Good Call
City makes right choice with Airport South
By Jeff Harris
January 2026
Developers and environmentalists see the world through different lenses. The Airport South Industrial Annexation is a perfect example.
The large-scale development in Natomas basin aims to expand industrial and commercial activities on 447 acres near Sacramento International Airport.
Debate on the project spread over two City Council meetings and fell into two camps. One side centered on economic possibilities, such as job creation and municipal tax revenues. A contrary viewpoint focused on environmental concerns.
Environmentalists decried the loss of habitat, open space, threats to endangered species, traffic congestion, air quality and decreased quality of life. Reasonable concerns, no doubt.
Trade union members—carpenters, laborers, plumbers, electricians—told the City Council that Airport South would support their families and apprenticeship programs, and keep workers employed.
Union groups speak out on all large development projects. Their interest is obvious. They want to work.
I interviewed Susan Herre, Mackenzie Hollander and Edith Thatcher, recipients of the Environmentalist of the Year Awards from the Environmental Council of Sacramento. They opposed Airport South. Hollander, the youth recipient of the award, was eloquent.
“The award made me realize how important it is for people in the climate activism field to see youth fight for their future and the protection of the earth we will inherit,” she tells me.
A birdwatcher, Hollander spoke to the City Council about the loss of habitat for bird species with Airport South.
Development projects can seem like an existential fight, but no project is all good or bad. Land-use proposals are complicated. The decisions impact generations. It’s up to elected representatives to balance costs against benefits.
Environmentalists decried the loss of habitat, open space, threats to endangered species, traffic congestion, air quality and decreased quality of life. Reasonable concerns, no doubt.
Trade union members—carpenters, laborers, plumbers, electricians—told the City Council that Airport South would support their families and apprenticeship programs, and keep workers employed.
Union groups speak out on all large development projects. Their interest is obvious. They want to work.
I interviewed Susan Herre, Mackenzie Hollander and Edith Thatcher, recipients of the Environmentalist of the Year Awards from the Environmental Council of Sacramento. They opposed Airport South. Hollander, the youth recipient of the award, was eloquent.
“The award made me realize how important it is for people in the climate activism field to see youth fight for their future and the protection of the earth we will inherit,” she tells me.
A birdwatcher, Hollander spoke to the City Council about the loss of habitat for bird species with Airport South.
Development projects can seem like an existential fight, but no project is all good or bad. Land-use proposals are complicated. The decisions impact generations. It’s up to elected representatives to balance costs against benefits.
The debate is timeless and the decisions are permanent. How does the City Council reach a reasonable conclusion when facing enormous budget deficits and desperately in need of revenue?
On Airport South, the council did it right. Developer Northpoint made concessions on building size and use, adjacency to homes, buffer zones for a school and compliance with new state laws regarding warehouses.
The builder agreed to support habitat preservation with money and significant strategic land dedication.
The Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan is a planning document designed to protect natural habitats and species while allowing for development and growth.
The plan was designed to balance environmental conservation in the Natomas basin with urban expansion, agricultural and infrastructure.
The Natomas Basin Conservancy implements the planning document. The conservancy stays agnostic on development proposals. Its concern is whether a project supports the plan’s implementation.
John Roberts, conservancy executive director, says, “As to Northpoint, they came to us and asked this key question: How can we do this project and not compromise the conservancy’s ability to implement the (plan)? They agreed to our requests. It’s really a model of how collaboration works.”
Not all developers take that stance.
The county Board of Supervisors didn’t sign on to the conservancy plan. The 2003 decision meant the county never adopted or committed to the plan’s terms and responsibilities.
Given the county’s rejection, it was smart for the city to annex Airport South rather than leave the project with the county. The city holds control over uses, building design and future proposals in annexed areas.
Land-use decisions can be the most difficult and complex choices local representatives face. With Airport South, compromises were reached, public testimony acted upon and concessions made. Habitat conservation implementation was enhanced.
Nobody came away completely satisfied. That’s the sign of a successful negotiation.
Jeff Harris represented District 3 on the City Council from 2014 to 2022. He can be reached at cadence5371@gmail.com. Follow us on Facebook and Instagram: @insidesacramento.
