Laserfiche WebLink
November 23, 1994 <br /> Kathleen Gayner Deutsch <br /> 13655 Dunbar Road <br /> Dundee, Mi.- 48131 <br /> 313-529-5116 <br /> fit <br /> Mr, Ronald Senner ` <br /> Unocal Real Estate Division C � <br /> Unocal Corporation _ <br /> 2000 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 440 <br /> P.O. Box 5155 -x <br /> San Ramon, CA. 94583 _... <br /> ry <br /> 00 —� <br /> Re: Site Remediation Unocal SS# 6348, Tracy, CA, <br /> Dear Mr. Senner, <br /> I refer to my letter of October 24, 1994 regarding the status of the closure of the above <br /> station and, in accordance with preliminary consultation with legal counsel, wish to make <br /> the following quite clear. <br /> Nfitigation vs Monitoring <br /> I wish to draw your attention to the binding provisions of our last lease modification with <br /> regard to the mitigation process. You have clearly failed to produce the required sign-offs <br /> from the necessary governmental authorities to justify your claim for cessation of lease <br /> payments. <br /> The permit Unocal obtained for remediation purposes was with the E.P.A. regulated <br /> California State Water Resources Control Board ( CSWRCB);the final authority in the <br /> mitigation process. The San Joaquin County Public Health Services(SJCPHS) is merely a <br /> sub-agency regulating the monitoring process for the CSWRCB. A recent conversation <br /> with the SJCPHS reveals that this mitigation process is far from complete, the site far <br /> from pristine and at least a year away from a recommendation being sent to the CSWRCB <br /> that mitigation be regarded as complete. A partial soils clearance does not constitute a <br /> waiver of the binding obligation of the current lease modification; which clearly does not <br /> allow you to discontinue rental payments under the guise of monitoring the ongoing <br /> mitigation process. <br /> Limited Geological Inyestigation <br /> As outlined in my previous correspondence, I am questioning the accuracy of your <br /> geological investigation. The scope of the study has clearly omitted examination of the <br /> rear part of the property; eventhough the area of the highest underground pollution was <br /> located in a down-gradient position, some fiveteen feet from this imagininary property <br />