Jobs vs. Nature: Sacramento City Council considers land annex for industry in protected Natomas Basin – capradio.org

Report on the Proposed Airport South Industrial Project in North Natomas

Executive Summary

A proposal for a 450-acre industrial development, known as Airport South Industrial, is under review by the Sacramento City Council. The project presents a significant conflict between several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), pitting economic growth objectives against environmental protection and community well-being. The development would annex protected land for warehouse construction, prompting debate among developers, labor unions, environmental advocates, and local residents. A final decision has been deferred pending further review.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Implications

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth & SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Proponents of the project emphasize its potential contributions to local economic development, aligning with the objectives of SDG 8 and SDG 9.

• Job Creation: The development is projected to create approximately 8,800 jobs.
  1. 5,000 permanent warehouse and logistics positions.
  2. 3,800 temporary construction jobs.
• Economic Impact: An estimated annual economic impact of $784 million for the region is projected.
• Infrastructure Development: The project includes the construction of significant industrial infrastructure, including four major warehouses, commercial properties, and utility buildings, intended to serve as a logistics hub.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities & SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Significant concerns have been raised regarding the project’s negative impacts on the sustainability of the local community and the health of its residents, challenging the principles of SDG 11 and SDG 3.

• Urban Planning Conflict: The proposal to build large-scale industrial warehouses adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, such as Westlake, and schools conflicts with principles of sustainable urban planning.
• Public Health Risks: The project’s Environmental Impact Report acknowledges unavoidable negative impacts.
  • An increase in air pollutants from logistics operations and heavy truck traffic poses a direct health risk, particularly to vulnerable populations like children at the nearby Paso Verde School.
  • The proposed 150-foot buffer between the industrial site and the school is considered inadequate by the Natomas Unified School District.
• Traffic and Utilities: Concerns were raised by council members regarding increased traffic congestion and the potential impact on utility rates for neighboring residential areas.

SDG 15: Life on Land

The project directly conflicts with the objectives of SDG 15 by proposing development on ecologically sensitive and protected land.

• Habitat Destruction: The development requires annexing 450 acres of land currently protected under a 1997 agreement with the Natomas Basin Conservancy.
• Threat to Biodiversity: The Natomas Basin is a critical habitat for the endangered Swainson’s Hawk. Development on this land threatens the species and undermines decades-old conservation agreements designed to balance urban growth with nature preservation.

Stakeholder Positions and Governance

Divergent Stakeholder Views

The public hearing highlighted a deep divide among stakeholders, reflecting the tension between competing sustainability priorities.

1. Proponents (Labor and Development): Argued for the project based on the critical need for local jobs and economic stimulus, framing it as an opportunity for the working class.
2. Opponents (Environmentalists and Residents): Focused on the irreversible environmental damage, the threat to public health, and the violation of existing conservation commitments. Concerns were specifically raised about the proximity to schools and the impact on local quality of life.

Next Steps in Governance

The Sacramento City Council has continued the discussion to a future meeting for a potential vote. Should the project be approved at the city level, it will require further validation from other governing bodies, including:

• The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
• The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article highlights significant health concerns related to the proposed development. Residents and school officials worry about “air pollution” and “environmental health risks” from an “increase in pollutants.” The specific mention of “diesel trucks” operating near Paso Verde School, where children and staff spend considerable time outdoors, directly connects the project to potential negative health outcomes, aligning with the goal of ensuring healthy lives.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • This goal is central to the arguments in favor of the project. The developers and supporters, including union workers, emphasize the economic benefits, such as the creation of “around 5,000 warehouse jobs and approximately 3,800 construction jobs.” The project’s “estimated $784 million annual economic impact” is presented as a key driver for regional economic growth.

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   • The project itself is a “large industrial development” focused on building infrastructure for “shipping fulfillment centers and logistics.” This directly relates to SDG 9’s aim to build resilient infrastructure and promote sustainable industrialization. The mention of the warehouses being “largely automated” also touches upon the innovation aspect of this goal.

4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • The debate is fundamentally about urban planning and land use. The proposal to “annex approximately 450 acres of protected land for warehouses into the city of Sacramento” and build it “adjacent to schools” and a “residential neighborhood” raises questions about sustainable urbanization. Concerns about traffic, air quality impacts on the city, and conflicts with the “city’s general plan” are all core issues of SDG 11.

5. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • The article explicitly states that the development would be built on “land that the city agreed to protect through the Natomas Basin Conservancy in 1997.” Furthermore, environmental advocates point out that the project would “threaten the endangered Swainson’s Hawk species that lives in the Natomas Basin.” This directly engages with the goal of protecting terrestrial ecosystems and halting biodiversity loss.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
     
     The article’s focus on the “increase in pollutants,” “environmental health risks,” and potential exposure of schoolchildren to “diesel trucks” directly relates to this target of reducing illness from air pollution.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men.
     
     The project’s primary justification is the creation of thousands of jobs (“5,000 warehouse jobs” and “3,800 construction jobs”), which aligns with the goal of achieving full employment.

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… to support economic development and human well-being.
     
     The proposal to build a large logistics hub with “major warehouses” and commercial properties is an effort to develop economic infrastructure, as described in this target.

4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.
     
     The conflict over annexing protected land for industrial use next to residential areas and the public hearing process itself are direct examples of the challenges in sustainable urban planning and management.
   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality.
     
     The project’s environmental impact report acknowledges “unavoidable impacts” including a “conflict with the region’s air quality plan,” which directly addresses this target.

5. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and… protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.
     
     The concern that the project “would threaten the endangered Swainson’s Hawk species” and develop on protected habitat is a clear connection to this target.
   • Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes.
     
     The debate over whether to uphold the 1997 agreement to protect the land through the “Natomas Basin Conservancy” versus allowing development is a textbook example of the challenge of integrating ecosystem values into local development planning.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Economic Indicators

   • Number of jobs created: The article provides specific figures that can be used as indicators: “5,000 warehouse jobs” and “3,800 construction jobs.” This measures progress towards Target 8.5.
   • Annual economic impact: The “estimated $784 million annual economic impact” is a quantifiable indicator of the project’s contribution to economic growth (Target 8.1).

2. Environmental and Land Use Indicators

   • Area of protected land developed: The article specifies “approximately 450 acres of protected land” would be developed. This is a direct indicator for measuring the impact on conservation commitments (Targets 11.3 and 15.9).
   • Status of threatened species: The mention of the “endangered Swainson’s Hawk species” implies that its population and habitat viability are key indicators for measuring the project’s impact on biodiversity (Target 15.5).
   • Air quality levels: The reference to an “increase in pollutants” and conflict with the “region’s air quality plan” implies that measurements of air pollutants (e.g., particulate matter from diesel trucks) would be a critical indicator for Targets 3.9 and 11.6.

3. Community and Health Indicators

   • Proximity of industrial activity to sensitive areas: The proposed “150-foot buffer between the project and the school” is a specific, measurable indicator of potential health risk and exposure for a vulnerable population (Target 3.9).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: capradio.org