My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WORK PLANS
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MINER
>
601
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506054
>
WORK PLANS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2026 1:49:40 PM
Creation date
3/13/2026 1:27:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
WORK PLANS
RECORD_ID
PR0506054
PE
2960 - RWQCB LEAD AGENCY CLEAN UP SITE
FACILITY_ID
FA0007173
FACILITY_NAME
FORMER VINTAGE CARWASH (VACANT LOT)
STREET_NUMBER
601
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
MINER
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95202
APN
13931025
CURRENT_STATUS
Active, billable
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Supplemental fields
Site Address
601 E MINER AVE STOCKTON 95202
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
269
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br /> am ano, Sr. MAY 2 0 1"S <br /> Clai No . <br /> Final Division Decision <br /> Page 6 <br /> parties fight over who the contamination "belongs* t This is <br /> not considered a valid excuse top postpone or prolong cleanup . <br /> Section 25299 . 7 <br /> of the Health and Safety Code authorizes local <br /> agencies to a directives for the purpose of cleanup, <br /> including naming a responsible party who m h comply with those <br /> directives . If the responsible party does ro Comply with <br /> directives, they a a <br /> violation of state law Before his <br /> death, Giambanco had many opportunities to the <br /> deficiencies hat instead chose t ignore theodectives and <br /> violate state law. We believe that legislative in provide support t those individuals who complied with state laws, to the extent they were able, in meeting the permit and <br /> corrective action requirements . <br /> casesIn e of passive acquisition, we have allowed the recipient to acquire the eligibility of the deceased. In this c however, <br /> it is the ineligibility. u assert a <br /> that the " of <br /> iambanco has proceeded with thecleanup since his death. For <br /> purposes of eligibility, Besider the person <br /> and his estate <br /> be o and the s o do otherwise would e <br /> e the estate <br /> to <br /> be considered a separate claimant and the estate Would have to <br /> file a separate claim . Even if we did not have this policy, the <br /> estate would be ineligible because the former owner (Giambanco) <br /> is ineligible; and likewise Giambanco is ineligible because of <br /> Shaughnessy. <br /> Because both Shaughnessy and Giambanco were out <br /> of compliance <br /> with permit requirements and Giambanco w of compliance with <br /> action directives , I mustuphold the final staff <br /> decision Vto reject the claim. <br /> It should be pointed cut that if Giambanco i ssful in his <br /> efforts t rescind the purchase agreement , he will n t have owned <br /> the tanks , and therefore would not be an eligible claimant . <br /> If you are not <br /> agreement with this final Division decision, <br /> you may filea petition for review <br /> w by the State <br /> Water Resources <br /> Control <br /> Board within thirty (301calendar days fromthedate cof <br /> receipt of this letter as provided for in Article 5 of the <br /> Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Regulations , <br /> Title 23 , Division <br /> Chapter 1 of the California Code of <br /> Regulations datedDecember 2 , 1991 . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.