Portola Springs is right next to the Irvine Landfill

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I wouldn't worry about the landfill for sure. Like IrvineRenter explained modern landfill are not really an enviromental issue and you can't even see it from Portola. If it were an environmental issue I am sure the almighty Irvine Company would do something. Woodbury and Orchard Hills will be nearby the landfill as wel right?





In fact in a few years I predict Portola should be a one the most desirable places in Irvine.





But what I am curious at is have sales really been picking up in PS recently? I haven't got a chance to check it out myself but I heard last Nov/Dec was pretty bad.
 
<p>sales releases recently have generated more interested because of the price cuts -- still sky high, but not as insane as it was when prices were first announced in the opening of portola springs. </p>
 
Thats the Bee Canyon land fill and it been there since the 1970 or before. There are alot of land fills in South Orange County that have houses <strong>built on them</strong> that people don't even know about. I would not be to concerned about this situation.
 
If houses were built on landfills, homebuyers would have had to sign off on disclosures and this information would be passed on down the chain of title. This is material information that could make or break a transaction, and would be a huge lawsuit for homebuilders if they "fail" to divulge it.
 
I hear that the weakest link in the water quality chain is the piping between the plant and your house. Most water testing is done at the source (the plant) but due to old/dirty piping, the quality of water at the home can be worse.
 
<p>There will always be something bad, ugly, dangerous, etc near every development. I honestly can't believe how much importance people are giving about the landfill being nearby and about health issues. I can understand if the sight of trash trucks coming by bothered people but I doubt there are any health issues to be concerned about. </p>

<p>Think about it - name one perfect development or area and I will garuantee that someone else will tell you why it is the most terrible place in the world to live. </p>
 
<p>I used to own a house that sat on landfill (it's was a FSBO transaction and the seller did not know they had to disclose and I found out later while looking at maps). I just could not get the uneasy feeling of sitting on "trash" out of my mind. For me, it's psychological.</p>

<p>At PS, the trucks on Sand Canyon and Portolla are not a pretty sight. Does anyone know when this landfill is full?</p>
 
this article is from

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the <a href="http://www.dhhs.gov/">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a>, is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research



Low Birthweight, Early Births Found Among Infants Near Hazardous Landfill

<p>In a study that may have far-reaching implications for people living beside hazardous chemical waste sites, two scientists today reported that infants born to mothers living immediately adjacent to a New Jersey landfill at the height of its activity had substantially lower birthweights and as much as twice the risk of being born preterm.</p>

<p>Epidemiologists Michael Berry, currently with the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, and Frank Bove of the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which partly financed the study, reported their findings in <em>Environmental Health Perspectives</em>, the monthly* journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.</p>

<p>The report is based on data collected from residents of four municipalities that border the Lipari landfill, a 15-acre site located in Gloucester County that was used for the dumping of household and industrial wastes from 1958 until 1971. The landfill was once rated number one on the Environmental Protection Agency's priority list, a national ranking system for hazardous waste sites based on the health risks they pose to surrounding populations.</p>

<p>The researchers divided the infants' mothers into "exposure categories" based on the distance of their residences from the landfill. Those who lived within a one-kilometer radius of the landfill (slightly more than six-tenths of a mile) were placed in the "exposed" category; those who lived beyond this boundary constituted the "unexposed" group. To assess the effects of chemical exposure on those who lived immediately downwind from the landfill, the investigators conducted separate analyses on the residents located directly adjacent to the site.</p>

<p>The researchers found that the average birthweight of infants born in the "exposed" area was 65 grams (more than two ounces) less than that of the infants born in the "unexposed" group. Then they discovered the birthweight differences were concentrated in the residential area nearest the landfill-these infants were, on average, 141 grams (more than four ounces) lighter than their "unexposed" counterparts. They also found that infants born in this residential area had twice the risk of being born preterm (gestational age less than 37 weeks) compared to the unexposed controls.</p>

<p>These effects occurred only among those infants born between 1971 and 1975, the period corresponding to the heaviest runoff of hazardous materials and the greatest likelihood of chemical exposure to nearby residents. Neither the infants born before, when dumping had not yet reached its peak, nor those these born afterward, when dumping had ended and remedial cleanup had begun, were similarly affected.</p>

<p>"The magnitude of this effect is about as bad as the birthweight reduction that is associated with cigarette smoking during pregnancy," said Berry, the lead investigator. "These findings are quite significant given the fact that low-birthweight and preterm babies have a lower chance of survival and a greater risk of developing post-birth problems than those born within the normal range."</p>

<p>Developed as a joint venture between the New Jersey Department of Health and community leaders and activists, the study was designed to address the concerns of nearby residents to toxic chemicals emanating from the hazardous waste landfill. Infant birthweights were selected for study because they are an objective indicator of infant health, and because the information could be readily obtained from birth certificates. The researchers took into account potential risk factors such as maternal age and education, previous pregnancies and prenatal care, but other factors, such as maternal health, and cigarette and alcohol consumption during pregnancy, were not included on the birth certificate and could not be evaluated.</p>

<p> </p>
 
The "Dump" next to PS It is not a "hazardous waste" site (unlike El Toro - which is/was a superfund site). For me, I think that there are bigger concerns for homes built close to high power lines... like VoC.
 
I remember way back there was a landfill near where Turtle Ridge is right now. It was also open to the public where you can drive up and dump anything you want for a fee. The area has changed quite a bit since the 80's so I am not sure where it is exactly anymore.
 
That was the Coyote Canyon Landfill. It closed in 1994. The 73/Bonita Canyon intersection is now on top of it. There was another one, the Lane Road Disposal Station that closed in 1964. It was located under the park West Apartments near 405/culver.
 
<a href="http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11679">They are looking at increasing tonnage and the closing date for Bowerman.</a>
 
Thanks for the update, Eva!



Anyone going to make it to the meeting/rethinking their interest @ Portola Springs?
 
IMO Portola is far superior to VoC. At least the trash site is in a fillzone and not in your own yard... read the minutes <a href="http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/bracbases/california/tustin/rab_mm.aspx">here</a>.
 
I am a civil engineer who started with a company doing only landfill engineering. That is the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. I have not been to that site, but I believe it is a Class III landfill which means only municipal waste is only accepted. It is probably less than 1 mile as the crow flies from PS. Check google earth.



Modern landfills are lined with 60 mil HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) and a couple feet of clay at a minimum per Title 22 (or 27) Subtitle D regs. Guess what, they probably still leak or some idiot will come along and drill a hole in your liner. The reason why you cannot build over a landfill is because of differential settlement. The trash is still compacting and it would suck to have your door 3 inches lower than the house. I have been to too many landfills to count and I don't think I would live so close to one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top