phase i environmental site assessment...phase i environmental site assessment windsor manor...

1 | P a g e

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Prepared by

For:

Michael McGuire Slusser Emax Partners, LLC

1100 H Street, Suite B260 Washington, DC 20005

Project:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Windsor Manor Apartments

409 E. Armour Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64109

AUGUST 16, 2017

Full Service Environmental Consulting, Testing & Contracting 2418 Merriam Lane, KCK 66106 | Phone: 913-432-5500 | www.titankc.com

2 | P a g e

August 16, 2017

Michael McGuire Slusser Emax Partners, LLC 1100 H Street, Suite B260 Washington, DC 20005

RE: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Windsor Manor Apartments 409 E. Armour Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64109

Dear Client:

Attached herewith is our report entitled “Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the referenced subject site, dated August 16, 2017. The assessment activities were performed in accordance with criteria outlined in the TES notice to proceed, dated July 26, 2017; and received by TES on July 27, 2017.

If you have questions regarding information in this report or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (913) 432-5500.

Sincerely,

TES, Inc.

Karla Granger Environmental Consultant

Attachments – Phase I ESA Report


3 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................6

2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................9 2.1 Purpose ...........................................................................................................9 2.2 Scope of Services ............................................................................................10 2.3 Significant Assumptions ...................................................................................12 2.4 Limitations and Exceptions...............................................................................12 2.5 Special Terms and Conditions..........................................................................12 2.6 User Reliance ..................................................................................................12

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ……………………………………………………………… 13 3.1 Location and Legal Description ........................................................................13 3.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics..........................................................13 3.3 Current Uses of the Property............................................................................13 3.4 Structures, Roads and Improvements ..............................................................14 3.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties ...............................................................14 3.6 Topography......................................................................................................14

4.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION..................................................................14

4.1 Title/Ownership Records ..................................................................................14 4.2 Environmental Liens, Activity or Use Limitations ..............................................14 4.3 Specialized Knowledge ....................................................................................15 4.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ...........................15 4.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues .................................................15 4.6 Owner, Property Manager and Occupant Information ......................................15 4.7 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA ................................................................15

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ........................................................................................15 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ........................................................15 5.1.1 Federal Records............................................................................................15 5.1.2 State Records ..............................................................................................17 5.1.3 Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Exclusive Records………….………..19 5.1.4 Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Recovered Government Archives…..20 5.2 Additional Record Sources ...............................................................................21 5.3 Physical Setting Source(s) ...............................................................................21 5.3.1 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................21 5.4 Historical Site Use Information ........................................................................21 5.4.1 Aerial Photography........................................................................................22 5.4.2 Fire Insurance Maps .....................................................................................22 5.4.3 Property Tax Files .........................................................................................22 5.4.4 Historical City Directories ..............................................................................22 5.5 Historical Adjoining Property Use Information ..................................................23


4 | P a g e

6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..............................................................................24 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions...............................................................24 6.2 General Site Setting .........................................................................................24 6.3 Interior Observations ........................................................................................24 6.3.1 Potable Water Supply....................................................................................25 6.3.2 Sewage Disposal/Wastewater System ..........................................................25 6.3.3 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products ..........................................25 6.3.4 Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks ............................................25 6.3.5 Odors, Pools of Liquids, and Drums ..............................................................25 6.3.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .................................................................25 6.3.7 Waste Management and Hazardous Substance Handling.............................26 6.3.8 Heating and Cooling......................................................................................26 6.3.9 Stains or Corrosion .......................................................................................26 6.3.10 Drains and Sumps.......................................................................................26 6.4 Exterior Observations.......................................................................................26 6.4.1 Pits, Ponds or Lagoons Exterior Observations ..............................................26 6.4.2 Stained Soil or Pavement ..............................................................................26 6.4.3 Stressed Vegetation ......................................................................................26 6.4.4 Wells .............................................................................................................27

7.0 INTERVIEWS...................................................................................................27

8.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS .............................................................................28

9.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................30

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................31

11.0 DEVIATIONS ................................................................................................31

12.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ..............................................................................31

13.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................31

14.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL ...............................32

15.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL ......................32


5 | P a g e

APPENDICES

Appendix A–Figure 1: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (2015: Kansas City) Figure 2: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1996: Kansas City)

Figure 3: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1995: Kansas City) Figure 4: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1975: Kansas City) Figure 5: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1970: Kansas City) Figure 6: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1964: Kansas City) Figure 7: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1957: Kansas City) Figure 8: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1948: Kansas City) Figure 9: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1940: Kansas City) Figure 10: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1935: Kansas City) Figure 11: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1894: Kansas City) Figure 12: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (1890: Kansas City) Figure 13: Parcel Map Figure 14: Street Site Map Figure 15: Aerial Site Map

Appendix B–Site Photographs & Drawings Appendix C–Aerial Photographs (2012, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2002, 1991, 1986, 1983, 1979, 1976, 1969, 1963, 1952, 1940, and 1936)

Appendix D–Environmental Data Resources Regulatory Database Report/Regulatory Correspondence

Appendix E–Interview Records

Appendix F–Phase I ESA Glossary of Terms Appendix G–Environmental Professional Resume

6 | P a g e

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 28, 2017, TES performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the real property and improvements described by the User as the existing real property on one parcel in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. The legal description for this parcel is as follows: SEC-28 TWP-49N RNG-31W---KENWOOD ADD E 67 ½’ OF LOTS 22 & 23 & 24 (EX PT OF LOT 24 IN ARMOUR BLVD BLK 1), Parcel Number: 30-210-08-01-00-0-00-000, a subdivision in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri (latitude: 39.0632480 [39° 3’ 47.69’’], longitude: 94.5801010 [94° 34’ 48.36”]). The objective of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the site. This assessment included visual observations of the site, limited access and visual observations of surrounding properties as well as collection and review of the following informational sources: Historical records, regulatory database listings and interviews with persons familiar with and associated with current and historical business use and ownership operations at the site. The site assessment was conducted in general accordance with the guidelines outlined in the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process Designation E 1527-13, and the All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) regulation found under 40 CFR Part 312-Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries. Present and Historical Site Usage The Subject Property consists of one four-story building (with basement), and landscaping; on one parcel with an area of approximately 0.21 acres. The building is currently vacant. There are several residential, light commercial & light industrial businesses on all sides of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is bordered on the west by landscaping, and The Richelieu Apartments., to the north by landscaping, a sidewalk and E. Armour Blvd., to the east by landscaping, a sidewalk and Locust St.; and to the south by landscaping and a fenceline, separating the Subject Property from the neighboring single-family residence. To the west of The Richelieu Apartments sits landscaping, a sidewalk, and Gillham Rd. West of Gillham Blvd. sits the International/Catholic Charities Building. To the north of E. Armour Blvd. sits The Sombart Apartments; with the Georgian Court Apartments to the west of the Sombart Apartment. To the east of Locust St. sits the Pulse Newspaper; with The Duke Apartments, directly to the north of the Pulse Newspaper Building, on E. Armour Blvd. Additional light commercial/industrial businesses and residences surround all sides of the Subject Property. There are also several residences, light commercial & light industrial business offices on E. 36th St., Gillham Rd., E. Armour Blvd., and Locust St. A review of historical street directories, aerial and topographic maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps and interviews with knowledgeable individuals has indicated that the Subject Property was used primarily as a multi-family mid-rise residence since its construction. Between 1925 and 1980, the Subject Property was primarily known as the “Windsor Manor Apartments Hotel”. Since then it was simply known as the “Windsor Manor Apartments”. The Subject Property was used for veterans and their families as sort of a “halfway house”: for patients and their families awaiting treatment at and/overflow traffic from the VA hospital. Current improvements appear to have been present since 1924. Prior to the mid-1920’s, the Subject Property appears to have been undeveloped land. Review of the street directories, aerial and topographic maps, and interviews with knowledgeable individuals has indicated that the subject property and adjacent areas prior to the mid-1920’s appeared to have been residential areas and undeveloped land.

7 | P a g e

The Polk/Cole/Gate City/Gould Directories did not have a listing for the Subject Property prior to 1925. Based on the readily ascertainable historical use information used as a part of this Phase I ESA, the subject site has been used as a multi-family mid-rise residence since its construction. Between 1925 and 1980, the Subject Property was primarily known as the “Windsor Manor Apartments Hotel”. Since then it was simply known as the “Windsor Manor Apartments”. Current improvements appear to have been present since 1924; and, prior to the mid-1920’s, the Subject Property was undeveloped land. Based on visual observations of the site, limited access and visual observations of surrounding properties as well as collection and review of readily available historical and current data, there appears to be no current environmental conditions associated with the overall property use. Adjoining or Local Properties with Regulated Environmental and Historical Concerns The Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources LUST database. A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 14 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the Target Property. The Subject Property is not on this list. There are no adjoining properties in this database. The EDR Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides a list of state-registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the registered UST list is maintained by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are three (3) UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the Target Property. The Subject Property is not on this list. There are no adjoining properties in this database. The EDR US Brownfields (US BROWNFIELDS) database provides a list of EPA-administered contaminant cleanup sites. Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs. A review of the US BROWNFIELDS list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are two (2) US BROWNFIELDS site within approximately 0.50 miles of the Target Property. The Subject Property is not on this list. There are no adjoining properties in this database. The EDR Missouri Drycleaners (MO DRYCLEANERS) database provides a list of drycleaner facilities that are potentially eligible for reimbursement of department approved cleanup costs under the Drycleaning Environmental Response Trust Fund; and is maintained by MDNR). A review of the MO DRYCLEANERS list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is one (1) MO DRYCLEANERS site within approximately 0.25 miles of the Target Property. The Subject Property is not on this list. There are no adjoining properties in this database. The EDR Exclusive Historical Drycleaners (US Hist. Cleaners.) database houses information regarding historical drycleaner facilities. EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but

8 | P a g e

were not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, steam laundry, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR’s HRHR effort presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches. A review of the US Hist. Cleaners list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are two (2) US Hist. Cleaners sites within approximately 0.125 miles of the Target Property. However, none of these listings meet the definition of a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC); as no past releases of hazardous and/or petroleum products have been documented in association with any of these properties. The Subject Property is not on this list. There are no adjoining properties in this database. The ASTM definition of a Vapor Encroachment Concern or “VEC” is “the presence or likely presence of chemical of concern vapors in the subsurface of the Subject Property caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater either on or near the Subject Property.” An initial search of all ASTM E 2600-15 standard government record databases and EDR proprietary government records report related to former dry cleaners, gas stations and manufactured gas plants was conducted within the 1/3 mile maximum distance defined in ASTM E 2600-15 for the contaminants of concern. A Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) is an investigation of all known or suspected contaminated properties within a given radius. The radius varies based on the "Chemical of Concern" at the contaminated site due to chemicals having different migration properties. Vapor Encroachment Screen distances can be up to 1/10 of a mile for petroleum contamination and up to 1/3 of a mile for other volatile compounds. The screening allows for the distances to be reduced for cross gradient and down gradient contaminated sites. There are three (3) sites listed within the 1/3 mile maximum distance of the Subject Property. The Georgian Court and Rear Newbern Cleaners are the two sites that showed up in the EDR Historical Drycleaners; and the R&N Midtown Cleaners showed up in the state’s Drycleaners database. However, these listings do not meet the definition of a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC); as no past releases of hazardous and/or petroleum products have been documented in association with this property. In addition, the soil type for this area (clayey silt loam) would be more resistant to any potential contamination spreading offsite. Furthermore, the results of the VES found no physical evidence of vapor encroachment conditions at the sites. When taken in consideration the points above, VECs may exist because of the LUST listing for the Vacant Lots 1-3, and the three drycleaner sites in the VEC report, (even though releases documented at the Vacant Lots 1-3 site has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of local, state, and federal authorities); but a REC may not exist. Following a review of historical site usage sources such as Cole/Polk/Gate City/Gould Directories, the Subject Property was not listed in any of the directories prior to 1925. Additional review of historical aerial and topographic maps, street directories and interviews with knowledgeable persons did not reveal previous development on the property; other than residences and current improvements. User Provided Information The User provided site and Owner’s Representative points of contact.

9 | P a g e

Findings and Conclusions We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice I 1527 of the parcel associated with the Subject Property, 409 E. Armour Blvd., in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, the property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Of lesser note and concern is the presence of miscellaneous household chemicals, electronics (primarily TVs and computer screens) and light ballasts/fluorescent bulbs found throughout the building. Suspect lead-based paint (LBP) may be present on interior wood doors and door trim, window trim, baseboards, older aluminum windows, ceramic tile glaze, and older plaster walls & ceilings throughout the Subject Property. Suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM [sheet vinyl/floor tile & mastic, window glazing and ceiling tile, wood fire doors]) may be present in building materials in the lobby, units hallway, closets, and restrooms. Other building materials (additional flooring materials, boiler insulation & piping, grout or mortar, fire doors, etc.) may be obscured by the equipment/debris currently present in the building. In addition, there’s a “microbial hazard” sign at the entrance. Visible mold growth and water staining was evident on building materials throughout the structure; with mold growth primarily on basement walls on the northwest side; and along ceilings, door & window frames, walls, and wood floors on every level of the building. Readily apparent historical RECs were not identified in adjoining properties during this assessment; and, there were no current RECs identified in adjoining properties during this assessment. If any contamination of soil or groundwater is suspected during redevelopment of the subject property, TES recommends a targeted site assessment of the development area (including limited soil and groundwater sampling). If contaminated soil or groundwater is found, redevelopment plans should be modified to address the elevated risk and remediation of the contaminant(s) of concern. While business risk considerations (BRC’s) such as asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint may exist at the subject site, the potential presence of these issues should be noted as part of this Phase I ESA. Sampling and testing of these BRC’s was not included as a part of the scope of work for this Phase I ESA. TES has concluded that readily ascertainable historical recognized environmental conditions associated with the Subject Property were not found as a part of this Phase I ESA. In addition, current recognized environmental conditions and current notable findings associated with the Subject Property were not discovered as a part of this Phase I ESA.

2.0 INTRODUCTION TES conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the existing real property on one parcel in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. The legal description for both parcels are as follows: SEC-28TWP-49N RNG-31W---KENWOOD ADD E 67 ½’ OF LOTS 22 & 23 & 24 (EX PT OF LOT 24 IN ARMOUR BLVD BLK 1), Parcel Number: 30-210-08-01-00-0-00-000, a subdivision in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri (latitude: 39.0632480 [39° 3’ 47.69’’], longitude: 94.5801010 [94° 34’ 48.36”]). This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted in accordance with the TES Notice to Proceed, dated July 26, 2017.

10 | P a g e

2.1 Purpose The primary purpose of this assessment was to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the site. The Phase 1 ESA was conducted in general accordance with the requirements of the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 for Environmental Site Assessments Process, Designation E 1527-05 (ASTM) as well as the All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) regulation found under 40 CFR Part 312-Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries. A REC, according to ASTM, is defined as t h e presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to any release to the environment, 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or 3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions or controlled recognized environmental conditions. A de minimis condition generally does not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if bought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. A Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is defined as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted residential use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).

A Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) is defined as a recognized environmental condition which involves a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority and that is subject to activity and use limitations. Because a CREC is a new type of REC (whereas an HREC is a finding no longer considered to be a REC), the new Standard requires that any CRECs identified in this report also be identified as a REC in the conclusions section of this Phase I report. 2.2 Scope of Services In accordance with the above-referenced agreement, TES performed a walk-through of the accessible areas of the site, interviewed persons familiar with the site (as available), noted use of adjoining properties and conducted a search of readily available historical and regulatory records. More specifically, the scope of services included the following: Site and Adjoining Property Observations

Visual observations of the site and surrounding properties were made to identify potential sources or indications of chemical contamination such as underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), potential sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals and hazardous materials, and areas with surface stains or stressed vegetation. In addition, the immediately adjoining properties were observed from the site, without being entered, for potential sources of contamination or environmental impairment, which could likely migrate to the site via surface water runoff, groundwater transport, or other pathways. Photographs of the site and adjoining properties have been included in Appendix B. The Environmental Professional for the project was Karla Granger. A copy of the Environmental Professional’s Resume of Experience has been included in Appendix F.

11 | P a g e

Historical Review A review of reasonably ascertainable aerial photographs, topographic maps, city directories, Sanborn fire insurance maps for the site and adjoining properties records was conducted to evaluate previous land use and any records of suspect environmental concerns. Copies of historical topographic maps 1890, 1894, 1935, 1940, 1948, 1957, 1964, 1970, 1975, 1995, 1996, and 2015 (all Kansas City Quadrangle [Appendix A]) and aerial photographs 1936, 1940, 1952, 1963, 1969, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1986, 1991, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 (Appendix C) have been included in this report. A review of historical Polk/Cole/Gate City/Gould Directories was performed at the public library. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. reported coverage of the site and surrounding area for historical Sanborn fire insurance maps between 1909 and 1963 (Appendix D). Regulatory Records Review

The following regulatory databases were reviewed to identify use, generation, storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous materials, or releases of such materials that may impact the site: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Priorities List (NPL); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Treatment, Storage, Disposal (RCRIS-TSDs) Facilities and Corrective Action Facilities (CORRACTS); RCRA Large Quantity Generators (RCRA-LQG); RCRA Small Quantity Generators (RCRA-SQG); Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS); State records maintained by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), including the MDNR Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List, the MDNR State List of Hazardous Waste Sites (HWS), MDNR Permitted Solid Waste/Inventory Facilities (SWF), the MDNR Voluntary Clean-up Program (VCP), State of Missouri Brownfields Sites and the MDNR Registered Underground Storage Tank (UST) List. A detailed description of these databases is included in Appendix D. Interviews with Site Representatives, Users and Knowledgeable Persons

Persons familiar with the site were interviewed with regard to the possible past or present use of hazardous substances and petroleum products at the site, as well as historical site usage. A Key Site Manager was named and persons knowledgeable with the existing ownership were also interviewed. Interview records are found in Appendix E. Geological Information

A review was made of available published geological and groundwater information obtained from referenced sources for the site and vicinity. Municipal and County Records Review

Contact was made with available regulatory agencies such as local building and health departments, fire officials and county employees as to relevant historical information regarding the site and surrounding parcels. Property Valuation and Environmental Liens

A comparison of the present selling price to the most recent tax valuation of the property has been made and inquiry as to whether the selling price is associated with any environmental concerns has been made. The user will define whether any environmental

12 | P a g e

liens are associated with the property, under the requirements of 40 CFR 312, All Appropriate Inquiry. Prior Report Review

When provided, a review is made of previous environmental assessments and records of previous environmentally related activities with the intended purpose of identifying RECs. No previous environmental site assessment reports were provided to TES at the time of this assessment. If additional information becomes available which might impact our environmental conclusions, we request the opportunity to review the information, reassess the potential concerns, and modify our opinion, if warranted. 2.3 Significant Assumptions No significant assumptions were made as a part of this Phase I ESA. 2.4 Limitations and Exceptions The findings and opinions presented in this report are based solely on the information obtained during this ESA. Further, the conclusions include our assessment of the potential for the Subject Property to have been environmentally impacted from past activities on or near the Subject Property. Although the findings and considerations represent our best judgment, they do not represent a certification of the environmental status of the property. Sanborn Maps illustrate in outline form the site, size, shape, construction and building material of dwellings, commercial buildings, and factories. Details of buildings include fire walls, the location and number of windows and doors, style and composition of roofs, wall thickness, cracks in exterior walls, and makes of elevators. The maps also indicate building use, sidewalk and street widths, layout and names, property boundaries, distance between buildings, house and block numbers, location of water mains, hydrants, piping, wells, cisterns, and fuel storage tanks. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. reported coverage of the site and surrounding area for historical Sanborn fire insurance maps between 1909 and 1963. If additional information becomes available which might impact our environmental conclusions, we request the opportunity to review the information, reassess the potential concerns, and modify our opinion, if warranted. The scope of services as agreed to by all parties does not include specific surveys for radon, asbestos-containing materials, lead in paint, soil, or water, naturally occurring materials, wetlands delineation, or the investigation or detection of the presence of any biological pollutants in or around any structure. The term “biological pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and the byproducts of any such organisms. Certain information contained in this report may have been rightfully provided to TES by third parties or other sources. TES does not make any warranties or representations, whether expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy of such information and shall not be held accountable or responsible in the event that any inaccuracies are present. 2.5 Special Terms and Conditions No special terms and conditions were agreed upon by the User and TES.

13 | P a g e

2.6 User Reliance This report is for the use and benefit of, and may be relied upon by Slusser Emax Partners, LLC. Any third party use, or reliance on this report, shall be limited by the exceptions and limitations in the report, and with the acknowledgement that actual site conditions may change with time. Hidden REC’s may exist at the site that was not discoverable or readily ascertainable within the scope of this assessment. Regardless of the findings stated in this report, TES is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts that were concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed at the time the assessment was conducted. TES makes no other representation to any third party except that it has used the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by qualified environmental professionals in the preparation of the report and in the assembling of data and information related thereto. No other warranties are made to any third party, either express or implied. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located in an area primarily characterized by light commercial/industrial and residential properties. The site is located on the south side of E. Armour Blvd., between Gillham Rd. and Locust St., in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. 3.1 Location and Legal Description The Subject Property consists of one four-story building (with basement), and landscaping; on one parcel with an area of approximately 0.21 acres. The building is currently vacant. There are several residential, light commercial & light industrial businesses on all sides of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is bordered on the west by landscaping, and The Richelieu Apartments., to the north by landscaping, a sidewalk and E. Armour Blvd., to the east by landscaping, a sidewalk and Locust St.; and to the south by landscaping and a fenceline, separating the Subject Property from the neighboring single-family residence. Additional light commercial/industrial businesses and residences are present on Gillham Rd. to the west, E. Armour Blvd. to the north, Locust St. to the east, and E. 36th St. to the south. The legal description of this parcel is as follows: SEC-28TWP-49N RNG-31W--- KENWOOD ADD E 67 ½’ OF LOTS 22 & 23 & 24 (EX PT OF LOT 24 IN ARMOUR BLVD BLK 1), Parcel Number: 30-210-08-01-00-0-00-000, a subdivision in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri (latitude: 39.0632480 [39° 3’ 47.69’’], longitude: 94.5801010 [94° 34’ 48.36”]). 3.2 Site Vicinity General Characteristics The site vicinity is predominantly light commercial/industrial and residential space in all directions. Immediately to the west is landscaping and The Richelieu Apartments, to the north by landscaping, a sidewalk and E. Armour Blvd., to the east by landscaping, a sidewalk and Locust St.; and to the south by landscaping and a fenceline separating the Subject Property from the neighboring single-family residence. To the west of The Richelieu Apartments sits landscaping, a sidewalk, and Gillham Rd. West of Gillham Blvd. sits the International/Catholic Charities Building. To the north of E. Armour Blvd. sits The Sombart Apartments; with the Georgian Court Apartments to the west of the Sombart Apartment. To the east of Locust St. sits the Pulse Newspaper; with The Duke Apartments, directly to the north of the Pulse Newspaper Building, on E. Armour Blvd. There are also several residences, light commercial & light industrial business offices on E. 36th St., Gillham Rd., E. Armour Blvd., and Locust St. No obvious signs of potential environmental RECs were observed on adjoining properties

14 | P a g e

during the site reconnaissance. Observations were restricted to those areas along the public right-of-way. 3.3 Current Uses of the Site The Subject Property consists of one four-story building (with basement) and landscaping; on one parcel with an area of approximately 0.21 acres. The building currently sits vacant. There is a loading area on the southeast side of the building; accessible from the driveway and Locust St.; and sidewalks border the east and north sides of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is serviced by public water supplied by the City of Kansas City (MO). The drinking water supplied to the Subject Property is within federal, state, and local drinking water standards. The area surrounding the Subject Property is also serviced by the City of Kansas City (MO); who also manage the stormwater & sanitary sewer systems. Natural gas is managed by Missouri Gas Energy. Electricity is supplied in the area by Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L). 3.4 Structures, Roads, and Other Site Improvements The Subject Property consists of one four-story building and landscaping; on one parcel with an area of approximately 0.21 acres. Immediately to the west is landscaping and The Richelieu Apartments, to the north by landscaping, a sidewalk and E. Armour Blvd., to the east by landscaping, a sidewalk and Locust St.; and to the south by landscaping and a fenceline separating the Subject Property from the neighboring single-family residence. At the time of this assessment, surface water run-off was not observed, but inferred to run to the south-southwest. 3.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties The site vicinity is predominantly light commercial/industrial and residential space in all directions. To the west of The Richelieu Apartments sits landscaping, a sidewalk, and Gillham Rd. West of Gillham Blvd. sits the International/Catholic Charities Building. To the north of E. Armour Blvd. sits The Sombart Apartments; with the Georgian Court Apartments to the west of the Sombart Apartment. To the east of Locust St. sits the Pulse Newspaper; with The Duke Apartments, directly to the north of the Pulse Newspaper Building, on E. Armour Blvd. Additional light commercial/industrial businesses and residences sit on E. 36th St., Gillham Rd., E. Armour Blvd., and Locust St. 3.6 Topography Based on the TES review of the USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map of the Kansas City (MO-KS) Quadrangle, (dated 2015) provided by the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report, the Subject Property is approximately 934 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Localized topography appears to slope from the north to the south.

4.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION The following information and/or sources of information have been provided by the User. 4.1 Title/Ownership Records According to information supplied by the User, The Kansas City (MO) Veterans Administration Medical Center are the current owners of the Subject Property. Review of available deed records did not identify any previous environmentally suspect ownership,

15 | P a g e

easements, right of ways, or other environmental entries/restrictions associated with the Subject Property. No additional information was supplied by the User. 4.2 Environmental Liens, Activity or Use Limitations Environmental liens are the responsibility of the User, according to AAI. Review of User-supplied documentation indicates that the Subject Property was not identified as having an environmental lien or activity or land use limitations recorded against the property. The site vicinity land use type: high rise apartments >8 units (code 2192); property class code: commercial value residential ratio (code 2018). According to the information provided to TES by the Jackson County Assessor’s Office, the cumulative appraised value of the land is $44,897.00. 4.3 Specialized Knowledge Other than the Subject Property having been used as a residence, the User did not have specialized knowledge of the subject site, at the time of this assessment. No additional specialized or actual knowledge or experiences material to recognized environmental conditions were revealed to Titan Environmental at the time of this assessment. 4.4 Commonly Know or Reasonably Ascertainable Information No additional commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information was conveyed to TES by the User, at the time of this assessment. 4.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues No valuation reduction for environmental issues was uncovered at the time of this assessment. 4.6 Owner, Property Manager and Occupant Information According to information supplied by the User, The Kansas City (MO) Veterans Administration Medical Center is the current owners of the Subject Property. TES conducted an onsite ESA of the Subject Property, which consisted of a walk-through observation of the accessible areas and interviews with facility personnel. On-site activities and/or interviews were conducted on July 28, 2017, by Karla Granger, TES staff Environmental Professional; with Mary Tucker and Travis McBride, of the Kansas City (MO) Veterans Administration Medical Center). No additional occupants were interviewed at the time of this assessment. During the site visit, the weather was partly cloudy with good visibility. The ambient temperature was approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit. 4.7 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA TES understands that the client is interested in inquiring into any potential environmental concerns associated with the site. The purpose of this assessment, therefore, is so that the client may qualify for the innocent landowner defense to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as necessary. In addition to satisfying one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability. Another reason for performing this Phase 1 ESA includes the need to understand potential environmental conditions that could materially impact the existing value of the property and improvements.

16 | P a g e

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW

5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources A review of databases and files from Federal, State, and Local environmental regulatory agencies was conducted to identify use, generation, storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals, or release incidents of such materials, which may impact the site. The Federal and State environmental database information was provided to TES by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. A complete copy of the regulatory review is included in Appendix D. It should be noted that the database report includes several non-ASTM databases, which are not discussed in the following sections, as they are considered beyond the scope of work for this assessment.

Please note that the potential for the facilities identified by the database review to environmentally impact the site was evaluated solely on the distance and presumed topographic orientation (with respect to groundwater flow) of each facility relative to the site. Furthermore, the presumed topographic orientation of each facility was determined solely by a review of available USGS topographic quadrangle maps. No attempt was made to verify the actual groundwater flow or to access regulatory agency files regarding the identified facilities, as this was beyond the scope of work for this project. The database report includes Non-Geocoded Sites. The locations of facilities listed in this section cannot be mapped due to incomplete or inaccurate information. TES reviewed this section and compared the names and addresses, (if available), with information generated during our visit to the site. If a cross-reference could not be made, TES assumed that the facilities were not within the minimum search distance. 5.1.1 Federal Records The Federal environmental databases listed below were reviewed to obtain information pertaining to the site and properties within the listed approximate search distance. Also listed are the month and year when the sources or databases were last updated. These databases are maintained by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Table 1: Federal Databases Searched in Regulatory Review Federal Database Search

Distance Target (Subject)

Property Last Update

National Priorities List (NPL) 1.000 miles Not Listed 07/07/2017 Proposed NPL 1.000 miles Not Listed 07/07/2017 NPL Liens TP Not Listed 08/15/2011 Delisted National Priorities List 1.000 miles Not Listed 07/07/2017 Superfund Enterprise Management Systems (SEMS: formerly the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)]

0.500 miles

Not Listed

07/21/2017

FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500 miles Not Listed 07/07/2017 SEMS Archive (CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned [NFRAP])

0.500 miles Not Listed 06/08/2017

Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) 1.000 miles Not Listed 06/29/2017

17 | P a g e

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Transporters, Storage and Disposal (RCRA–TSDF)


RCRA–Large Quantity Generators (RCRA-LQG) 0.250 miles Not Listed 06/29/2017

RCRA–Small Quantity Generators (RCRA-SQG) 0.250 miles Not Listed 06/29/2017 RCRA–Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (RCRA-CESQG)


United States Engineering Controls 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/31/2017

United States Institutional Controls 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/31/2017 Land Use Control Information System (LUCIS) 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/15/2017 US Brownfield 0.500 miles Not Listed 06/20/2017 Open Dump Inventory (ODI) 0.500 miles Not Listed 06/09/2004 RCRA Non-Generators (RCRA NLR) 0.250 miles Not Listed 06/29/2017 Indian Reservations (INDIAN RESERV) 1.000 miles Not Listed 07/11/2017 State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing (SCRD DRYCLEANERS)


2020 Corrective Action Program List (2020 COR ACTION)


Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List (COAL ASH EPA)


Coal Ash Disposal Sites (COAL ASH) 0.500 miles Not Listed 06/29/2017 Department of Defense Sites (DOD) 1.000 miles Not Listed 07/12/2017 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) 1.000 miles Not Listed 02/24/2017 Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees (CONSENT)


Records of Decision (ROD) 1.000 miles Not Listed 06/09/2017 Uranium Mill Tailings Site (UMTRA) 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/22/2017 Open Dumping on Indian Lands (INDIAN ODI) 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/01/2017 Industrial Mineral Mines Database (MINES) 0.250 miles Not Listed 07/21/2017

TP=Target (Subject) Property

A review of the RCRA NonGen/NLR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/12/2016 has revealed that there are four (4) RCRA NonGen/NLR sites within approximately 0.250 miles of the Target Property.

Equal/Higher Elevation–Edison School, 201 E. Armour Blvd., Direction, W Equal/Higher Elevation–1st Choice Cleaners, 3315 Gillham Plaza, Direction, N Equal/Higher Elevation–Heisler Engraving Co., 3303 Gillham Rd., Direction, NNE Lower Elevation–Metapro USA, LLC, 3701 Gillham Rd., Direction, SSW

RCRA NonGen/NLR: RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Based on this information, the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites, these facilities do not present any recognized environmental condition to the Subject Property.

18 | P a g e

A review of the US BROWNFIELDS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/02/2017 has revealed that there are two (2) US BROWNFIELDS sites within approximately 0.500 miles of the Target Property.

Equal/Higher Elevation–Longan Elementary School, 3421 Cherry St., Direction, NE Lower Elevation–Westport Middle School, 300 E. 39th St., Direction, SSW

US BROWNFIELDS: The EPA’s listing of Brownfields properties from the Cleanups in My Community program, which provides information on Brownfields properties for which information is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs. A Phase I environmental site assessment was performed in 2010 for both properties. The Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) applied to the Voluntary Cleanup Program to receive oversight of the removal of fuel oil underground storage tanks (USTs) and remediation of associated contamination, at fifty schools throughout the Kansas City area. Each site had at least one fuel oil UST used to fuel boilers. The School District intended to investigate and remediate each site by excavation and/or capping. A general Remedial Action Plan was approved by the Brownfields/VCP for these projects. However, the School District withdrew the project and no clean letters were issued for any of the sites. Both sites were classified by MDNR as an “Inactive VCP (Terminated/Withdrew)” sites. The individual EDR site reports indicated that no LUSTs/USTs/ASTs were reported for either site. Based on this information, the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed site, these facilities do not present any recognized environmental conditions to the subject Property. The Target (Subject) Property (site address as listed in this database) is n o t listed in any of the federal databases searched during this assessment. None of the other federally listed sites described in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report would appear to present a current recognized environmental condition for the subject site based on the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites to the Subject Property. 5.1.2 State Records The State environmental databases listed below were reviewed to obtain information pertaining to the site and properties within the listed minimum search distance of the site. Also listed are the month and year when the databases were last updated.

Table 2: State Databases Searched in Regulatory Review State Database Search

Distance Target

(Subject) Property

Last Update

Registry of Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites (SHWS)


Solid Waste Facilities (SWF/LF) 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/15/2017 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) 0.500 miles Not Listed 06/15/2017 Leaking Above Ground Storage Tanks (LAST) 0.500 miles Not Listed 06/15/2017 Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 0.250 miles Not Listed 06/15/2017 Indian Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (Indian LUST) 0.500 miles Not Listed 04/28/2017 Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) 0.250 miles Not Listed 06/05/2017

19 | P a g e

Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land (INDIAN UST)


FEMA-Owned Underground Storage Tanks (FEMA UST) 0.250 miles Not Listed 07/14/2017 Activity & Use Limitations (AUL) 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/17/2017 State Spills (SPILLS) TP Not Listed 06/14/2017 State Voluntary Clean-up Sites (VCP) 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/17/2017 Tribal Voluntary Clean-up Sites (INDIAN VCP) 0.500 miles Not Listed 04/20/2009 State Brownfields Site List (BROWNFIELDS) 0.500 miles Not Listed 05/17/2017 State Hazardous Waste Resource Recovery Facilities (RRC) TP Not Listed 06/23/2017 Registry Sites Withdrawn or Deleted (DEL SHWS) 1.000 miles Not Listed 07/10/2017 Environmental Emergency Response System (CDL) TP Not Listed 06/14/2017 Drycleaners in Missouri Listing (DRYCLEANERS) 0.250 miles Not Listed 06/14/2017

TP=Target (Subject) Property A review of the MO LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/06/2016, has revealed that there are 14 MO LUST sites within approximately 0.500 miles of the Target Property.

Equal/Higher Elevation–Apartment Bldg., 3259 Warwick Blvd., Direction, WNW Equal/Higher Elevation–Vacant Lot 1-3, 400 E. 33rd St., Direction, N Equal/Higher Elevation–101 Car Wash, 3537 Main St., Direction, W Equal/Higher Elevation–Jiffy Lube, 3201 Gillham Plaza, Direction, NNE Equal/Higher Elevation–Kentucky Fried Chicken, 320 E. Linwood Ave., Direction, N Equal/Higher Elevation–Inner City Oil, 615 E. Linwood, Direction, NNE Equal/Higher Elevation–Amoco Oil SS #5219, 3215 Main St., Direction, NW Equal/Higher Elevation–US Petroleum, 3438 Troost, Direction, E Equal/Higher Elevation–Total #4404, 17 E. Linwood Blvd., Direction, NW Equal/Higher Elevation–7 Eleven 21057, 3150 Gillham Rd., Direction, NNE Equal/Higher Elevation–Main St. Shell, 3742 Main St., Direction, SW Equal/Higher Elevation–Former Fairmount Dairy, 3110 Gillham Rd., Direction, N Lower Elevation–Former UST Site (Rud), 3626 Main St., Direction, WSW Lower Elevation–C.E.C. Realty, 3840 Warwick, Direction, SSW

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. MDNR maintains these records in the state of Missouri. At the sites listed on this database, the tanks have either been pulled or permanently closed in place. Any contamination that may have been present was limited to the site and cleaned up. No further action was recommended at these sites. Based on this information, the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites, these facilities do not present any recognized environmental conditions to the Subject Property. A review of the MO UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/06/2016, has revealed that there are three (3) MO UST sites within approximately 0.250 miles of the Target Property.

Equal/Higher Elevation–Apartment Bldg., 3259 Warwick Blvd., Direction, WNW Equal/Higher Elevation–Vacant Lot 1-3, 400 E. 33rd St., Direction, N Lower Elevation–Amoco Oil Co., 114 E. Armour Blvd., Direction, W

Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST’s are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department

20 | P a g e

responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. MDNR maintains this database in Missouri. The tanks registered are either in use or have been removed. Based on this information, the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites these facilities do not present any recognized environmental conditions to the Subject Property. A review of the MO DRYCLEANERS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/08/2016 has revealed that there is one (1) MO DRYCLEANERS site within approximately 0.25 miles of the Target Property. Lower Elevation–R&N Midtown Cleaners, 3315 Gillham Plaza, Direction, N

MO DRYCLEANERS: A listing of drycleaner facilities that are potentially eligible for reimbursement of department approved cleanup costs under the Drycleaning Environmental Response Trust Fund. As of Sept. 3, 2012, the Drycleaning Environmental Response Trust Fund is no longer accepting new applications for enrollment until further notice. Based on this information, the geographic proximity (search distance), groundwater flow (downgradient) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites these facilities do not present any recognized environmental conditions to the Subject Property. The Target (Subject) Property (site address as listed in this database) is not listed in any of the state databases. There are no other properties in this database within the search radius. None of the remaining state listed sites described in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report would appear to present a current recognized environmental condition for the subject site based on the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites to the Subject Property. 5.1.3 Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Exclusive Records The EDR exclusive environmental databases listed below were reviewed to obtain information pertaining to the site and properties within the listed minimum search distance of the site. Also listed are the month and year when the databases were last updated.

Table 3: EDR Exclusive Databases Searched in Regulatory Review EDR Database Search

Distance Target

(Subject) Property

Last Update

EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations (EDR US Hist. Auto Stat.)

0.125 miles Not Listed N/A

EDR Exclusive Historic Drycleaners (EDR US Hist. Cleaners)

0.125 miles Not Listed N/A

A review of the EDR US Hist Cleaners list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are two (2) EDR US Hist Cleaners sites within approximately 0.125 miles of the Target Property.

Equal/Higher Elevation–Rear Newbern Cleaner, 525 E. Armour Blvd., Direction, E Equal/Higher Elevation–Georgian Court Cleaners, 400 E. Armour Blvd., Direction,

NNW EDR Hist Cleaner: EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers.

21 | P a g e

EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR’s HRHR effort presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches.

The Target (Subject) Property (site address as listed in this database) is not listed in the EDR US Hist. Cleaner database. There are no other properties in this database within the search radius. None of the listed sites described in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report would appear to present a current recognized environmental condition for the subject site based on the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites to the Subject Property. 5.1.4 Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Recovered Government Archives The EDR exclusive environmental databases listed below were reviewed to obtain information pertaining to the site and properties within the listed minimum search distance of the site. Also listed are the month and year when the databases were last updated.

Table 4: EDR Recovered Government Archives Searched in Regulatory Review EDR Database Search

Distance Target

(Subject) Property

Last Update

EDR Recovered Government Archives Hazardous Waste Sites (RGA HWS)

TP Not Listed N/A

EDR Recovered Government Archives Solid Waste Facility List (RGA LF)

TP Not Listed N/A

EDR Recovered Government Archives LUST Sites (RGA LUST)

TP Not Listed N/A

TP=Target (Subject) Property

The Target Property (site address as listed in this database) is not listed in any of the RGA databases within the search radius. There are no properties in this database within the search radius. None of the listed sites described in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report would appear to present a current recognized environmental condition for the subject site based on the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites to the Subject Property. 5.2 Additional Record Sources No additional record sources were uncovered with the Jackson County Offices or the City of Kansas City Offices. 5.3 Physical Setting Sources Based on the TES review of the USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map of the Kansas City (MO) Quadrangle, (dated 2015) provided by the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report, the Subject Property is approximately 934 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Localized topography appears to slope from the north to the south.

22 | P a g e

Based on the TES review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resource Conservation Service Custom Soil Research report for Jackson County, Missouri, one predominant type of soils is classified on the Subject Property: the Sibley-Urban series consists of moderately sloping; fine-grained silts and clay soils on uplands. The site is underlain Pennsylvanian-aged sedimentary rock from the Missourian series. The Missourian series consists of interbedded limestone, shale and sandstones. 5.3.1 Hydrogeology Actual depth to groundwater is unknown at the subject site. It should be noted that actual local groundwater flow direction can be influenced by factors such as surface topography, underground structures, seasonal fluctuations, soil permeability and bedrock geology, none of which were considered during this study. The actual groundwater flow direction under the site has been inferred to be towards the south-southwest, but can only be accurately determined by installing a minimum of three groundwater monitoring wells, which was beyond the scope of work for this project. 5.4 Historical Site Use Information A review of historical street directories, aerial and topographic maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps and interviews with knowledgeable individuals has indicated that the Subject Property and adjacent areas have been p r imar i l y used as a multi-family mid-rise residence since its construction. Between 1925 and 1980, the Subject Property was primarily known as the “Windsor Manor Apartments Hotel”. Since then it was simply known as the “Windsor Manor Apartments”. The Subject Property was used for veterans and their families as sort of a “halfway house”: for patients and their families awaiting treatment at and/overflow traffic from the VA hospital. Current improvements appear to have been present since 1924. Historical information indicates the usage of this area of the site, prior to the mid-1920’s; appears to have been undeveloped land. The Polk/Cole/Gate City/Gould Directories and US Listing Service did not have a listing for the Subject Property prior to 1925. A review of aerial maps and interviews with knowledgeable individuals has indicated that the subject property has been used p r ima r i l y f o r residential purposes since approximately 1925 and, prior to the mid-1920’s, undeveloped land. Coverage of the area was not readily available prior to 1909. 5.4.1 Aerial Photography In an effort to determine historical land use that may have involved hazardous and/or petroleum substances, TES reviewed historical aerial photographs for the site and surrounding areas. Aerial photographs 2012, 2010, 2 0 0 9 , 2 0 0 8 , 2 0 0 7 , 2 0 0 6 , 2 0 0 2 , 1991, 1986, 1983, 1979, 1976, 1969, 1963, 1952, 1940, and 1936 were reviewed by TES. For the period coverage of the aerial photographs, the subject site and adjoining properties were primarily light commercial/industrial and residences at the time of the flyover and photographs. The Subject Property building, in its present form, appears in all of the aerial photographs. There are additional structures (primarily single-family and multi-family residences) present in all directions of the subject site.

23 | P a g e

5.4.2 Fire Insurance Maps Sanborn Maps illustrate in outline form the site, size, shape, construction and building material of dwellings, commercial buildings, and factories. Details of buildings include fire walls, the location and number of windows and doors, style and composition of roofs, wall thickness, cracks in exterior walls, and makes of elevators. The maps also indicate building use, sidewalk and street widths, layout and names, property boundaries, distance between buildings, house and block numbers, location of water mains, hydrants, piping, wells, cisterns, and fuel storage tanks. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. reported coverage of the site and surrounding area for historical Sanborn fire insurance maps between 1909 and 1963. 5.4.3 Property Tax Files Information gained from the Jackson County Assessor’s Office indicated that the site is presently current on their taxes through 2016. 5.4.4 Historical City Directories The results of the historical city directory search indicated that the subject site has been occupied since approximately 1925. The following information was provided by the Environmental Data Resources, Inc.-City Directory Abstract (cross-referenced with Polk/Cole/Gate City/Gould Directories), associated with historical ownership information: 409 E. Armour Blvd. 1925 Windsor Manor Apartment Hotel (46 tenants) 1930 Windsor Manor Apartment Hotel 1935 409-11 Windsor Manor Apartments 1940 409-11 Windsor Manor Apartments 1945 Windsor Manor Apartment Hotel 1951 409-11 Windsor Manor Apartments 1956 409-11 Windsor Manor Apartments 1961 409-11 Windsor Manor Apartment Hotel 1966 Hotel Windsor Manor Apartments (2 tenants) 1970 Windsor Manor Apartments (45 tenants, 1 vacancy) Hotel 1975 Windsor Manor Apartments Hotel (39 tenants, 1 vacancy) 1980 Windsor Manor Apartments Hotel (39 tenants, 1 vacancy) 1985 Campbell, Helena Pippens, Yoki 1990 Windsor Manor Apartments (9 tenants, 1 vacancy) 1995 Not Listed 2000 Beaver, Duane M Butler, Gary Gilliam, Rose PE Hot, Anthony Laws, John Maddox, Joe W McKinney, Tyrone A Tyson, Kenneth D Webber, M

24 | P a g e

2006 Apartments (26 tenants) R D Dependable 2014 Not Listed The results of the historical city directory search indicated that there is no coverage of the Subject Property prior to 1925. A review of aerial maps and interviews with knowledgeable individuals has indicated that the subject property has always been used for residential purposes. Coverage of the area was not readily available prior to 1925. 5.5 Historical Adjoining Property Use Information Armour Boulevard, a major Kansas City thoroughfare, is located in the Westport and East districts of Kansas City, Missouri. This east-west boulevard is approximately 1.25 miles in length. It extends from Broadway (a major north-south street) on the west to The Paseo (a major north-south boulevard) on the east. Two major north-south arteries intersect with Armour Boulevard--Main Street and Gillham Road. The majority of the extant structures along Armour Boulevard are apartments and hotels. These structures were erected during two distinct time periods--1902-1910 and 1911-1930, The apartments constructed during the first period were mostly two and three stories in height and were constructed mainly of brick. Many outstanding apartment/hotel buildings were constructed during the second time period (1911-30). The most common materials used in their construction were brick, terra cotta, and cut stone. A variety of architectural styles including Italianate, Tapestry Brick, Gothic Revival, Sullivanesque, Jacobethan, Neo Classical and the Arts and Craft Movement, were represented in these apartment/hotel buildings. Because of their unique architectural design, this area (including the Subject Property), has been nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Historical information indicates that the Subject Property has been used for residential and light industrial/commercial purposes since about 1909. Additional residences and light commercial/industrial buildings sit on all sides of the Subject Property. The site vicinity land use type: high rise apartments >8 units (code 2192); property class code: commercial value residential ratio (code 2018). Prior to current improvements, the adjoining properties were also used for residential and light commercial/industrial purposes. To the west of The Richelieu Apartments sits landscaping, a sidewalk, and Gillham Rd. West of Gillham Blvd. sits the International/Catholic Charities Building. To the north of E. Armour Blvd. sits The Sombart Apartments; with the Georgian Court Apartments to the west of the Sombart Apartment. To the east of Locust St. sits the Pulse Newspaper; with The Duke Apartments, directly to the north of the Pulse Newspaper Building, on E. Armour Blvd. Based on the review of the aforementioned historical site use sources, none of the adjoining properties were observed to have operations that appeared to contain environmental concerns.

6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions The objective of the site reconnaissance was to make observations associated with the exterior of the site and the interior(s) of structure(s) on the site. The periphery of the property was visually observed, making notes of the existing structures and their associated uses. The interior of each building was accessed and the common uses were established. Any limitations to the site reconnaissance are noted in the following sections.

25 | P a g e

6.2 General Site Setting The Subject Property consists of one four-story building (with basement), and landscaping; on one parcel with an area of approximately 0.21 acres. The building is currently vacant. The exterior of the building primarily consists of red brick, with aluminum doors & vinyl windows; and vinyl window & wood and aluminum door trim. The Subject Property is accessible from the front (north) side via the sidewalk and loading dock area (east) side via the driveway facing Locust St. There’s also an emergency exit on the south side of the building; and an entrance to the basement on the west side of the building. Additional light commercial/industrial businesses and residences surround all sides of the Subject Property. Surface water run-off was not observed at the time of the assessment; but inferred to run towards the south-southwest of the Subject Property. Properties in the general area include light commercial/industrial and residential uses. Prior to current improvements, the site was undeveloped land primarily used for residential and agricultural purposes. 6.3 Interior Observations The interior of the building consists of plaster and drywall wall systems, with drop ceilings (wood or concrete is present above the ceiling tiles); wood and aluminum doors, vinyl and aluminum windows, and wood window and door trim. The floors are primarily carpet over wood floors. There is either 12”x12” floor tile or sheet vinyl over wood floors in laundry room, kitchen, bathroom, and hallway closet areas. The basement is mostly open area, with a utility room and chemical storage area; in the southwest corner of the basement. The walls, floors, and ceiling in the basement are primarily concrete, with vinyl and aluminum windows. The main lobby, nurses’ station, physicians’ offices, and blood draw lab are on the ground (first) floor. Residential units, laundry rooms, and janitorial/maintenance closets are present on all four floors; accessible from the north and south stairwells and main hallways. Lighting throughout the building is primarily via fluorescent/CFC bulbs in public areas (hallways, stairwells, etc.); and private lamps in the units. Suspect lead-based paint (LBP) may be present on interior wood doors and door trim, window trim, baseboards, older aluminum windows, ceramic tile glaze, and older plaster walls & ceilings throughout the Subject Property. Suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM [sheet vinyl/floor tile & mastic, window glazing and ceiling tile, wood fire doors]) may be present in building materials in the lobby, units, hallway, closets, and restrooms. Other building materials (additional flooring materials, boiler insulation & piping, grout or mortar, fire doors, etc.) may be obscured by the equipment/debris currently present in the building. In addition, there’s a “microbial hazard” sign at the entrance. Visible mold growth and water staining was evident on building materials throughout the structure; with mold growth primarily on basement walls on the northwest side; and along ceilings, door & window frames, walls, and wood floors on every level of the building. Prior to any remodeling, renovation and/or demolition lead-based paint and asbestos surveys should be conducted in order to discover the presence of lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. In addition, all moisture intrusion issues should be resolved prior to the performance of any mold remediation activities at the Subject Property. 6.3.1 Potable Water Supply The Subject Property is supplied with water from the City of Kansas City (MO).

26 | P a g e

6.3.2 Sewage Disposal/Wastewater System The City of Kansas City (MO) services the stormwater and sanitary sewer system in the area surrounding the Subject Property. 6.3.3 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products At the time of this assessment, de minimus amounts of household cleaners, electronics (primarily TVs and computer screens) and light ballasts/fluorescent bulbs found throughout the building. No additional hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed on-site during the site reconnaissance. 6.3.4 Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks According to the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. records search report, no petroleum UST’s was registered on the subject site with Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Underground Storage Tank Registration Section, at the time of this assessment. Aboveground storage tank (AST) registration is not generally required unless the tank contains hazardous waste/materials or requires a flammable (or combustible) contents permit from the local fire department. A review of historical records, the regulatory records, and interviews with persons familiar with the site revealed no evidence of past or present AST’s on the Subject Property. 6.3.5 Odors, Pools of Liquid and Drums No obscure or foul odors (other than musty odors from recent rains), or pools of liquid were observed on-site at the time of this assessment. 6.3.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) PCBs are toxic coolants or lubricating oils used in some electrical transformers, light ballasts, electrical panels, or other similar equipment. PCB content in electrical transformers is grouped into three categories by the USEPA: <50ppm non-PCB 50 – 499 ppm PCB-contaminated >500 ppm and greater PCB transformer Utility companies often own transformer equipment and typically assume the responsibility for repair or replacement of damaged or leaking units and for required cleanup or remediation activities. Indications of damage or leakage should be immediately reported to the responsible utility company. There are light ballasts/fluorescent bulbs present throughout the building. Interviews with knowledgeable persons indicated that there’s an elevator in the building; but this area was inaccessible to TES at the time of this assessment. There are no pole-mounted transformers immediately near the Subject Property; but there are pole-mounted transformers in the neighborhood. 6.3.7 Waste Management and Hazardous Substance Handling At the time of this site assessment, no hazardous substance or waste handling was observed or documented by third party sources, at the time of this assessment; but it is assumed that private contractor handles waste management.

27 | P a g e

6.3.8 Heating and Cooling Heating and cooling of the Subject Property appears to have been initially (at time of construction) via boiler system and individual heaters and fans/air conditioners mounted on the floor of individual spaces (classrooms, offices, near entrances, etc.). Heating and cooling of the Subject Property in more recent times, was likely via gas forced air furnace/HVAC system, as site photos show an HVAC furnace in the basement; as well as in individual units. 6.3.9 Stains or Corrosion Water stains from previous leaks were observed above ceiling tile, walls, and floors on every level of the building; as well as on floors in several areas of the basement. No additional corrosion was observed on-site at the time of this assessment. 6.3.10 Drains and Sumps With the exception of rust stains from aged water stains, no additional staining of any drains or sumps was observed on-site at the time of this assessment. 6.4 Exterior Observations 6.4.1 Pits, Ponds or Lagoons No pits, ponds or lagoons were observed on-site at the time of this assessment. 6.4.2 Stained Soil or Pavement De minimus aged water (rust) staining was observed on pavement (primarily in the basement) at the time of this assessment. No additional stained soil or pavement was observed on the Subject Property at the time of this assessment. 6.4.3 Stressed Vegetation At the time of this assessment, no stressed vegetation was observed at the time of this assessment. 6.4.4 Wells According to the EDR Database, there are no federal USGS and two (2) state geological society well within one mile of the Subject Property. These are geological survey groundwater wells. There are also 12 state oil/gas wells located within one mile of the Subject Property. At the time of this assessment, individuals who are familiar with the site were not aware of any wells on the site.

7.0 INTERVIEWS AND INFORMATION REQUESTS On July 27, 2017, TES attempted to contact the Kansas City (MO) Health Department, Neighborhood Preservation Division and Office of Environmental Quality, to ascertain whether there had been any environmental responses, health department notices or violations, or other responses on the Subject Property. A response to the email request was not received at the time of the issuance of this report. In the event that this response is received after the issuance this report, contingent on the findings of the response, TES will provide a summary of the pertinent findings under separate cover.

28 | P a g e

On July 27, 2017, TES contacted Andrew Bracker, of the Kansas City (MO) Brownfields Dept., to ascertain whether there are any active Brownfields sites in and around the Subject Property. The Kansas City (MO) Brownfields Office did not have any files pertaining to the Subject Property. On July 27, 2017, TES contacted the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Hazardous Waste Program to confirm EDR’s findings regarding the Subject Property. According to EDR, the Subject Property’s not on any of the state’s databases. TES also completed an MDNR Sunshine Request Form in search of records (if any) pertaining to the Subject Property. A response to the email request was not received at the time of the issuance of this report. In the event that this response is received after the issuance this report, contingent on the findings of the response, TES will provide a summary of the pertinent findings under separate cover. On July 27, 2017, TES filled out a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the EPA Region 7 Office. A response to the email request was not received at the time of the issuance of this report. In the event that this response is received after the issuance this report, contingent on the findings of the response, TES will provide a summary of the pertinent findings under separate cover. On July 27, 2017, TES contacted Mary Tucker, of the Kansas City (MO) Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, to arrange access to the interior of the building. A site visit was scheduled for the next day. Upon inquiries to interview knowledgeable persons about the historical/current uses of the Subject Property, Tucker stated the following: The Subject Property was used to house veterans and their families awaiting treatment at

the VA Hospital. No knowledge of notices from a governmental entity in regards to environmental liens or

violations relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products. On July 27, 2017, TES contacted the Kansas City (MO) Fire Prevention Division., to ascertain whether there had been any emergency responses (fires hazardous chemical spills, etc.) or any environmental violations (illegal dumping, chemical storage issues, etc.), or other responses on the Subject Property. There are no records regarding the Subject Property for the last 15 years. There have been no permits issued for installation or removal of fuel storage tanks in the last four years. The last fire prevention inspection was done a number of years ago and the inspection form was marked “Veterans Administration-Fed Gov’t Property”; so no inspection was done, as they are exempt from local codes. On August 3, 2017, TES contacted Norman Hellings, Regional Director of Construction, MAC Properties, regarding the historical/current use of the Subject Property. Hellings mentioned that the Subject Property may have been used for veterans and their families as sort of a “halfway house): for patients and their families awaiting treatment at and/overflow traffic from the VA hospital. Hellings also mentioned that there is an elevator in the building (inaccessible to TES at the time of this assessment). Actual interview questionnaires and telephone conversation records for the aforementioned people can be found in Appendix E.

29 | P a g e

8.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS There were several sites listed within the specified search distances from the Target (Subject) Property as depicted on the map generated by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. and included in Appendix E. This map aids in locating listed sites relative to the Target (Subject) Property. N o n e of the federal or state listed sites described in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report would appear to present a recognized environmental condition for the subject site based on the geographic proximity (search distance) and the existing environmental conditions present at the listed sites. TES has performed a Phase 1 ESA of the site in general accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 and All Appropriate Inquiries as defined under 40 CFR Part 312-Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries. This Phase 1 ESA included a reconnaissance visit to the site, a review of the previously listed available environmental database information for the site and surrounding properties, interviews with persons familiar with the site, aerial photographs, published geologic and topographic information, and other related items. This information was used to evaluate existing or potential environmental impairment of the site due to current or past land use disclosed by this ESA. It is our opinion that readily apparent historical and current RECs and notable findings for the Subject Property were not identified during this assessment; through the readily ascertainable sources of information including site reconnaissance, interviews or existing Federal and State of Missouri environmental database records. Of lesser note and concern is the presence of miscellaneous household chemicals, electronics (primarily TVs and computer screens) and light ballasts/fluorescent bulbs found throughout the building. Suspect lead-based paint (LBP) may be present on interior wood doors and door trim, window trim, baseboards, older aluminum windows, ceramic tile glaze, and older plaster walls & ceilings throughout the Subject Property. Suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM [sheet vinyl/floor tile & mastic, window glazing and ceiling tile, wood fire doors]) may be present in building materials in the lobby, units hallway, closets, and restrooms. Other building materials (additional flooring materials, boiler insulation & piping, grout or mortar, fire doors, etc.) may be obscured by the equipment/debris currently present in the building. In addition, there’s a “microbial hazard” sign at the entrance. Visible mold growth and water staining was evident on building materials throughout the structure; with mold growth primarily on basement walls on the northwest side; and along ceilings, door & window frames, walls, and wood floors on every level of the building. A review of historical street directories, aerial and topographic maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps and interviews with knowledgeable individuals has indicated that the subject property and adjacent areas have been used for residential purposes since its construction. Historical information indicates that the Subject Property was first developed in approximately 1925. Review of the street directories, aerial and topographic maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps and interviews with knowledgeable individuals has indicated that the subject property and adjacent areas prior to the mid-1920’s appeared to have been residential areas and undeveloped land. The ASTM definition of a Vapor Encroachment Concern or “VEC” is “the presence or likely presence of chemical of concern vapors in the subsurface of the Subject Property caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater either on or near the Subject Property.” An initial search of all ASTM E 2600-15 standard government record

30 | P a g e

databases and EC proprietary government records report related to former dry cleaners, gas stations and manufactured gas plants was conducted within the 1/3 mile maximum distance defined in ASTM E 2600-15 for the contaminants of concern. A Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) is an investigation of all known or suspected contaminated properties within a given radius. The radius varies based on the "Chemical of Concern" at the contaminated site due to chemicals having different migration properties. Vapor Encroachment Screen distances can be up to 1/10 of a mile for petroleum contamination and up to 1/3 of a mile for other volatile compounds. The screening allows for the distances to be reduced for cross gradient and down gradient contaminated sites. There are three (3) sites listed within the 1/3 mile maximum distance of the Subject Property. The Georgian Court and Rear Newbern Cleaners are the two sites that showed up in the EDR Historical Drycleaners; and the R&N Midtown Cleaners showed up in the state’s Drycleaners database. However, these listings do not meet the definition of a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC); as no past releases of hazardous and/or petroleum products have been documented in association with this property. In addition, the soil type for this area (clayey silt loam) would be more resistant to any potential contamination spreading offsite. Furthermore, the results of the VES found no physical evidence of vapor encroachment conditions at the sites. When taken in consideration the points above, VECs may exist because of the LUST listing for the Vacant Lots 1-3, and the three drycleaner sites in the VEC report, (even though releases documented at the Vacant Lots 1-3 site has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of local, state, and federal authorities); but a REC may not exist. If the likelihood exists for vapors to reach the subsurface of the property, further investigation may be necessary, but that is beyond the scope of E2600. Vapor intrusion into a building and the subsequent impact on indoor air quality is not part of the ASTM E 2600-15 scope of work. 9.0 CONCLUSIONS We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice I 1527 of the parcel associated with the Subject Property, located at 409 E. Armour Blvd., in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Any exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Readily apparent historical RECs were not identified in any adjoining property during this assessment; and, there were no current RECs identified in adjoining properties during this assessment. Of lesser note and concern is the presence of miscellaneous household chemicals, electronics (primarily TVs and computer screens) and light ballasts/fluorescent bulbs found throughout the building. Suspect lead-based paint (LBP) may be present on interior wood doors and door trim, window trim, baseboards, older aluminum windows, ceramic tile glaze, and older plaster walls & ceilings throughout the Subject Property. Suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM [sheet vinyl/floor tile & mastic, window glazing and ceiling tile, wood fire doors]) may be present in building materials in the lobby, units hallway, closets, and restrooms. Other building materials (additional flooring materials, boiler insulation & piping, grout or mortar, fire doors, etc.) may be obscured by the equipment/debris currently present in the building. In addition, there’s a “microbial hazard” sign at the entrance. Visible mold growth and water staining was evident on building materials throughout the structure; with mold growth primarily

31 | P a g e

on basement walls on the northwest side; and along ceilings, door & window frames, walls, and wood floors on every level of the building.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this assessment, TES recommends the following actions be taken: Properly store, remove and/or dispose of the miscellaneous household chemicals, electronics, light ballasts/fluorescent bulbs and other debris scattered throughout the Subject Property. In addition, prior to any remodeling, renovation and/or demolition of the Subject Property, asbestos and lead-based paint surveys should be conducted in order to discover the presence of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint, respectively. In addition, all moisture intrusion issues should be resolved prior to the performance of any mold remediation activities at the Subject Property. In the event that any excavation occurs on the subject property, TES recommends that a limited Phase II Surface and Subsurface investigation be performed, in an attempt to assess whether residual heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are present on the site. This limited Phase II investigation should include both surface soil and subsurface soil samples. The actual scope of work for this limited investigation can be developed, in an attempt to assess the baseline presence of heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In the event that the subject site undergoes any renovation, remodeling and/or demolition activities that uncover additional suspect environmental concerns or potential recognized environmental conditions, TES recommends that an environmental professional be contacted to address those concerns.

11.0 DEVIATIONS No deviations from the scope of work were made as a part of this Phase I ESA. 12.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The scope of services as agreed to by all parties does not include specific surveys for asbestos, radon, lead in paint, soil, or water, naturally occurring materials, wetlands delineation, or the investigation or detection of the presence of any biological pollutants in or around any structure. The term “biological pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and the byproducts of any such organisms. No additional business risk services were performed as a part of the project, nor were proposed as separate services from the Phase I ESA.

13.0 REFERENCES The following references were used as a part of this Phase I ESA: Environmental Data Resources, Inc–Radius MapTM Report with GeoCheck®. Environmental Data Resources, Inc.-USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Maps–“Kansas City (MO) Quadrangle” (1920, 1894, 1935, 1940, 1948, 1957, 1964, 1970, 1975, 1995, 1996 and 2015). Environmental Data Resources, Inc.–City Directory Report.

32 | P a g e

Environmental Data Resources, Inc.–Sanborn Map Report. Environmental Data Resources, Inc.–Environmental Liensearch Report. Environmental Data Resources, Inc.–Property Tax Map Report. Environmental Data Resources, Inc.–Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Aerial Photo Decade Package (1936, 1940, 1952, 1963, 1969, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1986, 1991, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012).

Jackson County (MO) Assessor’s Office– Parcel Number & Appraisal Value Information.

United States Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources Conservation Service– Custom Soil Survey of Jackson County, Missouri. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 “Cleanups in my Community” website (http://www2epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups-my-community)–Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program activity. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Envirofacts” website (http:// www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html)–Envirofacts cross-references publicly available EPA databases, including RCRA, air emissions, Superfund, water, permitting and compliance information, and other EPA databases. Mary Tucker, Architect, Facilities, Kansas City (MO) Veterans Administration Medical Center (Direct: 816-922-2339 or 816-861-4700 Ext: 52339 [email protected]): Site contact & historical information from the Missouri State Historical Preservation Office. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Hazardous Waste Division Environmental Site Tracking & Research Tool (E-Start: http://dnr.mo.gov/ESTART)

14.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL I, Karla Granger, declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined under 40 CFR Part 312.10. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the Subject Property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Signed X

15.0 QUALIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL

Ms. Karla Granger has a B.A. in Chemistry from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and has over nineteen (19) years of experience in the environmental consulting and testing field. Ms. Granger has experience performing lead, asbestos, radon, and mold inspections, including environmental project oversight and asbestos air monitoring with on-site PCM analysis on several abatement projects in the states of Kansas and Missouri; including several government facilities. She has authored/co-authored several Phase I, Phase II, and NEPA Environmental Site Assessments, as well as manage sampling activities for chemical/PCB/VOC/heavy metal remediation projects. Ms. Granger is highly skilled in writing

33 | P a g e

technical reports and environmental field sampling. Additionally, Ms. Granger is an AHERA-certified asbestos inspector in the State of Missouri as well as a licensed lead-based paint Risk Assessor. Ms. Granger has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject Property. Ms. Granger has developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CRF Part 312.

phase i environmental site assessment...phase i environmental site assessment windsor manor...

Documents