Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Esmeralda Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge new environmental review and city briefing on Esmeralda development
Summary
Multiple Cloverdale residents told the council that the Esmeralda proposal differs materially from the 2009 environmental review and urged the city to require a subsequent EIR and hold a city-led public Q&A before any approvals.
A string of residents at the Cloverdale City Council’s March 25 meeting urged the city to require a new environmental impact review for the Esmeralda development and asked the council to present a detailed, city-led explanation of the process.
Jennifer Sullivan, who identified herself as a Cloverdale resident, told the council that Esmeralda "is not an average development" and that relying on the 2009 EIR with a third addendum is not sufficient for a project on a parcel with deed restrictions and known contamination. "Using the 2009 EIR with the third addendum to approve Esmeralda is not a minor technical update," she said, calling the current plan "promises now for approval with the details to be figured out afterward." (Jennifer Sullivan)
Other public speakers echoed Sullivan’s demand for updated environmental review and better public access to project documents. Nano McKay said he had requested documents through the city’s CivicPlus account and still did not have access; he asked for broader outreach to neighboring communities that share the regional aquifer. Satara, who said she has worked on remediation projects, asked for clarification about “remediated fill” on the site and how floodplain and storm runoff would be managed if impacted soils are reused.
Speakers also raised water and cumulative-impact concerns. Annabelle Burke questioned regional groundwater stress and asked how many Cloverdale wells have gone dry, citing reports of nearby wells and new apartment proposals in neighboring communities. A long-time worker warned about historic disposal of contaminated material on the site and said pentachlorophenol contamination was near the area planned for a hotel.
Council members did not take action on Esmeralda at the meeting but agreed to schedule a city presentation explaining the review process and what materials and decisions will come before the council. Vice Mayor and other council members asked for the city manager and city attorney to present the procedural steps and decision points at a future meeting so residents can have a clear Q&A; the council indicated support for a virtual workshop and for placing a procedural presentation on a future agenda.
The council’s next procedural step was described as receiving any proposed EIR addendum or supplemental documents and then deciding whether that information is adequate or whether the city should require a subsequent EIR; council members noted that they will retain the option to ask for additional environmental study if warranted.
