Soil and groundwater contamination in PS3 ?

Etinchen said:
Kinda funny how they labeled Prohibited for everything but residential use.
Click to expand...

The regulatory documents under the regulatory tab explains that the prohibitions against various uses such as hospital, daycare, and residential is for the "park site."
 
Etinchen said:
Also, for 2011 they said it was a danger zone. 2015, some miracle they pulled it off to be approved and sell homes.  >:D
Click to expand...

It looks to me that they recommended the land (lot B) in the documents for park use only.  I believe that the other area was deemed ok for residential.

From one of the documents, it looks like the park site and a small strip around the park were the problem area and that was cleaned up with sodium persulfate and hydrogen peroxide to oxidize the TCE.  So clean up wasn't simply to cover up the material with 15 ft of soil but to actually significantly reduce the volatile material from the 200s to less than 5 (compared to max residential safe level of 58).  The numbers look good. 
 
Stupid question, but why is something okay for a "park" but not to live on?  Young kids are going to go to the park all the freaking time, probably more often than them playing in there backyards (especially in most new Irvine homes with the small backyards). 
 
Bullsback said:
Stupid question, but why is something okay for a "park" but not to live on?  Young kids are going to go to the park all the freaking time, probably more often than them playing in there backyards (especially in most new Irvine homes with the small backyards).
Click to expand...

No buildings where these volatile compounds can accumulate.
 
peppy said:
Bullsback said:
Stupid question, but why is something okay for a "park" but not to live on?  Young kids are going to go to the park all the freaking time, probably more often than them playing in there backyards (especially in most new Irvine homes with the small backyards).
Click to expand...

No buildings where these volatile compounds can accumulate.
Click to expand...
Well, doesn't it say it is also okay for residential, so that would be a building.  Just not a hospital, etc.  I don't quite comprehend. You can play on it our put a house on it, where you are more likely to be all the time, but not a hospital. Or was that Hospital more of an overall zoning point and not at all related to the toxicity? 
 
You can find all the information there, including the research facility boundary, contamination locations, remediation process and test reports. I spent a lot of time reading through those documents (I suggest you do so too and decide for yourself). Besides, Cressa is outside of the contaminated facility boundary. So now I am comfortable with it and I will go for it.

[/quote]

Go to this site:http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=SL208584045

Click on the "view covenant" links on the left middle section and the same language on the disclaimer/waiver is on the documents.
[/quote]
 
Bullsback said:
peppy said:
Bullsback said:
Stupid question, but why is something okay for a "park" but not to live on?  Young kids are going to go to the park all the freaking time, probably more often than them playing in there backyards (especially in most new Irvine homes with the small backyards).
Click to expand...

No buildings where these volatile compounds can accumulate.
Click to expand...
Well, doesn't it say it is also okay for residential, so that would be a building.  Just not a hospital, etc.  I don't quite comprehend. You can play on it our put a house on it, where you are more likely to be all the time, but not a hospital. Or was that Hospital more of an overall zoning point and not at all related to the toxicity?
Click to expand...

I read the amendment as allowing an enclosed community center and restrooms.
 
plainwater said:
You can find all the information there, including the research facility boundary, contamination locations, remediation process and test reports. I spent a lot of time reading through those documents (I suggest you do so too and decide for yourself). Besides, Cressa is outside of the contaminated facility boundary. So now I am comfortable with it and I will go for it.
Click to expand...

Go to this site:http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=SL208584045

Click on the "view covenant" links on the left middle section and the same language on the disclaimer/waiver is on the documents.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Where is Cressa in relation to the contaminents.  Where is the exact map? Is it a block away, quarter mile away?  Is Cressa downhill from them or uphill?  Anything further uphill from Cressa contaminated which could than flow downhill? 
 
It's that last covenant with the map on the last pages?  Looks like smack in the middle of PS3?  Cressa would be north/uphill from that if so. 
Didn't see anything north of Cressa from those docs
 
eyephone said:
Is this why the homes are priced cheaper at ps3?
Click to expand...
If someone priced homes "cheaper" because of this, I'd be surprised. Reality is they better be safe and no one should be paying a premium / discount based upon this. I presume PS3 is priced cheaper, just like all of PS was priced cheaper due to its current location being more in the "boonies" than other areas. Farther from shopping, etc. Additionally, the PS3 village is more dense than other villages. 

Now in 5 years, the perception of it being in the boonies could differ depending on the great park neighborhood build up, new shopping center, schools built up, etc. 
 
Incidentally, the Geotracker site also provides you with a satellite map with cleanup icons (I am assuming they refer to cleanup of hazardous material). 

Beacon Park has a bunch of cleanup icons .  If remediated land is a concern, then this site is a "must check" before considering a home.
 
IrvineNinja said:
Bullsback said:
plainwater said:
You can find all the information there, including the research facility boundary, contamination locations, remediation process and test reports. I spent a lot of time reading through those documents (I suggest you do so too and decide for yourself). Besides, Cressa is outside of the contaminated facility boundary. So now I am comfortable with it and I will go for it.
Click to expand...

Go to this site:http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=SL208584045

Click on the "view covenant" links on the left middle section and the same language on the disclaimer/waiver is on the documents.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Where is Cressa in relation to the contaminents.  Where is the exact map? Is it a block away, quarter mile away?  Is Cressa downhill from them or uphill?  Anything further uphill from Cressa contaminated which could than flow downhill? 
[/quote]

Here's a link to the "No further action letter" July 2011:http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.go...900556802/Irvine_Community_Development_C0.pdf


There is a residential site section in doc that refers to 3 different area that appear to have been remediated (with before/after numbers) along with two maps (one for park and the other land surrounding the park).
[/quote]
------------
I scanned through the report. Low levels of TCE is a problem for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top