standards certain existing logistics use developments, proposed expansions of a logistics use development, and property currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use, under prescribed conditions. The bill would require a facility operator, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, to establish and submit for approval by a city, county, or city and county a truck routing plan to and from the state highway system based on the latest truck route map of the city, count y, or city and county, as prescribed. The bill would require a facility operator to enforce the plan. The bill would provide for the revision of the plan in specified circumstances. ”
In addition, it is noted that the proposed project, as currently designed, would meet the buffer requirements established by AB 98.
Location
The EIR did not consider alternative locations for Airport South. For example, why wasn’t Mather considered as an alternative location, where infrastructure is already in place and away from sensitive receptors?
Although Chapter 7, Alternatives Analysis, of the Draft EIR does not specifically address the potential for an Off-Site Alternative within the vicinity of the Mather Airport , an Off-Site Alternative is discussed on page 7-5. As discussed therein, sites considered for an Off-Site Alternative are limited to those that do not require the City to annex land or expand its Sphere of Influence. The Mather area is located outside the City’s Sphere of Influence, would require Annexation, and, unlike the project site, was not included as a “Special Study Area” in Map LUP-1 of the City’s 2040 General Plan.
Therefore, the Mather Airport area was not considered, and would not be appropriate for consideration, as the Off-Site Alternative location. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons presented on page 7-5 of the Draft EIR, the Off-Site Alternative was dismissed from further review.
How much of the build out at the Metro Air Park is directly related to supporting the airport? What are future plans for development at MAP and do they include business that could be located elsewhere, such as a hotel or golf course? Is Airport South Industrial needed for warehouses if MAP is investing in non-airport freight related uses?
The proposed project is a development that is independent from the Metro Air Park and, thus, is evaluated as such. Therefore, the CEQA evaluation of the proposed project is adequate.
Parcel 8
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 residences and Paso Verde elementary Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3 of the Draft EIR, when a development application is submitted for Parcel 8, the applicant will be responsible for submitting a Health Risk Assessment to calculate the cancer risk associated with on- site truck diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. Subsequently, if health risks associated with future development of Parcel 8 are determined to exceed the 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.
If Parcel 8 is developed, it would likely push the level of pollutants into the need for mitigation. Who will be
responsible for the mitigation? Only the Parcel 8 owner, Northpoint, or the City?
applicable Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (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. Conformance with such requirements would be confirmed through review and approval of the HRA by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
Planning and Design Commission Recommendations
During their consideration of this project on June 26, 2025, the Planning and Design Commission discussed the necessity for this Project to establish more robust plans to protect the community and natural resources than outlined in the EIR.
The Commission was particularly concerned about
requirements related to setbacks, loading dock placement, and noise. How will these concerns be addressed? Will new conditions regarding setbacks, air quality, and noise be formally published in the EIR and recirculated for public review? What will be the guiding principles for the new conditions?
Pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before circulation. As stated therein,
“Significant new information” requiring recirculation
include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the
project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigati on
measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previous l y analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impac t s of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt i t. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically
inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful publi c review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion
Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d
1043)
As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR, potential environmental impacts related to noise associated the proposed project, as proposed at the time of the publication of the Draft EIR, were determined to be less-than-significant with implementation of the relevant mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. As such, any additional conditions of approval that have been accepted by the applicant with the purpose of further lessening potential noise impacts identified in the EIR affirm the conclusions of the EIR, and recirculation would not be required.
The Draft EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality associated with operation of the proposed project. Any changes made to the proposed project would likely be aimed at reducing the severity of such impacts. As such, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines above, recirculation would not be required.
Conflicts with existing Planning Policies
The proposed Project location falls outside of the County Urban Services Boundary (USB) and Urban Policy Area (UPA).
Although these are County plans, what are the implications of the City urbanizing beyond these foundational policies? Would the approval of this project not have precedent-setting impacts to disregard policies like the USB and UPA in favor of future development in the Natomas Basin?
As discussed in Response to Comment 22 -4 of the Final EIR, “ the proposed development of the project area is being considered by the City, to occur within the City’s jurisdiction, should LAFCo approve the sphere of influence amendment and annexation requests, and the City approve the prezoning and related entitlements. Without the approval of every one of these requests, development would not occur within the project area and inconsistency with a County General Plan policy would not occur. As a result, the a nalysis of consistency with County General Plan policies is not required. (See The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey
(2017) 14
Cal.App.5th 883, 893.)”
Sierra Club Mother Lode and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk (FOSH) Letter Dated July 29, 2025
Introduction
The July 29, 2025, comment letter submitted by Sierra Club Mother Lode and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk appears to contain incorrect information, comments that may be outdated or comments possibly meant for another project. The letter was submitted to the City of Sacramento on November 6, 2025, yet the letter is dated July 29, 2025. Regardless, the comments submitted have been reviewed by City staff and the following responses are provided.
COMMENT RESPONSE
"(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.
As discussed in the Airport South Industrial Project – Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Lands Memorandum (HCP Mitigation Lands Memo), the NBHCP Implementation Agreement (IA) does not require that the City or developers obtain Incidental Take Permits prior to the City rezoning or prezoning the property proposed for development. The IA language identifies multiple potential courses of action that may be taken to address future urban development.
FOSH and ECOS requested an Effects Analysis be prepared prior to City action on pre-zoning. Consistent with Response to Comment 40-4 of the Final EIR, the City prepared the October 2025 ASI Project Effects Analysis referenced in the November 18, 2025 Staff Report, posted on the City’s web site with the environmental documents at https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-
development/planning/environmental/impact-reports. The Effects Analysis concluded that the ASI does not have an affect on the effectiveness of the NBHCP Conservation Strategy.
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 City did not obtain permits from the wildlife agencies for the Greenbriar project. The developer/project applicant obtained those permits following completion of the annexation. The Greenbriar Project and the ASI Project are different. The Greenbriar project was located entirely outside of the City’s HCP Permit Area and at that time thought to be urban development that would exceed the NBHCP authorized development of 17,500 acres. As such, the Greenbriar mitigation and obtaining ITP coverage was based on the entire project being additional development acreage beyond the NBHCP.
As documented in the ASI EIR and the Effects Analysis and further summarized in the Airport South Industrial Project - Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Lands Memorandum (Mitigation Lands Memo), dated October 15, 2025, prepared by Raney Planning & Management, posted on the City’s environmental documents web site https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-
development/planning/environmental/impact-reports as well as the Responses to the FOSH/ECOS letter on the Draft EIR, the ASI development is within the City’s authorized development of 8,050 acres under the NBHCP . The ASI development itself does not cause an exceedance of the NBHCP 17,500 acres of authorized
development. The ASI project will adhere to all NBHCP
requirements including mitigation ratios, pre-construction surveys, payment of HCP fees, off-site land dedication, and many additional biological measures. Consistent with the NBHCP, the ASI project is proposing to provide its mitigation in the Natomas Basin. The mitigation properties would be dedicated to The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) for ownership and management in
accordance with the NBH CP.
By contrast, the Greenbriar mitigation properties located in the Natomas Basin were not included in the NBHCP preserve system.
Consequently, the Greenbriar mitigation properties do not contribute to meeting the 8,750 acres of mitigation land required by the NBHCP to offset the effects on covered species resulting from 17, 500 acres of authorized development.
Greenbriar did not participate in the HCP by dedicating any land to TNBC nor through the payment of HCP fees. Unlike Greenbriar, the ASI Project proposes to fully comply with the NBH CP. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.2-1, 4.4-3(b), and 4.4-5(b), ASI will acquire and dedicate land in the Natomas Basin as habitat mitigation land to offset any loss of habitat for NBHCP covered species, as discussed in Chapter 4.4 of the Draft EIR, Response to Comment 2- 5, and further clarified in the Errata to the Final EIR. The HCP Mitigation Lands Memo further clarifies how the 117.59 acres of ASI project off-site preserves would be located in the Natomas Basin and would allow TNBC to complete a required 400-acre minimum reserve site consistent with the NBHCP. The ASI project provides higher quality habitat preserves that will directly support and benefit HCP covered species when compared to the lower quality habitat that would be developed on the ASI property. As documented in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, of the Final EIR and the Effects Analysis, the ASI project would avoid an adverse effect on the NBHCP conservation strategy.
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 The ASI on-site and off-site mitigation for impacts to NBHCP covered species included in the proposed project and described in Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 complies with the NBHCP as further explained in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR and the Effects Analysis. As discussed in Chapter 4.4 of the Draft EIR, 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.
ASI is proposing mitigation lands in the Natomas Basin to meet the NBHCP requirements at a .5 to 1 acre mitigation ratio to offset impacts to covered species habitat. As discussed in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the portion of the mitigation lands that would be within 10 miles from the edge of the Basin is mitigation for the loss of agricultural lands (per LAFCo policies) as discussed in Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. The ASI mitigation lands to offset the loss of agricultural land also will provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawk (see Draft EIR, Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources).
As discussed in Chapter 4.4, and Response to Comment 2-5 in the Final EIR, the NBHCP conservation program requires a 0.5 to 1 acre mitigation ratio to offset impacts to covered species associated with 17,500 acres of authorized development in the Natomas Basin.
The ASI acreage does not exceed the NBHCP authorized
development or the City’s authorized development of 8,050 acres.
A portion of the ASI site within the HCP Permit Area will mitigate at a higher ratio than the HCP .5 to 1 acre requirement as discussed on pages 4.4-51 and 4.4-52 in Chapter 4.4. The additional mitigation within 10 miles included in the ASI Project will also benefit Swainson Hawks as discussed beginning on page 4.4-50 of the Draft EIR and under Responses to Comments 2-8 through 2-10 in the Final EIR.
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.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 in combination with Mitigation Measure
4.4-5(b) of the EIR, provide 1:1 Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation ratio. Mitigation Measure 4.4-5(b) requires payment of HCP fees or preservation of habitat at a 0.5:1 ratio. Similarly, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 requires agricultural lands to be preserved at a 0.5:1 ratio. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 goes on to identify potential areas that may meet the preservation
criteria. Furthermore, the clarifying language in MM 4.2-1 in the Final EIR, demonstrates the mitigation lands will be comparable in agricultural and habitat value. Thus, while the detention basins are listed as possibilities within the agriculture mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.2-1), those areas would not be selected because they do not meet the requirements of the equivalent agricultural and habitat value requirement. The City would not accept the drainage basins as mitigation lands should they be deemed by the City to not provide comparable agricultural and habitat value. Therefore, the mitigation within the Final EIR does ensure the full acreage is preserved and adequately mitigates the loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat.
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 To clarify, the canals are not owned by the developer. All the canals are owned and operated by Reclamation District (RD)-1000. The ASI Project preserves the on-site canals and potential impacts to the canals are discussed beginning on page 4.64 of the Draft EIR.
As discussed on page 4.4-74 of the Draft EIR, the ASI Project incorporates measures to reduce or offset effects within the annexation area. These measures include preserving a connection with the Lone Tree Canal corridor that flows southward, where flows are conveyed under I-5 through a multi-cell concrete box culvert, through the project site to the West Drainage Canal as discussed on page 4.8-18 in Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. As discussed beginning on page 4.4-46 in Chapter 4.4 of the Draft EIR, by implementing the NBHCP requirements related to giant garter snake (GGS), the proposed project will avoid potential impacts to the species, including those associated with the species’ use of the on-site canals as migratory corridors. As a 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.
result, implementation of the proposed project would not affect habitat connectivity within the canals.
As discussed on page 2-6 of the Effects Analysis and shown on Exhibit 6 of the EIR’s Biological Resources Assessment (Exhibit E),
11.13 acres of existing canals extend through the ASI annexation area. The ASI project would impact 2.17 acres of potential Giant Garter Snake habitat consisting of 1.93 acres of canal systems and
0.24 acres of emergent wetlands (0.22 acres of Hardstem/California Bulrush Marsh and 0.02 acres of Cattail Marsh). The existing habitat is of marginal quality due to the engineered nature of the canals with steep banks, limited burrow sites for overwintering, and regular maintenance activities that disturb vegetation and substrate conditions. The top of the canal banks is highly compacted and show evidence of repeated mowing and grading along many reaches. The ASI site and canals do not have existing
fencing/barriers. The area is subject to frequent trespassing including domestic animals (i.e., people walking their dogs). The ASI project preserves on-site canals, will adhere to NBHCP requirements, coordination with the wildlife agencies and TNBC to ensure the provide connectivity to Lone Tree Canal and a pathway to Fisherman’s Lake. Please refer to the Effects Analysis discussion (see page 6-4) further explaining how the ASI project does not affect canal connectivity with respect to giant garter snake movement in the Natomas Basin.
As discussed on pages 4.4-25 of the Draft EIR and 3-7 in the Effects Analysis, the following describes connectivity between Fisherman’s Lake Reserve Area and other reserves.
TNBC July 2024 Report Page 3-1 (2023 Annual Survey Results)
“Most tracts in TNBC’s reserve system are well-connected and provide ample opportunity for snakes to move between tracts.
However, connections between the Fisherman’s Lake Reserve Area and the rest of the reserve system are tenuous. Although connectivity overall is improving, current data indicate that it is unlikely that the Fisherman’s Lake Reserve is demographically connected to the other reserves.
Overall, giant garter snake populations in the Central Basin Reserve appear healthy. Fewer individuals were captured in the North Basin Reserve, and no giant garter snakes were captured in the Fisherman’s Lake Reserve. ”
TNBC 2022 monitoring results identify GGS trappings conducted in the vicinity of the TNBC reserves near the ASI site and multiple locations along the Fisherman’s Lake Reserve including parallel to the buffer area. No GGS were detected.
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 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 Pages 4.4-26 and 4.4-51 in Chapter 4.4 of the ASI Draft EIR describe the property’s existing condition with limited Swainson’s Hawk habitat. As stated in the Final EIR page 2-24, ASI will comply with the NBHCP measures and requirements per the wildlife resource agencies. The ASI measures provide for avoidance and minimization of any potential impacts to nesting Swainson’s Hawks within ½ mile of the development. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-5(a), if breeding Swainson’s hawks (i.e. exhibiting nest building or nesting behavior) are identified, no new disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction) will occur within ½ mile of an active nest between March 15 and September nesting habitat be permanently protected for the loss of one nest site.
15, or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence by CDFW, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied.
No nesting Swainson Hawks were observed on site during surveys.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-5(a), as required by the NBHCP, the ASI project will conduct pre-construction biological surveys. In the event Swainson’s hawk nests are detected, CDFW will be notified and a construction avoidance buffer around the nest implemented until the nest is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist, unless otherwise approved by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA consistent with the NBHCP.
The Natomas Basin Conservancy's monitoring reports for
Swainson's Hawk nesting sites in 2022 and 2024 show these nesting sites.
The City's Manager for the EIR is also the Manager for the Natomas Basin Conservancy and NBHCP and, as a result,
The ASI Draft EIR was released on May 31, 2024, prior to the TNBC Monitoring Report for 2023 which was made available by the Conservancy in July 2024. Calendar Year 2024 monitoring report has not yet been published on TNBC’s website. Additionally, the Swainson’s Hawk nesting sites in 2022 and 2024 were not identified in FOSH’s July 17, 2024, comment letter on the ASI Draft EIR nor did the City receive any such comments about the nesting sites from the wildlife agencies. There was no intent on the City’s part to withhold any such information. The ASI EIR provides mitigation requiring full compliance with the NBHCP and that would include any potential existing Swainson’ hawk nests in the project vicinity, on-site or any future nests.
To clarify, the City’s Manager for the EIR is not the Manager for the NBHCP. The ASI biological resources assessment was prepared by Bargas as stated in the Draft EIR. The assessment prepared by Bargas was based on an extensive literature review and five field should be fully aware of these nesting sites and should have included assessment of impacts on these sites in the EIR.
surveys of the study area. The following resources were reviewed in detail as summarized in the Bargas technical report attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix E:
• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory to determine if surface waters and wetlands have been mapped on or adjacent to the study area; • The USGS National Hydrography Dataset to determine if hydrological features have been mapped on or adjacent to the study area; • The U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey to map and describe soil(s) within th e study area; and
• Google Earth Pro aerial map images of the study area, including historical aerial images.
In addition, the following data sources were queried to create a well- defined list of habitats and species that could reasonably be expected to occur on the proposed industrial park footprint of the project site to analyze potential impacts on biological resources:
• USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) portal for a list of federally listed species and designated critical habitat recommended fo r impact analysis consideration, based on an upload of the study area limits;
• CNDDB for special-status species and habitat records within the Regional Study Area; and
• CNPS Inventor y of Rare and Endangered Plants for a list of special-status plant species occurrences within the USGS 7 .5-minute qua dra ngles that overlap the Regional Study Area.
As documented in the ASI Effects Analysis, the ASI biological evaluation is based on project site biological surveys conducted and database reviews. The mapping provided in the WattEV EIR and the Paso Verde School EIR did not conduct biological surveys of the ASI property. The exhibits in these EIRs depict not only the surveys
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. conducted for those specific projects but also data mapping that shows occurrences for over 30 years of database mapping. An example is the GGS location shown within the Westlake residential neighborhood.
Substantial evidence set forth in the Bargas Biological Resources Assessment and the Draft EIR demonstrate that the annexation area does not provide suitable habitat lands that would otherwise meet the NBHCP criteria for acquisition for HCP mitigation that supports the 8,750-acre HCP conservation strategy for protected higher quality open space lands. The Effects Analysis further supports the findings of the EIR regarding the quality of habitat on the ASI property compared to the quality of habitat characterizing the proposed preserve lands.
Chapter 4.4 of the Draft EIR (see e.g., pages 4.4-21, 4.4-26, and 4.4- 51) summarized the results of independent biological assessments that indicated that high quality Swainson’s hawk foraging and nesting habitat is limited within the ASI site.
As described on page3-5 of the Effects Analysis, the site overall is constrained due to the existing conditions and surrounding land uses. In the past 25 years, the site has experienced increased traffic (Interstate 5, Metro Air Park Interchange, Bayou Way, Powerline Rd), residential development, school, overhead airplane flights, noise from surrounding uses, trespassing activity (including domestic animals), and illegal dumping of waste.
The following is an excerpt from an email dated May 21, 2025, sent from John Roberts, TNBC to Susan Herre and Heather Fargo (contained in the June 26, 2025, City Planning & Design Commission public record) that describes the ASI site from a biological viability viewpoint: