SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 2 M Lori Duncan [EH] From : Jessica Moreno [JMoreno@clearwatergroup.com] i Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 1 :01 PM { To : Lori Duncan Cc: Olivia Jacobs; Jim Jacobs; Gavin FISCO; Lori Duncan [EH] Subject: Barnes Trucking Update Attachments: Updated Proposed Location for Soil Borings .pdf Greetings Lori, I wanted to let you know that we finally heard back from Reid Campbell, City of Stockton Public Works, regarding the encroachment permit for the work scheduled for the intersection of La Vita Drive and South Fresno Avenue. I had been trying to reach him in order to make sure that the encroachment permit we had received for the previous event was still applicable and to find out whether his office would require an amended traffic plan . We found out yesterday at 1 :30 pm that the permit was good , no traffic plan was needed as long as we agreed to place warning signs leading up to the work area on both La Vita Drive and South Fresno. However, Mr. Campbell informed us that the new locations for the soil borings were technically on private property and that we would need an access agreement before we were able to complete the work. I spent the rest of the afternoon trying to track down the person who would be responsible for granting us access to drill in the street. I spoke with Dave Cooper, Managing Land Developer for Ryland Homes. Mr. Cooper said that he thought all of the required paperwork had been submitted which would give the City of Stockton jurisdiction over the road , but since Ryland Homes purchased the finished lots from K. Hovnanian Homes, Mr. Cooper suggested that I contact the Master Developer for K. Hovnanian Homes, Mr. David Agee (sp?, pronounced A G). Mr. Cooper did not have any objections to our proposed investigation as long as Mr. Agee said it was ok. I was able to track Mr. Agee down and speak with him regarding the event. He too thought that the City was responsible for granting permission , but the longer we spoke, the less convinced he was about the City's authority. He said that technically the City was granted an easement and that the Home Owner's Association (for which he is the president of) would have to grant us permission before we could proceed. He said that he would call me back after he determined their liability. I suggested to him that we would be more than willing to present our case to theAssocia ion and provide copies ot our insurance, the results—of t e geophysical survey comp e e earlier this month and a copy of the results from the event. The impression that 1 got was that he really does not want us to drill on La Vita Drive. His statement was that it was too bad we didn't get whatever samples we needed when the utility work was first being completed . I have not heard back from Mr. Agee, and suspect that I won't hear back from him any time soon, if at all; therefore I think we should go ahead and cancel tomorrow's event. In the mean time, what do you think about moving our investigation area closer to the project site, say directly east of the site in the southbound lane of South Fresno Ave? I have attached a map which illustrates the proposed locations. I think there are a few benefits to drilling in this location , mainly that we won't need permission from the developer to proceed . The data that we would receive from these new locations would help us to 1 ) delineate the eastern edge of the plume, and 2) determine whether we should aggressively pursue the previously proposed locations on La Vita Drive. think it will be a battle to obtain permission from Mr. Agee, and right now we are speculating about the impact the dewatering event had on the plume. If the samples from the proposed soil borings completed in the southbound lane indicate that the core of the plume has been relocated , then expending the effort and cost to pursue an access agreement would be justified . If the results show little to no affect on the core of the plume, then there would be no reason to push the point with Mr. Agee. I'm not sure that we would need to prepare a new work plan since the only difference is that the locations for the soil borings have been adjusted. The field work and goal for the event remains in tacked. I would appreciate your thoughts on this turn of events, and whether you feel that an amended work plan is in order. If we do not need to submit an amended work plan, then I will proceed with preparations for a new event. 5/22/2008