Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br /> Celeste Cantu -2 - April 7,2004 <br /> On March 29, petitioner submitted a petition to the State Board challenging the County's failure <br /> to name Turnpike as a responsible party. In her petition,petitioner requested that the SWRCB <br /> stay the County's directive to submit a workplan. <br /> ISSUE <br /> Is petitioner entitled to a stay of the County's directive to submit a workplan? <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> No. <br /> Applicable SWRCB policy provides that a stay will be denied unless the petitioner alleges facts <br /> and produces proof of all of the following: <br /> "(i) Substantial harm to petitioner or to the public interest if a stay is not granted; <br /> "(ii) A lack of substantial harm to other interested persons and or [sic] to the public interest <br /> if a stay is granted; <br /> "(iii) Substantial questions of fact or law regarding the action or decision of the local <br /> agency." (SWRCB Resolution 88-23, Adoption of the Policy Regarding the Underground <br /> Storage Tank Pilot Program, Attachment 2, section(5)(B).) <br /> Petitioner contends that all of these elements exist and that a stay should be granted. However, <br /> petitioner provides no evidentiary support for her contention, other than her declaration <br /> proclaiming that elements (ii) and(iii) exist, and that, with respect to element(i), "unless a stay <br /> is granted, [she] will be forced to unilaterally pay for and submit a workplan that [she], in good <br /> faith,believe[s] should be the responsibility, or shared responsibility, of the aforementioned <br /> responsible parties that the(County)has failed and refused to name." Petitioner did not provide <br /> the estimated cost to prepare the workplan and has not submitted an analysis as to whether such <br /> cost would be reimbursable from the S WRCB's UST Cleanup Fund. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> Petitioner's broad and unsupported allegations do not meet the requirements of alleging facts and <br /> producing proof of substantial harm to petitioner or to the public interest if a stay is not granted. <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> Since petitioner has failed to meet the first prong of the test for the issuance of a stay, it is <br /> unnecessary to determine whether the second and third criteria for a stay have also been met. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> Q'* Recycled Paper <br />