Laserfiche WebLink
APPENDIX D <br /> Environmental due diligence <br /> PHASE I ESA, Braun Intertec, December 2016 <br /> This assessment identified no recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site,with the <br /> exception of the following: <br /> • The Site was formerly occupied by automobile dealerships. The automobile dealerships <br /> were identified on the storage tank, leak site, hazardous waste generator, and Voluntary <br /> Investigation and Cleanup Program databases. Soil and groundwater impacts on the Site <br /> and the adjacent parcel to the west were documented in association with these database <br /> listings. This represents a recognized environmental condition. <br /> • The existing Site building was constructed in 2002-03 as a gasoline station/convenience <br /> store with an attached carwash. Four empty underground storage tanks are located on the <br /> Site.There is a potential for past unreported releases associated with the use of the tanks. <br /> This represents a recognized environmental condition. <br /> PHASE II ESA, Braun Intertec, March 2017 <br /> Minor trace vapor contamination in soils exists, minor trace water contamination exists, and minor <br /> trace contamination in soils exists. Braun has indicated findings on this site DO NOT exceed <br /> industry maximums (they are below). These findings are not surprising for a redevelopment site, with <br /> several past auto-related users. Based on information in hand, Braun does not have any concerns using <br /> this site for a future roadway, and doesn't anticipate any major remediation. The MPCA has <br /> provided closure letters on the water contamination item in the past. Please see actual Phase II ESA for <br /> official information/details. <br /> HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SURVEY, Braun Intertec, November 2016 <br /> Outside of various standard items (items found in most buildings), the pre-demolition building survey <br /> came back clean. Braun did leave a contingency RE the roof liner--per industry standards, the roof <br /> should be tested for asbestos. That roof has not been tested because it would have required <br /> destruction to the roof liner, and seller was opposed to said work(back in 2016). Now that this project <br /> is further along, the seller has provided staff authorization to get a core sample from the roof. Staff has <br /> a work order in now. This item is considered to be low risk--due to the age of construction for this <br /> building. However, to be safe, staff is ordering this work to occur before closing. <br /> Page 13 of 19 <br />