Trump is just trying to cut Federal funding for toxic waste cleanup projects. I bet he would never want to live on this property. I surely would never buy one of these homes. Raising a family there is child abuse.

This article is a prime example of why I won't subscribe or donate to the MV Voice which is too bad considering the importance of local journalism. They have an obvious bias and it has been proven before.

In the late 70s or early 80s, activists here - I believe in cooperation with the Mountain View Fire Department - actually caught Jasco employees in the act of dumping toxic substances by the railroad tracks.

Contamination at this site was never as significant as at some of the other Mountain View "Superfund" sites, so it was possible to clean up this site. At this point, removing it from the Superfund list is just a formality.

With the restrictions imposed by the Regional Water Board, U.S. EPA, and the city of Mountain View, this property is suitable for apartment development. This is an environmental success story.

In response to Lenny Siegel you said:

“In the late 70s or early 80s, activists here - I believe in cooperation with the Mountain View Fire Department - actually caught Jasco employees in the act of dumping toxic substances by the railroad tracks.”

What does that have to do with the fact that TCE is STILL THERE! The fact is that the pollution is still a problem on that site you went on to say:

“Contamination at this site was never as significant as at some of the other Mountain View "Superfund" sites, so it was possible to clean up this site. At this point, removing it from the Superfund list is just a formality.”

WHAT? The TCE is still present any you want to say it is bow CLEAN? I just don’t get it. ONLY WHEN THE POLLTANT IS GONE CAN YOU CALL IT CLEAN. The Superfund listings are being manipulated to MAKE it look like the Trump administration was successful at toxic site cleanup AND YOU KNOW IT. You said:

“With the restrictions imposed by the Regional Water Board, U.S. EPA, and the city of Mountain View, this property is suitable for apartment development. This is an environmental success story.”

NO IT IS NOT, BECAUSE THE LAND IS NOT CLEAN, WARNINGS UNER PROP 65 AND TESTING ARE STILL REQUIRED. VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PROOF IT IS NOT CLEAN. THE PUBLIC AIR ISN”T BEING MONITORED ON PURPOSE. SO THAT NO SCIENTIFIC DATA IS ABLE TO DISPROVE THIS CRAZY IDEA. THIS IS LIKE CLAIMING THAT HE COVID 19 VIRUS IS DYING WHERE WE DON’T EVEN PROPERLY TEST FOR THAT.

If the realLenny is posting - I'd sure believe him. Or at least the extremely-informed citizen activist that he as been in our community on this specic Public Policy issue! SUPERFUND process can and has started to render safe many sites. The Google complex in Whisman Station area (former Fairchild) had a vapor problem (TCE?) when the monitor&mitigation problem was not well done. TBM - we all live in an area and an era of chemicals. TBM benefited when Intel/Fairchild developed the microprocessors that now drive the information of the World (and allow TBM to post here!). All life is risk. Be aware of those risks, make capitalism PAY for the public risks that it made bad decisions on (profit/risk) and PLEASE DON"T THINK THE LOGIC OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS BETTER IN CAPITALS!
:-)

In response to Steven Nelson you wrote:

“TBM - we all live in an area and an era of chemicals.”

Yes, but at the same time that doesn’t mean you should put residential units in a place where it is proven to be a risky place to live AND YOU KNOW THAT. You said:

“TBM benefited when Intel/Fairchild developed the microprocessors that now drive the information of the World (and allow TBM to post here!).”

BUT, I never condoned this kind of action. NO ONE DID. So that was just an excuse to try to say if the people are DUMB enough to build residential units there, and people are DUMB enough to buy or rent them, that’s THEIR problem? I don’t think so, and YOU KNOW IT. You said:

“All life is risk. Be aware of those risks, make capitalism PAY for the public risks that it made bad decisions on (profit/risk) and PLEASE DON"T THINK THE LOGIC OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS BETTER IN CAPITALS!
:-)”

PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A RISK, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTION. THAT WAS A CRAZY THING TO SAY. ONLY THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD LIVING IN A SAFE PLACE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO? ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THAT ONLY SOME PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE IN A SAFE PLACE?

Upon further review of site documents, I am not convinced that the vapor barrier described in the Environmental Impact Report is sufficient to protect against PCE and TCE vapor intrusion. I am waiting for current data on the presence of those compounds in groundwater and soil gas.

Where unmitigated conditions call for site mitigation, California generally does not consider a vapor barrier sufficient mitigation. It should be supplemented with a passive mitigation system, with the option of making it active (adding fans), or an active mitigation system.

Obviously the spot is not clean
I just met with save Palo Alto groundwater and these sites have not been cleaned
This site is not ready for construction
The surrounding sites will be further contaminated if there is displacement of the soil
Plumes like this can be pulled from quite far away this totally should be cleaned up. Anywhere emitting toxic vapors is unfit for human habitation