Laserfiche WebLink
Fk. j ill' R {,�E <br /> E,C,,.,E I ��"^ <br /> " August 31, 1992 . <br /> S E P 0 2 1992 <br /> Mary Meays, EHS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH <br /> { Environmental Health Division � PERMIT/SERVIC0 <br /> 4 Public Health Services k „� <br /> San Joaquin Countyp <br /> P.O. Box 20019 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> RE: SITE .CODE #1828 <br /> Dear Ms. Meays : <br /> I <br /> .Fere your instructions, T am writing to request an <br /> extension,.of,,the;,September.,lst.,dr.illing-timetable for; <br /> the subject site until such time as w I e ar'e able to <br /> access the needed funds from the Underground Storage <br />'t Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) . We have 'been ''involved <br /> i since April in a series of ongoing appeals to the <br /> State Water Resources Control Board. IVWe ;are strongly <br /> convinced that they have been seriously remiss in <br /> their procedures and determinations . if Ini:;'tially they <br /> placed us in Priority Class D, then moved us to <br /> Priority Class C upon appeal , but de8line'd to move us <br /> into Priority Class B where we firmly believe we <br /> E belong. This week we are completing ,ltour ',final appeal <br /> to the full Board at which time we hope to be able to <br /> present our appeal in person. The issues , while not <br /> complex, are subtle and require the TJSTCF� tocstudy and <br /> treat our application individually rather than . . . <br /> ;without fully grasping our reasoning... . to shunt us <br /> into a pre-existing category. Hopefully,6a face to <br /> face discussion will accomplish thisjindividualized <br /> evaluation of our situation. So that youmight be <br /> fully apprised of the issues we are confronting and <br /> the specifics of our appeal as well a's the USTCF' s <br /> responses to date, I have enclosed c©pies' under <br /> separate,.cover ,of. all related correspondence. Next:,._. <br /> week, I will also send you a copy of lour (final appeal . <br /> We are in need of a further extension of ;your request <br /> that we initiate clean-up efforts on <br /> i,'aur property, in <br /> that we do not have the funds available to undertake <br /> such an expensive and open-ended prof<ect. As our <br /> appeal outlines , we are a small business with <br /> declining revenues in this recessioniand 'cannot afford <br /> a project of this magnitude. As youknow we have over <br /> a 25% vacancy rate at the Waterloo sitewith our lead <br /> buildings immediately adjacent to the clean up site <br /> i <br /> having been vacant for over a year and a half. While <br /> our gross revenues may sound impressive, `the reality <br /> of our business is that large mortgages , maintanence <br /> and -repair costs coupled with extraordinary vacancy <br /> rates in the past few years have left us with little <br /> i <br />