Comments on: Questions linger over soil of Leucadia development

By: embarassed

embarassed — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:06:20 +0000

Witness: To say the Hall Property does not have toxic contaminated soil is just not factual.
http://thecoastnews.com/2011/07/is-city-council-spinning-the-truth/
And the EIR on the former greenhouse land indicates the opposite of what you claim.

By: Witness

Witness — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:39:11 +0000

Chris’ comment is completely false. The Hall property does not contain “toxic soil”and the idea of comparing standards for a subdivision where people will live 24/7 vs. a city park where people will visit at most a few hours per week is ludicrous.

By: LookingForChange

LookingForChange — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:20:56 +0000

We are all at risk, as more former greenhouse properties are developed. The Council did the right thing to ask questions; the staff let down the neighbors by not providing more information; and the whole system is troubling when the public relies on self-evaluation by profit-driven developers.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:33:04 +0000

While this is going on, the city is battling the county to not complete the cleanup required of contaminated soil on the Hall property greenhouse land. The city wants the county to sign off on a cheaper, presumably less effective, toxic clean up plan. I hope the county does not back down and we can have a safe park.
This is a problem for the ‘Flower Capital of The World’. I hope the city acts responsiably.