Starlite Drive In 17Acres PhaseI 2015

7/23/2019 Starlite Drive In 17Acres PhaseI 2015

1/746

Your Property. Our Priority.1745 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868

Telephone (714) 634-9500 Fax: (714) 634-9507

www.HillmannConsulting.com

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

2450ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD

2559,2603,2610,2622,2630&2634CHICO AVENUE

2607,2629&2637HUMBERT AVENUE

SOUTH EL MONTE,CA91733

Prepared For:

Warmington Residential CA

3090 Pullman StreetCosta Mesa, CA 92626

August6, 2015

Hillmann Project No: C3-6341


2/746


3/746

Hillmann Consulting LLC

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -i- Hillmann Project No. C3-63412540 Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 11.1 Project Details Summary Table .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Findings Summary Table ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 General Description, Current and Historic Property Use ............................................................................. 3

1.4 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 3

1.5

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 72.1 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Property Location/Legal Description ........................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Significant Assumptions............................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Special Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 123.1 Prior Reports and other Provided Documentation ...................................................................................... 12

3.2 Title Records/Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations ............................................................ 12

3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience ....................................................................................................... 12

3.4

Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ................................................................... 123.5 Property Value Reduction due to Environmental Conditions .................................................................... 12

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA .......................................................................................................... 12

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 134.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources ................................................................................................ 18

4.3 Physical Setting Sources ............................................................................................................................ 19

4.4 Historical Use Property and Adjoining Properties .................................................................................. 19

5.0

SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..................................................................................................................... 235.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ...................................................................................................... 23

5.2 General Site Setting .................................................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations ................................................................................................................ 25

6.0

INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................................ 28

6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants .......................................................................... 28

6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials ......................................................................... 28

7.0 NON-ASTM SCOPE CONCERNS ......................................................................................................... 297.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) ....................................................................................................... 29

7.2 Lead-Based Paint........................................................................................................................................ 29

7.3 Radon ......................................................................................................................................................... 29

7.4 Mold ........................................................................................................................................................... 29

7.5 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 29

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT ..................................................................... 31

9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 32

10.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 33Appendix A Site Diagram/Vicinity Map

Appendix B Site Photographs

Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided InformationAppendix D Historical Records Documentation

Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation

Appendix F Other DocumentsAppendix G Project Personnel Qualifications


4/746


Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -ii- Hillmann Project No. C3-63412540 Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California

List of Abbreviations/Acronyms

Hillmann may use the following abbreviations and acronyms for common terminology described in

our report. Not all abbreviations or acronyms may be applicable to this report:

ACM Asbestos Containing Material

AST Aboveground Storage TankASTM American Standard for Testing Materials

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information SystemCESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

CORRACTS Corrective Action Sites

CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental ConditionDNPL Delisted National Priority List

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

ENG EngineeringERNS Emergency Response Notification System

FOI Freedom of Information

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FOIL Freedom of Information Letter

HVAC Heating Ventilation & Air ConditioningHREC Historic Recognized Environmental Condition

IAQ Indoor Air Quality

INST Institutional

LBP Lead-Based PaintLQG Large Quantity Generator

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MSDS Material Safety Data SheetNFA No Further Action

NFRAP No Further Remedial Actions Planned

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priority List

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information SystemREC Recognized Environmental Condition

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control BoardSCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SQG Small Quantity Generator

TSDF Treatment Storage and/or Disposal FacilityUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UST Underground Storage Tank


5/746


6/746


Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -2- Hillmann Project No. C3-63412540 Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California

1.2 Findings Summary Table

The following table summarizes the key findings of this assessment. This table, alone, does not

constitute the complete assessment. The report must be reviewed in its entirety.

Assessment Section No Sig.

Concern

Potential Env Concern REC Recommended

Follow-up

Rep.

Ref.

User Provided Info X 3.0

Data Gaps X 2.5

Regulatory Review

Regional groundwater/ soil

gas contamination within

San Gabriel ValleySuperfund site.

REC

Obtain future

monitoring results

as they becomeavailable

4.1

Historical ReviewProperty historically used as

a dry cleanerREC Phase II 4.4

Site UsePoor housekeeping within

the maintenance shop

REC Phase II 5.2

Adjoining Properties X4.1.25.2.8

Hazardous Materials X 5.3

Bulk Petroleum Storage X 5.3

PCBs X 5.3

Waste / Discharges X 5.3

Asbestos Containing

Materials (ACM)

Potential for ACM on

Property

Compliance with

regulations7.1

Lead Based Paint (LBP)Potential for LBP on

Property

Compliance with

regulations

7.2

Radon X 7.3

MoldVisible mold present on

ceiling of maintenance shop

Compliance with

regulations7.4

Wetlands X 7.5

NA = Not Applicable, TBD = To Be Determined, UNK = Unknown


7/746


8/746



The US ENG Controls listing indicates that groundwater is being treated with the followingsystems: ion exchange, biological treatment (NOS & Ex-situ), UV oxidation, air stripping,

flocculation, extraction, carbon adsorption, reverse osmosis, natural attenuation, and monitoring.

The Consent and ROD listings provide no pertinent information. The ICIS listing provides no

pertinent information. The FINDS listing indicates the site is on the CERCLIS and ICISdatabases. The PRP listing provides more than 400 parties that are potentially responsible for

contributing to the groundwater contamination.

San Gabriel Basin Groundwater Quality Management and Remediation Plan, prepared by the

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority and dated April 19, 2011. According to a map of the

South El Monte OU in Appendix G and updated in February of 2011, the Property is locatedwithin an area of VOC contamination where levels of contaminants are between the Maximum

Contaminant Level (MCL) and ten times (10x) the MCL. Considering the Property will be

utilized for residential development, this VOC contamination is considered to be a REC inconnection with the Property.

The adjoining properties were listed on several regulatory databases including LUST and SLIC

cases located to the west and south, respectively. Both cases received agency closure.

1.4.2 Non-ASTM Scope Considerations

Hillmann has also performed preliminary evaluations for ASTM Non-Scope items, such as

asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint, radon, mold and wetlands. Our

observations and research did not identify any notable concerns, except for the following:

Considering the dates of construction of the existing buildings, asbestos containing materials(ACM) may be present at the Property. Suspected ACM observed during a preliminary visual

screening included roofing materials, plaster walls, drywall, acoustical ceiling, vinyl flooring,

cove base, adhesive, and stucco. It is possible that additional quantities of suspect ACM mayexist in enclosed areas or areas not accessed during the assessment. It is emphasized that this

limited screening does not constitute a comprehensive asbestos survey of the premises and is

meant only to provide a preliminary evaluation regarding the potential presence of ACM at the

Property.

Considering the dates of construction of the existing buildings, lead-based paint may be present

at the Property. In general, interior painted surfaces within the space were observed to be in faircondition to damaged condition. It is emphasized that this limited screening does not constitute a

comprehensive lead-based paint survey of the premises and is meant only to provide a preliminary

evaluation regarding the potential presence of LBP at the Property.

During the assessment, Hillmann conducted a preliminary inspection of the accessed areas of the

building for evidence of excessive or amplified mold growth, or for conditions favorable for

mold growth. The interior of the maintenance shop had excessive, visible mold growth on thedrywall ceiling where an apparent breach in the roof is located. No other obvious evidence of

excessive or amplified mold growth, or conditions favorable for mold growth, was observed on

the Property during the site assessment.


9/746



1.4.3 Significant Data Gaps

No data gaps that significantly impacted Hillmanns ability to identify RECs in connection with

the Property have been identified.

1.4.4 Recognized Environmental Conditions

Hillmann has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the scopeand limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of the Property as described in Section 2 of this

report. Any additions to, exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are also described in

Section 2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental

conditionsin connection with the Property, except for the following:

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs):

The location of the Property within the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site, specifically in anarea identified as having VOC contamination between the MCL and 10x the MCL is

considered to be a REC.

The historic use of the Property as a dry cleaner at 2622 Chico Avenue is considered to be a

REC.

The use of the maintenance shop for approximately 50 years with evidence of poor

housekeeping is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs):

No evidence of any CRECs in connection with the Property was identified.

Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs):

No evidence of any HRECs in connection with the Property was identified.

1.5 Recommendations

1.5.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions

Based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Hillmann recommends that

the VOC contamination from the NPL site as well as the potential for releases from the historic

dry cleaner and current maintenance shop at the Property be assessed prior to the sitesredevelopment for residential use.

1.5.2 Non-ASTM Considerations

The following should be considered with regard to further investigation or management of Non-ASTM considerations addressed by this report:


10/746



Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to the presence of ACM,

lead based paint, and amplified microbial growth at the Property.


11/746



2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose and Scope

This assessment was conducted utilizing generally accepted Phase I ESA industry standards in

accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13. The ASTM describes these

methodologies as representing good commercial and customary practice in the United States ofAmerica for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate

with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and petroleum products. As such, this

practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocentlandowner, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on

CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the landowner liability protections, or LLPs): that is, the

practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses theproperty consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C.

9601(35) (B). The primary goal of the processes established by ASTM E1527-13 is to identifyrecognized environmental conditionsin connection with the Property.

The term recognized environmental condition (REC)is defined by the ASTM as the presence or

likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at a property: (1)due to a 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.

The ASTM has also defined the terms historical recognized environmental conditions andcontrolled recognized environmental conditions as two additional types of RECs. The termhistorical 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 meetingunrestricted 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).

The term controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) is defined as a recognized

environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleumproducts that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with

hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the

implementation of required controls.

Conditions determined to be de minimis conditions are not considered to be RECs norCRECs. De minimis condition is defined by the ASTM as a condition that generally does not

present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subjectof an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

The chief components of this assessment are described as follows:


12/746



A non-invasive visual reconnaissance of the Property and adjoining properties in accordance

with ASTM guidelines for evidence of RECs.

Interviews of past and present owners and occupants and state and local government

officials, seeking information related to the potential presence of RECs at the Property.

A review of standard physical record sources for available topographic, geologic andgroundwater data.

Review of standard historic record sources, such as fire insurance maps, city directories,

aerial photographs, prior reports and interviews, etc., to determine prior uses of the Property

from the present, back to the Propertys first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever isearlier.

Review of standard environmental record sources including federal and state environmental

databases, and additional environmental record sources, to identify potential regulatoryconcerns with the Property, adjoining properties and properties located within the

surrounding area.

These methodologies are described as representing good commercial and customary practice for

conducting an Environmental Site Assessment of a property for the purpose of identifying

recognized environmental conditions.

2.1.1 Non-ASTM Scope Considerations

In accordance with our contract agreement, Hillmann may have addressed the followingpotential environmental concerns that are outside of the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13

standard:

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM): A preliminary visual inspection for the presence of

suspect ACM within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property.

Lead-Based Paint (LBP): A preliminary visual inspection of the condition of painted surfaces in

the accessed areas of buildings on the Property.

USEPA Designated Radon Potential: Review of general non-site specific data published by theUSEPA regarding the potential for elevated indoor levels of radon gas to occur in the area of the

Property.

Mold: A preliminary visual inspection within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property forevidence of systemic microbial problems, including visible mold growth, water damaged

building materials or musty odors.

Wetlands: A preliminary review of data published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

regarding the presence or absence of mapped wetlands on the Property. The US Fish andWildlife Service wetlands data is typically provided to Hillmann by Environmental Data

Resources, Inc. (EDR).


13/746



2.2 Property Location/Legal Description

The Property is located at 2450 Rosemead Boulevard, 2559, 2603, 2610, 2622, 2634 & 2634

Chico Avenue, and 2607, 2629 & 2637 Humbert Avenue, South El Monte, California. The legal

designations of the Property are Assessors Parcel Numbers (APNs) 8102-037-020, 8102-037-021, 8102-037-001, 8102-035-017, 8102-029-025, 8102-029-007, 8102-029-006, 8102-029-005,

8102-029-026, 8102-029-019, and 8102-029-020. The Property is located between RosemeadBoulevard and Humbolt Avenue (See Figure 2 for a site map). The latitude and longitude of theProperty is approximately North 34.0583 degrees, and West 118.0614 degrees.

2.3 Significant Assumptions

The following significant assumptions are made:

Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information

obtained from EDR during the course of this assessment.

Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information thatwas obtained from ostensibly knowledgeable individuals, regulatory agency representativesor other secondary sources.

Hillmann has assumed that the site operations at the time of the site visit reflect typical site

conditions relative to potential environmental conditions and that no concealment ofenvironmental conditions or releases by site owners or occupants has occurred. Likewise,

Hillmann has also assumed that no areas of the Property with potential environmental

concerns or RECs were concealed or otherwise not made known to us, intentionally orunknowingly, by the Property owners/occupants and/or site escort at the time of the site

visit.

For the purpose of estimating the approximate direction of groundwater flow in the absenceof site specific groundwater data, unless indicated otherwise, Hillmann has assumed that the

gradient of groundwater flow follows the surface topography of the Property and immediate

surrounding area.

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions

2.4.1 Limiting Conditions

Hillmann was unaware of any significant limiting conditions at the time of the assessment.

2.4.2 Other Exceptions or Deletions:

No exceptions or deletions from the ASTM Standard E 1527-13 are reported.


14/746



2.5 Data Gaps

A data gapis defined by the ASTM as a lack of or inability to obtain information required by

this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such

information. A data gap is only significant if other information and/or professional experienceraises reasonable concerns involving the data gap and the ability to determine the presence or

absence of recognized environmental conditions.

Data Gap: Significant

(Yes/No)?

Discussion

Response to agency records

requests not received as of date

of report.

No Any additional information indicative of a REC will be

forwarded upon receipt.

2.6 Special Terms and Conditions

Hillmann has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment using reasonable efforts in

each phase of its work to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with

hazardous substances, wastes and petroleum products at the Property. The methodology of thisPhase I Environmental Site Assessment was consistent with the ASTM Standard Practice for E

1527-13. Findings within this report are based on information collected from observations made

on the day of the site visit and from reasonably ascertainable information obtained from

governing public agencies and private sources.

This report is not definitive and should not be assumed to be a complete or specific definition of

the conditions above or below grade. Information in this report is not intended to be used as aconstruction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation or other construction

purposes. Hillmann makes no representation or warranty that the past or current operations at

the Property are, or have been, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws,

regulations and codes.

Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our visual

observations of the Property, the research findings reasonably obtained, information provided bythe Client, and/or a review of readily available and supplied drawings and documents. Hillmann

relies completely on the information, whether written, graphic or verbal, provided by the subject

Property contact(s) or as shown on any documents reviewed or received from the subjectProperty contact, owner or agent, or municipal source, and assumes that information to be true

and correct. Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided

by these various sources, Hillmann did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy orcompleteness of all information reviewed or received during the course of this assessment.

Regardless of the findings stated in this report, Hillmann is not responsible for consequences or

conditions arising from facts that were concealed, withheld or not fully disclosed at the time theassessment was conducted.

This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant againstoperations or conditions present of a type or at a location not investigated.


15/746



The regulatory database report provided is based on an evaluation of the data collected andcompiled by a contracted data research company. The report focuses on the Property and

neighboring properties that could impact the Property. Neighboring properties listed in

governmental environmental records are identified within specific search distances. The search

distance varies depending upon the particular government record being checked. The regulatoryresearch is designed to meet the requirements of ASTM Standard E 1527-13. The information

provided in the regulatory database report is assumed to be correct and complete.

Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by the surface observations and

can only be reliably evaluated through intrusive techniques.

Reasonable efforts have been made during this assessment to identify aboveground and

underground storage tanks and ancillary equipment. Reasonable efforts are limited to

information gained from visual observation of largely unobstructed areas, recorded databaseinformation held in public record and available information gathered from interviews. Such

methods may not identify subsurface equipment that may have been hidden from view due to

parked automobiles and other vehicles, snow cover, vegetative growth, pavement, construction

or debris pile storage or incorrect information from sources.

Unless otherwise specified in Section 2.1 of this report, an ASTM Vapor Encroachment

Screening of the Property utilizing the information collected during the course of thisassessment is excluded from the scope of service for this assessment.

Hillmann is not a professional title insurance firm and makes no guarantee, explicit or implied,that the records which were reviewed represent a comprehensive or precise delineation of past

Property ownership or tenancy for legal purposes.

In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this report and the terms and

conditions of the consulting services agreement between Warmington Residential CA andHillman Consulting, the consulting services agreement shall control.


16/746



3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION

3.1 Prior Environmental Reports/Documentation

No previous environmental reports or documentation was provided to Hillmann.

3.2 Title Records/Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations

Review of title records is not included in the scope of work for this assessment project. No

information regarding environmental liens or activity and use limitations was provided to

Hillmann by the Client.

3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience

No indication of any specialized knowledge or experience regarding the Property was reported

to Hillmann by the Client.

3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information

No commonly known or specialized knowledge of the Property was reported to Hillmann by the

Client.

3.5 Property Value Reduction due to Environmental Conditions

No information was provided by the Client to Hillmann regarding a reduction of the Property

value due to environmental problems or conditions.

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA

It is Hillmanns understanding that the Phase I ESA was being performed in consideration of a

pending real estate transaction involving the Property.


17/746



4.0 RECORDS REVIEW

4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources

An EDR Radius Map report was obtained from Environmental Data Resources of Shelton, CT.

The EDR Radius Map Report provided a search of standard environmental record sources in

general accordance with the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13. Hillmann has reviewed theEDR Radius Map report and a summary of findings is presented in the following tables and

report sections. Hillmann also reviewed the list of unmapped sites (referred to by EDR as

Orphan List sites). Unmapped sites identified as falling within an applicable specific search

distance or warranting discussion in the report, if any, have been included in the informationpresented below. Detailed descriptions of the meaning and significance of the regulatory

databases can be found in the EDR Radius Map Report in Appendix E.

Regulatory DatabaseSearch

Distance

Property

Listed?

Adj.

Properties

Listed?

Total Listings

Within Search

Distance

Fed. NPL/Proposed NPL 1-mile No No 1Fed. Delisted NPL -mile No No 0

Fed. CERCLIS -mile No No 1

Fed. CERC-NFRAP -mile No No 2

Fed. RCRA CORRACTS 1-mile No No 0

Fed. RCRA TSD -mile No No 1

Fed. RCRA LQG Site & Adj. No No

Fed. RCRA SQG Site & Adj. No Yes

Fed. RCRA CESQG Site & Adj. No No

Fed. ENG Control List Site Yes

Fed. INST Control List Site No

Fed. ERNS Site No

State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Site 1-mile No No 14

State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste -mile No No 2State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks -mile No Yes 66

State/Tribal Registered Storage Tanks Site & Adj. No No

State/Tribal Eng. Control List Site No

State/Tribal Inst. Control List Site No

State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites -mile No No 0

State/Tribal Brownfields -mile No No 0

Supplemental Databases Site & Adj. Yes Yes

4.1.1 Property Listings

The Property is located within the boundaries of a National Priorities List (NPL) site named theSan Gabriel Valley (Area 1) as part of the South El Monte Operable Unit (OU). The following

listings were identified for the site:

AOC, NPL, CERCLIS, US ENG Controls, Consent, ROD, ICIS, FINDS, PRP San Gabriel

Valley (Area 1), Peck Roack & Real: The AOC listing only indicates that VOC contamination is

at or above the MCL as regulated by region 9 of the EPA. The NPL listing indicates thatgroundwater is approximately 100 feet bgs and is contaminated with chloroform, TCE and PCE.

The listing provides a description of the site conditions from September of 1983 that indicates


18/746



groundwater is contaminated with TCE, PCE and carbon tetrachloride which affectsapproximately 200,000 people. In 1984 the EPA installed water treatment systems to water

companies who had no alternate supply of water other than the contaminated groundwater. The

listing has a status of Final with a status date of 05/08/1984. The CERCLIS listing indicates the

site is on the Final NPL. The listing discusses the details of various OUs within San GabrielValley Area 1. The details about the South El Monte OU indicate that shallow and intermediate

groundwater aquifers were contaminated with PCE TCE, 1,4-dioxane, n-nitrosodimethylamine(NDMA), and hexavalent chromium. It also indicates that the shallow aquifer has the mostcontamination, as high as hundreds of times the drinking water standard. The South El Monte

OU Interim Record of Decision plans to prevent exposure of the public to VOC contaminated

groundwater, limit the movement of contaminated groundwater, reduce the impact ofcontaminant migration to downgradient wells, and protect uncontaminated areas. The majority

of the shallow and intermediate contaminated groundwater from the South El Monte OU will

flow into the Whittier Narrows OU (WNOU) which will be captured by the groundwaterremedies in place there. The groundwater is being treated via a pump and treat system using

carbon adsorption.

The US ENG Controls listing indicates that groundwater is being treated with the followingsystems: ion exchange, biological treatment (NOS & Ex-situ), UV oxidation, air stripping,

flocculation, extraction, carbon adsorption, reverse osmosis, natural attenuation, and monitoring.

The Consent, ROD, and ICIS listings provide no pertinent information. The FINDS listingindicates the site is on the CERCLIS and ICIS databases. The PRP listing provides more than

400 parties that are potentially responsible for contributing to the groundwater contamination.

The location of the Property within the South El Monte OU region of the San Gabriel Valleysuperfund is considered to be a REC.

The Propertys address was identified on the following databases:

EDR Historical Cleaners, HIST UST, WIP Brite-Way Laundry, 2622 Chico Avenue: TheEDR Historical Cleaners listing indicates that Brite-Way Laundry was present in 1999. The

HIST UST listing indicates the site had a UST of an unreported capacity which stored waste.

The WIP listing indicates a file staff of Historical. The historic use of the Property as a dry

cleaning facility is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

4.1.2 Adjoining Property Listings

The adjoining properties were identified on the following databases:

SLIC, WIP General Enameling Company, 2463 Chico Avenue, adjoining to the south, higher

relative elevation: The SLIC listing indicates that groundwater was affected. The listingindicates a status of Completed Case Closed with a status date of 03/12/2015. The WIP

listing indicates a file status of Historical. A second WIP listing indicates a facility status of

Active. Considering the status, this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with theProperty.


19/746



Drycleaners, WIP Eldon Drapery Cleaners, 2461 Chico Avenue, adjoining to the south, higherrelative elevation the Drycleaners listing indicates that a drycleaning operation was present at

the site and became inactive on 06/30/2002. The WIP listings both have file statuses of

Historical. Considering a lack of reported spills or releases, this site is not considered to be a

REC in connection with the Property.

HIST CORTESE, LUST Champ Corp., 2500 Rosemead Boulevard N., adjoining to the west,lower relative elevation: The HIST CORTESE listing provides no pertinent information. TheLUST listing indicates that gasoline contaminated soil at the site. The listing has a status of

Completed Case Closed with a status date of 06/18/1996. Considering the case status, this

site is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

HIST UST, SWEEPS UST, Los Angeles Co. HMS, WIP Sunset Ladder Co., 2526 Rosemead

Boulevard, adjoining to the northwest, lower relative elevation: The listing indicates that the siteformerly had one UST with a capacity of 9,970 gallons storing regular product. The SWEEPS

UST listing provides no pertinent information. The Los Angeles Co. HMS listing indicates a

facility status of Removed. The WIP listing indicates a file status of Historical. Considering

a lack of reported spills or releases, this site is not considered to be a REC In connection withthe Property.

NPDES, WIP, WDS Alloys Nonferrous Foundry Inc., 2532 Chico Avenue, adjoining to theeast, higher relative elevation: The NPDES listing indicates a status of Terminated with a

status date of 10/14/2010. The Primary SIC for the site is for Aluminum Foundries. The WIP

listing indicates status of Historical. The WDS listing has a status of Active and indicatesthe site is considered a minor threat to water quality.

RCRA-SQG, FINDS AMC Forklift Generator Starter Co., 2504 Chico Avenue, adjoining to

the east, higher relative elevation: The RCRA-SQG listing indicates no violations found. The

FINDS listing indicates the site is registered on the RCRA program. Considering a lack ofreported spills or releases, this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with the

Property.

RCRA-SQG, FINDS Trio Carburetor, 2545 Rosemead Boulevard, adjoining to the west, lowerrelative elevation: The RCRA-SQG listing indicates no violations found. The FINDS listing

indicates that the site is registered on the RCRA program. Considering a lack of reported spills

or releases, this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

Numerous supplemental database listings from the EDR Historical Auto Stations and WIP (Well

Investigation Program) databases were identified as being adjoining to the east, west, and south

of the Property. None of the sites were identified on additional databases unless discussedabove. All of the WIP listings have statuses of Historical or Not Reported. Considering a lack of

reported spills or releases from these sites, these supplemental listings are not considered to be a

REC in connection with the Property.


20/746



4.1.3 ASTM Search Distance Findings

The following is a summary of the findings of the regulatory database review with regard to

sites identified as located within the ASTM specified search distance surrounding the Property.

In order to keep this report informative and yet concise, Hillmann has provided a briefdiscussion of the listed site(s) for each database category that appears most likely to impact the

Property based on distance, topography and/or case status. A copy of the full EDR Radius MapReport, including available details of all listed sites, is included in Appendix E.

Note that listings for the following databases, if identified, would be discussed above in Sections

4.1.1 and 4.1.2: Registered Storage Tanks, Federal RCRA Generators, Federal and State INSTand ENG Controls, ERNS.)

Federal NPL: One (1) NPL listing was identified within a one-mile radius of the Property. Thelisting was identified as affecting the Property and is discussed in Section 4.1.1.

Federal Delisted NPL: No DNPL listings were identified within a -mile radius of the

Property.

Federal CERCLIS: One (1) CERCLIS listing was identified within a -mile radius of the

Property. The listing was identified as affecting the Property and is discussed in Section 4.1.1.

Federal CERCLIS-NFRAP: Two (2) CERC-NFRAP listings were identified within a -mile

radius of the Property. The closest listing is described as Alum-A-Coat Inc. at 9859 Kale Street.This site is approximately 1,813 feet east-southeast and at a higher elevation relative to the

Property. The listing indicates that the site does not qualify for the NPL and was archived on02/01/1985. Considering the status and distance, this site is not considered to be a REC in

connection with the Property.

Federal RCRA-CORRACTS: No CORRACTS listings were identified within a one-mile

radius of the Property.

Federal RCRA-TSD: One (1) TSD listing was identified within a -mile radius of theProperty. The listing is described as Paragon Press at 9323 Rush Street. This site is

approximately 2,337 feet south-southwest and at a lower elevation relative to the Property. The

listing indicates that the site was historically a hazardous waste treatment storage or disposalfacility and that the site received various violations. All violations appear to have achieved

compliance. Considering the distance and topographical relation to the Property, this site is not

considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Sites: Twelve (12) SHWS listings were identified within a one-

mile radius of the Property on the EnviroStar database. The closest listing is described as Vaga

Industries at 2505 Loma Avenue. This site is approximately 1,549 feet to the west and at a lowerelevation relative to the Property. The listing indicates no specified contaminants of concern or

media affected. The listing has a status of Refer: Other Agency. Considering the distance and

status, this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.


21/746



Two (2) SHWS listings were identified within a one-mile radius of the Property on theRESPONSE database. The closer listing is described as El Monte Disposal Service at Storage

Yard and Maple Canyon. This site is approximately 2,919 feet southeast and at a higher

elevation relative to the Property. The listing indicates no confirmed contaminants within

sediments, soil or soil vapor. The listing has a status of Certified with a status date of01/01/1983. Considering the status, this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with

the Property.

State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites: Two (2) SWF/LF listing was identified

within a -mile radius of the Property. Both listings appear to be for the same site named

Caltrans Rosemead Disposal Site and Caltrans Rosemead DS at 3000 Rosemead Boulevardand NE Corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Garvey Avenue, respectively. This site is

approximately 1,577 feet northwest and at a higher elevation relative to the Property. The listing

described as Caltrans Rosemead Disposal Site indicates that the site accepted inert waste andcurrently has a status of Closed. It also indicates that the site is currently used for commercial

and residential purposes. The listing described as Caltrans Rosemead DS indicates that the site

was estimated to have closed on 12/31/1977. Considering a lack of reported spills or releases,

this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

State/Tribal leaking Storage Tanks: Twenty-six (26) LUST listings were identified within a

-mile radius of the Property. The closest listing was identified as being adjoining to theProperty and is discussed in Section 4.1.2. The next closest listing is described as EC

Construction Co. at 2213 Chico Avenue. This site is approximately 1,077 feet to the south-

southeast and at a lower elevation relative to the Property. The listing indicates that gasolinecontaminated soil at the site. The listing has a status of Open Site Assessment with a status

date of 01/20/2009. The online GeoTracker listing has a status of Open Inactive as of05/15/2015. Considering the distance and status, this site is not considered to be a REC in

connection with the Property.

Forty (40) SLIC listings were identified within a -mile radius of the Property. The closest

listing was identified as being adjoining to the Property and is discussed in Section 4.1.2. The

next closest listing is described as American General Business Syst at 2340 Chico Avenue. This

site is approximately 105 feet southeast and at a higher elevation relative to the Property. Thelisting indicates that an aquifer is potentially contaminated from the site. The listing has a status

of Open Inactive with a status date of 10/29/2014. Considering the status, this site is not

considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites:No VCP listings were identified within a -mile radius

of the Property.

State/Tribal Brownfields:No BROWNFIELDS listings were identified within a -mile radius

of the Property.

Review of the sites identified within the ASTM search parameters did not identify any nearby or

surrounding area sites that are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property, unless as

discussed otherwise previously in this section.


22/746



4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources

4.2.1 Supplemental Database Listings

Hillmann reviewed the EDR Radius Map report for listings on supplemental databases that weresearched in addition to the Standard Environmental Record Sources. Any property or adjoining

property listings on such databases, if identified, would be discussed in Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.None of the other supplemental database listings identified by the EDR Radius Map report areconsidered to be a REC in connection with the Property.

4.2.2 Local Agency & Internet Research

Hillmann performed a search of available local and municipal agencies for pertinent information

pertaining to the Property, particularly with regard to potential environmental concerns such aspetroleum storage tanks, storage and usage of hazardous substances and petroleum products,

and/or known or suspected environmental contamination. Hillmann also conducted a cursory

internet search of the Property address for information indicative of a REC. The following table

summarizes the findings of the research:

Source:Inquiry

Made?Type: Outcome:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) YesFOIA

Request

Response indicated no records found.

Los Angeles County Fire Department

(CUPA)Yes

FOIA

Request

Response not received prior to report

completion.

Department of Toxic Substances Control

(DTSC)Yes

FOIA

Request


completion.

Regional Water Quality Control Board

(RWQCB) Los Angeles Region (4)Yes

FOIA

Request


completion.

County of Los Angeles, Department of

Public Health YesFOIA

Request


completion.

Los Angeles County Department of

Public Works Online databaseYes

FOIA

Request

Hillmann performed an online search

for records. One result for a permit for

Brite-Way Laundry at 2622 ChicoAvenue was identified. The listing

indicates the site had an industrial

waste permit which is currently closed.

No other information was available.

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD)Yes

FOIA

Request

Response received indicated the

request has been assigned for

processing.

Los Angeles County GeographicalInformation System (GIS)

YesOn-linesearch

No information indicative of a RECwas identified.

CA DTSC EnviroStor databasehttp://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

Yes InternetThe Property address was searched. Noresults for the Property were found.

CA GeoTracker databasehttp://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

Yes InternetThe Property address was searched. Noresults for the Property were found.

USEPA Envirofacts searchhttp://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html

Yes Internet

The Property address was searched. No

results for the Property were found.Adjoining to the north, Buerge

Volkswagen is listed as a small

generator of hazardous wastes. The


23/746



facility does not represent an

environmental concern.

www.google.com YesOn-line

search

The Property address search returns

results as a swap meet.

Other: NA

Hillmann obtained the following document from the EPAs superfund website which details the

remedial activities of superfund sites:

San Gabriel Basin Groundwater Quality Management and Remediation Plan, prepared by the

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority and dated April 19, 2011. According to a map of the

South El Monte OU in Appendix G and updated in February of 2011, the Property is locatedwithin an area of VOC contamination where levels of contaminants are between the Maximum

Contaminant Level (MCL) and ten times (10x) the MCL. Considering the Property will be

utilized for residential development, this VOC contamination is considered to be a REC inconnection with the Property.

4.3 Physical Setting Sources

4.3.1 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map

The USGS 7.5 minute series topographic maps covering the Property (El Monte, CA 1994) werereviewed. The maps indicated an approximate elevation at the Property of 244 feet above mean

sea level. The topography indicated by the map appeared to be sloping downward to the west-

southwest. The closest down gradient body of water appeared to be a Rio Hondo, approximately2,050 feet to the west.

4.3.2 Soils

Based on USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) data summarized by the EDR Geocheck-

Physical Setting Source Addendum, the soil type at the Property is classified as Urban Land.

The Urban Land designation indicates that a majority of the original soils on the site have beendisturbed by developed or covered with impervious surfaces, such as buildings or pavement.

4.3.3 Geology

Based on geologic data summarized by the EDR Geocheck - Physical Setting SourceAddendum, the geologic formation in the vicinity of the Property is described as a stratified

sequence of the Cenozoic Era, Quaternary System, Quaternary Series.

4.3.4 Hydrology

No site specific hydro-geologic data was available for the Property.

4.4 Historical Use Property and Adjoining Properties

Hillmann has conducted research in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses having ledto recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. Standard historical


24/746



sources have been sought in an attempt to document the past uses of the Property as far back asit can be shown that the Property contained structures; or from the time the Property was first

used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental purposes.

4.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps

A search of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the Property and surrounding area was conductedby Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Shelton, Connecticut. EDR provided aSanborn report stating fire insurance maps covering the Property were not found.

4.4.2 City Directories

Hillman obtained an EDR City Directory Abstract report to obtain data of historic city directory

listings for the Property. The following is a generalized summary of the findings of CityDirectory Research:

YEAR(S) SUMMARY

1950 - 2013

Property: The Property is listed with a variety of owners and businesses including MasterDesign Sofa Inc., Bratcher Ford, Brite-Way Laundry, Starlite Drive in Theatre, andStarlite Swap Meet.

Adjacent

Properties:

The adjoining properties are listed with numerous businesses including California

Shell Co. Caskets, Hooter Bros. Enameling, Buchanan Co Sheet Metal, restaurants,German A Printing, and automotive repair shops.

4.4.3 Historical Topographic Map Review

Hillmann obtained and reviewed an EDR Historical Topographic Map Report from EDR

containing historic aerial photography of the Property and adjoining properties. The followinginterpretation of land usage was made by review of the maps:

YEAR(S) DESCRIPTION

1896, 1900,1901

Property The scale of the map is too large to discern specific details about the

Property.

Adjacent

Properties

The scale of the map is too large to discern specific details about theadjacent properties, however the area of the Property appears to be

generally undeveloped.

1953

Property The Property is depicted with a drive-in theater and is shaded to denote

general urban development.

Adjacent

Properties

The adjoining properties are generally shaded to denote urban

development. One adjoining property to the east is depicted as Potrero

School.

1966, 1972,

1981, 1994

Property The Property is depicted with a drive-in theater with several structures and

is shaded to denote general urban development.Adjacent

Properties

The adjoining properties are generally shaded to denote urban

development. The adjoining properties to the north are depicted with large

structures. One adjoining property to the east is depicted as Potrero School.


25/746



4.4.4 Aerial Photograph Review

Hillmann obtained and reviewed an EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Report from EDR

containing historic aerial photography of the Property and adjoining properties. In addition,

Hillmann reviewed historic aerial photographs of the Property online atwww.historicaerials.com. The following interpretation of land usage was made by review of the

aerial photographs:

YEAR(S) DESCRIPTION

1928

Property The Property appears to be developed with agricultural land and associated

structures.

Adjacent

Properties

The adjoining properties appear to be agricultural land.

1938

Property The Property appears to be developed with a commercial structure towards

the west, and a parking lot towards the east.

Adjacent

Properties

The adjoining properties to the north appear with commercial buildings and

residences. The adjoining property to the west appears as undeveloped landand a small outbuilding. The adjoining properties to the south appear as

undeveloped land and a warehouse. The eastern adjoining properties appearas undeveloped land.

1938

Property The Property appears to be developed with a dairy, single family homes,

and agricultural land.

Adjacent

Properties

The adjoining properties appear to consist of single family homes,

orchards, and agricultural land.

1948

Property The Property appears to be developed with a dairy, single family homes,

and agricultural land.

Adjacent

Properties

The adjoining properties appear to consist of single family homes,

agricultural land, and industrial buildings to the east.

1952, 1953,

1964

Property The Property appears to be developed with a drive-in theater with several

associated buildings, parking lots, and residences. The northeast portion of

the Property appears to be developed with residences.

AdjacentProperties

The northern adjoining properties appear to consist of industrial businesses,single family homes, and a school.

1972

Property The Property appears to be developed with a drive-in theater, several

associated buildings, parking lots, residences, a commercial business withtwo structures, and undeveloped land.

Adjacent

Properties


1977, 1980,

1983, 1989,

1994

Property The Property appears to be developed with a drive-in theater, several

associated buildings, parking lots, residences, and a commercial businesswith two structures.

Adjacent

Properties


2002, 2003,

2004, 2005,2009, 2010,

2012

Property The Property appears to be developed with a large parking lot, several

associated buildings, a residence, and a commercial business with twostructures.

Adjacent

Properties

The northern adjoining properties appear to consist of industrial businesses,

single family homes, and a school.

4.4.5 Petroleum/Natural Gas Well Review

Hillmann reviewed historical record sources for evidence of historic petroleum and/or natural

gas wells at the Property. In addition, Hillmann conducted a search of the property location on


26/746



the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources Well Finder database(http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/index.html).No record of any historical petroleum/natural

gas wells at the Property was identified.

4.4.6 Historical Records Data Failure

Historic land use data prior to 1896 was not readily available at the time of the assessment. TheProperty was determined by this assessment to have been first used as agricultural land datingback to at least 1928. It is Hillmanns opinion that no significant data gaps were encountered.

4.4.7 Summary of Historic Use Research

The Property appears to have first been used as agricultural land dating back to 1928. By 1938 a

dairy appeared to have been developed on the western portion of the Property, and residenceswere developed on the eastern portion. By 1952 the western portion of the Property was

redeveloped with a drive-in theater. By 1972 the eastern portion of the Property was

redeveloped with two commercial structures and two large parking lots. By 1989 two of the

three residences at the Property were demolished. By 2002 the screen of the drive-in theaterwas removed.

The adjoining properties appear to have been historically used as agricultural land dating back toat least 1928. By 1938 the adjoining properties to the west and northeast were developed with

residences, and a school was developed to the east. By 1948 additional residences were

developed to the north and industrial structures were developed to the east. Industrialdevelopment to the north and south continued in 1952 and 1953, and it continued to the west in

the 1970s. The adjoining properties appear to retain the mixed residential and industrial use.

The historical use of the Property by Brite-Way Cleaners, a dry cleaning operation, at the 2622

Chico Avenue address is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. Additionally,the long term use of the adjoining properties for various industrial uses including automotive

repair should be considered during the Propertys redevelopment for residential uses. Further,

the location of the Property within the South El Monte OU region of the San Gabriel Valley

(Area 1) NPL site is considered to be a REC.


27/746



5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions

The site reconnaissance consisted of visual and/or physical observations of the Property and

improvements, adjoining properties as viewed from the Property boundaries and the surrounding

area based on visual observations from adjacent public thoroughfares. Building exteriors wereobserved at ground level, unless otherwise indicated. Where applicable, Hillmann accessed and

observed representative areas of building interiors to the extent they were made safely accessible

with the cooperation of the site escort.

The site reconnaissance was conducted by Mr. Gregory Shaffer on July 31, 2015. Weather

conditions at the time of the assessment included a temperature of approximately 83 degrees F and

clear skies. Hillmann was escorted by Mr. Jenghong Benson Li, the Propertys manager.

5.1.1 Significant Inaccessible Areas

The parking lots at the northeastern portion of the Property were fenced and locked at the timeof the site assessment. Hillmann was only able to photograph the parking lots through a chain-

link fence. No other areas were excluded from Hillmanns visual inspection.

5.2 General Site Setting

5.2.1 Site and Vicinity Characteristics

The Property consists of eleven parcels, ten of which are rectangular. The parcels are locatedbetween Rosemead Boulevard and Humbolt Avenue (See Figure 2 for a site map). The site is

currently occupied by the Starlite Swap Meet, a residence, and Master Designs Furniture. The

total Property area is approximately 17.37 acres and includes approximately 14,189 SF ofbuilding area. The Property is located in a suburban area characterized by industrial properties

and residences.

5.2.2 Topographic Characteristics

The terrain of the Property appeared to be generally sloping to the west. The terrain at thewestern portion of the Property is irregular as is characteristic of a drive-in theater. No natural

surface bodies of water were observed.

5.2.3 General Description of Structures

The Property is improved with six structures totaling approximately 14,189 SF which includes a

restaurant, maintenance shop, residence, and two commercial buildings. The buildings are set ona slab-on-grade foundation and have roll on roofs with the exception of the residence which has

a raised foundation and pitched roof.


28/746



5.2.4 Sources of Heating and Cooling

Heating and cooling systems consisted of electric powered units located on the roofs as well as

window mounted air conditioners.

5.2.5 Potable Water Source/Sewage Disposal System

The Property is currently serviced by the municipal water and sewer systems.

5.2.6 Current Use(s) of the Property

The Property is currently used as a swap meet, residence, and furniture building and retailer.

5.2.7 Past Use(s) of the Property

No obvious indication of past Property usage likely to have involved the use, treatment, storage,

disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products was observed at the time

of the site visit. Please refer to Section 4.4 for findings of historical site use research. Hillmannwas informed by Mr. Li that the furniture store was previously used as a dry cleaner which was

present at least between the 1980s and 1990s. This historic use of the Property as a dry cleaner

and the potential for unreported spills to have occurred is considered to be a REC in connectionwith the Property.

5.2.8 Current Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties

The following describes adjacent and abutting properties:

Dir Street Address Description

N Rosemead Boulevard,Maybeth Avenue,

Giovane Street

Cash & Carry Wholesale, International Pet & Supplies Inc., Cole Lighting, Single-family homes

E Chico Avenue Ramiros Custom Cabinets, C&D Kitchen and Bath, National Grocers Corp., ABSAuto Body Repair and Paint

S 8921 8925 Lindblade St. Commercial office/warehouse spaces

W Rosemead Boulevard Bestile Cabinet, Stone & More, Yummy Chinese Cuisine, Swap Meet Printing

No visual observations indicative of a potential environmental concern were noted of theadjoining properties.

5.2.9 Past Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties

No indication of past uses of the adjoining properties was noted at the time of the site visit.

Please refer to Section 4.4 for the findings of historical site use research.

5.2.10 Current/Past Uses of Surrounding Area

The Property is located in suburban area of South El Monte, California. The vicinity of the

Property consists of a mix of single and multi-family residential properties and industrial


29/746



properties. No indications of past Property uses that differ substantially from current conditionswere observed at the time of the site visit.

5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations

5.3.1 Storage/Usage of Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products

The facility at the Property stored various hazardous materials including paints, wood finishes,paint thinner, various greases, gasoline in gas cans, and cleaning products. A large amount of

these chemicals were stored in the maintenance shop on the southeastern portion of the Property.All products were stored in the manufactured containers. The maintenance shop showed

evidence of poor housekeeping including stains on the pavement as well as the large amount of

items stacked upon one another. Considering the length of time that this shop has been utilized(approximately 50 years), this poor housekeeping involving hazardous materials is considered to

be aREC.

5.3.2 Drums

Numerous metal and plastic 55-gallon drums were observed throughout the Property which are

used as trash cans during swap meets. These features do not appear to represent anenvironmental concern to the Property. No other drums used for other purposes were observed

at the Property.

5.3.3 Other Hazardous Substances/Petroleum Products

No other containers of hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted on the Propertyat the time of the site visit.

5.3.4 Unidentified Substance Containers

No other unidentified containers suspected of containing hazardous substances or petroleum

products were noted on the Property at the time of the site visit.

5.3.5 Storage Tanks

One approximately 12,000 gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) is located within themaintenance shop building at the southeast corner of the Property. According to Mr. Li, the AST

stores water and is necessary to provide water to the restrooms due to the large amount of people

present during the swap meets. No other evidence of any past or present underground storage

tanks (USTs) or ASTs was identified on the subject Property. No visual evidence of any leaks orspills was observed.

5.3.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Approximately eight (8) pole-mounted transformers were observed on the southern Property

boundary and on the northeastern portion of the Property. No leaking or surface staining wasobserved around the vicinity of the transformers.


30/746


31/746



5.3.16 Wells

One capped water well is located adjacent to the water AST in the maintenance shop. This well

was reportedly capped approximately 30 years ago when the current owner purchased the

Property. No other evidence of wells was observed at the Property.


32/746


33/746


34/746



It is emphasized that the absence of NWI mapped wetland areas indicated by the EDR reportdoes not necessarily rule out the potential presence of regulated wetland areas on or immediately

adjoining the Property. A wetland delineation should be sought from a qualified firm if a more

comprehensive determination regarding the presence or absence of wetlands on or adjacent to

the Property is warranted.


35/746


36/746



9.0 REFERENCES

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Environmental Data Resources, 2015

EDR City Directory Abstract Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2015

EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2015

EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, Environmental Data Resources, 2015

EDR Sanborn Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2015

Los Angeles Countys On-line Geographical Information System


37/746



10.0 APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Diagram / Vicinity Map

Appendix B Site PhotographsAppendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information

Appendix D Historical Records Documentation

Appendix E Regulatory Records DocumentationAppendix F Other Documents

Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications


38/746


Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hillmann Project No. C3-6341

2540 Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California

APPENDIX A

SITE DIAGRAM / VICINITY MAP


39/746

Figure 1: SITE VICINITY MAP SCALE: (Not to Scale) N

Project

Location:

Project No.:

2450 Rosemead Boulevard2559, 2603, 2610, 2622,2630 & 2634 Chico Avenue

2607, 2629 & 2637 Humbert AvenueSouth El Monte, CA 91733

C3-6341


40/746

Figure 2: SITE DIAGRAM SCALE: (Not to Scale) N

Project

Location:

Project No.:

2450 Rosemead Boulevard2559, 2603, 2610, 2622,

2630 & 2634 Chico Avenue2607, 2629 & 2637 Humbert AvenueSouth El Monte, CA 91733

C3-6341

Locationmaintenance shop

Location of formerdry cleaner


41/746




APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


42/746

PHOTO LOG

2450 Rosemead Boulevard, 2559, 2603, 2610, 2622, 2630 & 2634 Chico Avenue

2607, 2629 & 2637 Humbert Avenue

South El Monte, CA 91733

C3-6341

View of the Starlite sign along Rosemead

BoulevardView of the drive in parking lot facing

northeast

View of the maintenance shop View of the interior of the restaurant

View of the interior of the former projector

room used as storage

View of office space within the restaurant

Page 1 of 5


43/746

PHOTO LOG




C3-6341

View of the maintenance shop patio area View of exterior storage of hazardous materials

and equipment

View of the interior of the maintenance shop View of the interior of the maintenance shop

with visible mold on the ceiling

View of an interior floor drain within the

maintenance shop

View of various paints, stains, and other

chemicals

Page 2 of 5


44/746

PHOTO LOG




C3-6341

View of the large AST within the maintenance

shop

View of the capped well at the eastern end of

the AST

View the western building at 2622 Chico Ave. View of the interior of the furniture store

View of the eastern building at 2622 Chico

Ave.

View of the interior of the warehouse

Page 3 of 5


45/746

PHOTO LOG




C3-6341

View of the residence View of the interior of the residence

View of the northern-most parking lot at the

northeastern portion of the Property

View of the parking lot at the northeastern

portion of the Property

View of the adjoining warehouse grocery store

to the north

View of the adjoining pet supply store to the

north

Page 4 of 5


46/746

PHOTO LOG




C3-6341

View of the adjoining properties to the east View of the adjoining auto shop to the east

View of the adjoining properties to the west View of the adjoining industrial property to the

south

View the adjoining properties to the south

Page 5 of 5


47/746




APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRES/USER PROVIDED INFORMATION


48/746

Ol'',..'

H I L L M A NN

C O N S U L T I N G

The ollowing questionnaire hould be completedby a representative f the Propety that is most

knowledgeable

bout its usage,

onditionand history.Pleasecomplete nd

either

give

to the

Hillmann

representatiye

uring

the site nspection, r

ax

to 711-634-9507.

General:

Property

ame:

Street ddress:

City,ST Zip:

Company:

Date:

Number

of

years

at or famili

r , r i th

hePropeny,

3

/

property

ize:

17,

e

4C(e

Building

ize(s)

#

ofunits:

(ifappl.)

Utilities

and Services:

(nlease

heck

Yes . No

or

NA-Not

Annlicable )and ndicate

nrovider

f

Yes .

'?+

Completed y:

Signature:

.TZr&Hor16

, -1 . -

/'i '

Site

Descrintion:

Block

& Lot #(s):

Number

f building(s):

6

Year(s)

uilt:

Type

of Property:

Phase ESA

-

Environmntal

uestionnaire

Water

JhN @FC;et-

Fuel

Oi l

Sewer

h(rt .r,l9

HVAC Maint.

Power

i trftt 'rl(N

(*

EIevMaint.

Nat Gas


49/746


50/746


51/746

fw

H I L L M A N N

C O N 5 U L T I N G

19. Ifthe

property

s servedby a

private

well

or

non-public

watersystem, avecontaminants

been dentified n the well

or system hat exceed

uidelines

pplicable o the watersystem,

or has he well

beendesignated scontaminated y any

government

nvironmental,tlealth

aganay?

ifnot

applicable,

please

checkNO)

n E t

Yes No D/K

20.

Is thereaay environmental

itigation,administrative ctionor cleanup ction nvolving he

property

elated o

a

release

r threatenedelease fany hazardous ubstance

r

petroleum

product?

F

Yes No D/K

21.

Are

you

awareof testingof any environmental edia

soil, groundwater ,

urfacewater,

etc.)at the

property

which identified

evelsofcontaminantsn excess

fregulatory

standards

nd/orcleanup

uidelines?

x

Yes No D,4(

22.

Has asbestos

esting ever been conducted atthePrcperty? IfYES,

pleaseforward

a copy of

test results

and/or survey reDorts:

F

Yes No

D/K

23.

Are any

asbestosontainingmaterials

resent

t

he Property?

fyes,

please

laborate:

n x

Yes

No D,{(

24. Has lead

paint

testing ever been conducted

at the

Property?

YES,

pleaseforuard

a copy of

test results.

A

Yes No D/K

25 .

Is Iead-based

aintpresent

t the Properry?fyes,

piease

laborale:

L I ( L I

Yes No D/K

26 Has

rudon testing ever been

conduatedat the Prcperty? f

yES,

please

forward

a copy of test

resultt.

t r F

Yes No D/K

27. Are

thereany

problems

with water

ntusion, waterdamaged urfaces r excessive

mold

growth

within the buildings? fyes,

please

laborate:

. e n

Yes No D/K

For any

questions

qnswered

"yES"

thqtwqrr(intfunher

elaboration,

please

use hefollowing

spaceas necessary;

Page 4 of 4,

Revised /23/2013


52/746


53/746


54/746


55/746


56/746

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assistenvironmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRsprofessional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photoper decade.

When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USEONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For moreinformation contact your EDR Account Executive.

Thank you for your business.Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050

with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice

This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, IncIt cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NOWARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALLENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLYLIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT.Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings,environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should thebe interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental SiteAssessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, theinformation provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or maof Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarksused herein are the property of their respective owners.


57/746


58/746


59/746

NQUIRY #:

EAR:

4352716.9

1938

= 500'


60/746

NQUIRY #:

EAR:

4352716.9

1948

= 500'

7/23/2019 Starlite Drive In 17A