Laserfiche WebLink
04/28/00 00:36 ECON DEV DIV 94640138 NO.614 "�Q <br /> Mr. Robert Seville <br /> Re: North ShorptgoUth obore Development Areas <br /> February 15, 2000 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 4. specific forms and procedures would be created <br /> specifically for designated brownfield sites and could <br /> be reused for other sites; <br /> 5. The brownfields response unit as a whole would meet <br /> with the public entity to troubleshoot all anticipated <br /> scenarios at the initiation of the project; and <br /> 6. The brownfields response unit would be available on a <br /> statewide basis. <br /> The fallowing limitations would be placed on the brownfield$ <br /> response unit pilot project: <br /> 1. Sites. could not include schools or daycare centers; <br /> 2. The program would initially be limited to 30 sites; <br /> 3. The program would be limited to sites whose application <br /> is endorsed by a redevelopment agency, a city, a <br /> county, or another appropriate public entity; and <br /> 4. The program would be voluntary. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> We believe a team approach to brownfields could be most helpful. <br /> Public entities which wish to redevelop a site have been <br /> frustrated by the cost of inventing the wheel at each site. <br /> Even more of a concern at the Stockton sites has been a lack of <br /> consai:cuz nett: =teff at Ca'_EPA. Far example, the Pol:nco Act <br /> oversightsAgreementand associated documents are far from <br /> uniform. Toxicologist and geologists have expressed concerns not <br /> anticipated by DTSC site managers. Coordination between DISC, <br /> the County and the Water Board has been strictly on an ad hoc <br /> basis. If the State of California wishes to address brownfields <br /> in the best passible manner, a unified approach by a group of <br /> dedicated and interested CalEPA professionals will be the key. <br />