Villages of Columbus - Columbus Square - Camden Place

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="rickhunter" date=1213251662]BK - WOW! I usually ignore comments I dont agree with but...



Very poor choice of words. You should really know better than that!



[quote author="bkshopr" date=1213251107]Take the incentive $$ and put it in a saving. Wait 15 years and take it out and apply it to your co-pay for your cancer treatments.

</blockquote></blockquote>


Let me rephrase it. Save the incentive $$$ and put it in an enhanced education fund. Children with birth defects will require special schooling. So why bother being in the Irvine School District?



15 years from now the buyers will reference back to this forum. The warning is well posted. There is no better choice of words regarding warnings.
 
[quote author="Chi2Cali" date=1213248284]I just got a call from Lennar, phase 11 and 12 buyers are now offered a $20,000 incentive to be used on upgrades, rate buydown, etc... phase 11 is completely sold out, but I believe phase 12 has availability... score one for the us buyers...</blockquote>
i know bk comments r little harsh but if u don't know, soil @ the base is toxic and that could cause unknown health problems. also i heard that u will be asked to sign a paper having agree to not grow any veg/fruit for eating purpose.
 
[quote author="irvine2010" date=1213254569][quote author="Chi2Cali" date=1213248284]I just got a call from Lennar, phase 11 and 12 buyers are now offered a $20,000 incentive to be used on upgrades, rate buydown, etc... phase 11 is completely sold out, but I believe phase 12 has availability... score one for the us buyers...</blockquote>
i know bk comments r little harsh but if u don't know, soil @ the base is toxic and that could cause unknown health problems. also i heard that u will be asked to sign a paper having agree to not grow any veg/fruit for eating purpose.</blockquote>


Builders will never tell you the truth. When they are telling you about the toxicity in the ground then the situation is really 100 times worst. They have consulted with attorneys and PR specialists to word their disclosure with calming words.



Would you trust the Chinese restaurant owner when he said to you the only cockroach he saw was the the one wrapped in your Moo Shu Pork?



Not all sicknesses are caused by ingestion of toxic substance and there are other methods of exposure similar to a flu.
 
bk, unless you have an advanced degree in soil science, i really have to disagree with you. Columbus Square is built on the perimeter of the old base - same as The District. I doubt the soil can be that toxic so far out. Maybe I'm naive, but I have never experienced any toxicity issues in my whole life living in Orange County. I think we'll more likely die from UV rays than the toxin in our soil.
 
Not to qubble (or get in the middle of somebody else's fight) but you don't need somebody with an advanced degree in soil science. You need somebody who has some experence in enviromental engeneering.



If you wanted to remediate this into farmland, you might need both specialites. FWIW, I have friends that are soil scientists, other friends who are enviromental engeneers.
 
[quote author="reason" date=1213274121]Hey, what about driving on the perimeter on a daily basis? Like Edinger and Redhill. Could the toxic air borne dirt affects us?</blockquote>


No, but I have it on good authority that eating dirt is bad for you.
 
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213268782]bk, unless you have an advanced degree in soil science, i really have to disagree with you. Columbus Square is built on the perimeter of the old base - same as The District. I doubt the soil can be that toxic so far out. Maybe I'm naive, but I have never experienced any toxicity issues in my whole life living in Orange County. I think we'll more likely die from UV rays than the toxin in our soil.</blockquote>


Have you been there? I was just there, and you can see the tractors moving 4+ feet of soil around that entire community. Come on dude, calling BK out because he doesn't have an advanced degree in soil science is lame. You have BK, who makes great and well educated comments, and you, who seems to be trapped in a classroom far from reality that makes some really clueless comments. I trust BK, not you. That, and I know the owner of one of the soil engineering companies in charge of the clean up, post Navy clean up, and 4 feet isn't deep enough, but good enough for Tustin, and apparently you. Good luck with that.
 
the soil CAN be that toxic that far out. google "el toro toxic plume", for example.



take a look at this newsletter from the woodbridge hoa's archives. this is all the way in woodbridge and they're discussing TCE toxins in the ground from el toro mcas.

<a href="http://www.wva.org/news/news-045.htm">http://www.wva.org/news/news-045.htm</a>

<em>

"As many of you may be aware, the Woodbridge Village Association has faced water supply issues for its lakes and lagoons due to interruption of well water supplies. This well water interruption is related to the underground plume that extends from the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station and is a result of on-base activities over the past 50-plus years.



The IRWD, under an Agreement with the U.S. Navy, has begun a clean-up operation, referred to as the Desalter Project, which will remove contaminated groundwater to remedy the problems, but that will take place over the next 30- to 40-years."</em>



so is all of irvine SOL since we're surrounded on both sides by toxic land? likelihood of any harm is minimal so it's overdramatic to assume no where is safe. but given the choice, i would not choose to live directly ON TOP of toxic soil!
 
How about someone provide some concrete facts about the consequences of toxic soil rather than mere speculations. I hate to say it, but this whole discussion substantiates Irvine's reputation for being anal and uptight. Whereas the majority of the people are concerned with work, family, and imminent health issues; here we are on this blog discussing the potential dangers of toxic soil. Given the choice, I much rather live on toxic soil in a nice neighborhood than many other places. Have you guys driven around Columbus Square? It's by far nicer and more desirable than the average OC neighborhood. I know there are negatives, but it bothers me that you guys are "too good" for it. Are you also trying to showcase Irvine's snobbiness reputation too?



By the way, I have a friend who is amazed with Columbus Square. Maybe he just doesn't have a high of a standard as some of the people on this blog. He intends to buy a home there by the end of year.
 
I like columbus square too. I think it gives the wide open feel and the possibilities to become a great neighborhood.

I dont understand some of the comments here either nor do I care for them.



People here make snark remarks about the OC lifestyle and how people cant afford it and are pretentious. I see the same qualities when I hear comparisons between Woodbury and Columbus Square. When they talk about Irvine Schools versus Tustin. You dont have to be buying things you cant afford to have the "OC" mentality of comparison. Read what you write and how you talk to others.



BK - Cancer is not something you use to scare people off from here or to prove your point. Are people buying here really asking to get cancer? Is that what you are saying? You buy here and in 15 years, you get cancer?



[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213312636]How about someone provide some concrete facts about the consequences of toxic soil rather than mere speculations. I hate to say it, but this whole discussion substantiates Irvine's reputation for being anal and uptight. Whereas the majority of the people are concerned with work, family, and imminent health issues; here we are on this blog discussing the potential dangers of toxic soil. Given the choice, I much rather live on toxic soil in a nice neighborhood than many other places. Have you guys driven around Columbus Square? It's by far nicer and more desirable than the average OC neighborhood. I know there are negatives, but it bothers me that you guys are "too good" for it. Are you also trying to showcase Irvine's snobbiness reputation too?



By the way, I have a friend who is amazed with Columbus Square. Maybe he just doesn't have a high of a standard as some of the people on this blog. He intends to buy a home there by the end of year.</blockquote>
 
i have a copy of the contract for Columbus Grove concerning the soil. PM me and i will arrange for you to see it. It about 4 inch thick.
 
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213312636]How about someone provide some concrete facts about the consequences of toxic soil rather than mere speculations. I hate to say it, but this whole discussion substantiates Irvine's reputation for being anal and uptight. Whereas the majority of the people are concerned with work, family, and imminent health issues; here we are on this blog discussing the potential dangers of toxic soil. Given the choice, I much rather live on toxic soil in a nice neighborhood than many other places. Have you guys driven around Columbus Square? It's by far nicer and more desirable than the average OC neighborhood. I know there are negatives, but it bothers me that you guys are "too good" for it. Are you also trying to showcase Irvine's snobbiness reputation too?



By the way, I have a friend who is amazed with Columbus Square. Maybe he just doesn't have a high of a standard as some of the people on this blog. He intends to buy a home there by the end of year.</blockquote>


Never judge a book by its cover. Here is an example. When one pees or poops in the pool do you just dish out several gallons and think the pool is save to swim in? Removing top soil from the ground is the same thing. For the price reduction it is not worth the potential risk. The gamble is against you. Why do you think they are so fast in lowering prices? Builders are the greediest entity in this world.



I would pick Stucco Viejo over Toxtin. I would rather be healthy in the future ghettos than short lived in the so called "charming" neighborhood. I just don't see the incentive motivating enough for the potential risk for the most valuable thing in my life, my family.



Everyone knows that I seldom endorce any project or community and that includes the Irvine Villages. I am a straight shooter. I am only quoting "cancer" because it is the most understood concept by layman. There may be other side effects that we are not familiar with. It is a gamble and in gambling the dealer always win.



It takes more than a soil scientist to understand the effect of toxicity. I think the medical profession is probably the right source. My degree was in Physics from Harvey Mudd and I did quite well in P-Chem and Organic Chem. I am not a master in toxicity but my background and logic tell me that this ancient method of shifting top soil around is far from scientific method of toxic clean up.



I do not live in Irvine nor anywhere in the So County. My comments are rude but truthful. I rarely take side on any Cookie cutter assembly neighborhoods. Since I do not live in any of your neighborhoods my comments are total impartial. I have nothing to gain by helping you living longer or shorter.
 
stop with your VOC insecurity complexes. this is not a good irvine, bad tustin issue. we're talking about health and danger here, not about trying to getting accepted by the cool kids. no one gets anything out of bashing columbus grove just for the heck of it. so what's not to trust from some people who have a bit of knowledge about history of the development and understand the past behavior of the builders in these situations. but you want to know facts, don't just decry what others have said and stick your head in the sand. find out for yourself.



i did a quick search on the EPA website under "tustin". there's also reports from the DoD which are publically avail. here's some highlights from the EPA report re: MCAS tustin from 2003.

<em>

Are groundwater, soil, surface water, sediments, or air media known or reasonably suspected to be ?contaminated? above appropriately protective risk-based ?levels??</em>



<strong>Note that ground water, air indoors, surface soil, and sub-surface soil are all checked YES.</strong>



<em>Groundwater is known to be contaminated in several areas, and several plumes have been identified. Principal contaminants of concern include TCE, 1,2,3-TCP (trichloropropane), TPH and MTBE. Groundwater is first encountered at 7-9 feet b.g.s.(below ground surface). Computer modeling done by the Navy to date shows indoor air contamination in some buildings, but within acceptable regulatory limits. There are other areas still being evaluated for potential indoor air contamination.



Surface soil is contaminated with arsenic and potentially contaminated with lead (from lead based paint). Surface water is not contaminated, since the remedy for IRP Site 1 has isolated the landfill from the Peter?s Canyon Channel. This landfill has been capped and groundwater is being monitored. Sediments in IRP Site 5-Drainage Channel had low level detections of metals and TPH, below levels of concern for human exposure. Subsurface soils are known to be contaminated with arsenic, TPH, MTBE, TCE, and 1,2,3-TCP.</em>



<a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/allfacilities/39E0D7D3D9438F4188256ACD00632706?OpenDocument">LINK TO EPA REPORT</a>



now go google "TCE" or the other contaminants listed. put 2 and 2 together for yourself.
 
I'm a civil/environmental engineer and happened to have a chance to read that remediation report. Below is my input to this thread:



As some people already know, this groundwater/soil contamination is originated from the waste injection to the groundwater table by the former base due to that the injection contained toxic chemicals, such as VOCs (Volatile Organic Compound; quite coincidence with Village of Columbus), which would evaporate through the soil thereby causing soil contamination. Moreover, the chemicals contained in groundwater would form a plume, moving and diffusing with the groundwater flow. As of today, the plume is located across the entire Irvine down to the coastline. So not just on the former base, many other areas are under the threat of that plume. But a good fact is that the groundwater table in the Irvine Basin is very deep, at least 100 feet below the ground. The current treatment is by pumping, which will have been operated for another 10 years or so.



Secondly, it is about the disclosure law for land developers. They are required to disclose this type of environmental information along with others (such as earthquake fault and dam failure impact zone) to buyers. Do they know more details? I don?t think so, because this type of environmental responsibility is not imposed on developers during their EIR approval.
 
I'm not denying that the soil is contaminated. I just wonder if the risk is significant and will result in actual medical harm. Just don't drink the water or eat the soil.

Personally, I believe assessing risks based on statistics and probability. There are no statistics showing the harmful effects of the Tustin soil and thus the probability of getting ill from it is pretty darn low.
 
BeSmart- Thanks!



Bloggers - Lets do everyone a favor and post the warning to all the threads? Everywhere in IRVINE?

Are we all f*@?? in 15 years?



Now that sounds more like a real FEAR complex and it shows we're not targeting columbus square.



[quote author="BeSmart" date=1213317291]I'm a civil/environmental engineer and happened to have a chance to read that remediation report. Below is my input to this thread:



As some people already know, this groundwater/soil contamination is originated from the waste injection to the groundwater table by the former base due to that the injection contained toxic chemicals, such as VOCs (Volatile Organic Compound; quite coincidence with Village of Columbus), which would evaporate through the soil thereby causing soil contamination. Moreover, the chemicals contained in groundwater would form a plume, moving and diffusing with the groundwater flow. As of today, the plume is located across the entire Irvine down to the coastline. So not just on the former base, many other areas are under the threat of that plume. But a good fact is that the groundwater table in the Irvine Basin is very deep, at least 100 feet below the ground. The current treatment is by pumping, which will have been operated for another 10 years or so.



Secondly, it is about the disclosure law for land developers. They are required to disclose this type of environmental information along with others (such as earthquake fault and dam failure impact zone) to buyers. Do they know more details? I don?t think so, because this type of environmental responsibility is not imposed on developers during their EIR approval.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>Are we all f*@?? in 15 years?</blockquote>


not necessarily. the toxic plume in el toro for example has not yet migrated into the drinking water wells. it is still about 10-15 yrs from reaching the drinking water but hopefully it will get treated in time. look up irvine desalter project for more info.



<a href="http://www.irwd.com/WaterQuality/IDP/what.php">http://www.irwd.com/WaterQuality/IDP/what.php</a>



i learned of the issue regarding el toro yrs ago and it was a considering when thinking about woodbury. there was discussion back then about whether contaminated soil and concrete kicked up by construction at el toro would affect neighboring areas, esp during windy season. i found that the toxic plume had become a major issue for woodbridge. i reviewed their hoa website for old community notices and hoa mtg notes. i read the many passionate letters in ocr and irvine world news written by woodbridge residents. there was a large controversy regarding building extraction wells there to pump out contaminated water in the village, and the issue was put up to vote by residents. regardless of whether the danger is real or perceived, it's clearly on the mind of residents there -- and any future buyers will quickly find out about the talk of the town. why subject yourself and your family to that controversy unnecessarily? there's no shortage of avail housing nearby and prices are likely to drop to the level of what you'd pay in VOC right now anyway.



ultimately i decided the odds of any real harm coming from the toxins at el toro was minimal. but what i wouldn't do is knowingly live directly top of any former military land. it's like buying a used car that's been in a bad wreck. after repairs, maybe it's not any less likely to be a lemon than any other used car, but it just doesnt sit right and it's worth less to the next buyer if i ever resold as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top