Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Impact StudyTab 1) Economic Impact Study 411 • ril 25, 2007 Ms. Valerie Fernandes Taylor Development and Land Company Aventura, Florida : MUSP Impact Analysis — Off8rickell Mixed Use Project Dear Ms. Fernandes: Miami Edonornio Associates, Inc. (MEAD has performed analysis to estimate the fiscal and economic benefits that development of the Off-Bdckeil mixed -use project will provide to the City of Miami. The project will be iocated at 1420 SAN-1 Court. This !etter, which is organized as shown below, provides the findings of our analysis and their bases: Section ProjectDescrption Summary of Findings Fiscal Benefits Economic Benefits Bases of Estimates__... Closing 6301 S.Wi. 88th Terrace Miami, FRorid* 33156 TeL t31 S $ 229 Fa.. (3 5 869- t ea.i€ k0 tsouthmet Ms, Valorie Fernandes Taylor Development and Land Company. April 25, 2007 Page 2 The analysis presented below is based on preliminary estimates of pricing and construction costs and current tax and fee rates, These estimates are subject to change and the changes may be significant based on market conditions, cost parameters and rate structures at the time the Project is actually developed, Project Description The Off-Brickell mixed use project will be comprised of 125,000 square feet of rentable office space and 107,917 square feet of retail space together with 414 parking spaces. it is anticipated the proposed office and retail space will rent for $42 per square foot and $45 per square foot, respectively. Construction of the Off-Bnckell mixed -use project is expected to cost $54.4 million in hard costs. An additional $6.3 million will be expended for soft costs inclusive architectural and engineering fees, marketing, leasing commissions, project overhead, etc. Accordingly, the Project will cost $60.7 million to develop exclusive of land, financing costs and developer fees. Summary of Findings Development of the Off-Brickell mixed -use project will be highly beneficial to the City of Miami in important ways, as summarized below: Fiscal Benefits ▪ Fiscal Benefits refers to the positive impact that the Off-Brickeil mixed -use project will have on the finances of the City of Miami. The benefits that it will provide to the City will be both non -recurring and recurring in nature as enumerated below. The estimates shown below are expressed in 2007 Constant Dollars, o Non -recurring Benefits $ 137,691 in City building permit fees ▪ $ 10,000 in City solid waste surcharge fees • $ 81,046 in City police impact fees ▪ $ 72,216 in City fire -rescue impact fees O $ 30,098 in City general services impact fees • $ 280,495 in Downtown DR I supplemental fees o Recurring Benefits ▪ $ 602,964 annually in City General Fund ad valorem taxes • $ 44,712 annually in City Debt Service ad valorem taxes • $ 36,000 annually in Downtown [Development Authority ad valorem taxes Miami Economic A$sociates, Inc, 6861 SAN. 89th Terrace Mian Florida 33166 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (305) 669..8634 Email: raealnka/bellsoothAlet Ms, Valerie Fernandes Taylor Development and Land Company, April 25, 2007 Page 3 l r Ou r i iabi Trade -related fees for roofing, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, pool and elevator work performed during construction (non -recurring) • increased City utility taxes and franchise fees (recurring) ▪ increasedoccupational license fees (recurring) • Increased parking surcharge revenues (recurring) • increased sales tax rebates (recurring) Other ▪ While the focus of fiscal analysis was an the City of Miami. the Of€f8rickell mixed use project will, as shown below, provide significant fiscal benefits to other non -municipal governmental jurisdictions that impact the lives of City residents: o $ 489,833 in County road impact fees (non -recurring) a $ 404,280 in County General Fund ad valorem taxes (recurring) o $ 20,520 in County Debt Service ad valorem taxes(recurring) a $ 30,406 in Children's Trustad valorem taxes (recurring) O $ 34,992 in County Library ad valorem taxes (recurring) • $ 533,752 in School Operating ad valorem taxes (recurring) o $ 29,808 in School Debt Service ad valorem taxes (recurring) O increased County occupational license fees (recurring) o Increased sales tax rebates (recurring) o Increased local option sales taxes for the County Health Trust and Transit (recurring) Ecorroni Ben fits Economic Benefits relates to the positive impact that the Off-Brickell mixed -use project will have on the economy of the City rather than its finances, The economic benefits it will provide will also be non -recurring and recurring in nature. Non -recurring * Approximately 90 percent of the $60,7 million that will be spent on hard and soft costs to develop the project will be spent within the City of Miami, producing an overall economic impact approxirnating $84.9 million when the multiplier effect is considered. Construction expenditures within the City of iiarni will include an estimated $24.6 million for construction tabor, an amount sufficient to pay approximately 461 construction workers, some of whore may be City residents, their average annual wage of $52,0 0. Miami onomic Associates, Inc. 68 1 . 8 th Terrace Miami, Fk d 33156 Tel: 1305) 669 0229 Fax: (305) 669.8534 Email: meainc l4t t Valerie Fernandes Taylor Development and Land Company. April 25, 2007 Page 4 0 Recurring A total of $2,3 million will be spent annually within the City of Miami by the workforce at the project in retail and food and beverage establishments while workind. Additionally, approximately $1..8 million in ad valorem taxes will be paid to the City of Miami, its Downtown Development Authority., Miami -Dade County and the .Miami -Dade County Schools, ali of which maintain their principal offices within the City. These expenditures will have an overall economic impact on the City of $62 million annually when the multiplier effect is considered. A total of 790 people will be employed at the project, inclusive of people involved in project operations, maintenance and parking. These workers, who may include City residents, will earn approximately $28.4 million annually. Bases of Estimates The materials that follow provide the assumptions used to estimate the fiscal and economic benefits that development of the Off-Brickeil mixed -use project will provide to the City of Miami. All monetary values are stated in 2007 Constant Dollars. Project Characteristics The Off-Brickell mixed -use project will be located at 1420 SW 1 Court within the boundaries of the City of Miami and its Downtown Development Authority as well as those of the Downtown DRI. It will also be located within the jurisdictions of Miami - Dade County and the Miami -Dade County Public School District. The Off-Brickell mixed -use project will entail the construction of 125,000 rentable square feet of office space and 107,917 square feet of retail space. When service and circulation space and the 414 parking spaces are accounted for, it will be comprised of 550,764 gross square feet. Development of the Off-Brickell mixed -use project will cost approximately $53.4 miiiion to construct in terms of hard construction. Soft costs including those relating to professional fees, marketing, leasing commissions, permit fees, developer overhead, administration, etc. will total an additional $6.3 million. Therefore, $60.7 million will be spent to develop it exclusive of land acquisition, financing costs and developer's fees. Based on a review of assessment data with respect to comparable projects, it is estimated that the assessed and taxable value of the Project for ad valorem tax purposes, will approximate $72.0 million, Miami Economic Associates, inc. 6861 SAN. 891 Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax (OSt 669-8534 Ernaik meaink@bellsoutti.net • Ms. Valerie Fernandes Taylor Development and Land Company, April 25, 2007 Page 5. Based on industry standards, it is anticipated that the proposed office space will be occupied by 500 workers. This estimate assumes 4.0 workers per 1,000 square feet of office space. At 2_5 employees per 1,000 square feet of retail space, the proposed retail space will house 270 retail workers. When project operations, maintenance and parking personnel are accounted for, a total of 790 people will be employed at the Off-Brickell mixed -use project. Assuming that they spend an average of $10 per day for food and other items while working, their annual expenditures would approximate $2,3 million. Non -recurring Fiscal impacts The City of Miami charges building permit fees at a rate of $0.25 per gross square foot of commercial construction, In calculating fees, the square footage associated with parking garage space is included in the calculation. Accordingly, building permit fees totaling $137,691 will be paid. A solid waste surcharge fee in the amount of $10,000, the maximum amount, will be applied. The various trades involved in completing the Project including the roofing, electrical, plurnbing, mechanical and elevator contractors will be required to pay fees on their work. Calculation of the fees that they will pay requires that the project's final engineering drawings be completed, which has not yet occurred. Accordingly, the fees that will be paid can not be quantified at this time. A solid waste surcharge is applied to these fees. The City of Miami charges impact fees on new construction projects. The rates for office space in the quantity proposed are paid on a per square foot basis in the amounts of $0.176 for police, $0.317 for fire -rescue and $0,132 for general services. The rates for retail space per square foot are $0.751 for police, $0,302 for fire -rescue and $0,126 for general services. Impact fees totaling $190,360 will be paid on the proposed office condominium project, of which $81,046 will be for police, $72,216 for fire -rescue and $30,098 for general services. In addition to the impact fees discussed in the preceding paragraph that are charged to projects anywhere within the City of Miami, supplemental impact fees are charged on projects located in the area covered by the Downtown DRI. According to the current tabie of fee coefficients, the rates for office space and retails space are $1.094 and $1.332 per gross square foot, respectively. Based on these rates it is estimated that a total of $280,495 in Downtown DRI supplemental impact fees will be paid. New commercial construction projects located in the City of Miami also need to pay impact fees to Miami -Dade County for roads, In the eastern portion of the county, the road impact fee rates for office and retail space in the quantities being proposed are $1.775 and $2.483 per square foot, respectively, which result in a payment of $489,833, •Miami Economic Associates, bic 6861 S.W. 89 - Terrace Miami, Florida 33136 Tel: f 305) 669-0226 Fax (305) 669-8534 Emalh. meaink§beilsouth.net • • • Ms, Valerie Fernandes Taylor Development and Land Company. April 25, 2007 Page 6 Recur. Fiscal Impacts The millage rates currently being levied for ad valorem tax purposes by the governmental entities referenced in the Summary of Findings are shown in the table immediately following. The ed valorem tax revenues projected in the Summary of Findings were calculated by applying the millage rates shown to proposed projects estimated taxable value of $72.0 million, Entity City of Miarnl General Fund Debt Service Fund Downtown Development Authority Rate4lobe Taxbie Value Fax 1 8,3745 $ 602,964 0.6210 0.5000 5 6150 $ 44,712 $ 36,000 404,260 $ 20,520 Children's Trust 0,4223 $ 30,406 _ Library 0.4860 $ 34,992 Miarni-Dade County PubliCSchodis [ 1 1 Operating_ 1 7.5910 ? f - $ 553,752 , Debt Service i 0,4140 L $ 29,808 LSource: Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser: ivliarni Economic Associates, inc. Miami -Dade County General Fund Debt Service Fund 0 2850 The City of Miami collects utility taxes and franchise fees from the providers of communication, electric and other such services based on their revenues. The amount collected as a result of the development of the Off-Brickell mixed -use project will be dependent on the amount of these services used by the its tenants; hence, it can not be quantified at this time. Both the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County will collect occupational license fees from the occupants of the proposed office and retail space. The amount collected can not be estimated at this time since it will be depe:ndent on the nature of the businesses housed in the Project. The City of Miami collects a 20 percent surcharge on parking fees. The amount of surcharge revenues that will be collected from the Off-Brickell mixed use will depend on usage; hence, it can not be estimated at this time. The State of Florida charges a 6 percent sales tax on the payments to rent office and retail space and for parking as well as on a wide -variety of retail good and expenditures in restaurants. Approximately, 9 percent of the amount collected is rebated to the County in which it is collected. Half of the rebated amount is retained by Miarni-Dade County with rernainder being divided among the municipalities within the County. The amount that will be rebated to the City of Miami will be dependent on the level retail and restaurant sales and that occur in the proposed retail space and the proportion that would be taxable, which is not known at this time since a tenant mix for the project has not been established; hence, the amount can not be estimated at this time Miami Economic Associates, Inc, 6861 S.W. 89111 Terrace Miami, Florida 33155 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (305) 669-8534 Email: nrmainkaabeilsoutti,net • Ms. Valerie Fernandes Taylor Development and LandCompanv. Apri! 25, 2007 Page 7 Miami -Dade County charges an additional percent sales tax, the proceeds of which are divided equally between the .Miarni-Dade Health Trust and transit. The amount that will be collected will be dependent on the level retail and restaurant sales and that occur in the proposed retail space and the proportion that would be taxable„ which is not -known at this time since a tenant mix for the project has not been established; hence, the amount can not be estimated at this time, Nonrecurring Economic Benefits It is estimated that approximately 90 percent of the $60.7 million that will be spent on the bard and soft costs to develop the Off-Brickell mixed -use prject will initially be spent in the City of Miami. This estimate is based on an anticipation of the specific firms that will be involved in implementation of the project. According to the input- output model of Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG), which is one of the nation's foremost econometric firms, the overall economic .impact of these expenditures will approximate $84.9 million based on application of a 1,554 multiplier, MIG's input-output model further estimates that approximately $24.0 million of the moneys spent on hard costs within the City of Miami will be spent for labor. The average construction worker in Miarni-Dade County currently earns approximately $52,000 per year according to the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation. Therefore, the projects expenditure on construction labor would support approximately 461 workers, some of whom may be City residents, on an annual basis at their average wage rate. Recurring Economic Benefits The workforce employed at the proposed project wilt spend $2.3 million annually in retail establishments and restaurants spent within the City of Miami while working. Additionally, the project wilt generate approximately $1.8 million annually in ad valorem taxes for the City of Miami, the City's Downtown Development Authority, Mami-Dade County and Miami -Dade County Public Schools, all of which maintain their principal offices within the City. According to the MG input-output model, the total economic impact of these expenditures will be $6.2 million annually based on the application of a 1.5 multiplier. Based on wage data complied by the Florida Agency on Workforce innovation, it is that the annual earnings of the 790 people who will be employed at the proposed project on a full-time equivalent basis, some of whom may be City residents, would average $36,000, or $28.4 million in total. Miami Economic Associates, Anc. 6861 5.V17„ 89 Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (305) 669-8534 ErriaW inealnit@bellsouth..riet • • M. Val ri Fer ndes Taylor Development and Land Company. April 25, 2007 Page Closing The analysis performed by MEN demon tr aces that the development of Phase 11 of Eii.scayne Park will be highly beneficial tea t e City of Miami both fiscally and econ..rnically. Sinces ly, Miami Economic Associates, inc. Andrew Dolkart President Associates, inc. 8861 SS.W, 89th Taste trida i, ftovitia 33156 -O229 Fax: (305) 659-8534 Email;eaink§beilsn th net and Associates. arc, October 29, 2007 Ms. Ana Gelabert-Sanchez Director, City of Miami Planning Department Miami River Center 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 RE: Off Brickell Dear Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez Suite 40C) 691 ik' eiga.n< Avenue Horftia Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) understands that Coral Station, Ltd. is seeking the approval of a Major Use Special Peiiiiit (MUSP) from. the City of Miami. According to .Article 17, Section 1702.2.3 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinances, a Developmental Impact Study, which demonstrates if the impact of the proposed development is favorable, adverse, or neutral on the environment of the City, is required to be submitted for review with the permit application. KHA has prepared an Environmental Impact Analysis (ETA) as part of the City of Miami's MUSP requirements for a Developmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. The site is located at the northwest corner of SW 1'` and Broadway within the City of Miami. The land use and zoning of the subject parcel is SD-7 Central Brickell Rapid Transit Commercial Real Estate district. Based upon a review of 2007 aerial photography, the site is currently developed with a low rise multi -family structure, a surface parking lot, and 2 vacant construction storage areas. The proposed project will consist of a mixed use, hotel, and commercial development. This is the basis from which this assessment begins. KHA performed a limited assessment of the above referenced property on October 29, 2007 to characterize the site conditions and the natural resources on and adjacent to the subject site. The following categories have been reviewed in order to prepare the required ETA for the City of Miami: Air Quality, Contamination, Floodplains, Surface Water Quality, Wetlands, and Wildlife and Habitat. TEL a5 Ery'< 202E EAX 305 37$ 48K H:y043137UOJO 0f F3rickeiih 0RtESP0NJ)ENCE'`04313 7OOO Letter Sanchez rcvi,seci2.doc Air Quality Air quality is an important category used to evaluate the environment and is critical to the health and welfare of plants, animals and humans. The proposed development does not appear to have a point -source generator or perrnanent source of air pollution. It is expected that Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed during construction in order to comply with federal, state and local regulations and requirements. Additionally, Section 14-181 of the Miami Code of Ordinances states: Areas of exposed soil over 5,000 square feet must be sprayed with water as frequently as necessary to prevent airborne dust. Other methods of controlling airborne dust may be substituted if approved by DERM. If any area of exposed soil over 5,000 square feet is intended to be undisturbed by construction for more than 90 days, the area must be sodded or seeded and mulched. Contamination Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), persons m.ay be held strictly liable for cleaning up hazardous substances at properties that they currently own, operate or owned or operated at the time of disposal. Strict liability in the context of CERCLA means that a potentially responsible party may be liable for environmental contamination based solely on property ownership and without regard to fault or negligence. To avoid being held liable for a cleanup, a prospective property owner or contiguous property owner must comply with statutory requirements defining current landowner liability defenses. Among these is the requirement to undertake "all appropriate inquiries" into prior ownership and uses of a property before it is acquired. This requirement generally leads to a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). Construction activities (including excavation and dewatering) on a site, or adjacent to a site, which has been impacted by soil and'or groundwater contamination typically requires site practices to be employed in a manner H{:\0 313 000 Ott Brick tl`.0 ORRFSP0NDENC'E'•:043137ti0€0 Letter to Ana Sanchez re se d2.cdoc which does not adversely effect the construction orkers, adjacent sites, or the environment. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc prepared a Limited Scope Remedial .Action Plan (LSRAP) on March 16, 2007 for a petroleum product discharge on the subject property, A Phase 1 Report conducted by Evans Environmental & Geosciences is enclosed for your review. A Remedial Action Plan Approval Order was issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on August 16, 2007. The enclosed letter states that the submitted LSRAP was designed to be adequate to meet the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) requirements of .Rule 62-770.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C). DERM also concluded that the proposed LSRAP "will not result in a detrimental impact to human heath of the environment" (See enclosed memorandum from Jaquelyn Liana, P.E. dated July 12, 2007.) Floodplains Floodplains perform important natural functions, including temporary storage of floodwaters, moderation of peak flows, maintenance of water quality, groundwater recharge, and prevention of erosion. Damage to structures constructed within the floodplain is minimized by elevating the lowest floor of occupied areas one foot above the level of the 100-year flood. KHA obtained a copy of FEMA Flood Map No. 12025C0191J, dated 03/02/1994, depicting the project site. FEMA Flood Map No. 12025C0191J indicates the project is located above the 100- year floodplain and inside the 500-year floodplain; therefore, the proposed project will not adversely affect the 100- year floodplain, and projects above the 100- year flood plain do not require mitigation other than meeting local building codes. Surface Water Quality Water quality provides a critical resource to plants, wildlife and humans. Given the apparent history of development on the property, it does not appear to have a current stormwater management system over a majority of the property. The proposed project will incorporate a stormwater management system, which is consistent with state and local requirements in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District and/or the Department of iI:`;O4 1.3 i000 Off Brick eirCORftESPONDENCE\043 i 37000 Letter to Ana Sanchez EevisedIdo K F?ea-N r and Assaci Environmental Resource during, construction. anagernent (DERM). (BMPs ,rill be employed Additionally, Section 14-181 of the Miami Code of Ordinances states: Section 4611.1 of the South Florida Building Code shall be enforced by requiring all stormwater runoff to be retained on site, or by placing temporary screens, berms, and/or riprap around the perimeter of the construction site to filter all stormwater runoff until the permanent storrnwater retention system is operative. The systems shall be approved by DERM and the city department of public works. All stormwater drainage systems shall be approved by DERM pursuant to the South Florida Water Management District rules; and shall be designed to retain on site at least the first one inch of runoff from a five-year storm event. Based on the above information, ICHA has concluded that the proposed project will have a favorable effect on the environment within the City of Miami. Wetlands Wetlands are an important category used to evaluate the environment for flood protection, water quality, and habitat. No wetlands are located on the site and thus there will be no wetland impacts as a result of this project. Wildlife and Habitat Wildlife and Habitat are important categories used to evaluate the environment. No significant habitat exists on site. Therefore, no significant effects to wildlife or habitat are anticipated as a result of this project. Review of a 2007 aerial photograph indicates landscape trees are located on the property. A vegetation removal permit from the City of Miami will need to be obtained prior to clearing the lot, The landscape plan provides sufficient vegetation to comply with the ordinance. i1:=043137000 0ffBrickell\COZRESPONDE:NCB°.043I 7000 1 ettcr An Sanchez re.vsed2 doc Conclusions Based upon the anticipated effect on each of the topical categories described above as well as their cumulative effect, KHA has determined that, with the conditions described above and if the appropriate actions and permitting are implemented and completed, the proposed project will have a neutral effect on Wildlife and Habitat, Contamination, Air Quality, and Floodplains. The proposed project will provide a net environmental benefit (favorable impact) on water duality in the City of Miami due to improvements to stormwater management on site. Sincerely, URBAN RESOURCE GROUP A division o Kinalev-Horn and Associates, Inc. Sera) Saba, Associate EED AP }.;''043137000 Off Brickei0. 0RRESP0NDENCcy043 I 370 0 Lcttef to Ana Sa ochc nevi ed2.doc • • • Florida ) ep ent of Environniental Protection Bob ..artioex Ceoter __jj ,,��26''0��0��!B�lair� Stone�.jjR��a��a��f����((''{{((''#� Tellal�see, Ek 3.2399-L400 August 16, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7006 3450 0000 2160 112.0 RETURN RECEIPT gEQUES]ED Mr. Howard Wagner National Corporate Research, LTD, 225 W. 30 Street, Suite 910 New York, NY 10122 Subject: Remedial Action Plan Approval Order Mecorai Properties NV/Fairfield Residential 104 SW 13 Street Miami, Miami - Dade County UT-4746/F1fe-12217 FDEP Facifty IO# 139601004 Discharge Date: March 9, 1994 (ATRP) Discharge Score: 9 Charlie env' Goy Jeff 1 mp Li, Governer Michael W. Sole Secretary Dear Mr. Wagner. The Department of Environmental Resources Management (BERM), on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), has reviewed the Limited Scope Remedial Action Plan (LSRAP) dated March 16, 2007 (received March 21, 2007), along with supplemental information dated through May 29, 2007 (received through May 31, 2007), prepared and submitted by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the petroleum product discharge referenced above. We found all the documents submitted to date to be adequate to meet the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) requirements of Rule 62-770.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Department has determined. that the actions and details proposed in this LSRAP, inclusive of supplemental information dated through May 29, 2007, are designed to comply with the Department's requirements regarding public safety. However, implementation of this LSRAP may not result in a complete cleanup of the discharge to the applicable cleanup target levels referenced in Chapter 62-770, F.A.C., or site -specific cleanup target levels. A subsequent phase of remedial design or natural attenuation monitoring may be necessary to accomplish the necessary comprehensive cleanup in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C. Pursuant to Paragraph 62-770.700(8)(a), F.A_C., the Department approves the LSRAP as described in this Remedial Action Plan Approval Order (RAPAO). Please note that bio- enhancement and/or recovery and treatment of impacted groundwater, as referenced in Attachment A of the May 29, 2007 document do not constitute part of this approval. For your information, the Department's approval of the LSRAP should not be construed that we have agreed to the costs described in the plan for funding under the preapproval or state cleanup programs. Our review of the LSRAP at this time is to evaluate technical feasibility, effectiveness, compliance with required levels of groundwater treatment and air emissions concerns, and general cost-effectiveness of the proposed rernediation strategy. Cleanup funds are not currently available for this site. When funds become available for this `More Protection. Less process" fle► dapAtatvAintwasteicategorieeipcpkiertauittrim IP RAP Appnavii contra r or with a+'ate cleanup ctor, performed at the site, as long as the work is pert irr a State (F.S,),and Chapter 62-770, FAX. may continue to be with Chapter 376, F • • • Legal isspes The Department's Order shalt become final urns a timely petition for an administrative hearing is filed under Sections 120.589 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (F.S,), within 21 days of receipt of this Order. The procedures for itloning for an administrative hearing are set forth below, Persons affected by this Order have the following options: (A) If you choose to accept the Department's decision regarding the LSRAP you do not have to do anything. This Order is final and effective as of the date on the top of the first page of this Orders (B) if you choose to challenge the decision, you may do the following. (1) File a request for an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing with the Department's Agency Clerk in the Office of General Counsel within 21 days of receipt of this Order, such a request should be made if you wish to meet with the Department in an attempt to informally resolve any disputes without first filing a petition for an administrative hearing; or (2) Rie a petition for an administrative hearing with the Department's Agency Clerk In the Office of General Counsel within 21 days of receipt of this Order. Please be advised that mediation of this decision pursuant to Section 120.573, F.S., is not available. How to Request an Extension of Time to File a Petition for an Administrative Hearing For good cause shown, pursuant to Subsection 62-110.106(4), F.A.C., the Department may grant a request for an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. Such a request must be filed (received) by the Department's Agency Clerk in the Office of General Counsel at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399.3000, within 21 days of receipt of this Order. Petitioner, if different from National Corporate Research, LTD., shall mail a copy of the request to National Corporate Research, LTD. at the time of filing. Timely filing a request for an extension of time tolls the time period within which a petition for an administrative hearing must be rode. How to File a Petition for an Administrative Hearing A person whose substantial interests are affected by this Order may petition for an administrative hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) by the Department's Agency Clerk in the Office of General Counsel at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mall Station 35, Tallahassee, RAP aap,e atew re-c5-cs7 Mr, Howard W August 16,2007 Pagetwo site based on priority score, if site rehabolta*)n has not been cornpleted you vAR be notified of the avaftablifty of fuO,. ff subsequent o0sts (up to any appikaMe funding cap) are going to be paid from the Inland PmWion Trust Fund (IPTF), a sfte manager Wil be appointed at DERM to 0 0 • • • Mr. Ord r FDEP Facility lot f UT-474161File-12217 August 16, 2007 - Page three Florida, 32399-3000, within 21 days of receipt of this Order. Petitioner, If different from National Corporate Research, LTD., shalt mail a copy of the petition to National Corporate Research, LTD. at the time of filing. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall waive the right of anyone who may request an administrative hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120,57, F.S. Pursuant to Subsection 120.569(2), F.S. and Rule 28-106.201, FA.C., a petition for an administrative hearing shall contain the following information: (a) The name, address, and telephone number of each petitioner; the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner's representative, if any; the facility owner's name and address, if different frorn the petitioner; the FDEP facility number, and the name and address of the facility; (b) A statement of when and how each petitioner received notice of the Department's action or proposed action; (c) An explanation of how each petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the Department's action or proposed action; (d) A statement of the disputed issues'of material fact, or a statement that there are no disputed facts; (e) A statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including a statement of the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; (f) A statement of the specific rules or sautes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; and (g) A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action petitioner wishes the Department to take with respect to the Department's action or proposed action. This Order is final and effective as of the dale on the top of the first page of This Order. Timely filing a petition for an administrative hearing postpones the date this Order takes effect until the Department issues either a final order pursuant to an administrative hearing or an Order Responding to Supplemental information provided to the Department pursuant to meetings with the Department Judicial Review Any party to this Order has the right to seek judicial review of it under Section 120.88, F.S., by filing a notice of appeal under Rule 9.110 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure with the Department's Agency Clerk in the Office of General Counsel at 3900 Crxnmonweafth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-3000, and by filing a copy of the notice of appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate district court of appeal. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after this Order is filed with the. Department's clerk (see below). Questions Any questions regarding DERM's review of your Limited Scope Remedial Action Plan (LSRAP) should be directed to Julio Beckwith of DERM at (305) {372-6700}. Questions regarding legal Issues should be referred to the Department's Office of General Counsel at (850) 245-2242. Contact with any of the above does not constitute a petition for an administrative hearing or a request for an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. iP Rafe Appib/71 Cade, Mr. Howard Wagner FDEP Facility ID# 13 UT-4746fFlie t2217 August 16, 2007 Page lour The FDEP Facility Number for the facilitgr €s 139601004. t e this identification on all future correspondence with the Department cr DEAN. Sincerely, Michael E, Ashey, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems MEArb cc: Julio Beckwith - DERM Wilbur Mayorga, P.E. _ DERM Scott Buck, P.E. - Metcalf & Eddy, 13460 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 200, Sunrise, FL 33323 File • LP • FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to §120.52 Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. 11'4 - Zad? Cleric Date (or Deputy Clerk) • • • MIA COUNTY Carlos Miami, Mayor Ati& Cmerdiriafw Animal seam An le Wale maces Aux* and Mate* &oni n Mance PulldIng Code Compliance a oinee Coue&upenere Capital home.r..oands aleen' ifdepr,sL Tragpaauun Trust C.ontred eion on ehiaa and Public -Me Commanicalone laity Action Agency Community & Fcnaomk Omelet:m*0 CoramunIty RolatInne cabanerUnion Co tidy & Ralabmmphon Wool Alain Elections Etnergencr Management Employee Relations Fmpeeeneti cruet Farerprlx nd nokigy s«,icee Fair Employment Packet Pie t4Mva Garernnt ltdarvatiae censer Ratak Peas men HandeeeThtsl Hooding ?wee/ t,oaing FliencePuetherlty Kassa Servicel independent Roder Panel MMemtiate! Tale Cduonium Ae c eBe Services Merit borminer Meho.aMhml Action Plan MeempAian Pleating Orprizalion Pat and Remotion Planningand Zoning Poke Pvooweoent Managemene Pragerll' APpralsd Public library Sreen Public Woda Site NNgtborbcod stela sraPan Solid Mar monoriodot gullets Management t Asia MOM Toareit Task Faroe on Urban Fcanemic Reetsbadan Viectr a aauferre And Gardens Water & saner gene Division 701 1 rt * 4th f kxsr .Miami, Florida 3136-3912 T 305-372-67OO F 305-372.6729 miamidade.gw P.E. CERTIFICATION The Remedial Action Plan for the Mecoral Properties NV/Fairfield Residential, DEP Facility No. 139601004, (UT-47461File 12217) located at, near or in the vicinity of 104 SW 13 Street, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida has been reviewed. 1 hereby certify that in my professional Judgment, the engineering design features incorporated in this remedial action plan will not result in a detrimental impact to human health or the environment. However, I have not evaluated and do not certify the effectiveness of The proposed design on achieving the Cleanup Target Levels specified In Chapter 62-777, Florida Administrative Code (FAG). In addition, I have not evaluated and do not certify aspects of tills plan that are outside my area of expertise (including but not limited to electrical, mechanical, and structural features). personally completed this review. )0( This review was conducted by Julio Beckwith working under my direct supervision. EEG Evans Environmental 4 Qeoscienees PHASE! ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT UPDATE FOR VACANT LOT 104 SOUTHWEST 13n4 STREET MIAMI, M1AMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR: BVT CORPORATION 3350 RIVERWOOD PARKWAY, SUITE 1500 ATLANTA, GA 30339 Prepared by: Evans Environmental & Geosctences 14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400 Miami Lakes, Florida 33016 (305) 374-8300 January 2001 Project No.: 0302002451 Michelle Belstey Project Manager Paula H. Church Project Director • i• • i i E $G P :d.., ] Envi TABLE OF 13 Janus 1.0 -INTRODUCTION...�..®......®,.,.,,..4......_.......a.®.®,.®.>.®...®...............®.4,...® ., ...n,.....,,.....m.®... . 1.1 PURPOSE..__..®,.>.....................................................................>...,.,.,........,,.,..,.,. 1 1.2 DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK 1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS._ ....... _____ ..... ...,_.,..........„„..„..„.. ..... .„......... 2 1.4 LIMITATIONS & EXCEPTIONS.........................a....,.._,.,,............,.......-..,.,....... 2 1,5 SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS ..... ............>.......,.,,.. ro.....,., 3 1.6 USER RELIANCE ----- 1.7 USER -PROVIDED INFORMATION.,.._,.....m........................................................ 3 2.0 - GENERAL. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... m..,......-...... --. - ,.—A,.,_,,°,,.._.,r_.. 4 2.1 AREA , SETTING ................>..,....._..<..,,.._._..>_.....,......................,.,...._.,.,,........,..4 .. 22 SOIL TYPE ..........4........ ............................................................................. 4 2,3 HYDRiG�OGY_..,..,,....<...................................... ............ 4 2 4 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS ................. ...................................... 1 3 3.0 - SITE RECONNAISSANCE ........ ........................m.........®.,®...,,.....,..... ,...r........,®,..._.. 6 3.1 METHODOLOGY & LIMITING CONDITIONS 3.2 PHYSICAL LOCATION & DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 6 3.3 CURRENT USES OF THE PROPERTY 6 3.4 EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SITE OBSERVATIONS ..... .......... ........ _.............. 6 Observable Potential Environmental Concerns 7 3.5 SITE RECONNAISSANCE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES 8 INTERVIEWS♦r....s.....a...... ......s................... ..« .........................a... ...u.a.a....«........ ........ .... 9 5.0 - HISTORICAL REVIEW- ......... ...._...... ............. .,.........,..... ........ ........ ........w,........,a,......... 1© 5.1 CITY DIRECTORIES 10 52 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS 10 5.3 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 10 5.4 PRIOR ASSESSMENT USAGE 11 5.5 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE PROPERTY 11 5.6 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES 11 6.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY DATABASE AND RECORD REVIEW 12 6.1 REVIEW OF FEDERAL REGULATORY DATABASES 12 6.1.1 NPL 12 6.1.2 CERCUS 13 6.1.3 ERNS 13 6.1.4 RCRSI 13 6.1.5 CERC-NFRAP 14 62 REVIEW OF STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY DATABASES ....... 14 14 62.1 S1-WJS 2451 Phase 1 ESA UpXato-104 EE G P 410 6,2.2 SWF/IF.. 8.2.3 LUST 6,2.4 DRYC11V.....w..................... 6.2.5 BERM STORAGE TANKS,.t6 em.,..,....................a..R..._m,...,.........a....,,,.,...F.. 17 6.2.6 DERM IWS ....e.....................r,.,..,.......s........,.,...,e........_,,,......a,....n.......' 6.2.7 TERM HW-D ..... ...........m.,,.....__,,.,,, ,...._.e,9e,..a<>, ,..,..,.,..,,.... .....,..,..< 17 8.3 ORHAN SITES, ..,..,..,..,.a.., .,.a..,,,,....,.....,.,..... Table of Co Jarw �...,..15 .15 7. i�INOS,».+,m..,...,a..e.,.,..,e..®.+nam,m .+aA,a...®e,.®a.a.. ,..am§..,...+e.,mm.a,>.fr®®e,A.me.®®.++..a ..... me,. _ CONCLUSIONS aaam......s,.44tl1,-..44.8emaeear9,+a®ame+m,�m�+,��a.,amvt.atv.a.me.a®+sra.ea+eaa��Fa.rma.a®a®.ms..me�vsm�ma.mt .6 .e..+m.m.�w+aeaa.mwa+<� aerw am®.+.a+amanamm..fw. e.m.m_+wea26 1O0 DEVIATIONS & ADDITIONALSERVICES ..... ¢w..m.e.A.saac.m.ea. a++m+m>e.s+a+.w.w.wmma.•®..amw+we2"1 11 ail m STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS .22 i t.-I KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY ..w,.,... .....e.x..........m....... e........ .... 12.0 - REFERENCES .e.wmam.ean....w+.+maam�w.,t�4 12.1 RECORDS OF COMMUNICATION 24 12.2 REGULATORY RECORDS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 24 12.3 PUBLISHED REFERENCES 24 12.4 DEFINITIONS 24 12.5 ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS — SPECIFIC TO ESA 27 12.6 ACRONYMS 31 APPENDICES A User Provided Information B Property Location and Site Maps C Site Photographs D Prior Phase 1 & Phase II ESAs E Aerial Photographs F Environmental Database Search Report 2451 - Phase 1 ESA L da1e-1O4 • • i 0 • errant Upda SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE EE&G was retained by BVT Corporation, the Client, to perform a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Update of a vacant lot located at 104 SW 13"' Road, Miami, tutami-Dade County, Florida (hereafter referred to as the °Property .) This Phase 1 ESA Update was prepared in accordance with the standard practice set forth this American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-00. The purpose o Phase I ESA Update was to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the Property. RECs are defined in ASTM Designation E 1527-00 as "the presence or l>ltely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property € r Into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property? 1.2 DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK In accordance with the ASTM Designation E 1527.00 guidelines, this Phase 1 ESA Update included the following scope of services. EE&G interviewed the Client or Client's designated representative to assess knowledge of site -specific conditions or undercover available information, which may help to identfy recognized environmental conditions. • EE&G conducted a site reconnaissance to obtain information indicating the llkethood of identifying recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. EE&G assessed the uses and conditions of the Property, to the extent visually anchor physically observed during the site inspection of accessible areas, Indudmg: �- Current uses on the Property likely to involve the use, treatment, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products. Interior and exterior inspection of the Property to assess for sewage, storm water and wastewater disposal systern(s), potable water supply, and evidence of storage tanks, drums, PCB -containing equipment, pools of liquid, odors, pits/ponds/lagoons, stained soil or pavement, stressed vegetation, dam, heating/cooling system and welts. A general description of the current on -site structures was noted. Current uses oIl adjoining properties as Wilted to the extent visually andlor physic a y observed from property boundaries. - Current uses of surrounding area as limited to extent visually andlor physically observed during a drive -through of the area. • EE&G obtained and reviewed reasonably ate records from February 1998 to the present of standard sources (es defined In ASTM Designation E 2451 @ psis e r ESA Updrte-104 1 Sit t '-00), which are tolily ova►' within reasonable time and cost constraints. These recsu Regu tort' files held by Federal, State and Local agencies which pertain to the use and handling of hazardous waste, hazardous substances and petroleum products for the Property, adjoining properties, and surrounding properties (within the designated search distance, per ASTM Designation E 1527-00). Physical setting sources, including a current USGS 7,5 Minute Topographic Map, and current technical documentation on the regional surficial soil type and distribution, and regional geologic and hydrogeologic environmental setting. Standard historical sources, used to develop an understanding of the previous uses or occupants of the Property and adjoining properties from February 1998 to the present, which may indicate potential recognized environmental c oriditions. These sources included (at a minirrimn) city directories, aerial photographs, and fire Insurance maps, which were reviewed at approximately 5-year intervals, EE&G conducted interviews with individuals knowledgeable of the Property to assess for Ink:rreation indicating potential recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. EE&G prepared a final report, which summarized the methodology and findings of the Phase i ESA Update. The report included a summary of the Client/User Information, Site Reconnaissance, interyiew(s), and Record Review Findings. As required by ASTM Designation E 1527-00, the final report included a Findings/Opinion Section and Conclusions Section, which dearly stated if recognized environmental conditions tions were identified in c onnecfion with the Property, Documentation of pertinent resources, references and key exhibits were included to support the report findings, when appropriate. r ble 1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS Information regarding the Property was reasonably ascertainable and therefore, no significant assumptions have been made, unless otherwise noted In a specific section of this report. 1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS This Phase I ESA Update was performed by competent, quaitied technical professionals in accordance with sound professional practices and the standard due care exercised within the profession. The presence or absence of contaminants on the 'surface or in the subsurface of the Proper cannot be determined without proper testing. Accordingly, the findings of this investigation merely assessed the potential for property owner liabrlities arising from past and present usage of the Property, and should not be construed as conclusive evidence that the Property has or has not been negatively Impacted. 2451 . Phew n ESA Updste444 2 i• I i • n Update The opinions and recommendations presented herein appiy only to conditions existing at tie time of this assessment Any changes in site conditions, environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent hereto are not covered. Furthermore, although every reasonable effort has been made to use information sources that are authoritative, EE&G does not warrant their accuracy or completeness, nor the use of segregated portions of this report. 1.5 SPECIAL TERMS & coNonloNs This Phase l ESA Update was prepared in accordance with ASTM DesignationE 1527-00, and no special terms and conditions were required by the Client, unless othetis noted in this report. 1.6 USER RELIANCE This report was prepared solely for the use of the Client and Transatlantic Bank, Coral Station, Ltd., and is not intended for use by third party beneficiaries. Client and third parties shall indemnify arid hold EE&G harmless against any liability for any loss arising out of or related to reliance by any third party on any work performed thereunder, or the contents of this report. 1.7 USER -PROVIDED INFORMATION The Client was given a User Form to complete regarding the Properly. For a copy of the form, see Appendix A. According to the information provided in the User Form, this Phase I ESA Update was performed to fulfill financing requirements to acquire parcel celof land,Additionally,tffy this assessment was intended to assist the user in satisfyingone ofrequirements for the innocent landowner defense to the Comprehensive Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). To the best of the Client's knowledge, there are no environmental liens or activity and use imitations In connection with the Pmperfy. The Client is aware, however, that the Properly is in a state -funded program due to an historic hydrocarbon discharge on site. The Client has no knowledge of a significantly reduced purchase price due to environmental conditions associated with the Property. 2451-rasafEAt uu 3 J SECTION 2.0 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SE t TING 2,1 AREA SETTING The Property is located in a residential and commercial area. Surrounding properties were observed to be an office buikfing, apartment buildings, a schvoi, a bank and a retail plaza, Aocc rding to the Miami, Florida United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, The Property is located in an area characterized by relatively flat topography approximately 15 feet above mean sea level Refer to Figure B1, Appendix 6, for the portion of the USGS topographic map depicting the location of the Property. 2.2 SOIL TYPE According to a soil map published by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, the soil in the area has been classified as Urban land. The Soil Conservation Service estimates that 60% of this type of soil has been covered by urban development (i.e. airports, parking Ices, buftdings, etc.) such that natural soils remain unobservable. The remaining percentage, designated as unoccupied land, has been altered from its natural state by filling and grading. Therefore, the Soil Conservation Service states that it is impractical to map these soils due to the limited size of these areas. Refer to Figure 82, Appendix B, for the portion of the soul survey map depicting the Property. 2,3 HYDROGEOLOGY The regional geologic framework of Miami -Dade County consists of Holocene age sediments of pests, muck, and marl overlying Pleistocene age limestones and shelty sands. The most distinguishing physiographic feature is the Mantic Coastal Ridge. This topographic feature parallels the mainland coastline In Miami -Dade County. The ridge is primarily composed of Miami Oolits, an oolitic limestone. Beneath the ridge in the eastern portion, the Miami Oofrte is underlain by the Anastasia Formation, and in the west by the Fort Thompson Formation. Both the Fort Thompson and Anastasia Formations are composed of highly permeable limestones. s. The combination of the Fort Thorrpovn, Anastasia, and Miami comprises the unconfined surd aquifer, the Biscayne Aquifer. The depth of the water table and the thickness of the aquifer may vary by locations and by seasons. The water table ranges from approximately 4 to 12 feet below land sum in Mliarni- Dade County. Although the general flow direction of the Biscayne Aquifer is southeasterly, local groundwater flow direction may vary, due to the topography, site drainage features, the pumping rate of a nearby water well, and/or other factors. Due to the proximity of the Properly to the Biscayne Bay, the groundwater ater flow pattern would likely be influenced by tidal cycles. 2.4 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS Groundwater is the primary drinking water source of South Florida. The Properly is locate in in an area underlain by the Biscayne Aquifer. The water quality of the Biscayne Aquifer classified as G-II according to Chapter 52-550 F.A.C. (less than 10,000 mg/I of total dissolved solids), suitable for potable well water consumption. The Biscayne Aquifer is especially susceptible because: 1) it is an unconfined aquifer (l1te,00nnected with the surfic lal aquifer), 2) it is highly permeable, and 3) It islocated in ade�nsety populated area. Spillage or discharge groundwater. In Miami -Dade County, a may have a direct Impact to the quality of t 2461 - anise I ESA Updei--104 4 EE Eni As groundwater protection ordinance has been ack)p to pre8erve the4Pjiundwatr quality. The ordinance has restrictions that may apply to certain types of Industries. The protection areas are usually located within the boundary of the public weWiek cone -of influence. The Properly was not located within a Miami -Dade County Welifield Protection Area. 2451 - Phase 1 ESA Ucdate-104 2 411 • • 1 i i SECTION 3.0 SITE RECONNAI$S- Si METHODOLOGY & uMmt4G CONDITIONS A site reconnaissance was conducted on January 18, 2001, and January 22, 2001, by Ms. Kiersten Curti and Ms. Michelle BeIslay of EE&G. EE&G conducted an exterior inspection of the Property, noting areas of potential environmental concern. There were no limiting conditions to EE&G personnel's inspection. 3.2 PHYSICAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The Property is a rectangular -shaped parcel located at 104 SW 1e Street. According to the Miami, Florida USGS Topographic Map, the Property is located in Section 12, Township 54 South, Mange 41 East, in Miami -Dade County, Florida. Refer to Figure Appendix e en x 8, foria rto portion of the USGS map depicting the location of the Property.9 x B, for a site sketch of the Properly and adjoining properties. 3.3 CURRENT USES OF THE PROPERTY The Property - curr ently rently a paved ping lot. According to a 1998 ESA performed by EE&G, a 1,000-gallon diesel UST was removed from the southern portion of the Property in February 1994. In addition, several monitoring wells were located in the vicinity of the excavation area. However, It appears upon converting the Properly to a paved parking tot subsequent to 1998 the monitoring wells were either removed or paved. Therefore no monitoring welts were visible at the time of inspection. Refer to Appendix C for photographs taken during the site visit. 3A EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SITE OBSERVATIONS During the site reconnaissance conducted on January 18, 2001, and January 22, 2001, EE&G inspected the Property tor potential environmental concerns listed in the following table. EE&G has offered further discussion of site observations, subsequent to the table provided, when evidence of environmental concerns (reported "Yes" in the table) were observed. 2451 , Phase r ESA Update-104 6 • • tea 2001 iat Envfron Hazardous Substances and Wastes Petroleum Products Ev Urkierground/AbowNround Storage Tanks NO PCB -Containing Equipment Yes Solld Waste Yes Storm Water Drainage Waste Water No Wells No Pits, Ponds & Lagoons No Floor Drains No Sanitary Sewr Yes Septic System No No HeatingICooling System Stains or Corrosion . No Drains and Sumps No Stained Sod or Pavement o No Stressed Vegetation and Odors o Pools of Liquid No Grease Traps No Oil/Water Separators No Drums or UnidentifiedContainers No Yes PCB-Containirg:1 poulpowliA Four pole -mounted transformers were located along the eastern border of the Property. However, the t anstorrners appeared to be intact. No evidence of steins or corrosion was observed at the time of the site inspection. Solid Waste Surliciat debris (bottles, tires, wrappers) was noted on the Proper/yet the time of inspection. Storm Water Drainage Two catch basins were observed on the Property, One was located on the northern portion of the Pna etly and the ether was located on the southwestern portion of the parcel. anitary Sewer A sewer drain was noted on the Property. However, interior inspection of the manhole was not possible. Acccordng to the Miami Water and Sewer Department, sanitary sewers were made available to the Pr pertyin 1963. 2451 - Phase r ESA Upda14-104 7 • I i• i • E.,x ntal 3.5 SITE RECONNAISSANCE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES North: SW 13th Street runs adjacent to the northern edge of the Property, beyond which is a vacant lot, Southside Elementary school is located northeast and an apartment budding is located northwest of the Properly. South A small parking lot is located clue south of The Property, beyond which exists a small office bulling. Residential homes are located southeast and a small office building s located southwest of the parcel. East SW 16' Court extends along the eastern edge of the Property, beyond which is the Melon United National Bank Center and a small office building. West: A retail complex, located due west of the Properly, is occupied by a Publix Food Store, Blockbuster Video, SuperCuts, and a dry cleaning facility (Bricked Cleaners). 2451 - Phase 1 ESA UpdaS-iO4 8 1 1 1 0 I 1 1 E viron SECTION 4.0 INTERVIEWS On Thursday, January 18, 2001, and January 22, 2001, Ms, kieraten Curti and Ms. Michelle laelsley of EE&G conducted a site visit of the Property However, an interview was not conducted with a key site manager. Accon:fing to the User Form completed by the Client, no key site manager was identified for the Property. 2451 - Moss I ESA Update-104 9 EE Ga SECTION 5.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW The historical use of the Property and adjoining properties were reviewed using available city directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and aerial photographs. A summary of the findings from the historical review is detailed below, 5.1 CITY DIRECTORIES City directories are reference books published annually for most for metropolitan areas. These publications contain listings of businesses and landowners by address and name. The cities directories are useful in determining the historical use arfdtor occupant(s) of a given property. Polk's Miami CA/ Directories and Bresser's Miami Cross-index Directory are available at the Miami -Dade County Public Library for the years 1926 through1989. H eer, review of are not available from 1998 through the present Ttre, no directories was warranted for this Update. 5.2 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are an additional source of historical use information available for most developed areas. The maps, used for insurance purposes, indicate structures by name, type of construction and address. EEBG contracted Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to conduct a search for available Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps that include the Properly and surrounding areas, However, no Sanborn Maps are available from 1998 through the present Therefore, no dal review of Sanborn Fie lnsuranoe Map was warranted tor this Update. 5.3 HISTORICAL. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Aerial photographs are often taken annually or bi-annually by government agencies or private entities. Review of these historic aerial photographs may provide information regarding land development and land use patterns at specified dates. Aerial photographs of Section 12, Township 54 South, Range 41 East were available at the Miami -Dade County Public Works Department. EE&G reviewed aerials of the Property for the years 1997 and 2000. A copy of the aerial photographs are presented as Figures El and E2 in Appendix E. Observations are summarized below: 1997: The Property consisted of an unpaved, vacant parcel_ The northern adjoining property was a vacant wooded lot with two metro rail lines running overhead. The eastern adjoining property appeared to be occupied by one large c ommerclal structure and one smaller commercial structure. One of the metro rails, extending from the north, ran overhead between the two structures. The western adjoining property appeared to be a parking lot for a large commercial structure located due west. A small commercial structure sur rbyresicienti wooded land was noted southwest of the Properly. Small commercial l strictures were noted south and southeast of the Property• . 2000: The Properly consisted of a paved parking lost. The exioining properties remained relatively unchanged few the 1997 aerial photograph. 2451 _ Mese f ESA Updata-1O4 1 b • 5.4 PRIOR ASSESSMENT USAGE EE&G has performed peat work on the Property, including a Phase 1 and Phase #1 ESA in February 1998. According to this report, historical records indicated that the northern portion of the subject property was occupied by a Lincoln Mercury body shop from approximately 1957 to the early 1960s. From 1964 until the early 1980s, the Property was occupied by an exterminating/pest control business. The Phase t ESA additionally identified records of the removal of a 1,000-gallon diesel fuel UST from the Property in February 1994. A Tank Closure Assessment Report (TCAR), prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, documented the presence of petroleum hydrooarbons in the groundwater. Subsequent to the TCAR, a Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) was prepared, also by Metcalf & Eddy, and approved in June of 1998. The CAR identified a smog hydrocarbcm plume surrounding the former UST excavation site. ©ERM recommended a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) be prepared for this parcel. However, the site was accepted Into the State Abandoned Tank Restoration Program (ATRP) in November of 1996 and awarded a priority ranking score of 11 The Phase 11 ESA, prepared by EE&G, dated February 1998, addressed the potential environmental impact to the soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the former UST area, previously Located on the southern portion of the Prryperty. Additionally, the Phase II ESA assessed the soil and groundwater quality on the northern portion of the property in the vicinity of the former car dealership repair facility and pest control facility. According to the study, the concentrations of dissolved petroleten hydrocarbons in the immediate vicinity of the former underground storage tank area exceeded The minimum criteria for No Further Action and Natural Attenuation, as per Chapter 62-770, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). However, the results indicated that the discharge appeared to be restricted to the southern portion of the Property. The Phase ll identified no sail or groundwater impacts in the immediate vicinity of the former auto shop/ pest control facility. Since this site is in the State Cleanup Program and based upon the results of the study, EE&G recommended no additional action be taken. Copies of these reports are presented in Apperidix D. 5.5 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE PROPERTY According to the Phase t ESA conducted by EE&G in February 1998, the Property was used as a farmers' market in the early 1950's. In 1957, the site was occupied by a Lincoln Mercury body shop until the early 1960's when the site was converted to an exterminating/pest control business for about two decades. In the tatter part of the 1980's, the Prepert ccuPiedy several small businesses including a photo and microfilm company. In ,the building was demolished. According to the aerial photographs, the vacant parcel was converted into a paved parking Iot by the year 2000. 5.6 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES According to the Phase I ESA conducted by EE&G in February of 1998, the ac pining properties have historically been occupied by a raRroad easement, office bungs, a school, apartments and residential dwellings. 2451 - Phase l ESA Updau -104 • 11 i• i • E G P e 1 rna nt Update SECTION 6.0 ENVIRONMENT. REGULATORY ©ATABAS>G AND RECORD REVIEW 6.1 REVIEW OF FEDERAL REGULATORY DATABASES EE&G contracted EDR to conduct a search of database systems maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These database systems maintain information at the federal level, violations, compliance, or enforcement actions of reported sites. The search criteria was based on the approximate minimum search distance recommended by ASTM Designation E 1527-00. The EDR report is presented in Appendix F. The searched federal database systems were: National Priorities List (NFL), version dated November 6, 2000; one -mite radius search distance. a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLJS), version dated December 29, 2000; one -hall mile radius search distance. ▪ Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), version dated October 31, 2000; the search distance was limited to the Property • Resources Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), version dated November 9, 2000. The search distance was one -quarter mile radius for hazardous waste generators; one -mile radius for Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS); and one-half mile radius for RCM Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facililles. Due to the flat topography, relatively flat hydraulic gradient, and relatively high natural blodegradationlattenualion capabilities In South Florida, the potential for contaminants to migrate horizentaily has been minimized. However, sites potentially contaminated with Volatile organic halo cal (VOHs), such as dry cleaners, are cf significant concern due to the mobility of these c nsiituents in the groundwater. Thus, sites greater lanone-sixteenth mental �roat, mile (330 feet) from the Phy erty were not considered a sign chlorinated solvent contamination was suspected. 6.1.1 PjfL The NPL database is a national list of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that have been ranked by the EPA accvrcing to a hazard ranking system that assesses the health and environmental impact posed by the site. The NPL is used by the EPA to schedule remedlation. • The Property was not listed in this database, nor were other facilities identified within a one -mile search radius of the Property. 2461 - Phase 1 ESA ilpdat -144 12 6.1.2 GERpLIS The GERCUS database fists potential hazardous waste sites ¢ ;t the EPA is investigating for an existing or threatened release of a hazardous substance. Preliminary site assessments are normally conducted by either the EPA or the appropriate state environmental agency for all sites included in CERCL.IS, Sites investigated through CERCIA may be placed on NPL for remedial action, The presence of a facility on the GERCUS list does not imply federal activity at that location, nor does it indicate that hazardous conditions necessarily exist. • The Property was not fisted in this database; nor were other facilities r�tif" within a one -haft mile search radius oaf the Property. 6.1.3 €RNS The ERNS database is a federal database containing information regarding reported releases of petroleum products and/or hazardous substances. The ERNS database integrates both initial notification information of releases of petroleum products and(or hazardous substances, and additional follow-up information for those spill incidents. Incomplete or misleading addresses or missing zip codes often make identification of the location of the spill difficult. • Reported spills or incidents on the Property were not identified. 6.1.4 RCRIS The RCRIS database identifies small or lame -quantity generator facilities or sites that have notified the EPA of their activities regarding handling of hazardous wastes. Inclusion of a site on the RCRIS generator database does not necessarily indicate environmental problems on the site. It does indicate that the listed facility is (or was) engaged in hazardous waste handiing activities as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and therefore may have the potential to cause environmental degradation if hazardous wastes have been mishandled or otherwise released it an uncontrolled manner. TSO facilities are those which treat, store, and or dispose of hazardous vies. CORRACTS TSD facilities are subject to corrective action by the EPA. • The Property was not k$entified on this database. However. three facilities were identified within a one -quarter mile search radius of the Properly. One or the fad is located greater than 330 feet from the Property; therefore, the potential for this site to Impact the Property appeared to be minimal. The regulatory status of the two remaining properties Is identified below. Brickell Clearers, located at 120 SW 13t Street (western adjoining to the Property), was identified on the RCRIS, Industrial Waste, and Dry Cleaners Databases of the EDR Report. The regulatory status of this facility Is discussed in Section 6.24 of this Report. Dade County Southside Elementary, located at 45 SW 13'h Street (approximately 75 feet northeast of the F'rope►ty), was identified on the RCRIS. LUST and the UST Databases of the EOM Report. The regulatory status of this fac it r is discussed in Section 62_5 of this Report. 2451 - Phase 1 ESA Update-104 •I • 6.1.6 CERC-NFRAP The NFRAP list, known as the CERCL1S Archive, contains information pertaining to facilities that have been removed from the USEPA's CERCLIS database. NFRAP facieties may be facilities where, following an initial investigation, either no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the facility to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Superftrnd action. • The Property was not identified in this database, nor were other facilities identified within a one -quarter mile search radius of the Property. 6.2 REVIEW OF STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY DATABASES The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERNI) generate and maintain information, in database systems, pertaining to registrations, investigations, violations, compliance, or enforcement actions against properties and facilities. MR conducted a record search of these database systems for the Properly, adjacent properties, and properties within the search distances listed below. The minimum search distance was performed in accordance with the recommendations set forth in ASTM Designation E 1527-00. The following state database systems were reviieiveci: • State Hazardous Waste Sites List (SHWS)/State Funded Action Sites (SFAS) version dated December 28, 2000; one -mile radius search distance. • Solid Waste Facilities/Land AB List (SWF&F), version dated November 20, 2000; one-hatf mile radius search distance. • Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUSTYPetroleurn Contamination Overview Report (PCOR), version dated December 4, 2000; one-half mile radius search distanee. The following county database systems were reviewed: • Miami -Dade County Storage Tanks (UST and AST), version dated January 3, 2001; one-fourth mile radius search distance. • kriami-Dade County Industrial Waste Type 5 database (PN5), version dated January 3, 2001; one4ouith mile radius search distance. 2451 . Phase I eSA Update-1(14 14 * I i40 i • 6.2.1 SHW The SMWS database is e's equivalent to CERGLiS 2 . > sites that may or may not be listed on the CERC ..iS list Listed facilities and/or iodations have beenPriority-ranked1fiedby the sites FDEP as having known or suspected environmental contamination_ scheduled for state -funded cleanup are listed along with sites where cleanup will be funded by potentially responsible parties. The Property was not identified on this database, nor were other facility identified within a one mile search radius of the Property. 62.2 SWFJLF The SW F/L.F database identifies iodations that have been permitted to conduct solid waste twiddling activities or otter related waste handling activities such as those conducted at transfer stations. The appearance of a site on this database does not necessarily e environmental problems at the site, but rather that the site handles solid wastes that could an environmental concern If, as a result of an uncontrolled release, hazardous compounds were able to impact the environment and possibly migrate from the site. 8 The Property was not identified on this database, nor were other facilities identified within a one-half mile search rags of the Property. 6.2.3 MI The LUST database contains facilities and/or locations that have been identified by the FDEP as having a known or suspected release of contaminants horn a petroleum storage system. The appearance of a site on this list is an indication that a release has occurred on the site and that potential tor environments degradation of surrounding properties may exist. • The Property was identified on the LUST database. In addition, nine facilities were identified within a one-half mile search radius of the Property. Eight facilities were located greater than 330 feet from the Property, therefore, the potential for those eight faclttties to impact the Property appeared to be minimal. The Propertyand the remaining facility of concern are identified below. Mecaral Properties, located at 104 SW 13r' Street (the Property), was identified on the LUST and UST Databases. The regulatory status of this faddy is discussed in Section 6.2.5 of this Dade County School Bulking. Southside, located at 1101 Brickell Avenue (approximately 75 feet northeast of the Property), was identified on the LUST, RCRIS and UST Databases of the EDR Report. The regulatory status of the facility is disused in Section 6.2.5 of this Report. 2451 < Phase I ESA Upd -104 15 6.2.4 DRVC N The DRYCL.N data FDEP as drycieaning The Property was not identified on this database, However, one property was identified on the Dry Cleaner Database. The regulatory status of this property is discussed below. Brickell Cleaners, located at 120 SW 136 Street (western adjoining Property), was identified on the RCRIS, Industrial Waste, and Dry Cleaners Databases of the EDR Report. According to a DERM file, Brickelf Cleaners applied to participate in the Dry Cleaning Program in March of 1997. However, the facirrty did not begin to operate until April 1997. According to a DERM inspection report a storm water €f^sinsge system was kxcated in the perking rest and no floor drains were noted in the building. The facility utilizes a frftrat$on system to treat the machine condensate water. The effluent from the treatment system is discharged into the sanitary sewer. In September 1998 and October 1999, groundwater samples from the storm water drainage system were collected and analyzed for volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOH), by EPA Method 601. Analytical data reported VOH levels below laboratory detection limits (bdi). The most recent DERM Inspection report, dated November 28, 2000, reported no violations for this facility. No additional Information was available after this inspection- 6.2.5 Miami-DadeTa DERM maintains records of fecia#es that are permitted to operate and maintain underground storage tanks for the storage of petroleum products or hazardous materials. These records include permits, inspection reports, and contamination assessment documents. These records are available for public review. The Property was identified as having previous or existing USTs or ASTs. In addition, thirteen facilities were identified for former or current registration of USTs within a one-euarter mile search radius of the Property. Tend thefhirteenn facilities were located greater than 330 feet from the Property. potential for these ten facilities to impact the Property appeared to be minimal. The regulatory status of the Properly and the remaining facilities of concern is discussed below. Mecorel Properties, located at 104 SW 13* Street (the Properly), was identified on the LUST and UST Databases of the EDR Report. In February of 1994, a 1,000 gallon (diesel) steel tank was removed from the property. A TCAR, prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, was sett to DERM in March of 1994. According to the DERM Tank Removal inspection Report there were no holes in the tank, no evidence of soil staining, and no evidence that groundwater had been impacted The higher OVA reading, taken from excavated soils, 3 parts per minion, confirmed that soils were not impacted. However, analytical results of groundwater samples indicated that the groundwater had been Impacted. In August of 1994, DERM issued a Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action to the owners of the property. Metcalf & Eddy prepared a CAR, dated May 1996, for Orion Investment Corporation (UT-4748). According to the CAR, maximum concentration levels exceeded the minimum criteria for No Further Action and Natural Attenuation, as per Chapter 62 770, Florida Administrative Code (FAG). However, the analytical results indicated that the hydrocarbon plume was delineated in the vicinity of the iris facilities and/or locations that have bean identified by the 2451 - Phase 1 ESA Update-104 16 • i• I • e I Esrr " e Update January 2001 former UST excavation area (southern portion of the parcel). In November of 1996, the CAR was approved by DERM. However, DERM recommended submitting a Remedial Action Plan utilizing oxygen enhancement as a form of groundwater rernediation. In Deeember of 1996, the FDEP found the Property eligible for the Abundant Tank Restoration Program (ATRP) and awarded this property a score of 11 in accordance with a ranking system for cleanup funding assistance. No additional reports or further investigations were available subsequent to the February 1998 Phase i and Phase II prepared by EE&G. In February 1998, EE&G, based upon current analytical data, concluded that the hydrocarbon plume was limited to the former UST area. Due to the Property's eligibility in the ATRP, no additional actions were recommended. Dade County Southa€de Elementary (also DCPS-Southside Elementary), located at 45 SW 13°i Street (75 feet northeast of the Property), was Identified on the LUST and UST Databases of the EDH Report. According to the DERM file, the facility currently utilizes a 1,000 gafion UST to fuel a boiler. No ad€fltional reports or further investigations were available subsequent to the information contained in the February 1998 Phase I and Phase II ESA prepared by EE&G. 8,24 PMamt-Dade County DERMA 1W5 DERM maintains records of facia, such as auto repair facilities, dry cleaners, end photo tabs, that are permitted to generate hazardous wastes. These records also contain inspection reports and soil and groundwater assessment information and are available for public review. ✓ The Property was not identified as generating, or potentially generating hazardous materials; however, four facilities were identified as generating or potentially generating hazardous materials within a one quarter -mite search radius of the Propetfy. However, all of the facilities were located greater than 330 feet from the Property. Therefore, the potential for these facilities to impact the Property appeared to be minimal. 627 Miami -Dade County DERM.,HW-DC DERM maintains records of facilities, such as auto repair facilities, dry cleaners, and photo labs, that are permitted to generate hazardous wastes. These records also contain inspection reports and soil and groundwater information and are available for public review. • The Property was not identified on this database as generating, or potentially generating hazardous materials, nor were other facilities identified within a one quarter -rule search radius of the Property. 8.3 ORPHAN SITES Orphan sites are facilities that have been identified on the EDR Report however, due to poor or inadequate address inhxmation, the facilities could not be mapped by EDR with relation to the Property. • Thirty-two orphan sites were identified on the EDR Report, and EE&G attempted to further assess these facilities. The facilities were located on a map. However, due to their apparent distances from the Property, the potential for these facilities to impact the Property appeared to be minimal. 2451- Phase t ESA Vc a-1U4 17 • i • G Phase I BM t Update January 2001 SECTION 7_O FINDINGS & OPINIONS Upon the completion of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, EE&G has Identified the following areas of potential environmental concern in connection with the Property. Four pole --mounted generators were located on the Property. However, no evidence of stains or corrosion existed at the time of the site inspection, Therefore, the potential for the pole -mounted generators to impact the Property is minimal, Brickel Village Cleaners is located on the northern adjoining parcel to the Property. Most dry cleaning facifi ies utilize VOH solvents that are associated with potential environmental concerns. s. However, this facility utilizes a treatment system for the machine condensate water prior to its discharge to the sanitary sewer system. Furthermore, a storm water drainage system, located on the property, was sampled and analyzed for VOHs in 1998 and 1999. The VOH results from both sampling events were reported below detectable limits. Therefore, the potential for the dry cleaning facility to impact the Property is minimal. 4 According to analytical data from groundwater sampling events conducted in 1995 and 1998, dissolved hydrocarbons concentrations were identified in the immediate area of the farmer UST excavation. Since the source of contamination was removed in 1994, the potential for increased hydrocarbon impact appears minimal. Additionally, this site is currently eligible for a state - funded dean -up program. 2451 -Phew 1 ESA Update.144.. c 18 • • 1 • SEC11ON 8_0 CONCLUSIONS EE&G has performed a Phase Environmental Site Assessment Update, in conformance with the scope and limitations ot ASTIvi Practice Designation E 1527-00, of the vacant lot, located at 104 Southwest 131h Street, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. Exceptions to, or deletions from, this assessment are described in Sections 1.3, IA, 1.5 and 3.1 of this report This Phase' ESA Update has not identified additional recognized environmental concerns for the Property, subsequent to the issues documented in the Phase I and Phase il, performed by EE&G in 1998. 24$1 - Phass I ESA Update-104 19 0 • i taf•.,: ;R January SECTION 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ,y.sed upon the available information, this assessment update dicl not reveal any new recognized erwir€rnmentai concern. Therefore, no additional investigation is deemed warranted at this time. 2451 - Phase t ESA Updnw-1O4 DEVIATIONS & EE EnvirC#t r yz 2 SECTION 10 A SERVICES No deviations from the ASTM Designation E 1527-00 were required to complete this Phase ESA Update. i• i 2451 - Phase! ESA Upd-1O4 21 • • • • i t i i i e l Enftro men SECTION 11.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS EE&G is a lull -service a rironmerttal, engineering, and consulting firm offering its clients a broad range of consulting, testing, and laboratory services. EE&G was founded in 1986 and has been offering environmental services for over 18 years. Its professional services include: • Environmental Site Assessments (Phases 1 and II). • Underground Storage Tank Management • Environmental Remediati©n Services, • Environmental Engineering and Permitting, • Hazardous Waste Management • Air, Water, and Soil Testing; Analysis and Consulting. • Industrial Hygiene Services. • Asbestos, Radon, and Lead -based Paint Testing; Analysis, and Consulting, • Indoor Air Quality investigation and Mitigation. • Environmental Training and Education. • Wetlands Management_ • Water Resources. EE&G is headquartered in Miami, Florida, and has five brances located throughout s turn- around the state of Florida. An in -horse asbestos laboratory supportsoperations time as well as quality control and protect follow-through in alt phases of work. EE&G has established a team of app rately 60 full-time employees in fields such as geology, hydrogeology, engineering, toxicology, industry hygiene, chemistry, and biology_ All work is conducted by well -trained, educated, and licensed (where appropriate) personnel working under the direct supervision of a licensed professional. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are performed by a team of experienced environmental specialists and reviewed by licensed professionals to assure accurate, high - quality results. EE&G has extensive experience In the environmental consulting industry and is currently under contract with local, state, and federal government agencies, military services, and private corporations. 11.1 KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY To provide our clients the highest quality of services, EE&G tas assembled an exceptional team of registered and experienced professionals. EE&G's team brings together expertise in hazardous substances/hazardous wastes, engineering and construction management, indoor air quality, indusbial hygiene, lead based paint and asbestos coneut ing eervit es. Key staff members are seasoned professionals, with the education, background and work experience to provide competent and effective services. Timothy R. ClipeProsicientiOirector 01 Consulting Servicesfor the overall management and MIS. Gipe is the President of EE&G and has been reeponsi#a ctlrection of EE&G since 1996. Mr. Gip° is responsible for the technical, administrative, and fiscal management of the firm, inducing direcOon of the firm'$ business development activities. As President, Mr. Gipe has led EE&G to increasing profits, client and business diversification, and both revenue and geographical growth 2451. Phase i nAupde4e-1tt4 • • U a 2 Craig . r , P.G.-Director of Hazardous Su E P Mr. Clevenger is a Florida Professional Geologist and has over 10 years of experience in the South Florida environmental consulting field involving the management of soil/groundwater assessment and remediation projects, including the chi and delineation of subsurface impacts, design of remedial and monitoring systems, the preparation of professional CAP, CAR RAP and MOP reports, associated cent and regulatory agency relation, team leadership and sales and marketing efforts. Mr. Gtevenger is responsible for EE&G's overall business in the hazardous substance and engineering practice area, which includes Phase ! and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessments. Paula Church -Hazardous Substances Practice Area Leader Ms. Church has over 25 years of experience in the environmental consulting field, including management of hazardous materials assessments, remediation, permitting, and environmeltal planning. As the former Principal Planner of the Dade County Environmental Resources Management (BERM), Ms. Church was responsible for the direction of the Dade County Water Quality Program. Kieraten Curd, Associate Staff Scientist Ms. Curti specializes in Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) which include site investigations, historical property use review, regulatory file review, and report generation. Ms, Curti has conducted Phase 1 ESA Updates and Transaction Screen Processes in accordance with the ASTM 1527 and 1528 Practices. Adam Brosius, Staff Scientist Mr. Brosiue has over four years of project management experience in environmental consulting. Mr. Brosius specializes ill Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) which include site investigations, historical property use review, regulatory file review, and report generation, Mr. Brosius has conducted Phase 1 ESA Updates and Transaction Screen Processes in accordance with the ASTM 1627 and 1528 Practices, as well to the requirements of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Resolution Trust Corporation and major national lending Institutions. Mr. Brosius has also performed numerous Phase 11 ESAs, which include soil boring, test pit, and monitoring well installation, soil and groundwater sampling, and report generation. Michelle Belsley, Associate Staff Scientist Ms. Betsley specializes in Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) which include site investigations, historical property use review, regulatory file review, and report generation Ms. Betsley has conducted Phase 1 ESA Updates and Transaction Screen Processes in accordance with the ASTM 1527 and 1528 Practices. Jeremy Ferderber, Associate Staff Scientist Mr. Ferderber specializes in Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) which include site Investigations, historical property use review, regulatory file review, and report generation. Mr. Ferderber has conducted Phase 1 ESA Updates and Transaction Screen Processes In accordance with the ASTM 1527 and 1528 Practices. 2461 - Phu* 1 SSA Upditte-1O4 Phase ! =`l Asses t3 to 2 1 SECTION 12.0 REFERENCES 121 RECORDS OF COMMUNICATION Mr. W. Ibrahim Consuegra, Property Management Director, Trizel Commercial Real Estate Services Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department 12.2 REGULATORY RECORDS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS A+iiarr-Dade County Public Library. • Miami -Dade County Public Works Department. • Miami -Dade County Planning Department. • Florida Department of Environmental Protection. • h%arni-Dade County Water & Sewer Authority. 123 PUBLISHED REFERENCES • Dade County Soil Survey, USDA, Soil Conservation Services. • Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. • "Water Resources After of Hondas Florida State University,1985_ EPA Publication - A Guide to indoor Air Quality. • Melvin C. Schroeder, Howard Klein, and Nevin D. Hoy, 1958, 'Biscayne Aquifer of Dade and Broward County"', Investigations Report No. 17, Florida Geological Survey. • Lead Based Paint in Pubis Housing, 1989, U.S. Housing and Urban Development. • Fletcher G. Driscoll, 1987, "Gmuridwater and Wells", 2nd Edition, Johnson Well Division. • Hennes, Singh, and Theodore, 1993, "Hark of Environmental Management and Technology", John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 124 DEFINITIONS Activity and use limitations — legal or physical restrictions or limitations on the use o#, or access to, a site or facrty: (1) to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to hazardous substances In the sod or ground water o the property, or (2) to prevent activities that could interfere with the effectiveness of a response action, in order to ensure maintenance of a condition of no significant risk to public health or the environment These legal or physical restrictions, which may include institutional and(or engineering controls, are intended to prevent adverse 2451 - Pbas t ESA Upd 104 24 • • • • t i 1 i EE impacts to in Or pope s t y be substances In the soil or ground water on the property, Construction debris concrete, brick, asphalt, and other such building materials discarded in the construction of a building or other improvement to Prof:mmrtY- CORRACTS list -- fist of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or gage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) who have been notified by the US, Environmental Protection Agency to undertake corrective action under RCRA. Demolition debris - concrete, brick, asphalt, and other such bullring materials discarded in the demolition of a building or other impalement ment to property. Dry wells-- underground areas where soil has been removed and replaced with pea gravel, coarse sand, or large rocks. Dry wells are used for drainage, to control storm runoff, for the collection of spilled liquids (intentional and non - intentional) and wastewater disposal (often illegal). Engineering controls - physical modifications to a site or faciirty (for example, capping, slurry wails, or point of use water treatment) to reduce or eliminate the potential for exposure to hazardous substances in the soil or ground water on the property. • Environmental lien - a charge, security, or encumbrance upon title to a property to secure the payment of a cost, damage, debt, obligation, or duty arising out of response actions, cleanup, or other remedlation of hazardous substances or petroleum products upon a property, inclutng (but not limited to) liens imposed pursuant to CERCLA 42 USG§ 9607(1) and similar state or local laws. ▪ ERNS Ilet - EPA's emergency response notification system fist of reported CERCLA hazardous substance releases or spills in quantities greater than the reportable quantity, as maintained at the National Response Center. Notion requirements for such releases or spills are coaled in 40 CFR Parts 302 and 355. Hazardous substance A substance defined as a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA 42 USC§ 9601(14), as interpreted by EPA regulations and the courts (A) any substance designated pursuant to section 1321(bX2)(A) of TRW 33, (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 9602 of this We, (C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC § 6921) (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Sold Waste Disposal Act (42 USC § 6901 et ) has been suspended by Act of Congress), (D) any toxic pollutant listed under section 1317(a) of Title 33, (E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC § 7412), and (F) any imrninentiy hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator (of EPA) has taken action pursuant to section 2606 of Title 15_ The term does not include petroleum, 2461 - Pura I ESA uplate•104 25 • i i• • =t Update 2001 including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is rtot otherwise specifically fisted or designated as a hazardous substance under phs (A) through (P) of this paragraph, and the term does not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gaa, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas an such synthetic gas)," (See Appendix XI.) Hazardous waste - any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC § 6921) (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC § 6901 a seq.) has been suspended by Act of Congress). The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980 amended RCRA. RCRA defines a hazardous waste, in 42 USC § 6903, as: "a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious Characteristics may- (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an Increase in mortality or en increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (8) pose a substantial present or potential hazels, to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored. transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed" • Institutional controls - a legal or administrative restriction (for example, deed restriction, restrictive zoning) on the use of, or access to, a site or facility to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to hazardous substances in the soil or ground water on the property. • Material safety data sheet (MSDS) - written or printed material concerning a hazardous substance which is prepared by chemical manufacturers, importers, and employers for hazardous chemicals pursuant to OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200 • National Contingency Plan (NCP) - the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan, found at 40 CFR § 300, that le the EPA's blueprint on how hazardous substances are to be cleaned up pursuant to CERCI.A. • Occupants - those tenants, subtenants, or other persons or entities using the p upsrty or a portion of the property. • Owner - generally the fee owner of record of the property. • Petroleum exclusion - the exclusion from CERCLA liability provided in 42 USC § 9601(14), as interpreted by the counts and EPA: "The terra (hazardous substance) does not include petroleum, inducing cnrde or any fraction thereof which Is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of this paragraph. and the term does not Include natural gas, natural gas iiquida, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas)." • Pstroiaum products - those substances included within the craning of the petroleum exclusion to CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601(14), as interpreted by the courts and EPA, that is: petroleum, inducing crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically fisted or designated a s a hazardous substance under Subparagraphs (a) through (f) of 42 USC § 9601(14), natural 2451 • Pr+asi I ESA {lpddo-104 26 411 i • I • i gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and synthetic gas usable for tuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). (The word fraction refers to certain distillates of crude col, including gasoline, kerosene, diesel oil, jet fuels, and fuel oil, pursuant to Standard Defrnifrorrs of Petroleum Statistics, Pits, ponds, or lagoons -- man -snide or natural depressions in a ground surface that are likely to hold liquids or sludge containing hazardous substances or petroleum products. The likelihood of such liquids or sludge being present is determined by evidence of factors associated with the pit, pond, or lagoon, indudng, but not limited to, diisook>red water, distressed vegetation, or the presence of an obvious wastewater discharge. Prd rerty - the real property that is the subject of the environmental site assessment described in this practice. Real property includes buildings and other fixtures and improvements located on the property ad affixed to the land_ • RCRA ISO facilities - those facilities on which treatment, storage, andior deposal of hazardous wastes take place, as defined and regulated by RCRA. • Solvent - a chemical compound that is capable of dissolving another substance and may itself be a hazardous substance, used in a number of manufacturing/industrial processes including but not limited to the manufacture of paints and coatings for Industrial and household pi/poses, equipment cleanup, and surface degreasing in metal fabricating industries. • Sump -- a pit, dslem, cesspool, or similar receptacle where liquids drain, collect, or are stored. • TSD facility - treatment, storage, or disposal facility (see RCRA TS° facilities). • Underground storage tanks (UST) - any tank, including underground piping connected to the tank, that is or has been used to contain hazardous substances or petroleum prod afs and the volume of which is 10% or more beneath the surface of the ground. • Wastewater - water that (1) is or has been used in an industrial or manufacturing pros, (2) conveys or has conveyed sewage, or (3) is direr related to marry ring, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an Industrial plant. Wastewater does not include water originating on or 'mesh() through or adjacent to a site, such as storrnwater flows, that has not been used In industrial of manufacturing processes, has not been combined with sewage, or is not d irectty related to rnarxriacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant. 12.5 ADomosAL DEFINITIONS - SPECFIC TO ESA • Actual knowledge - the knowledge actually possessed by an individual who is a real person, rather than an may. Actual knowledge is to be distinguished from constructive knowledge that is knowledge imputed to an individual or entity. 2451 - Phase I SSA UpAdx-104 27 i• • tUp Adjoining Properties - any real contiguous or par€ieity contiguous with contiguous ttiguous or partially c ntiguor,rs with that or other public thoroughfare separating them. Ja of which is would be • Appropriate inquiry - that inquiry constituting "ail appropriates inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good comrnen ai or customary practice es defined in CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601(35)(B), that we give a party to a commercial real estate transaction the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability (42 USC § 9601(A) and (B) and § 96O7(b)(3)), assuming compliance with other elements of the defense. See Appendix XI . • Business environmental risk - a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally -driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use et a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily Crmited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. Consideration of business environmental risk issues may involve addressing one or more non -scope considerations, some of which are idenflled in Section 12. • Due diligence - the process of inquiring into the environmental characteristics of a parcel of commercial real estate or other conditions, usually in connection with a commercial real estate transaction. The degree and kind of due diligence vary for different properties and differing purposes. • Environmental audit - the investigative process to determine if the operations of an exerting facility are in compliance with applicable environmental lass and regulations. This term should not be used to describe Practice E 1528 or 1527, although an environmental audit may include art envircnmental site assessment or, if prior audits are available, may be part of an environmental site assessment. • Environmental professional - a person ping sufficient training and experience necessary to conduct a site reconnaissance, interviews, and other adrvities in accordance with this practice, and from the information generated by such activities, having the ability to develop opinions and moons regarding recognized environmental condkiens in connection with the property in question. An individual's status as an environmental professional may be limited to the type of assessment to be performed or to specific scents of the assessment for which the profession Is responsible. The person may be an independent contractor or an employee of the user. Environmental site asment (ESA) - the process by which a person or entity seeks to determine if a particular parcel oaf real property (including improvements) is subject to recognized environmental conditions, At the option of the user, and environmental site assessment may Include more inquiry than that constituting appropriate inquiry or, if the user is not concerned about qualifying for the innocent landowner defense, less inquiry than that constituting appmpriate inquiry. An environmental site assessment is both driferent from and less rigorous than an environmental scat. • Historical recognized environmental condition - environmental condition which in the past would have bean considered a recognized environmental 2451 . Phase I ESA t 1pdala•144 28 0 I • fix condition, but which may or may not be considered a recognized environmental' condition currently_ The final decision rests with the environmental professional and will be influenced by the current impact of the historical recognized environmental condition on the property. If a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products has occur red in connection with the property and has been remediated, with such remediation accepted by the responsible regulatory agency (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent), this condition shall be considered an historical recognized environmental condition and included in the findings section of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, The environmental professional shall provide an opinion of the current impact on the property of this historical recognized environmental condition in the opinion section of the reporrt tf this historical recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is conducted, the condition shalt be identified as such and listed in the conclusions section of the report. ® innocent landowner defense - that defense to CERCLA liability provided in 42 USC § 9601(35) and § 9607(b)(3). One of the requirements to quality for this defense is that the party make 'ail appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice." There are additional requirements to qualify for this defense. See Appendix X1. • Key site manager - the person identified by the owner of a property as having good knowledge of the uses and physical characteristics of the property. See 9.5.1. ▪ Material threat - a physically observable or obvious threat which is reasonably likely to lead to a release that, in the opinion of the environmental professional, is threatening and might result in impact to public health of the envirormrent. An example might include an aboveground storage tank that contains a hazardous substance and which shows evidence of damage. The damage would represent a material threat if it is deemed serious enough that lt may cause or contrlbute to tank integnly failure with a release of corm to the environment. Obvious - that which is plain or evident; a condition or fact that could not be ignored or overlooked by a reasonable observer while visually or physically observing the property • Other historical sources - any source or sources other than those designated in 7.3A.1 through 7.3.4.8 that are credible to a reasonable person and that identify past uses of the property. The term Includes, but Is not limited to miscellaneous maps, newspaper archives, and records in the files and/or personal knowledge of the prcfaerty ownerandfor occupants. See 7.3.4.9. • Practically reviewable - information that is practically reviewable means that the information is provided by the source in a manner and in a form that, upon examination, yields information relevant to the property without the need for extraordinary analysis or irrelevant data. The form of the infor Cation shall be such that the user can review the records for a limited geographic area. Records that cannon be feasibly retrieved by reference to the location of the properly or a 2461- Phase 1 ESA update-104 29 geographic area in which the property is located are not generally phydically reviewable. Most databases of public records are practically reviewable if they can be obtained Iron the mono o agency by the county, city, zip code, or other geographic area of the facilities listed in the record system. Records that are sorted, filed, organized, or maintained by the source agency only chronologically are not generally practically revile. Listings in pubildy available records which do not have adequate address information to be located geographically are not generally considered practically reviewable. For large databases with numerous facility records (such as RCRA hazardous waste generators and registered underground storage tanks), the records are not practically reviewable unless they can be obtained from the source agency in the smaller geographic area of zip codes. Even when information is provided by zip code for some large databases, it is common for an unmanageable number of sites to be identified within a given zip code. In these cases, if is not necessary to review the impact of all of the sites that are nicely to be listed in any given zip code because that information would not be practically reviewable- to other words, when so much data is generated that it cannot be feasibly reviewed for its impact on the property, it is not practically reviewable. Publicly available - information that is publicly available means that the source of the information allows access to the information by anyone upon request. • Reasonably ascertainable - for purposes of both Practice E 1527 and 1528, information that is (1) pubLdy available, (2) obtainable from its source within reasonable time and cost constraints, and (3) practically reviewable_ Recognizedenvironmental conditions - the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an aodstirg release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The tern includes haZatdouS substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be of enforcement action if brought io the attention of appropriate agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are note recognized environmenbyl conditions. User - the party seeking to use Practices E 1527 or E 1528 to perform an environmental site assessment of the property. A user may include, without limitation, a purchaser of property, a potential tenant of property, an owner of property, a Tender, or a property manager. Visually and/or physically observed during a site visa pursuant to Practice E 1528, or pursuant to this practice, this term generally means observations made by vision white walking through a property and the structures located on it and obseivations made by the sense of sue, particularly r observimplyations that disar bled fowl odors. The term walking through" persons who cannot physically walk may not conduct a site visit; they may do so 2451.Phase iESA uptio•104 30 • 110 i i • • i i A Janua by the means at their di located in it. 12.6 ACRONYMS CERC rehensive Environmental Response, Apt of 198O (ass amended, 42 USC § 9601 et seq.). the and Liability CERCLIS-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (maintained by EPA). • CFR-Code of Federal Regulations, • CORRACTSfacikties subject to Corrective Action under RCRA_ • EPA -United States Environmental Protection Agency, • EPCRA-Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ((also known as SARA Title Ill), 42 USC § 11001 et seq.), a ERNS -emergency response notification system. ESA -environmental site assessment (different than an environmental audit; see 3.3.13). 41, FOIA-U.S. Freedom of information Act (5 USC 552 et seq.). FR-Federal Register. + LUST -leaking underground storage tank. • MSDS-material safety data sheet. • NCP-National Contingency Plan. • NFRAP former CERCLIS sites where no further remedial action is planned under CERCLA. • NPDES-national pollutant discharge elrnination system. • NPL-National priorities list. • PCBs -polychlorinated biphenyis. • PRP-potentially responsible party (pursuant to CERCLA 42 USC § 9607(a)). • RCRA-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (as amended, 42 USC § 6901 et seq.). 2461 - Phase ! ESA Updatsl Od 31 • • • i i e 1 Environmental l Sit SARA-Supertund CERCI._A)a • TSDFmhaZardaus waste • USC-United States Code. USGS-United States Geological Survey. ▪ UST -underground storage tank_ s ti and utho Act of 1 nt, storage or disposal taoility. 2451 - Phase 1 ESA Update-104 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • i i i 2451- Phase I ESA LOlete-1O4 APPENDIX A USER PROVIDED INFORMATION - 17 -0 10: 49A B VT DEVELOPMENT CORP y r^zu: 3a. Asa aax ^.l iAi 3E.7saF4eoam. .� SiAti O1/38tO1 I1E 14:10 FAX 30'�3749004 EVANS ENVIR 770 61.8 3567 P,02 Pga 2 Ai. i • I i • (pl Reese re Member: ube Prop(O. 7'nac atit PW °identifythe oppiecanate aQ -si �GU ii+ds: EE6-G Pt*81 Emr ronmessntal . t USIA. FOntir In arcordanr a vatto the Standard Practice tar erviro'm ntai Site Assessments, per AS)M DOSignalion E 1527-00. EE&G must obtain the following information from the Liss( (Client) prior to perk:imam an d liger b errRal Assessment of Chia i ec gni ed Gs�l�� Sian may bed delivsrabfa, and identification d potential recog�ltrJairl Included in the Phase ! ESA Summary (port Client lnfonr C$iew Name - Client Contact i4 Phone Number(s); Pi. Client Address: Z igo Pardperty Information Subject Properly No neiD�': rtt kr . ram. Complete mac io+ SW J Irn 4J Please raKey S+ , who ties good knowledge ot the P'roPerlY vie reason "aria Phole. t ESA nagt*at u , b ram+ — Flip( ,1140-ivirr- 510;er.: ;3 n 17 0 1 10; 49 a t;3yz DEVELoptiEr4 air i7ti 61.8 3S67 01116/01 1'E 14:10 FAI 3o6374a* O4 EVANS ENV 1 : "AL P. caa • � EEbG i • • i Phase i EnairMtrtntnl Site anyjen ' er as dens or activity r nd use limitations? tt yes explain. t User Does the UserR 1ient leave actual knowledge that the purchase Price of 81e Property has been reduced below comparabie pmpertias, due at least in part to environmental conditions mated wilt the Mope n yes Doers the Uses/Mod pusaass any Wier knowledge or the Properly tha may be pertinent to the enviroome sal professional for example. copies of any available prior emirc+nm.ned site assessment reports, documents. correspondence, etc., concerning the FS'opoity and its envIronnerntal conditio}) (1 a t pid/ EMI with copies el that infont1attioc Additional mid Services This Plisse ESA Mil be performed edible requirements of ASTM Designation E i -00. However. to assess ter other potential Ruakmss Rieke YAW may affect itte Impending of son acorn and ei er beyond My r On. As such. the �mbi an scop° e ASTM neeignation E 1527-00 tegtrir ). Please nets if an additional proposal is needed to assess tie i lbssing potential n Asbestas-earadring What* O Radon a Lead -Based Palm o Lead In drinking Wale' a Wetlands Assessment Q Ragu4tk7ry cvinpliar I And* Q C11111Eal and Mtn*, Resotiebst 0 o Indoor Air Chadlyor Industrial issues o Other Envirrrasnisi ar Enseteade/ C°ncenttl Ildesse demob* Signature rtf • • • se I Environ f U te Jan 2451 - Phase f ESA Upda1e-1O4 APPENDIX B PROPERTY LOCATION AND SITE MAPS i • i • VACANT LOT 104 SW 13TH STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 14505 Commetc Way, WO 400, Itharni Lakes Fkc7rda 3S0 7 (PHONE) (305) 3749904 FAX PRO PERTY LOCATION I -art g-gag ) kI I S C A USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FIGURE BI FEE G Evitno Erwin:month & Gecoidaricos - 14509 Canwomo Way, Sotto 400, &Gant 1 *oo, Flotido (W5)374-9300 (PHONE) (305) 374-9004 FAX • VACANT LOT 104 SW 13TH STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA • SOIL SURVEY MAP FIGURE B2 • PUBL1% PARKING LOT BLOCKBUSTER SEil RCUTS BRICKELL CLEANERS 5-STORY orrICE BUILDING 1 I rEE • 1, I -STORY RESIDENTIAL VACANT LOT SO,}THSIT ELEMENTARY SW 13TH STREET S1MPSUUN PARK twos U amama lox UM All LMEX. CUM 3701 OM V4 - Mat C1e 374 - libt fie PARKING LOT 911.40Ai![et PARKING LOT 2-STORY (*TICE BUILDING TAYLOR DEVELOPMENT L LAID 104 SV 13TH STREET 11IARL FLORIDA S1TE NAP MELON UNLTE➢ NATIONAL SAW CENTER SV 14TH TERRACE RESIDENTIAL XAMMIN • I • • EE G P a E ,. U January 2451 - Phase t ESA Update-104 APPENDIX C SITE PHOTOGRAPHS EE G Phase 1 Environm Photo 1: View of the Property, facing north. Photo 2: View of the Property, fad southeast Jan 2 • EEb Jana Photo 3: View of the eastern adjoining property, facing northeast Photo 4: Vlew of southeastern adjoining property, facing southeast. EE Phase ! Environmental Site Assessment Janus 2001 Photo 5: View of northeastern adjoining property, facing northeast. Photo 6: View of northern adjoining facing northwest_ • o • i t i i 1 P ! Erw A Photo 7: View of southern adjoining property, facing south. Photo 8: View of western adjoining property, facing west. 2 • i• i • P. i January 2001 Photo 9: View of pole -mounted transformers located on the eastern portion of the ProPoltY• • i • i i • Phase 1 Environmental ° e 2451 - Phase I ESA Update-104 ant Update January 2001 APPENDIX PRIOR PHASE 1 & PHASE 11 ESA • I • PHASE I & PHASE 1I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FOR VACANT LOT 104 SOUTHWEST 13' H STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA Presented to: Taylor Development & Land Co. 12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 803 Miami, Florida 33181 Presented by: Evans Environmental & Geoaclencee 99 Southeast Fifth Street, Fourth Floor Miami, Florida 33131 (306) 374-8300 February 1898 Project No.: 98E0492 • i• i • March 12, 18 Mr. Harvey Taylor Taylor Devekapment & Land Co. 12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 803 Mari, Florida 33181 Subject Phase 1 & Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment for Vacant Lot, at 104 Southwest 13th Street, Miami, Florida. Dear Mr. Taylor Evans Environmental & Geosciencess (EE&G) has completed a Phase l & Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the above -referenced property, ibis report renders opinions about possible environmental COMMIS On the subject property. All Phase I ESA activities were conducted and reported as per the requirements set forth its the American Society of Testing and Materials Practice Designation E 1527-97 (ASTM E 1527), The methodology used in this Phase 1 ESA Identifies conditions, records, and won that can be reasonably ascertained. The inferences and conclusions presented in this report are subject to the inherent limitations identified in the ASTM E 1597-97 guidelines. Although the assessment may not disclose all potential environmental liabilities, every reasonable attempt has been made to do so within the scope of work The Phase Il ESA identified concentrations of dissolved petroteum hydrocarbons in the immediate vicinity of the former underground storage tank area which exceed the No Further Action and Natural attenuation criteria, per Rule 62-770, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). However, this site has been determined eligible for State -administered cleanup; therefore, EE&G is recommending No Further Action at this time. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to call us. Respectfully submitted, itted, Kelly Bayer Staff Scientist Craig C. Clevenger, P.O. Hazardous Substance Division Manager EE&G Enclosure Mina. Fi. Tampa. FL Jacksonville. FL arsando, fL • I • Section 1.0 - INTRODUCTION . _ _ _ _ _ _ „ _ „ ..... . _ 1.1 OBJECTIVE' . . _ ..... _ . _ . _ ...... , 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK — , , , _ _ „ „ „ „ ... „ 1 1.3 LIMMNG CONDITION, _ _ . _ s „ _ „ . 2 1,4 LIMITATIONS OF THE A88ESSMENT . _ _ _ _ . , , 2 2.0 = SITE DESCRIPTION , . , . s _ ....... _ . . _ ....... . . .. , . . . _ _ . , . , ..... 3 2.1 PHYSICAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY , „ . . . . . . . 3 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......... • . _ _ ..... , ....... . . . „ „ . . .3 2.2.1 Soil Type 3 2.2.2 claim _ _ . . , . , . , . _ . , . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . ....... . . . s . . . . , 3 2.2,3 ..a....._..... . . _ _ „ ........ . 4 3.0 - HISTORICAL REVIEW ...... _ ............. „ , . . . . . s _ ............ . _ . . , 3„1 CITY DIRECTORIES 5 3.2 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS 5 3.3 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS _ ... . „ . . . . . . , _ _ . ..... . . . 6 3.4 INTERVIEWS ..................... , . ..... _ „ . , . . . . _ „ . . . _ . 6 3.5 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE PROPERTY 7 3.6 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES 7 4.0 - SITE INSPECTION 8 4.1 CURRENT USES OF THE PROPERTY . ....-- . . _ . „ . „ . 8 4.2 EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SITE OBSERVATIONS 8 4.2.1 HazersizialigHda02le..ergatotal 8 4.2.2 ljndargmuzligNayagnmnd_Storage Tanks 8 4,2,3 PCB -Containing Equipment 8 4.2.4 2olk Waste 9 4.2.5 Storrn Water Drainage 9 4.2.6 Waste Water 9 4,2.7 Welts • . „ . . ............. _ .......... . _ . . „ . . . . . . . _ . . 9 4.2.8 Blonds.1116= 9 4.2.9 Other plweical Evidence of Co tt, A tjnation ...... . ...... . . . . . 9 4.3 OTHER CONDITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 10 4.3.1 Asbestos -Containing Materials 10 4.3.2 Holm 10 4.3.3 Lead -Based Paint and Lead in Drinking Watet 11 4,3.4 Indoor Air Quality 11 • 1 Contents (continued) 4.3.5 Wetly ..,........a..... .... ...............a_,.. ....,11 4.4 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES ...... , ..... • P . , , . 11 4.5 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL N 5.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY DATABASE AND RECORD REVIEW 13 5.1 REVIEW OF FEDERAL REGULATORY DATABASES .... . . ...... . 13 5.1.1 NPL ............. .........................., .......,_13 5.1.2 CERCUS....a........................... .a_13 5.1.3 EENa .................e___.......,......... ._.....,.,.14 5.1.4 RCRIS .... ....... 14 5.2 REVIEW OF STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY DATABASES _ .. a 14 5.2.1 BM.. ..., ...... . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.2 SWF 15 5.2.3 LUST ............................................... , 16 524 STIS.......................................... 16 5.2.5 MI 16 5.2.6 TERM IW5 17 ..........................................._18 6.O-.PHASE IIESA .. I7.0-CONCLUSIONS ......... ....... ........ ............... .........._18 411 i 7.1 ON -SITE RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 18 7.2 OFF -SITE RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .......... . 18 I8.0 - RECOMMENDATIONS 19 9.0 - STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 20 10,0 - REFERENCES 21 10.1 RECORDS OF COMMUNICATION 21 10.2 REGULATORY RECORDS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 21 10.3 PUBUSHED REFERENCES 21 10,4 DEFINITIONS 21 1 • APPENDICES A Property Location and Site Maps S Site Photographs C Aerial Photographs D Environmental Database Search Report E Laboratory Analytical Results 11 • • • Son SECTION to INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVE F_E&G was retained by Taylor Development & Land Co_, the Client, to perform a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Property The Property consists of vacant lot located at 144 Southwest 13th Street in Miami, Dade County, Florida. This Phase 1 ESA was prepared in accordance with the standard practice set forth in American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-97. The purer of this Phase I ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the Property. Recognized environmental conditions are defined by the ASTM as '"the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions ions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property". This assessment is intended to assist the user In satisfying one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landovater defense to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Comte and t.iabiNty Act (CERCLA). This assessment was performed to meet the requirement that. Hall appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the Pmpetty consistent with good commercial or customary pr+adice," be conducted as defined In 42 USC § 9601(35)(B) and 9607(b). 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK The scope work for the Phase 1 ESA included the following_ An on -site visual inspection of all acr essibki areas and existing structures, noting current usage, storage, or signs of spiNs of hazardous materials or petroleum products. A reconnaissance of adjacent and nearby properties, noting potential hazardous materials fadlltise and underground storage tank sites. A historical review using standard historical sources (e.g. aerial photographs, city directories). The objective of the review was to develop a history of the previous uses or occupancies of the subject property and surrounding area to identify potential recognized erwironmental ► onditions The period of review spanned to 1940 and/or until the initial development of the property from virgin land, if possible. A regulatory review of all publicly available files held by federal, state and local agencies which pertain to the use and handling of hazardous waste, hazardous substances, and underground storage tanks. Obtain information indicating recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property through interviews with owners, occupants, and appropriate local regulatory authorities. Preparation of a final report vnthich cauitlrtee the findings of the Phase t Environmental Site Assess/nerd and provides recommendations. Documentation of any pertinent • • • The scope of work for the Phase II ESA Is included in Section 6.0. 1.3 LIMITING CONDI7 ONS The findings tharacterteed in this report only represent evidence that was obtained and based on reasonably available public information, written inquires, visitation, telephone calls, interviews, and site observations. Assessment of adjoining properties and off -site properties is limited only to vIsual observations and record reviews. No direct measurements for the presence of water, sod, or air contaminants were made, except as noted otherwise (see Section 6.0 of this report). The findings noted and derived are therefore, subject to this intrinsic limitation. This assessment was limited to the scope outlined in ASTM E 1527-97. 1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT This ESA was performed by conipeterrt, tamed technical professionals in accordance with sound professional practices and the standard due care exercised within the profession. The presence or absence of contaminants on the surface or in the subsurface of the Property cannot be determined without proper testing. Accordingly, the findings of this investigation merely assess potential for property owner Debilities arising from past and present usage of the Pmperty and should not be constnred as conclusive evidence that the Properly has or has not been negatively impacted. The opinions and recommendatiCns presented herein apply only to contentions existing at the time of this assessment. Any changes In site conditions, environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent hereto are not covered. Furthermore, although every reasonable effort has been made to use information sources that are Vie, EE&G does not warrant their accuracy or completeness, nor the use of segregated portions of this report 2 P1PRo.Ex`rWEG4ea4sw13,1VPD • • i i i S1 E DESCRifs'riON 2.1 PHYSICAL. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OP PROPERTY The Property is located at 104 Sit 13iir Street in Miami, Dade County, Township 53 South, Range 40 East, and Section 11, Florida. This she contakis a fairly rectarigular-shaped vacant lot. The northern portion of the site is gravel whirl the south sloe is partially fenced -in grassy area, A site map is presented in Appendix A and site photographs are provided in Appendix B. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Property is located in a residents and commercial district Surrounding properties were observed to be apartrnent buildings, single-family residences, a retail plaza, and office buildings. The Property appears to be relatively flat a USGS topographic map of the area indicated that the ground surface elevation of the Pmperty is approximately 1 to 3 feet above mean sea level 2.2.1 According to a sal map published by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, the sod in the area is dasaitied as Urban land. This designation is used to descxhe soil that is not prod to sample andfor map due to developmerd. The Sod Conservation Service estimates that SO% of this type of soN is covered by urban development (i.e. airports, pang lots, bulangs, etc.) and the remaining percentage has been altered from its natural state by filing and grading. 2.2,2 Regional Geology The regional geologic framework of Dade County consists of Holocene age sediments of pests, muck, and marl overlying Pleistocene age limestones and shelty sands. The most crtstinguishing physiographic feature is the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. This topographic feature parallels the mainland coastfme in Dade County. The ridge is primarily composed of Miami Oolite, an oolitic limestone. Beneath the ridge in the eastern portion, the Miami Oolite is underlain by the Anastasia Formation, and in the west by the Fort Thompson Formation. Both the Fort Thompson and Anastasia Formations are composed of Highly permeable limestones. The combination of the Fort Thompson, Anastasia, and Miami Limestones cruises the unconfined surfi€lal aquifer, the Biscayne Aquifer. 22.3 }fydrpgeolagv Groundwater is the primary drinking water source of South Florida. The Property is located in an area underlain by the Biscayne Aquifer. The Biscayne Aquifer is especially susceptible because: 1) it is an unconfined aquifer (interconnected with the surticial aquifer), 2) it is highly permeable, and 3) it is located in a densely prated area. Any spillage or discharge may have a direct impact to the quality of the groundwater. 3 PAPRANECTOME0467{104SWI i • • The water quality of the Biscayne Aquifer is classified as G411 g to Chapter 62-550 FAC. (less than 1O;000 of total dissolved solids), suitable for potable well water consumption. The depth of the water table and the thickness of the aquifer may vary by locations and by seasons. The water table ranges from approximately 4 to 12 feet below land surface in Dade County. Although the general flow direction dale Biscayne Aquifer s southeasterly, local groundwater itow direction may vary, due to the topography, site drainage features, the pumping rate of a nearby water well, and/or other factors. In Dade County, a groundwater protection ordinance has been adopted to preserve the groundwater quality. The ordinance has restrictions that may apply to certain types of industries. The protection areas are usually located within the boundary of the public we llBeld cone -of -influence. The Properly is not located within a Dade County Wetltield Protection Area. A coma -of -influence map of Dade County (welifield protection map) is presented in Appendix A. 4 OJEGT3818)4121,3. • i i i • • SECTION 3.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW The historical use of the Property and adjoining properties was reviewed using available city directories, Sanborn fire Insurance Maps, and aerial photographs_ 341 CITY DIRECTORIES City directories are reference books published yearly for most major metropofitan areas. The directories contain listings of busies and landowners by adds and by name. City directories are useful in determining the historical use and/or occupant(s) of a given property. A review of Polk's Miami Suburban Citry_Direc tortes and/or Brosser's Miami Cross -Index Directory was performed at the Miami -Dade Public Library. Directories were available for the years 1925 through 1997. These directories were reviewed in approximate 5-year kitervals. The ,90 are summarized below: • 1925: There Is no hating for the Pmperiy. 1931: There is no listing for the Property. ▪ 1935: There is no listing for the Property. • 1940: There is no listing for the Property. • 1947: There is no listing for the Properly. • 1953: There is no listing for the Property. • 1960: The Properly is listed as Miami l.ir►cotn Mercury Body Shop. • 1966: The Property is listed as Guarantee Exterminating_ 197th The Property is fisted as Guarantee Exterminating. • 1975: Listings for the Property include Guarantee Exterminating, Bonitos Pest Control, and Sanitas Security. 6 1980: Listings for the Property include Guarantee Exterminating, Sanitas Pest Control, Sanitas Security, and Triangle Maintenance. 1989: Listings for the Property include American Travelmart, American Microfilm, American Photo, litre Medica, and Miami Medical Equipment & Supply, • 1997: There is no listing for the Property. RtPRCUECT18 AVA4M1010 13.NlPO • i i i i• I • EE liii ®- , :Site 3.2 SANBORN FIRE t ISURANCE MAPS Sarum Fire insurance Maps are an additional source of historical use information available for most developed areas. The maps were prepared in the 1920s and were updated periodically. The maps, used for insurance purposes, indicate structures by name, type of conxt'+, and address. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the Properly were reviewed at the Miar'ni-Dade is Library. The findings are summarized below. A copy of the 1950 map is presented in Appendix A. • 1921: The Property and adjoining sites were undeveloped, 1938: The Property and adjoining sites were un leveiopect, 1950: There are three -rectangular shaped structures on the north side of the Property and the site is labeled as a farmers' market. A residential structure is located to the south of the Property. 3,3 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Aerial photographs are often taken annually or lit -annually by government agencies or private entities. Review of these historic aerial photographs may provide information regarding land development and land use patterns at specified dates. Aerial photographs for the years 1963 through 1997 that include the Property were reviewed at the Dade County Public Works Department. Copies of aerial photographs taken in 1963, 1974, 1980, 1984, and 1995 are presented in Appendix C. Observations are summarized below: • 1963 to 1967: A warehouse structure was apparent on the north side of the Property, and the south of the side appeared to be a fenced -in parking lot and storage yard. Residential structures were present to the east and south_ The current apartment building was located to the west of the site, beyond a railroad easement. Single family residences also were apparent to the west of the Property. The radioed easement was present to the north of the Property. • 1988 to 1972: A shed -like structure was apparent in the storage yard area of the Property until 1971, Additional apartments were constructed to the west of the Property. • 1973 to 1979: The Property and adjoining sites appeared relatively unchanged. 1900 to 1984: The Property appeared relatively unchanged. Office buildings were constructed on two of the adjoining properties to the east. The Metrorail (public won) was wed over the adjoining railroad easement. Residences were deared from some of the adjoining properties to the west' • • 1973 to 1974: The Property and adjoining properties appeared relatively unchanged- • 1985 to 1991: The Properly and adjoining sites appeared relatively unchanged. 6 p:wriceseriseememwsw+a.A o • i i i • i i i i • • 1992 to 1994: The Property a transportation) was constructed to the east of the Property. ▪ 1996 to 1996: The bung on the Property was demolished in 1995. An apartment building on one of the adjoining propertles to the west also was demolished. 1997: The Property resembled its present stated A tea was constructed on an adjoining property to the west. 3.4 INTERVIEWS EE&G was unable to identify anyone with knowledge of the site's history, 3.5 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE PROPERTY Sanborn maps indicated the first use of the Properly was as a fanners' market, beginning in approximately 1950. The site was then occupied by a t.inc oln mercury body shop from approximately 1957 to the early 1980s. The site was subsequently occupied an exterminatingipest control business from approximately 1964 unto the 1980s. In the latter pert of the 1980s, the Property was occupied by several small businesses irdurdrng a photo and microfilm company. The bung on the site was demoheed in approximately 1996, and the site has been vacant since that time. 3.7 SUMMARY OF PAST USE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES The past uses of adjoining properties was invested through review of aerial photographs, city directories and Sanborn Maps for the years reviewed for the Property listed above. The Hidings are summarized below. North: Originally developed with a railroad easement. Developed with the Metromover since 1983. East Developed with residences since the 1920s. A few office buildings were constructed i1 the 1980s. • South:De veloped with an apartment bolting in approximately 1950. This building has been since as an ounce builder since approximately 1980. • West Developed with residential developments since the 1920. Additionally, a retail plaza was constructed in 1998. 7 ppRw TMEas92►a 3wro • 1 i i • SECTION 4.0 SITE INSPECTION 4.1 CURRENT USES OF PROPERTY The Property is presently vacant The north portion of the site is used for parking by patrons of the adjoining retail plaza. 4.2 EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR snt OBSERVATIONS The site inspection was conducted on January 19, 1 • , by Ms_ Kelly Bayer of EE&G. 4.2.1 s2,-lr 'I_ ; lit. No hazardous materials were observed on site. 4.2.2 Underground/Aboveground Rome Tanks No aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed on site. One underground storage tank (UST) was previously located onsite. See Section 52.5 for additiionalrmation. 4.2.3 EreitcregiltedlaralMIOMI PCBs were widely used In such equipment until 1979 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strictly regulated such use. Many utility companies have since acted to replace PCB- cordairing transformers and capacitors. According to FPl. representatives, the exact PCB content, if any, of the transformers on the Property is unknown, however, less than 1 percent of the transformers in the FPL system contain PCBs in concentrations exceeding 50 parts per milulon (ppm). FPL wll fast transformers for PCB content with permission of the property owner for a nominal fee. FPL will dean up oil leakage from transformer equipment, regardless of PCB content. Identification of the presence of PCBs or PCB -coring equipment was limited to a visual inspection for the presence of transformers, capacitors, and hydraulic equipment. • For pole -mounted transformere were observed on the east border of the Property. No stains or Leaks were observed. 4.2.4 Solid Waste Small piles of miscellaneous trash and debris, inducing scrap wood, scrap metal, and concrete rubble were observed on the Property. No hazardous materials were observed in the debris. 4.2.5 Storm WaC©ralinage Storm drains and soakage pits are potential pathways for soil and groundwater impacts because they often become polluted with automotive fluids from runoff and/or improper disposal. 8 OJECIAMECI412,004SWi&via • • i • fill Emd No designed storm water water drainage an the site appears to 4.2.6 Waste Water No waste water discharges were observed. 4.2.7 Wells February ccur nature On hrough infiltration. A monitoring wetl or potable well is oonsidered a significant factor sine it can serve as a conduit for contaminant migration (from land surface to groundwater). The presence of a monitoring wets at a site may inc catte a past or present groundwater contamination problem. A potable well can be a significant factor in that it would have the potential of drawing contaminants towards the well during pumping. • Six monitoring well were observed on the west side of the Property in the former UST area. 4.2.8 Pits. Fonds, & LagOQns No evidence of any surface impoundments, holding ponds, or retention ponds was observed on the Property. 4.2.8 Based on observations made during the site inspection, the following conditions or potential sources of environmental concern were not observed on the Property. • Foul odors. • Evidence of landfling, dumping, or direct burial of wastes. • Leactiate or seeps. • Stained sod or vegetation 4.3 OTHER CONDITIONS OF EN1ltRONMENTAL CONCERN The following areas are non -scope consideration per ASTM 1527-97 and ware not investigated for this Phase 1 ESA. except where noted otherwise. However, the importance of each is briefly described and observed terns on the Property are noted below. 4.3.1 Asi estos-CORtalninu Material (ACMI There are numerous requirements facing building owners regarding the presence of asbestos-. containing materials. These requirements were promulgated by OSHA in 29 CFR Part 1910, et al. One of these requirements is that surfacing materials, thermal system insulaton, and vinyl floor tile installed prior to 1980 must be presumed to contain asbestos, or a comprehensive survey must be performed according to AHERA protocols to rebut the presumed designation. Since there are no structures on the Property, suspect ACM was not addressed. 9 PAPROJECIIIIMI4MNSWI1WPO • • • i i i IF 4.3.2 It is unknown whether the Property has a propensity for acoumulation of radon gas in the air or radium in the groundwater. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Map of Rattan Zones for Florida, Dade County has an average predicted indoor radon screening potential between 2 to 4 ;Armouries per titer (poi). The EPA has shed 4.0 pCi/l as the "action lever concentration for radon, above which further monitoring and for radon mitigation methods are recommended. radon levels can vary significantly from property to property and even from room to room in the same building. No conctustve statements can be made regardng the presence or potential presence of radon gas without proper screening measurements. 4,3,3 Lead -Be sed Paint and Lead in Diking Water The most ccirnmon health hazards from lead originate from lead -based paint (LBP) and lead in drinidng water. These health hazards are specialty sigrsitcar t in older residential is l buildings. These environmental concerns can only be determined through testing. Since there are no structures on the Property, potential lead related concerns awe not addressed. 4.3A Indoor AILQuality There are several factors that may cause poor indoor air quality in buffs, including the presence of indoor air pollution sources, poorly designed or maintained ventilation systems, and uses of the building that were not anticipated or well -planned when the building was designed or renovated. Common indoor air pollutants include: buikfing materials; biological contaminants from dirty ventilation systems, or water -damaged walls, ceilings, and carpets; office furnishings; tobacco smoke; cleaning ma xis and activities; and pesticides. Effects of being exposed to these pollutants may be acre or chronic. Visthie growth of mold and numerous occupant complaints of discomfort are some indicators of indoor quality problems. A comprehensive but ing investigation would be necessary to effectively identify indoor air quality problems. Since there are no structures on the Property, potential indoor air quafity concerns were not addressed. 4.3.5 Wetlands Wetland is the collective term used to descarbe a variety of ecosystems which include swamps, bogs, and other transitional zones Located between a water body and dry land. Wetlands are defined by regulation as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for We in saturated soil conditions. Under the Clean Water Act, dredge and fill activities within wets are regulated and must be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The policy orno net loss" of wetlands, which was implemented ire 1988, requires all Federal agencies to avoid activities that would result in the destruction or degradation of wetlands. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S: Fish and VVildtife Service, as well as state and local regulatory agencies may also have requirements that must be met before wetlands may be developed. Wetlands issues are a significant factor in land assessmeerst. Land owners, developers, and lancing institutions should be aware of the possible financial burden of developing wetlands. 10 PVRo4ECTIO 0402+,o-ssons.WPO i • 44 CURRENT US OF NO The Property is bordered by the following: North: Southwest 13th Street, beyond which are the Metrorati and Metromover easements. East The Metromover and Southwest lst Avenue, beyond which are office buildings and vacant lots. Sa►u the An office bunting. West The Metr orait and Southwest i st Court, beyond which are the YMCA, an apartment building, and a retail plaza. Tenants of theth Ceti plaza include Pubic Supermarket, Blockbuster • ideo, Supercuta, and Brickell Cleaners. 4.5 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN The Property is located in commercial and residential area Nearby ides include a dry cleaner and a gas station. See Section 5 for adddional information regarding Ong properties of environmental concern. 11 p RoJ c eeEo4g¢1lo45W13.WPD • 0 i • EEBG Phase 11i1 Environ ant SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY DATABASE AND RECORD REVIEW 5,1 REVIEW OF FEDERAL REGULATORY DATABASES base EE&G contracted E Data Resources, es, Inc. (EDR) to conduct These arch of Yet smaintainsystems Environmentalmaintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). information at the federal level, violations, compliance, or enforcement actions of reported sites. The search criteria is based on the approximate minimum search distance recommended by ASTM E 1527-97. EDR"s report is presented in Appendix D. The searched database systems are: • National Priorities List (NPL), version dated September 25, 1997; 1-mile radius search distance. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability information System (CERCUS), version dated August 1,1997; M -mile radius search distance. • Emergency Response Notification ation System (ERNS), version dated June 1,1997; the search distance is limited to the Property. • Resources Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), version dated July 1, 1997. The search distance i3 the Property and adjoining sites for hazardous waste generators; 1-mile radius for Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities; and 34-mile radius for non- CORRACTS TSD facilities. Due to the flat topography, relatively flat hydrae& gradient, and relatively high natural biodegradation attenuation capabilities in South Florida, the potential for contaminants to migrate horizontally Is minimized. However. sites pommy € ontaminated with volatile organic halocarbons (VOHs), such as dry cleaners, are of significant concern due to the mobility of these constituents in the groundwater. Thus, sees greater thanlip-mile from the subject property are not considered a significant environmental threat, unless VOH contamination is a potential or suspect. 5.1.1 Nei, The NPL database is a national list of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that have been ranked by the EPA according to a hazard ranking system that assesses the health and environmental impact posed by the site. The NPL is used by the EPA to schedule remediation. Findings_ The Property was not klenttied on this database. No facilities were identified within a 1-mile radius of Property. 5.1.2 CEEtw The CERCUS database Cysts potential hazer€ ous waste sites that the EPA is investigating for an existing or threatened release of a hazardous substance. Preliminary site assessments are 12 RtrROJECTIMOVXMaiswsawwn • • • i i i i 1 i i EEtre Phase WI Environmental Site nt normally conducted by either the EPA or included in CERCIIS. Sites investigated through CERCLA may be placed on NPL for remedial action. Febriaarr + 1 .*::..;. environmental agency for ail sites Findings_ The Property was not identified an this database. No facilities within a %- Mite radius were identified on the CERCL JS database. 8.1,3 Elittfi The ERNS database is a federal database containing information regarding reported releases of petroleum products anxf/or hazardous substances. The ERNS database integrates both initial notification information of releases of petroleum products and/or hazardous substances and additional follow-up information for those spill incidents. Findings; No reported spills or incidents on the Property were identified_ 5.1.4 R The RCRIS database identifies small or large -quantity generator fac5Fies or sites that have notified the EPA of their activities regarding handing of hazardous wastes. Inclusion of a site on the RCRIS generator database does not necessarily indicate environmental problems on the site. It does indicate that the listed fadity is (or was) engaged in hazardous waste handling activities as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and therefore may have the potential to cause environmental degradation if hazardous wastes have been mishandled or otherwise released in an unc ontrotied manner. TSD facilities are those which treat, store, and or dispose of hazardous wastes. CORRACTS TSD fealties are subject to corrective action by the EPA. Findings: The Property was not identified as a RCRA facility. One adjoining facility was Identified as a RCRA smalt.quarlity generator Brrickeli Cleaners located at 120 Southwest 13th Street, on the Wining property to the went Additional information on this site is included in Section 5.2.6. 5.2 REVIEW OF STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY DATABASES The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Dade County Department of Erwironmental Resources Management (DERM) generate and maintain information, in database systems, pertaining to registrations, investigations, violations, compliance, or enforcement actions against properties and facilities. EDR conducted a record search of these database systems for the Property. adjoining properties, and properties within the search distances listed below. The minimum search &stance is performed in accordance with the recommendations set forth in ASTM E 1527.97. The following FDEP database systems were reviewed: Florida Hazardous Waste Sites List (HWS)/Staate Funded Action Sites (SFAS), version dated April 1, 1996; 1-mile radius search &stance. 13 PAPROJELIVIRE0422d049M3MPO i i • i • Solid Waste Facilities List (SWF), ve d May 1& i "x7:'/antis radius search dlstarice. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Petrolsunn Contamination Overview Report (PCOR), version dated June 15,1997; le radius search distance. Stationary Tank Inventory System List (ST1S), version dated August 1, 1996; search ts limited to the Property and adjoining properties. The following DERM database systems were reviewed: • Urxierground Storage Tank (tJ1), version dated September 1, 1996; 4-mile radius search distance ▪ Industrial Waste Facilities - Category 5 (1W5), ver'sicn'! dated June 30, 1997; %-mile radius search distance 5.2.1 HWSISFAS The HWSISFAS database Is the slate's equivalent to CERCL.IS and contains that may or may not be listed on the CERCLIS list. Listed facilities andfor locations have been identified by the FDEP as having known or suspected environmental contamination. Priority -ranked sees scheduled for state funded clean-up are listed along with sites where clean up will be funded by pally responsitte parties. Findings: The Property was not identified on this database. Appraxlmatety 23 facilities were identified within a 1-mie radius (See Appendix D). Based on the distance of these from the Property (greater than a %-role), the potential for these facilities to affect the Property appears to be minimal. 5.22 ME The SWF database klentifies locations that have been permitted to conduct solid waste landfrlfing activities or other related waste hang activities such as those conducted at transfer stations. The appearance of a site on this database does not necessarily indicate environmental problems at the site, but ratherthat the site handles solid wastes that could pose an environmental concern if, as a result of an uncontrolled release, hazardous compounds were able to impact the environment and possrbiy migrate from the site. Findings: The properly was not identified on this database. Additionally, no facilities were identified within a V-rnlie radius of the Property. -" 5.2.3 LUST The LUST database contains facilities and/or locations that have been identified by the FDEP as having a known or suspected release of contaminants from a petroleum storage system. The 14 • • • i i 1 pose a pote Sits Assessment indication that a release environmental degradation of surrounding properties. F and it may Findings: The Property was identified on the LUST database as Mecorai Properties. Ten faodikies were identified within a Wwrite of the Property (See Appendix 0). Additional information on sites within a *mile of the Property is inod in Section 5.2.5. Based on the distance of the remaining sites from the Property (greater than a e), the potential for these fealties to affect the Property appears to be minimal. 5.2 A ST18 The STIS database identifies locations that have registered petroleum product or polkitant storage tanks (ASTs / UST#) pursuant to the notification requirements found in applicable chapters of the Florida Administrative Code. The appearance of a site on this list does not necessarily Indicate environmental problems at the site, but rather that potential for environmental degradation to the site or adjacent sites is present if leakage from the storage tank system occurs. Findings: The Property was identified on the STIS database as Orion itwestmentsillilecoral Properties. No adjoining facilities were identified. 5.Z5 DERM JJT Flies DERM maintains records of fealties that are permitted to operate and maintain underground storage tanks for the storage of petroleum products or hazardous materials. These records ink ude permits, inspection reports, and contamination assessment documents. These records are available for public review. Findings: The Property was fisted on the DERM UT database as Me rco al Properties (UT #4746). Files for the Property and the following permitted underground storage tank fealties within a dose proximity of the Property were ram. ata Addrease l,t?, Southside Elementary 45 Southwest 13th Street 3116 75 feet northeast Ramirez 66 1245 Southwest 2nd Ave. 528 450 feet northwest Mercorar l Properties/Orion Investments: A 1,000.gafion diesel fuel UST was removed from this site in February 1994, A Tank Closure Assessment Report was submitted to GERM In Mara 1994. The TCAR documented the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the groundwater. DERM issued a Nuke of Violation (NOV), dated Juty 12. 1994, requiring a Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) be submitted. The CAR was subsequently prepared by Metcalf & Eddy. The CAR indicated a small hydrocarbon plume surrounding the former UST area. The CAR was approved on June 26.1996 and DERM recommended a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) be prepared. The site applied to the state Abandoned Tank Restoration Program (ATRP) and was accepted in November 1996. The site was given a low -priority ranking for cleanup and no motional assessment has been conducted since the CAR 15 • i i 1 • l/lliWn.�:: Southside Elementary; There is one 1,000-gallon UST at this site which dins diesel fuel for a boiler. This site was accepted into the state Early Detection Incentive (EDI) program in 199 t _ During the early years of the EDI program, many sites applied without evidence of soil or groundwater impacts and became listed on state databases as leaking USTs. There are no groundwater monitoring wefts at this site and the presence of existing contamination is unknown_ Basedon assumed easterly direction of groundwater flow at the site, the potential for the subject property to be affected appears to be minimal. Ramirez 66: According to the UT file, six USTs were removed and an oil/water separator was abandoned emplace in November 1992. According to the DERM inspection report, petroleum affected soils were excavated at the time of removal Groundwater was not reached during UST removal and was not tested. A Tank Closure Assessment Report (TCAR) was never subrnitted for the site. According to the file, the groundwater omits was last tested in 1990 and exceedences of FDEP and groundwater standards were found. No assessment at this site has been required ed by the FDEP or DERM since the UST removal. However, based on the distance of this site from the Property, the potential for this facility to impact the Property appears 10 be minimal. 6.2.6 PERM 1W6 ales, DERM maintains IW5 permit files for industrial facilities, such as auto repair shops, dry cleaners, and photo lake, that generate Nil wastes. These files also contain inspection reports and soil and groundwater assessment information. These flies are available for public review. Firdngs: The Property was not listed as a permitted MIS facility. The following permitted hazardous facilities were identified within a dose proximity of the ProPetrtY Off Address LE1. =Ea Bricks!! Village Cleaners 120 Southwest 13th Street 10995 Adjoining to the west Ramirez 66 1245 Southwest 2nd Ave. 8486 450 feet northwest Bricks* Wlagee Cleaners: facility ty opened in April 1997. No violations were noted during the initial DERM inspection conducted on Apra 17, 1997. No discharges have been reported at this facility. Ramirez 68: The 1W5 file indicated that this facility was last inspected en March 26, 1997. No violations were observed. No discharges have been reported since this auto repair facility was permitted in 1994. 16 P; PROJEC TIONE0 921104SW!9.WPD • i i• i • SECTION 6.0 PHASE ESA EE&G conducted a Phase II ESA u conjunction with this Phase I ESA. The following are the objectives of this Phase II ESA. To assess the potential environmental impact to the sot and groundwater quality in the vicinity of the former UST area, previously located on the southern 1 /3 of the Pmpeaty. To assess the soil and groundwater quality in the vicinity of the former car dealershipirepair fealty and pest control facility, previously located on the northern 1t2 of the Property. 6.1 SOIL & GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT - FORMER UST AREA Solt ;�es49�t On February 2, 1998, EE&G supervised the advancement of three soil borings (88-1, SB-2, and SB-3) withinand around the former UST excavation ion area to assess for petroleum -affected soils. EE&G collected soil samples from the vadoae zone and groundwater interface using a split -spoon sampling device, driven 'Nitta 130 pound hammer. Sod samples were collected In 2 foot intervals, from surface grade to a total depth of 15 feet below land surface (BLS), where the groundwater interface was encountered. Glass jars were half -filed with the soul samples, per each 2 foot interval, covered with aluminum foil and allowed to equilibrate, in accordance with Chapter 82-770.200, FAO,. The sad samples were analyzed in the field using an OVAIFIO, with and without a charcoal filter, to amass for the presence of naturally occzimng methane. No hydrocarbon vapors were detected in the sail samples, with the exception of the 11 -13 foot interval (48 ppm) and 13 to 15 foot Interval (170 ppm) of SB-3, which was installed immediately south of the former UST excavation area. firomsb On January 21 and February 4, 1998, EE&G coilected groundwater samples from existing monitoring wells to assess for the presence of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons. Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells MW-1 (within former UST excavation area), MW 2 (south of the former UST excavation area), MVV-3 (north of the former UST excavation area), MW-4 (east of the former UST excavation area). and MVV-6 (west of former UST excavation area). All sampling activities were conducted in accordance with EE&G's CompQAP,and transported to Precision Environmental Laboratory for analysis of volatile organic aromatcs (VAS) using EPA Method 503018021 B, polynuciear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using EPA Method 5035/8270, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) using Method FL -PRO. One equipment blanks (MW-E) were collected during both sampling events to assess the effectiveness tiveness of the decontamination procedures. 17 P:ARO C'iWEwSZIO4Swss.WPD 410 • • i i i i it P�#iif Sl February The laboratory results that dissolved . ,,.;.. ., : s n 1995. The only sign' ant change was that at concentrations similar to the tads reported I , naphthalene concentrations (ire of a diesel fuel source) increased in MW-1. Table 1 summarizes the groundwater sampting results. A copy of the laboratory results are provided in Appenx F. Qiscussion of Firms The dlssohied petroleum hydrocarbons detected in MW-1 and MW-2 exceeded the No Further Actlan criteria, per Rule 62-770, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Additionally, the dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons detected in MW-1 also exceeded the criteria aerie for Natural Attenuation, per Rule 62-770, FAC. However, this site has been acceptedformer UST State - administered cleanup program. Based on the analytical results, the discharge from the ter appears to be limited to the Immediate vicinity of the former excavation area. migrating south. Based on the low ranking assigned to the former UST area, it Is unlikely that the State will cleanup the property for another 5 to 10 years (if at all). Therefore, the property owner may have to take charge of the responsibility to expedlle the cleanup. However, while the site is in a State -approved cleanup program, no regulatory enforcement will be levied against this portion of the property. 18 PsWROJECTIME001211O4sw1awPD • • i i i i Phase 3 9 TABLE '1 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT RESULTS FORMER UST EXCAVATION AREA - TOL PROPERTY MIAMI, FLORIDA Weil Number &xnple B.tuc.n. Tauten. Ethyl Benzene Xylem. Naphthalene pita NIA " I*) q tomei910 BCC 85 33 36 2,815 1,900 17 TPH Clly0 1/98 103 T72 BDL MW,2 MIN-3 MW-4 5 178 482 357 B 1198 819.5 BDL 87.1 4.03 8i71.. 711.0 BOX SOL SOL BOt. BOO 801. B1X SOL 8195 SOL SDI.. Bt7L SDI SOL BDL 80L BDL BDL SQL BDL BDL BDL 1/90 SOL SQL BEii. SOL MW-8 8/95 BDL SOL BDL SQL SOL 1 SOL SOL MO Crtrada 100 300 BDL 2ti0 SDI 50 WA c r1lerla • Note: 1.0 40.0 30,0 20.0 35.0 20.0 817E = Slow € eiec table Lets. WA s Parameter Not Analyzed. MO =, Monitoring Only Criteria - per Chapter 02-770, FAC. NFA = No Further Action Criteria - per Chapter 82-770, FAC 19 5.0 P:uRCUECTOSE0021$O W13.WFD • i 1 • iE SoilAssessment On February 2, 1998, EE&G supervised the advancement of three so borings (SB-4, SB-5, and SB-B) across the northern in of the Property, in the vicinity of the former car dealership/repair facility and the pest control facility, to assess for petroleum -affected soils. EE&G collected soil samples from the vadose zone and groundwater interface using a split -spoon sampling device, driven with a 130 pound harmer. Soil samples were collected In 2 foot intervals, from surface grade to a total depth of 15 feet below land surface (BLS), where the groundwater interface was encountered. Glass Jars were half-filled with the sod samples, per each 2 foot interval, coveted with aluminum fool and allowed to equilibrate, in accordance with Chapter 62-7702430, FAC. The soli samples were analyzed to the field using an OVA/FID, with and without a charcoal filter, to assess for the presence of naturally occurring methane. No hydrocarbon vapors were detected in the soil samples. On wry 2,1998, EE&G supervised the installation of one, sew, temporary monitoring ►ixefi (MW-8), which was low on the northern 1/4 the Properly, in the approximate rear of the former commerdal facility budding, The monitoring well was installed using a truck -mounted drilling rig, equipped with hew -err augers, to a total depth of 20 feet BLS, including 10 feet of PVC well screen (slot size O.015 inch), and 10 feet of solid PVC riser. On Februa*y 4,1998, EE&G wed grouidwater samples from monitoring well MW-8 to assess for the presence of dissolved petroleisn hydrocarbons and/or pesfickle compounds. All sampling activities were conducted in accordance with EE&G's CompQAP, and transported to Precision Environmental Laboratory for analysis of VOAs using EPA Method 5030/8021 B, PAHs using EPA Method 5035/8270, TPHs caring Method FL -PRO, orgarrophospharus pesticides using EPA Method 614, and nibogentphosphorusAriazine pesticides using EPA Method 619. One equipment blanks (MWE) were collected during the sampling event to assess the effectiveness of the decontamination procedures. The laboratory results detected no dissolved concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons or pesticides in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-8. A copy of the laboratory results are provided in Appendix E. 20 P.VROJECTWENZA404SWIWAPD 110 i • I 40 i P WI rtit *'Ka SECTION 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 ON -SITE RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The following conclusions relative to on -site environmental concerns are made based upon this Phase I ESA: The Phase I ESA review of the historical records indicated that the northern portion of the subject property was occupied by a Lincoln Mercury body shop from approximately 1957 to the early 1960s, and subsequently occupied an exterminating/pest control business from approximately 1964 until the 1980s. The Phase 11 ESA identified no soli or groundwater impacts in the immediate vicinity of the former body shop/pest control facility. The Phase 1 ESA identified records that a 1,000•gallon diesel fuel UST was removed from this site in February 1994. A TCAR documented the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the groundwater. A CAR was subsequently prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, which indicated a small hydrocarbon plume surrounding the former UST area. The CAR was approved on June 26, 1996 and BERM recommeded a Re radial Action Plan (RAP) be prepared; however, the site was accepted Into the State Abandoned Tank Restoration Program (ATRP) in November 1996. The site was given a low -priority ranker for cleanup and no additional assessment has been conducted since the CAR. • The Phase II ESA identified concentrations of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons in the knmetltria vidtnity of the former underground storage tank area which exceed the No Further Action and Natural attenuation critera, per Rule 82-770, Florida Administrative Code (FAC)_ 7.2 OFF -SITE RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The following conclusions relative to off -site environmental concerns are made based upon this Phase 1 ESA: Based on the available public records, there is no indication that the reported discharged petroleum products (or other contaminants) from the surrounding areas (within a %-mile radius) would pose an environmental threat to the Properly. 21 P'1FROJEG 492d045W13.woo • 1 i i i 1 i• I • Assessment Febru SECTION t,O RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made based upon the Erwirarvmentel Site Assessment The groundwater assessment results indicate that the discharge from the former UST appears to be limited to the irr mec ate vicinity of the former excavation area. Therefore, since this site Is in the State Cleanup Program, EE&G recommends mends No Further Action. 22 hese 1 and i