Good afternoon, and I like to call to order the order July twenty fifth meeting for environmental manners committee.

And I would like to say a motion to approve the agenda as written.

Um before we kick it over to the amendments.

You should have a copy of the ordinance followed by three amendments not off the press.

In addition to any other questions we may have remaining.

Outstanding.

So any remarks from staff or other guests before we get started.

Okay.

Steve Rogers must be heard.

All right.

And um I guess before we get started with the amendments, I did have a couple of questions.

I was hoping to get answers to see if I can find those.

I think one of them was a couple of them regarded the report from MDE, the letter from MDE.

It seemed like they had mentioned a couple of I guess deficiencies in the phase two that they wanted corrected.

Have those been made.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So there were we got uh there were comments uh submitted by the MDE.

Um we have provided a first response to comments, um, uh closing several of those administrative requests on their part, um, providing the additional information uh that they requested with regards to um the tables of the phase two.

Um there are two remaining comments.

There is um one comment regarding the correction of STAT, and we are um in the process of addressing that one, and then there was a comment with regards to they asked if the city was at in front of in any other regulatory program.

There was an out there was an issue with the city with stormwater and the permitting stormwater permitting that's been resolved.

We got the letter from EPA region three that closes that out, and we will be submitted that actually came the day after we submitted our first response to comments, so we'll be providing that and then the STAT, and that should address all comments by MDE.

And within a time frame before the federal applications do.

Uh yeah, yes, within uh uh very short timeline of the great and has the city considered MD suggestions for having separate DCPs for each lot.

Uh what's the VCP stand for again?

The uh voluntary cleanup program.

So we have and we actually walked this the MBE through the intended process because um from the very beginning we understood that Weams Whalen field had kind of a different driver behind it, so uh we had already um discussed that option with MDE in our pre-application meeting.

Um so they know that we're going in as one site, and that as soon as we have Weams Whalen Field uh recorded as its own parcel, that will get its own application and will become its own VCP site.

Um as to whether there's any other subdivision of the site, um, that would be more of a decision about uh it doesn't need to be.

Um it'd be more uh influenced by whether there's any difference in the development of the two sides, whether the West uh Western portion might be on a different timeline.

It is not required, it's a suggestion of the MDE.

Honestly, it's probably to make things easier on them and not have to deal with the subdivision later, but it's always an option to subdivide if needed at a later date.

So um it's definitely not a requirement that it be subdivided, they're just more of a question as to what the eventual development plan is gonna be for the site.

So yeah, well, I mean, so it seems like to me like it would make sense to have separate VCP uh voluntary cleanup plan for each side, right?

As far as the west side and the east side, just because again, uh keep our options open uh because we don't necessarily know what the time frame is gonna be if we're C and I.

Uh that gets held up for or potential construction of city buildings, gets held up for whatever reason.

We can ask one one of my amendments is to try to give us the flexibility.

So if one's moving faster than the other, we might be able to get that one closed out, given back to the city.

Uh, I just I'd rather I I want to be able to give us again the option to get remediation closed out and completed, make sure they don't get held out.

But I think but I because I think they're both going to be separate property or separate lots anyway, right?

Before you answer that, Mr.

Chair.

I I guess I'd like to know why what difference does it make whether we get it back as a complete project or get it back in increments.

I'm not sure I see the desirability of getting it back.

Because it's it may get developed in increments, and if CNI gets green lighted for one side uh or city building to the other, and uh and C and I gets held up, we want to be able to have the right to be able to go in there and develop how we've outlined and get that closed out because remediation is going to be with the development.

So one site could be finished and remediated, and the other one's still under construction or even still under review of some fashion.

And it just seems to me if it makes sense to be able to have separate plans and separate closeouts rather than having them tied together because if there's one piece lag and it could hold up the entire plot from being closed out from me.

Well, I accept that as your answer.

I'm not sure I subscribe to it, but I think that goes to a much bigger issue, which is I thought I understood from Director Jacobiac and from you that the development was the remediate.

That as we go in and put structured parking in, we're gonna put a permeable barrier that goes on top of it.

Is the resiliency authority doing the garage, the structured parking?

Well, we don't know what it's gonna be yet.

My whole that's my point is I'm not arguing against remediation being a part of development.

I understand the rationale.

Point is we don't know what speed each development is going to happen at.

We don't know if we're gonna happen concurrent, we don't know if they're gonna happen separately, because we don't know what's gonna get funded first, we don't know what's gonna get approved first.

This just seems to keep our options open.

It doesn't say do remediation first, it's just as I mean, that is the law catch 20 too of this.

The majors not in, so you can see them now.