Laserfiche WebLink
Islamic Center Of Stockton -3- FEES 1 <br /> Claim No. 18513 <br /> permit requirement pursuant to board.regulations in effect on the date of the filing <br /> of the claim, and who did not obtain or apply for any permit required by <br /> -subdivision (a) of Section 25284 by January 1, 1990, shall be subject to <br /> subparagraph (A) regardless of the reason or reasons that the permit was not <br /> obtained or applied for. However, on and after January 1, 1994, the board may <br /> waive the provisions of subparagraph (A) as a condition for payment from the <br /> fund if the board finds all of the following: <br /> (i) The claimant was unaware of the permit requirement prior to <br /> January 1, 1990, and there was no intent to intentionally avoid the <br /> permit requirement or the fees associated with the'permit.... <br /> In October 2004, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) issued <br /> an order interpreting H&SC Section 25299.57(d)(3). (in the Matter of the Petition of <br /> Murray Kelsoe WQ 2004-0015-UST (Kelsoe Order).) In the Kelsoe Order, the State <br /> Water Board found that Mr. Kelsoe had not complied with permitting requirements , <br /> because the USTs at issue had not been properly permitted at all times, beginning from <br /> when the local agency began issuing UST permits pursuant to H&SC Section 25284(x). <br /> The State Water Board also held that permit waivers authorized under H&SC . <br /> Section 25299.57(d)(3)(B) may only be used to excuse permit non-compliance that <br /> occurred before January 1, 1990. <br /> Mr. Kelsoe filed a petition for writ of mandate in Alameda County Superior Court <br /> (Superior Court) challenging the Kelsoe Order. After his petition,for writ of mandate was ' <br /> denied by the Superior Court, Mr. Kelsoe filed an appeal with the First District Court of + <br /> Appeal (Court of Appeal). On July 20, 2007, the Court of Appeal determined that the <br /> State Water Board should have determined whether Mr. Kelsoe was entitled to a permit <br /> waiver under H&SC Section 25299.57(d)(3)(B). The Court of Appeal modified the <br /> July 20, 2007, decision on August 17, 2007. (Kelsoe v. State Water Resources Control <br /> 2007 153 Cal.A .4th 569, 581' Rptr.3d 156].) In its August 17, 2007,[63 Cal. ; <br /> Board Pp <br /> decision, the Court of Appeal limited the applicability of its ruling m the Kelsoe matter to <br /> fact patterns similar to Kelsoe (i.e., claimants whose violations began before 1990 and <br /> ih continued beyond January 1, 1990; but who later,paid thousands of dollars into the <br /> Fund over a period of substantial compliance). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial <br /> court decision and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of determining whether <br /> Mr. Kelsoe satisfies the requirements for a permit waiver. <br /> Following the modification of the Court of Appeal decision on August 17, 2007, the <br /> Superior Court directed the State Water Board to vacate its Kelsoe Order for the limited <br /> purpose of determining whether Mr. Kelsoe satisfies the requirements for a permit <br /> waiver. The Superior Court directed that this determination be made in a manner <br /> consistent with the holding of the Court of Appeal. In all other respects, the Superior <br /> i Court denied Mr. Kelsoe's petition for writ of mandate. <br /> Calijol-ma F7 rronmenfalProle&ionflgency <br /> 1� ��}Recycled Paper <br /> i <br />