Laserfiche WebLink
PAGE TWO - AG & SRCB <br />ON 27 MARCH, 2001, BY CERTIFIED MAIL, MY CLIENT, MR. SINGH <br />DID, IN FACT, NOTIFY MR. WILSON, SUPERVISOR OF THE SAN JOAQUIN <br />COUNTY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TANK UNIT NOT.': ONLY OF THE EXISTENCE <br />OF THE TANK BUT THAT HE WAS ALREADY OBTAINING BIDS FOR THE REMOVAL <br />OF THIS TANK (ENCLOSURE ONE). OUR FIRM WAS SELECTED AS THE TANK <br />REMOVAL FIRM BY COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND WE SUBMITTED OUR TANK <br />REMOAVL APPLICATION PERMIT IN A TIMELY FASHION WITH FEES ON 30 <br />MARCH, 2001 (ENCLOSURE TWO). ON 20 APRIL, 2001, I WAS CONTACTED <br />BY THE ASSIGNED INSPECTOR TO THE SITE BY SAN JAOQUIN COUNTY <br />ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION, ONE LETITIA BRIGGS. MRS. BRIGGS <br />CALLED AND INDICATED THAT SHE AND HER DEPARTMENT WERE UNABLE TO <br />SECURE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SITE FROM THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE <br />AND ALSO REQUESTED FURTHER SUPPORTING DATA FROM THE PHASE I, PHASE <br />II REPORT. I THEN FAXED MRS. BRIGGS TWENTY-TWO (22) PAGES OF DATA <br />WHICH SHE THEIR WORK R(OSEESENDEAVOREDTED AND TASSIST COUNTY <br />ENCLOSURE THREE). IWASTHEN INFORMED INITIALLY, <br />BY MRS. BRIGGS, THAT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE ANSWERS WHICH <br />I HAD PROVIDED RELATIVE TO THE TANK REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION. <br />HEREIN LIES THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER. INITIALLY, MY CLIENT, MR. <br />SINGH, RESPONDED TO MRS. BRIGGS COMMENTS BY SENDING A LETTER TO <br />THE TANK DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR, MR. WILSON (SEE ENCLOSURE FOUR). <br />ON 15 MAY, 2001, MRS. BRIGGS SENT A LETTER TO MR. SINGH AND COPIED <br />OUR FIRM (ENCLOSURE EIVE). I RESPONDED TO MRS. BRIGG'S LETTER OF <br />15 MAY WITH OUR LETTER OF 22 MAY (ENCLOSURE SIX). MR. WILSON, THE <br />TANK SUPERVISOR OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAS <br />NOW RESPONDED TO MF LETTER WITH HIS 07 JUNE, 2001 LETTER (ENCLOSURE <br />SEVEN). <br />IT IS A SAD AND DEPLORABLE STATE HERE IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY WITH <br />THE SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE (GOVERNMENT) TAKING SUCH A ADVERSERIAL <br />POSITION, BEING SO ABSOLUTELY UNACCOUNTABLE AND DUCKING ANSWERS <br />TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. THEIR ATTITUDE IS EXTREMELY DISCRIMINATORY, <br />THIS COUNTY HAS NO WRITTEN POLICY AND CHANGES DIRECTIONS MORE <br />FREQUENTLY THAN THE WIND. THEY ARE CHARGED WITH PROTECTING THE <br />ENVIRONMENT' AND HAVE AN HONORABLE BUSINESS MAN WHO IS ACTING TO <br />HIS FINANCIAL DETRIMENT TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. THEY HAVE <br />DECIDED THEY WILL DO ALL IN THEIR POWER TO COST THIS POOR MAN ALL <br />THE ADDITIONAL MONEY THEY CAN, FORCE EVERYONE TO FILL OUT THEIR <br />BUREAUCRATIC FORMS AND JUST ORDER EVERYONE TO OBEY THE KING. THEY <br />COULD CARE LESS WHAT IS LEGAL, JUST OR EQUITABLE. <br />THIS ENTIRE ISSUE RESTS ON TWO QUESTIONS AS OUTLINED IN MY LETTE <br />TO MRS. BRIGGS ON 22 MAY, 2001. SEE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY APPLICATION <br />FOR PERMIT TO CLOSE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ET.AL. (ENCLOSURE <br />SEVEN), PAGE FIVE, 11 B. THE QUESTION IS ASKED, "WHAT WILL BE <br />THE FINAL DESTINATION OF THE EXCAVATED STOCKPILE?". THE QUESTION <br />WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. NOT LIKING THE <br />ANSWER. IS NO BASIS FOR REJECTION. AS WAS EXPLAINED IN THE 22 MAY, <br />2001 LETTER TO MRS. BRIGGS, THE QUESTION CANNOT BE ANSWERED. HOW <br />CAN ONE KNOW WHAT THE FINAL DESTINATION WILL BE IF ONE DOES NOT <br />EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CONTAMINATION ACTUALLY IS, WHAT THE LEVELS OF <br />CONTAMINATION ARE AND PERHAPS THE FINAL DESTINATION WILL BE BACK <br />IN THE EXCAVATION. IT IS SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THAT THE PERSON WHO <br />ASKED THIS QUESTION OR DESIGNED THE FORM HAS NO KNOWLEDGE AND <br />CERTAINLY NOT AN OUNCE OF EXPERIENCE RELATIVE TO REMOVING TANKS <br />