Attorney Kimber Goddard (left, in back with papers) reacts to a statement by Yarbrough developer David Stroud (at microphone) during the Nov. 6 West Sacramento City Council project appeal hearing. Photo courtesy of the City of West Sacramento

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA (MPG) - After a more than four-hour public hearing Nov. 6, West Sacramento City Council voted four to one to deny an appeal and approve a resolution to proceed with the Yarbrough development, a project first approved in 2008.

Councilwoman Norma Alcala voted no on the resolution.

The resolution confirmed a Planning Commission decision that a new Environmental Impact Review (EIR) was not needed for the project since there was no evidence of substantial new environmental impacts or substantial increases in identified environmental impacts to the area in the 16 years since the original Environmental Impact Review was approved.

According to a staff presentation, the project, proposed by ASB Properties on 713 acres in Southport, will consist of 3,004 residential units located around “a village core with commercial and mixed uses,” a privately-owned public golf course and open spaces including a 56-acre lake and canal system. The first of four project phases includes 548 residential units in the northeast corner of the acreage, along with project infrastructure and improvements to Jefferson Boulevard.

“The project essentially remains the same since its approval in 2008,” city senior planner Daniel Berumen said.

In appealing the decision, Kimber Goddard, a 40-year resident of West Sacramento and “semi-retired trust attorney” mainly took issue with the Environmental Impact Review’s age and the impacts a population growth of more than 10,000 residents since 2008 has had on Southport and the city. Traffic issues, road conditions, increasing flood control requirements, along with recent residential and commercial development, were some of the issues Goddard and the seven witnesses who spoke to the council detailed.

“How long before an EIR is too old before it’s not meaningful?” Goddard asked. “Well, answer is less than 16 years. This zombie came up from the grave muttering ‘no impacts.’”

Developer David Stroud of ASB Properties disputed the claims that the Environmental Impact Review didn’t address these impacts. He noted the original traffic analysis was done for 9,400 units, so the 3,004 units planned are a 58% reduction.

The project has received all necessary permits, except from the Army Corps of Engineers, which is expected in November. Stroud listed three examples of successfully completed projects with Environmental Impact Review older than Yarbrough’s, noted 100-year flood requirements were already in place and illustrated how the mixture of residential units would meet the city’s current housing needs, especially for affordable housing.

At least five witnesses, including several Southport residents, testified in favor of the project.

“That improvement will be started the very first time we are able to pull a grading permit on this project,” Stroud said of criticism that Jefferson improvements would be done in spurts. “When you start it, you finish it. You don’t start and stop; it costs more.”

Alcala said her no vote on the resolution was not against the project, which she supports, but against using the 2008 Environmental Impact Review to address current impacts. In voting to approve the resolution, Councilwoman Dawnté Early, who represents Southport, said the developer met the legal arguments centered on “was that considered” in 2008.

“And I heard in response to that was, that was considered, that we did have a plan,” she said.