SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

t Islamic Center of Stockton 3 OCT .2 7 2009 Claim No. 18513 date of filing the claim, August 31, 2005, must be applied to determine whether-Islamic Center is eligible for a permit waiver. At the time that Islamic Center filed a claim, August-31, 2005, H&SC Section 25299.57(d)(3)(B) read, in part: All claimants who file their claim on or after January 1, 1994, and all claimants who filed their claim prior to that date but are not eligible for a waiver of the permit requirement pursuant to board regulations-in effect on the date.of.the filing of the claim, and who did not obtain or apply for any permit required by subdivision (a) of Section 25284 by January 1, 1990, shall be subject to subparagraph (A) regardless of the reason or reasons that the permit was not obtained or applied for. However, on and after January 1, 1994, the hoard may waive the provisions of subparagraph (A) as a condition for payment from the fund if the board finds all of the following: (i) The claimant was unaware of the permit requirement prior to January 1, 1990, and there was no intent to intentionally avoid the permit requirement or the fees associated with the permit.... In October 2004, the State Water Resources Control Board'(State-w-ater Board) issued an order interpreting H&SC Section 25299.57(d)(3). (!n the Matter of the Petition of Murray Kelsoe WQ 2004-0015-UST (Kelsoe Order).) In the Kelsoe Order, the State Water Board found that Mr. Kelsoe had not complied with permitting requirements because the USTs at issue had not been properly permitted at all times, beginning from when the local agency began issuing UST permits pursuant to H&SC Section 25284(a). The State Water Board also held that permit waivers authorized under H&SC Section 25299.57(d)(3)(B) may only be used to excuse permit noncompliance that occurred before January 1, 1990. Mr. Kelsoe filed a petition for writ of mandate in Alameda County Superior Court, (Superior Court) challenging the Kelsoe Order. After his petition for writ of mandate was denied by the Superior Court, Mr. Kelsoe filed an appeal with the First District Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal). . On July 20, 2007, the Court of Appeal determined that the State Water Board should have determined whether Mr. Kelsoe was entitled to a permit waiver under H&SC Section 25299.57(d)(3)(B). The Court of Appeal modified the July 20, 2007, decision on August 17, 2007. (Kelsoe v. State Water Resources Control Board(2007) 153 Cal.AppAth 569; 581 [63 Cal.Rptr.3d 156].) In its August 17, 2007, decision, the Court of Appeal limited the applicability of its ruling in the Kelsoe matter to fact patterns similar to Kelsoe (i.e., claimants whose violations began before 1990 and continued beyond January 1, 1990, but who later paid thousands of dollars into the Fund over a period of substantial compliance). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial Calk-anwa En vironmenlall°roleclton stge,7cy .n �a XecydedPaper