The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003 11-10 EDAP EDA MEETING City of Brooklyn Center • November 10, 2003 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes - Commissioners not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. I. September 22, 2003 - Regular Session 4. Commission Consideration Item a. Resolution Authorizing Submission of an Application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund • -Requested Commission Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. 5. Adjournment • • EDA Agenda Item No. 3a • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 WEST FIRE STATION 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Regular Session and was called to order at 8:37 p.m. by President Myrna Kragness. 2. ROLL CALL President Myrna Kragness, Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe. Also present: Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. • 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA A motion by Commissioner Carmody, seconded by Commissioner Lasman to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. 3a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion by Commissioner Carmody, seconded by Commissioner Lasman to approve the September 8, 2003, regular session minutes. Commissioner Carmody abstained. Motion passed. 4. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS 4a. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SALE OF CERTAIN EDA OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5900 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH AND 5912 CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH IN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.012, SUBDIVISION 7 AND SECTION 469.029 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE SALE OF THE EDA OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5900 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH AND 5912 CAMDEN • AVENUE NORTH 09/22/03 -1- DRAFT Assistant City Manager /Director of Operations Curt Boganey discussed that staff had reviewed the • proposals and all necessary documents for the properties at 5900 Emerson Avenue North and 5912 Camden Avenue North. It is recommended that the EDA approve the resolution regarding the sale of both properties. A motion by Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Commissioner Niesen to continue the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the EDA. A motion by Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -09 Commissioner Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE SALE OF THE EDA OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5900 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH AND 5912 CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 4b. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED BUSINESS SUBSIDY FOR GLOBAL HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTIES PROJECT - RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION (GLOBAL HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTIES PROJECT) Mr. Boganey discussed that this resolution would approve a business subsidy and development agreement for the Global Hennepin County Properties project at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Community Development Director Brad Hoffman discussed the project and informed that the public hearing would be held to consider a subsidy in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) up to $300,000 to help with the soil remediation. A resolution is proposed to approve a business subsidy and authorizing a development agreement. Councilmember Niesen inquired what the risks would be to the City and why it is proposed to pay up front instead of pay as you go. Mr. Hoffman discussed that the risk associated with the project would be the decision to proceed with paying up front. The money would not be provided until they fulfill all requirements. . 09/22/03 -2- DRAFT • A motion by Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the EDA. A motion by Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-08 Commissioner Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION (GLOBAL HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTIES PROJECT) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b Commissioner Pe g g Y Y Pp e. Motion passed unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Commissioner Peppe, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to adjourn the meeting at • 8:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. President • 09/22/03 -3- DRAFT • EDA Agenda Item No. 4a • Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND WHEREAS, an application requesting grant funds from the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund has been prepared for submission by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used for a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the Hmong American Shopping Center located in Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the EDA in and for the City of Brooklyn Center that the Environmental Response Fund application is hereby authorized for submission to the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services. • Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager / FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist DATE: November 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Submission of an Application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Earlier this year, the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services provided funding to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on the Hmong American Shopping Center, which has been identified as a potential redevelopment site. The Phase I study was funded entirely by Hennepin County's Suburban Brownfield Assessment program and was completed in April 2003. The Phase I environmental study noted several environmental conditions, most of which were relatively routine, but it also noted the following areas of concern: • Two closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites associated with former gasoline stations exist on the southern portion of the property. Both sites were closed with residual soil and groundwater contamination. • One drycleaner formerly located in the northern portion of the site. Solvents are often associated with drycleaners and may have impacted soil and/or groundwater if improperly disposed. In order to assess the extent and severity of the suspected contamination, if any exists at the site, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would have to be conducted. A Phase II study involves physical investigation of the site including soil borings and analysis and examination of ground water through the drilling of monitor wells. For the past several months, staff has been working with the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services to secure funding for a Phase II environmental assessment. The County's Bronwfield Assessment Grant program, funded by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was identified as a source of funding to conduct a Phase II on the site. Unfortunately, expenditure of funds on other projects in the County depleted the EPA funds so that the Phase II could not be funded exclusively with this program. Hennepin County indicated to staff that the Phase II could possibly be funded with a combination of funds from the Environmental Response Fund, a competitive grant program offered by Hennepin County, and the EPA Brownfield's Assessment Fund. With less than a week to submit the Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grant application after county notification, staff prepared and submitted the application to Hennepin County by the November 1, 2003 deadline. The total estimated cost of the Phase II assessment is $53,428. The ERF application is for $37.000 with the remaining $16,428 coming from the EPA Brownfield • Assessment program. No matching funds are required by the EDA or the City. The resolution before the EDA would provide authorization for the ERF grant application to Hennepin County. A copy of the ERF grant application is included with this memorandum. As required by Hennepin County, a companion City Council Resolution (included in the City Council agenda packet) must also be approved and submitted to Hennepin County. • Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Cover Page Applicant: Brooklvn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) Address: 6301 Shinele Creek Parkway. Brooklvn Center. MN 55430 Phone: 763 -569 -3300 Fax: 763 -569 -3360 E -mail: Municipality: Citv of Brooklvn Center Project Contact Person: Tom Bublitz Phone: 763 -569 -3433 Fax: 763 -569 -3360 E -mail: tbublitz (a�ci.brookvn- center.mn.us • Application Preparer: Tom Bublitz Phone: 763 -569 -3433 Fax: 763 -569 -3360 E -mail: tbublitz (a)ci.brookvn- center.mn.us I. SITE INFORMATION Name of Site Hmon2 American Shon_ ninsz Center (Building name, location, reference, etc.) Site Address 1910 -2000 57 Ave N City (or Township) Brooklvn Center Hennepin County District No. 1 Property Identification No.: Propertv Address PID 1910 57' Ave N 02- 118 -21 -13 -0024 02- 118 -21 -13 -0025 195057 th Ave N 02- 118 -21 -13 -0026 • 2000 57' Ave N 02- 118 -21 -13 -0027 191257 th Ave N 02- 118 -21 -13 -0028 Page 1 • If enrolled in an MPCA program: VIC/VPIC Program I.D. # LUST Program I.D. # Other 1. Is this site the previous recipient of an ERF grant for assessment? NO — Site was recipient of Phase I Study as part of Suburban Brownfield Assessment Participation Program. 2. Is this application for an assessment, RAP development, or cleanup? Assessment - Phase II 3. Does this application request funds for property acquisition? NO 4. Current property owner - Chafong Lee 5. Property owner after cleanup — Chafong Lee • 6. Current environmental consultant and legal counsel if applicable Consultant Phone Attorney Phone 7. Legal description of the site: 191057 th Ave N Lot 1, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition and Lot 2, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition 195057 th Ave N Lot 3, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition 2000 57 Ave N Lot 4, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition 191257 1h Ave N Lot 5, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition 8. Acreage of site 8.11 Square footage of site 353,271.60 9. Attach an accurate and legible location map and site diagram showing locations of relevant site features such as buildings, retaining walls, suspected/known areas of contamination, etc. (photographs are helpful). The map should include the property boundaries, a scale bar and a north arrow. 10. What is the current Zoning/Land use of the site C -2 Commerce • 11. Will the proposed final use of the site require a zoning change? YES Page 2 • If yes, describe the expected zoning and the necessary procedure for obtaining the change. The site is currently comprised exclusively of commercial uses. Redevelopment of the site may include a mix of residential and commercial uses. The zoning for the redeveloped site will most likely be a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which will allow the greatest flexibility for a mixed use redevelopment. The rezoning procedure would follow the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and State Statutes. The process would require the City's Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the rezoning and a recommendation to the City Council. Final approval of the rezoning will require a majority vote of the City Council. 12. Current economic condition: Developed site (described below) The site is comprised of four (4) commercial buildings including one freestanding grocery store, two traditional strip center type buildings and a freestanding auto repair building. The total square footage of the four buildings is approximately 65,000 square feet. Both strip center buildings include some vacant store fronts and active retail businesses including: • Asia Fashion and Fabrics Chuck Wagon Restaurant Minnesota Martial Arts Unique Beauty Salon Ecowash Laundromat Asian Grocery Store Cash and Pawn Subway Restaurant Mouh Wok Restaurant Pro Nails Nail Salon Northbrook Beauty Salon 13. If the site is currently developed with building(s) but is not occupied, how long have the building(s) been vacant? 14. If this application is for a RAP implementation, is demolition required to implement the RAP? YES NO If yes, describe the structure(s) to be demolished (include age and condition). If yes, does demolition require asbestos and/or lead paint abatement? If yes, describe. • II. SITE HISTORY Page 3 • 1. Please attach a brief synopsis of the site's history. Explain why the site is believed to be contaminated (if the application is for an assessment grant) or how the site came to be contaminated. Also list the titles and dates of any supporting environmental reports, historical information, etc. The Hmon American Shopping Center is a retail strip center located in g PP g P Brooklyn Center er and built in the late 1950's and early 1960's. It has operated as a neighborhood retail center from the 1950's continuing to the present day. The site is believed to be contaminated primarily due to the following: • Two closed LUST sites associated with former gasoline stations exist on the southern portion of the property. Both sites were closed with residual soil and ground water contamination. • One dry cleaner formerly located in the strip center building located on the northern portion of the property. Solvents are often associated with dry cleaners and may have impacted soil and /or ground water if improperly disposed. • One LUST site located south of the property adjacent to 57 Avenue North and reported to have off site contamination. Although groundwater flow is reported to be in a southeasterly direction, petroleum contamination has been detected in a monitoring well • installed on the southeast corner of the property. These and other environmental conditions are noted on Page 22 of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hmong American Shopping Center 1900 — 198057 Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430 and prepared for Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services by Earth Tech Inc. and dated April 2003. A copy of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is included with this application. III. CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATION INFORMATION (Complete this section if your application is for an assessment and/or RAP development.) 16. Current status of the investigation: A. Is the site enrolled in the MPCA VIC or VPIC program? NO — Enrollment of the site in the MPCA VIC program is anticipated. B. Has a Phase I Environmental Assessment been completed? YES (If yes, please attach a copy to this application) • C. Do you have an approved work plan for a Phase II investigation? Page 4 • NO — A work plan has been proposed but has not yet been approved by the MPCA. A copy of the proposed work plan is attached. (If yes, please attach a copy of the work plan and cost estimate to this application) D. Has any portion of the work plan been implemented? NO E. Please provide copies of any approval and/or comment letters that you have received from the MPCA and copies of any reports documenting investigation activities that have been conducted to date. 17. Briefly summarize the identified contamination at the site to date (contaminants, concentrations, etc.) and the objective of the future planned investigation. If no soil or groundwater samples have yet been collected at the site, please say so. Identified contamination at the site includes the following: • Two closed leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites associated with former gasoline stations exist on the southern portion of the property. Both sites were closed with residual and groundwater contamination. • One LUST site located south adjacent to the property and reported to • have off site contamination. Although groundwater flow is reported to be in a southeasterly direction, petroleum contamination has been detected in a monitoring well installed on the southeast corner of the property. The objective of the Phase II assessment is to determine the amount and extent of contamination on the site in order to prepare a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to proceed with clean up of the site for redevelopment including residential and /or commercial uses. IV. CONTAMINATION INFORMATION (Complete this section if your application is for a cleanup.) 18. What type of contaminants are present at the site? 19. Attach a copy of the approved RAP and final approval letter for your Response Action Plan from the MPCA. Also include your cost estimate for the RAP. 20. Summary of Contamination Information: A. Provide a concise description of the identified contamination and proposed RAP. The description should include the occurrence of the contamination (i.e., are there distinct areas of contamination or is contamination widely • disseminated across the site? Is the contamination at the surface or at depth ?). Page 5 • B. Complete the following table for soil contamination (be sure to include areas of contamination that have been identified at the site but will not be treated or removed as part of the approved RAP): General Total Volume of Total Volume of Remedy RAP Cleanup Goal Contaminant identified identified (i.e., residential type (i.e., DRO, contaminated contaminated soil RVs, industrial VOCs,metals, soil (cyds) to be remediated SRVs, etc.) etc.) (cyds) C. Complete the following table for groundwater contamination. If no or limited groundwater investigation has been conducted, indicate this. Also indicate if a groundwater investigation was conducted but no contamination was detected. General Contaminant Affected aquifer (i.e., Approximate dimensions of Remedy type (i.e., DRO, VOCs, water table, deeper contaminant plume onsite. metals, etc. aquifers) Specify if the plume extends off -site. D. List all compounds comprising the identified release in soil and the corresponding average and maximum concentration for each compound. Also include petroleum in the table. If distinct areas of contamination are present at the site, please describe separately. (NOTE: It is acceptable to provide an overview with estimated average and maximum concentrations. For the carcinogenic PAH compounds, provide BaP equivalent concentrations.) Compound Tier I Average Maximum SRV (residential) Concentration Concentration E. Please do the same as in D. for groundwater. Compound HRL Average Concentration Maximum Concentration 1 Page 6 • F. If groundwater at the site is contaminated, note the geologic makeup of the affected aquifer (sand/gravel, till, lacustrine clay, etc.), and the estimated average linear velocity (be sure to indicate how this number was determined). G. Briefly describe the possible exposure scenarios posed by identified contamination at the site (i.e., ingestion or human contact with contaminated soil, consumption of contaminated groundwater, ecological impacts, etc.), and nearby receptors that could be affected by contaminants migrating from the site (high resource value wetland /creeks /rivers, etc.). H. Provide a concise description of the proposed RAP activities. Include an estimate of volumes of soil and/or groundwater to be excavated/treated. Also describe demolition activities necessary to perform the cleanup. V. COST RECOVERY 21. Is the site receiving funding from any other state or federal funding program(s)? YES NO If yes, which program(s) and at what funding amount? • 22. Has the site been identified as a state or federal Superfund site? YES NO 23. Has the party responsible for the contamination been identified? YES NO If yes, who is the responsible party (RP)? Is there any financial commitment by the RP for the cleanup? YES NO 24. Are there available resources for the RP to pay for the cleanup? YES NO Please explain: 25. Is a cost recovery plan to recover costs from responsible parties in place? YES NO If yes, please attach the plan and amount of costs to be recovered. Has consent of the Attorney General been obtained? YES NO NOTE: It is not required that you have a plan to recover costs from the party responsible for the contamination. However, if you are planning on recovering yourcosts from the responsible party, attach information on the process. VI. COST ANALYSIS INVESTIGATION, CLEANUP AND PROJECT COST BUDGETS • 26. What is the grand total of investigation, cleanup and other project costs for the site? $ 53,428 Page 7 • 27. How much funding are you requesting from ERF? $ 37,000 28. Please fill out the following budget table to identify the assessment, cleanup, and project costs for the site. Include a time -line for completion of the assessment and/orclean up. Attach additional sheets if necessary. BUDGET TABLE Assessment and /or Investigation and Amount RAP Implementation Activities $53,428 SUBTOTAL (1) $ 53,428* *See attached work plan. Total includes $2,000 for MPCA VIC review. Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Amount Activities l N/A SUBTOTAL (II) $ N/A TOTAL Investigation and Cleanup • SUBTOTAL (I) + SUBTOTAL (II) $ 53,428 Other Project Activities necessary to Amount implement RAP (ie, acquisition costs, demolition and all related pre -demo N/A abatement and special waste disposal) SUBTOTAL (III) $ N/A TOTAL Investigation, Cleanup and Project SUBTOTALS (I) +(11) + (III) $ 53,428 Phase II will e completed m leted no later than June 30 2004 p , 29. Is there a possibility that the site will be investigated and/or cleaned up without ERF money? NO Please explain: At the present time, the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) does not have a written development agreement to either acquire or assist with the development of the site. The EDA has allocated $51,000 for a market study and site planning for the • project. The preliminary findings of the market study have indicated that a Page 8 • retail redevelopment project or combination of retail and residential development is feasible for this site. Completion of a Phase II environmental investigation is essential to the EDA's consideration of acquisition of the site, subsequent clean up and clearance of the site and ultimately redevelopment of the site. Once the Phase II assessment can be completed and clean up costs determined, the EDA will be able to structure an acquisition and development plan including clean up and clearance for the site. 30. Have other sources of funding for this project been identified? YES A. If yes, what are the sources of funding and dollar commitment from each? Source Amount Funding EPA Brownfield's Assessment Grant $16,428 Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Grant for Market Studv Site Plannine and Neighborhood Review $24,000 Brookln Center EDA Funds for Market Studv_ . Site Planniniz And Neiizhborhood Review $51,000 • B. If no, what efforts have been made to secure other funding? (Attach letters of rejection for funding requests, city council minutes, etc). Also attach a narrative explaining why the project cannot be financed exclusively with local resources. Presently, the Brooklyn Center EDA's role in the redevelopment of the project site is in the preliminary stages of planning to determine the feasibility and scope of the redevelopment project. To date, the EDA has committed $51,000 to the planning phase of the project and the Metropolitan Council has committed an additional $24,000. Once a redevelopment project is established through a formal development agreement, including identification of funding mechanisms to assist with the acquisition, clean up, clearance and redevelopment of the site, the EDA will be able to allocate additional local funding to the project. In this preliminary phase, the EDA has committed significant local resources to the project but is not at a point in the project to commit additional funds until a project is formally established. Completion of a Phase II investigation is a key element necessary to complete prior to moving to the development stage of the project. • The City did request a Phase I and Phase II study as part of it's Livable Communities Grant Request to the Metropolitan Council. Page 9 • The Metropolitan Council did provide funds for the marketing study and site planning portion of the project but rejected the Phase I and II requests indicating these elements were part of the development phase of the project. (See attached recommended funding amount for Little Asia project.) VII. SITE VALUE 31. What is the current estimated value of the site? $2,510,600.00 32. What is the estimated value of the site, should contamination be found and remediation completed? Based on information from the Brooklyn Center City Assessor, the final value of the property would take into account the extent and cost of clean up along with the final remediation requirements. A. How was this figure determined? Information from City Assessor. B. Who determined it? Brooklyn Center City Assessor VIII. REDEVELOPMENT 33. Explain the likely use of the site after investigation and cleanup and how this was • determined (give examples of prospective developers, interested parties, zoning requirements, etc.). There are two redevelopment scenarios likely for this site and are summarized by the following. Redevelopment Scenario One. Redevelopment of the Hmong American Shopping Center (project site) with retail and residential as a mixed use. Based on market analysis provided by Maxfield Research Inc., the project site could accommodate an additional 30,000 sq. ft. of retail and 60 to 120 units of housing. Housing does not exist on the site presently. Redevelopment Scenario Two. Redevelopment of the Hmong American Shopping Center (project site) with housing, such as senior housing or a mix of senior and non - senior housing, with some supporting neighborhood commercial uses. In this redevelopment scenario, the major portion of the retail redevelopment would be shifted to another site. This scenario reflects market data that indicates a potential demand for additional retail uses that could not be accommodated on the existing project site. Essentially, the existing project site cannot accommodate the likely demand for housing and retail together, but by shifting the retail focus to another site, the existing project site could adequately accommodate the housing demand with some • supportive neighborhood retail uses in addition to housing. Page 10 • Since the project is in the initial planning stages, no prospective developers have been contacted. Both redevelopment scenarios would require rezoning of the existing project site. The zoning classification would likely be changed from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). 34. Describe how the community will derive benefit from the project. Provide a description of to what extent the project will remove blight; also indicate other measures such as green space creation, job creation, etc. to help quantify the community benefit of your project. The Hmong American Shopping Center was constructed in the 1950's and 1960's as a traditional neighborhood retail strip center to serve the retail and service shopping needs of the surrounding area. The center has gone through numerous changes over the decades and is currently underutilized and approaching the end stages of its useful economic life. There is a significant amount of deferred maintenance on the site and it would not be practical to update the buildings to current code standards. If the site is not redeveloped, the center will continue to decline in terms of physical structure and retail choices for the surrounding neighborhood. • Both redevelopment scenarios described in Section VIII will benefit the surrounding neighborhood and the larger community. Some of the benefits derived from the proposed redevelopment are listed below. • Both redevelopment scenarios include demolition of all structures on the project site, which will eliminate any concern for a blighting influence on the neighborhood. • Redevelopment scenario one would include a new reconfiguration of retail spaces on the site, with potential for the addition of housing on the site. The redevelopment of the site would be designed to attract shoppers and visitors outside the immediate neighborhood while still maintaining a neighborhood retail center. • Redevelopment scenario two would make housing the primary feature for the project site with some retail development to support the residential uses. • Both redevelopment scenarios would eliminate the existing deteriorating strip center and would be supportive of the existing uses surrounding the site both residential and commercial. 35. If the site will be redeveloped for residential use, provide the following data: At this point in the project planning process, it is not possible to determine the number of housing units. Both redevelopment scenarios include construction • Page 11 i • of housing units. The number of units to be included in the project will be dependent on the development scenario selected. TOTAL # OF RENTAL UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED Monthly rental cost per unit $ Number of affordable units Construction cost per unit $ TOTAL # OF OWNER — OCCUPIED UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED Purchase price per unit/home $ Number of affordable units/homes Construction cost per unit $ IX. RESOLUTIONS 36. A resolution must be adopted prior to submission of the application package. The required element is a resolution from the governing body of the city where the project site is located, which supports the application. The following blank resolution is included as an example for your convenience. You may choose to reformat it, but make sure to include all of the statements that appear in our example. The Brooklyn Center City Council will consider the Resolution at its November 10, 2003 meeting. RESOLUTION #1— City Approving the Application BE IT RESOLVED that the city of supports the City where site is located environmental financial grant application submitted to the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services on , by Date Applicant for the site. Site name I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the city council on Date Signed: Authorized Official Title: Date: Witnessed by: Title: Date: Page 12 � � s""ho•� . �� [4i k>��' .€ ` T � ,��2i�"zLC' "T]y('t"�^��Lb�^^� 4r m � " `r�„` t s • � � 1 r}'� t � ' ��"i� ' { �x 2- „� � { s > _ 'v3' A m', ¢&iu.,.i r r ZIP ME ` �& ai 3 y x r to" w �t r 694 "'tC (� * X 4 1-e.c• k +. v� 1� i l l .�i ., teas.„ '{�.�..a €dsr -ai.K: ' ` E a te- °' ��t,' t " r�s rtt 9 > � f°- P3 a i , a wci 3 f r o y ql� t , € "ae —,. s''� "'- " qs�j h ..•,r ,J � �, �.� ��,r{� t .F a i � ' k .� �} f. 'n— �. O N S�j '.. a. � �ds3�s � `a •" st r T "l � ,, y �,/ �. t � -} { k^ r�a3e9 '}Nxii �3 r tYh y TY � ty9 IR " P � { r F et Yom.. � �,, � E�.® � � � „1 j ^ 2L'lkum �� , e € M � � i r� I 7� �e�kn � ��ri { �r a �Si 'all L: !� If /1'i11I11�1�i1�11 p fling��q� Of `. F�, �� - FT.�4�,.�~r �'tt�C4 R: t � � "��i.•:5a� M� t � I S��t t �, �»'�� `�, M pit -�e Fa�a” � sa,�.r, `� t.t<• �} a '�::.. _ L �'3t< a � �+ '� ;' Z �• -'r ...u, �ik9�y;?t «+ r �' F rr ;; �� s:.r i :.N G ,�� .r��.i:. � tr! ��" �$ sf� " . `ti�T4�� }i� �.� fy•;4 vi'.�` �v a _.b � „i J x<; r. t... � n- .•,.Z^.d11 .:� z e':- zis4•,. Sid ,s '£Y� ":i' �.• �', �',' xf �,A. = t t .xt:rk .:. k'`"� �' w •', � � 1 "ti's; c.*i^ �, *�> +iw �. � ': c Y ,,,;� .� `�v �,.:'�! '�" ' � .. 3iQ k+i'�4t i� °, d3z+... �c.6 ,�. S i y ti.'r `A "�` �- a�.'S� 1 l�� }i: .,.� .� ..J.' e .�;� °::"y 'tY '3x. • .t. ' . { >�,+. �. i �:: ..G ,rf�1'4Ss. 'rf �s�.• - i....3� d`: ' w i •,� °i ? • t . A X' Y •x ; 1 e ` r� 4 �,,.. x °'�'::# Lr ��t' ..e.Jwk• ". } "..t �macr':.'tl{ $ ,- rK "'; rw� ! P r .e: r �. d % €3��^�, t ^r � Y r � 5 =.'.r, A f ¢�i : J '1.;�� ,. r' �' s.fh•;.:Y�'k�x r — Y � + � r 'Y �y,�� "' 1 _�� a.- r 1 �'� ; F �,, a rtk Ai •��'��! ��4� :t5 ?' ...�, 'S r� k�� rz� - N� < v� � '.r s ° S',� p t �`; �yF�. :'',r' � 4 ¢ 3: •: t h . j t `\ 4 p 4 far..'`'?• x ta+"'� . - CY1t' + '�f }, s T . :S gi ft - " '11 , 1 5+. r-.r s,+ a Yr{. � tS" r r• }^ x'a - �'iF , r a,?' y_ Vii M' t V z < �„w •�. `;M a '".1i• S3 • ;rn 2 Y I :; , �r � d _w � ,( �RZ4 3 a��. 'Ls ^'� fly" ?�F. u 7• s, x _+ �,t t „ � r,��•E n.1 �i r' � } � fi{ �,- •� tir r q a � k � _'"^�++ 1L- .,�, r •u. .x,. ? . 't �.': .} � r "` t � Z , p � i -^ �. �{'' kr�,.xn.�z �'1;;�,w' :ti ''" e+t.,v. -.- J „ra` `••- 7 -- ,J ' ��3- .r "a� •tt � .:. y 1' k �4�� ,r 3 a�U�a. : �h,t•k�'" � r� z. ha ^��, � �, � r /� =vr �,s:^ t x• �ry �,/ NZ .� �� a, , R. a., M L ,'." ��`!: '`� �• ,,. i �".�{ 2M y. _....` t x, T. s ri: :2i,t �Y 3� •.. �;h ,,�. ''..�, `3 � � ., n. �� +; �'` � 5 ��!� +� �' * �'< '0 a� �- ` �l'zi#a �� t F s ��s f'. Rw�,rc{ t'k • `w. �� ,� � t �� , - �, <*5..,. r �' �,�, Y ��, .� '��` lY� r }1 �' d d'' � � . j r �t' f?, ' �',�,�s,. 4.. _ 4 � ' +� "'fit ; �"Yx� � 'EF s � Wr ki,� ✓,�'�:� A �' � .. � q ; y,. 1� '�.• � "�hi. " � ? z� ,. , ur;.r . ,'�X,z �,k� ,t5 a" `s.._ti }'p�. a�. igff. r7�'�a4� ' t �'k�, S, z.'• 'Ffr,75�:': tj�'y�RS. 7.r ) t 33i: ySN ;r3t'�° � 4 =� �' n `•R, . - ' �� +r - ''' z 1• •�^w`t�. :. ; � s+ aY''� � � �,a: � r s #i'z =;•;i ,2;.d` , �� ' € ' ;�:+�' }`;. } r r V • ;z. � ' " eR..' ' y r y, �,: b ±,� , Yspm - w 3.` y. �� '!q'',?r + '1,,, :"' .'k�'dc.;K � z �'.1;'�+ ``Y :�.. � 1= "� ;� vi `% Ixt+ : #' ( x r ''6L � �..:.x C a s4.•}•. ,}t y o-W *, , i r , L ... � h 1 . 'n 4 �,c ,. :i'f x � "F yt rs �'f � �. x °� .y i,�:r J °y.: #, �'i.'.. ' a +�. �,; �. ^sT,l;+':tt,. j.. •�h .f .',}`�.� 'i.. . �• �- r t :'-. ."+Wa` ` . , ,�^ . �� . ke.$ t , � '�. '4 :' Y <" g� �3:� 1 x,'�e � t .�' ,.�• < t x� ° Y�iY- '•r/']� ,'6: y i ....n. j �''�` -.. i. F.x � fx d �s.- t. 'i8- - ..•+.�a .(r � '€� �* #' �'.'' Xi. T N .N,.. � j � ,t� v m n �? Y u, .' ?�•t n_. r { �: + �s� 3 y Yo ;�...c -. ! ,, r- -'J'k r�':*::.� �' 4' 9fi�' '" 'w � �k -�, 3% E..,#�3,. ' w / r�,.."yr216. c., � ��r;, � x xt � � � � r. x •. '-0' '. �A. -: a* } „' >a x. ,. �.1 r r l h. ;*:h ,'..�„, ra' ew �+„ ,�,y�1,5T�VY.�: 1�"�f. a' 4 `Prd ✓4 `K+'.:.r�5 ,�;”; r... ;;y}. �Y, � ',. ;. � t � n«r+� `" � � �%" i,ti • �; _ a 'a - ar . ,.w 'fair e S ,i � _}�,r � �liA�l� a :7 y y * Y . .Su. • �w. 'R: a � 4�' t � � ii� /, t � f fit. ,�`.;, J`. t 4;_F �. X Fr - ,. r }� � a `� ' as =� � x ` a �s �� . • '��ii" ,� • �, ' �"'e r • �x t � } �'�'T�' � ;�.,� z l��° 'E �r`� -�s.„ - �'r,; � b '��. ' e " iur `x �„ t 7 xat�}�; �` � � � < --+..{ r. � 1 '• ', ��# ,� a ,. Y 7' ,ya ��, '�.,+� �:��yfxt�i ��'- � r "jv* ;j�' ,i.• ;i�Y1 �,.`, �'' ;�Y � "! ':�"t'" ��. •, .��s �� ::;e.. c. k. �'"!t '>b' i.�. ,cy "hE'i : '�7 :5, {«qF {� 3z ',') {'� f ii:7:. ; , ,;~ s`4�F �`" ;t 3 ' ;G.. Y � �T A. .its a 1 ` '• �tT �� • � � +v. ..art,, i�t, , � `e � 'L' �"h: -l;�5. IM P i x • .�`�' '; t ti,$�. �9`1.E'. s $t v ., �; ,� ! � r r ,;,� . k I, i��gLr .� ' ; . , � .,y .� "'S;gK � � ''��•x , -�' §� �.i �+rt 3,F'Si��ytk3g u ';4 ^f �,'_ R �. .. �t *rsk c .f� �•.::> '� .�' ! rYa h � 7('r � - � r :��G"R�/ ! • y:.' �•_ e`�: � o,;, �e�, .r ' , �� r � 4��` �i` �;a f "".��'�� 'ia�F' •" �'.+� J-3 � i '. {' i } ��" �� s�';: , ' �'' . '�:, '`y �- ''fit,. ��'b ��^� '1•• � S ' �' � _''• � x # " �5�; 4 ,a�; -$. y �,s 5 ': #.t .4F ,raS Y�+l1' ; r r � 4 •,:} r ' a � r �, F�, i. +.. t • r: -.. °� � �'+ ,� ''"�.,�a � x�t:,_ tr��s_r.,x .� t �a :. '�„r�¢� . �; { �s. , � � !:.' � �.' ,�kr�`��" , ... ti s`. � "�'•T:`.��'!n. � a, w; .•. �!SS c�r,� � ,s s ', "`�� 3'i �' fie: 4-�+ f� t�' r �� ; ~ � �,' r'� �` y � ;��' �h-, `��' �i`"4� 'a" $k R" �fS y'.� � �^�''�n,�$ �'tf'� •`�.'��t � �. � x 4�rk .'�. � "^ ,w+� 7 E* 7� � r •� �� °� �, � w,. .c r,Y.r �^ S air +S fl k * �',: 4+ "� "• � �,..:' Y J� a` '.:� Y S�'"' � �+ �� 1 � 3 �'�.+. 1�` i �'��t7 i 9'kk e ' � y's �' ��, �r �,�,k. � j � � ri �` t' '� '� t d , "-`" - '�. Jan, �x,•,, $ 'k`('•c � .7 �ME 4 Wt.rrF.,, ,z. _q' 'vim . %a�' � j,. s � & � ' -. i �p: >` k;+�'L�'• �'z,9�' ,"�� y ��V�t -. 'r��,a'' -+t„� }.fir , •s :fii y ;�a '�� s } �<. � �� :�. ' x Y :��'�.;�4 �s�'f�"' i`� ,f. r °� �� •` '�, �'y.� ,rk,,.,M9z�M' ,4 r 1'� S' �� t ah "' ' F`�� M 'y� 4' +• p�, �, y +� `'�`� ,��'s:.;`�t�H•�''` � y�. '�"r� {_ y�.�' � r - }�3 kr �y * a rt 4t "v *`��h"�' t� & . �' Ft�i i i, , r L'rw��` k ,7,� 7 '_,�` i�. ':! ' �a:��" . .!£ � i.•' =`G '�-:'``�' m il K.. g b1 ' 3 '„ ,} � d'� �r{�`�".' '.C;;,X F i"q Y; R ' �'�j �� 1' ' n �" � , t "�'�. �. "'+ e T,S.z "k.N^w vt f_ +`�. 'Lt .t, ' �. .. .��, ., z .1 +..v- } i- T,v- FJ a t� 3 ,!• s' �; �a�w + +• rs + �'s 1 APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF I DRY'CLEANER • I TRANSFORME S i P / POLE MOUNTED TRANSFORMER % F PAD MOUNTED ' TRANSFORMER / f / ,� C z BUILDING w ASIA A' a MARKET = uj EXISTING NSP % G - - - - - - - - -- '� TOWER NORTHERN STATES / . POWER EASEMENT /•' ~ 2 POLE MOUNTED POLE MOUNTED LIGHT POLE TRANSFORMERS TRANSFORMER • BUILDING (TYP) OIL/WATER USED ' GAL ED B UILDING i _____________� ACME TYPEWRCfTER SEPARATOR )iX MOTOR OIL B i (INCLUDED BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE DURING ESA) SUSPECT LOCATION ' OF FLOOR FORMER UNDERGROUND TRENCH HYDRAULIC HOIST DRAIN ONITORING APPROXIMATE LOCATIO q OF FORMER "�.... SUSPECT FORMER GAS STATION �•• WELL GAS STATION 57TH AVENUE NORTH LAW SUPER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AMERICA , N FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN +� E A R T H T E C H HMONG AMERICAN SHOPPING CENTER MARCH 2003 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 65685 • t� Phase I Environmental 0 Site Assessment Hmon American Shopping Center g PP g 1900 -1980 57 Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 • Prepared for: Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services 417 North 5 Street O Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -1397 s v Prepared by: Earth Tech, Inc. 3033 Campus Drive North Suite 175 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 •i C d •� April 2003 C Phase I Environmental Site Assessment • Hmong American Shopping Center 1900 -1980 57" Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report for the Hmong American Shopping Center, located at 1900 -1980 57 Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (the "Property"), was prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. (Earth Tech), at the request of Hennepin County. A topographic map illustrating the location of the Property is included as Figure 1. 1.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES The Scope of Services for this Assessment is provided in Appendix A. In general, the site assessment has been . completed in general accordance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E1527 -00 for a Phase I ESA, with the following exceptions: • No Chain -of -Title or comparable record of historical ownership was obtained. 0 The research was not extended further back than the date when the Property was known to have fast been developed for other than agricultural or residential use. During the Property reconnaissance, a former jewelry store and rooms located within a self - service laundromat (Eco Wash) could not be accessed, as the tenants were not available. • The Scope of Services for the project included a visual assessment of potential asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and other "business environmental risks," as defined in ASTM Standard Practice E1527 -00. However, no samples were collected for analysis. 1.2 ASSESSMENT PURPOSES d. The purpose of this assessment was to: (1) provide Hennepin County with information about the general environmental character of the Property; and (2) satisfy one requirement of the "innocent landowner" defense .+ to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability, in accordance with 42 USC §9601(35)(B), if the need should arise. That requirement includes conducting "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial . and customary practice." L• \WORRVIE NNEPIN— CO�65686\WPPAIREPORTREM.DOC 4 April 2003 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment • Hmonr American ShovDinx Center 1900 -1980 57 Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 EXECUTIVE SUNIlVIARY At the request of the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services, Earth Tech, Inc. (Earth Tech), has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Hmong American Shopping Center, located at 1900 -1980 57' Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (the "Property"). The ESA was conducted in accordance with the Scope of Services attached in Appendix A, and in general conformance with the scope and limitations of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E1527 -00. Exceptions to, or deletions from, the ASTM Standard Practice are described in Section 1.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed evidence of the following "recognized environmental conditions" (RECs, as that term is defined in ASTM Standard Practice E1527 -00) in connection with the Property: • Two closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites associated with former gasoline stations exist on the southern portion of the Property. Both sites were closed with residual soil and groundwater contamination. • One dry cleaner formerly located in the northern portion of Building B. Solvents are often associated with dry cleaners and may have impacted soil and/or groundwater if improperly disposed. • One LUST site located south adjacent to the Property and reported to have off -site contamination. Although groundwater flow is reported to be in a southeasterly direction, petroleum contamination • has been detected in a monitoring well installed on the southeast comer of the Property • One pad - mounted transformer located northwest of the Asia Market with staining on the surrounding concrete pad. The staining may indicate a release of transformer oil to soil and/or groundwater. • Five 55 -gallon drums of used motor oil were observed within a locked and covered storage area on the north side of Building C. Surface staining was observed on the asphalt surface in the vicinity of these drums. Spilled motor oil may have migrated through cracks or soaked through the asphalt and resulted in impacts to soil and/or groundwater. • Spilled radiator fluid and motor oil was observed on the floor of Building C. Cracks in the concrete floor may provide a conduit for these liquids to impact soil and/or groundwater. • Pump islands formerly existed on the south and east side of Building C. Spills during dispensing of product from underground storage tanks (USTs) could have impacted soil and/or groundwater. • Evidence of three former underground hydraulic hoists exists in the service area of Building C. Soil and/or groundwater could be impacted with hydraulic fluids if underground tanks or piping associated with these hoists leaked. • A spill of an unknown material at the Subway Restaurant in Building B was reported in the environmental database review. No information, including the material, quantity, or location of the spill, was included in the report or available from other sources. L• \WOR%VYF.NNEPIIV CO06MW"HIREPORTREVO4.DOC 1 April 2003 I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment • HmonR American Shopping Center 1900 -1980 57" Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 The following additional items could represent a potential environmental concern, but 'do not meet the definition of a REC because they would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA): • A suspected oil/water separator (OWS) exists in the BC Auto Repair Building (Building Q. If the OWS or associated piping is damaged or not properly maintained, surrounding soil and/or groundwater could be impacted with petroleum or other discharged products. • One trench style floor drain of unknown integrity exists within the southern portion of Building C. Automobile fluids such as radiator fluid and motor oil were observed to be running into it. If cracks exist in the drain or associated piping, discharged fluids could impact soil and/or groundwater. • Anecdotal evidence of a former septic system exists. Wastes inappropriately disposed of as part of - business operations such as solvents and petroleum products, if discharged to an on -site septic system, may have impacted soil and/or groundwater. • At least one ground water monitoring well is reported to be associated with a closed LUST site, but does not appear to have been registered with the Minnesota Department of Health or properly sealed and may act as a conduit for surface contamination to impact groundwater. Additionally, the following "business environmental risks," as defined in ASTM Standard Practice E1527 -00, • were observed: • Drop in ceiling tiles, wallboard, 8" by 8" and 1' by 1' floor tiles, and limited areas of sprayed on textured ceilings were observed in the buildings. These materials were observed to be in good to poor condition. Based upon their anticipated age (1950s and 1960s) and United States ' Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) guidance documents, those materials must be considered "presumed asbestos - containing materials" (PACK. • It is possible that exterior pole mounted transformers contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) fluids. • It is possible that an exterior pad - mounted transformer contains PCB fluids. • It is possible that fluorescent light ballasts located within the buildings contain PCBs. • High voltage power lines traverse the Property in an east -west direction. Electromagnetic fields created by high- voltage utility company lines have been suggested to be linked to an array of cancers and other serious health problems. The standard professional practices that Earth Tech conducted to identify if any recognized environmental conditions existed in connection with the Property included, among other things, a visual assessment of the Property, interviews with selected individuals who might have knowledge of such recognized • environmental conditions, a review of readily available historical aerial photographs, a drive -by assessment of accessible adjacent parcels, and a review of a computer search of selected Federal and State environmental i 1-r\ WORXVIENNEPIM _CU65686\W"IIIREPORTREVW.DOC 2 April 2003 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment • HmonR American ShonainA Center 1900 - 1980 57 Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 databases for indications of the presence of hazardous substances on the Property or on nearby parcels from which those substances might migrate to the Property. This report is based upon the Scope of Services, and is subject to the Limitations and Restrictions, defined herein. It has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Hennepin County and its legal counsel. No other person or organization is entitled to rely upon any part of it without the prior written consent of Earth Tech. Hennepin County may release or authorize the release of all or part(s) of this report to third parties; however, such third party in using or relying on this report agrees that it shall have no legal recourse against Earth Tech or its parent or subsidiaries, and shall indemnify and defend them from and against all claims arising out of or in conjunction with such use or reliance. The information provided in this report shall remain valid for a period of 180 calendar days from the date of this report. L \WORAWENNEPIIV CW686\WMHIREPOR7REVO4.DOC 3 April 2003 OCT -24 -2003 0922 HENNEP I N COUNTY 612 3486532 P.01/07 Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street - Minneapolis, MN 55435 -4803 . Phone: 952-832-2600 - Fax: 952. 832.2601 • www.bam.com B'�MR PROPOSED PHASE II WORK PLAN Post it" Fax NN 7671 D toll-* �Paa ► 7 To From � �yA,.%4 CoJDept r CO. N� 1 1r lG. September 23, 2003 Phone i Phone # Dr. Andrew Leith Fax s Fax # Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services Environmental Protection Division 417 North 5th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. Re: Revised Phase 11 Environmental Investigation Cost Proposal Hmong American Shopping Center Redevelopment Property 1900-1987.57 Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Dr. Leith, Thank you for contacting Barr Engineering regarding the above-referenced project for the City of Brooklyn Center (City) and Hennepin County. This letter presents our revised proposal to provide Phase H investigation services for the above- referenced project. We understand that the City wishes to redevelop the Emong American Shopping Center Property (Property) located at 1900 -1987 57 • Avenue North in Brooklyn Center into a new commercial retail center. To begin planning for this redevelopment, the City will complete a Phase 11 investigation under the Hennepin County Suburban Grant Assessment Program (Grant)_ Based on the Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Earth Tech Inc. (April 2003) and discussions with you, there are identified recognized environmental conditions or other concerns that exist on the Property. The conditions and concerns that will be the focus of the Phase II investigation are as follows: • Two former leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites on the southern. Property. • One former dry cleaner that was located in the north end of building A. • Petroleum contamination was detected in a former monitoring well on the southeast corner of the Property. • A pad - mounted transformer located northwest of the Asia Market building that has stained its concrete support pad. • Five 55- gallon drums of used motor oil that are stored in an enclosed area, which has surface staining, located within the north part of building C. • Spilled radiator fluid and motor oil observed on the floor of building C. • Service station dispenser islands and associated underground piping from the former gas stations (on the southern Property), that may be the locus of past surface or subsurface releases of petroleum products. • Three underground hoists in the service area of the automotive service center building, on the south Property, that have the potential to release hydraulic fluids to the subsurface from the • hydraulic system cylinders, piping or reservoirs. OCT -24 -2003 09:23 HENNEPIN COUNTY 612 3488532 P.02i07 Dr. Leith, Hennepin County Environmental September 23, 2003 Page 2 • • A suspected oil/water separator and a trench floor drain in building C that has the potential to release petroleum or solvent wastes to the subsurface. • One groundwater monitoring well remains on the west side of building C that apparently is un- permitted. • An exterior pad - mounted transformer located on the east side of the Asia Market building. If it is of sufficient age it may have associated polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) impacts. We have outlined below a proposed Phase II investigation approach that evaluates the above listed conditions and concerns. The scope of work presented in this proposal reflects a general approach to investigating the Property and includes the changes to the approach discussed at your September 10 meeting with John Greer and Eric Dou of Barr. We have made numerous assumptions to help us develop the cost estimate for the Phase II. These are detailed in our cost estimate tables. Our cost estimate reflects the changes to the proposed approach to the investigation. The project - specific scope of work and investigation sampling rationale will be refined during development of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). To complete the Phase II investigation the following steps will be required: 1) prepare a SAP for review and approval by EPA Region V brownfields program staff, 2) schedule and perform the Phase 11 investigation based on the approved SAP, 3) analyze samples in the laboratory for the parameters described in Task 3, and 4) prepare a Phase II investigation report with conclusions and recommendations. • Our proposed project manager, John Greer, is a hydrogeologist with more than 15 years of experience in completing and directing field investigations. His experience includes management of projects where soil and groundwater contamination from petroleum, metals, and chlorinated solvents were of concern. Other Barr project team members are highlighted in the following task- specific summary of our proposed approach to the project; estimated costs and assumptions are summarized with each task. Details of our cost estimate and the assumptions on which we based our costs are shown on the attached tables. Task 1: Prepare Sampling and Analysis Plan (Already Authorized) Our project manager will work with Eric Dott, a geologist/hydrogeologist experienced with Phase II investigations, to prepare a property- specific SAP as outlined in the Grant. The SAP in conjunction with the EPA- approved Quality Assurance Project Plan will detail the specific goals and procedures for the Property investigation and will be a comprehensive work plan for the Phase II investigation. The SAP will be submitted for EPA brownfields program staff review and approval prior to implementation of the investigation. As you know, the budget for creating a project - specific SAP was submitted to Mr. John Evans of Hennepin County on February 13, 2003 and was approved by Hennepin County staff as part of the initial Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) development work authorization. We believe that the current ro'ect meets all e assumptions on w is w development p � th which e based our cost estimate for SAP p listed in our February 2003 proposal, except for the size of the property. According to the Phase I report, the Property is 8.6 acres in size while our cost assumed a site size of no more than 5 acres. Barring unforeseen significant deviation from our other previous assumptions (such as additional • meetings with County staff to discuss the investigation approach and goals, or more than one revision of the SAP resulting from County or EPA comments) we will complete the SAP within the OCT -24 -2003 09:23 HENNEPIN COUNTY 612 3488532 P.03i07 Dr. Leith, Hennepin County Environmental September 23 2003 P , Page 3 • previously authorized amount. As you know, a portion of the previously authorized amount has been invoiced. Task 2: Schedule and Perform Phase 11 Investigation Our project manager will work with Mary Finch, a geologist with three years of experience performing field investigations. Mary will coordinate and implement the Phase II investigation; including directing all subcontractors and performing all field sampling. Our proposed approach is broken down into two parts. Part 1 involves the use of direct -push technology to collect soil and groundwater samples and to install three temporary monitoring wells, the use of concrete coring with hand soil sampling through an interior building floor and the use of Legend Technical Services (Legend) to perform the analyses as outlined in the QAPP. Our cost estimate assumes that Matrix Environmental, LLC will provide the drilling services for this project under contract to Barr. Soil cuttings from the installation of three temporary monitoring wells and some of the direct -push soil boring cuttings will be containerized, characterized for disposal and then disposed off -site. We assume the containerized cuttings will be characterized as non - hazardous and that Hennepin County will identify a location for temporary storage of the containerized cuttings while characterization is done. The remaining cuttings will be thin spread on the Property. We assume that the Building A floor slab can be cored using standard hand coring equipment and requires no more than one hour to penetrate with this method. As discussed and agreed to at the September 10 meeting, Part 1 of our proposed approach includes the installation of three one -inch diameter temporary monitoring wells for the purpose of measuring • shallow groundwater elevation at the site. These temporary wells will be completed in three of the soil borings. Top of casing elevation for these wells will be surveyed relative to a site datum. These temporary wells will be properly sealed upon completion of the investigation. Investigation results including groundwater flow direction and soil and groundwater sample analytical results will be used to determine if installation of permanent monitoring wells is warranted. part 2 of our proposed approach consists of installing and sampling permanent monitoring wells. Our cost estimate assumes that three two -inch diameter permanent monitoring wells will be installed using hollow stem auger methods during a second mobilization to the site and that well bore soil cuttings will be containerized, characterized for disposal and then disposed off -site. We assume the containerized cuttings will be characterized as non - hazardous and that Hennepin County will identify a location for temporary 'storage of the containerized cuttings while characterization analyses are being completed. We have assumed that one groundwater sample will be collected from each of these wells and sent to the laboratory along with the required QA/QC samples for analyses. We have also assumed that development water and purge water from the sampling of the permanent monitoring wells can be disposed on the ground at each well. As part of this task, Barr's Senior Industrial Hygienist, Colin BrownIow (CIH), will assist Mary Finch to develop Barr's project health and safety plan (PHASP) for the project. As noted above, costs are included for the drilling subcontractor (Matrix) necessary for the subsurface soil investigation. The costs for this task may vary based on the results of field screening or the results of observations. For example, additional contaminant plume characterization may be determined to be necessary. We have assumed five days of onsite fieldwork will be required. Additional time at the Property would be charged on a time and materials basis. We will notify you • immediately if we suspect field conditions or procedures are significantly different from what we have assumed and before taking actions that may alter the cost of the work. Preparation of four OCT -24 -2003 09:24 HENNEPIN COUNTY 612 3488532 P.04i07 Dr. Lcith, Hennepin County Environments) Scptctnber 23, 2003 Pagc 4 • copies of the PHASP and use of Barr field equipment will be charged as field expenses in accordance with our attached fee schedule. Our estimate of the PHASP and field equipment expenses is outlined in the attached cost estimate tables. Task 3: Laboratory Analysis To provide an indication of the associated costs, Barr has assumed that soil and groundwater samples will be submitted for analysis of the following during the first mobilization to the site: 0 15 soil and 12 groundwater samples for analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (EPA 8260). • 15 soil and 12 groundwater samples for analysis of total Resource Conservation and Recovery, Act (RCRA) metals (EPA 6000/7000 series). • Seven soil and groundwater samples for analysis of semi- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (EPA 8270). • Five soil samples and two wipe samples for analysis of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (EPA 8082). Required QA/QC samples are indicated on the attached laboratory costs table and are included in our cost estimate. Barr has assumed that soil and groundwater samples will be submitted for analysis of the following during the second mobilization to the site: • • Three groundwater samples for analysis of VOCs (EPA 8260). • Three groundwater samples for analysis of total RCRA metals (EPA 6000/7000 series). • Three groundwater samples for analysis of SVOCs (EPA 8270). Required QA/QC samples are indicated on the attached laboratory costs table and are included in our cost estimate. One representative soil sample for analysis of VOCs (]EPA 8260) to characterize containerized soil cuttings for disposal will be collected from among all the containerized soil. We have assumed that all samples will be analyzed on a standard turnaround time basis (three weeks). These parameters and the number of samples may change based on observations or results of the field screening; however, based on the current use of the Property and our experience, these will be the parameters of interest. As an experienced QA/QC specialist, Ward Swanson will review the laboratory reports for quality and completeness. Per your direction, our cost estimate includes the standard analytical rates Legend charges Barr Engineering Co. It is our understanding that you would like the laboratory work to be contracted through Barr. Task 4: Final Phase 11 Report The project team will evaluate the results of the Phase 11 assessment and complete a final report summarizing its results. In our report we will summarize the analytical results and compare them to risk- screening criteria relevant to the media and Property setting. The new tabulated Phase II investigation data will be presented with the previously reported data in order to help understand current and past Property conditions. Our report will include the following elements: Introduction, . Property setting, previous investigations summary, Phase II investigation results (data and geology), conclusions, and recommendations. A site map showing all sampling locations, and groundwater OC'T -24 -2003 09:24 HENNEPIN COUNTY 612 3488532 P.05i07 . Dr. Leith, Hcnnepin County Environmental September 23, 2003 Page 5 • conditions will be developed. This task assumes one face -to -face meeting with the Hennepin County Staff, upon completion of the draft report. It should be noted that this task does not include development of a voluntary response action plan (VRAP) for the site. Client Service and Project Coordination Barr seeks to provide you, our client, with the best service we can. To this end we would like to develop a client service plan that identifies your needs and concerns for this project, prior to commencing the work. Following your review of this proposed scope of work, John Greer would like to meet with you to develop a client service plan and to discuss your preferred means of decision- making, communicating project progress, information- sharing, as well as invoicing procedures. The Project coordination task includes time to prepare subcontractor contracts, process project invoices, and track project tasks. We anticipate providing you with biweekly project status updates verbally or by email during the non -field phases of the project and daily field status reports during the field phase. Questions requiring immediate .feed back will be directed to you by telephone or email. Budget and Schedule Based on the scope of work and the assumed approach outlined above, the total cost for this project • (Task 2 through Project Coordination) is estimated to be $51,428, bascd on the assumptions and specified quantities shown in our attached cost estimate tables- We understand that the work would be completed on a time- and - expenses basis under our Professional/Technical Contract # A021212 with Hennepin County. There are a number of investigation scope assumptions and requirements that significantly affect the investigation costs presented here. These items include: • The quantity of analytical sample analyses. • The addition of a boring inside Building A. • Availability of appropriate location to thin spread soil cuttings on the Property. We assume that up to eight 55- gallon drums of soil cuttings will be containerized, characterized and disposed at an appropriate disposal facility, Please note that disposal costs have not been included in our estimate. • Installation of the monitoring wells requires permitting, development, and a survey of the riser elevation of each well. We assume that development and purge water from the monitoring wells can be placed on the ground at each well location. • If the existing monitoring well on the south - central Property is to be used as a monitoring point, it will need to be inspected for proper integrity, redeveloped and permitted for use as a monitoring well in accordance with MDH requirements. We assume that development and purge water from the monitoring well can be placed on the ground at the well location. • The number of Geoprobe soil borings proposed, installation of a hand boring through the • interior Building A floor, plus installation and development of three monitoring wells will likely require five days in the field. OCT -24 -2003 09:24 HENNEPIN COUNTY 612 3499532 P.06i07 Dr. Leith, Hennepin County Environmental September 23, 2003 Page 6 Investigation assumptions or approaches may be adjusted depending o project J p g n prof t obJecttves and priorities. The following considerations (typically discussed in the sampling rationale section of the SAP) may allow adjustment of the investigation costs: I . The quantity and variety of analyses proposed could be focused. Fewer organic analyses could be performed by making their selection dependant on field organic vapor screening results and observations (soil textures, staining, incidental odors, debris). 2. The number of borings and sampling performed in the vicinity of the former gas stations /service stations (on the southern Property) might be reduced and focused. With some new supplemental data, the prior investigation information may be adequate to prepare a response action plan for this area. 3. Not all direct -push soil boring locations may require drilling to the water table. If awarded the work, Barr will stay alert for opportunities to reduce costs below those outlined above. During preparation of the SAP we may identify additional means for focusing the investigation level of effort. If conditions are encountered, as the project progresses, that prove to be significantly different from those assumed, Barr will notify you immediately. Barr will not exceed the estimated cost without Hennepin Counties' approval. Barr's team is prepared to begin work on your project immediately upon authorization. The overall project schedule will take approximately eight to ten weeks (with laboratory analysis) to complete. The schedule is dependant on the EPA SAP review timing and obtaining Property access. • Thank you again for contacting Barr about this project. In my role as Principal -in- Charge, I will work to provide continuity as to the general project approach and philosophy for Barr's work for Hennepin County. Please contact me at (952) 832-2722, or John Greer at (952) 832 -2691 if you have any questions about our proposal. Sincerely, Doug Connell President Enclosures P:1Ar103\PRP\3033 Hmong Amer Phase InRevised Hmong American Propossl.doc i AuachmentTA Cal Estimate to Provide P• C rovi see it Investigation Services Hmong American Shopping Center Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 0 0 I IU Project P(0). Mgdsf. QA1QC (lndu atrial Scientist i Sr. Tachnicran Proc/Report BARR Principal Scientist III 8peclallel Hygrenlat) (Gootoglst) (CADDNIIS) PmdJAoaq LABOR SUB - BARREXPEN. ES DEC JOG (S) WOS Cas MCF LKP Various Stall CONTRACTOR TOTAL W Meledaicl Task $131.25 6120.75 $110.25 6120.76 673.50 678.76 Report xpens es/E 367.60 Produakxr Epviprnanl xpensea m to Task I Prepare SAP COSTAPPROV =D UNDER PR VIOUS WORKAUTHOR12ATION So N Task 2 Schedule and Podorm as Phe II tmresllgallon 0 0 1 7 65 1 3 35,279 $10,980 5225 51,734 $1 W $19,381 Task 3 Laboratory Analysis 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 $415 520.165 60 $20,670 Task 4 Final Phase II Report Draft Report 1 19 B 0 36 8 8 $6,830 30 65490 Final Report 1 S 0 0 2 2 6 51,446 6180 650 SIA05 S Nlee011gs g 3 3 0 0 0 0 6362 $20 6382 m z lot ._.,.113 0 e 63.666 $15 3-3.661 " -- 4 0 0 ZO- - — - . 2 12 7 11 . 23 17 331,145 3405 X1,734 5249 m — r na non Communication Sublolel: 2 -- ,. -- - - -„ _ -- .. -._. .... —_ Assumptions: Z Bare labor costs are calculated using Berle Hennepin County Contract Ixliing raise. O All field work can be done in level Dprotective equipment. C The field wodc will be completed In live days (geoprobe and Indoor bodrlgs- 25 days, Wells- 25 da)s). Z One meeb'ne to discuss the dray results, coadusions and recommeadallons will be hoM with the Hennepin County staff. -i The overa9 prefect lesks will be completed witlin 8 to 10 weeks. - {. The C9ry and Hennepin County have pem**n arwil obtain paenlssion to access 8re Property for the purpose of completing the planned invas6gallon. The elevations of tour monitoring wets vii be su/va)ed with respect to an assumed datum to eslahHsb reference olova0oos for each well (Includes one preexisling wen). Water level measurements wh be Ia%n at losrwolts on up to two separate dates. The permanent wens will be sampled once after the wells have been developed and Sao grout has set. Time to purge and sample will be no snare than 2 hours per well Detailedidommlon and assumptions tegarding the analyses, dr0ing; Held equipment and expanses are provided In additional Attachments 1.1601.5 0) t i tU fat J�, c - - 17 F m m, m P.%4M7PVpUO33Nhae l /ad Eel Nasba gilds tod EUiaale / 11:20 AM 9931'2403