Neighbors of a giant proposed Polaroid development on Memorial Drive are riled by the potential environmental impact of a new office building and parking garage.

At the Cambridge City Council meeting Monday night, residents expressed misgivings concerning the 300,000-square-foot new office development and a 500-to 600-space parking garage set for construction at 784-794 Memorial Drive.

The site formerly was occupied by BB Chemical, an adhesive manufacturer, and Dover Stamping and Manufacturing Co., a sheet-metal firm.

But critics contend the location is environmentally unsound.

Polaroid already had begun testing the site's foundation when the council voted in June to require the company to perform surface-soil testing as well.

Polaroid also was asked to obtain a Cambridge Historical Commission permit for development at the site. In addition, the site will be subject to state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) review because the property abuts the Charles River.

And the city's review of Polaroid's construction plans doesn't stop there.

The City Council unanimously voted on June 2 to force the company to conduct a traffic-impact study for the proposed parking garage.

And the following month, Polaroid contracted with an independent environmental assessment firm to conduct the traffic study. The council will review that study later this month.

Some residents, though, think the regulation is too stringent, and complain that Cambridge stifles economic growth.

"They pay high taxes and have been here 100 years," said longtime Cambridge resident Bill Jones at the council meeting, "The people love them here."

Others, however, insist that the potential environmental dangers mandate caution.

Stash Horowitz, co-chair of the Cambridge Neighborhood Initiative-a group of residents who abut the site-told the council on Monday that Polaroid should investigate the site fully before construction.

He urged the council to require the company to have the soil tested by the state before construction can begin.

"We've been accused of being paranoid about pollution [at the site]," said Horowitz. "But I don't understand why Polaroid should be unresponsive to testing the site before building there."

Horowitz and his co-chair, Elie Yarden, said they had been impressed that the corporation initially consulted them, thinking the action foretold good relations to come.

But "the problem was the more questions we asked, the less forthcoming they were," said Yarden.

Polaroid's Cambridge office at Technology Square referred all calls to David Vickery did not return repeated requests for comment.

In a recent community newsletter, City Councillor Henrietta E. Davis voiced support for the proposed project. At the council meeting she argued that the council has already taken appropriate precautions to make sure the site is safe.

Residents at the meeting expressed varying views on the site and its safety, and the project may promise further clashes of opinion.