Southport residents Sarah McKibben, left, and Gaye Reinhardt provide public testimony during the Liberty Project appeals hearing on March 5. McKibben is pointing to examples of flooding near her home in the Harmon Road area. Photo courtesy of the City of West Sacramento

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA (MPG) – After a four-hour public hearing at its March 5 meeting, the West Sacramento City Council denied an appeal of a proposed 342-acre mixed-use development in the city’s Southport area, enabling the project to move forward in its approval process.

The denial upheld a Jan. 30 Planning Commission decision approving the Liberty Project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), revised draft Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) and other project aspects. An appeal was filed in early February by West Sacramento resident and attorney Kimber Goddard, with a second appeal filed by Matthew Keasling of Taylor, Wiley & Keasling, representing residents of the Parella Estates neighborhood of Southport.

The Keasling appeal was withdrawn on March 4 after an agreement was reached with Liberty Project landowner The Paik Family Trust on design aspects specific to several areas of the project. The City of West Sacramento was not part of the agreement.

Upon final build out, the project would primarily be a 1,503-unit residential community composed of single- and multi-family residences. Plans for the development submitted in 2013 include a 10,000-square-foot neighborhood commercial site, a centrally-located recreation area along with an “integrated network of parks and open spaces.”

Liberty Project is one of three projects proposed for construction in Southport. Together with the 713-acre Yarbrough and 434-acre River Park projects, city staff indicated close to 8,000 new residential units could be built in Southport over the next 10 to 15 years.

Much of Goddard’s appeal revolved around the environmental impact report. He said that the final environmental impact report (FEIR) published by city staff in September 2024 fails to take in “new information” and “substantial and unforeseen environmental impacts” available since publication of the draft environmental impact report in August 2017 and therefore should be either amended or a new one produced.

Community Development Department senior planner Justin Hardy said that staff disputed this, noting Goddard’s claims were not supported by “substantial evidence.” He added changes in “regulatory environment” don’t warrant recirculation of the environmental impact report, and that statutes and guidelines in place at the time of the environmental impact report’s preparation govern its contents.

Goddard also said that new information about more severe flood risk to the area has become available and city efforts to enhance protection in Southport have been “ineffective” and will never be sufficient to prevent flooding. Staff analysis indicated that he based this on the final environmental impact report’s revision of flood impact severity from “Less Than Significant with Mitigation” to “Significant and Unavoidable.”

As an example of insufficient flood protection, Goddard cited a report by the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to the Central Valley Flood Board that it would take $1.2 trillion to bring the city’s flood control system up to the required 200-year flood level rating.

“We don’t have that kind of money,” Goddard said. “I doubt you’re ever going to get it.”

West Sacramento Flood Protection manager Paul Dirksen disputed Goddard’s claim. Dirksen said the city has made a number of significant upgrades, including four major projects, along with ongoing repairs, and that a 2020 Army Corps of Engineers report on the system updated the total cost required to meet the 200-year level at $1.1 billion.

“That’s a misstatement,” Dirksen said of Goddard’s claim. “I don’t know where that came from.”

Finally, Goddard said the environmental impact report does not properly analyze the risks associated with an emergency evacuation of Southport should a major flood event occur. He said area development has led to more traffic on an “inadequate” road system and the city had no published evacuation plan with detailed exit points.

“There are no routes out of here,” Goddard said. “It there’s a flood and the water is over the top of your car, you’ve got dead people.”

West Sacramento Fire Marshal Brian Johnson said the city is well prepared for an evacuation in case of a flood and does have a plan on the city’s website that’s linked to a Yolo County plan. Johnson said specific evacuation measures often depend upon the emergency’s circumstances.

“We respond to the problem that is presented us,” Johnson said.

Fire Chief Steve Binns added that departments such as fire and public works constantly monitor conditions when potential threatening situations develop, such as the area being hit by an atmospheric river. Conditions surrounding that are constantly assessed during the event and prepared for through prior training.

“If the water were to top the levees, we would have evacuated long before this,” Binns said. “This would not be a knee-jerk reaction.”

“We all live here,” Councilwoman Dawnté Early said prior to the vote, adding both she and Mayor Martha Guerrero live in Southport.

“This is a decision that we don’t take lightly,” Early added. “It impacts us; it impacts our families.”

Council approved the resolution denying the appeal 4-0, with Councilwoman Verna Sulpizio Hull recusing herself because she lives next to the Liberty Project.