HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-88-0772J-86-784
8/26/68
RESOLUTION NO. N8-772-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO
THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO THE AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZED BY RESOLUTION 88-582 ON JUNE 23,
1968 BETWEEN ERM-SOUTH, INC., AND THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND INITIAL
REMEDIAL ACTION RELATED TO CONDUCTING PHASE
II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS OF BLOCKS 24,
37, 46, AND 55 OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK
WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA;
RSTABLISHING $29,800 IN FEES FOR SAID
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, $18,000 FOR THE
EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
ON BLOCK 24 AND A $2,200 CONTINGENCY FUND FOR
THE PROJECT; USING FUNDS THEREFOR IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF $50,000, WITH
$20,000 FROM 1976 HOUSING GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS FUND INTEREST PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED TO
THA SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CIP NO. 322029 AND
$30,000 IN GENERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED IN FY 87-
88 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OPERATING
BUDGET.
WHEREAS, in order to enhance the quality of life for the
residents of the City of Miami, provide affordable housing in
close proximity to the City's major commercial and employment
centers, and promote the strengthening and revitalization of
downtown Miami, the City established the Southeast Overtown/Park
West Community Redevelopment Project as a major priority; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission by Resolution No. 82-755 on
July 29, 1982 approved in principle the Southeast Overtown/Park
West Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission by Resolution No. 84 -893 on
July 31, 1984 authorized the City Manager to issue Request for
Unified Development Project Proposals for Phase I of the
Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, proposals were received, evaluated and four
s
developers wore selected to develop various types of rsaidentLel
traits and commercial space on blocks 24, 37, 43, 46, 350 sad 36
in the Southeast Overtown/Park West Cosauaity Rsdevele wit
Project Area; and
WHEREAS, a total of 1034 one, two and three bedroom
apartments will be constructed along with 24,000 sq. ft. of
commercial space in the initial stage of the Phase I development,
which will take place on blocks 24, 37, 46 and 55; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 87-619, passed June 25, 1967 a
housing emergency was declared in the City of Miami relative to
the severe shortage of housing within the affordable range of
families and individuals of low and moderate income; and
WHEREAS, said emergency need for affordable housing as
previously recognized in Resolution No. 87-619 is hereby
reaffirmed and declared to currently exit; and
WHEREAS, the commencement of development in the Southeast
Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area is essential in
order to provide affordable housing in close proximity to the
City's major commercial and employment centers; and
WHEREAS, in order complete the transfer of blocks 24, 37, 46
and 55 to the four Phase I developers, the City of Miami must
provide documentation indicating that no hazardous or toxic waste
has been detected on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, development of the four Phase I blocks may not
proceed without said documentation; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide documentation indicating that
1
no hazardous or toxic waste has been detected on the subject
property environmental assessments, including but not limited to
records search; site visits; review of on and off site
conditions; review of geotechnical data; investigation of
regulatory problems and requirements; sampling of soil and ground
water and its analysis for 129 priority pollutants as identified
In Chapter 40 Congressional Federal Register, Part 136,(1986),
entitled "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analyais of Pollutants", the professional services of a qualified
and experieneed Environmental Analysis and Testing First **at be
acquired; and
WHSRSAS, pursuant to the authority contained to City of
Miami Cede, Section 18-52.3,(i), and baamd. tspan the facto .ts sot
-2-
WHEREAS, a total of 1034 one, two and three bedroom
apartments will be constructed along with 24,000 sq. ft. of
i
commercial space in the initial stage of the Phase i development,
which will take place on blocks 24, 37, 46 and 55; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 87-619, passed June 25, 1987 a
1,
housing emergency was declared in the City of Miami relative to
the severe shortage of housing within the affordable range of
I
families and individuals of low and moderate income; and
WHEREAS, said nc emerB eneed for affordable housingas
y
previously recognized in Resolution No. 87-619 is hereby
reaffirmed and declared to currently exit; and
WHEREAS, the commencement of development in the Southeast
Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area is essential in
order to provide affordable housing in close proximity to the
City's major commercial and employment centers; and
WHEREAS, in order complete the transfer of blocks 24, 37, 46
and 55 to the four Phase I developers, the City of Miami must
provide documentation indicating that no hazardous or toxic waste
has been detected on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, development of the four Phase I blocks may not
proceed without said documentation; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide documentation indicating that
no hazardous or toxic waste has been detected on the subject
property environmental assessments, including but not limited to
records search; site visits; review of on and off site
conditions; review of geotechnical data; investigation of
regulatory problems and requirements; sampling of soil and ground
water and its analysis for 129 priority pollutants as identified
in Chapter 40 Congressional Federal Register, Part 136,(1986),
entitled "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants", the professional services of a qualified
and experienced Ravireamental Analysis and Testing Fire east be,
acqulrod; and
WKIRIAS, pursuant to the authority contained in City of
!liaei Code, Section 18-5209(t), and bassi, apon &be facts si V#V,'
forth herein, the need to provide documentation indicating that
no hazardous or toxic waste has been detected on blocks 24, 37,
46 and 55 in the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community
' Redevelopment Project Area constitutes a Valid Public Emergency
and therefore the immediate procurement of the professional
1 services of an experienced and qualified Environmental Analysis
1
and Testing Firm, to provide the aforementioned environmental
assessments must be carried out on an emergency basis; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of the need for said environmental
assessments, three firms engaged in the field of environmental
analysis and testing were contacted, and subsequently provided
proposals to the City; and
WHEREAS, based on a review of the submissions, it was
determined to be in the City's best interest to recommend the
negotiation of an agreement with ERM-South, Inc., as a qualified
and experienced firm to provide the required professional
services; and
WHEREAS, by an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the City
Commission, Resolution 88-582 was passed on June 23, 1988 thereby
adopting, approving and confirming the City Manager's finding
that a valid public emergency existed in connection with the
procurement of professional services related to Environmental
Assessments of blocks 24, 37, 46 and 55 of the Southeast
Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area; and
WHEREAS Resolution 88-582 further authorized the City
Manager to execute an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, with ERM-South, Inc. to provide professional services
related to the Phase I Environmental Assessments of Blocks 24,
37, 46 and 55 in the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community
Redevelopment Project Area, using funds therefor in an amount not
to exceed a total of $80,000, from 1976 Housing General
Obligation Bonds Pund Interest previously allocated . o -abo
Soutbeast Overtown/lark West Community Redevelopment Prejastl 484
WHIMS in accordance witb the atorementioned a roomest-witb
X&N-Soutb, Inc., Pbase I Snviroamental Assesseests wage ►et'#er0*4
-3-
on Blocks 24, 37, 46 and SS in the Southeast Overtown/Park West
Community Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, ground water and soils data obtained from the four
Blocks during the Phase I Environmental Assessments were compared
to Federal, State, and County Standards and were further
evaluated in terms of consistency between sample points and
media; and
WHEREAS, during the Phase I Environmental Assessments, at
various monitoring wells on the four Blocks, exceedances of
standards were documented for ground water, some but not all of
which were confirmed by elevated levels in soils at the some
sample point; and
WHEREAS, elevated levels of contaminants were found in soil
composites from some of the locations within each of the four
Blocks and although there are no standards for these contaminants
in soils, it is reasonable to expect that these levels could be
causing ground water violations; and
WHEREAS, the presence of certain contaminants in the soil on
each of the four Blocks may cause risks associated with exposure
to said soils on a short term basis by construction workers and
on a long term basis by residents of the developments; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the dumping of industrial and
sanitary wastes into an on -site soakage pit, excavation and
disposal of + 200 cubic yards of contaminated soil is required on
Block 24; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the conclusions, recommendations
and certification provided to the City in accordance with their
agreement, ERM-South, Inc., has recommended a Phase II
Environmental Assessment to include four categories of Tasks; and
WHEREAS, Task I will include a detailed review tbs
appropriate and available portions of the construction docusonts;
contractors' plans and procedures for each of ebe fors
developments in order to specify additional soil sesp1186
regeiremests in selected areas, if say, endlor to VOCAM OU4
modifications to construction techniques is ltou of sas�riit�s.dd
y
t
t z q�
v
�
K x �r
VNEREAS, Task II •ill include performing the necessary
sampling and analysis of soils, as established by Task I, in
order to make a semi -qualitative assessment of potential risks,
if any, associated with exposure to soils on a short term basis
by construction workers, or on a long term basis by residents of
the properties and if there is a potential risk, recommendations
will be provided related to the excavation and disposal of soils;
and
WHEREAS, Task III will include performing sampling and
analysis of selected ground water locations as recommended in the
Phase I Assessment, in order to confirm the absence or presence
of ground water violations; and
WHEREAS, Task IV will include providing surveillance during
the operations of a contractor, in the excavation and removal of
contaminated soils, currently estimated to consist of
approximately 200 cubic yards on Block 24; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Phase It Environmental
Assessments, the Phase I Environmental Assessments complete with
the conclusions, recommendations and certification for each Block
Will be amended in accordance with the data and findings to
indicate the absence and/or presence of ground water pollution
and soil contamination; and
WHEREAS, the four Disposition Agreements for each of the
Blocks, as approved by Resolutions 88-154, 88-157, 88-158 and 88-
159 on February 18, 1988, and executed on June 15, 1988 include
various references to the presence of hazardous material and the
City's responsibilities related to Environmental Laws; and
WHEREAS, the Disposition Agreements also establish the
City's responsibility, as property owner, for any activities
associated with hazardous material, environmental concerns and
compliance with Environmental Laws including remedial action; and
WIIIRRAS, Kotropoliten Dade County's De►attmeat 69
Iavironaental Resources Manageasat (DIRK) has reviewed th*
analytical data of the Phase I Environmental Assessments ea the
four Blocks and has stated that "the groundwater analytical latA
reveals groundwater violations of Dads County Chapter 24-11 f•t
-� k
C 0
various metals at the referenced site@ and therefore, the
proposed task, Task III, to* further assess the groundwater is
required to develop a monitoring and/or remedial action plan";
and
WHEREAS, DERM also "recommends that the excavation and
disposal of soils associated with the industrial and sanitary
wastes discharged into an on -site soakage pit be implemented as
soakage pits/drainfields receiving above said waste may be point
sources"; and
WHEREAS, "the soil analysis indicates that various
contaminants are present in the soils, but the concentrations do
not exceed DERM's soil policy criteria which would require
remediation, however, DERM is not in a position to consent on the
degree of risk associated with worker or resident exposure to the
soils on a short or long term basis"; and
WHEREAS, DERM has further stated that "if concerns exist
with the potential risk associated with the contaminant
concentrations found at the referenced sites, then the work
proposed in Task I and II should be undertaken"; and
WHEREAS, Puller Mortgage Associates, Inc., (Puller) the FHA
Co-insuring Lender for the development of Blocks 37 and 55 has
reviewed the Phase I Environmental Assessments prepared by ERM- 1
South, Inc., for Blocks 37 and 55; and
WHEREAS, Puller has indicated that based on their
y
discussions with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Central, in Washington D.C., a letter of
approval must be provided to them by DERM after the Phase II
Environmental Assessments are complete, reviewed by DERM and any
mitigating measures necessary to provide a safe and developable
site have been undertaken; and
�a
WHBRiAS, final approvals for the financing of tke '
developments on Blocks 37 and 55 will remain latomplets ntt.il tb•
aforementioned action and documentation is provided aai "#opted
by BUD Central; and
WHEREAS, BUD Jacksonville, Florida has indicated that FHA,
as the insuring agent for the funding of the development of Block
24 will require the some action and documentation, as HUD Central;
and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that PHA as the guarantor of
Mortgages for the purchase of units on Block 46 will also require
the aforementioned action and documentation as HUD Central; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City, as property
owner to sore clearly establish the absence and/or presence of
any hazardous material or environmental concerns which may pose
potential risks to the health, safety and welfare of those
involved in the development and habitation of those four Blocks
in the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorised to execute
an amendment, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to the
agreement approved by Resolution 88-582, on June 23, 1988 between
ERM-South, Inc., and the City of Miami, for the Phase I
Environmental Assessments of Blocks 24, 37, 46 and 55 of the
Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area to
include the additional professional services and initial remedial
action related to conducting the Phase II Environmental
Assessments of the aforementioned four Blocks.
Section 2. Establishing $29,800 in fees for said
professional services, $18,000 for the excavation and removal of
contaminated soil on Block 24 and a $2,200 contingency fund for
the project totally an amount not to exceed $50,000 with $20,000
from 1976 Housing General Obligation Bonds Fund Interest
previously allocated to the Southeast Overtown/Park West
Community ledevelopment Project CIP No. 322029 and $30,000 to
General Funds allocated in FY 87-88 to the Departmost of
Development Operating Budget is hereby authorised for tks
professional services as set forth in Section 1 herein `
,a
t
MI
t
v-
PASBRD AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September
RAVI RR L. Suvi ,
ATTEST
NAM HIRAI
CITY CLERK
BUDGETARY REVIEW AND APPROVAL: PLANNING;�RZVIZW AND APPROVALS
i
MANOHAR S. S , DIRECTOR SER ORIGUEZ, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT UDGET P DEPARTMENT
FINANCIAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL: j
AL APPROVALS
v
C E. GARCIA# DIRECTOR E , DIRECTOR
DEP NT OF FINANCE HC SERVATION AND
D4MENT AGENCY
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
e':K
ROBERT F. CLERK
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
J GEL DBE
CI ATTORNEY
51
Y y_Y. v 4y ,d«'S -.. YN;'�•�"'i '� u"f-, �s}+K.' � S{G!,+�1�
s (, , i. .,5 k `� . .. t , :... � . ♦ A q_i{, �.y.. �:(LQ, '4..-,� p,}� �k T TJa-Y.{�'.
w
t y
� `
yy{{
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To. Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
PROM! Cesar H. Odio -•
City Manager '
13
nP. o 2 6 1988
os: nut:
susicc? Environmental Assessments
Phase II: S.E. Overtown/
Park West
RcrcwcNccs: For City Commission Mtg.
Agenda 9/8/88
cNcLosuRcs: Resolution, Letters
i
i
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the
attached Resolution authorising the City Manager to execute an
Amendment, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to the
Agreement approved by Resolution 88-582 on June 23, 1988 between
ERM-South, Inc., and the City of Miami, for professional services
and initial remedial action related to conducting Phase 11
Environmental Assessments of Blocks 24, 37, 46 and SS of the
Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area;
establishing $29,800 in fees for said professional services,
$16,000 for the excavation, removal and disposal of contaminated
soil from Block 24 and a $2,200 contingency fund; using funds
therefor in amount not to exceed a total of $SO,000, with $20,000
from 1976 Housing G.O. Bond Funds Interest previously allocated to
the Project and $30,000 in General Funds allocated in FY 87-88 to
the Department of Development Operating Budget.
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Development recommends the execution of an
Amendment, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to tht
Agreement approved by Resolution 88-582 on June 23, 1983 ke.tueoa
ERM-South Inc., and the City of Mialti for professional servisss iB
Initial remedial action related to coa4uctiag P"40,'�.
Environmental Assessments of `locks 249 319 46 est 13 *4k
$Out cost Overtown/lark West conevaity• :4e,"T4 r
establisking $41,600 is .. fees tow, meld: #
*18,Q40 for tke. *%4psv4ttos e� osai-eat i .' a-
soll fso• hoar - 34 , aad 00"*66004*
tkorefor is a0ovwt -net
# f O sd40 f g so L# f i 00"s
ali�awtie�t so tie re ast *at
41 $?Was to, t►o f # t-mo tt of D4V'
%>4 81t�►S+�AAt�1► R#�511 tbety E1lS 130"'o
NF
�+tttli t11� �ilela I illlrn>ttd� -�
Y
Y�rt xY
t
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Page 2
Development Blocks, 24, 37, 46 and SS of the Southeast
Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area by July 26, 1968.
The Environmental Assessments (provided to you under separate
cover) which have been presented complete with the findings,
recommendations and certifications to the four Development Groups
and their respective financial institutions, and Dade County
Environmental Resources Management,-(DERM), have established that
there are some exceedances of State and County standards for ground
water. There are also elevated levels of several contaminants in
the soils, for which either additional site specific testing is
recommended and/or for which construction techniques may need to be
altered. In addition to this, on Block 24 the presence of
contaminated soils associated with industrial and sanitary wastes
discharged into an on -site soakage pit has been established.
On the basis of their findings and in accordance with their
agreement which included the identification of further action, a
Phase II Environmental . Assessment and remedial action is
recommended by ERM South, Inc., which would include the followings
Task I - Conduct a detailed review of the appropriate and
available portions of the construction documents and
contractors' plans and procedures for each of the
four developments in order to specify additional
soil sampling requirements in selected areas, if
any, and/or to recommend modifications to
construction techniques in lieu of sampling.
Estimated Cost: $ 4,500
Task II -
Perform the necessary sampling and analysis of
soils, as established by Task I, in order to eako 4
goal -Qualitative assessment of- toteattol Tt*1W>4#
any associated with oxposurs -to *+aids
town basis by eonstrwettoe `robit4la r .
tern basis by residents oft t#ta'411� t
. d. ,,
s =j60 a� :.pp
�a a iet`1latlMl skak, a
* vi t ,
tf
:.G;'�
�L. y �
?,�..^4 �„� Zvi � r Y� •�
Ar
A4r r
� F
JFTtl OD
r
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Page 3
Task III - Perform sampling and analysis of selected around
water locatioas as recommended in the Phase I
Assessment, is order to establish the abseace or
preseace of grouad water violations.
Estimated Cost: $ 9,900
Task IV - Provide surveillance during the operations of a
contractor in the excavation and removal of
contaminated soils, currently estimated to consist
of approximately 200 cubic yards on Block 24.
Estimated Cost: $ 3,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: $29,800
Initial Remedial Action -
Actual excavation, removal, transportation -and
disposal of ±200 cubic yards of contaminated -soils
from Block 24 by a separate earthwork/haulage
contractor.
Estimated Cost: $18,000
SUBTOTAL $47,800
° 4
CONTINGENCY $ 2,200
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $50,000 z
$&"4 . eat °a review of the. Eavironaantal Asses seats for 41*
anA Si, .Pallor Mortgage Associates, lac., the PHA Coiagvr sS
for these Blocks bas provided a written respeasa,
*VA66100',i.. ladiestias that :as a se►s*IA of A1ar.#*i,A#
in 106bii664*4 •410
M�+�11� oritlatwads 1$Mi�ge4tl�,� � 81Ps,�#��
if#;"* 404#4e
e
40
Hocforable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Page 4
HUD Jacksonville, Florida has indicated that FHA, as the insuring
agent for the funding of the development of Block 24 will require
the same action and documentation as HUD Central. We also
anticipate that FHA as the guarantor of mortgages for the purchase
of units on Block 46 will concur with the requirements of HUD
Central.
DERM has also provided the City with a written response to their
review, which essentially indicates that the groundwater sampling,
analysis and/or remedial action plan as indicated in Task III is
required, as well as the excavation and disposal of the
contaminated soils from the on —site soakage pit on Block 24, Task
IV and Initial Remedial Action . They further indicate that if
concerns exist with tke potential risk associated with the
contaminant concentrations found in the soils then Tasks I and It
should be undertaken, (please see attachment).
The Disposition Agreements, executed June 15, 1988, for each of the
Blocks include various references to the City's agreement to take
responsibility, as property owner, for any activities associated
with hazardous materials, environmental concerns and compliance
with Environmental Laws, including remedial action. At this time
remedial action other that identified in the Phase II Environmental
Assessment is not anticipated, however, a final determination
cannot be established without the additional testing, monitoring
and evaluation.
As a result of work on Phase II, the Phase I Environmental
Assessment complete with the conclusions, recommendations and
certification for each Block will be amended in accordance with the
data and findings, to indicate the absence or presence of
groundwater pollution and soil contamination. This will place us
in compliance with DEWS current requirements and we believe most
the needs of the Financial Institutions participating on tk1#
project.
The •molested fees for the professional secvicoe am a clmtO ¢# ,.
the Phase It inWiroaseatai Assessment lot,al *Zl,
♦449tisnal $10.000 for removal sad dsepo$41 of 0
soil sad s $2,200 couttadoney lead.; x �'
*adtsg to "war the total 0#tiWO4 ,0*44 Of 42, s
�x �avl;�►a�11ad1 +Ad�im#B�Bag� -i #�,��� ���,i ' .� ,,�ti� ;
s
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Coaui**Lon
page S
Coaaanity Redevelopment project, ($20,000) and General Funds
allocated in FT 87-88 to the Department of Development, ($30,000).
It is therefor recoaaended that this item be placed on the Agenda of
the geptsmber 8, 1988 City Commission Meeting.
Attachaents:
Resolution
Redevelopaont Ace& Map r
Two Letters froa Pallor Mortgage Assoc. Inc. on Blocks » ♦•ad S3
A Letter frog the developer of Bloch 46
A Letter from the developer's actornoy for Block 24
A Letter from DIRK
Tho Conclusions, Recoaaendettons and Certification Sections of tho
phase I Ruviroaaental Assessments for Blocks 24, 97, 46. &ad.S ,y
owl
y _. 111444 !j±
i( j$ •, yl
f . «a. `
` is
2 � j , { " ` .:au .s- -•�- can :..�� an•rwy, r.A" � !q, A , 'C L 'yyr`.
ik 7 it !F �e .ltyr .ri►4,� A filf.. i r t w
1j � :.t s t e '� Sys x � iei!7 � � tpg ,� N" '� � ♦ "
.
•a•
E
E
a
PULLER
M Mfff�gy�gr mc.
The Puller Building at Fortune Park
3919 Vin6Ynnes Road • I:vIiuiwpulis, Indiana 46268 • 317-6764155
August 22, 1966
mt. Mlatthew, Schwartz
Assistance Director
City of Misai
Department of Developmeat
Dupont Plata Center v
no giscayne Blvd. Way, Suits 400
Miami. Florida 33131
Ras The Odessa
MLai. Florida
MA i 066-36613-PM(SS-190)
Dear Mr. Schwartz.
ftllar Mortgage Associates. Lac. has reviewed the rapoct submitted ty`
M1RI-South. Inc.. dated July 26. 1968. We have reached the conclusion that o
Phase II survey is essential. The publics health and safety could be
jeopardized without a more in depth study of the situation.
we have discussed this issue with BUD Central in Washington. D.C. end they
have recosmanded a letter from the local environmental protection agency all
provided to ensure the area is safe for residential development. The Dude
County Department of Environmental Resources Management should write the
appropriate approval letter after the Phase II report has been reviewed amd
any aitigscing measures necessary to provide a safa and developable site hs+l►c
been completed.
aX.Sartb. Inc. has indicated they will tape the following action GPM arm
dt. a OLV" aoattracc from the City of Miami:
'i'asMc I - cooduat a "tailed "V"W of asatpaator PLO" a d .
�aNAe tts s�ih MrYitia�l mil �►#���
tic3 ttM A>EOM• if my* of to
*gams0"-
n
° `,x * A,.• pad raft.
x
•
1
Mr. Matthew Schwartz
Argust 22. 19U
Page 2
Task III - Perform sampling and analysis of selected ground watar.locatioss
as recommanded in Phase I As8e8010*nt, in order to eoofim the
suspected absence of `round water violations.
Thare is as additional task (Task IV) recommended in referenced to lloek 024
which is not related to clock i37 or 055 at this ties. Therefore, we asks so
judgemeat as to the course of action for that site.
awed on the taro of the lease agreement, it is our understanding that say
cost associated with the Phase II testing. and any aitigating msasmrss
required as a result thereof, are the responsibilities of the lessor.
As you are agate, a great deal of time. *&orgy and expense has Some into this
projecc. Therefore. your I mediate attention to this matter is requested to
erasure the continued mutually beneficial progress of the project.
K,
Thank you. in advance, for your cooperatio&, and if you have any awstioas Or
comments regarding this or any ocher Matter plesse feel fro* to contact OUT;
office. y{;
Sincerely.
PULL-U
I /
ASSOCIATES, INC.
A. Puller
as
ANC`
4 . .. ��t{ A/�. �TS�,� t�efr
♦ A* r � A#Lk i AFS.ris i�C2 7P 7� ,/�
j� � ~ST
S° €.4 a .: 4 .' F i`_+X 3 x1 it
3 p
�L re
E.,. � . Y�*,k�a�"3'�r.. ����.'"�!�~,_? ,,,j:�'"'�i. #k. s i{,X"�•'ix�' .,4��z�+;<'j,":Fr�j����x�.� <#. _
PULLER
r lltlJli�rl;r' 11,1.11K l(l�('.1, lll('.
The Puller Building at Furtune Park
3939 Vitp-vnnes Road • Indiatwpulis, Indiuna 46268 • 317476-1133
August 22, 1988
Mr. Matthew Schwartz
Assistance Director
City of Miami
Department of Development
Dupont Plaza Center
300 Biscayne Blvd. Way, Suite 400
Miasti, Florida 33131
Re: Park West Place
Miami, Florida
FiA 1066-36638-PM(88-192)
Dear Mr. Schwartz:
PuUes Mortgage Associates, Inc. has reviewed the report submitted by
UA-South. Inc., dated July 26. 1988. We have reached the conclusion that a
Phase II survey is essential. The publics health and safety could be
jeopardised without a more in depth study of the situation.
We have discussed this issue with HUD Central in Washington. D.C. and they
have rocommended a letter from the local environmental protaecion a$eaay be
provided to ensure the area is safe for residential development. The Dede
County Department of Environmental Resources Management should wilt* the
appropriate approval lector after the Phase It report has been reviewed and
any mitigating measures necessary to provide a safe and developable site have
been completed. w
UK -South, Inc. has indicated they will take the following action upm 104Y
of a stped aoatract from the City of Miami: +
Tack I - Comduat a detailed review of a"trastole plow aid V000w4w,
order to sleaify 6"Itlo641 soil MlwpWW trs i +�s its► s
01
Mloa#+ad aseas • i� . may, � t+r ttiaR IM�'��l�,l� ' r s ' # �i
f yy
i.
-Ali
,g � flV ri. :��,-i`�}'�, �, �._ �:y �y� r •. d ��✓Yr gl'�'�`i�ft Y��.t.F y��e f'� � t, I
r
Kr. Matthew Schwartz
August 22, 19U
Page 2
Task III - Perform sampling and analysis of selected ground w►tsr locaticas
air recommended in Phase I Assessment, in order to confirm the
•suspected absence of ground water violations.
Tbsre to as additional task (Task IV) recommended in referenced to Block #24
which is noc ralated to Block i37 or #55 at this time. Therefore, we sake no
judgement as to the course of action for that site.
used on the terms of the lease agreement, it is our understanding that any
coi; associatad with the Phase II testing, and any mitigating measures
tmquired es a result thereof, are the responsibilities of the lessor.
As you are aware, a great deal of time, energy and expanse has gone into this
project. Therefore, your immediate attention, to this matter is requested to
ensure the continued mutually beneficial progress of the project.
Tb"k you, in advance, for your cooperation, and if you have any quastioos or H
cos■ents regarding this or any ocher matter please feel fries co contact our
office.
Stacerely, ,
PULLU NO IATQS, INC.
,4
KAMMCC A.
PrRsident .. �.
x a a f +v 4�6.
iW/GDO cq4
A;z
47
7 � , • v : . < t { � xt3A". � tA't*� �+-�``•+�.' w � 1 �'� ��` '�1 1 Ti.��� � I
���� P } �71r. '"!7'`*`'R' j'�sfi.�� �� '�4. '. � n :•.. x'r-; fF��,�`s.�,.���rt"r} t .. �',r , i
� L � ur6b..•� T"
a• m�.x r}T'. ry'.-y .�. �ezv'�' s.: �. ..� r'T S �'*y> s S n� �"'_' t �.... ,4 �..
� , � a{ L a�a .A ^1 C�^ .`�` ,• �,nt 'i r y ,�,. rk"A + �yc t , x #-
Y:�i. . , . ..:. i.�'s�.e ._��u....E,",M.7. > .zw./ ,.a:. ,t:� .... ..,... _ ..,,..r_ < ..•_ ...'
f�
d;
e��Y✓✓ ~ E
.
r
^W jamb$" &Aworls Naui Block Eng1and
1 �Mw�rw�� At.. a ai i�w.J►� OW
aaiaw Film o�w t. A.+.
M A�Ir 1M A lbli ,1'M
Mew 1r Ar�Iw =4 It.
'� /i�• �i1Jl
IIIs'rr �.�. Fewer a no rd�M 877• 4m A.. JI•
= ratio^ 1w L a " ran iY�m /"h � � a. bwo
1. ham
ya 1�"�iaw..r � ". °tea �• a. ter...
r �w. c..mo f.a
awe �. i •��
SAW 40. sea
15u.w .r A. a .rw.r.�
August 26, 1981
VIA MMCOPT
Juanita D. 8heirer, ASIA
Landscape Asohitect ITT
city of Niaal
De artment of Develops�ent
300 Biscayne Boulevard May
suite 400
x1eal• Florida 33131
Rsi Crus and park Neat Mrojeate
rA&c Juanital
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of yesterday, I
advised you that I spoke with the Federal Kousin9 Administration
(the ON&*) office in Jacksonville, rlorida concerning the
onvironnontal reports for Blocks 34 and 37. The rRA indicated to
me that they were satisfied with the additional teats that were
proposed by IRK -south, Inc. Indeed, the THA viewed these
additional teats as essential.
Obviously, the rein cannot guarantee that the results of
the testa will be satisfactory or that tho voannsi- in whiele the
results are analyzed or oompiled will be satisfactory, until the
a&" are reviewed by the TRA. i have also boon advised that the
FM deems it advisable to have a letter prepared by tha Oa�a
County Department of environmental Resources onalysinq and
�a proving the results and recommendations of the Phase 3 stpdLesi
altar sea ace cowleted.
we sumps t that
you teQY 1st = 1i1tKawe+iw1 A • Inc. f
and report the sosrlti f he Phes rst a moan" is=a ;
to the srposts rl Leh we pmvLded to you a !aw dnc rep.
Mid erw wol has advised as that if to M
satialWde Lim At will bo satletted• .a
r
LI
fileelta . Ike ver, h;&
"Oft * im
too Svo
Our clients continue to operate on the understanding
that the City of Meet will take whatever• measures are necessarr
to mitigate all environmental problems and render the promises
suitable for the Intended devoiopnents. As YOU are aware, tine
Oont"s to be of the essence.
it You have any questions, please call M.
lr►
ri��ant .
INKFO 110"42OU/bve
0fl00.0001
I - - �� 4 -, -'. �
:•fig (, 4 '
k •.. t� -S"l 45€"� �S `SCE A� � � �`"Jaj'
Doww ro p cm ecksoM 1�
iW NenhwW 1 beet k4mr tlaaa 33126- 1715
'hen. 354•0=0364WI
August 25, 1988
Matthew Schwartz
Deputy Director
Dept. of Development
Dupont Plaza Center
300 Biscayne Blvd. Way
Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33131
RE: Enviromental
Dear Matthew: Asse88eat, 81k. 46
We, received a phone call. , today from IrRh asking us tho
?asition on Blk. 46 and will the Citybt
dequate" clearance to conform to H quid6lines� 2'V�
The Jacksonville'office is establishinq as a prsr qu3s
for the other three developers that an Enviromentu
Assessment certificate be issued stating that thi'pr►yer
is safe for residential development..
We received our FHA approval prior to this issue being
raised, but now that it has come up it appears they will
Also apply the guidelines to Block 46 at the time *s
close the individual condo sales.
x 4:.
Please included our block i.A wh4tavys 00rat8<w" { F'
you will be taking to *ata sly toe. dada for fia
the other three pro jscts.
450
' ���� -.F i._ -'; r• 8i, '.�++.y� +i -':. ,, #3 t;'�,.; -N ax �,l cr 'tj'��'S���h..
�..- yy #�
. '•' a-:." .x> .�' `- rtl__ .,. .� 'i&a:.c siiaWIAh:i
0
.4
305 375 3688 Aug 23.60 6:06 P.01
MET110POLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 19
METRO.OADE CENTER
NIITII Isis
II Mw. IM:TAW
IMAW.ILOPADA 21IMM I
AM 3MWIiri
August 22, 1888
Matthew b. Schwartz
Assistant Director
Department of Development
Dupont Plaza Center
300 Biscayne Boulevard way
Suite 400
Miami, FL 33131
RE: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southeast
Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Sites
Dear Mr. Schwartz.
The Department of Environmental Resources Management (0E101) staff ,
has reviewed the analytical data and the Phase 11 tnvironwental
Asseasment and remedial action and offer the following commentst
1. The groundwater analytical data reveals groundwater
violations of Dade County Chapter 24-11 for various
metals at the referenced sites. Therefore, the pro-
posed task. Task Ill, to further asaees the groundwater
Is required to develop a monitoring and/or remedial
action plan.
2. The DERM recommends that the excavation and disposal Of
soils associated with the Industrial and sanitary
wastes discharged into an on -site soakage pit 00,
Imp1e"nted as soakage p1to/draiof1o1ds recelv1nv a+lt4V4
said waste may be point sources.
The so i 1 analysis 1 nd 1 caters that various +1ldafl"Xt
are present In the sot It* bYt the wOfeMrttf "4
*MON/ M M ,, s 001 1 Be l 1 ey or 1 tor I a. wit 140
remes1at1on. H Mev*f. 0601 10 4411t A .
-; pint On the prep Of f I" pe00016 :
�# tee I Nnt expolwre t4 tow so 110 on t
*W)a. 1 ♦ off~"* exist V110 VW,rowepood SIUWp low, OW
AA
:
iseeeip4tod with VW 00twomms
i saw le be iwhrwtlosop a
x 'i t
ixaaP'T>:.,, t Y.Y.�`L •if lGv'P'fJGx :v. x tF'
. xqi.. :!'?F,�','..2';.'�wrE**
0
:.e
,.r
Matthew Schwartz
30S 37S 3644 Au9*23.44 6:07 P.02
.Mad& AuOust 22, 1080
It you have any questions or oomm�ents concerning this lottor,
please contact Dolores Smith or Nayne Wraao at 376-3321.
sl *rely.
a as Y er
Assistant Director
Environmental Resources
• Management
Oi11�
IC
z`.
i
r f.
,x
a
;: , .:. ;. , •, a ''' . } ' `
s I'
j ♦'y
! k r &r
� '' ! Z i �, � LS,t lrµr � 1•
to � 4.i �.�hSS�'���E3�Y:�.'�C� &� x t 'k� r y �-e' }n�Si � t •r',�• �.
v
'+I s '�ktis`� •� � .a, �if � '. s, t x < '`(,£ a ":�,;.. `;e ^�y7 3 ' t 7 ?3,"4 � �i � j�': � �
t o4" R� v f any
�• '•'�,
7
SflOMARY REVIEW ACID APPROMs
DElARTM W OF
FIMAMCIAL REVIEW AND APPKWALs
/ / IAlp D I MOM
APARTMENT OF FIIIAMCE
PREPARED AND APPROVED SYs
X�� 7<lzkz� —
IROURT !.
Culler DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORR6CTMZSSs
CITY ATM
RFCsboa sN789
j
�r
Y F
s
v �7�, •i .%� gay.. . �{"n i � ,h",.
f hY
7 .t A 76.ra
SNGTION Pau
CONCIons r RECdS�NDA-1CWS AND CXXTIFICATIOW
This section discusses conclusions, recommendations, and
certification of actions taken by BIM -South, Inc. in conducting
a Contamination Assessment of Block 24 of the Southeast
Overtown/Park Nest Redevelopment. Additional documentation of
methods, results, and source documents are found in the full
report for this site.
4.1 Conclusions
Ground water and soils data from Block 24 were compared to
Federal, State, and County Standards and were further evaluated
In terms of consistency between sample points and media. The
following conclusions were drawn, as summarized in Table 4-1.
A. violations of standards were documented for ground
water, and were confirmed by elevated levels in soils
at the same sample point, as follows: at monitoring
well NW24-1 for the parameters chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, and selenium; at monitoring well
MN24-2 for the parameters chromium; and at
monitoring well MR24-3 for the parameters chromium
and lead.
Violations of standards were documented for ground
water, but were not confirmed by elevated levels in
soils at the same sample point, as shown in Tabl• 4-
//� sS SB-'7i2'
Ot
l�
I. These results indicate that contaminants could
have migrated from outside the immediate area.
Violations in this category are as follows: at
monitorinq wells NW24-2 and NW24-3 for the parameter
arsenic.
C. Elevated levels of contaminants were found in soil
composites from six locations within the site, as
shown in Table 4-1. Althouqh there are no standards
for these contaminants in soils, it is reasonable to
expect that these levels could be causinq ground
water violations, if a monitorinq well were
installed in the immediate vicinity of a sample
location. The parameters with elevated levels in
composite samples at this site were 4,4'-DDT, and
4,4'-DDE.
4.2 Recomasendations
Based on the results and conclusions presented above for
Block 24, the followinq additional investigations, remedial
actions, or construction guidelines are recommended to be
implemented as outlined in Table 4-2:
A. Additional ground water sonitorinq is required for
the wells and parameters where violations were
detected. This sonitorinq would include the
followinq: chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and
a 0
selenium at well MM24-lt chromium and arsenic at well
MN24-2t and chromium, lead and arsenic at well MM24-
7.
This monitoring should be conducted initially on
a one time basis, however, analyses should be run on
both the total and dissolved components for each
parameter. Since the previous analysis was for the
total component, and since many of these analyses
were only slightly above standards, it can be assumed
that many of the parameters will not violate
standards, since the dissolved component is by
definition less than the total. Therefore, if the
dissolved component is less than the ground water
standard, no further monitoring will be required.
However, if the dissolved component is above
standard, the owner will have two options: 1) to
demonstrate via off -site wells or available data that
the parameter being violated has an elevated
"background" level throughout the region, or 2) to
conduct additional sampling and analysis of on -site
soils to locate and remove the source of soil
contamination, and subsequent samplinq and analysis
to confirm that soil removal has eliminated ground
water violations.
e. Additional analysis of the sxistinq soil composite
0 0
is required in order to determine maximum
concentrations in soils at each of the six sample
points makinq up the composite. This analysis would
include the following parameters: 4,4'-DDT, and
4,4'-DOE.
If the maximum concentrations determined above
are exceedingly high, additional analysis of
selected, existinq soil samples may be required usinq
the EP Toxicity Test. These results will define
whether the soils at the individual sample
points/depths are hazardous (and need to be
excavated), or whether they are non -hazardous. If
soils are slightly contaminated but non -hazardous,
they can remain in place. This is based on the
assumption that future leachinq of these contaminants
will be mitigated by minisisinq infiltration (see
Part D, below).
C. Excavation and disposal of soils is currently
required at Block 24. As noted previously, Netro
Dade DERV tiles revealed a Waste Dumpinq violation
(#109471) dated November 7, 1965 for operations
. conducted at 975 N.W. 1st Avenue, Lots 9, 10, 11, and
12. Industrial and sanitary wastes were being
discharged to an on -site soakage pit. Data obtained
durinq this study (see Well 24-3, Table 3-1) confiros
that violations of ground water quality are occurring
in this area. Visual inspection of a tewporarr
excavation pit (see Photo No. 2, Appendix F) in this
area confirmed that subsurface soils are visibly
stained.
Plans from the City of Miami Building Department
(Microfiche No. 70-2403) indicates that the subject
property contained seven catch basins connected to a
3 ft. wide, 5 ft. deep, 90 ft. long soakage pit. It
is therefore recommended that the catch basins,
interconnecting piping, and soakage pit be excavated
under the supervision of a registered engineer.
Soils thus excavated must be tested and disposed in
accordance with Metro Dade DERM guidelines.
Due to the elevated concentrations of contaminants in
soils at the site, the following construction
guidelines should be implemented:
1) Existinq soils should be covered with clean fill
in order to minimize worker and resident
exposure. It is also assumed that clean fill
will reduce storm water infiltration through
contaminated soils.
2) Clean fill and existing soils should be covered,
to the maximum extent possible, with impervious
surfaces (cement or asphalt) to minimise or
■
A
eliminate infiltration of storm water through
contaminated soils. Also, storm water drainage
should be channeled to the exterior of the site
(or if storm water must infiltrate on -site, then
contaminated soils in areas of proposed soakage
pits must be first excavated to the ground water
table and be properly disposed).
3) The use of on -site wells for potable or non -
potable uses is to be prohibited.
4.3 Cartiticate
I, James B. Cowart, P.E. as Principal of ERM-South, Inc.
("ERM"), on its behalf, certify that ERM has:
a) exa.mined certain information, performed
investigations, and developed results, conclusions
and recommendations which are documented in the
Contamination Assessment Report ("the Report") for
the property described in Section 1.2 of the Report.
b) received the following information relating to the
Property:
(1) Property appraisals (Appendices A and C of the
Report)
(2) Title abstracts (Appendices 8 and C of the
Report)
(3) Permittinq/enforcement files of Metro Dade 0X[
"A
(Appendix 0 of the Report)
(4) Aerial maps and surveys (Appendix R of the
Report)
(5) Arch itectural/engineerinq plans (Appendix J of
the Report)
(6) Ceotechnical borings (Appendix J of the Report)
c) performed the soil/ground water/geophysical and air
investigation described in Sections 2 and 3 of the
Report.
d) submitted written requests for confirmation from
Metro Dade DSRM of compliance of the Property with
applicable rules and regulations, as discussed in
Section 4 of the Report.
e) examined published lists of known or suspected
contaminated sites, including the:
1) NPL, dated May 25, 1964 (Section 3.1 of the
Report)
2) CERCLIS, dated February 29, 1988 (Section 3.1 of
the Report)
3) State of Florida Sites List, dated November 13,
1987 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
4) State of Florida Super Act List, dated May 5,
1988 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
The information specified in (a) through (a) revealed
violations of applicable Federal, State, or County regulations
MUM,
0 a
at the Property. Conclusions as to the level and extent of
violations, and recommendations for additional investigations
or remedial actions are provided in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of
the Report.
To the extent that the scope of services performed
requires judgment, there can be no assurance that definitive or
desired results have been obtained, or if any results have been
obtained, that they are supportive of any given course of
action. These services may have included the application of
judgement to scientific principles; to that extent certain
results of this work may be based on subjective interpretation.
The conclusions stated herein and in the Report are intended as
guidance and not necessarily a firm course of action except
where explicitly stated as such. There is no assurance that
sampling techniques employed have necessarily disclosed all
contamination on the Property due, amonq other things and
without limitation, to such factors as a practical or
contractual limitation on the type, number and location of
samples, sample depth, lack of current definition of a
particular material as hazardous, and the like.
WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION WARRANTIES AS TO MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE./13
�P c
ERN -South, Inc. BY ����� • Cy
Title
f
• TASLI 4-1
awOVNO wATWV SOI L CONCLUSIONS
for Block 24
--�r---r-----NN------Nrrr-rr- - rr rrr--r - rrrr--rr-r------r-------�---
Sampling Location
Area of Concern MM24-1 NM24-2 MM24-2 SPT-24
O.r--rrrrrrrrrr------r r----r---rrr-rr--r rrr Nr-r--------�N-r
Ground water Violation Chromium Chromium Chromium N/A
(with Soil confirmation) Lead Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
aronrrd water None Arsenic Arsenio
N/A
Violation
(no soil
confirmation)
Elevated Soil None Nona None
N/A
Contamination at
Well Location
(no ground water
oonfirmation)
Elevated Soil N/A N/A N/A
4,4,'-OOT
Contamination at
4,4�-OOS
Composite Location
(no ground water
confirmation)
--r-NrNr-r-rN-N--N--r-r rN-NNr--N--N
N/A - Not Applicable.
TASLR 4-1
GROUND WATER/SOIL CONCWSIONS
for Block 24
����-------------r-------N------- - - - - -r---------- r-----N--�N-----�--
Sampling Location
Area of Coneern MM24-1 W24-2 MM24-3 S*T-24
��------N-1-N--------------------------------
around water violation Chromium Chromium Chromium N/A
(with soil confirmation) Lead Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
around Water None Arsenic Armenia N/A
violation
(no mil
confirmation)
Elevated Soil None None Clone N/A
Contamination at
Well Location
(no ground water
confirmation)
Elevated Soil N/A N/A N/A
Contamination at 4. S'-
Composite Location
(no ground water
confirmation)
N-NN-NNN-
N/A - Not Applicable.
I
. E>
TABLE 4-2
lNos-Wetions for Block 24
rrrrrrrrrrr-rrrr—rrr-rr—rrrrr---- — — -- -- -- — — — -----r— rr r--rr-r rrrr
tteoowmendatie" MM24-1 MM24-2 MM24-2 91PT-24
rrrrrrr—rrrrrrr—rrr-- ---+—r---------- -- — -- — — — — - —
Further Action Teo Too Teo TOO
A j
Continued ground water
monitoring for pollutants 2 2 rN
of concern (1)
Additional analysis of soil
composites for pollutants 2
of concern (1) --- --- ---
Excavation and disposal
of contaminated soils Catch basin 4 soak pits in lots f
Cover existing soils and
minimise worker exposure
during construction Entire site
Minimise infiltration of
storm water through soils Entire site
Prohibit use of on -site
veils for potable or Entire site
non -potable use
---------------- ----- --------r--rrrr—r---------rr--r�—�rrMM.�N.�—
7,7
:.t.c
Y
. s
COO F'Y
Doff FOU
CONCLOSIVNS, REL'O MRNQATrONS AND CUTrrrCRTrolf
This section discusses conclusions, recommendations, and
certification of actions taken by SRM-South, rnc. in conducting
a Contamination Assessment of Block 37 of the Southeast
Overtown/Park West Redevelopment. Additional documentation of
methods, results, and source documents are found in the full
report for this site.
4.1 conclusions
Ground water and soils data from Block 37 were compared to
Federal, State, and County Standards and were further evaluated
in terms of consistency between sample points and media. The
following conclusions
were drawn, as summarised in Table 4-1.
A. violations
of standards were documented for growmd
water, and
were confirmed by elevated levels in soils
at the same
sample point, as follows: monitoring well
W37-1 and
MW37-2 for the parameter chromium.
H. violations
of standards were documented for qround
water, but
were not confirmed by elevated levels in
. soils at the same sample point, as shown in Table 4-
1. These
results indicate that contaminants could
have migrated from outside the immediate area.
violations
in this category are as follow: at
.. ERM
monitorinq well NW37-2, for the parameter selenium.
C. tlevated levels of contaminants were found in soils
at monitorinq well locations, but were not detected
in ground water, as shown in Table 4-1. These
results indicate that contaminants have adsorbed onto
soils, but have not leached into the qround water.
These elevated levels were detected as follows: at
monitorinq well NW37-3 for the parameter lead.
D. Elevated levels of contaminants were found in soil
composites from six locations within the site, as
shown in Table 4-1. Althouqh there are no standards
for these contaminants in soils, it is reasonable to
expect that these levels could be causinq ground
water violations, if a monitorinq well were installed
in the immediate vicinity of a sample location. The
parameter with elevated levels in composite samples
at this site was mercury.
4.2 ations
Based on the results and conclusions. presented above for
Block 37, the followinq additional investigations, remedial
actions, or construction quidelines are recommended to be
implemented as outlined in Table 4-2:
A. Additional ground water monitorinq is required for
the wells and parameters where violations were
M:M[ZE6RtM1
monitorinq well MN37-2, for the parameter selenium.
C. tlevated levels of contaminants were found in soils
at monitoring well locations, but were not detected
in ground water, as shown in Table 4-1. These
results indicate that contaminants have adsorbed onto
soils, but have not leached into the ground water.
These elevated levels were detected as follows: at
monitorinq well MV37-3 for the parameter lead.
D. Elevated levels of contaminants were found in soil
composites from six locations within the site, as
shown in Table 4-1. Although there are no standards
for these contaminants in soils, it is reasonable to
expect that these levels could be causing ground
water violations, if a monitoring well were installed
in the immediate vicinity of a sample location. The
parameter with elevated levels in composite samples
at this site was mercury.
4.2 Rmcommandations
Based on the results and conclusions. presented above for
Block 37, the following additional investigations, remedial
actions, or construction guidelines are recommended to be
implemented as outlined in Table 4-2:
A. Additional ground water monitoring is required for
the wells and parameters where violations were
88- 772'
i
detected. This monitoring would include" the
following: chromium at well NW37-1 and chromium and
selenium at well MM37-2.
This monitoring should be conducted initially on
a one time basis, however, analyses should be run on
both the total and dissolved components for each
parameter. since the previous analysis was for the
total component, and since many of these analyses
were only slightly above standards, it can be assumed
that many of the parameters will not violate
standards since the dissolved component is by
definition less than the total. Therefore, if the
dissolved component is less than the ground water
standard, no further monitoring will be required.
However, if the dissolved component is above
standard, the owner will have two options: 1) to
demonstrate via off -site wells or available data that
the parameter being violated has an elevated
"background" level throughout the region, or 2) to
conduct additional sampling and analysis of on -site
soils to locate and remove the source of
contamination and subsequent sampling and analysis to
confirm that soil removal has eliminated ground water
violations.
9. Additional analysis of the existing soil composite
n
Emi
LI
A
will reduce storm water infiltration through
contaminated soils.
2) Clean fill and existing soils should be covered
with impervious surfaces (cement or asphalt) to
minimite or eliminate infiltration of storm
water through contaminated soils. Also, storm
water drainage should be channeled to the
exterior of the site (or if storm water must
infiltrate on -site, then contaminated soils in
areas of proposed soakage pits must be first
excavated to the ground water table and be
properly disposed.
3) The use of on -site wells for potable or non -
potable uses is to be prohibited.
4.3 Cartificate
I, James B. Cowart, P.E., as a Principal of ERN -South, Inc.
("ERN"), on its behalf, certify that ERN has:
a) examined certain information, performed
investigations, and developed results, conclusions
and recommendations which are documented in th*
Contamination Assessment Report ("the Report") for
the property described in Section 1.2 of the Report.
b) received the following information relatinq to the
Property:
o)
d)
e)
(1) Property appraisals (Appendices A and C of the
Report)
(2) Title abstracts (Appendices S and C of the
Report)
(3) Permitting/enforcesent files of Metro Dade Dad
(Appendix D of the Report)
(4) Aerial maps and surveys (Appendix E of the
Report)
(5) Arch itectural/engineerinq plans (Appendix J of
the Report)
(6) aeotechnical borings (Appendix J of the Report)
performed the soil/ground water/geophysical and air
investigation described in Sections 2 and 3 of the
Report.
submitted written requests for confirmation from
Metro Dade DERM of compliance of the Property with
applicable rules and requlations, as discussed in
Section 4 of the Report.
examined published lists of known or suspected
contaminated sites, including that
1) NPL, dated May 25, 1988 (Section 3.1 of the
Report)
2) CERCLIS, dated February 29, 1986 (Section 3.1 of
the Report)
3) State of rlorida Sites List, dated November 13,
Ez�
1987 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
4) State of Florida Super Act List, dated May s,
1988 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
The information specified in (a) through (a) revealed
violations of applicable Federal, State, or County regulations
at the Property. Conclusions as to the level and extent of
violations, and recommendations for additional investigations
or remedial actions are provided in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of
the Report.
To the extent that the scope of services performed
requires judgment, there can be no assurance that definitive or
desired results have been obtained, or if any results have been
obtained, that they are supportive of any given course of
action. These services may have included the application of
Judgement to scientific principles; to that extent certain
results of this work may be based on subjective interpretation.
The conclusions stated herein and in the Report are intended as
guidance and not necessarily a firm course of action except r
where explicitly stated as such. There is no assurance that
sampling techniques employed have necessarily disclosed all
contamination on the Property due, among other things and
without limitation, to such factors as a practical or
contractual limitation on the type, number and location of
samples, sample depth, lack of current definition of a
particular material as hazardous, and the like.
,.
E
Nt NAM NO WAMANTtq, 9XMM OR tNNntlO, OCLvt M Ift'l'M01 ?
uRtTmon WAIUU NTtas As TO ttipl IUMAULM'Y OR Il" l A
lARCtCV AR papas.
!>I!N-amth, tno. '•'
40
Title .
e
r
'1'XlI A 4-1
OilOtJND NATNR/SO I L COKCWS IOKS
for Block 37
rrrrrrr •fir rrrrr• irrrrrr r r r•r-rrr--- rrrrrr--rr--r -rrr--rr rrrrr
Samplinq Location
Area of Concern W37-1 W37-2 M 37-2 BPT-»
rrrrrr-r rrrr rr-rrrrrr r-- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N
Ground Water Violation Chromium Chromium None N/A
(with soil confirmation)
Ground Water violation Nona Selenium Nona N/A
(no soil confirmation)
Elevated Soil
Contamination None None Lead N/A
at Well Locations
(no ground water
confirmation)
elevated Soil
Contamination at N/A N/A N/A Mercury
Composite Locations
(no ground water
confirmation)
------------------ ------ ------------------- ------ --N-rrrNMr
N/A • Not Applicable
TAOti 1-3
1lsosrsndalion for *lock ) 7
•-••�rM-----N--rrrrr---rr-r--rrr----r----r--r----r-- r rr-r-- --
Rwos endation MM37-1 MM37-2 MM37-1 OPT-37
r----r---r-r------rr----r--r- r-- r- r r--- -- -- - - - - - - ----r r-----r-
Purther Action Yes Yes No 1"
Continued ground water
monitoring for pollutants
of concern (#) 1 Z No •--
Additional analysis of soil
composites for pollutants
of concern (#) --- --- -•- i
Excavation and disposal
of contaminated soils hone Recommanded
corer existing soils and
minimise worker exposure
durinq construction Entire site
Minimise infiltration of
storm water through soils zntire sits
Prohibit use of on -site
wells for potable or Entire site
non -potable use
�z
-r-rr-----r-r-r-----------------�-�r-.rr-----�-----�r�►rrrN�M� -
a
s
II
BLOCK 4�
sacTlvN FOM
tome 1tBl.'+�MhrroNS AND catr nGTIoff
This section discusses conclusions, recommendations, and
certification of actions taken by ERR -South, Inc. in conducting
a contamination assessment or Block 46 of the Southeast
Overtown/Park Nest Redevelopment. Additional documentation of
methods, results, and source documents are found in the full
report for this site.
4.1 Conclusions
Ground water and soils data from Block 46 were compared to
Federal, State, and County Standards and were further evaluated
in terms of consistency between sample points and media. The
following conclusions were drawn, as summarized in Table 4-1.
A. Violations of standards were documented for ground
water, and were confirmed by elevated levels in soils
at the same sample point, as follows: monitoring well
KV46-1 for the parameters chromium and load; at
monitoring well Mi46-2 for the parameters chromium,
lead, 4,4'-DDT, and 4,4'-DDEt and at monitoring well
Mt46-3 for the parameters 4,4'-DDT and 4,4'-DDE.
S. Violations of standards were documented for ground
water, but were not confirmed by elevated levels in
soils at the same sample point, as shown in Tables 4-
ECM
1. These results indicate that contaminants could
have migrated from outside the immediate area.
Violations in this category are as follows: at
monitoring well MN46-1, for the parameters selenium,
4,4'-DDT, and 4,4'-DO6.
C. Elevated levels of contaminants were found in soils
at monitoring well locations, but were not detected
in ground water, as shown in Table 4-1. These
results indicate that contaminants have adsorbed onto
soils, but have not leached into the ground water.
These elevated levels were detected as follows: at
monitoring well MN46-3 for the parameters chromium
and lead.
D. Elevated levels of contaminants were found in soil
composites from six locations within the site, as
shown in Table 4-1. Although there are no standards
for these contaminants in soils, it is reasonable to
expect that these levels could be causing ground
water violations, if a monitoring well were
installed in the immediate vicinity of a sample
location. The parameters with elevated levels in
composite samples at this site were: chromium, lead,
4,4'-DDT, and 4,4'-DDE.
.. ®
based on the results and conclusions presented above for
Block 46, the following additional investigations, remedial
actions, or construction guidelines are recommended to be
Implemented as outlined in Table 4-2:
A. Additional ground water monitoring is required for
the wells and parameters where violations were
detected. This monitoring would include the
followinq: chromium, lead, selenium, 4,4'-DDT, 4,49-
DOR at well PIK46-1t chromium, lead, 4,4'-DDT, and
4,4'-DOS at well MN46-2, and 4,4'-DOT, 4,4'-DDi,
chromium and lead at well NW46-9.
This monitoring should be conducted initially on
a one time basis, however, analyses should be run on
both the total and dissolved components for each
parameter. Since the previous analysis was for the
total component, and since many of these analyses
were only slightly above standards, it can be assumed
that many of the parameters will not violate
standards since the dissolved component is by
definition less than the total. Therefore, if the
dissolved component is less than the ground water
standard, no further monitoring will be required.
However, if the dissolved component is above
standard, the owner will have two options: 1) to
demonstrate via off -site wells or available data that
.. E R b�R
M
5
based on the results and conclusions presented above for
block 46, the following additional investigations, remedial
actions, or construction guidelines are recommended to be
implemented as outlined in Table 4-2:
A. Additional ground water monitoring is required for
the wells and parameters where violations were
detected. This monitoring would include the
followings chromium, lead, selenium, 4,4'-DDT, 4,41-
DDE at well MN46-1, chromium, lead, 4,4'-DDT, and
4,4'-ODE at well Mw46-2, and 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-00I,
chromium and lead at well MN46-3.
This monitoring should be conducted initially on
a one time basis, however, analyses should be run on
both the total and dissolved components for each
parameter. Since the previous analysis was for the
total component, and since many of these analyses
were only slightly above standards, it can be assumed
that many of the parameters will not violate
standards since the dissolved component is by
definition less than the total. Therefore, if the
dissolved component is less than the ground water
standard, no further monitoring will be required.
However, if the dissolved component is above
standard, the owner will have two options: 1) to
demonstrate via off -site wells or available data that
■
the parameter beinq violated has an elevated
"background" level throughout the region, or 2) to
conduct additional samplinq and analysis of on -site
soils to locate and remove the source of
contamination and subsequent sampling and analysis to
confirm that soil removal has eliminated ground water
violations.
e. Additional analysis of the existinq soil composite
is required in order to determine maximum
concentrations in soils at each of the six sample
points making up the composite. This analysis would
include the followinq parameters: chromium, lead,
4,4'-DDT, and 4,4'-DDE.
If the maximum concentrations determined above
are exceedingly high, additional analysis of
selected, existinq soil samples may be required using
the EP Toxicity Test. These results will define
whether the soils at the individual sample
points/depths are hazardous (and need to be
excavated), or whether they are non -hazardous. It
soils arm slightly contaminated, but non -hazardous,
they can remain in place. This is based on the
assumption that future leachinq of these contaminants
will be mitigated by minimizinq infiltration (see
Part D, below) .
C. txcavation and disposal of soils is not currently
required at Block 46, pending the results of the
activities recommended in item e, above.
D. Due to the elevated concentrations of contaminants in
soils at the site, the following construction
guidelines should be implemented:
1) existing soils should be covered with clean fill
in order to minimize worker and resident
exposure. It is also assumed that clean fill
will reduce storm water infiltration through
contaminated soils.
2) Clean fill and existing soils should be covered
with impervious surfaces (cement or asphalt) to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of storm
water through contaminated soils. Also, storm
water drainage should be channeled to the
exterior of the site (or if storm water must
infiltrate on -sits, then contaminated soils in
areas of proposed soakage pits must be first
excavated to the ground water table and be
properly disposed.
. 3) The use of on -site wells for potable or non -
potable uses is to be prohibited.
2, James B. Cowart, P.S., as Principal of INK-8outh, tne.
on its behalf, certify that ERM has:
a) examined certain information, performed
investigations, and developed results, conclusions
and recommendations which are documented in the
Contamination Assessment Report ("the Report") for
the property described in Section 1.2 of the Report.
b) received the follovinq information relatinq to the
Property:
(1) Property appraisals (Appendices A and C of the
Report)
(2) Title abstracts (Appendices 8 and C of the
Report)
(3) Permitting/enforeenent files of Metro Dade 000
(Appendix D of the Report)
(4) Aerial maps and surveys (Appendix E of the
Report)
(5) Architectural/engineerinq plans (Appendix J of
the Report)
(6) Geoteehnieal borings (Appendix J of the Report)
v) performed the soil/ground vater/geophysical and air
investigation described in Sections 2 and 3 of the
Report.
d) submitted written requests for confirmation from
Metro Dade namm of oompliance of the Property with
applicable rules and regulations, as discussed in
Section 4 of the Report.
e) examined published lists of known or suspected
contaminated sites, including the:
1) NPL, dated May 25, 1988 (Section 3.1 of the
Report)
2) CERCLIS, dated February 29, 1968 (Section 3.1 of
the Report)
3) State of Florida Sites List, dated November 13,
1987 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
4) State of Florida Super Act List, dated May S,
1988 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
The information specified in (a) through (e) revealed
violations of applicable Federal, State, or County regulations
at the Property. Conclusions as to the level and extent of
violations, and recommendations for additional investigations
or remedial actions are provided in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of
the Report.
To the extent that the scope of services performed
requires judgment, there can be no assurance that definitive or
desired results have been obtained, or if any results have been
obtained, that they are supportive of any given course of
action. These services may have included the application of
Judgement to scientific principlest to that extent certain
ZIMERM
.z
,a
results of this work My be bead on subjective interpretation.
The conclusions stated herein and in the Report are intended as
quidence and not necessarily a fir* course of action except
where explicitly stated as such. There is no assurance that
semplinq techniques employed have necessarily disclosed all
contamination on the Property due, among other things and
without limitation, to such factors as a practical or
contractual limitation on the type, number and location of
samples, sample depth, lack of current definition of a
particular material as hazardous, and the like.
WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION WARRANTIES AS TO MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
ERM-South, c. o ����•
13 <:: ,
By
Title /��,,- c , �►-s�. :. J
A
TARA 4-1
000VND ----- !t/AOIL coNCWfLONE
for Block 46
i—i iii-iriii-rNNii�iiiNrr r r�Nrrrrr-r—r-1 it—rr r r -iiiii—
Sampling Location
Area of Concern W46-1 NN46-2 W46-3 I T-44
-iii-r-iiiM—r—r rr I� i-r—r---1rrri—� r r r—r-r- r—rrr—r r r--r i riN �iii
Ground Water Violation Chromium Chromium 4,4'-DOT N/A
(with soil confirmation) Lead Lead 4,4"-DO19
4 , 4 • -DOT
4,4P-DOE
Ground Water violation Selenium Non* None N/A
(no soil confirmation) 4,4'-DOT
4,4•-DDt
6lavated Soil
Contamination None Nona Chromium N/A
at Ne11 Locations Lead
(no ground water
contamination)
tlsvatsd Soil N/A N/A N/A Chromium
Contamination at Lead
Composite Locations 4,40-DOT
(no ground 4,4*-DW
contamination)
is
♦ Tarr g{.
1
eN
TAUS 4 -2
tteoerondelion
for block 46
• r r—N-r ara--a- ►-----�w+r i air �----- M— r►r. r r--ter --r— r-----r a.r-�
Recw—wend MM46-1
MM46-2 MM46-2 IPT-46
further Action TOO
Too Teo Too
Continued qround water
monitoring for pollutants
of concern (3) S
4 4 ---
t'
Additional analysis of soil
composites for pollutants
of concern O ---
--- --- 4
Excavation and disposal
a
of contaminated soils
gone Recommended
R
Cover existinq soils and
minimise worker exposure
during construction
Entire site
Minimise infiltration of
storm water through soils
=mire site
Prohibit use of on -site
wells for potable or
Entire site
+'
non -potable use
----------------------------------M—NM--------N--
:4t
;r 4'
.
[Ey
t
uar
t
Lc**-OO F'Y
NWT- "M
COPCWttoNS, FJcorGWa►TrM AND CXXTrnCATrOK
This section discusses conclusions, recommendations, and
certification of actions taken by MUI-South, Inc. in conducting
a contamination assessment of Block 55 of the Southeast
Overtown/park Nest Redevelopment. Additional documentation of
methods, results, and source documents are found in the full
report for this site.
4.1 Conclusions
Ground water and soils data from Block 55 were compared to
Federal, State, and County Standards and were further evaluated
in terms of consistency between sample points and media. The
following conclusions were drawn, as summarized in Table 4-1.
A. Violations of standards were documented for ground
water, and were confirmed by elevated levels in soils
at the same sample point, as follows: monitoring well
MM55-1 for the parameter selenium.
B. Violations of standards were documented for ground
water, but were not confirmed by elevated levels in
soils at the same sample point, as shown in Table 4-
1. These results indicate that contaminants could
have migrated from outside the immediate area.
Violations in this category are as follows: at
monitoring well MSS-2 for the parameter arsenic.
C. llevated levels of contaminants were found in soil
composites from six locations within the site, as
shown in Table 4-1. Although there are no standards
for these contaminants in soils, it is reasonable to
expect that these levels could be causing ground
water violations, if a monitoring well were
installed in the immediate vicinity of a sample
location. The parameters with elevated levels in
composite samples at this site were: lead,
anthracene, benzo(a)anthracens, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(q,h,I)perylone, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene,
and pyrens.
4.2 BRcMEsandaUgm
Based on the results and conclusions presented above for
block SS, the following additional investigations, remedial
actions, or construction guidelines are recommended to be
implemented as outlined in Table 4-2:
A. Additional ground water monitorinq is required for
the wells and parameters where violations were
detected. This monitoring would include the
following: selenium at well MUSS-1, and arsenic at
well MU55-2.
f�
This monitoring should be conducted initially on
a one time basis, however, analysis should be run on
both the total and dissolved components for each
parameter. Since the previous analysis was for the
total component, and since many of these analyses
were only slightly above standards, it can be assumed j
that many of the parameters will not violate the s
standards, since the dissolved component is by
definition less than the total. Therefore, if the
dissolved component is less than the ground water
standard, no further monitoring will be required.
However, if the dissolved component is above
i
standard, the owner will have two options: 1) to
demonstrate via off -site wells or available data that
the parameter being violated has an elevated
"background" level throughout the region, or 1) to
conduct additional sampling and analysis of on -site
soils to locate and remove the source of
contamination, and subsequent sampling and analysis
to confirm that soil removal has eliminated ground
water violations.
B. Additional analysis of the existing soil composite
is required in order to determine maximum
concentrations in soils at each of the six sample
points making up the composite. This analysis would
include the following parameters:
lead, anthracene, benzo(a)enthracene,
benso(a)pyrene, benzo(q,h,i)perylene,
bento(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phananthrene, and
pyrens.
If the maximum concentrations determined above
are exceedingly high, additional analysis of
selected, existing soil may be required using the EP
Toxicity Test. These results will define whether the
soils at the individual sample points/depths are
hazardous (and need to be excavated), or whether they
are non -hazardous. If soils are slightly
contaminated but non -hazardous, they can remain in
place. This is based on the assumption that future
leaching of these contaminants will be mitigated by
minimizinq infiltration (see Part D, below).
C. Excavation and disposal of soils is not currently
required at Block SS.
D. Due to the elevated concentrations of contaminants in
soils at the site, the following. construction
guidelines should be implemented:
1) Existinq soils should be covered with clean fill
in order to minimize worker and resident
exposure. It is also assumed that clean fill
will reduce storm water infiltration through
contaminated soils.
2) Chan fill and existing soils should be covered
with impervious surfaces (cement or asphalt) to
minimise or eliminate infiltration of storm
water through contaminated soils. Also, storm
water drainage should be channeled to the
exterior of the site (or if storm water must
infiltrate on -site, then contaminated soils in
areas of proposed soakage pits must be first
excavated to the ground water table and be
properly disposed.
3) The use of on -site wells for potable or non -
potable uses is to be prohibited.
4.3 Cartificats
I, James B. Cowart, P.E. as a Principal of ERM-South, Inc.
("ERN"), on its behalf, certify that S M has:
a) examined certain information, performed
investigations, and developed results, conclusions
and recommendations which are documented in the
Contamination Assessment Report ("the Report") for
the property described in Section 1.2 of the Report.
b) received the following information relating to the
Property:
W
(1)
Fzoperty appraisals (Appendices A and C of
the
Report)
(2)
Title abstracts (Appendices S and C of the
'
Report)
(3)
Perwittinq/enforcement files of Metro Dade
DWU
(Appendix D of the Report)
(4)
Aerial saps and surveys (Appendix E of the
Report)
(S)
Architectural/engineerinq plans (Appendix J
o!
the Report)
(6)
Geotechnical borings (Appendix J of the Report)
c) performed the soil/qround water/geophysical and
air
investigation described in sections 2 and 3 of
the
Report.
d) submitted written requests for confirmation from
Metro Dade OSRM of compliance of the Property with
applicable rules and requlations, as discussed in
Section 4 of the Report.
a) examined published lists of known or suspected
contaminated sites, including:
1) NPL, dated May 25, 1968 (Section 3.1 of the
Report)
2) CERCLIS, dated February 29, 1998 (Section 3.1 of
the Report)
3) State of Florida Sites List, dated November U,
1987 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
4) State of Florida Super Act List, dated May s,
1988 (Section 3.1 of the Report)
The information specified in (a) through (ej revealed
violations of applicable Federal, State, or County regulations
at the Property. Conclusions as to the level and extent of
violations, and recommendations for additional investigations
or remedial actions are provided in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of
the Report.
To the extent that the scope of services performed
requires judgment, there can be no assurance that definitive or
desired results have been obtained, or if any results have been
obtained, that they are supportive of any given course of
action. The services may have included the application of
judgment to scientific principles; to that extent certain
results of this work may be based on subjective interpretation.
The conclusions stated herein and in the Report are intended as
guidance and not necessarily a firm course of action except
where explicitly stated as such. There is no assurance that
sampling techniques employed have necessarily disclosed all
contamination on the property due, among other things and
without limitation, to such factors as a practical or
contractual limitation on the type, number and location of
samples, sample depth, lack of current definition of a
particular material as hazardous, and the like.
of MAR! NO Nhw* tut a ms OR tMPLMO ==DIM 1/tT!lMT
`t"Mlttop Whroj mn As To 1MtCRANTAstUTY olt ltTNM M A
PARTtatt a Pmttoss.
sIM-smth, tno.
my
T1t1eIrA►a-
A
M,
TADLB 4-1
OMOUND WATER/ 90I L CONCLus IONS
for Block SS
.......... -------------------
Sampling Location
Area ofconcern MM99-1 MM33-2 MM93-3 StT-SS
---------- ------- ----------------------------------------•••--•••••••M
around Water Violation Selenium None None N/A
(with soil confirmation)
Ground Water Violation None Armenia None N/A
(no soil confirmation)
Elevated Soil
None None None N/A
Contamination
at Well Location
(no Around water
confirmation)
Elevated Soil
Contamination at
N/A N/A N/A Lead
Composite Location
Anthracene
(no ground water
Denso(a)anthracene
confirmation)
Denso(a)pyrane
Denso(q,h,i)perylene
Deno (k) f luocanthene
Chrysene
pluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrees
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
------- •-------------•-------NN---�N-M--N----•--------NM-r •��rr�
N/A - Not Applicable.
TAB t 4-3
Riaoi-e-n-ation
for Block SS
•--------a.a- �—�--�—►----------------"'--'�-----.�.� err-..�----------•
Recommendation MSS-i
MMSS-3 MNSS-) BPT-st
further Action You
Yes No tam
Continued ground water
monitoring for pollutants
of concern (/) i
1 Mo ---
Additional analysis of soil
composites for pollutants
of concern (i) ---
--- --- 11
excavation and die sal
of contaminated soils
hone Recommended
cover existing soils and
minimise worker exposure
during construction
Itntire site
Minimise infiltration of
storm water through soils
Rntire site
Prohibit use of on -site
wells for potable or
entire sits
non -potable use
------------------ N-------r--rr-----`-NN---NrN-MN-Mr
.I
W
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIOA
INTER-OFFIC[ MEMORANDUM
TO The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Commission "T[' All 0 ME
Resolution�fo Purchase
sUINJ[CT: University of Miami
Football Tickets
Cesar H. Odi 0
FROM. City Manager
er
R[F[R[NG[s
MCLOSU1t[s:
Recommendation:
It is respectfully recommended that City Commission adopt the
attached resolution to authorize the City Manager to purchase 200
University of Miami home football game season tickets to be
distributed to underprivileged inner city youth in Miami, at a
total cost of $21,000 with funding for said purchase to be
allocated from Special Programs and Accounts, Contingent Fund.
Background:
The Department of Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities has
prepared the attached legislation. For the last twd years, the
City has purchased 200 University of Miami season tickets for
distribution to underprivileged inner city youth in Miami. In.
1987, this action was authorized by Resolution no. 87-632,
adopted July 9, 1987.
The University of Miami's football team has gained national
television rankings which creates national exposure for the Miami
area. The University of Miami -suet have superior ticket sales in
order to continue scheduling other top ranked college teases. The
University of Miami's home football series prov e fate%y-►
oriented sports entertainment for the local ceamnit
recown►end continuation of this practice for the
y
�Ra►�tiB : ,�`
community youth, the University and the City. ;.•
9 7NpT _
,.�. ,• ELM u''w.: 1:
W `.
14
{ Y j
.H�d22�FtH