My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
ALPINE
>
75
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0526874
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2018 1:28:00 PM
Creation date
11/1/2018 8:32:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0526874
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0018201
FACILITY_NAME
FORMER MOBIL SERVICE STATION 99-CAS
STREET_NUMBER
75
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
ALPINE
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95204
APN
11514007
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
75 E ALPINE AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
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.
/
323
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
Ms.Barbara L. Evoy,Fund*ef • <br /> November 7,2002 <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br /> avail. Attached as Exhibit "E" is the log of attempts to reach past owners and operators of <br /> the USTs. <br /> Upon being informed that the tanks may have been located on the adjoining land, <br /> the trust hired land surveyors to determine where the property lines are and where the <br /> tanks were located. It was learned that 35 feet of the adjoining lot was used as part of the <br /> gas stations. When comparing the lot line and tank location using measurements provided, <br /> it is very possible that part of the piping for the tanks were located on the adjoining land. <br /> The County when presented with this information, not only refused to name the <br /> neighboring landowner as a possible responsible party, they would not even attempt to <br /> make a determination on their own and refused a site visit. Attached as Exhibit "F" are the <br /> maps indicating the lot line and tank locations. <br /> It is clear that the Fund provides for reimbursement for clean-up efforts of past or <br /> current owners or operators of USTs. We believe that the Trust was an equitable owner at <br /> the time the tanks were removed and therefore qualifies for reimbursement from the UST <br /> Fund. <br /> For the foregoing reasons, the Trust is appealing the decision of the Fund Manager <br /> regarding eligibility for reimbursement. A summary of the facts of the case (Facts), a <br /> statement describing how the claimant is damaged by the prior Fund Manager decision <br /> (Claimants Grievance), a description of the remedy or outcome sought (Remedy Requested), <br /> and an explanation of why claimant believes the Fund Manager's decision is erroneous, <br /> inappropriate or improper (Statement of Reasons) are as follows: <br /> FACTS <br /> In summary, the Guido Segarini Trust loaned Theresa Marler Thirty-Five Thousand <br /> Dollars ($35,000.00) in order to fund the removal of USTs on the property at 75 East Alpine <br /> Avenue, Stockton, California. The loan was secured with a deed of trust on said property. <br /> Upon removing the USTs it was determined that there was contamination on the property. <br /> Theresa Marler immediately abandoned the property and defaulted on the loan. A diligent <br /> and comprehensive search for Theresa Marler has failed to locate Ms. Marler. Mr. <br /> Segarini, as Trustee of the Trust, began foreclosure proceedings on the property. A few <br /> days before foreclosure was finalized, Mr. Segarini died. Foreclosure was completed and the <br /> Guido Segarini Trust became the owner of the property. Mr. Segarini's Trust is now being <br /> required to clean up the contaminated property. <br /> CLAIMANT'S GRIEVANCE <br /> The Fund Manager determined that the Claimant is not eligible for reimbursement <br /> from the Fund. This decision denies the Claimant the right to receive reimbursements for <br /> the cleanup of the contaminated property that it, by very unfortunate circumstances, ended <br /> up owning. It is Claimant's position that the Manager did not look at all of the facts and <br /> circumstances surrounding this case before making the determination that the Trust is <br /> ineligible for reimbursement. <br /> \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\1818-001 USS\26055.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.