Cloverdale Council Directs Esmeralda Deal Edits, Punts Health Risk Fight

Cloverdale's City Council spent more than two and a half hours Oct. 28 working through the Esmeralda development agreement. Members emerged with three directed edits that could force the ordinance to be reintroduced Nov. 4, along with an unresolved split over site-wide contamination testing. With Mayor Brian Wheeler absent, the four members present also voted 4-0 to bring Spanish interpretation to council meetings.

---

• Three Esmeralda deal edits directed, possibly forcing reintroduction Nov. 4
• Applicant says it cannot support council review of project transfers
• Council splits on a site-wide health risk assessment; debate moves to next week's soils meeting
• Residents present 468 signatures seeking a public vote on Esmeralda
• Spanish interpretation approved 4-0, with a foundation covering half the $12,300 contract

---

Esmeralda Deal: Three Edits, One Big Objection

The basics: A development agreement (DA) is a contract that locks in a developer's rights. Esmeralda's DA is a 20-year vested-rights agreement paired with SP-2 zoning, a specific plan and objective design standards. Objective standards are measurable rules that limit discretionary review. Wednesday's session was part of a three-week question-and-answer series, and no vote was taken.

Why it matters: Residents asked which decisions they could still influence over two decades. The answers define the city's leverage.

Where things stand: The applicant said most uses are principally permitted and cannot be appealed. "Their development phase application maps and building permits must be approved," said Michael Yarny, applicant representative.

Conditional uses keep appeal rights, including a K-6 school, an amphitheater and liquor stores. Alex, the City Attorney, added that master tentative maps return to the council and that maps can be appealed under the state Subdivision Map Act. Speakers also described the review timeline: 30 days to deem an application complete and 60 days for compliance review. The city manager will review the project annually, and consultants paid by the developer will handle the review work. "There has not been a staffing assessment done," the city attorney said.

The other side: Councilmember Andres Marquez objected that review of assignees under Article 9 was ministerial. Assignees are new owners who take over the project. Vice Mayor Todd Lands later summarized three changes that drew nods from members. "The first thing is to add the council wording for city," Lands said. That change would require council review of transfers. The other two edits remove a 180-day cutoff for new owners to opt into groundwater sampling and strike the word "extensive."

The applicant called council-level review a material change and said financing could not support it. "No deal I've ever worked on has such a provision," Yarny said.

Water math: Kevin Thompson, City Manager and Community Development Director, confirmed that the cheapest way to run recycled water south to Esmeralda would cost about $27M. Lands noted that estimates have fallen from $40M to $60M. The applicant will build purple pipe to its property edge. The city attorney said impact fees won't cover the cost and recommended that the council hire a fiscal advisor. Staff said the DA's $2M municipal well cap can include planning and design costs, rises annually and is reimbursed through an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).

What's next: The city attorney called the edits substantive. The ordinance could be reintroduced Nov. 4, with second reading targeted for Nov. 11. Separately, the council can create a citizen oversight committee at any time by resolution. That committee would advise the council without displacing the Planning Commission, and members may discuss it next week.

---

Dioxin Testing Divides Council; Park Liability Looms

The basics: A human health risk assessment (HHRA) evaluates contamination risk across a whole site. A site management plan (SMP) governs how soil is handled during construction. A mitigation measure adopted in 2009 required an HHRA.

Where things stand: The applicant said each SMP and health and safety plan must win approval from the city's environmental consultant before any dirt is moved. Those plans follow Phase 1 and Phase 2 protocols, and the developer pays for them.

Marquez read DA Section 2.15 and the earlier mitigation measure into the record. He argued that SMPs fall short at the two former landfill areas "compared to an HHRA, which would actually diagnose what could be there." Yarny pushed back on Marquez's claim about testing for data gaps: "That's factually incorrect." Marquez put the cost of an HHRA at $50,000 to $75,000, calling it "not something that's going to squash the project."

The other side: Lands argued that an independent consultant under city control matters more: "More important than the HHRA is we can dictate and manipulate as necessary." Councilmember Mark Laskey said he believed the SMP supersedes an HHRA but could not explain how. Councilmember Marjorie Morgenstern backed an HHRA.

Public commenters pressed the issue. One commenter cited 66 samples from the landfill area, none tested for dioxins or furans. Paul Pieri, an organic farmer across the Russian River, said neighbors will test soil regularly during construction. He warned of dust and of contamination flowing back into the river. Marquez flagged a Sept. 30, 2026, letter from Russian Riverkeeper for next week.

The park exception: The attorney said Sections 11.2 and 11.3 require the developer to indemnify the city and pay litigation costs, obligations that survive termination. "The city is not liable for conditions on private property, period," he said, noting a possible exception for the donated sports park.

That gave Morgenstern pause. "I don't want the liability, and it sounds like Esmeralda would let the public be there anyway," she said. Lands countered: "I would say that we definitely want to accept the park." He noted that the park comes with a $7M contribution and that the city need not accept it if cleanup fails city standards. Marquez favored a city-owned park.

What's next: The HHRA and park questions move to next week's CEQA and soils meeting.

---

Residents Bring 468 Signatures, Demand a Vote

Why it matters: An organized bloc of opponents is pressing to take Esmeralda out of the council's hands.

Where things stand: Jennifer Sullivan, a public commenter, said three councilmembers moved the project forward Oct. 14 after investors reportedly grew nervous. She presented 468 signatures seeking a public vote and said the city can find money for an election.

Colleen Shields, a public commenter, asked why mitigation measure MM 5.6-3 was deleted. She also asked why no dioxin, furan or HHRA testing is required and urged the council to wait.

Kimberly Kern, a self-described school district superintendent, criticized the Q&A format itself. "It's not due diligence to get our legal advice from the developer who's applying for entitlements," she said, asking for written assurances before entitlements are granted.

Another commenter thanked Marquez and Morgenstern and urged the council not to push the project through.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: No action was taken on the election request. The comments show that opposition is centered on environmental testing and the project's timeline, putting the two skeptical members' positions in the spotlight before Nov. 4.

---

Spanish Interpretation Comes to Council Meetings

Why it matters: "We do have 40% Latino population, and many are monolingual," said Marquez, who championed the item.

Where things stand: Staff recommended Manuel Gonzalez over a Marin County provider, citing lower cost and local presence. His proposal comes to about $500 per meeting for 24 meetings, capped at $12,300. The Northern Sonoma County Healthcare Foundation "has agreed to pay for half," Thompson said, leaving the city about $6,000 a year. The contract includes a 10-day termination clause and an end-of-year evaluation.

Members asked whether buying a receiver kit could work instead. Marquez said ear devices only transmit and that a human interpreter is still required. "I know we tried it about 6 years ago and it didn't ever get to this point," Lands said.

Kern urged the council to give commenters extra time: "If every person gets 3 minutes, when you have a person who's using an interpreter, you should offer 6 minutes."

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Marquez moved the resolution and budget amendment, and Morgenstern seconded. It passed by voice vote (For: 4, Against: 0, Absent: 1, Mayor Brian Wheeler). Spanish-speaking residents gain real-time access to meetings.

---

Minor Items

• Vehicle purchase delayed: The consent item was moved to Nov. 11 because the vehicle had been sold. The price may change once staff find a replacement.
• Remote comment: Morgenstern warned that requiring a doctor's note invites legal risk. The council's no-Zoom policy will return on a future agenda.
• Six Acres Water District: A discussion and annexation process may reach the full council Nov. 4.
• Records requests drop: Public records requests are "down to 14 from 57," Thompson said.
• Civility concerns: Three public commenters raised concerns about conduct at a prior meeting and the treatment of the city clerk.

---

Looking Ahead

On Nov. 4, the council may reintroduce the Esmeralda DA and will take up soils, the HHRA, park acceptance and the Six Acres item. Second reading of the DA is targeted for Nov. 11, when the vehicle purchase also returns.