Laserfiche WebLink
/Iea fs, Senior REHS <br /> :1. uin County <br /> Puohc t_earth Services <br /> l rivironmental Health Uv%shin <br /> dune 5 1995 <br /> Page Two <br /> If Sp nos had beer► Operators it� wind have been the licensee��die f c��ty. I c���ver,I have <br /> tie <br /> not found any evidence that anyone other than the Count'Airport held a license for the fac,lity: <br /> What Notices are l�,.egaily Required'. You state that no legal xtotxces ate retlu red to. <br /> establi lea Spanos as a I espansib a Party and involve it in the clean-up. However; H.& S code. <br /> 252 9.37(c seem to require the issuance of an order and subsection d , following, esTlishes <br /> r ht:of appeal. It is a basil legal premise that administrative actions ret mare proc0... die <br /> process,which must include adequate notice, opportunity to be heard and riiits of appeal.: <br /> Spanos should have be opportunity to contest all of the claims acid assertions of the <br /> l�l�S.I-HID, includiz that it is :a "Responsible Warty" and that an "Unauthorized Dischar e" <br /> occurred during a tiriie A might be held to be a Responsible party. <br /> 3. Are There Applicable Statutes cr Limitation? There are alm st always statutes of <br /> l=itation which apply to the enforcement of obligations. See. for instance, CCP Sections , <br /> 3 S.l and 34a. It is true that statutes of limitation are not applied to continuing nuisance cases, <br /> but those actions can only be brought against the landowner. <br /> For 1hese. and other reasons,your responses are not adequate. I suggest that you refer the natter <br /> to County Counsel for a legal analysis. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> William E. Barbour <br /> Corporate Counsel <br /> twcan <br /> cc: Steve Cohen <br /> Rich Wilson <br /> Ilan.DeA.ngclis <br /> l�fichael Mcorew <br />