My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LINCOLN
>
1426
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0527611
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/4/2020 1:58:18 PM
Creation date
3/4/2020 1:40:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0527611
PE
2957
FACILITY_ID
FA0018709
FACILITY_NAME
FORMER DOLLY MADISON
STREET_NUMBER
1426
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
LINCOLN
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
16503010
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1426 S LINCOLN ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
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.
/
308
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
James L.L. Barton. P.G. <br /> April 13. 2007 <br /> Page 2 of 14 <br /> Interstate Brands Corporation, removed the UST. The State should <br /> look to Interstate Brands Corporation for any response action the State <br /> deems necessary. <br /> 2. Interstate Brands Corporation never shared with my client any <br /> information from its 45 years of tenancy about the installation of the <br /> UST. its use. or its response activities. My client was entitled to rely <br /> on the fact that Interstate Brands Corporation. which had created the <br /> contamination, investigated and responded to any resulting nuisance <br /> until five years after my client sold the property. <br /> 3. My client took due care during all times during her ownership with <br /> regard to any contamination of which she knew might have been on <br /> the property during her ownership. <br /> 4. My client is not a responsible party under the Porter-Cologne Act. <br /> because any contamination was only passively migrating and she <br /> never created or assisted in creating any nuisance on the property nor <br /> did she ever cause or permit (or threaten to cause or permit) waste to <br /> be discharged where such waste threatened to create pollution or a <br /> nuisance. <br /> 5. Whatever the law may have been some years ago, it is clear that the <br /> federal court in California, and the California courts. would regard my <br /> client as a "passive intervening owner" who was never directly <br /> involved with any"discharge" and whose actions were never a <br /> "substantial factor in causing'a discharge. <br /> 6. The County and the Regional Board failed to file claims in the <br /> bankruptcy case of Interstate Brands Corporation and so aggravated <br /> whatever neglect or lapse in information that is causing the Regional <br /> Board to seek to impose a cleanup order. <br /> 1. My client inherited the property in 1989, after the long-tine tenant, Interstate <br /> Brands Corporation, removed the UST. The State should look to Interstate <br /> Brands for any response action the State deents necessary. <br /> As you know, my client has not owned this property since 1999. And. as you <br /> told me. the current owner. Mr. Timothy Kong, has not responded in writing to your <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.