HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2017-228 Comment 67_04252019_SkinnerFrom: Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 8:17 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin; Ray Lawler
Subject: The project at Ford Rd and MacArthur
April 25, 2019
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The proposed project at the corner of Ford Road and MacArthur currently is
requesting a mitigated negative declaration, implying that no environmental review is
required. However, a review of prior Phase 1 Environmental Assessment documents
prepared in 2015 for this site indicate that there is a clear reason to perform a full
EIR. The document can be viewed
here: ftp://newportbeachca.gov/Ford%20Road%20Residential/3b%20-
%20Ford%20Road%20Residential%20-
%20Applicant%27s%20Phase%20I%20Environmental%20Site%20Assessment%20R
eport.pdf
In the 2015 document, Citadel notes that: “Pacific Bell/AT&T, the adjoining
property east of the Site, was identified on several databases including historic and
active UST databases. According to EDR, one 5,000 gallon diesel UST was installed
at the adjoining property in 1973. According to reviewed building permits, the UST
sump and detection systems were upgraded in 2001. Pacific Bell was also listed as a
RCRA NonGen databases as a non- generator of hazardous waste. No violations were
reported. Pacific Bell was listed on the HAZNET database as a generator of asbestos
containing waste in 1993, 1994, and 1996; PCBs in 1993; unspecified oil-containing
waste in 1993 and 2009; aqueous solution with organic residues in 2000, 2001, and
2006; waste and mixed oil in 2001, 2006, and 2009; other organic solids in 2006;
unspecified aqueous solution in 2006 and 2007; liquids with halogenated organic
compounds in 2007; and off-specification, aged, or surplus organic in 2007. The
appearance on these lists reflects disposal of regulated materials generated from
building or tenant use. “
It is also noted that “Citadel observed a horizontal pipe protruding out of a
sloped area. The depressed area in the center of the Site and the protruding pipe
suggests that the area was formerly or currently a drainage basin.”
The location of this property is physically below that of the AT&T switching
station, implying that liquids leaving this property would flow in the direction of the
project property. With a description of a drainage pipe extending into the project
property and the knowledge that the AT&T property had some pretty nasty stuff
reported on site, it appears incumbent upon Hines to ensure that the property is not
contaminated, especially as it will become someone’s home. The past Environmental
Assessment simply visually inspected the property, but I believe that this information
requires actually testing for contaminants in the soil.
Thank you,
Susan Skinner