Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Submittal by Dickman
Andrew W.J. Dickman Attorney at Law Naples, FL T: (239) 597-7017 F: (239) 597-2899 Miami, FL T: (305) 758-3621 F: (305) 758-0508 Law Offices of ANDREW DICKMAN, P.A. P. O. Box 771390 Naples, FL 34107 andrewdickman®bellsouth. net www.andrewdickman.us „4 (71,D c4"--- SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR lTEM1ON9/7/0 b 06, -oa2,r79 G� rroperty iruormauon iviap rage1oil. My Horne Miami -Dade County, Florida ij1ijj T m Lr �zi Property Information Map NE 1ST. ST s NE t5TH ST =NE t4TH TER NE 12TH ST 1 393 EXPY H£ 11T14 TER • m NE t1TH ST Digital Orthophotography - 2005 0 356 it This map was created on 8/22/2006 2:22:20 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. Summary Details: Folio No.: 01-3231-045-0010 Property: 1 HERALD PLAZA Mailing Address: KNIGHT -RIDER NEWSPAPERS INC % KNIGHT RIDDER PROPERTY TAX 1 HERALD PLAZA 6TH FLR MIAMI FL 33132-1609 Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0013 OFFICE BUILDING Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 7 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 604,146 Lot Size: /247,421 SQ FT Year Built: 1963 Legal Description: HERALD PARK PB 121-4 TR A LOT SIZE 5.680 AC MIL Sale Information: Sale O/R: Sale Date: Sale Amount: 0/0 SO Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $51,958,410434,638,940 Building Value: $100,000 $100,000 Market Value: $52,058,410434,738,940 Assessed Value: $52,058,410434,738,940 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $52,058,410'$34,738,9401 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item on 9 Priscjlla A. Thompson City Clerk hftr,•//rncimo7---n--- 1 1 ,. I/ • • •+ Submitted Into the public record in connection with itemPz.1 e ..- on 9--1-01. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FROM .Ana GeIabert-Sanchez Director Planning Department Stephanie N. Grindell. P.E. Dir ecto r Public Works Department NTEP_OFF CE MEMORANDUM DATE : rUeJECT: C ERE CEE 'ice �,.�,J���. December 23, 20057 Large Scale Development Review - Knight-Ridder Parcels 1 and 3 ENCLOSURES: :-The PubIic Works Department has reviewed the Large Scale Development plans for the ievelopment entitled Knight-Ridder Parcels 1 and 3 located south of N.E. 15 Street and west of Biscayne Bay and has the following comments. Parcel 1: 1. The proposed loading area for the 12 foot by 35 foot loading stalls needs to e redesigned. As shown, insufficient area has been provided for a _ielivery truck to make the minimum maneuvering turns if all the spaces ore occupied. _. The proposed structure encroaches beyond the platted Baywalk easement. The proposed building is not permitted to encroach beyond the easement line at any level, above or below grade. Parcel 3: 3. The proposed loading area for the 12 foot by 35 foot loading stalls needs to be redesigned. As shown, insufficient area has been provided for a delivery truck to make the minimum maneuvering turns. 4. The proposed art :work can not interfere with the corner visibility triangle. The proposed structure encroaches beyond the platted Baywalk easement. The proposed building is not permitted to encroach beyond the easement line at any Ievel, above or below grade. The approval of the Off -Street Parking Department is required for removal of metered parking in the right of way, Also, the approval of Miami -Dade Public I.Vorks Department is required for the irnprovements along N.E. 15 Street. The following comments relate to both Parcels r d Replotting of Tact "A" ='f the = ier ald Park Subdivisi n will be required to :reate new divisions of the tract for :Parcel 1 ,di Pa;.c.1 TI:le "�_ 1 t1i_.C._ r1, _ .'1 � . _ plans ...dentit_the separate pro',ec`s es C1 .'idea 7,-Y ”nropertic1?� a Submitted Into the public record in conn cction with item Pz -1 e d on 4/-1 -0(- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ':arulirig Department s 5. riv iinprovernents that required a change in the existing street cross section will require the approval of the Public Works Director. The proposed street cross section for N.E. 15 Street and Herald Plaza must be approved by the City of Miami Public Works Department and Miami - Dade County Public Works Department. Fruvide dimensions of the loading/ trash area and of the stalls. 0. All transitions from the established street profile grade to the building _door elevation must be accomplished on private property. Stairs, ramps, retaining walls, etc. wii1 not be permitted in the public right of way and the record profile street grade can not be changed to accommodate the proposed building ground floor elevation. 11. The maximum slope for a driveway ramp sloping downward toward the street is 1:10 for the last 20 feet to the property Tune. All storrnwater must be retained on site including the driveways, interior courtyards and plazas on private property adjacent to the pubLic streets. All common areas, plazas and driveways must be graded or trench drains provided to prevent "sheet :low" from entering the right of way. If deep drainage wells are selected or stormwater disposal, they must be located on -site in an open area to accorru'hodate future maintenance access. 12. An agreement between the City of Miami and the property owner is :eouired for any landscaping and decorative sidewalk treatment located in the public right of way. Public Works approval and permit is required for anv Iandscaping improvements in the right of way. 13. City of Miami driveway entrances, in compliance with A.D.A. standards. shall be required. Continuous pedestrian sidewalk is required within the bublic right of way abutting the project site without requiring pedestrians to enter private property. Along N.E. 15 Street and Herald Plaza, the idewalk width must maintain 5 feet in order to comply with A.D.A. clearance requirements. -1 . ALl greenspace and landscaping required by the Zoning Ordinance must accommodated on private property. Greenspace and landscaping within the public right of way cannot be included in the calculations for :meeting greenspace zoning requirements. 15. Public Works policy requires that no closures of vehicular travel lanes will Le nerrritt-ed during _11e course or construction unless a ternporary :eoiacernent lane, approved by the Public 7.\Torks Department, is :ns%ucted and maintained by the Contractor throughout the duration of l e lane closure. A 211aintenanc.e t-raffic oian is -:q.u.Ire.d _.;r any te7nporar`. __gat of closure request. on and Thtut Lena :_ass. __,:,te-. a : 7 ie:- Submitted Into the public record in connection with item tZ.Itacn`1-'1-b(, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk .-'fanning Devartmen. :,f-site parking for workers and a shuttle service to the work site. The parking/ shuttle plan shall be coordinated with the local City of Miami ET Service Center. IT Since this project is more than one acre in total construction area, methods of construction must comply- with the City- of Miami `vlunicipal `ep arate Storm Sewer Permit (MvMS4). This project will require a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Stormwater, Erosion and Sediment permit. For information on a DEP permit application, please Contact our department at (305) 416- 1200 cn- -.vww.aep.state.fl.usiwater/stormvvater /npcies. In addition to these cornrnents, the Public '5Vorks Department will require the foliorvring r et :naprovernents: N.E. 15 Street: Approval from the Public Works Director will be required for the proposed change to the street cross section. At a minimum, reconstruct sidewalk, curb and gutter and mill and resurface the entire width, curb to curb, adjacent to the project site. Please note that the proposed relocation of the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter and reduction of existing traffic lanes must be coordinated and approved by Miami :fade County Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Section. Herald Plaza: Approval from the Public Worl:s Director will he required to cl ng-e the axisting street cross section. Replace all damaged and broken sides ask, curb and gutter on both sides of the plaza between N.E. 13 and 15 Street. addition, pavement restoration for all water and sewer extensions, existing damaged pavement and pavement damaged during construction, asdetermined by the Cit`,- Inspector,. shall include milling and resurfacing of the full pavement width, curb to curb, along the entire length of the excavation and/or damaged pavement area. A thorough :leaning of all stoIrwater drainage inlets and storm sewer pipes adjacent to the building site shall be required at the completion of the project. Handicap ramps, in :ornpliance with ADA standards, are required at both intersections adjacent to Phe protect site. _f ou have anv questions concerning these comments, please call Mr. Leonard Reimers, ?rofessional Engineer IV. at extension 1221 IO EE ieltaVega Leon P.A. I ida 33133 y __nOLP ?ialru, Florida 331':1 Submitted i . t, i,o t ub,5c record in connection with item Z� on=—�=—�� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk jirector icFdUFg Depart-nen Manuel A. Vega, PE., Zoning Department L,c: Civil Engineering Central Submitted Into t'no public record in connec',',.ion with item adLa....,- on 32),_-_121, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ?Z. t£ .- on Q-`7-ot, Prisciil'a- A. Thompson City Clerk -Te c: rat fi EHSA ENGINEERS ANC, SCIENTISTS A Member of the CRA Family ofCompanies LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Company: Address: Ms. Lisa Smith August 29, 2005 8015-4385-00 Dade County Environmental Resou rces Management 33 SW 2" Avenue, 6th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Mr. Terry Horan Knight Ridder-Miami Herald Property ' 2fO -2223 located at, near, or in the vicinity of 1431-1451 North Bayshore Drive, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida We are sending you the following items: In Attached ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Specifications ❑ Under Separate Cover ❑ Prints ❑ ❑ Change Order 0 ❑ Via: Reports 0 Samples Other: .,'; .'�,t ... C'i6 .«2, .o•K".. X^ .4acF ,t�.Y� e; �. ;Rv^.5d q�" .. .. — 1 Buyer's Environmental Report These are transmitted as checked below: ❑ For Approval ❑ For Your Use ❑ As Requested ❑ For Bids Due: ❑ Other: ❑ Approved as Submitted ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ Returned for Correction ❑ Resubmit: copies for approval ❑ Submit: copies for distribution ❑ Return: corrected prints ❑ Prints returned after loan to us Dear Ms. Smith: Please find attached one (I) original Buyer's Environmental Report as requested, If you have any questions or comments, please call us at (561) 688-9008. Thank You pyijII AUG 2 9 2015 DERM Pollution R mediaton www. hsa-env. com Environmental & Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Materials Testing I486-A Skees Road / West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Tel: (561) 688-9008 / Pax: (56l) 688-9005 Offices in: Tampa / Orlando / Cape Canaveral / West Palm Beach / Hilton Head Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ?L.1 e Z on 9- r - o to Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk EEG 1'7.11 'I ri 411 IP'i ir$i PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FOR KNIGHT-RIDDER MIAMI HERALD PROPERTY 10 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED BETWEEN BISCANYNE BAY AND BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, AND NORTHEST 13TH STREET AND NORTHEAST 15T" STREET MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: CITISQUARE GROUP, LLC CIO GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 1221 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FL 33131 Prepared By: EE&G Environmental Services, LLC 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Miami Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-8300 April 2005 Project No. 2005-0707 Craig C. Clevenger, P.G. Senior Technical Advisor 3g/aTI AUG 2 9 2005 Poitutiot5Tnilediaton Section Steven A. Harrison, P.G. Hazardous Substance Miami Practice Area Leader Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ?Z./>? cnq-09-6 Priscilla A. Thompson ttvt..k EE}G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pane 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE 1 1.2 USER RELIANCE 1 1.3 BACKGROUND 1 2.0 — PHASE II ESA METHODOLOGY 4 2.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 4 2.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 6 2.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYMETHODOLOGY 7 3.0 — PHASE II ESA FINDINGS 8 3.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 8 3.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 9 3.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYMETHODOLOGY 10 4.0 — CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 11 4.1 CONCLUSIONS - SOIL 11 4.2 CONCLUSIONS - GROUNDWATER 12 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 13 TABLES 1 Soil Analytical Results — Total Arsenic 2 Soil Analytical Results — PAHs 3 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Arsenic 4 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Lead 5 Groundwater Analytical Results — Detectable PAH Constituents FIGURES 1 Topographic Location Map 2 Site Map Illustrating Sampling Locations 3 Soil Analytical Results — Total Arsenic (0 to 2-feet BLS) 4 Soil Analytical Results — Total Arsenic (4 to 6-feet BLS) 5 Soil Analytical Results — Petroleum -Affected Soils > SCTLs 6 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Arsenic > GCTLs 7 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Lead > GCTLs 8 Groundwater Analytical Results — Petroleum -Affected Groundwater > GCTLs APPENDICES A Laboratory Reports - Soil Sampling Events B Laboratory Reports — Groundwater Sampling Events Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connec€ion with item PI. / e a on q '7 - o ao Priscifla A. Thom son City 4Ierk EErG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE EE&G Environmental Services, LLC (EE&G) was retained by Citisquare Group, LLC, hereafter referred to as "the Client", to perform a Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Knight-Ridder Miami Herald property, located in Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida (hereafter referred to as the "Property'). A site map illustrating the location of the Property is provided as Figure 1. The purpose of this Phase II ESA was to assess for the presence of contaminants of concern (COCs) in soil and groundwater samples collected from the Property, which may be attributed to the Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) that were identified in EE&G's January 2005 draft Phase! ESA: 1.2 USER RELIANCE This report was prepared solely for the use of the Client and Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and is not intended for use by third party beneficiaries. Unauthorized third parties rely at their own risk, and shall indemnify and hold EE&G harmless against any liability for any loss arising out of or related to unauthorized reliance by any third party on any work performed thereunder, or the contents of this report. The opinions and recommendations presented herein apply only to conditions existing at the time of this assessment. Any changes in site conditions, environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent hereto are not covered. 1.3 BACKGROUND During the performance of a Phase 1 ESA of the Property by EE&G in January 2005, the following Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified that have the potential to have affected soil and/or groundwater quality at the Property: • The Miami Herald historically operated five underground storage tanks (USTs) on Lot B of the Property. These USTs were removed. in 1996, following which Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Protection (DERM) requested no further action. However, the historic use of the property for the storage of gasoline and diesel for vehicle fueling was considered a REC. • Historical research which included the review of City Directories and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps identified the following facilities on the Property for which no additional information was available, but were considered RECs: - Lot A: • Nash Body Shop, 1435 NE. Bayshore Place (approx. 1953 -1958). • Venetian Service, 1401 NE Bayshore Court (approx. 1944). • Boat Repair (1921) and Service Station, 511 NE 13 Street (approx 1929 - 1939). ■ Sunoco Service, 407 NE 13 Street (approx. 1958 - 1971). • Ogburn Dry Cleaner, 1303 N. Bayshore Drive (approx. 1926 -1934). ■ Parr Dry cleaner, 1329 N. Bayshore Drive (approx. 1939 -1953). ■ Rubin's Auto Body Shop, 1306 NE Bayshore Court (approx. 1934 - 1966). ■ Morgan Chemical, 1337 N Bayshore Drive (approx. 1944). Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 1 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item (MI t%.1- tiff c - r1- D Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 2 EE$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 - Lots A, B&D: ■ Apartments (potential for USTs) - (approx. 1921 - 1987). - Lot C: • Fincher Motors, 1325 NE Bayshore Place (approx. 1953). • Based on historical research (including review of City Directories and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps), and the DERM file information, EE&G identified the following facilities adjoining or near the Property, which were considered RECs: - The eastern -adjoining property was developed with the Miami Herald (1 Herald Plaza), which was listed as a RCRIS site, and has conducted onsite newspaper printing for decades. This facility has had numerous violations on -file with DERM with respect to elevated concentrations of heavy metals and ammonia in discharges to the sanitary sewer system. Additionally, this facility maintains aboveground storage tanks for the storage of diesel fuel. Therefore, this facility is considered to be a REC. - The southem-adjoining Former Belcher Asphalt Paving Company/Belcher Oil/Belcher Industries, 1217 N. Bayshore Drive. This bulk oil facility historically maintained numerous aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for storage of various light and heavy petroleum products. Significant soil and groundwater impacts were detected in samples collected throughout the site and extended north into the right of way for Macarthur Causeway. Remedial efforts have been limited to removal of soils in the path of construction for the causeway and associated drainage systems. The actual extent of the affected area is not well known; therefore this facility is considered a REC. - Two historic service stations that operated on the southwestern adjoining properties, including Gariick's Service Station/Perfect Service Station (318 NE 13 Street) and the Macarthur Property (326 NE 13 Street). These properties were listed as LUST sites. Petroleum impacted soil and groundwater was identified in samples collected, and both were considered to be part of the Belcher facility for purpose of assessment and remediation. - Super Fina Service Station, 370 NE 15 Street - (approximately 75 feet northwest of the Property). This facility was listed as a UST site. This property was occupied by Super Fina Service Station from at least 1953 through at least 1958. Groundwater and soil samples collected during the removal of USTs revealed the presence of regulated compounds above their respective cleanup target levels as specified in Chapter 62-777, FAC. Soils were excavated from the northeastern portion of the property in August of 1996, and affected soils and groundwater were not identified to have migrated offsite in records reviewed. - Omni International Mall, 1601 Biscayne Boulevard - (approximately 175 feet north of the Property). This facility was listed as a LUST and Industrial Waste site. One diesel UST for an emergency generator was removed from the facility in 1996. Groundwater and soil samples collected during the removal of USTs revealed the presence of regulated compounds above their respective cleanup target levels. A 500 gallon UST was removed in 2001 during construction activities in the loading Submftted Into tie public record in con<co o n with item K. I f` a on 9-9 -at, Priscilla A. Thompson City clerk EE$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 dock area. Petroleum impacted soils and groundwater was removed from the area, however, there were areas of impacted soil that were inaccessible. DERM has requested further information from the owner to address the remaining soil impacts. - Plaza Venetian Condominiums, 555 NE 15 Street - (approximately 125 feet north of the Property). This facility was listed as a RCRA, UST, and Enforcement site. This property was occupied by the Plaza Venetian Condominiums from approximately 1980 through present. This facility had a diesel UST for an emergency generator. - TNT Insecticides, 1333 NE Bayshore Place (the current Herald property). No information was available in the DERM files. - Venetian Service Station, 1504 N Bayshore Drive. No information was available in the DERM files. - Everglades Laundry, 1320 N Bayshore Drive. No information was available in the DERM files. • Based on the historic research, large amounts of fill were utilized to extend the mainland from approximately 100 feet east of Northeast Bayshore Court sometime between 1921 and 1939. This "made land" included "Lot C" of the Property (north of the Miami Herald building), and the land currently occupied by the Miami Herald Building. It is suspected that the fill material was dredged from the adjoining Biscayne Bay. However, the unknown source of the fill is considered a REC. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 3 Submitted Into the public record in connect.a ^ i1ti oc- item _2_ on Priscilla A. Thopson City Clerk EEbG: Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 SECTION 2.0 PHASE II ESA METHODOLOGY EE&G performed a Phase II ESA to assess for the presence of COCs in soil and groundwater samples from the collected Property. Refer to Figure 2 for a site map indicating the locations of the sampling locations. 2.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT METHODOLGY On March 11, 12, 13, 14, and April 6 and 7, 2005, EE&G advanced a total of 44 soil borings (labeled SB-1 through SB-44) across the Property using direct -push drilling technology (i.e., geoprobe). The soil samples were collected using a technique that involved hydraulically driving a sampling device to the desired depth, collecting the sample, and extracting the device. The soil samples were collected from surface grade to approximately 8-feet below land surface (BLS), using a Macro Core sampler. The samples, which were retrieved in 4-foot acetate liners to isolate the samples and maintain their integrity, were segregated into 2-foot intervals for field analysis. The samples were visually inspected to assess for indications of petroleum staining or unnatural discoloration. The soil samples were transferred from the acetate liners and placed into pre -cleaned 8-ounce soil jars until half -full, covered with aluminum foil, and allowed to equilibrate to obtain representative readings. The soil samples were screened using a Heath Tech Detectopack III Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA), equipped with a Flame Ionization Detector (FID). The OVA/FID was utilized with, and without a charcoal filter to assess for the presence of naturally occurring methane. The net OVA/FID readings were interpreted to assess for the presence of volatile organic compounds, indicative of a petroleum hydrocarbon or chlorinated solvent source. Soil samples were placed in laboratory supplied, pre -cleaned sample bottles, placed on ice, and transported to ELAB, a National Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC)-certified and Department of Health (DOH) -certified laboratory. A representative subset was selected and analyzed as follows: • A total of 77 soil samples will be analyzed for total arsenic, including 34 collected from the 0 to 2-feet BLS interval, 39 collected from the 2 to 4-feet BLS interval, and four from the 4 to 6-feet BLS interval. • The following 15 soil samples were by EPA Method 8270: - SB-2 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-3 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-6 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-8 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-18 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-23 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-24 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-26 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-34 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-42 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-44 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). Phase 11 ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 4 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Subs^ + ., d into the public record ram,.`,. i cctiofl with item pz i a- on q Priscilla A. Thofnpson City Clerk EE$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 • The following 26 soil samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) by Method FL -PRO: - SB-2 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-3 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-3 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-6 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-8 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-15 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). - SB-16 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). - SB-18 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-19 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). - SB-23 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-23 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-24 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval), - SB-24 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-25 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-26 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-32 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-33 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-34 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-41 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). - SB-42 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-43 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-44 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). • The following six soil samples were analyzed for 8 RCRA heavy metals, including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and silver by EPA Methods 6010 and 7470: - SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-26 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-28 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). - SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). • The following 12 soil samples were analyzed for volatile (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260: - SB-4 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-6 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-9 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-11 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-19 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-41 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). organic compounds Submted I_..., tho, public record cc,i,Jicction1�;4,lith item p2 .l za crl 0 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk bk. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 5 EVIG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 - SB-42 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-43 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-44 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval). • The following five soil samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by EPA Method 8081: - SB-7 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval). - SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). - SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). • The following five soil samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls by EPA 8082: - SB-26 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-28 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). - SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval). 2.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT METHODLOGY On March 11, 12, 13, 14, and April 6 and 7, 2005, EE&G collected discrete groundwater samples from 41 direct -push points (labeled GW-1 through GW-35, and GW-38 through GW- 43). The direct -push rig utilized a Screen Point 15 (SP15) sampler, in which a decontaminated unit was threaded onto the leading end of a probe rod and driven to the desired sampling interval. While the sampler was driven to a depth, 0-ring seals at the drive head and expendable drive point provided a watertight system. Once at the desired sampling interval, the drive rod was retracted to expose the 4-foot long screened interval to allow access for groundwater sampling. Groundwater was drawn through the tubing to the ground surface using a peristaltic pump. The groundwater samples were collected from the 5 to 9-feet BLS screened interval, in order to adequately intersect the groundwater/soil interface, which was observed to be approximately 6-feet BLS. Additionally, nine deeper groundwater samples were collected from the 26 to 30-feet BLS screened interval, including GW-1, GW-6, GW-9, GW-11, GW-14, GW-18, GW-28, GW-32 and GW-35. On March 17, 2005, EE&G collected shallow groundwater samples from two pre-existing monitoring wells (labeled MW-A and MW-B), which were located in Lot C, north of the Miami Herald building. Sampling activities were conducted in general accordance with the FDEP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), which are outlined in Chapter 62-120 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Field stabilization data was recorded during the sampling of the monitoring wells, but was omitted during the geoprobe sampling event. Prior to sampling, approximately 3 to 5 gallons of groundwater were purged (with a peristaltic pump) from the sampling points, in order to collect a representative groundwater sample. Groundwater samples were collected into laboratory supplied, pre -cleaned sample bottles, placed on ice, and transported to ELAB, a NELAC and DOH -certified laboratory for analyses of the following parameters: Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 6 SEbr 9 _ted tho pub lic record in cpnrect:on with item 1 2.!ta- en' 9."1-Q(. Prist l(a A. Thompson City Clerk EE'G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 • A total of 40 shallow geoprobe groundwater samples (screened from approximately 5 to 9-feet BLS) and the two monitoring well samples, were analyzed for the following parameters: - VOCs by EPA Method 8260 - PAHs by EPA Method 8270 - TPH by Method FL -PRO - Total arsenic and lead by EPA Method 6010 • Shallow groundwater samples collected from GW-1, GW-9, GW-10 and GW-12 (located in the vicinity of historic dry cleaning facilities) were analyzed for Mineral Spirits by modified EPA Method 8015. • Groundwater samples collected from GW-8, GW-19, GW-22, GW-26, GW-28 and GW-28d were analyzed for ammonia using EPA Method 350.1. • Shallow groundwater samples collected from GW-14 (located in the vicinity of a historic chemical company) were analyzed for the following parameters: - Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270 - VOCs by EPA Method 8260 - Eight RCRA metals by EPA Method 6010 — TPH by Method FL -PRO • The nine deep groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method 8260. 2.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSCIAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY On March 10 and 11, 2005, EE&G supervised a limited -scope geophysical survey that was conducted by Ground Hound, Inc. (GHI). The survey included a combined use of electromagnetic (EM) equipment to assess for the presence of metallic debris, along with Ground -Penetrating Radar (GPR) to assess for the presence of buried objects (i.e., debris, USTs, drainage structures, utilities). The survey area included accessible areas of the southem and westem portions of Lot A (see Figure 2). There were several cars parked along the western boundary of Lot A, which created limited interference during the survey. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - Aprii 2005 7 Subs e p � s'.a 1 �. ^ ..s.r'4sc record item nit . on -17-04 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk EE rG: Phase ll Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 SECTION 3.0 PHASE 11 ESA FINDINGS 3.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 3.1.1 Soil OVA Results OVA results generated from field-testing of soils were compared with the action level established in the FDEP's "Guidelines for Assessment and Source Removal of Petroleum Contaminated Soils", dated May 1998. The action level defined by these guidelines was 10 parts per million (ppm) of organic vapors. Analysis of the soil samples collected from the soil borings revealed the presence of organic vapors above the 10 ppm action level in three samples. Net OVA readings ranged from below the 1 ppm OVA detection limit (BDL) to 230 ppm; however, all net OVA readings were below the 10 ppm action level except the following: • The 2 to 4-feet BLS interval of SB-24 exhibited a net OVA reading of 60 ppm. • The 4 to 6-feet BLS intervals of SB-21, SB-23, SB-24 and SB-42 exhibited net OVA readings for 180 ppm, 200 ppm, 230 ppm and 18 ppm. • The 6 to 8-feet BLS intervals of SB-3, SB-4, SB-16 and SB-17 exhibited net OVA readings of 30 ppm, 182 ppm, 20 ppm and 33 ppm. 3.1.2 Soil Analytical Results A copy of the laboratory analytical results and Chain -of -Custody forms are provided in Appendix A. The soil analytical results for total arsenic and PAHs are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The soil analytical results were compared with Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) for residential -use direct exposure, commercialtindusfnial-use direct exposure, and leachability criteria, per Chapter 24-11, Code of Miami -Dade County. Site maps illustrating the inferred extent of total arsenic are provided as Figure 3 (Arsenic: 0 to 2-feet BLS) and Figure 4 (Arsenic: 2 to 4-feet BLS). Additionally, Figure 5 summarizes the locations where soils were found to contain petroleum constituents above the SCTLs. The following is a discussion of the analytical results, presented by parameter type and sampling depth interval. Arsenic: A total of 73 out of the 77 soil samples tested contained total arsenic concentrations above the 0.7 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. These concentrations ranged from 0.75 mg/Kg to 13 mg/Kg. Seven of these soil samples contained arsenic concentrations that exceeded the 4.1 mg/Kg SCTL for commercial -use direct exposure, including SB-1 (13 mg/Kg), SB-14 (7.6 mg/Kg), SB-18 (4.3 mg/Kg), SB-19 (11 mg/Kg), SB-21 (4.9 mg/Kg), SB-28 (5.9 mg/Kg), and SB-34 (4.4 mg/Kg). Furthermore, four of these soil samples collected also exceeded the 5.8 mg/Kg SCTL for leachability. Other Metals: Based on the analytical results, the other heavy metals tested were all below their respective SCTLs for residential -use direct exposure and leachability (when applicable using 'total' analyses). VOCs: Residual concentrations of VOCs were detected in SB-6 and SB-44 (located in the vicinity of a historic filling station on the southern side of the Property). However, all VOC concentrations in the 12 soil samples tested were below the SCTLs for residential -use direct exposure and leachability. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 8 Subm:r.., , t7, public l.c record i with Item PZ . I on _ ! Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk EEb.G: Phase Ii Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 PAHs: A total of six out of the 15 soil samples collected across the Property contained detectable concentrations of PAH constituents above the SCTLs. These soils contained concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene, ranging from 0.099 mg/Kg to 0.530 mg/Kg, which were at or exceeded the 0.10 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. Soils collected from SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS) contained a heavy petroleum -like interference, which resulted in a dilution that increased the detection limits to above the SCTLs. TPH: Concentrations of TPHs in the 26 soil samples tested were below 460 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure, and the 340 mg/Kg SCTL for leachability, except the 4 to 6-feet BLS interval of SB-42 (located beneath the southeastern comer of the parking garage on Lot A). Soils collected from SB-42 contained 2,100 mg/Kg, and exhibited a petroleum hydrocarbon odor. A net OVA/FID reading of 18 ppm was detected in this sample. PCBs: Concentrations of PCBs in the five soil samples tested were below the 0.5 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. Pesticides: Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in the five soil samples tested were below the SCTLs for residential -use direct exposure. 3.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT FINDINGS A copy of the laboratory analytical results, Chain -of -Custody forms and groundwater sampling Togs are provided in Appendix B. Refer to Figure 2 for a site map indicating the locations of the sampling locations. The groundwater analytical results were compared with the Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs; a.k.a. — No Further Action Criteria) and Natural Attenuation Default Source Concentrations (NADSCs; a.k.a. — Monitoring Only Criteria), per Chapter 24-11, Code of Miami -Dade County. A summary of groundwater analytical results for samples that contained detectable concentrations of total arsenic, total lead and PAHs constituents are provided in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Refer to Figures 6, 7 and 8 for a site map illustrating constituents of concern that exceeded the GCTLs. The following is a discussion of the analytical results. VOCs: VOC constituent concentrations were below the laboratory method reporting limits (RLs) and GCTLs in all shallow and deep groundwater samples tested. PAHs: PAH constituent concentrations were below the laboratory RLs and GCTLs in the shallow groundwater samples collected across the Property, except for the following constituents: • Concentrations of benzo(b)fluoranthene were detected in five shallow groundwater samples, including GW-11 (0.17 ug/L), GW-18 (0.18 ug/L), GW-22 (0.17 ug/L), GW-27 (0.66 ug/L), GW-29 (0.22 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL. • Concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater samples, including GW-18 (0.37 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.50 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.2 ug/L GCTL. • Concentrations of benzo(a)anthracene exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL. were detected in GW-27 (0.33 ug/L),which • Concentrations of benzo(k)fluoranthene were exceeded the 0.5 ug/L GCTL Phase 11 ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 9 detected in GW-27 (0.72 ug/L), which 1 , '#;R•¢... e l w.1,.^� tho public record `'aa with item PZc`� 4- �1° Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk EE$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 • Concentrations of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater samples, including GW-18 (0.52 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.64 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL TPHs: TPH concentrations were detected in several groundwater samples; however, all were below the 5,000 ug/L GCTL. Arsenic: Concentrations of total arsenic concentrations were detected in nine shallow groundwater sampling points above the 10 ug/L GCTL, including GW-5 (24 ug/L), GW-8 (12 ug/L), GW-18 (14 ug/L), GW-21 (30 ug/L), GW-31 (14 ug/L), GW-34 (12 ug/L) and GW-43 (17 ug/L), which exceeded the 10 ug/L GCTL. The other groundwater samples tested did not contain total arsenic concentrations above the 10 ug/L GCTL. Lead: Concentrations of total lead concentrations were detected in four shallow groundwater sampling points above the 15 ug/L GCTL, including GW-8 (140 ug/L), GW-19 (18 ug/L), GW-27 (50 ug/L) and GW-41 (32 ug/L), which exceeded the 15 ug/L GCTL. The other groundwater samples tested did not contain total lead concentrations above the 15 ug/L GCTL Ammonia: Concentrations of ammonia were detected in all five groundwater samples tested, but only the groundwater samples collected from GW-22 (2.9 mg/L) exceeded the 2.8 mg/L GCTL. 3.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSCIAL SURVEY FINDINGS The main objective of this limited -scope geophysical survey was to assess for the presence of improperly -abandoned USTs in the vicinity of the former filling stations and dry cleaners, which were historically located along the southern and southwestern boundaries of Lot A. GHI reported that while no distinct UST signature was observed, that there was several areas containing what appeared to be scattered debris. These signatures were attributed to old building foundations. However, the numerous underground utility lines, trees, the buried debris signatures and the surface structures and cars created heavy interference with the EM and GPR equipment. Therefore, it can not definitively be concluded that no USTs or drainage structures remain onsite, and future development plans should include a contingency that assumes these types of structures will be encountered during construction. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 10 .public 1 .a ,.. _,_d•t item P2-l€q.-7-dI, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk EEbG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 SECTION 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Phase 11 ESA was conducted at the Property to assess for the presence of COCs, which may have resulted from the RECs identified in the January 2005 Phase I ESA (see Section 1.2 of this document). The following conclusions are based upon interpretation of the Phase II ESA findings. 4.1 CONCLUSIONS - SOILS Based on the Phase 11 ESA findings, the following constituents of concern were detected in soils collected across the Property. • Arsenic: A total of 73 out of the 77 soil samples tested contained total arsenic concentrations above the 0.7 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. These concentrations ranged from 0.75 mg/Kg to 13 mg/Kg. Additionally, seven of these soil samples contained arsenic concentrations that exceeded the 4.1 mg/Kg SCTL for commercial -use direct exposure, and four exceeded the 5.8 mg/Kg SCTL for leachability. • PAHs: A total of six out of the 15 soil samples collected across the Property contained detectable concentrations of PAH constituents above the SCTLs. These soils contained concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene, ranging from 0.099 mg/Kg to 0.530 mg/Kg, which were at or exceeded the 0.10 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. Soils collected from SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS) contained a heavy petroleum -like interference, which resulted in a dilution that increased the detection limits to above the SCTLs. • TPH: Soils collected from the 4 to 6-feet BLS interval of SB-42 (located beneath the southeastern comer of the parking garage on Lot A) contained 2,100 mg/Kg pf TPH, and exhibited a petroleum hydrocarbon odor. Additionally, a net OVA/FID reading of 18 ppm was detected in this sample. These concentrations of TPHs exceeded both the 460 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure, and the 340 mg/Kg SCTL for leachability. The other 25 soil samples tested did not contain TPH concentrations above the SCTLs. The source of the petroleum hydrocarbons in SB-42 is attributed to the historic filling station that operated on the southern portion of the Property. • VOCs: Residual concentrations of VOCs were detected in SB-6 and SB-44 (located in the vicinity of a historic filling station on the southern side of the Property). However, all VOC concentrations in the 12 soil samples tested were below the SCTLs for residential - use direct exposure and leachability. • The other COCs tested were either below the laboratory method reporting limits or below the applicable SCTLs, including barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 11 Submitt d is t the public record in coh r: cs on with item P1.1 a-c,� P- rl - 04 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk EE$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 4.2 CONCLUSIONS - GROUNDWATER Based on the Phase II ESA findings, the following constituents of concern were detected in soils collected across the Property. • Arsenic: Concentrations of total arsenic concentrations were detected in nine shallow groundwater sampling points above the 10 ug/L GCTL, including GW-5 (24 ug/L), GW-8 (12 ug/L), GW-18 (14 ug/L), GW-21 (30 ug/L), GW-31 (14 ug/L), GW-34 (12 ug/L) and GW-43 (17 ug/L), which exceeded the 10 ug/L GCTL. The other groundwater samples tested did not contain total arsenic concentrations above the 10 ug/L GCTL. • Lead: Concentrations of total lead concentrations were detected in four shallow groundwater sampling points above the 15 ug/L GCTL, including GW-8 (140 ug/L), GW- 19 (18 ug/L), GW-27 (50 ug/L) and GW-41 (32 ug/L), which exceeded the 15 ug/L GCTL. The other groundwater samples tested did not contain total lead concentrations above the 15 ug/L GCTL. • PAHs: PAH constituent concentrations were below the laboratory RLs and GCTLs in the shallow groundwater samples collected across the Property, except for the following constituents: - Concentrations of benzo(b)fluoranthene were detected in five shallow groundwater samples, including GW-11 (0.17 ug/L), GW-18 (0.18 ug/L), GW-22 (0.17 ug/L), GW- 27 (0.66 ug/L), GW-29 (0.22 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL. - Concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater samples, including GW-18 (0.37 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.50 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.2 ug/L GCTL. - Concentrations of benzo(a)anthracene were detected in GW-27 (0.33 ug/L),which exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL. - Concentrations of benzo(k)fluoranthene were detected in GW-27 (0.72 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.5 ug/L GCTL - Concentrations of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater samples, including GW-18 (0.52 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.64 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL • Ammonia: Concentrations of ammonia were detected in all five groundwater samples tested, but only the groundwater samples collected from GW-22 (2.9 mg/L) exceeded the 2.8 mg/L GCTL. • TPHs: TPH concentrations were detected in several groundwater samples; however, all were below the 5,000 ug/L GCTL. • VOCs: VOC constituent concentrations were below the laboratory method reporting limits (RLs) and GCTLs in all shallow and deep groundwater samples tested. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 12 Submitted Int) the public record in connection with itemp7.1 i,), on-r), ot, Prisciria A. Thompson City Clerk EE+$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the Phase I and II ESA, EE&G recommends that a contingency be prepared to address the following environmental considerations during future redevelopment activities: • Based on the presence of elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead, PAHs and ammonia in groundwater samples collected across the Property, EE&G recommends that further assessment be conducted to further characterize these impacts. Furthermore, a contingency should be considered to properly monitor and dispose of dewatering effluent if generated during future redevelopment activities. Furthermore, DERM may require a deed restriction to obtain a conditional closure for this site, which would place a restriction on use of groundwater for potable or irrigation purposes, and possibly a restriction on the disposal of storm water effluent in shallow exfiltration trenches on the Property. • Due to the presence of arsenic, TPH and PAH constituents in soil samples above the SCTLS, EE&G recommends a contingency be established to properly handle, characterize and dispose of all soils excavated or removed from the Property, in accordance with applicable state and county regulations. Furthermore, a Soil Management Plan should be prepared to address affected surficial soils to minimize potential "direct exposure" concerns by construction workers and eventually future residents. • Due to the presence of limited areas of scattered buried debris identified on the southern edge of the Property, the Client should have a geotechnical engineer evaluate the need to excavate these areas to minimize the potential for future settling. Additionally, consideration should be given to the propensity for potential methane gas accumulation beneath future impervious surfaces or structures, if debris is left in place. Please note that the geophysical survey was limited in scope; therefore, it is possible that other areas of debris may be encountered during the redevelopment of the Property. • It is important to recognize that the results of this assessment should not be considered a guarantee that other areas of the Property are not impacted. Due to the size of this facility, EE&G designed the sampling strategy to assess for the presence of COCs in the vicinity of the most obvious areas of potential discharge. However, other areas on the Property may contain elevated concentrations of COCs that were not detected during the scope of this assessment. Therefore, it is recommended that any soils disturbed during future redevelopment activities be properly characterized and evaluated to determine the need for proper disposal. • Additionally, based on the current and historic use of the Property, the potential exists for the presence of unknown environmentally sensitive structures (i.e., USTs, septic tanks, drainage structures, etc.). GHI reported that, while no distinct UST signature was observed, there was several areas containing what appeared to be scattered debris. These signatures were attributed to old building foundations. However, the numerous underground utility lines, trees, the buried debris signatures and the surface structures and cars created heavy interference with the EM and GPR equipment. Therefore, it can not definitively be concluded that no USTs or drainage structures remain onsite, Therefore, a contingency should be considered to properly manage these potential issues if encountered during redevelopment activities. Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 13 Sul3-r e4 i public record in Ac.c a item?Z1:7—oG Priscilfa A. Thompson City Clerk EEb.G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005 FIGURES Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz.I£.- on 9-r1-0G Priscilla A. Thompson City Cleric EEJG EE&G Environmental Services, LLC —14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400, Miami Lakes, Florida 33016 305-374-8300 Phone 305-374-9004 Fax a INIStaspr. gioig. s a ! 6t11 J ;Tsai r Knight-Ridder Miami Herald Property Miami, FL Project #: 2005-0707 i vss I �t d pubic record in cbnn% ; z z.n with item pZ. 16:1- on i-17-a6, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LOCATION TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Source: USGS FIGURE 1 0 OMNI 74ALL ALVAH CHAPMAN BiVD. 0,1E. 15TH SWEET) 111 , 4i 11111111111.4[111111111 11O), j. (IIIII !L.UtIbP LOT n - 132 LOT 0 = 1SS 09.)&1 0.rt.) Inn S1rt6.T (20.1% ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (N.E. 15TH STREET) TITITITlyrnzyi I IV; r, -ti 11 l I I j I Iijj I l !,1 11(IJ J Lf129�'" 111V--& \IW-B LI Ally . ...l il� Iar 4A37 f ° 1- TOTAL ELPLOTEE Fam<wC LOT •a•-139 41 Asa 9 39 201 o LE=22» 47 , Willi 2 s t4.� 1-395 OFF —RAMP 0 30 60 90 120 SCALE 10 FEET LEGEND ♦=GEEPROBE SAMPLING LOCATIONS 9--EXISTING MONITORING WELLS MAP PROVIDED BY THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. MANAGEMENT ENGJUEERING SEPT Figure No. • CD CD ~ 9 3 U 1, la 0 r p� ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (N.E. 1STH SIREET) ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (14.E. 15TH SIREET) • K.E. 1,0.9 TERPK/ LOT 0 - 137 (5W.037 50.01.) ;u1'5--7. �35 IaI1'I TOUCK 5142810.• IEC 23 J IJI ILI IJ LI l J 20 14 A 17 • 1=•1 A2 A3 L01 9 . 156 I109. ✓57 Sari' RIPER (30.705 50 11 1 '117 14 ; II 971.017E-rw I I ()N/A N/ s) 1 4 2 7 . J�C 11( l 7TTi71 1 7Tf �1- o, •' Ll l l)Q,LL1E11 �g J 117f :117"fiU17?Y111 111, I l n I�I 11r qs rYi.J. .l r • 1-395 OFF-RAVP Y-• �f f B: } D 30 6D 90 120 SCALE IN EEE3 LEGEN➢ • =SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS i=T01Al_ ARSENIC —� --- — (mg/kg) ((AP PROVIDED BY THE ((TAM( HERALD PUBLISHING CO. (MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING DEP T. figure No. CD 0) _0 C 17 ® Cr a C • J71)ri OMNI MALL �_� _ t '- - - , , Al VAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (N.E. 15TH STREET) 1,TN TOW -WE iy,111111 I I I 1111g1 I l! I l l l l l IA 3 LOT D . 131 (82.037 SOIi.) v TRUCK 5IE02lO:.w 23 111111i 11111 LOT 9 . 156 109,185 S0$T C. 1.11 40LET I20.166 10TFI. EUI:OTEE PURRING LOT.A"e139 41 1-395 OFF-RAMP �-�--� I 1 11 I I ALVA31 CHAPMAN BLVD. (NE. 151H STREET) .11ki11117I1t71� 10 I�;II1J11111294 JTrrri-ri 11 11.r ro71-17 I`ii'iri`11 1 ; Fi l I iiritift- �r D 30 90 90 120 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND ♦ =SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS (3.4)=TOTAL ARSENIC (mg/kg) MAP PROVIDED BY THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING DEPT. Figure No. 0 _'1 BEN%0(o) PYRENE 0.099 mg, kg �17 1� () ✓.,'fi MNI MALL lil( ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (N15TH ST0ELI) E 19TY MN.. "•-1-„kiV,11111111T111$l]111111111iA, (-I)1( }_RI 11.11.1. 'I;6 6611' :mar s9n1 r.. TRUCK STACWC. 46p 23 J1111111111111 22 18 LOT 155 (109.153 50.R.) ...6. Ion 91n6LT (11.iw A. 333 •�_.dI 1IdV.._I 1 ua rAl* 18 TTTII ,111 '• 10T a (160.311 I II I Ili' . . ITfll? i?TITI1111111 Il I.1 I I1111.i TCT9l CN,101EE PAw.nIL LO'..^ .119 41 Atm -ter �1TIf111•tliTiITllll Ill.- = .. 1 9 BENZO(o) P.RE:NE 0.39 mgjk9 o(s PLOYEE.223(1 42. ,.)_. 1111�1ii1 I)Al ]i -Atom 1-395 Off-RA13P III ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (N.E. 15TH STREET) 6 � JJj TPH .2.100 6691 19 'BENZO(c) PYRENE 0.52 my/kg BENZ0(5; PYRENE 0.37 .mg/kg BENZO(o) PIRENE 0.53 milky 00000• PETROLEUM 111TER"ERENCE SIGN?.TU?E 0 30 60 90 120 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND ♦=GEOPROBE SAMPLING LOCATIONS =EXISTING MONITORING WELLS MAP PROVICCD BY THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING DEPT. Figure No. OM MMALL ;(, JI ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (N.E. )5TH SrR ET,l I I 9 -, ao N.C..X rtwcc Y21111111 ilijA,I1iiI11I1iitJ III 11 1 HLfL__.2 LOT 0 - 137 (83.037 SOY *.) l II11I.I. ALVP.H CHAPMAN 131.\'D. (N.E. 15TH STRLEI) ar 94 � ,rni1171[21�111 arnjrrri ' e`ij111lllfl1JJJ ! (1111IH 2"• .. M A %INV Q �•��•27 28 IIIIIRIII-IIr�111111("i�i1 LOT 0-- 55 (109.1 3 SO fT) xE. 1fn1 srmcr ro,ia m. n.)----•�€p g � TOTAL N01710 PABxNG LOT `4. -739 41. 1.. i j I fl I 1111) 4 EMPLOYEE-223f1 1-395 OFF -RAMP ^. lE'.mod--l. :16.1' �Iwa - 0 :0 60 90 120 F IN FEET LEGEND ♦=GEOPROBE SAMPLING LOCATIONS s=EXISTING MONITORING WELLS =TOTAL ARSENIC (ug/L) MPP PROVIDED BY THE NIAl•.1 HERF•L➢ PUI1LISHING GO. MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING DEPT. CAD CDcn M.� 0 0 $ 0 e3 n r OF1NI MALL ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. (P1.E. 1`:TH STREET) ..E.•1•TN 129.41 alI Ali.�Z1i11 1]11 ilk iiiiii1111A 35 ILit" rT,' 19050 STAGING- *40 23 Jll11I111III11 LOT 0 - 156 (109.1(13 50.PT.) 7 ti411uN 1tNPc 10!.1L NPLO L PA6160.0 10 OIi�I�IV 1w 41♦- i i1'if I-395 OFF -RAMP jI I 11 I rj ALVAH C.HAPMAN BLVD. (N.L. 1STH STREET) A i, j( (1 1tr('}Trl'rnrr`('i71`i�rl n11LHWi l LLInd IJ.II1, ro rrrrtm-rrr1 ! 1 l 11 fl J j_L11 �,+31711 I I C� I r 0 30 60 90 120 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND ♦ =GEOPRBBE SAMPLING LOCATIONS 5)=EXISTING MONITORING WELLS =TOTAL LEAD(ug/L) MAP PROVIDED BY THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING DEPT. Figure No. CD CD a CJ r O mac- tp 6ENZ0(b) FLUORANTHENE 0.16 ug/I. BER20(o) PYRENE 0,37 ug/L OMM13 MAILI10EN0(1,2,3-cd) 131505E 0 52 69/, 1 +�j ALVAH CHAPMAN BLVD. 15,H STREET) ALVAH CHAPMAN BU;D. uCN20(n) FWORAUT:IENE 0.17 ug/L. (H,E. 151H STREET) -_ y {�0 . `, d��J C] L----() � 7 -V4„ +d"� I,J ` !In f 1171 I iTIT'i I ITI Ir1 3-;_rr C. 21 > 1[• I II PiTQT1TT iirrilili BENZO(5) FLUORANTI•E:E 0.65 og/L 0@� NE (ZO( ) PYPEIIE 0.50 u9/L• BEu20() ANT SACESE 0.33 u9/L L�� 1 6En'!O ) FLUORANTh AE 0.72 c,/L PI^-JE 0.64 V OEAZC_IS) IC:2 Nt ,. ILw3A:C 35 l (),1 I.1-11 1111.1. ."--E.err1 19 LOT B 11..505 5TAG91C- ..O 23 4-27 _A20 I:IIIIJIJ11111111.111L 156 (109,183 SOFT.) (MOSS 10, rT.) .22 m-u ci51.0+cc FA4N:A6 Lor 99 41.1,— —1 Y 9.k P 39 L 1I11111 1 A.3 1-395 OF —RAMP 42 BENZc(0) FL001ANTIIEIIE 0.17 ug/L BISCAYNE 0 30 60 90 12D SCALE iN FEET LEGEND ♦=GEOFROBE SAMPLING LOCAT:DNS Fd=EXISTING MONITORING WELLS MAP PROVIDED 6Y iME MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. I MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING DEPT- Figure No.