Laserfiche WebLink
. 0 Page 2 of 2 <br /> From: Mike Infurna [EH] [mailto:MInfurna@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:17 PM <br /> To: alexastamets@ch2m.com <br /> Cc: Wingfield, Jeff <br /> Subject: permits and property lines? <br /> hello, <br /> I'm the County Health inspector assigned to issue permits at this site. I've receive the CH2bi Hill <br /> recently submitted packet of permit applications,work plan, checks, and access agreements <br /> monitoring well installations at and around Koppel Station, 2025 W. Washingtion St, Stockton. <br /> Although a CVRWQCB site, San Joaquin County EHD is the boring permit issuing agency for all <br /> drilling in our County and I'll be the one processing the applications. <br /> In researching the property lines and ownership,I noticed that the permit application CH2M Hill <br /> signed for "2025 Hazelton/Headwater Resources" was submitted for two monitoring wells, "KP- <br /> 11S" and "KP-10S"and is not quite correct. Based on the SanJoaquin County Assessors Map of <br /> this area, only one well, "KP-11S" is truly on/within the property lines for the 2025 W. <br /> Washington/Headwaters' Resources parcel. Well "KP-1 OS" is on the adjacent parcel with address <br /> 2526 W. Washington, along with "KP-12S". I've attached a copy of the assessors map for your <br /> review. Please compare this with your "Figure 1" and see how it isn't hard to see why with the tenant <br /> lines so strange in this area. I superimposed the County Assessor tecognized parcels lines onto the <br /> CH2M Hill figure 1 to represent the borders of the two parcels and where I thunk the wells are <br /> planned. <br /> Attached are two maps. One is the SJCo Assessors map and the other is your Figure 1 with my <br /> superimposed property/tenant line. It's a bad copy on one,but if you look close you can see the <br /> strange 'key' kickout of the property line in this area... <br /> Additionally,I've placed a call to the Port of Stockton's,Jeff Wingfield, to verify that he/POS <br /> doesn't have a problem with his access agreement now being used for 2526 W. Washington and not <br /> the 2130 W. Washington he listed on his May 25, 2006 letter to you. In reality, the POS is only two <br /> very large parcels. One NORTH of Washington Street and the other SOUTH of Washington. But <br /> as the landlord,POS may have some concerns with more tham one well as they may have originally <br /> thought or there may be a contractual agreement with their tenant that may NOT permit access <br /> automatically, and I wanted to hear that it was ok before I change the permit applications to reflect <br /> actual conditions (address changed to "2526 W. Washington" and add "KP-IOS" to it, and take "KP- <br /> 10S" off the "2025 W. Hazelton" application). <br /> I plan on issuing the permits after I hear from you and Jeff. <br /> Please call me or email reply to confirm.. <br /> thank you. <br /> Mike Infurna <br /> (209) 468-3454. <br /> 6/19/2006 <br />