Laserfiche WebLink
�c v •or�xerax Te l ecapier %20 ;�"W 7-92 3;05P 1 <br /> :# 3 <br /> l <br /> I <br /> Ms. Donna Sehimeck <br /> August 1, 1992 <br /> Page 2 <br /> June 1990. At that time, petroleum-related contamination was discovered in <br /> the soil. Since that time, New West has endeavored tohcooperate with San <br /> Joaquin County and otter authorities in investigation and remediation of the <br /> site. <br /> From the early 1960's when the gasoline service station was <br /> established until prior to American Savings' foreclasu=e, only two parties <br /> owned and/or operated the facility: Mr. and Mxs. :jConrady from the early <br /> 1960's until 1981 (Mr. Conrady died in February, <br /> Smith <br /> Neither American Savings nor New West ever operated7th�and stat.ion -Burtan. <br /> x <br /> 2. Res onaible Part St <br /> tug <br /> r� <br /> Up to now, San Joaquin County has designs+ted riot only Now West but <br /> also Mrs. Conrady (as well as Smith Burton) as responsible parties for <br /> � <br /> oversight costs. To our knowledge, all payments hhve been made in full. <br /> two owners and o erators of the 1 Thi <br /> F gasoline station wore Mr. and Mrs. Conrady and <br /> Smith Burton. Any and all unauthorized releasee must have occurred during <br /> their tenures. <br /> Title 23, California Code of Regulations' lSectiIion 2830, Additional <br /> Definitions regarding Corrective Action Requirements Applicable to Underground <br /> Storage Tanks, to which you referred in our conversation, provides in <br /> pertinent part as follows: <br /> "Responsible party„ means "(4) any person who had or has control <br /> aver an underground storage tank at the time of or following an <br /> unauthorized release of hatardo.us substances." <br /> Only two such persons under this prong of the defitaition are responsible <br /> parties: Mrs. Marjorie Conrady who owned and/or ogeratkd the gasoline station <br /> from the early 1960's through 1981 and Smith-Burton, which purchased the <br /> property in 1981 and operated the station until they abandoned it. <br /> i <br /> Under the recent case of Zands v. Nelson yet al�. (1992 Daily Journal <br /> D.A.R. 1, June 25, 1992, which 1 sent you by facsimile o'n August 4), where a <br /> current owner could not have been responsible for the unauthorized release, <br /> then the burden shifts to past owners and operator; to prove their <br /> non-responsibility. For substantive purposes, the ifacts� in Zands vs.Nelson <br /> are identical to our situation. In Zands defendant; owners andlor operators <br /> began use of the subject property as as gasoline service r tation in 1972 <br /> through the late 1970'x. Plaintiff Zands purchased, the property in December, <br /> 1980 after the underground storage tanks were no longer lin use. Zands <br /> discovered $oil and groundwater contamination in 1987 when the tanks were <br />• removed. The court relies-on the landmark Calsforn.iA_St reme Court case of -----�. <br /> Summers vs;.. Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80 (1948) in ruling that to � relieved_af . --F;.. :. . . <br /> responsibility for contamination in these facru�al circ"stances* each prior <br /> eW?i kf'/ate catoj muAtIndividua31y prove that no contamina"� fon occurred while <br /> -`that party owned or operated the property. <br /> I <br /> i <br />