Laserfiche WebLink
V <br /> NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE . . , <br /> �C A PxoFmioNAL COaP mmol•A mRNm&CouNsEwRs '` FsrABusHm 1903 <br /> A 10 36 <br /> 77153-22483 <br /> BROOKE K. BiRmE <br /> Please respond to. <br /> Stockton Office <br /> STOCKTON OFFICE: <br /> 509 WEST WEBER AvEmuE <br /> STOCKTON,CA 95203-3166 <br /> POST OFFICE$OX 20 <br /> STOCKTON,CA 95201.3020 January 11, 1996 <br /> (209)948-8200 <br /> (209)948-4910 FAX <br /> MODESTO OFFICE: <br /> 611 THIRTEENTH STREET Ms. Diane M. Hinson, REHS Supervisor <br /> MODESTO,CA 95354 <br /> (209)577-8200 San Joaquin County Public Health Services <br /> (209)577-4910 FAX Environmental Health Division <br /> Site Mitigation Unit <br /> Post Office Box 388 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201-0388 <br /> Re: Stockton Savings/The Warehouse <br /> Dear Ms. Hinson: <br /> We are in receipt of your letter dated, January 22, 1996 . <br /> We were most disappointed with the tone and the inference <br /> that the consultant, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, had <br /> conducted field work without informing your office or <br /> receiving its approval as suggested in the second <br /> paragraph of the letter. Although we never expected a <br /> letter stating that the site was clean and would never <br /> require regulatory oversite in the future, the inclusion <br /> of the second paragraph in your letter infers that the <br /> work conducted was outside of the scope of your office's <br /> consent. That is not true. <br /> To the contrary, the workplan dated October 24, 1995, was <br /> submitted to your office for approval; soil boring permits <br /> were obtained on November 2, 1995, and Kenneth ( "Keg" ) <br /> Alexander of Kennedy/Jenks spoke with Ms. Turkatte, just <br /> days after receiving the boring permits to determine if <br /> staff would be present during grouting activities. During <br /> this conversation Ms. Turkatte stated that because <br /> monitoring wells were not being installed that it was not <br /> necessary for her to be on site. <br /> The letter you sent has significant ramifications. The <br /> Warehouse property is real estate owned by Stockton <br /> Savings. This not a piece of property onto which the <br /> Banks intends to hold. The Bank lost the last offer which <br /> was in excess of two million dollars, due to fear <br /> associated with assuming an environmental liability. The <br /> whole purpose of the investigation was to quantify and <br /> 51549-1 <br />