HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/14/2000 - STAFF REPORTS (3) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Fiscal Year 2000-2001
Merged Merged
Original Project Area Project Area
Proiect Area Capital ImprovementPro'ect No. 1 No. 2
CBD Demolish Rudnick Building. $20,000
Includes the cost of demolishing the main
building and the apartments, clearing the site
and preparing it for the construction of a
parking lot. Agency had requested staff to
pursue demolition because of ongoing
problems with the property, such as vagrancy.
The Parking Fund will pay to construct parking
on the site, as well as redesign the Henry
Frank Arcade lot to be able to use and access
the Rudnick property. Estimated cost to the
Parking Fund is $60,000.
CBD Palm.Tree Wells. $22,500
Heavy foot traffic has not allowed lantana to fill
tree wells as planned, particularly in areas of
Starbucks, Welwood Murray Library, Leeds
Jewelry, Plaza Theatre (100 Block of North and
South Palm Canyon). Raised octagonal
seatwall planters, prefabricated, will correct the
problems of people stumbling in uneven tree
wells at approximately 15 trees. Another 15
trees would be done in 2001-02 at a similar
cost.
CBD West Tahquitz Lighting. $18,500
This project proposes three (3) new light
fixtures on south side of West Tahquitz from
Starbucks to Belardo Road. The property
owners would need to sign reimbursement
agreements to pay for the actual light
standards; the Agency would pay for the
foundations and the overall electrical design
and improvements. Since there is no dedicated
electrical system there, as there was in
downtown for palm tree lighting, the cost per
unit is higher.
Tahquitz- Decorative Lighting on East Tahquitz. $85,000
Andreas
This project proposes 42 new light fixtures on
both sides of East Tahquitz from Indian
Canyon Way to Caballeros. The property
owners would need to sign reimbursement
agreements to pay for the actual light
standards and some of the electrical
improvements; the Agency would pay for the
foundations and the overall electrical design
and a portion of the improvements. Like the
West Tahquitz project, since there is no
dedicated electrical system there, as in
downtown, the cost per unit is higher than
those in downtown.
South Palm East Palm Canyon Lighting. $20,000
Canyon
This project proposes eight (8) new light
fixtures on East Palm Canyon Drive, to
supplement the four installed in 1999-2000.
Property owners would need to sign
reimbursement agreements to pay for the
actual light standards; the Agency would pay
for the foundations and the overall electrical
design and improvements.
Ramon-Bogie Dumpsite Cleanup/Engineering. $50,000
Staff has applied for a HUD Brownfields EDI
grant in the amount of$1,000,000 to "seed" the
remediation of the dumpsite. The state's AB
2136 landfill remediation program, however,
requires the proposed cleanup plan be fully
engineered and known contamination
identified. Staff will apply for$500,000 from
that program for a "partial clean closure."
There is currently significant developer and
tenant interest in the site.
North Palm Frances Stevens Park Sidewalks. $35,000
Canyon
This project would complete the hardscape
within the park, linking the new Public Arts
fountain project with the Heritage Trail, as well
as replacing several interior sidewalks lost
through construction.
North Palm Unscheduled Capital Projects. $50,000
Canyon
The Agency has received preliminary requests
for"off-site" assistance from several potential
projects, none of which is ready to be
budgeted, including: the Indian Manor, the Villa
Hermosa, and Hanson House at Desert
Hospital. This reserves an amount in the
budget for one or more of these projects to
develop this year.
Highland- Radio Road Improvements/Phase II. $33,000
Gateway
Phase I is underway, budgeted in 1999-2000; it
includes paving a section of Radio Road
between Anza and McCarthy in the industrial
area of Highland Gateway. Phase II extends
curb and gutter improvements from Anza east
to Indian Canyon Drive.
Baristo-Farrell Unscheduled Capital Projects. $300,000
The Ralphs developers (Sunrise/Ramon) made
a preliminary request for financial assistance
for covering the flood control channel, which
increased in cost from estimated $500,000 to
nearly $1 million. Planning Commission may
require 14' wide landscape median islands,
without staff recommendation, for aesthetic
purposes on Sunrise and Ramon, at a cost of
$250,000. The DDA has not been negotiated
so there has not been financial analysis of
assistance request. This item is a place holder
in the budget for assistance, should it be
warranted.
Subtotals $249,000 $385,000
Grand Total/Capital Projects 1. $634,000
6/13/00 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CRA BUDGET
CRAsum01 FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
Merged Area#1 Merged Area#2 Plaza Theatre Low& Mod Inc Totals
Housing
Personnel 900 600 51,820 53,320
Downtown Development 115,000 25,000 - - 140,000
Materials, Supplies&Svc 37,800 8,900 54,500 28,500 129,700
Insurance 5,173 2,587 - 4,113 11,873
Administrative Charges 137,078 63,501 7,078 82,145 289,802
Capital Projects 249,000 385,000 - 750,000 1,384,000
Debt Service 1,796,337 583,178 504,824 2,884,339
Pass Thru Payments 958,389 938,665 - 1,897,054
Total 3,299,677 2,007,431 61,578 1,421,402 6,790,088
RESOLUTION NO,
OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-
2001.
WHEREAS, a budget for the fiscal year 2000-2001 has been prepared by the
Community Redevelopment Agency, Redevelopment Director, and the Agency
Treasurer; and
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency has examined said budgets and
conferred with the Community Redevelopment Agency Director; and
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency, after due deliberation and
consideration, agrees with the budget recommended, including the Community
Redevelopment Agency Administration Fund budget;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Palm Springs as follows:
Section 1. That the budget in the amount of $6,790,088 be approved for the
following purposes
Capital & Admin. Debt Service
Merged Area No. 1 $ 544,951 $2,754,726
Merged Area No. 2 485,588 1,521,843
Low & Mod. Income Housing 916,578 504,824
Plaza Theater 61,578
$2,008,695 $4,781,393
Section 2. That the budget for the Debt Service for the 1994 Series A & B bond
issue, which amount is already included in the above Merged Areas debt
service, is $1,647,800; and is budgeted as an accounting control only.
Section 3. That the Finance Director of the City of Palm Springs is authorized to
record the budget and such other accounting entries as may be
necessary for proper accounting treatment in accOFdance with rules and
regulations applicable to other City of Palm Springs funds.
CRA Resolution No.
Page 2
ADOPTED this day of 12000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTS:
ATTEST: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By
Assistant Secretary Chairman
REVIEWED & APPROVED
1C/YJL/177J U?0001 Lt1UMIUN-6HN VILUU !1 Y.W
✓ 1./
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC
GModWW and Emiro=snW bgb.uitto crosvftw t,
November 24, 1993
Project No. 11881139-M
To: City Of Palm Springs
P. O. Box 1786
Palm Springs, California 92263-1786
Attention: Mr. Doug Evans
Subject: Feasibility Study Report for the City Of Palm Springs Landfill, Northeast of Gene
Autry Trail and Ramon Road, City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, California
Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1993, Interim Data Report on an Environmental Site
Assessment for Potential Hazardous Materials/Waste Contamination, Palm Springs
Landfill, Northeast Comer of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road, City of Palm
Springs, County of Riverside, California, dated August 6, 1993. -
Based upon your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has prepared
this report for our feasibility study for mitigation of the City of Palm Springs Landfill. The purpose
of this study is to provide the City of Palm Springs with alternatives to manage the existing landfill
material prior to possible site development. Leighton has examined the cost for the following
alternatives:
a Prior to any excavation of landfill material at the site, submit a petition to the State
of California - Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) - Waste Evaluation
Unit (WEU) requesting classification of the landfill material as nonhazardous
pursuant to Section 66260.200 (Q, Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR);
a Cost estimate for clean closure: remove, transport and dispose of the existing landfill
material to a Class III landfill, assuming the landfill material is clarified as
nonhazardous by DTSC and import, placement and compaction of imported soils to
surrounding grade;
a Cost estimate for partial clean closure; remove, transport and dispose of landfill
material from below a proposed 300 feet by 800 feet building to a Class III Iandi A,
assuming the landfill material is classified as nonhazardous by DTSC and closure of
the remaining portion of the site in place as per CCR,Title 14,Chapter 3,Article 7.8,
and CCR, Title 23, Chapter 15 is approved by the appropriate state and local
regulatory agencies;
3934 WJRPHY CANYON ROAR SUITE 5205,SAN DIM CALIFORNIA 92123 (619)292-6030 9(000O))4492-07
11881139-08
a Cost to install foundation piles for a 300 feet by 800 feet typical one story
warehouse/tilt-up building, and for landfill closure In place, assuming the landfill
material is classified as nonhazardous by DISC and is approved by the appropriate
state and local regulatory agencies.
Please contact this office if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ile
Thomas E. Mills, RG4439
Director of Environmental Services
Distribution: (1) Addressee
Attachment
2
urowron,tsa,woeum rMe
11881139-08
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
Former City of Palm Springs Landfill
Northeast Corner of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road,
City of Palm Springs,
County of Riverside, California
There are many environmental issues and concerns regarding the management of burn ash sites such
as the Former Palm Springs Landfill. Certain chemical constituents become absorbed and/or
chemically bonded to ash particles. These chemical constituents commonly include metals and less
frequently include various organic compounds. Although these compounds are typically low in
concentration, metals sometimes exceed the State of California criteria for hazardous waste.
Solid waste sites, such as burn ash sites, are considered closed if they were closed according to the
applicable statutes, regulations and local ordinances in effect at the time the landfill stopped
accepting waste. We understand that the subject landfill (26.6 acres) was in operation on the
northern two thirds of the 37 acre subject site as the city's municipal landfill between the late 1930's
and the early 1960's. Structures for a former sewage treatment plant were removed from the site in
the mid 1960's. We also understand the type of material placed in the landfill was typical of domestic
refuse(mostly paper,glass,wood,vegetation,plastic containers,concrete,metal and cardboard)which
was regularly burned prior to burial.
It is our understanding that property owners of formerly closed landfills/bum pit sites who desire to
develop the property are required to close these sites as solid waste sites. In general, there are two
strategies for site closure:
• Closure in place - includes meeting all the requirements of solid waste disposal site
standards. Some of these requirements, such as landfill gas monitoring and control,
may not be applicable if no putrescible solid waste is present at the site.
1
„,_ If/GNTONAMD ASSOCUT4 INC
11881139-08
• Clean closure- the removal of all solid waste, including burn ash to a point where any
residual contamination which remains will not pose a threat to public health, ground
and surface water, or the environment.
Permits for either type of closure is required by the California Department of To2dc Control
Substances (DTCS),County of Riverside Department of Health Services,Local Enforcement Agency
(LEA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Intergrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Background
In January 1989, two ground water monitoring wells were installed on the subject site as part of the
Ground Water Solid Waste Assessment Testing (SWAT) program. Monitoring Well PSMW-1 was
installed hydraulically upgradient of the landfill disposal area and Monitoring Well PSMW-2 was
installed in what was believed at the time to be the hydraulically down gradient of the landfill. Water
qua�ity data from these two wells indicated that organic and semi-organic compounds were not
present above the laboratory detection limits and that lead was present in the water sample from
PSMW-1 at 0.005 mg/L and not present above the laboratory detection limit in the sample from
PSMW-2. The California EPA Maximum Contamination Level (MCL) for lead in drinking water is
0.05 mg/L. Iron and manganese were the only two compounds which were above the secondary
drinking water standards.
In January 1991, two additional ground water monitoring wells were installed at the subject site to
establish direction of ground water flow at the site. During 1991, quarterly ground water samples
were collected from the four onsite wells (except PSMW-1 and PSMW-2 in the fourth quarter when
these two wells were dry). The chemical analyses indicated that tetrachloroethene (PCE) was
detected in all four wells at concentrations ranging between 0.52 and 4.4 jig/L. The MCL drinking
water standard for PCE is 5.0 µg/L.
2
1EIGNrON AND ASSOClAM INC
Y
11881139-08
In March 1989, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) accepted and signed
off on the air SWAT for the subject site.
It is our understanding that the City of Palm Springs has contacted the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and requested site closure based upon the data developed from the air and
ground water SWAT's. We also understand that the RWQCB will be issuing a formal closure letter.
In May 1993, 21 test pits were excavated on site to characterize the landfill materials, assess the
extent of the landfill and chemically test selected samples of the fill material to assess the presence
of burn ash materials. The results of the chemical testing program are summarized in the reference
data report. In summary, the results of that investigation indicates that the eastern 2/3 portions of
the landfill contains unburned to partially burned household debris,while the western landfill material
contains construction debris and burn ash material. The estimated volume of landfill debris is 550,000
cubic yards. Of this 550,000 cubic yards, the estimated volume of construction debris is 160,000 cubic
yards and the estimated volume of household debris is 390,000 cubic yards.
The analytical data indicates that samples from two test pits (T-1 and T-8) excavated in the area of
construction fill material contains bum ash material with lead at concentrations of 1,470 mg/kg and
1,255 mg/kg which are above the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Total Threshold Limit u
Concentration (TTLC) of 1,000 mg/kg. Soil samples from five test pits excavated from the m
r
construction landfill material and samples from six test pits from the household landfill debris E
contained soluble lead concentrations above the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of
5.0 mg/L. The soluble lead concentrations of these 11 samples ranged between 5.14 and 78.4 mg/1-
Classification of Burn Ash Material as Nonhazardous
Should the City select clean closure or partial removal of the landfill material prior to site
development, the City would need to submit an application to the California Department of Toxic
Control Substances (DTCS). The purpose of the application is to request a classification of the burn
3 0_
LELGNrON AND ASSOCUT4 INC
11881139-08
ash material on site as nonhazardous pursuant to Section 66260.200(f), Title 22, CCR, because A
samples collected of the burn ash material and landfill material did contain lead at concentrations b
above the Title 22, listed TTLC and STLC. The objective in classifying the materials as
nonhazardous is to reduce the risks and costs associated with the transportation and disposal of the
material at an approved site.
Application to the DTSC is to include information pursuant to Section 66260.200(m), Title 22, CCR
including:
• Name, mailing and billing address,location, contact person and phone number for the subject
site;
• Information on sampling of the waste in accordance with the sample management procedures
in"Test Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste,Physical and Chemical Methods"(SW-846),(3rd
edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986) the name(s) of the person(s)sampling
the waste, dates and locations of sample collection and a description of the sampling
methodology and sample handling and preservation procedures;
• Testing laboratory information including the name, address and certification number of the
testing laboratory, the test methods used and references for locating these methods, the
name(s) and qualifications of the person(s) testing the waste, the method for preparation of
laboratory samples from field samples and information needed to identify each sample;
• Laboratory results including results from all tests required by chapter 11 of Title 22 and a
listing of the waste's constituents. Results shall include analyses from a minimum number of
samples as specified in chapter 9 of"Test Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste, Physical and
Chemical Methods" (SW-846);
• Certification of the veracity of the information submitted, signed and dated by a person who
is the responsible manager of the facility; and
4 y�
O�
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATA INC
yV .r
11881139-08
• Submit to the California Board of Equalization an application fee pursuant to Health and
Safety Code section 25205.8.
The estimated cost for the collection of data, the preparation of the application document, and filing
fee is estimated to range between $60,000 and $70,000. This estimated cost is based upon the
following assumptions:
• Preparation of a three dimensional sampling grid at the subject site for the collection of
samples as specified in "Test Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste, Physical and Chemical
Methods" (SW-846);
• Preparation of a sampling plan including a description of the waste, a physical description of
site and landfill materials, quantities produced during unit time, a detailed description of the
generating process, the extent of the landfill material, description of adjacent land use and
submit to DISC for review and approval; Y
• Survey the sampling grid approved by DISC;
• Collect up to 48 samples from the sampling grid utilizing a backhoe;
• Chemically analyze 24 to 48 randomly collected samples for TTLC lead and STLC lead that
meet the following criteria: (a) soil/burn ash materials concentration(s) of any analyte above
the TTLC limits and (b)soil/bum ash materials results less than TTLC limits but greater than
10 times the STLC limits;
• Chemically analyze 4 to 6 randomly collected samples for TTLC and STLC for 21 metals
(except lead);total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons;organochlorine pesticides and PCBs;
volatile organics; phenols; cyanide; aquatic bioassay, Ph and dioxins and furans;
5
O .
1EIGNTONAND ASSDCIAT4 INC
11881139-08
• Using Equation 8 in Table 9-1 of SW-846 for each analyte, calculate the minimum number
of samples required to determine if the number of tested samples are statistically sufficient
to represent the tested population;
• Test additional samples, if necessary, as determined by Equation 8 in Table 9-1 of SW-846;
r
• Complete and submit an application for nonhazardous waste classification to DISC for review
and approval, assuming the burn ash material is statistically considered a nonhazardous
material.
Alternatives for Site Closure
Assuming the DISC approves the City's request for nonhazardous classification of landfill material,
Leighton has estimated the cost to: (1) remove all landfill material(estimated at 550,000 cubic yards)
to a Class III landfill and backfill with clean imported fill to surrounding grade; (2) remove, transport
and dispose of an estimated 175,000 cubic yards of landfill material at a Class III landfill and backfill
with 175,000 cubic yards of clean imported soil in the area below a 300 feet by 800 feet typical one
story warehouse/tilt-up building and closure of the remainder of the landfill in-place, and (3) close
the landfill in-place and place 145 foundation piles for a 300 feet by 800 feet building without
removing the fill material below the structure.
Alternative 1 - Clean Closure
Based upon background information and the data developed during the investigation described in the
referenced report, Leighton estimates the volume of landfill material to be approximately 550,000'
cubic yards. Based upon this estimated volume, we have estimated the cost to excavate, transport,
dispose of the landfill debris at a Class III landfill (which would be subject to the landfill's approval),
and backfill the excavation cavity with imported clean fill to the surrounding elevation would range
6
LEIGHTON Axo ASSOCIATES INC.
11881139-08
between $7.5 and $9.0 MM. This estimated cost does not include shoring of the walls of the landfill �AOj
adjacent to roads.
This estimated cost assumes the following:
• Submittal of a post closure plan to appropriate state and local regulatory agencies;
• Permitting;
• Excavation and transportation of 50 loads/day (estimated 1,200 cubic yards/day) to
Edom Hill Class III Disposal Site (approval to dispose of this or a higher volume of
landfill material on a daily basis must be approved by the appropriate state and local
regulatory agencies); P
. r
• 600 working days to transport 550,000 cubic yards of material to Edom Hill Disposal
Site (actual number of working days will vary depending upon the volume of landfill
material accepted by the Edom Hill Disposal Site);
• Import and compact clean backfill to surrounding grade;
• Compaction testing and report;
• Preparation of a closure report submitted to the appropriate state and local regulatory
agencies.
Alternative 2 - Partial Clean Closure and In-Place Closure
If the landfill material below the footprint of a 300 feet by 800 feet building were to be excavated,
transported, disposed at a Class III landfill (which would be subject to the landfill's approval), and "
7 aiii
IEIGNTON AND AZXIAT4 INC
11881139-08
Alternative 2 - Partial Clean Closure and In-Place Closure
If the landfill material below the footprint of a 300 feet by 800 feet building were to be excavated,
transported, disposed at a Class III landfill (which would be subject to the landfill's approval), and
backfilled with imported clean fill to the surrounding elevation, the estimated cost would range
between $2.6 and $3.OMM plus $2.5 to $2.8MM for installation of the final landfill cover. This cost
estimate assumes the following:
• Submittal of post closure plan to appropriate state and local regulatory agencies;
• Design for partial in-place closure of the landfill site according with Article 7.8, Title
14, CCR and Chapter 15, Title 23, CCR;
• Approval of the partial in-place closure of the landfill site by the appropriate state
and local regulatory agencies;
• Excavation and transportation of 50 loads/day (estimated 1,200 cubic yards/day) to
Edom Hill Class III Disposal Site (approval to dispose of this or a higher volume of
landfill material on a daily basis must be obtained by the appropriate state and local
regulatory agencies);
• 150 working days to transport 175,000 cubic yards of material to Edom Hill Disposal
Site (actual number of working days will vary depending upon the volume of landfill
material accepted by the Edom Hill Disposal Site);
• Import and compaction of clean backfill to surrounding grade;
• Compaction testing and report;
8
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIAM INC
11881139-08
• The estimated cost does not include:
(1) Settlement mitigation for the remaining portion of the landfill;
(2) Landfill gas monitoring and control;
(3) Long term maintenance of the landfill cover;
(4) Leachate collection.
Alternative 3 - Closure In-Place and Installation of Foundation Piles 9'JV
Leighton also estimated the cost to install 145 foundation piles for a typical 300 feet�800et one
story warehouse/tilt-up building designed to leave in place the landfill material alandfill
cover. The estimated cost to install 145 piles ranges between $500,000 and $700,000 plus $3.9 to
$4.3MM for installation of the landfill cover. This cost estimate assumes the following:
• Submittal of post closure plan to appropriate state and local regulatory agencies;
• Design for partial in-place closure of the landfill site in accordance with Article 7.8,
Title 14, CCR and Chapter 15, Title 23, CCR;
• Approval of partial in-place closure of the landfill site by the appropriate state and
local regulatory agencies;
• Installation of a landfill cover: assuming a 1 to 2 feet vegetation cover, 40 mil HDPE .
liner, 6 inch drainage layer, and 2 feet clay layer;
• Permitting;
10
LEIGNrONAND ASSOCIAT4 INC
11881139-08
• The estimated cost does not include:
(1) Settlement mitigation for the remaining portion of landfill;
(2) Landfill gas monitoring and control;
(3) Long term maintenance of the landfill cover;
(4) Leachate collection.
11
LEIGNrONAMDASSOCIAM INC:
CHRONOLOGY
JULY 26, 1988 Bid opening for "investigation
and Reports for Inactive
Landfill Dump Site at Ramon
Road and Gene Autry Trail"
(SWAT Proposal and Reports) .
AUGUST 3 , 1988 Contract awarded to Leighton
and Associates for $83 ,598. 00
and charged to account 342-
0680-7528 .
SEPTEMBER 29 , 1988 SWAT Proposal submitted from
Leighton and Associates to
City.
NOVEMBER 1, 1988 South coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD)
notified the City that they
accepted part of the proposed
work as outlined by Leighton
and Associates, and were
working on the remaining items.
NOVEMBER 8, 1988 California Regional Water
Quality Control Board responded
that the SWAT Proposal appeared
adequate.
DECEMBER 12 , 1988 Leighton informed the City that
their subcontractor would begin
drilling on the site around
January 1989 .
JANUARY 13 , 1989 SCAQMD approved the entire SWAT
Proposal.
MARCH 21, 1989 City transmitted SWAT Report to
SCAQMD.
APRIL 5, 1989 City transmitted SWAT Report to
RWQCB.
APRIL 25, 1989 RWQCB responded that they ,
wanted additional testing
performed to verify the results
T S p 67 of . the SWAT Report. The
O�V ( TT results of the additional
testing were to be available by
2 ,0� October 1, 1989 (note that, this
Flo R due date was later extended) .
T,,'d t-I
� � ► G�� I C��� I ( au� sTtc , Zkr �s � i7� G5 &tort
L "&C, FILL. e--L-Cso Rid •�
�r
APRIL 28 , 1989 Letter from City to RWQCB
requesting reconsideration of
the request to sample wells
again.
MAY 4, 1989 Leighton and Associates
provided cost estimate for the
additional water testing
required by RWQCB. Estimate
$9,3�— 00. 00f
MAY 10, 1989 RWQCB provided City with an
extension of time to provide
the additional test results.
Extension given until November
15, 1989. RWQCB confirmed that
the work had to be performed as
outlined in their letter dated
April 25, 1989.
SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 "Invitation for bid" package
distributed for additional
testing required by RWQCB.
Leighton's bid was considered
too high.
NOVEMBER 1, 1989 Bid awarded to Geo-Sec-Inc. to
perform the additional water
testing required by RWQCB.
Contract awarded for $5, 673 .75
and charged to accoun�3�
0680-7528 .
NOVEMBER 14, 1989 City requested from RWQCB
another extension from November
15, 1989 to December 29, 1989 .
NOVEMBER 27 , 1989 Approval received from RWQCB
- for the extension of time to
submit the follow up report
(December 27, 1989) .
DECEMBER 7, 1989 Geo-Sec-Inc. started work at
the site.
JANUARY 4, 1990 Geo-Sec-Inc. completed the
report and lab findings.
JANUARY 12 , 1990 Report and lab results were
transmitted to RWQCB.
JANUARY 19 , 1990 City called RWQCB and verified
that they had received the
report. RWQCB acknowledged
receipt of report.
JANUARY 25, 1990 RWQCB sent City a letter
outlining the need for
additional sampling at the
site. They requested that
additional test wells be
drilled and sampling of all
wells be performed on a
quarterly basis for a period of
one (1) year. They expressed
that additional testing was
needed because the following
chemicals were discovered: 2 . 8
microgram / liter of
tetrachloroethene , 0 . 66
microgram / liter of
trichloroethene, and 14
microgram//liter of bis (Z-
ehtylhexyl) phthalate.
FEBRUARY 5, 1990 Above letter received by City.
Freet had been out of town
during the week of January 29
through February 2 . Gordon
Lewis, Desert Water Agency,
called to confirm that he had
received a copy of the letter
from the RWQCB. Lewis
commented that he appreciated
us working closely with them in
the past on this project and
that it seemed ridiculous that
the additional expense was
necessary to test for the
chemicals at that low a
concentration.
FEBRUARY 16, 1990 Freet met with Adnan Abdella
(RWQCB) to appeal the work
outlined in the January 25,
1990 letter from the Board.
FEBRUARY 23 , 1990 Contract specifications were
drafted and forwarded to the
Purchasing Department. The
intention was to have the
contract on the March 21, 1990
City Council agenda.
MARCH 16, 1990 Bid specification package which
addressed the work specified by .
the RWQCB were distributed
(190-2489) . The package was
distributed to 19 environmgntal
firms.
MARCH 19, 1990 Bid specifications were
published.
APRIL 3 , 1990 Bids were opened by Purchasing
Manager. Seven (7)bid
proposals were received and
opened.
APRIL 4, 1990 The contract was presented to
City Council for award. The
staff recommendations was to
award to Gkeo-Sec-Inc. of San
Bernardino in the amount of
$33 ,862862 . Council expressed a
concern that the work required
by the RWQCB should be appealed
to the highest level possible.
The Motion was modified to make
a conditional award pending the
outcome of the appeal process.
APRIL 4, 1990 Appeal letter sent to RWQCB
appealing the work directed in
the January 25, 1990 letter.
APRIL 19 , 1990 RWQCB responded to our April 4,
1990 appeal letter. No
modifications to the
requirements setforth in the
January 25, 1990 letter was
granted.
MAY 10, 1990 Appeal letter sent to RWQCB
again appealing the Boards
requirements setforth in the
January 25, 1990 letter.
JUNE 1, 1990 After attempting to set up a
meeting between City Council
member and the Board
representatives to discuss the
project and related issues
between May 29 and June 1
(inclusive) , Freet met with
Adnan Abdella and Robert Perdue
(RWQCB) to discuss the project.
The RWQCB did not approve any
modifications to the
requirements setforth in the
January 25, 1990. RWQCB
l
representatives expressed a
concern that the City commence
the work soon and that the- two
agency present a unified
approach to handling the
potential problem. Freet was
to attempt to establish a
meeting date with some of the
City Council member on June 8,
but not later than June 15,
1990. (See Special Report) .
JUNE 6, 1990 Robertson presented the results
of Freet's meeting with the
RWQCB (June 1, 1990) and
requested that a meeting be
established with City Council
members and RWQCB
representatives to discuss the
project. it was decided that
Robertson would present a
briefing to Council at the June
12 Executive Session.
JUNE 6, 1990 Freet contacted the RWQCB
representatives and informed
them of the process that the
City would be following
(Execute Session) . It was
indicated that City staff hoped
to be able to set up a meeting
between the City Council and
the RWQCB on Thursday PM
(6/14/90) or Friday (6/15/90) .
JUNE 7, 1990 RWQCB representatives called to
indicate that they would not be
able to meet on Thursday, but
would be able to meet on
Friday. If we were to appeal
to the Board again, it would go
to the board members. The
following appeal would go to
Sacramento (per Perdue) .
A telephone call was placed to
Geo-Sec-Inc . (successful
bidder) to brief them on the
status of the project. They
were told of the concerns
expressed by the RWQCB to have
a certified Geologist on ,site
during future drillings. They - - ,
(Fritz) were told that we might
JUNE 21, 1990 Letter sent to Geo-Sec, Inc.
directing them to proceed with
the work as outlined . in
Specification 90-2489. A copy
of the letter was sent to
Harold Good, Purchasing
Manager, and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The
work consists of establishing 1
new test wells and sampling all
wells quarterly for one year,
Contract amount was $33,862 (PO
1106063) .The purchase order was
later amended by requisition
R31991 (PO,¢` unknown) for an
additional $15,444 (8/29/90) .
The amendme_n_E�overed the
installation of a second well
and appropriate sampling
consistent with work outlined
by PO 0106063 .
SEPTEMBER 6 , 1990 With the assistance of the
RWQCB we obtained a copy of the
United States Army Corps of
Engineers report on the former
Army Air Transport Command
Field (Palm Springs Airport) in
operation in the 19401s.
SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 Ticor Title of Riverside
provided chain of title results
as requested on 9/6/90 (PO
#160307) .
JANUARY 3 , 1991 Additional test wells (2) were
established and the first
episode of testing completed.
Work performed by Geo-Sec, Inc.
of San Bernardino.
FEBRUARY 26, 1991 Geo-Sec, Inc. representatives
verbally informed the Fire
Department that the water
samples form the site looked
"good" and a report would '
follow in about 10 days.
MARCH 8, 1991 Geo-Sec, Inc. came out to re-
survey the slope of the site to .
verify their previous , field
findings.
MARCH 14, 1991 Geo-Sec transmitted report on
drilling and installation of
two additional ground water
monitoring wells and sampling
of all four (4) at landfill to
Fire Department.
Fire Department received second
MAY 17, 1991 quarterly ground water sampling
report (dated March 9, 1991)
from Geo-Sec and discussed
report with Robert Purdue,
RWQCB. There is concern
regarding the percentage
increase in Tetrachloroethane
of the test wells during the
April 18, 1991 sampling.
MAY 20, 1991 Letter from RWQCB to the
Department of the Army
regarding Palm Springs
Municipal Airport. RWQCB noted
that they required the City to
preform a SWAT at the site.
MAY 23 , 1991 Geo-Sec indicated error in
their laboratory report and
have corrected discrepancy.
This error was the increase in
tetrachloroe of the April 18 ,
1991 sampling.
RWQCB transmitted letter to
JUNE 11, 1991 Fire Department seeking
clarification of conclusions
and recommendation concerning
report prepared by Geo-Sec.
The first concern was the
statement regarding that there
are no indications of
contamination and the second
concern is the statement
regarding TCE may be from an
offsite source.
Geo-Sec responds to RWQCB
JUNE 19, 1991 concerns with a letter
transmitted to Fire Department.
Geo-Sec submitted quarterly
AUGUST 7, 1991 ground-water sampling conducted
at the site on July 18, 1991.
The results indicated that
wells one through four detected
small concentrations of
� r
Tetrachlorethene. Field banks
detected small concentrations
of chloroform in three of- the
four field tanks, but not in
the actual ground water.
Source of chloroform is
unknown.
NOVEMBER 19, 1991 Fire Department transmitted the
fourth quarterly ground-water
sampling report dated November
8, 1991 to RWQCB. The report
indicated the probable source
of contamination is to the west
and northwest of the site.
Also, the report noted that
there are no signs of leachate
as the source of contamination.
NOVEMBER 22, 1991 Fire Department transmitted
letter to Geo-Sec indicating
that the RWQCB may be
unsatisfied because two of the
wells were dry. However, RWQCB
indicated that this is not a
concern because of the low
level of contamination that had
been detected. RWQCB has
directed the City to perform
soil and groundwater tests on
the airport property.
NOVEMBER 22, 1991 Geo-Sec responded to Fire
Department stating that the
RWQCB would not require any
further testing at the landfill
site. In addition, airport
contract has been awarded to
I.T. Corps out of Denver.
DECEMBER 10, 1991 RWQCB reviewed groundwater
monitoring report dated
November 8 , 1991 and concurred
that the source of
contamination may be the
airport. RWQCB does accept the '
request to coordinate testing
at the airport. RWQCB requests
quarterly reports of ground
water activities submitted by
the 15th day of April, , July,
October and December 1992-.
DECEMBER 11, 1991 Fire Department transmitted
letter to Director of Aviation
and Energy regarding , the
completion of groundwater
testing for the site. Fire
Department indicates that they
are not familiar with contract
specifications outlined for the
airport investigations.
DECEMBER 12, 1991 Letter from Barry Freet to Fire
Chief to inform him that
additional groundwater testing
is not required by the RWQCB.
Freet questions what action
RWQCB will take regarding the
existing four wells.
DECEMBER 12 , 1991 Phone memorandum from Adrian
Abdella to Barry Freet.
Abdella indicated they want the
wells to remain as they are so
that IT Corp can use them for
down gradient sampling in the
future.
DECEMBER 18, 1991 Letter from Director of
Aviation to RWQCB stating they
are about to begin testing.
Expected to be completed in
three months.
NOVEMBER 23 , 1992 Leighton & Associates _ submit
proposal to preform
Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) for an 18 acre portion of
the landfill site.
NOVEMBER 25, 1992 Endo Engineering submitted
traffic study for the project
site.
DECEMBER , 1992 Case files are transmitted to
Planning and Zoning Department.
DECEMBER 4, 1992 Letter to Acting Director of
Economic Development from
Albert B. Colickman Associates
regarding intent to purchase
site.
DECEMBER 10, 1992 Traffic study response letter
to Endo Engineering from
Planning and Zoning Department.
DECEMBER 28, 1992 Letter to Dallas Flicek from
Leighton & Associates regarding
revised proposal to preform an
ESA for the entire 26 acre
site.
DECEMBER 29, 1992 Letter to Dallas Flicek from
Leighton & Associates regarding
preliminary cost estimate to
remediate 15, 00 cubic yards of
lead contaminated soil.
JANUARY 6, 1993 Letter to Dallas Flicek from
Leighton & Associates regarding
addendum to December 28, 1992
revised proposal. Phase 1 has
been revised to Phase la and
Phase lb. Phase la will only
include environmental drilling,
sampling, and analysis within
the proposed development area,
or at the City's request,
within the proposed development
and the northern portion of the
site.
JANUARY 6, 1993 Leighton & Associates ESA
contract presented before City
Council. Pulled to January 20,
1993 .
JANUARY 20, 1993 Pulled to February 3 , 1993
Hearing.
JANUARY 24, 1993 ENVIRON submits proposal for
solid waste characterization on
the subject property.
JANUARY 27, 1993 - Leighton & Associates and
ENVIRON proposal are
transmitted to Engineering and
Fire for their comments and
preference.
JANUARY 29, 1993 Letter to Planning from Fire
regarding preference towards '
Leighton & Associates
Engineering had no comments.
DECEMBER 28, 1992 Letter to Dallas Flicek from
Leighton & Associates regarding
revised proposal to preform an
ESA for the entire 26 acre
site.
DECEMBER 29, 1992 Letter to Dallas Flicek from
Leighton & Associates regarding
preliminary cost estimate to
remediate 15, 00 cubic yards of
lead contaminated soil.
JANUARY 6, 1993 Letter to Dallas Flicek from
Leighton & Associates regarding
addendum to December 28, 1992
revised proposal. Phase 1 has
been revised to Phase la and
Phase lb. Phase la will only
include environmental drilling,
sampling, and analysis within
the proposed development area,
or at the City's request,
within the proposed development
and the northern portion of the
site.
JANUARY 6, 1993 Leighton & Associates ESA
contract presented before City
Council. Pulled to January 20,
1993 .
JANUARY 20, 1993 Pulled to February 3, 1993
hearing.
JANUARY 24, 1993 ENVIRON submits proposal for
solid waste characterization on
the subject property.
JANUARY 27, 1993 - Leighton & Associates and
ENVIRON proposal are
transmitted to Engineering and
Fire for their comments and
preference.
JANUARY 29, 1993 Letter to Planning from Fire
regarding preference towards
Leighton & Associates
Engineering had no comments.
FEBRUARY 1, 1993 Both proposals are faxed to the
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board for their
review and comments.
FEBRUARY 3 , 1993 Council .authorized city to
contract for a feasibility
study and site analysis for
subject property.
Leighton & Associates submit
MARCH 9, 1993 Revision No. 7 to preform
environmental site assessment.
Revision No. 7 proposal
MARCH 25, 1993 transmitted to California Water
Cam \ Quality Control Board for
J review and comments.
o1wa��iA.� L'�,IC$t ftU 4SiM
v 4.
"-
�.�'..
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C,C.P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,
County of Riverside
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of
the County aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen -------
years,and not a party to or interested in the No.5008 PALM CITY OF SPRINGS
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a COMMUNITY
OMMUNITPROPO ED euo ETASUMMARYCV
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Below is the ro osed Ttoo-S6s1 fls°al Year il far
p ypform porting
printedpublishedSprings, tq o inroposedcry
budget is available at Clty Hall m
County of Riverside, d which newspaper has been the City Clerk De on thane aan ad bubd et well he
A public hearing q
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the held at a regular meenn °fo the councilucnam
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of Tau
ai on
Han a 7 20 p DEBT
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case PROJECT
CAPITAL SERVICE
PROJECTS 505 g90383
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the Cenqtrual Business District 4 ,505 tit a1 5 5
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller So.(h'PaAm canyon 4o 6,9H6 g 6,765
Ramon Bogie 24B 144
than non paliel,has been published in each regular oasis
Palm Canyon 0 18,322 2777,840
63,993
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any l{ighlantl Gateway 9 970 452?25
Barlsto Farrell 51769,505375
79 035
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: p,°)eCt Area ss zs aez 17s•824
Low&Moderate Income Housing 438,211 504, 0
9 th plaza Theatre 59,6 8 4W6,393
Alay_7 - - 875,7H9 osed bud et — --'- -
TOTAL
Written comments regarding the prop s to t at he sub blicehea reg CPersons may spe t t
June 7th p
the meeting of M, 2000
--'---------'—'—""'-'_-"'—"-""--'----. —" a A. Kellen-
at this 24th day F Theme
Department
City of Palm Springs, California
All in the year 2000
' PUB_M aV_27—Z000__-----� --
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
30th t
Dated at Palm Springs,California this-----------dpy
May . , i
of-------------------------,2000
Signature