Laserfiche WebLink
aepternber 3 , 1992 'I � <br />� Mr. William R. Attwater, Chef Counsel '1 ;s <br /> k:-:CE IV <br />' State water Resources Control Beard i SEP 0 8 1992 <br /> P.O . Box 100 <br /> Sacramento, CA 95801 ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH <br /> PERMIT/SERVICES <br /> Dear Mr. Attwater: <br /> Please accept the following Petition for Board Review by the <br /> State Water Resources Control Board of Ithe ;Final Division <br /> Decision, Claim No . 43 . in accordance witH Mr. Scheuller' s <br /> G written instructions confirmed by phone on 'r9-3-92 , a single <br /> copy has been submitted to you for your review. If <br /> additional copies are required, we would be-happy to provide <br /> them. <br /> ( 1 ) Petitioner: Melvin & Sylvia Marlowe' i <br /> dba Marlowe Properties !! <br /> P.O. Box 150211 il " <br /> San Rafael , CA 94915-0.211 ` <br /> I <br /> ( 2 ) Division' s final decision was received :Fon 8-8-92 . <br /> l 1 <br /> ( 3 ) The Board is requested to review the D vision' s denial of } <br /> Petitioner' s request that they be placed in Priority <br /> Class B instead of Class C. I� <br /> ( 4 ) A statement follows which expla.ins �whyJthe Division' s <br /> decision was inappropriate animplF'o_per. <br /> d I� <br /> ( 5i The Petitioner is aggrieved because -he 'ihas been <br /> incorrectly placed in a lower Prioxityl�Class than that to <br /> which he is entitled, thereby denying him timely <br /> access to the UST Cleanup Fund Program. ��monies , <br /> which are needed to effect cleanuplEoperations as <br /> requested by the County _oafman--Joaquin - <br /> . - <br /> ( 6 ) The Petitioner asks that the Board re-Classify him from <br /> Priority Class C to Priority Classl1b. <br /> I <br /> ( 7 ) Copies of the Staff and Division final .decisions are <br /> attached for your review; as well es beth of our intial <br /> appeals which are incorporated herein as part of this <br /> appeal to the Board ( see Exhibits A through F ) . <br /> We have in good faith filed two prior appeals in which we <br /> have clearly and in some detail outlined our objec:ti,_ins to <br /> ' the Fund ' s procedures and administrative decisions . We have <br /> raised substantive objections and believe that they have n,Dt <br /> received a fair and thorough review. We are therefore <br /> dismayed at their continued circumvention and avoidance of <br /> the very pointed issues that w4 are raising _ <br />