Laserfiche WebLink
THE KIRK LAW FIRM <br /> Ms. Lori Casias <br /> Associate Government Program Analyst <br /> State of California <br /> Water Resources Control Board <br /> Division of Clean Water Programs <br /> June 3, 1999 <br /> Page 9 <br /> McCrary, Brooke Birkie, Esq., and to any other interested persons identified by PHS/EHD or <br /> petitioner. <br /> (9) Request for Local Agengy AgencyRecord <br /> Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a copy of petitioner's May 27, 1999 letter sent to <br /> PHS/EHD requesting the preparation of the local agency record. <br /> REQUEST FOR STAY ORDER <br /> Unocal also petitions the State Board for an order staying any action based on <br /> PHS/EHD's May 4, 1999 directive, which is the subject of this Petition for Review. Unocal <br /> alleges the following in support of its petition for a stay order. <br /> 1. Substantial harm to Unocal if the stay is not granted. PHS/EHD has <br /> already referred this matter to the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office, as has been its <br /> practice in dealing with Unocal. The referral was made in spite of its knowledge of Unocal's <br /> submission of a petition for closure to the State Board. The District Attorney has promised to <br /> file an enforcement action against Unocal and is currently seeking penalties from Unocal. Unless <br /> the stay is granted, Unocal is in the position of either complying with PHS/EHD's directive, and <br /> being denied the benefit of the State Board's review of its petition for closure, or risking an <br /> enforcement action brought against it by the San Joaquin County District Attorney. This would <br /> constitute irreparable harm that cannot be alleviated by the State Board granting this Request for <br /> Review of agency action at a later date. <br /> 2. There is no substantial harm to other interested persons if the stay is <br /> granted. The Division of Clean Water Programs has concluded that "site conditions are not a <br /> threat to human health and safety, do not represent an unreasonable threat to current or <br /> anticipated beneficial use, and that further corrective action is not necessary." See Exhibit 11. <br /> For these reasons, it does not appear that there will be any harm to other interested persons if the <br /> stay is granted. <br /> 3. The local agency's action raises significant issues of law and fact. <br /> PHS/EHD's actions raise significant issues of law and fact involving a Local Oversight Agency's <br />