CC_Minutes_2011_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2011 Page 36 Councilmember Pust questioned why the proposed ordinance specifically called out one form of contamination and not others. City Attorney Bartholdi advised that this language was verbatim from the AUAR. Mr. Trudgeon and City Attorney Bartholdi noted that the AUAR had specifically identified some of the contaminants already evidenced or analyzed and defined through previous environmental studies and assessments. City Attorney Bartholdi advised that Chapter 1022.04.b of the ordinance provided a provision for any en- vironmental impacts identified in the AUAR or findings from a Phase I or Phase II site assessment; and reports needed as applicable in those situations. In addressing what concerns of Councilmember Pust in what triggered further analysis beyond soil borings done to-date in the area, Ms. Bloom responded that it was the intent of the proposed ordinance to cover mitigation and remediation items within the umbrella of the AUAR; however, that did not mean that a devel- oper was not required to meet state law; and if there were contaminants on a site as with any type'of project, the developer would need to do soil borings as a stan- dard practice of the development process. Ms. Bloom advised that the developer was still charged with mitigating any of those issues; and clarified that the ordin- ance was not replacing state law; and advised that anytime you move dirt, there were state requirements to be met. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) was charged with making determinations related to the glacial aquifer. Public Comment Mark Rancone Mr. Rancone addressed the "voluntary agreement," and opined that it seemed to be arbitrary or could be subjective or political if a particular project was not found favorable. Mr. Rancone asked for a clear response on that intent in the future. Mr. Rancone reiterated his concern that if you were one of the first developers, you paid for future improvements as well as those serving your particular devel- opment and parcel. City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that if a development was over the base amount, additional infrastructure costs above and beyond those in the 2006 baseline would need to be installed; and it if not, there would be no additional fee; all based on the formulas shown and allotted from that $12 million. Mr. Rancone noted that his concern was whether the $12 million was actually ex- pended or not. Mr. Bartholdi advised that the real intent of the ordinance for concept properties was to ensure that development could occur and ensure that adequate infrastruc-