Cloverdale’s City Council is scheduled to vote Wednesday, Oct. 7, on a proposed 266-acre development that would bring more than 600 homes, a hotel of up to 160 rooms, an event center, a preschool and a public park to the Sonoma County city. The Esmeralda project would reuse land that includes an 8-acre former wood-treatment plant. The facility, which closed in 1976, used chemicals that were discharged into soil and groundwater. Although state agencies and property owners have spent decades on cleanup, some residents fear construction could disturb contamination and threaten public health and water quality. Jennifer Sullivan, a Cloverdale resident who has spent months researching the site, says the environmental review is not sufficient. If the council approves the project as proposed, she plans to gather signatures for a referendum seeking to put the decision before voters. “This is the community that I live in,” Sullivan said. “The decision to approve this development is serious — it’s got serious consequences for our water, for public health.” The Cloverdale Planning Commission voted 4-1 earlier this month to recommend approval, with conditions. Among them are a new recycled-water study, routine soil testing and a requirement that the developer hire a consultant to monitor compliance with environmental mitigation measures. Esmeralda Land Company CEO Devon Zuegel says the property has been studied for more than 20 years and that the project’s environmental review found no new significant effects. The company submitted an addendum to an earlier environmental impact report, a more limited review used when a project changes in ways that do not warrant a new full report. A city-hired consultant reviewed the addendum, and city staff told commissioners it was adequate. The land’s cleanup history includes a 2012 certification from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board stating the site had been decontaminated of hazardous waste. In 2013, state agencies designated the former plant area and a 14.5-acre buffer zone as land where homes, schools, hospitals and day care centers could not be built. Esmeralda’s design avoids placing homes, schools or day care facilities on the former plant site. The proposal is not the first resort plan considered for the property. A previous developer received approval for environmental reviews of a resort project in 2009, including a golf course, but later abandoned it. Supporters say redevelopment could create jobs, housing and tax revenue while putting previously used land to work rather than building on undeveloped agricultural land. Cloverdale resident Jon Lambert, who supports the proposal, said the city may lose an unusual opportunity if it rejects the plan. Opposition has grown as residents have learned more about the property’s history. Nancy Brown, who initially welcomed the prospect of a hotel and restaurants, said information about the former plant changed her view and convinced her that further review is needed. Vice Mayor Todd Lands said he has heard support in letters and conversations, while acknowledging that a relatively small group has been consistently vocal against the project. Councilmember Andrés Marquez said people on both sides may support parts of the plan while seeking different safeguards. Environmental law and land-use experts describe the choice between an addendum and a full new review as a judgment call for the city. Courts have generally given cities room to make that determination when reasonable arguments exist on both sides, according to UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf. The council’s decision will determine whether the project advances with the environmental reviews already completed and the conditions recommended by commissioners. For Sullivan, the vote could also begin a campaign to take the question to Cloverdale voters.