SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

tannin -NV11F 0 �P�,t��TAL HEALTH r Chevron PHt%MT URVICE 93 AUG 16 P11 2: 16 Chevron U.SA Products Company July 26, 1993 2410 Camino Ramon rL_ P.O. Box 5004 San Ramon,CA 94583.0804 Phone 510 842-9500 Northwest Region Property Development apt M. K.Wirth Carter Warmke `- `^ ° - Property Manager Warmke & Warmke Specialists 4545 Georgetown Place, Suite 1 A.W.Frandsen W.T.Scudder Stockton, CA 95207-6281 D.E. Kohmann D. R.Thurman J.H.Ough T.J.Vukellch Re: Former Chevron Station * 9-1918 s•C.Owen S.A Willer M.R. Purcell 45 E. Harding Way, Stockton, CA Dear Mr. Warmke: This is in reply to your telephone request of today. You had requested documentation outlining Chevron's basis for terminating the compensation payments at the above site. Please refer to Chevron's letter addressed to Leon Warmke dated May 11, 1988, wherein we agreed to pay compensation in the amount of $690 per month "until we complete soil contamination remediation." Our letter agreement addressed to Geoffrey Bain dated May 15, 1991, stated that Chevron would increase this to $1,500 per month. It was during this time that we had our Vapor Extraction System (VES) working. I am attaching a copy of our letter to the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department dated December 21, 1992, documenting that the soil has been remediated. On December 28, 1992, Bill Scudder terminated the compensation with the removal of the VES. In all of our correspondence since 1988, we have continued to state that Chevron would work with any prospective purchaser or tenant and that we could accommodate any proposed use of the site with respect to our environmental activities at the site. We have been of the opinion that the site has been developable since the excavations were backfilled. As I stated to you today, we have worked with much success with many developers of properties that have had similar levels of contamination. Several fast food operations have been constructed on sites that have had either a VES or a groundwater treatment system or both in operation. We have also had the same experience with office buildings and retail strip shopping centers as well as other development. Lenders have loaned on the properties with our indemnification. As you can see from some of our correspondence that I have also included, we offered to relocate the vapor extraction system to the rear corner of the property ( April 5, 1991) in order to help market the site. I even verbally agreed to continue to pay the $690 per month prior to the letter. This offer was rejected by Geoffrey Bain. Earlier (January 3, 1991) we had agreed to move the system to accommodate a tenant but would then terminate the compensation payments if this were to occur.