Laserfiche WebLink
May 24 , 1988 <br /> Page -2- <br /> January 23 , 1987 , but the Health District did not <br /> receive notice of that fact until approximately <br /> August 18, 1987 . <br /> Thereafter, the Health District has had communi- <br /> cations , both by letter and telephone, with represen- <br /> titives of the Port of Stockton and the Bank of <br /> Stockton. <br /> Section 25281 defines "owner" as meaning the owner <br /> of an underground storage tank and an "operator" as the <br /> operator of an underground storage tank. Based upon a <br /> review of your file, there is no question but what the <br /> Health District considered Energy Petroleum, Inc. , the <br /> n <br /> ower !'of the tanks in question in 1986' and 1987 when the <br /> statements for the annual Permit were sent out . Therefore, <br /> with reference to -the fees for the 1987 Permit , the Health <br /> District can only look for payment to Energy Petroleum, ' . <br /> Inc . , or since its bankruptcy to the Bankrupt estate . i <br /> But the issue remains as to the enforcement of the <br /> provisions of the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances , <br /> subsequent to the bankruptcy of Energy Petroleum, Inc . In <br /> this connection, there is the 1988 Permit fee of $300. 00 , <br /> and the provisions o£` Section 25298 regarding the abandonment, 1 <br /> closing or temporary ceasing of operation of an underground <br /> storage tank. <br /> 1 <br /> In reviewing your file, it is not entirely clear <br /> the sequence of events after January 23 , 1987 (when Energy <br /> filed its bankruptcy petition) . In the letter from William <br /> H. Parish to Steven P. McDonald, dated July 17 , 1987 , <br /> Mr. Parish states that the Bank of Stockton "delivered <br /> the keys to the property to the representative of Port <br /> of Stockton. " I aril assuming that this occurred prior to <br /> July 17 , 1987 and that the four tanks in question were not <br /> removed prior to that occurring. This being the case, <br /> it seems apparent that the Port of Stockton took possession <br /> of not only the real property but also+ the underground <br /> storage tanks located thereon. <br /> ,Based upon the assumption that the Port of Stockton <br /> has taken possession- of the premises , it has also taken <br /> possession of the tanks . In this connection, California <br /> law (Civil Code,' Section 1019) provides as follows : <br /> "A tenant may remove from the demised premises , <br /> ,any time during the continuance of his term, anything <br /> I <br />