kensington terrace approved
the project was approved by the city council 5-2 yesterday. glad to see that common sense reigned and that the council recognized that it was a minority of self-interested residents living near adams that were leading the opposition. however, it looks like it's not over, given that legal action will now be taken against the project by said opponents. hopefully the courts will come to the same conclusion, barring any big suprises in the environmental report.
speaking of which, doesn't the removal of the underground gas tanks at overpriced emerald oil gas station (and promised cleaning of any associated leaks), count as something in the environmental impact report? i don't see any mention of this by the project's opponents.
posted by Paul Jamason @ 2/06/2008 11:25:00 PM
4 comments
links to this post
4 Comments:
Saw where the Heart of Kensington "protestors" reassembled last night to again voice their opposition to a project that has gone through the Planning Commission and City Council approvals.
Too bad they can't focus their energy on a more important goal.
This project will not go away
That's funny - "count as something in the environmental impact report". It's precisely the lack of an Environmental Impact Report that is causing the problem. And the developers forgot to mention that there is an open case regarding the contaminated soil from the leaking underground storage tanks at the gas station. The City chose to go with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which by law, requires that all disclosures be fully made and mitigated. Mitigation cannot be deferred to some later date, and all studies have to have been completed and the mitigation spelled out in order to go with an MND. In the case of the leaking storage tanks, they not only did not disclose the full problem, they did not describe the mitigation plan, but instead deferred any plan until later after they dig the hole and find out what's down there. And, gee, guess what? If it turns out to be too costly to clean up, they could just walk away and leave a great big dirty hole in the ground. And that's why you can't do this sort of project with an MND. Get real.
and you'd prefer to just keep the tanks down there and leaking? here's a developer who's willing to pay for tank removal and cleanup, yet you're so opposed to any development in kensington that you'd rather the tanks leak forever.
i really don't think this project is unreasonable on any level. it's the opposition who are completely unreasonable and grasping at anything to stop it, including filing a lawsuit that's a waste of time and money (except for the lawyers).
Don't you think that the Developer was fully aware of the potential costs for the mitigation prior to the purchase of the property and with the fact that a gas station is in place?
With the time and money spent so far, he will not "just walk away and leave a big dirty hole in the ground".
Also, a plan and permit will be issued for the mitigation work that would require backfill and restoration fo the site regardless of the findings.
Get real ???
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home