Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV.A.1 - GZA Phase I ESASeptember 26, 2025 Ben Anderson City of Hastings Economic Development and Redevelopment Authority 101 4th Street East Hastings, Minnesota 55033 RE:Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Dear Mr. Anderson: We have completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the above referenced property located in Hastings, Minnesota.An invoice for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been provided along with a web link to an electronic copy of the report. In summary, this assessment has revealed the following evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property: •During the geotechnical evaluation, Tll soils with chemical odors were encountered in soil borings PB-1 and SB-6,south of the building located at 400 Vermillion Street (PB-1), and in the vacant lot located north of 418 Vermillion Street (SB-6).The soils exhibited petroleum-like odors and visible staining at depths ranging from 3to 9.3 ft bgs. The geotechnical evaluation also encountered Tll soils containing miscellaneous construction debris (brick, concrete, masonry block, foundry sand, glass, etc.). Based on the observed chemical odors and miscellaneous construction debris, it is likely that historical Tll material on the subject property contains petroleum products and/or hazardous substances. The Tll material and petroleum odors observed during the geotechnical borings is viewed as a recognized environmental condition. •The northeast portion of the subject property was occupied by an automotive repair shop for over 30 years. Operations on the site occurred prior to the advent of current regulatory standards for the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes (i.e. the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] of 1976). A previous subsurface investigation on the property is deemed insufTcient to rule out the potential for hazardous substances and petroleum releases associated with the historical automotive repair operations. Therefore, the identiTed historical occupancy of the property for automotive repair operations is viewed as a recognized environmental condition. •The subject property is in the City of Hastings which has widespread PFAS in groundwater likely originating from several sites within Washington County where 3M disposed of industrial waste and could also originate from several industrial properties within the City of Hastings.The likely presence of a PFAS groundwater plume below the subject property is viewed as arecognized environmental condition. While it is likely that groundwater is impacted by PFAS, the property does not feature a private water well, so there is little risk of exposure to impacted groundwater. Phase II sampling and testing is not recommended as the subject property owner is unlikely to be subject to any requirements for additional investigations or response. However, if a new water well is to be installed on the property, MDH should be contacted prior to drilling the well for advice on any special well construction considerations to minimize the risk of exposure to impacted groundwater. The following environmental concern was identiTed: •During the reconstruction of the TH-61 Hastings Bridge, MnDOT discovered two buried 560-gallon heating fuel oil USTs in the road right of way, directly east of the subject property. The tanks were likely associated with the automotive repair shop located at the northeast corner of the property. The tanks were discovered with evidence of a petroleum release. Following the discovery of the petroleum release, a Limited Site Investigation (LSI) was completed which consisted of one soil boring for soil and groundwater sampling. No soil impacts were detected, and low levels of toluene and xylenes were detected in groundwater at concentrations below action levels. Based on the investigation, a Petroleum Tank Release Site File Closure was issued to the subject property on March 2014, indicating that the investigation addressed the release to the satisfaction of the state.Based on the closed status of the petroleum release and our review of regulatory Tles, which indicated that residual impacts meet unrestricted land use criteria with no remaining activity and use limitations, engineering controls, or other land use controls, the identiTed release is viewed as a historical recognized environmental condition. However, the prospective redevelopment should be prepared to encounter petroleum-impacted soils and be prepared to properly manage the impacted soil. When the property is redeveloped, the development should be under an MPCA-approved Response Action Plan (RAP). GZA recommends Phase II sampling and testing to evaluate the recognized environmental conditions and to help develop a Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan (RAP/CCP) for the proposed redevelopment of the property. Please review the report in its entirety and contact us with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Sean Leary Associate Principal, VP Transaction Risk Management 2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Prepared for: City of Hastings Economic Development and Redevelopment Authority 101 4th Street East Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Prepared by: GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. 7505 Metro Boulevard, Suite 300 Edina, MN 55439 September 26, 2025 CERTIFICATIONS EP Certi0cation: I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the deTnition of Environmental Professional as deTned in 312.10 of this part. David Schultz Senior Consultant Standard Certi0cation: I have the speciTc qualiTcations 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. David Schultz Senior Consultant Site Assessor Site Assessor David Schultz Morgan Kodama Senior Consultant Scientist II Senior Reviewer Sean Leary Associate Principal, VP Transaction Risk Management TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2Findings and Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.1 Releases of Hazardous Substances, Petroleum Products, and Emerging Contaminants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3SigniTcant Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4Limitations and Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.5Terms of Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.0 Subject Property Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1Location and General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2Current Owner and Occupant Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3Current Adjoining Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.0 User Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.0 Helpful Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.0 Physical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.0 Historical Records Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1Records Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2Data Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.3Subject Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.4Adjoining Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.5Historically SigniTcant Environmental Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.0 Government Records Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.0 Site Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.1Methodology and Limiting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.2Hazardous Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.3Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.4PCB-Containing Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.5Drains, Sumps, Oil/Water Separator, and other Subgrade Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.6Chemical Storage Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.7Solid Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.8Septic System and Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.9Waste Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.10 Other Environmental Features or Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.11 Adjoining Properties Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 10.0 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A: QualiTcations Appendix B: Figures Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Historical Research Documentation Appendix E: Regulatory Records Documentation Appendix F: Regulatory File Reviews Appendix G: Miscellaneous Information 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Project Description GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) was retained by the City of Hastings Economic Development and RedevelopmentAuthority to complete this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the City Block #28 (Lots 1-8) property identiTed by the addresses 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 (subject property/Property). This assessment was performed in accordance with the ASTM International Standard Practice E1527-21. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the subject property for the presence of recognized environmental conditions as deTned by E1527-21. Thesubjectpropertyconsistsof12parcelsthattotalapproximately1.67acres.Analleyrunseast-westthrough the center of the Property.The parcels are developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and parking lot improvements. The parcels with commercial and residential improvements are identiTed by the following addresses: •400VermillionStreet;constructed1977,vacantcommercialbuildingandassociatedparkinglot(PIDs: 193215028040 and 193215028023); •410VermillionStreet;constructed1961,vacantcommercial-residentialbuildingandassociatedgreen space (PIDs:193215028020 and 193215028021); •412 Vermillion Street; constructed 1962, vacant commercial building and associated green space (PIDs:193215028085and 193215028080); •418 Vermillion Street; constructed 1945, vacant commercial-residential building (PID: 193215028087); •420 Vermillion Street; constructed 1950, activepizza restaurant (PID:193215028083); and •114 W 5th Street; constructed 1875, vacant residential building (PID:193215028060). Parcel IDs193215028050,193215028070, and 193215028086are vacant and/or parking lots. The current owners of the subject property is Hastings Economic Development and Redevelopment Authority andHastingsHoldings Company LLC. Hastings Holdings CompanyLLC ownstwoparcels,PIDs 193215028083 and 193215028070whichconsistofthepizzarestaurantandavacant,overUowparkinglot.RefertotheTgures in Appendix B for depictions of the subject property location and current improvements. 1.2 Findings and Opinions The key Tndings of our assessment, and our opinion of the the Tndings on the environmental condition of the subject property, are summarized as follows: Historical Land Use Subject Property Historicalrecordsindicatethesubjectpropertywasdevelopedwithaliveryandagriculturalimplementbuilding to the northeast (depicted with a tank in early Tre insurance maps), commercial buildings along Vermillion Street, and residences in the central and west portions by at least 1885, likely earlier.Commercial-residential use continued on the subject property through the 1900s. By 1911, the livery building onthe northeast corner ofthepropertywasremoved,andruinsofTreweredepictedintheareaofthelivery.Bythe1920s,awarehouse depicted as a repairing garage was depicted on the northeast corner of the Property. Two gasoline tanks were depicted east of the repair garage on Vermillion Street.Commercial buildings along Vermillion Street at this time were depicted as a carpenter, an auto repair shop, and blacksmith with residences to the west. Commercial-residentialusecontinuedonthesubjectpropertythroughthe1940s.Bythe1950s,theresidences were removed from the northwest portion of the subject property and paved parking was developed. Commercial development continued through the early 1960s with the present-day commercial buildings Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 28.0242007.00 September 26, 2025 1 identiTed as 410, 412, 418, and 420 Vermillion Street. Concurrently, the residences were removed from the westportionofthePropertyandpavedparkingwasdeveloped.Bythelate1970s,thenortheastwarehousewas removed from the Property and the original portion of the present-day commercial building identiTed as 400 Vermillion St was developed on the north-central portion of the Property. It should be noted that the gasoline tanksweredepictedeastoftherepairingwarehousebuildingthroughthe1962Treinsurancemap.Commercial development continued through the 1990s with additions to the building identiTed as 400 Vermillion St, bringing the subject property to its present-day conTguration. Historical occupants of the subject property include a livery, blacksmith, union house, auto repair shops (early 1900s-1950s), restaurant, and veterinarian (1950s), and multi-tenant commercial retail buildings from the 1960s-present including restaurants, barbers and hair salons, a liquor store, ofTces, a bank, and dental services provider. Residential use continued on the southwest portion of the Property through the 2020s. The buildings on the subject property are currently vacant with the exception of a pizza restaurant on the southeast portion. During the reconstruction of the TH-61 Hastings Bridge, MnDOT discovered two buried 560-gallon "heating fuel oil" USTs in the road right of way, directly east of the northeast corner of the subject property. The tanks were likely associated with the repairing garage located at the northeast corner of the property as depicted in the Tre insurance maps. The tanks were discovered with evidence of a petroleum release,which is discussed in the Government Records heading below. Adjoining Properties The north, northwest, west, and south adjoining properties were developed with commercial buildings, residences, and lumber yards by at least 1884, likely earlier.Industrial use/lumber yard use continued on the properties to the northwest through the 1900s, and the south and west through the 1920s. The present-day northwestadjoining residence wasdeveloped in the mid-1920s.By the 1930s, thewestadjoining propertywas graded, andthepresent-dayWilsonParkwasdeveloped.Atthistime,thesouthadjoining propertyidentiTedas 1155th StWwasdevelopedwithtwocommercialbuildingsdepictedasatruckshop.Commercialdevelopment continued to the south with a gasoline Tlling station developed on the east portion of the property in the late 1930s. Lumber yard development continued to the north through the 1940s and a gasoline Tlling station was developed on the east portion of the property in the late 1940s. Commercial development continued on the properties through the 1970s with the construction of the present-day commercial buildings to the north and south. Additions were shown on the south adjoining building in the 1990s, bringing the west, north, and south adjoining properties to their present-day conTgurations. Occupants of the adjoining properties included a lumber yard (1880s-1940s), a gasoline Tlling station (1950s-1970s), a restaurant (1950s-1970s), an auto repair shop, and restaurant (1980s-present) to the north;a lumber warehouse (1880s-1910s) and a residence (1920s-present) to the northwest;a carriageshop/lumberyard (1880s-1910s),a truck shop (1920s), agasoline Tlling station (late 1930s-1970s), auto repair shop (1980s-1990s), and Tre department (1960s-present) to the south;and a lumber yard (1880s-1920s), and public park (1930s-present) to the west. The adjoining properties to the northeast, east, and southeast, along Vermillion Street,were developed with commercial buildings by at least 1884, likely earlier. The original portion of the present-day courthouse was depicted to the northeast at this time. Commercial development continued to the east through the 1930s with the development of the present-day commercial retail buildings including saloons, grocery stores, hardware stores, and furniture stores. Commercial development continued to the northeast through the 1950s with additionstothecourthousebuilding,andtothesoutheastinthe1950swiththedevelopmentofagasolineTlling station on the property identiTed as 413 Vermillion Street. Additional commercial buildings were developed to the northeast and southeast in the 1960s, bringing the properties to their present-day conTguration. The northeast adjoining property has been occupied by Hastings City Hall since development in the 1880s. Occupants of the east adjoining properties include multi-tenant residences and commercial businesses such as a hardware store, multi-tenant ofTces, an antique store, and art gallery (1960s-present). Occupants of the southeast adjoining properties included a gasoline Tlling station (1950s-1960s), a telephone company (1970s-1990s), and multi-tenant commercial buildings from the 1990s-present. Commercial retail occupancy was not identiTed to the east or southeast from the years 1924 through 1962. Based on historical records, government records, and regulatory Tle reviews for documented releases to the east, it appears unlikely that historical lumber yard, automotive repair and gasoline Tlling stations to the north, east, and south have resulted recognized environmental conditions. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 28.0242007.00 September 26, 2025 2 Observations and Interviews OurobservationsinsidethebuildingsidentiTednoobviousindicationsofapastorpresentreleaseofhazardous substances or petroleum products. No hazardous waste generation was identiTed. No tanks or unidentiTed containers of chemicals were observed. No obvious chemical spills, signiTcant staining, corrosion or unusual odors were identiTed.We observed basements with sumps in several of the buildings. We did not observe any staining or other evidence of improper discharges into the sumps. We were unable to access the Spiral Pizza building.The tenant reportedly opens "at will" and was not open at the time of the site reconnaissance. Based on interviews, the site operates as a restaurant and does not use or store hazardous substances or petroleum products. Based on our observations and interviews, we do not view our inabilitytoaccess thetenantspacea signiTcant limitationthathasaffectedourability toidentify recognized environmental conditions. ObservationsofthelandareaidentiTednosuspectwastedisposals,chemicalstorageareas,signiTcantstaining, or obviously distressed vegetation. No pits, ponds or surface water features were observed. No wells, evidence of septic systems, or wastewater discharges were observed. No evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) was identiTed on the Property. During a geotechnical evaluation conducted in August 2025, petroleum odors and construction debris were noted in borings on the property. For more details, refer below under the 2025 Geotechnical Engineering Report heading. 2025 Geotechnical Engineering Report GZA conducted a geotechnical engineering evaluation for the City of Hastings associated with the prospective redevelopment of Block 28 (the subject property). The report was prepared for the design and construction of two proposed mixed-use commercial and residential structures and an associated parking lot. The evaluation included eight testboringsacross theproperty todepthsrangingfromseven to20.5feetbelowground surface (bgs). During the geotechnical evaluation, Tll soil with chemical odors were encountered in soil borings PB-1 and SB-6,south of the building located at 400 Vermillion Street (PB-1), and in the vacant lot located north of 418 Vermillion Street (SB-6).The soils exhibited petroleum-like odors and visible staining at depths ranging from 3 to 9.3 ft bgs. Soils were not collected for chemical analysis due to the nature of the evaluation. The geotechnical evaluation also encountered Tll soils containing miscellaneous construction debris (brick, concrete, masonry block, foundry sand, glass, etc.). Based on the observed chemical odors and miscellaneous construction debris, there is a potential for historical Tll material on the subject property to contain petroleum products and/or hazardous substances. The Tll material and petroleum-odor soil observed during the geotechnical evaluation is viewed as evidence of a recognized environmental condition. Recommendations for Phase II sampling and testing to assist in characterizing the Tll material prior to redevelopment of the property are provided. Government Records Search The subject property was identiTed on the following standard government record sources: •Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Very Small Quantity Generators (RCRA VSQG); •Historic Tanks (HIST TANK); •Historic Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (HIST LUST); •Underground Storage Tanks (UST); •MPCA Remediation Sites (LST REM SITE); •MPCA Agency Interests (MPCA AI x 2); and •Facility Registry Service / Facility Index (FINDS/FRS x 2). The UST and HIST TANK listings reference Wells Fargo Bank Property and two former underground storage tanks associated with the subject property. The database report indicated that two 560-gallon fuel oil USTs were installed on the subject property at an unknown date and removed in 2011. The HIST LUST, LST REM SITE, MPCA AI, and FINDS/FRS listings indicate that a release was discovered from the USTs during their Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 28.0242007.00 September 26, 2025 3 removal.RegulatoryrecordsregardingtheselistingswereobtainedfromtheMPCA.A Non-StandardLimitedSite Investigation (LSI) was completed on the subject property in June 2013 by AECOM for the MPCA. The report indicated during the reconstruction of the TH-61 Hastings Bridge, MnDOT discovered two buried 560-gallon USTs in the road right of way, directly east of the subject property, which exhibited evidence of a petroleum release (stained soils and petroleum odors). The amount of product released was unknown, but approximately 5 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed from the tank basin during the UST excavation. During the LSI, one soil boring was advanced in the vicinity of the tank basin to 40 feet bgs. AECOM speciTed that they were not able to complete the soil boring in the former tank basin due to underground utility lines in the vicinity. Bedrock was encountered at 3 feet bgs, and the soil/bedrock sample was taken from 8 to 9 feet bgs. Soil samples were analyzed for diesel range organics (DRO), gasoline range organics (GRO), and petroleum volatile organic compounds (PVOCs).Laboratory testing did not identify any target analytes above laboratory reporting limits in the soil samples.Groundwater samples detected toluene (2.5 µg/L) and xylene isomers (3.2 µg/L) atconcentrations below their respectiveMinnesota Department of Health (MDH) Health Risk Limits (HRLs). Based on the foregoing, AECOM opined that the petroleum contamination previously identiTed was limited to the former tank basin and recommended site closure. A Petroleum Tank Release Site File Closure was issued to the subject property on March 2014, indicating the investigation addressed the release to the satisfaction of the state.Based on the closed status of the petroleum release and our review of regulatory Tles, which indicated that residual impacts meet unrestricted land use criteria with no remaining activity and use limitations, engineering controls, or other land use controls, the identiTed release is viewed as a historical recognized environmental condition. The prospective redevelopment should expect to encounter petroleum-containingsoilsandbepreparedtomanagethesoil properly.Whenthepropertyisredeveloped,the development should be under an MPCA-approved Response Action Plan (RAP). The subject propertywas previously occupied by an automotiverepair operation for over 30 years.Operations on the site would have occurred prior to the advent of current regulatory standards for the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes (i.e., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] of 1976). The previous subsurface investigation on the property only included one sample location which was not in the former building footprint, and is deemed insufTcient to rule out the potential for hazardous substance and petroleum impacts associated with the historical automotive repair operations. Therefore, the identiTed historical occupancy of the property for automotive repair operations is viewed as a recognized environmental condition.Recommendations for Phase II sampling and testing are provided. The RCRA VSQG, MPCA AI, and FINDS/FRS listings reference Norwest Bank Hastings Auto NA and the very small quantities of hazardous waste generated by the occupant, including ignitable waste and corrosive waste. The database report indicates the occupant has maintained the generator license since at least 1994.Regulatory records regarding these listings were requested from Dakota County and the MPCA but were not received by the issuance of this report. No enforcement or compliance violations were identiTed in the database report in connection with the generator license. Based on the lack of reported violations and administrative nature of these listings, we do not view these listings as evidence of a recognized environmental condition and further regulatory review is deemed unwarranted. One RCRA VSQG, MPCA AI, and FINDS/FRS listing were identiTed for the subject property address under the occupant"HastingsPoliceStation."Itisourprofessionalopinionthatthislistingwasmisplottedonthedatabase report and is associated withthe adjoining property to the northeast. Adjoining Properties Regulated sites and documented releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products were identiTed on the adjoining properties,but no obvious detrimental impacts to the subject propertyare suspected with the exception of an area wide PFAS plume discussed below. Surrounding Properties - Hastings Area-Wide PFAS Investigation A surrounding property identiTed as Hastings Plume (100 4th St W) was identiTed on the Federal BrownTelds (FED BROWNFIELDS) and FINDS/FRS databases in reference to ongoing investigations related tothe3M PFAS ContaminationPlume.Regulatory records regarding these listings, andthe SITE ASSESSMENT listing identiTedinconnection with HastingsMunicipal Wells, were obtained fromthe MPCA. Aletter from the MPCAto3MdatedOctober2023indicatesPFASwereidentiTedinmunicipalwellsinHastingsandasuspected source was the 3M Company Cottage Grove facility. In the letter, the MPCA requested that 3M collect more Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 28.0242007.00 September 26, 2025 4 data in Hastings to understand the distribution of PFAS in groundwater.A Groundwater Investigation Report - Fiscal Year 2024, prepared by Braun Intertec for the MPCA dated June 30, 2024,indicates there are at least elevenindustrialproperties,landTlls,andtreatmentfacilitieswithinHastingsthatcouldbeasourceofthePFAS in groundwater. The subject property is located in the City of Hastings,which has widespread PFAS in groundwater. The PFAS likely originate from several sites within Washington County where 3M disposed of industrial waste and could also originate from several industrial properties within the City of Hastings.Based on the location of the subject property within the presumed extent of the PFAS groundwater contamination plume, groundwater on the property likely contains PFAS which is viewed as a recognized environmental condition. While it is likely groundwatercontainsPFAS,theproperty doesnothaveaprivatewaterwellsothereislittleriskofexposureto thegroundwater.PhaseIIsamplingandtestingisnotrecommendedas thesubjectpropertyownerisunlikelyto be subject to requirements for additional investigations or response actions. However, if a new water well is to beinstalledontheproperty,MDHshouldbecontactedpriortodrillingthewellforrestrictionsand/oradviceon any special well construction considerations to minimize the risk of exposure to impacted groundwater. Signi0cant Data Gaps NosigniTcantdatagapswereidentiTedthataffectedourabilityto evaluate thesubjectpropertyforrecognized environmental conditions. 1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in general conformance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) Practice E 1527-21 of the property identiTed by the address 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.4 of this report. Thisassessmenthasrevealedthefollowing evidenceofrecognizedenvironmentalconditionsinconnectionwith the property: •During the geotechnical evaluation, Tll soils with chemical odors were encountered in soil borings PB-1 and SB-6,south of the building located at 400 Vermillion Street (PB-1), and in thevacant lot located north of 418 Vermillion Street (SB-6).The soils exhibited petroleum-like odors and visible staining at depths ranging from 3to 9.3 ft bgs. The geotechnical evaluation also encountered Tll soils containing miscellaneous construction debris (brick, concrete, masonry block, foundry sand, glass, etc.). Based on the observed chemical odors and miscellaneous construction debris, it is likely that historical Tll material on the subject property contains petroleum products and/or hazardous substances. The Tll material and petroleum odorsobserved during the geotechnical borings is viewed as a recognized environmental condition. •The northeast portion of the subject property was occupied by an automotive repair shop for over 30 years. Operations on the site occurred prior to the advent of current regulatory standards for the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes (i.e. the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] of 1976). A previous subsurface investigation on the property is deemed insufTcient to rule out the potential for hazardous substance and petroleum releases associated with the historical automotive repair operations. Therefore, the identiTed historical occupancy of the property for automotive repair operations is viewed as a recognized environmental condition. •The subject property is in the City of Hastings which has widespread PFAS in groundwater likely originating from several sites within Washington County where 3M disposed of industrial waste and couldalsooriginatefromseveralindustrialpropertieswithintheCity of Hastings.The likelypresence of a PFAS groundwater plume below the subject property is viewed as a recognized environmental condition. While it is likely that groundwater is impacted by PFAS, the property does not feature a private water well, so there is little risk of exposure to impacted groundwater. Phase II sampling and testing is not recommended as thesubject property owner is unlikely to be subject to any Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 28.0242007.00 September 26, 2025 5 requirements for additional investigations or response. However, if a new water well is to be installed on the property, MDH should be contacted prior to drilling the well for advice on any special well construction considerations to minimize the risk of exposure to impacted groundwater. The following environmental concern was identiTed: •During the reconstruction of the TH-61 Hastings Bridge, MnDOT discovered two buried 560-gallon heating fuel oil USTs in the road right of way, directly east of the subject property. The tanks were likely associatedwith the automotive repairshop locatedatthenortheastcorner oftheproperty. The tankswerediscoveredwithevidenceofapetroleumrelease.Followingthediscoveryofthepetroleum release, a Limited Site Investigation (LSI) was completed which consisted of one soil boring for soil andgroundwatersampling.Nosoilimpactsweredetected,andlowlevels oftolueneandxyleneswere detectedingroundwateratconcentrationsbelowactionlevels.Basedontheinvestigation,a Petroleum Tank Release Site File Closure was issued to the subject property on March 2014, indicating that the investigation addressed the release to the satisfaction of the state.Based on the closed status of the petroleum release and our review of regulatory Tles, which indicated that residual impacts meet unrestricted land use criteria with no remaining activity and use limitations, engineering controls, or other land use controls, the identiTed release is viewed as a historical recognized environmental condition. However, the prospective redevelopment should be prepared to encounter petroleum-impacted soils and be prepared to properly manage the impacted soil. When the property is redeveloped, the development should be under an MPCA-approved Response Action Plan (RAP). GZA recommends Phase II sampling and testing to evaluate the recognized environmental conditions and to help develop a Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan (RAP/CCP) for the proposed redevelopment of the property. 1.4 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessment Subject to completion of the User Responsibilities outlined in Section 4.0 of this report, for purposes of compliance with the All Appropriate Inquires Rule (40 CFR Part 312), certain components of this Phase I ESA mustbeupdated after 180 daysifacquisition ofthe subjectpropertyhas notyet occurred.The180-day period begins on the dates below, for these components: Components Completion Dates Expiration Dates Interviews August 12, 2025 February 8, 2026 Federal, tribal, state, and local government records reviews August 14, 2025 February 10, 2026 Site reconnaissance September 3, 2025 March 2, 2026 Signed declaration by environmental professional(s) September 26, 2025 March 25, 2026 Completion of the User Questionnaire. September 17, 2025 March 16, 2026 Environmental cleanup liens or activity and use limitation search (AUL)1 search Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 28.0242007.00 September 26, 2025 6 1CompletionofanenvironmentallienandAULsearchistheresponsibilityoftheuserunless addedtothescope of the Phase I ESA by agreement of the user and the environmental professional. After one year of the latest date given above, a new full Phase I ESA must be conducted prior to acquisition. 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose It is our understanding that this assessment was requested as a normal course of due diligence in connection with the prospective redevelopment of the Property by the Hastings Economic Development and Redevelopment Authority. This assessment was performed in conformance with ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the Property for the presence of recognized environmental conditions,controlled recognized environmental conditions,historical recognized environmental conditions, and de minimis conditions as deTned by ASTM, and other environmental concerns requested by the client and identiTed in Section 2.2. The term recognized environmental condition means (1)the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2)the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely1 release to the environment;or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property underconditionsthatposea materialthreat ofa futurerelease tothe environment.PerUuorooctanoicacid(PFOA) and perUuorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) are now CERCLA hazardous substances. Theterm recognizedenvironmentalcondition doesnotincludedeminimis conditions thatgenerallydonotpresent a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.Note thata de minimis conditionisnot arecognized environmental condition. The term controlled recognized environmental condition means a recognized environmental condition affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject toimplementationofrequiredcontrols(forexample,activityanduselimitations,orother propertyuselimitations). The term historical recognized environmental condition means a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example,activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). 1For the purposes of this deTnition, "likely" is that which is neither certain, nor proved, but can be expected or believedbyareasonableobserverbasedonthelogicand/orexperienceofthe environmentalprofessional,and/or available evidence, as stated in the reportto support the opinions given therein. Signi3cant data gaps are data gaps that affect the ability of the environmental professional to identify a recognized environmental condition. The ASTM standard deTnes the subject property as the property that is the subject of the environmental site assessment. An adjoining property is deTned as any real property or properties the border of which is contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the subject property, or that would be contiguous with that of the subject property but for a street, road, or otherpublic thoroughfareseparatingthem. This report may refer to the subject property as the Property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Redevelopment Block #28 (Lots 1-8) 400-420 (even) Vermillion Street and 110-114 (even) West 5th Street, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 28.0242007.00 September 26, 2025 7