Laserfiche WebLink
`�/�� NEUMILLER SZ BEARDSLEE <br /> A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION•ATTORNEYS&COUNSELORS EsrABUSHED 1903 <br /> 81729-23657 <br /> KARNA E. HARRIGFELD <br /> Please Respond <br /> to Stockton Office <br /> STOCKTON OFFICE: <br /> 509 WEST WEBER AVENUE <br /> STOCKTON,CA 95203-3166 <br /> POST OFFICE BOX 20 March 19, 1997 <br /> STOCKTON,CA 95201-3020 <br /> (209)948-8200 <br /> (209)948-4910 FAX <br /> MODESTO OFFICE: <br /> 611 THIRTEENTH STREET <br /> MODESTO,CA 95354 <br /> (209)577-8200 Steve Sasson <br /> (209)577-4910 FAX San Joaquin County Public Health Services <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> 304 East Weber Street <br /> Stockton, California 95202 <br /> Re: Phase II Investigation Report/Block Bounded by Washington, <br /> Stanislaus, Market, and American Streets <br /> Dear Steve: <br /> I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you, Margaret Lagorio, and <br /> Letitia Briggs for taking the time to meet with Bob Sivell, Barbara Anderson <br /> and me on Monday, March 17, 1997. This letter will serve to confirm what <br /> we discussed at our meeting and the conclusions reached by the County <br /> regarding the Phase II Environmental Investigation Report submitted for the <br /> above-mentioned property. <br /> We discussed three issues which were identified in the Phase II <br /> Report. First, the geophysical study identified two anomalies that could be <br /> underground storage tanks located under the City's paved parking lot. It was <br /> concluded at the meeting that the County will not proceed with any action <br /> until the City confirms whether or not these tanks were properly abandoned. <br /> The City indicated that it may take up to two weeks to located the required <br /> information. <br /> Second, there were low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel <br /> detected in two of the groundwater samples. It was concluded by the County <br /> that it would take no action to investigate this low level contamination <br /> because there is no identified source of the contamination. <br /> Finally, we discussed the issue of the solvents detected in the <br /> groundwater samples. The County indicated that this is not their <br /> 76740-1 <br />