West Sacramento council upholds Liberty development EIR despite residents' flood and evacuation concerns

The West Sacramento City Council on March 5 voted to deny an appeal by resident Kimber Goddard and to uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the Liberty project's environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map covering roughly 342 acres and proposing 1,503 housing units.

The decision preserves the Planning Commission's January 30 actions and keeps the project's entitlements on track; the council adopted a modified staff recommendation in a roll-call vote after a five-hour public hearing in which dozens of residents and multiple city staff and consultants testified.

The appeal centered on two legal claims under the California Environmental Quality Act: that new information about flood risk and emergency-evacuation constraints required recirculation of the final EIR under CEQA section 15088.5, and that substantially changed circumstances called for a supplemental or new EIR under CEQA section 15162. Kimber Goddard, who filed the appeal, told council that "the flood risk is significant and unavoidable" and argued the public needed a new 45-day circulation of the final document so residents could evaluate differences between the 2017 draft EIR and the 2024 final EIR.

City staff rejected those arguments in the staff report and again in oral testimony. Justin Hardy, the city planner who has managed Liberty through the process, summarized the project and the administrative history: the Liberty specific plan covers about 342 acres, proposes 1,503 dwelling units, roughly 10,000 square feet of commercial space, and about 25 acres of parks including a 9-acre community park. Hardy told council the draft EIR was circulated in 2017 and the final EIR published in September 2024 after a multi-year review process that included public scoping and multiple Planning Commission hearings.

Kevin Kemper, land-use counsel for the project, argued in his presentation that the mere passage of time between draft and final documents does not, by itself, trigger recirculation under CEQA. "The passage of time alone between the circulation of the draft EIR and the preparation of the final EIR is really irrelevant under CEQA," Kemper said, adding that the planning commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Residents who spoke in support of the appeal described personal experience with flooding or near-flood events, chronic traffic congestion and what they said are insufficient evacuation routes. Several witnesses said existing levee work left the community in a precarious position and that putting thousands of new units in the Southport basin merited additional public review. As an example of the stakes residents described, Gaye Reinhardt, a longtime West Sacramento resident, recalled the 1986 flood threat and said, "I called my parents in San Jose to tell them that if we died, we loved them because there was no way of me making it out of West Sacramento on the roads."

City staff and regional flood officials responded with technical context. Paul Dirksen, the city's flood protection manager, said West Sacramento's FEMA maps date from 1995 and that much of the current work on levees and flood improvements is ongoing. "Our FEMA map is from 1995," Dirksen said; "it still shows that most of the city is in Zone X." He described Southport as one of several major improvement projects and noted long-term, multiagency efforts involving the Army Corps of Engineers, the state and local reclamation districts. Dirksen also clarified the difference between the city's ongoing improvement program and the federal 200-year certification process, which applies to an entire levee system once the Army Corps and other agencies complete and approve the work.

Fire Marshal Brian Johnson and other emergency staff told council that the city and Yolo County maintain an evacuation and emergency-response framework and that staff are updating the county evacuation annex to make it more West Sacramento centric. "We do have an evacuation plan," Johnson said, and he outlined steps to expand outreach and public workshops.

Jason McCoy, the city's transportation supervisor, described regional traffic modeling and bridge projects. He said major, new river crossings and bridge construction are expensive and take many years to design, permit and build, and that regional travel-demand models used in the EIR look ahead to 2035 conditions. He also said the city is pursuing targeted traffic and transit improvements and that several proposed projects were analyzed in the regional SacSim model used to evaluate long-term impacts.

After the presentations, council members questioned staff and the public, then deliberated. Councilmember Amberlynn Early moved to adopt the modified staff recommendation denying the appeal; Councilmember John Orozco seconded. The motion passed on a roll call with five votes in favor and one recusal: Councilmember Alcala disclosed he lives adjacent to the project and recused himself earlier in the hearing. The council's action affirms the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR and its approval of the vesting tentative subdivision map; the council also adopted implementing findings and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program outlined in the staff packet.

Councilmembers and staff emphasized they would continue public outreach. Staff said they will proceed with the next phases of entitlement (specific plan and a development agreement) and continue coordination with regional flood agencies; city staff and the fire department said they will expand public workshops and update evacuation annexes and hazard mitigation documents.

The Liberty project manager, city planners and attorneys said the approvals do not mean immediate construction; infrastructure design, permitting and market conditions will determine the timing of vertical development, which project materials estimated could take years to build out. Staff noted that many mitigation measures, flood improvements and transportation upgrades are phased and that specific commitments will be spelled out in the development agreement and subsequent permits.

The council's decision preserves the Planning Commission's earlier actions while prompting continued public outreach and technical follow-up on flood protection and evacuation planning as the project moves into later entitlement phases.