Agenda 10/13/2009 Item #16G 1
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page 1 of 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) direct staff to draft a resolution for BCC approval to designate the
property located at 4315 Bayshore Drive and the three adjacent parcels owned by
the CRA as a Brownfields Area, and to direct staff to ensure public hearings are
conducted in accordance with Florida Statutes in order to achieve Brownfields Area
designation.
OBJECTIVE: To receive approval for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) staff to draft a resolution for the BCC to designate the
property located at 4315 Bayshore Drive and the three adjacent parcels owned by the
eRA as a Brownfields Area, and to direct staff to ensure public hearings are conducted in
___ accordance with Florida Statutes in order to achieve Brownfields Area designation.
".......-
BACKGROUND ON BROWNFIELDS: With certain legal exclusions and additions,
the term "brownfields site" means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse
ot' which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant (Public Law 107-118 [H.R. 2869] - "Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act" signed into law January II, 2002).
This designation does not imply environmental contamination; rather, the designation
indicates that the designated site is abandoned, idled, or undercapitalized, and which may
be contaminated or may be merely perceived to be contaminated.
The Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Act was created to assist in the reduction of
public health and environmental hazards on existing commercial sites and to assist in the
reuse of Brownfields Areas and Brownfields Sites. The existence of brownfields within a
community may contribute to overall community decline, and brownfields
redevelopment, properly done, can be a significant element in community revitalization.
The Act is composed of four cornerstones that break down impediments to
redevelopment and can facilitate the reuse of commercial lands into productive,
economically viable land:
1. Uniform cleanup target levels;
2. Liability protections;
3. Expedited reviews and time limits; and
4. Financial assistance.
The program is "voluntary": where the person responsible for the contamination or a
person totally removed from the causation chooses to "voluntarily" cleanup and
redevelop the site.
Program eligibility allows any person or any governmental entity who has not caused or
contributed to the contamination of a Brownfields Site to participate in the program and
execute a Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreement (BSRA) with FDEP. Any site is
-
- I -
Agenda Item No. 1681
October 13, 2009
Page 2 of 12
eligible for designation by a local government provided certain statutory requirements are
met.
BACKGROUND OF CRA CATALYST PROJECT: The CRA owns a vacant 17-acre
site on Bayshore Drive and 4315 Bayshore Drive, a 0.63 acre parcel, which is adjacent to
this 17-acre site, resulting in a contiguous tract of land totaling nearly 18 acres (see
Exhibit A). The CRA has been working on a plan to redevelop this site with a reuse that
will catalyze redevelopment along the Bayshore Drive Corridor.
The 0.63 acre parcel was an automotive repair shop with related uses for nearly four
decades. A Phase II study documented ground contamination stemming from
underground storage tanks that stored leaded gasoline from 1969 to 1980 (see Exhibit B).
As such, this site meets the criteria to receive designation as a Brownfields Area.
CONSIDERATIONS: Only the Board of County Commissioners can designate a
Brownfields Area in accordance with Florida Statutes (S376.80, F. S.). Designating this
site as a Brownfields Area will benefit the community in four important ways:
(1) Ensures the contaminated area is remediated to the standards of the US EP A, thus
protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public;
(2) May be useful to a developer as an incentive for a mixed-use catalyst project;
(3) Allows the eRA to enjoy limited exposure to liabilities associated with
contaminated land which the eRA could not obtain without the designation; and
(4) Allows the CRA to leverage agency funds against available federal and state
funds for brownfields remediation, rehabilitation and redevelopment.
Currently the site has a "seller's escrow" account of $100,000 to partially fund the site's
remediation. Without a brownfields designation, the CRA will have very limited options
for funding the complete rehabilitation and redevelopment of the site. The remediation of
this contamination and rehabilitation of this site are tasks that are consistent with the
mission of the eRA.
The CRA-Advisory Board has discussed Brownfields Area designations with regard to
the subject site in public meetings and unanimously supports a BCC Resolution to
designate the subject site a Brownfields Area.
FISCAL IMPACT: Officially designating the CRA Mixed-Use Catalyst Project site a
Brownfields Area has no fiscal impact outside of staff time required to draft the
resolution and oversee the public participation component of the process. Radical
remediation is underway and is totally funded by a "seller's escrow" account from the
proceeds ofthe sale in the amount of $1 00,000.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the
County Attorney's Office, is not quasi-judicial, requires no ex parte disclosure, and
requires only a simple majority vote for approval, and is otherwise legally sufficient for
Board action. (STW)
- 2 -
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page 3 of 12
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Policy 4.7 of the Future Land Use Element of
the Growth Management Plan states that redevelopment plans may be developed for
specific areas within the County, including the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, which
may consider alternative land use plans, modifications to development standards,
improvements to infrastructure and incentives to encourage redevelopment. Objective 1.1
of the Economic Element states that Collier County will encourage the conservation and
enhancement of those natural, cultural, and social resources that represent the foundation
of the County's existing retirement, recreation, and tourist-oriented economy, in order to
place the County in a competitive position to enable the retention and expansion of these
and other business opportunities.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA direct staff to draft
a resolution for BCC approval to designate t~e property located at 4315 Bayshore Drive
and the three adjacent parcels owned by the CRA as a Brownfields Area, and to direct
staff to ensure public hearings are conducted in accordance with Florida Statutes in order
to achieve Browntields Area designation.
Prepared by:
David Jackson on September 29, 2009
Executive Director, Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency
."-...,,
- 3 -
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page 4 of 12
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
16G1
Recommendation that the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) direct staff to draft a resolution for BCC approval to designate the property located at
4315 Bayshore Drive and the three adjacent parcels owned by the CRA as a Brownfields
Area, and to direct staff to ensure public hearings are conducted in accordance with Florida
Statutes in order to achieve Brownfields Area designation.
10/13/2009 9:00:00 AM
Prepared By
David Jackson
Community Redevelopment
Agency
Executive Director
Date
Bayshore-Gateway Redevelopment
9/30/200910:23:20 AM
Approved By
David Jackson
Community Redevelopment
Agency
Executive Director
Date
Bayshore-Gateway Redevelopment
9/30/2009 10: 23 AM
Approved By
Steven Williams
Attorney's Office
Assistant County Attorney
Date
Attorney's Office
10/1/20091:08 PM
Approved By
OMB Coordinator
County Manager's Office
OMB Coordinator
Date
Office of Management & Budget
10/5/20098:58 AM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
10/5/2009 1: 29 PM
Approved By
John A. Yonkosky
County Manager's Office
Director of the Office of Management
Date
Office of Management & Budget
10/5/20092:51 PM
~, , , ,
., ~
I ~~~ ~ ~
~---l I
:---!I ~ r--
. -I ~-::
: ~ ~~...........
1'----1 I~ TTT!'"
, 1m:::::::::::::
r----- -~---. . . . . . . . . . .
I I -_._~ : : : : : : : : : : : .
o
::u
I
I
!
'-~-----'----l
I
I
I
t--- ..---
~-
i
I
I
I
I
r
I
r
)
(
\
-------'
1
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page
of' 1
BAYS~Qq-Eg~
U~
J-
I
I: : : : : : : : : : : : : : ;(Clll.l~/(z",.,
.............. \: ~I " \
.............. '-.... iliL \ \
..............; " \ \:'-'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F Ll \ .-- /
:::::::::::::: .-1 T
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : --\~- ~)~/[illl ---.........'..."';'...
:::::::::::::::::: \~ I W ,/'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ J /' _......,/1
.................. '--- --- "'"
.................. '\'.............
. . . .
........
::::::::::::::::: ~
................ ,J-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~I~' i~~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t\tw' 0 \T;~
............................ 'i ____
. ...... ... ... ......... ......
.......... ..
...............
,
I
I
I
!
.............
...............
.............
...............
.............
i
I
~4ARVESir
:;1
...............
.............
...............
.............
...............
.............
...............
.............
...............
.............
...............
...........
................
............. ... ... .........
.... ............ ... .........
i
I
11II i_
~
. ....... ......... ...........
'\
I
I
L____
....... ... ... ....... .... ....
..........
.................
~. . .
......
DID~
"U
III
-.
n
<1>
(j)
;;0
o
III
0.
(j)
()
::0
l>
6
:::
:::l
CD
0.
r
CD
(Q
CD
~
C.
I~-XH~~;~ _A- J
i
:.-----_._-,-~_.-
o
OJlJm
...,
o
"'0
o
en
CD
0..
><
I
OJ
--I
)>
()
o
:::l
ai
3
:::l
III
CD
a..
~
CD
w
o
"0
CD
;l
~z
...,
o
:E
::J
=::!1
CD
0..
en
)>
...,
CD
0,)
--.J
171
.....
171
o
......
>-
n
-.
CD
(j)
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page 6 of 12
11; ~~!!~~~~r~}~~~~~~~~~!~!~!~S'
PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Hubert's Welding & Repair Facility
Folio #53401680005
4315 Bayshore Drive
Naples, Florida 34112
I EXHIBIT 0:5
PREP ARED FOR:
Mr. David Jackson
Executive Director
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency
2740 Bayshore Drive, Unit 17
Naples, Florida 34112
PREPARED BY:
Environmental Risk Management, Inc.
ERMI File No. E2125A
May 13, 2008
Headquarters., 15248 Tamiami Trail South #800 ., Fort Myers, Florida 33908
1-888-ENV-MGMT (1-888-368-6468) ., Fax 1-888-368-6329.. www.ermi.net
.;,ii~~
Agenda Item No. 16G1
" ':l ')
&; ~~~!~~~~~r~}~~~~~~~~~!~~S'
May 13,2008
I EXHIBIT B
I
f
!
i
i
."......~_ ~10.
Mr. David Jackson
Executive Director
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency
2740 Bayshore Drive, Unit 17
Naples, Florida 34112
I
RE: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Hubert's Welding & Repair Facility
Folio #53401680005
4315 Bayshore Drive
Naples, Florida 34112
ERMI File No. E2125A
Dear Mr. Jackson:
Environmental Risk Management, Inc. (ERMI) has prepared this Phase II Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) report of the above referenced subject property in accordance
with our Contract Agreement executed on April 24, 2008. Please refer to Figure 1 and
Figure 2 for the Site Location Map and Site Plan, respectively.
1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
ERMI's Phase I ESA identified the following potential environmental concerns:
· The Hubert's Welding & Repair facility, subject property, is listed in the
FDEP Storage Tank Report for previously maintaining three Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs). Based on OCULUS research and regulatory file
review, the USTs have been closed in place. However, ERMI found no
evidence of the tiling of a Tank Closure Assessment Report (TeAR)
which has been a requirement under Chapter 62-761, Florida
Administrative Code (F AC) since approximately 1986. This
environmental regulation requires the completion of a TCAR at the time
the tanks are closed in-place or removed from the site. The TCAR
documents the specific tank closure procedures that were conducted and
assesses the soil and groundwater quality in the localized area of the tank
system. Since these tanks were closed in-place prior to 1986, a TCAR
was not required at that time. However, no assessment of soil and/or
groundwater quality in the localized area of the former tank system was
ever documented. Therefore, this former on-site tank system area is an
environmental concern. Further investigation can be done to gain additional
security regarding the potential for environmental risk within the above
referenced area. This decision to conduct sampling and analyses would be
the user's decision, and should be based on the user's risk tolerance.
Headquarters <II 15248 Tamiami Trail South #800 '" Fort Myers, Florida 33908
/-888-ENV-.MGMT (1-888-368-6468) '" Fax 1-888-368-6329." www.ermi.net
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page 8 of 12
Bayshore Gateway Triangle eRA
Phase II Environmental Site Assessm nt
EXHIBIT ~
May 13,2008
Hubert's We ing & Repair Facility, Naples, FL
. A hydraulic lift station was observed on the subject property during the
site reconnaissance. The hydraulic lift was located on concrete.
Hydraulic lifts have the potential to leak hydraulic fluids, which could
impact the soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the lift. Concrete
staining was observed in connection with the hydraulic lift station. This is
defined as a REC according to the ASTM International Standard
designation E 1527-00.
· Several storage containers of various sizes were observed on the subject
property during the site rec()nnaissance. The containers were located on-___
concrete and contained lawnmower and various automobile parts and
vehicular oils. Several areas were observed to have concrete staining.
Further investigation can be done to gain additional security regarding the
potential for environmental risk within the above referenced areas.
However, this decision to conduct sampling and analyses would be the
user's decision, and should be based on the user's risk tolerance.
2.0 PHASE /I ESA SCOPE OF WORK
On April 30, 2008, ERMI conducted the following scope of work:
· ERMI installed two Temporary Monitoring Wells (TMWs) on the subject
property within the areas most likely to be impacted. These areas are identified in
the Project Understanding.
. ERMI field screened the soils removed at 2-foot depth intervals from the well
installations and the borings conducted at randomly selected locations within the
area of the UST farm with an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). Soil boring logs
and field notes are included in Appendix A.
· ERMI collected one soil sample from the former dispenser area at the depth
interval determined to have the highest OVA screening value. The soil sample
was submitted to Environmental Science (ESC) Laboratory and analyzed for
common petroleum constituents via EP A Methods 8021 Band 8310.
· ERMI collected groundwater samples from the temporary monitoring well
locations. The groundwater samples were submitted to ESe Laboratory and
analyzed for common petroleum constituents via EP A Methods 8021 Band 8310.
· ERMI interpreted the soil and groundwater quality findings and correlated the
results with the applicable FDEP documented Chapter 62-770, Florida
Administrative Code (F AC) cleanup target levels to assess the on-site soil and
groundwater quality at the sample locations. ERMI prepared this final Phase II
ESA report with graphics to summarize the results of the above referenced scope
of work.
Environmental Risk lW'anagemenl, Ine
2
ERMI File 1\/0 E2125A
Bayshore Gateway Triangle eRA
Phase II Environmental Site Assessmen
Agenda Item No. 16G1
E:)(~'E3r'- AJa~oiYu813, 2009
HUtJerc'~ ttl!tdi g & Repair Facility, Naplesf'P11e 9 of 12
Please refer to Figure 2 for sample locations and Appendix B for the laboratory
analytical results.
3.0 SOIL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Soil Assessment Methodology
The general methodology for the soil assessment was derived from the FDEP
"Guidelines for Assessment and Source Removal of Petroleum Contaminated Soil"
dated May 1998. Our methodology consisted of field screening soil samples. During
the field event on April 30, 2008, ERMI collected soil samples for OVA screening
from six soil borings (SB-1 through SB-6). Grab soil samples were taken at
approximately 2-foot depth intervals to approximately 1-2 feet within the
groundwater table. A Site Map is included as Figure 2, which illustrates the
locations of the six soil borings.
3.2 Soil Field Screening and Results
On April 30, 2008, ERMI collected soil samples from the six soil borings (SB-1
through SB-6) for in-the-field OVA screening purposes. This screening was
completed to investigate whether any petroleum hydrocarbons were present in soil
above and near the surface of the groundwater table at concentrations considered
representative of impacts that may be considered "excessively contaminated". The
field screening of these samples was conducted using a Photo-Ionization Detector
(PID) OVA. OVA screening was conducted by collecting soil from a stainless steel
hand auger then transferring the soil samples into 16 ounce mason jars. ERMI uses
the soil sample headspace screening procedure, as described in Section 4.1 of the
FDEP "Guidelines for Assessment and Source Removal of Petroleum Contaminated
Soil" dated May 1998. The PID/OV A was field calibrated prior to use. ERMI
collected one soil sample (SB-5 @ 7ft) for laboratory analysis. The soil borings were
backfilled after sampling.
In-the-field OVA results indicated detections of petroleum related volatile organics in
the soil samples collected. Please refer to Figure 2 for the sample locations and
Appendix A for soil boring logs and OVA results.
3.3 Soil Laboratory Analytical Results
ERMI collected one soil sample from the boring depth interval that displayed the
highest OVA reading and/or olfactory observations for laboratory analysis. The soil
sample collected was transferred to the appropriate laboratory sample containers and
placed in an iced cooler and delivered overnight to ESe laboratory for analysis. The
soil sample submitted \vas analyzed for common petroleum constituents via EP A
Methods 8021 Band 8310.
Copies of the complete laboratory analytical data reports and chain-of-custody
documentation are included in Appendix B.
Environmental Risk AJanagemel11, Inc.
3
ERMI File No. E2125A
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page 10 of 12
Bayshore Gateway Triangle eRA EX HI BIT
Phase II Environmental Site Assessm nt
May 13, 2008
Hubert's We ding & Repair Facility, Naples, FL
B
Analyses of the soil sample SB-5 @ 7ft yielded detectable concentrations of Benzene
(0.52 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)), Toluene (2.6 mg/kg), Total Xylenes (3.6
mg/kg), and Methyl Tert-butyl ether (0.94 mg/kg), which all exceed their applicable
FDEP commercial Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs), as per Table V of Chapter
62-777 F AC (effective April 17,2005). Please refer to Table 1 for a summary of soil
lab results.
4.0 GROUNDWA TER ASSESSMENT
4.1 Well Construction and Installation __
On April 30, 2008, ERMI installed two Temporary Monitoring Wells (TMW-l and
TMW-2) to a depth of approximately 6 feet using a clean, manual hand auger with a
3.25-inch diameter bucket. TMW-l and TMW-2 were constructed of 2-inch diameter
PVC with 5 feet of 0.010 inch slotted screen section. The annular space between the
well and the borehole was then filled with 20/30 grade silica sand to form a filter pack.
The temporary wells were removed and backfilled after sampling. The location of
TMW-l and TMW-2 are presented in Figure 2.
4.2 Groundwater Sampling Methodology
On April 30, 2008, ERMI personnel collected groundwater samples from the
temporary monitoring wells (TMW-l and TMW-2) in accordance with the
established FDEP SOP 01/001 FS 2200 Groundwater sampling protocol document
dated, April 9, 2007. The wells were purged prior to sampling using a peristaltic
pump. Purge water was dispersed onto the land surface and allowed to evaporate or
return to the surficial aquifer. The wells were purged until they met purge completion
criteria. The groundwater samples were submitted to ESC Laboratory for analysis.
The samples collected from TMW-I and TMW-2 were analyzed for petroleum
constituents by EP A Methods 8021 Band 8310. Groundwater sampling logs are
included in Appendix A and the location of TMW -1 and TMW -2 are presented in
Figure 2.
4.3 Groundwater Laboratory Analytical Results
Copies of the complete laboratory analytical data report and sample chain-of-custody
documentation are included in Appendix B. Please refer to Table 2 for a summary
of groundwater lab results.
Analyses of groundwater samples collected from temporary monitoring well TMW-l
yielded detectable concentrations of I-Methylnaphthalene (39.0 micrograms per
Liter, ~g/L), 2-Methylnaphthalene (43.0 I-Lg/L) and Naphthalene (36.0 ~g/L) that
slightly exceed their applicable State of Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels
(GCTLs), per Table V of FAC Chapter 62-777 (effective April 17, 2005). Analyses
of samples collected from TMW-2 yielded detectable concentrations of Benzene
(51.0 ~g/L), Ethylbenzene (120.0 I-Lg/L), Total Xylenes (680.0 ~g/L) and Methyl tert-
butyl ether (29.0 ~g/L) that exceed their applicable State of Florida GCTLs, per Table
V of F AC Chapter 62-777 (effective April 17, 2005).
Environmental Risk Management, Inc_
4
ERMI File No. E2J25A
Agenda Item No. 16G1
October 13, 2009
Page 11 of 12
Bayshore Gateway Triangle eRA EXH I BIT --p.., May 13, 2008
Phase 1I Environmental Site Assessment tltn::.y,S +1/ [ding & Repair Facility, Naples, FL
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA nONS
In-the-field OVA results indicated elevated detections of petroleum related volatile
organics in the soil samples collected from our subsurface assessment. Laboratory
analyses of soil sample SB-5 @ 7ft yielded detectable concentrations of Benzene (0.52
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)), Toluene (2.6 mg/kg), Total Xylenes (3.6 mg/kg), and
Methyl Tert-butyl ether (0.94 mg/kg), which all exceed their applicable FDEP
commercial Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs), as per Table V of Chapter 62-777
F AC (effective April 17, 2005).
Laboratory analyses of groundwater samples collected from temporary monitoring well
TMW-1 yielded detectable concentrations of 1-Methylnaphthalene (39.0 micrograms
per Liter, I-!g/L), 2-Methylnaphthalene (43.0 jlg/L) and Naphthalene (36.0 jlg/L) that
slightly exceed their applicable State of Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels
(GCTLs), per Table V of F AC Chapter 62-777 (effective April 17, 2005). Analyses of
samples collected from TMW-2 yielded detectable concentrations of Benzene (51.0
jlg/L), Ethylbenzene (120.0 jlg/L), Total Xylenes (680.0 }.l.g/L) and Methyl tert-butyl
ether (29.0 }.l.g/L) that exceed their applicable State of Florida GCTLs, per Table V of
F AC Chapter 62-777 (effective April 17, 2005).
The data collected from the completion of this Phase II ESA conducted at this facility
meets the definition for the discovery of a discharge of petroleum products at
concentrations that exceed the State of Florida allowed cleanup target levels, as outlined
in F AC rule 62-770.200 (16). Based on this information, ERMI recommends that the
facility owner or operator follow the Contamination Reporting procedures as required in
the environmental regulation referenced in Chapter 62-770.250, F AC. In summary, this
regulation states that the owner or operator is required to submit a discharge reporting
form (DRF) to the State of Florida upon the discovery of excessive petroleum product
contamination at their facility. Additionally, it states that the owner must initiate a Site
Assessment Report (SAR) within 30 days of the discovery of excessive contamination.
The SAR is required to horizontally and vertically delineate the extent of the recently
discovered excessive petroleum impacts. Additionally, this regulation states that the
SAR is required to be submitted to the FDEP within 270 days (9 months) from the date
of the discovery of excessive contamination.
Please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at (888) 368-6468, or locally
at 239-415-6406, if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT, INC.
Amy Allen
Environmental Specialist
Stanley J. Rutka, PG
Principal Geologist
Environmental Risk Management, Inc.
5
ERMI File No. E2/25A
--...
~
....,
[/)
~
co
Cl
u:.l
~
u:.l
;;
u:.l
~
i
f---
00
o
o
N
>.
'"
~
<(
[/)
u:.l
::::
LLJ
[/)
<( ll)
::r: ~
c... u
t:
0
U
<(
or>
N
N
/''''''-
.....J
u...
r-'
--
~
OJ)
:::
~C
l1J:.::
::: 'u
cr.~
1:: .!::
ll) o:l
.co.
::l IU
:CO::
Agenda Item No. 16G1
<>r Q
Page 12 of 12
z
I EXHIBIL] I
:::
,~
<<i
u
0
.~~1 .....\
g "ij
:~ ~
OJ)
::: .5
....
,~ .~
OJ
u 0
0
>. .....J ~
0. ~ >.
ll) 0 ....
OJ ::: 'C '"
::: o:l ....
IU U 0 0
:s! co 0.
'" E
IU '15
0:: u
OJ [/) f0-
Ol ~ ~
;>
... Q
c...
-", Z
::: ~
.;; ~
ll) ~
CQ ....l
~r.
~
W
...J
<
U
en
~-
!-:Q
< II
~o
x-
o
c::
0...
0...
<
.,".
~
v
<:::
:J 0
.~
-=
-B
>.
::r:
.... "
\:>
~cO
en
c..
'"
~
N N
o:l cO ~M~
... r/l ':::;
-< Blf-
... ~ ~
...
, ,.:1 .i r-'
c, 0
" U
"T
~ ,:Q
Vl
.~
[/)
V)'l)N
Zo>=
o g 'C ~
~ooOr"')
::;;:~~-i5
u 0 ,g 'C
O~"'O
...., >.-
-JV'l",u..,
~::t:t:: 0 ~
!- ,2 V'l ~
~o;:;:; ~
~. u... ~ Z
Bayshore Drive
u
2!;~
e- 0
Z~
~'i
::;;'6
~~
e,:,~
<"'"
~j
~~
~~
C'-1E
Q2u:
>-
~f
Z-g
~lll
:;: .g
Z g:
o ,~
C:=::&D
_ '0
> 3:
Zai
~::1
a