SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Regarding Mr. Ralston's most informative report, I wish to reassure you that I am not questioning the thoroughness of the actual site works project, nor the ability of Mittlehauser's geologist in analysing soil samples. I am, however, concerned about the scope of the initial preliminary investigation and the preceived impact of its limited nature in any way affecting the overall quality and accuracy of the total site remediation. This matter will be decided at the December 14th meeting with the SJCPHS and RWQCB. i Mr. Ralston is, however, somewhat contradictory in his conclusion, "we stand by our (Unocal's) previous position. This site has been fully remediated." I presume he is referencing his CERT Sales Release letter, which mentions the site as "remediated partially" and able to be "sold with restrictions I mention , that at this time Unocal has only obtained SOILS closure.... a deficiency correctly identified by Mr. Ralston, when he describes the site as " remediately partially". Restrictions to sale were never discussed , and are not included in the lease. More accurate is Mr, Ralston's assertion, "she (Ms Deutsch) should be informed that Unocal plans to move expeditiously to obtain the final approval of San Joaquin County and RWQCB to remove the monitoring wells from her property. That approval, when granted, should provide potential developers or lenders with compelling documentation of the completeness of the remediation." It is interesting that Unocal's Project Professional, Mr. Ralston, clearly identifies the relationship of the completion of remediation to the required final approvals from the aforementioned- government bodies. I am still at a loss to understand why your leasing department fails to grasp the obvious fact that this site is stillbeing remediated and will continue to be so, until suitably signed off! Hence, Unocal still owes rent!!!. 4 I reference your statement..." Mr.:Ralston will be requesting closure from CSWRCB and approval for removal of well MW3A. The presence of MW3A will not be an impairment to your site development as it.will either be demolished or relocated to a non-intrusive area should there be a need." There is such a need , and to this end, we will require that monitoring well MW3A be relocated now to a less intrusive location, so as not to impede our development plans. This position, you will note, is consistent with not only-para.I of the referenced lease quote, but is in line with Mr. Ralston's stated goal of removing the monitoring wells from the property, as well, as your above quoted statement. This well is to be relocate with SPCPHS approval and at Unocal's expense. This "new construction" is just further instance of the incomplete nature of your site mitigation and ongoing obligation for continued lease payments. Please note, should Mr. Ralston be successful) in obtaining fully signed-off closures and SJCPHS agrees to the relocation of MW3A, ( in other words, a post fully-remediate site monitoring program is established)----Unocal is still liable for ongoing lease.payments until such time as MW3A is physically moved and . E the closure documentation has been presented and accepted by Lessor: In closing, two other matters need further attention. The first is a barely legible site map from Canfield Construction. This map should have elevations and detailed dimensions of all stubbed-out utilities, suitably referenced to a Datum Point on the city curb or sidewalk. Second, I still do not have City of Tracy sign-offs on curbs, streets and sidewalks. r. I�