Is this planned development near the superfund site at moffet and other toxic plumes?

Let’s make sure the City knows a few things:

First, this mixed use zone is under the jurisdiction of the new Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone defined under the Section 65620 to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, relating to land use.

Thus the following inclusionary pricing is mandated:

30% of the units must be affordable up to 120% of the Area Median Income of Mountain View, The area median income is $120,000 a year. So that plus 20% will be $144,000 a year. The state defined affordable housing rate is 30% of the yearly income so the yearly expense for that group is $43,200 or $3,600.

15% of the units must be affordable up to 120% of the Area Median Income of Mountain View, The area median income is $120,000 a year. So that minus 20% will be $96,000 a year. The state defined affordable housing rate is 30% of the yearly income so the yearly expense for that group is $28,800 or $2,400.

15% of the units must be affordable up to 120% of the Area Median Income of Mountain View, The area median income is $120,000 a year. So that minus 50% will be $60,000 a year. The state defined affordable housing rate is 30% of the yearly income so the yearly expense for that group is $18,000 or $1,200.

Now if you count the total units being 5000, then the revenues per year regarding the 50% price controlled units will only come to $64,800,000.00 for the 30%, $21,600,000.00 for the 15% and $45,000,000.00 for the 5% which comes to $131,400,000.00 a year.

The cost per the article is $625,000 per unit times 5000 which is $3,125,000,000.00, that’s $3.125 Billion.

The cost of this building and financing will result in approximately $14,919,228 a month with a 4 percent interest and 30 year term and a 5 year balloon payment of 2,826,484,785. To take that balloon payment in account as a monthly payment contribution it would come to $ 7,851,346.63, so the monthly payment will come to $ 22,770,574.63 and a yearly expense of $ 273,246,895.52.

Now if you are state price controlled to receive $131,400,000.00 but your expense for just the building per year is 273,246,895.52, you are operating at a loss of $ 141,846,895.52 which will be charged to the other 2500 units.

Just to break even you will be needing to charge $ 56,738.76 a year or $ 4,728.23 a month for the rest of the “MARKET” units. If you expect to have to pay 6% for operational expenses then that rent will need to be $5,012.00 a month, and if you expect to get 5% profit on the entire project you will need to add 10% to that “MARKET” rate group which will come to $5,113.00.

This is what the project will come to. Does this sound like it will be built?

The CITY has NO CHOICE regarding the STATE laws, unless they will sue the STATE to try to be exempt of the STATE laws.

@ Resident. Much of the area slated for development is above the "Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman" Regional Superfund Plume. Back in 2009 the city (before I was on Council) worked with U.S. EPA to develop a Permit Process to ensure that building occupants are protected against TCE exposure in new development and major remodels. Exposure would be from subsurface TCE vapors that could be sucked into buildings. This policy is a national model, mentioned in EPA's national vapor intrusion guidance. See attachment 3 at Web Link

Basically, buildings must be designed to prevent vapor intrusion. In addition, if concentrations of TCE in soil gas or groundwater are particularly high, EPA is likely to impose additional subsurface cleanup requirements, as it did at 277 Fairchild (the Mountain View Motel site).

My organization, the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, will be releasing a report about this soon. Meanwhile, for background on vapor intrusion, see my Stakeholder's Guide at Web Link

Basically, because of the involvement of community activists for nearly four decades, dedicated work by federal and state public servants, and cooperation from both the city of Mountain View and the companies that polluted the area, I believe it's possible to build housing, offices, and other uses in the area of contamination, but we need to watch closely to see that things are done right.

Thank you for your reply , Lenny. Let’s say the development goes forward. Do the developers have an obligation to disclose the possibility of exposure to toxics and are prospective home buyers expected to sign a waiver whereby the developers can’t be held liable for any future health conditions associated with TCE exposure?
thank you.

How about we stop bending over for whatever Google wants? Someday this company will wither and die just like every other tech company has. And sooner than you think. Who is thinking about what all of this is going to look like at that point? And what are we going to do with some of the more ridiculous of these developments then? Where's the sustainability?

@Resident. Existing state requirements for disclosure are inadequate, because they come too late in the home-buying process, and there is no requirement to notify renters or employees. When I was on Council, the Council added notification requirements to similar projects.

I've never run across such a waiver. I doubt that it would stand legally. Still, for the diseases where TCE is a risk factor, it's almost impossible to prove causality.

Thanks, Lenny.
That sounds pretty scary.

In response to Lenny Siegel you said:

“I've never run across such a waiver. I doubt that it would stand legally. Still, for the diseases where TCE is a risk factor, it's almost impossible to prove causality.”

You know that your statement in effect provides the legal basis to eliminate any warnings regarding TCE in Mountain View. It would in effect make the conclusion that no one in Mountain View EVER got any disease because of exposure to TCE. Because you cannot prove it using your own words “almost impossible to prove causality”.

In effect you just declared that the requirements regarding TCE being a possible public health threat are no longer legally required. You said it is impossible to prove TCE caused any disease.

But the NIH found here (Web Link says:

“Which cancers are associated with exposure to trichloroethylene?

Prolonged or repeated exposure of trichloroethylene causes kidney cancer. Some evidence suggests that it may be associated with an increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and, possibly, liver cancer.

How can exposures be reduced?

People who work with or near TCE should wear protective equipment and minimize exposure to the chemical.

In general, people should avoid drinking water known to be contaminated with TCE, and children should be prevented from playing in areas where the chemical has been found in the soil. Always follow instructions on product labels to minimize exposure to hazardous chemicals such as TCE.”

How could you have said it is impossible to prove TCE caused a cancer when this resource clearly states it causes kidney cancer and associated with others? This doesn’t make any sense to me.

You have demonstrated behavior that can raise serious doubt in the scientific validity of your groups work because of this.

@The Business Man. There are studies showing statistical correlation with exposure, but to show that an individual has come down with kidney cancer or non-Hodgkins lymphoma as a result to TCE exposure, when there are multiple factors that are normally involved, is much harder.

I got the New York Times to cover the case of a worker in Kentucky whose Parkinson's disease was key to a study demonstrating that TCE exposure is a risk factor in Parkinsons, but the scientist leading the study would not certify him for workers' compensation.

That was a case where we know what the exposure was. In most cases we don't have a quantitative measure of TCE exposure, because volatile organic compounds (unlike lead or PFAS) are not retained in the body.

The best public policy solution is what we got Congress to do in the Janie Ensminger Act, covering people who lived or workers at the Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune. Exposure by itself was enough to justify some form of compensation.

There was a survey showing that the incidence of one form of cancer was elevated for about a five-year period in one of the census tracts near the MEW plume, but available evidence showed that TCE exposures in that area were not higher than the ambient levels the rest of us are exposed to.

To my knowledge, no one drinking public water in Mountain View has ever been exposed to measurable levels of TCE. The concern is vapor intrusion, and that has occurred in a small number of commercial buildings and an even smaller number of residential buildings. This is what we've been fighting to address since vapor intrusion first rose to the surface here in 2002.

I am not a toxicologist nor an epidemiologist, but I have served on National Academies of Sciences panels, looking at these issues, with some of the world's most qualified experts.

@The Business Man

Re the statements about inclusionary pricing, I don't think that's how SB 540 works. SB 540 allows the city to approve developments matching all the criteria in California code 65623 without filing an EIR. It doesn't forbid them from approving developments that don't match the criteria after going through an EIR, and it's likely that combined office/housing projects will need EIR anyway.

Hey “The business man” you wanna shorten your opinions that frankly with all due respect take up a lot of space.

In response to lenny you said:

“I am not a toxicologist nor an epidemiologist, but I have served on National Academies of Sciences panels, looking at these issues, with some of the world's most qualified experts.”

Let me give the people some information. I worked with my father as his project assistant for a toxic gas analysis company for 5 years whose instruments were certified by the EPA for clean air act enforcement. This corporation provided both equipment and pollution study and control plans and operations and was called Pollution Research and Control Corp. He was their Vice President of Research and Development his name was Dr. Jack Goldstein his PhD was in Chemistry. He invented the standard design used today in spectrophotometric equipment and has the Patent. I worked on many on-site installations regarding setting up the standards necessary to monitor ambient air pollution. I also worked on projects for the EPA and Harvard School of Public Health in this area. You said:

“@The Business Man. There are studies showing statistical correlation with exposure, but to show that an individual has come down with kidney cancer or non-Hodgkins lymphoma as a result to TCE exposure, when there are multiple factors that are normally involved, is much harder.”

But you have not established evidence to determine your conclusion. You did provide the following information:

“I got the New York Times to cover the case of a worker in Kentucky whose Parkinson's disease was key to a study demonstrating that TCE exposure is a risk factor in Parkinsons, but the scientist leading the study would not certify him for workers' compensation.”

Simply put, one news article discussing one case study is simply not a statically significant basis to coming to the conclusion you state in your post. You need quite a bit of evidence to establish the legitimacy of your claim. You also said:

“That was a case where we know what the exposure was. In most cases we don't have a quantitative measure of TCE exposure, because volatile organic compounds (unlike lead or PFAS) are not retained in the body.”

That is because the risk of getting that evidence is so extreme that even the EPA doesn’t want to touch it. It is the same situation that occurred in Woburn Mass (Web Link which the EPA withheld the scientific studies that proved the extreme risk to health in that city during a trial made famous in the book “A Civil Action”. When the case was dismissed the EPA disclosed prior knowledge of the proof of the pollutant, the course of how the pollution was exposed to the people in Woburn, and the medical problems caused by them. IT WAS THE SAME CHEMICAL TCE. The fact is that the vapors of TCE are so bad that the City requires “Vapor Intrusion Prevention” regarding homes and buildings in the area. And when they fail to operate like in this story (Web Link this proves that the ambient air is at levels that can only be above the EPA standards for exposure in the outside air of the city. You said:

“The best public policy solution is what we got Congress to do in the Janie Ensminger Act, covering people who lived or workers at the Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune. Exposure by itself was enough to justify some form of compensation.”

So why are the citizens on Mountain View being given the same treatment? Why did you NOT get the same consideration for citizens of your city? You said:

“There was a survey showing that the incidence of one form of cancer was elevated for about a five-year period in one of the census tracts near the MEW plume, but available evidence showed that TCE exposures in that area were not higher than the ambient levels the rest of us are exposed to.”

But you have no evidence to prove that the levels in the entire city are safe because if the various agencies found this, it would possibly end up with catastrophic consequences to the region. Especially loss of property values. You said:

“To my knowledge, no one drinking public water in Mountain View has ever been exposed to measurable levels of TCE. The concern is vapor intrusion, and that has occurred in a small number of commercial buildings and an even smaller number of residential buildings. This is what we've been fighting to address since vapor intrusion first rose to the surface here in 2002.”

But not attempting to study the health of the air of the entire area leaves all of us at risk. It simply is a case where plausible deniability id the strategy (i.e. intentional ignorance)

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE REAL WORK DONE REGARDING A CITY WIDE MEASURE OF TCE VAPORS?

YOU’VE GOTTA BE KIDDING. SERIOUSLY!?

In response to Will you said:

“Re the statements about inclusionary pricing, I don't think that's how SB 540 works.”

However, you are not establishing that it does not work like my description. You said:

“It doesn't forbid them from approving developments that don't match the criteria after going through an EIR, and it's likely that combined office/housing projects will need EIR anyway.”

But it does establish state laws that determine the cost of the housing as described here:

“65623 (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for a period of five years from the adoption of the specific plan pursuant to Section 65621, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT SATISFIES ALL OF THE CRITERIA LISTED IN PARAGRAPHS (3) TO (7), INCLUSIVE, OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 65621 IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS DEEMED COMPLETE.”

SHALL is a MANDATORY condition unlike MAY which is DISCRETIONARY

“3) (A) AT LEAST 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE will be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code (50093. “Persons and families of low or moderate income” means persons and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income), or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008;

AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE will be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code(50079.5. (a) “Lower income households” means persons and families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.; and

AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE will be restricted for a term of 55 years for very low income households, as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code (50105. (a) “Very low income households” means persons and families whose incomes do not exceed the qualifying limits for very low income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.)

NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.

(B) The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low, low-, moderate-, or middle-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units.”

So the only issue would be will the City of Mountain View try to declare this mixed use land (Commercial/Industrial and Residential) does not fall under the definition of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone? In effect, there is no legal basis for it to not be defined as one. Especially if you read this part of the SB540 bill:

“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(A) INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIRES A COMMITMENT BY BOTH THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CAN MAKE THIS COMMITMENT BY SETTING THE LAND USE STAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING THROUGH ADVANCED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE STATE CAN MAKE THIS COMMITMENT BY CONTRIBUTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR ADVANCED PLANNING AND MATCHING LOCAL AGENCIES’ FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

(B) PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR LOCAL AGENCIES TO CREATE WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONES IN AREAS THAT NEED ADDITIONAL HOUSING CLOSE TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND AVAILABLE TRANSIT SUPPORTS THE ATTAINMENT OF THE STATE’S HOUSING AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION GOALS. LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES PRODUCED BY HOUSING, PARTICULARLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MEAN THERE IS OFTEN AN IMBALANCE BETWEEN THE REVENUE PRODUCED AND THE COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES NEEDED BY THE HOUSING.

(C) PROVIDING ADDITIONAL CERTAINTY IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS REQUIRES ADVANCED PLANNING, WHICH, AMONG OTHER ELEMENTS, IDENTIFIES STANDARDS AND CRITERIA BY WHICH DEVELOPMENT WILL PROCEED AND STANDARDS FOR THE MITIGATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE IS TO CONDUCT THIS TYPE OF ADVANCED PLANNING, SO THAT HOUSING AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE ZONE CAN PROCEED ON THE AFFECTED PARCELS IN AN EXPEDITED MANNER. A STATE-ADMINISTERED REVOLVING LOAN FUND WILL SUPPORT THESE ADVANCED PLANNING EFFORTS.”

So if the state has provided opportunity to “CONTRIBUTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR ADVANCED PLANNING AND MATCHING LOCAL AGENCIES’ FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING,” but the City did not do so, that is not legally disqualify the Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone. If the City did not access the “PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR LOCAL AGENCIES TO CREATE WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONES IN AREAS THAT NEED ADDITIONAL HOUSING CLOSE TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS” that is not a factor to disqualify this project as a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone. If the City does not access the “STATE-ADMINISTERED REVOLVING LOAN FUND WILL SUPPORT THESE ADVANCED PLANNING EFFORTS,” the does not disqualify the project as being a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone.

If the City did receive any funds and that those funds were used by the City in their planning efforts, that would in effect MANDATE this project is a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone. The plan published claimed it was produced by a grant through the Valley Transportation Authority. If the VTA in fact received any FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA to make this report possible, it is a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone. If the VTA was given any INCENTIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA to make this report possible, it is a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone. If the VTA was provided any REVOLVING LOANS FROM THE STATE to make this report possible, it is a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone.

THUS IF THE CITY THOUGHT BY HAVING THE VTA FUND THE REPORT, THEY MADE A BIG MISTAKE. THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND BEING GIVEN TO THE VTA BY THE STATE TO MAKE THE PLAN POSSIBLE HANDCUFFS THE CITY TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE LAWS. NICE TRY.

Lenny:

Didn’t you see these studies?

“Evidence for the carcinogenicity of TCE in humans comes from several cohort studies where specific TCE exposures were well characterized for individual study subjects.

A meta-analysis of these cohort studies found that occupational exposure to TCE was associated with excess incidences of liver cancer, kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma, with the strongest evidence for the first three cancers (Wartenberg, Reyner et al. 2000; NTP 2004). It is important to note that the conclusions drawn in these studies were based on a relatively small number of exposed workers and were confounded by exposure to other solvents and other risk factors. Other studies did not reveal any excess cancer mortality from low exposures to TCE (Axelson, Andersson et al. 1978; Tola, Vilhunen et al. 1980; Shindell and Ulrich 1985; Spirtas, Stewart et al. 1991; Axelson, Selden et al. 1994).

A STUDY (MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 1996) PERFORMED IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS BY THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1996) FOUND AN ELEVATED RISK OF CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA IN A GROUP EXPOSED TO TCE IN UTERO.

The New Jersey study (Bove, Fulcomer et al. 1995) found associations with childhood leukemia among females and with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

A review on mutagenicity of TCE and its metabolites indicated that TCE and its metabolites are not potent genotoxic agents and require high doses to induce a response (Moore and Harrington-Brock 2000). The full tumor development is likely to require promotional stimuli under high (suggested: >500 ppm peak exposures) and long-term (several years) exposure to TCE (Bolt, Lammert et al. 2004).

A cohort study of 169 male workers having been exposed to unusually high levels of TCE in Germany between 1956 and 1975 supported a nephrocarcinogenic effect of TCE in humans. A further case-control study confirmed the results of the previous cohort study, supporting the concept of involvement of prolonged and high-dose TCE exposures in the development of renal cell cancer (Bruning and Bolt 2000). The finding of a TCE-specific mutation of the von Hippel-Landau (VHL) tumor suppressor gene, a gene associated with kidney tumors, provides strong evidence that TCE causes kidney cancer (Brauch, Weirich et al. 1999).

A study of three Michigan communities exposed to chlorinated solvents, including TCE in drinking water, showed no significant increase in cancers, including leukemia, among the exposed population. However, the cohort size in the study was only 223 (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1997). A study of 4,280 people exposed to TCE and other contaminants in drinking water in three states reported an increase in respiratory tract cancer in males. The study authors concluded that, based on the incidence of smoking in the population, “it would be inappropriate to relate this excess solely to TCE exposure” (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1997).

The findings in humans are supported by evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, in which tumors occurred at several of the same sites as in humans. Inhalation or oral exposure to high doses of TCE produces liver and lung tumors in mice (Maltoni, Lefemine et al. 1988), and renal adenocarcinomas, testicular tumors, and possibly leukemia in rats (Maltoni, Lefemine et al. 1988).

However, it is important to understand interspecies differences in TCE metabolism and pharmacokinetics in order to reduce uncertainties inherent in species-to-species extrapolations (Bruckner, Davis et al. 1989).

Many studies reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) examined the relationship between TCE exposure and kidney and liver cancer mortality or incidence. Most of studies were of occupational exposures (Bull 2000; Lash, Parker et al. 2000).

IN CONCLUSION, TCE IS REASONABLY ANTICIPATED TO BE A HUMAN CARCINOGEN BASED ON LIMITED EVIDENCE OF CARCINOGENICITY FROM STUDIES IN HUMANS, SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CARCINOGENICITY FROM STUDIES IN EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS, WHICH INDICATES THERE IS AN INCREASED INCIDENCE OF MALIGNANT AND/OR A COMBINATION OF MALIGNANT AND BENIGN TUMORS AT MULTIPLE TISSUE SITES IN MULTIPLE SPECIES OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS, AND INFORMATION SUGGESTING TCE ACTS THROUGH MECHANISMS THAT INDICATE IT WOULD LIKELY CAUSE CANCER IN HUMANS (NTP 2004).”( Web Link

To me you are showing possible deliberate indifference regarding your research you present.

THERE IS NO CITYWIDE STUDIES REGARDING THE QAULITY OF THE AIR IN THE CITY

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW HIGH THE TCE IS IN THE VALLEY. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE AIR IS SAFE.

AND NO ONE WANTS THIS TO BE EXAMINED.