Laserfiche WebLink
239 <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox noted that all proposals for development of the property increase traffic, <br />and the question is whether the streets can take the load, to which staff have said they <br />Can. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked if the proposal is only to take traffic counts, and Mr. Huja <br />said yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said that the developers will use these traffic counts to address <br />concerns of the neighborhood as the property is developed. <br /> <br /> Mr, Toscano noted that the developers have expressed concern that soils on the <br />undeveloped part of the property may require future environmental cleanup, and asked if <br />there is a way for the City to retain some of the responsibility for the undeveloped portion <br />since the City may have been responsible for some of the contamination. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that an environmental study will show what if anything was <br />placed there by the City. Mr. Gouldman said that the downside of putting language to <br />that effect in the contract, and if the City has liability, is there are no cost estimates <br />available for the cleanup. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said it seems that the City would want to know what contamination <br />may exist. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that if the developer takes liability for the developed part, the <br />City's liability will be cut down. Mr. Toscano noted that the City now has liability for the <br />entire site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said it appears very open-ended and feels the City should know what is <br />on the site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja said that remediation has been done on part of the site, and he does not <br />recall there being major problems on the park or garden sites. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he would rather the responsibility remain with the developer, and <br />if we find out there are serious problems then the contract can be amended later. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano made a motion to amend the ordinance to include language giving <br />the City cleanup responsibility for the undeveloped portion should that be required by <br />future environmental laws. Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch expressed concern that this will give the developer an incentive not to <br />test that portion. Mr. Lynch said he would agree to the City paying for further testing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that would unnecessarily put an extensive cost on a site that is <br />not going to be built on. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards expressed concern that remediation may be needed on public park <br />spaces. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano's amendment was approved bythe following vote. Ayes: Mr. <br />Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Toscano. Noes: Mr. Lynch and Ms. Richards. <br /> <br /> Mx. Huja said that the City is not interested in making the park a "public" park, <br />though it will be available to the public. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that people will be accessing the undeveloped part of the <br />property, and asked if there are hazardous materials on that property and are we putting <br />people at risk. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that creating a 501 c to maintain the site may have merit, but <br />the City would have no control over this third party. Mr. Gouldman recommended that <br />the City take over those areas that will be truly public. <br /> <br /> <br />