HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07091996 - D4 - r
DA
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 9, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop and Todakson
NOES: Supervisor DeSaulnier
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
ABSTAIN: None
Subject: Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation And Property Valuation
On June 25, 1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date consideration of the
recommendations of Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, and Val Alexeeff, Director of the
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency on the Keller Canyon Landfill
Mitigation And Property Valuation as set forth in the report to the Board, copy attached and
included as a part of this document.
Following introductory comments of Mr. Batchelor, the following persons spoke:
Sue Rainey, Chair, Contra Costa County Solid Waste Agency,160 Bexley Place,
Walnut Creek;
Janet Schneider, Contra Costa County Solid Waste Agency, 1700 N. Broadway,
Suite 312, Walnut Creek;
John Chapman, East Bay Community Foundation, 671 Clipper Hill Road,
Danville;
Lance Dow, Citizens United, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Frank Aiello, 1754 Bridgeview Way, Pittsburg;
Jeff Kohn, City Manager, City of Pittsburg, 2020 Railroad Ave., Pittsburg;
Ned Pehrson, 2250 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, PO. Box 44, Martinez;
Michael Wood, City Attorney, City of Pittsburg, 2020 Railroad Ave., Pittsburg;
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board considered the issues
presented.
At the conclusion of the Board discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that
the hearing on the Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation And Property Valuation study is
CONTINUED to July 16, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. in the Board's Chambers.
The Board further DIRECTED staff to work with the City of Pittsburg on attending
the State Department of Toxic Substances Control meetings.
1 h wft ew*that Bda b a ftw and eeorroot�pY of
On action t stag and a tired on ft minutas of the
ATTE8TEB:
PHI ATCHE R,C rk of the board
of Su :lsors ounty Administrator
c.c.County Administrator
Director,GMEDA B Deputy
County Counsel
Community Development
City of Pittsburg
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR-GMEDA
DATE: JULY 9, 1996
SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL MITIGATION AND PROPERTY VALUATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Acknowledge programs currently authorized by the Board of Supervisors for funding from Keller
Canyon Mitigation Fees. (See Exhibit A)
2. Identify possible diversion of Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees to the City of Pittsburg. Consider a cap
on the amount of mitigation fees to Pittsburg with payments to begin July 1, 1997.
3. Identify programs that will no longer receive funding in the future and direct staff to give adequate notice
of program termination. (See Fiscal Impact)
4. Identify amount of property valuation that could be available for property owners in the vicinity of the
Keller Canyon Landfill. Consider a cap of$1.5 million.
5. Identify sources of funding,including mitigation funds that could be available,to assist with payment
of property valuation payments to residents surrounding the Keller Canyon Landfill. Designate County
to pay 113,BFI to pay 1/3,and Pittsburg to pay 1/3 from mitigation fees.
6. Consider share allocations following completion of study currently underway to determine specific affect
on properties.
7. Request BFI establish a trust fund to expedite payment.
8. Direct staff to utilize Agricultural Trust Fund and unexpended mitigation appropriations to satisfy the
County's share of property valuation contributions.
9. Develop two-tier approach to claim request: short forni and extended justified damage.
10. Determine whether non-mandated air quality monitoring will be conducted at landfill with cost to be
underwritten by Pittsburg and BFI.
11. Request BFI to enter into a good neighbor agreement to prevent disposal of items undesirable to
Pittsburg to be placed in the landfill.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE.
APPROVE, OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I IIEREBl'CL'.R'I'IFY T11e ' IS IS A'rRIJF.AND C'ORRI',C7'
COPY OF AN AC" TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) MINUTES 0' E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
DATE S N.
AYES: NOES:
TTESTED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
VA:dg HII,BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
ke117-9.bo S VISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contact: Val Alexeefr(646-1620)
c: County Administrator BY DEPIJTY
Coiulty Counsel
Community Devel ent
Keller Canyon Landfill
July 9, 1996
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
When Keller Canyon Landfill was approved, the State Solid Waste Management
Board had promulgated a system of exclusive monopolistic opportunities for landfills.
Court decisions and subsequent legislation have changed the monopoly and related
economics. Conditions placed on BFI become conditions self-imposed upon the
County. The original franchise and mitigation fees of$10 per ton are now $6 per ton
and may fall to $5 per ton. Programs put into place in 1992. will be eliminated.
Reserves will be spent and new expenditures may be created for the LEA.
Mitigation Fees:
Exhibit A provides the listing of mitigation expenditures. They have been placed in
order (one that can be altered, though it is important to have a starting point). To
provide $1 .00 per ton, items 1 through 7 will be eliminated for fiscal 97-98. They
include Trail Maintenance, Wetland Mitigation, Delta Enviromnental Center,
Audobon, Biodiversity, Rodent Thistle Control, and Route Planting.
To provide an additional $.25, Roadside Litter Cleanup will be cut and half of Route
Enforcement by the Sheriff's office will be cut. It is possible to provide a different
list, but the decision of who to cut should occur with the transfer of funds. The long
tenn estimate of transfer of fiords (50 years) will be $26 million at $1.00 per ton and
$37 million at $1.25 per ton, assuming a 3% growth rate.
Property Valuation:
The source of fiinds for property valuation initially proposed to be pass through.
Since all jurisdictions and BFI will oppose pass through, the likelihood of pass
through is not certain. Changes in the franchise agreement may have arguably altered
the condition placed on BFI. Challenges to the property valuation study may affect
the ability to collect from BFI. Therefore, if a compensation is to be announced, the
County insist put up a large share of the finds and hopefully, gain the willing
cooperation of BFI for the remainder. Sources available include providing the
agriculture trust fiind and unexpended prior allocations amounting to $500,000. With
the loss lli mitigation revenue, it is unlikely that these fiends will be replaced internally
and it cannot be assumed that additional revenue will be forthcoming either through
pass through or additional revenue from BFI.
Air Quality Monitoring:
There is no use permit condition for air quality monitoring equipment and Keller
Canyon Landfill has not prompted justification through the BAAQMD or the LEA.
This is entirely based on a request from Pittsburg.
The cost to establish air quality monitoring is estimated at $250,000. With no other
proposal, it is assumed that the LEA may be required to construct the equipment and
maintain it.
v
Keller Canyon Landfill
July 9, 1996
Page 3
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
The issues of share of mitigation revenue with the City of Pittsburg and disposition
of property valuation have received increasing attention since the opening of the
Keller Canyon Landfill. The questions of who should pay and how much, are a
regular source of contention, as are the conditions under which the fiords should be
provided and the effect of changes in landfill economics. Previous expectation of pass
through has been greatly diminished. Most of the recommendations must be fiinded
by the County.
The following issues have been under negotiation between BFI and Pittsburg:
1. Ainount and extent of property valuation.
2. Good neighbor agreement to prevent items objected to by Pittsburg from being
placed in the landfill.
3. Establislunent of air quality monitoring equipment and program operation.
These negotiations have stalled in anticipation of whether Pittsburg Transfer Station
disposal would use Keller or be transported to Solano County. BFI has tentatively
agreed with these items pending increased cooperation with Pittsburg. Impatient with
this process, the County is seeking to place the negotiation items within the County's
discretion. The County cannot force BFI to enter into a good neighbor agreement or
to install unconditioned air quality monitoring equipment. Without BFI's cooperation,
the cost of equipment installation and maintenance would become the responsibility
of the County LEA, with no source of reimbursement.
Keller Canyon Landfill
Board Order - 7/9/96 EXHIBIT A D-4
- w
a
Z w Z (O — O CO O 0 W II- � — I, to M O O
0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 - .- - - .- N N N cM M
U Q 69 E9 64 64 ER 69 69 44 6r. C441% 6% 6% 6% 69 69
U
w
> Z
F- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
O (n00000 00Nv d ststNLO
O O I- a0O O (O O I� M O O M co O O
�04NM U7tnLO (p (O 00 00
Lu 69 69 69 69 69 6% 69 6% 6q 69 69 69 69 (0 69
U
O
F-
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 o O o O
a; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D7 a O U) U) O O O O O O N N O O O O N
H � 0 OON (OO d' tiIN rn � eMOCe)
E9 69 ER 69 69 6969 69 E9 E964 61+ 6% 69
� a
a
Q
o CL
H
c
a c
CL (1) Q
a = c
cu
U
c c
m 0 a� 0 °) a c
U U -o U :F ;�, (2) >, L,
cCU L m L- c E «.
cc Lmc U
Pr :_ U m cu
cD c °3 �. N w (m c.a ) 0
CuQ .N c J O 2 J V
E
Oz > L E E0 c: c: Ou O
U o � w
O u (L) -o 0 a)0 ooa o
N
0 o 0 o ° (L) o
wcQ2 J
0- w U 2
0 0 0 '2 -o 72 a-
.2 a a) a) a) v) cn 0 0 v> O a)
a, F— 0 0 0 0 U U m m U m >
g >1 ', tea) a) EE E >
U U U
H c c c c _ QQ Q c
c c c cu :3
EEEE2a) a) � cc CL) EZ
E E E E c c c 0 c c 0 c E (L°
LU m 0 0 0 0 0) 4) 0 L O O a) L O 0
-0
o wUUUUQCDUUU ODUU -D
>. 0 0
Oa) 0 m a� a> c c c c
U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 - - - -w
.c .-
F= 0 Q0. 0_ o_ a. 0_ �
Q 0 U co U co co co U 0 0 0 0 E E E E E
U' w c c c c c c c °- a- a CL E E E E E
HQ QQQQn. o_ Q c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 C)
U
000000 0 - ° - m 00000
M
N M It cf) (O co O O .— N M v U) (OI
r r r r O
00
• J UfV-ski-1"�y6 1��L'J9 __ _
Tom Todakson
Supervisor, District Five ;
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors "N
DATE: 28 June 1996
TO. Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Jim Rogers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
County Administrator Phil Batchelor
Val Alexeeff- Director, GMEDA
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson
SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL MITIGATION AND VALUATION STUDY
A number of outstanding issues remain to be settled regarding Keller Canyon Landfill. In this
memo I will recap the motions I made last Tuesday, and the steps I recommend taking to
resolve these issues.
During our discussion, I spelled out at length my thoughts regarding the reasons we should take
each of these steps—so I will not take up space here reiterating the background. Note that
much of the background is summarized in my June 4th Recommended Actions report which the
Board of Supervisors voted on, and in the Finance Committee Report of June 25th_ Overriding
all other background information is the fact that these issues have taken far, far too long to
resolve. I have asked staff to Chronicle the terribly long history of these outstanding items (see
attached memo).
Recap of Recommended Actions-
1. Commit$1.25 of Mitigation i=eesfRevenues to the City of Pittsburg starting in FY 1997-
1998,This share will come from the current$3 per ton set aside for Keller Canyon
Mitigation programs. (See#1 in Fkoance Committee Report of June 25th.)
2. Commit an additional $.54 for three years to make up for revenue the City of Pittsburg
had anticipated from negotiations in the upcoming Fiscal Year 1996-1997. Start the first
$-50 payment in this coming Fiscal Year 1996-1997- Loan this amount (Q$170,000
from the Agricultural Land Trust Funds set up with Keller Canyon mitigation funds. The
Board of Supervisors commits to paying back this loan over the next two Fiscal Years
(1997-1998 and 19$8-1999) so that the work program of the Ag Trust fund can be
carried out wi hout delay. This loan repayment%M11 come out of new, unallocated Keller
Canyon Revenues from the remainder of what is today the$3 per ton set aside for
Feller Canyon Mitigation programs.
Keller Canyon Landfill
June 28, 1996
Page Two
The net effect of the actions of #1 and#2 is$.50 in 96-97; $1.75 in 97-98; $1.75 in 98-99; and
$1.25 thereafter. Since the revenue for FY 96-97 is estimated at$1 million, the Keller Mitigation
funds available for FY 97-98 and FY 98-99 for program ailocation will be over $400,000 each
year. (Note: if the Board chooses to fund Sheriff Department programs as a first priority—
whiolh J personally support—that will utilize @$210,000 of the funds available.)
The net effect from FY 99-2000 forward is$1.25 per ton --leaving approximately $575,000 for
the County Keller Canyon Mitigation programs for the future. This all assumes a constant
tonnage of 341,000 tons per year. It is likely, in my opinion, that this tonnage amount will go
up—expanding the opportunities for County Keller Mitigation programs over time.
3. Support'and encourage legislation that would forbid landfills approved by voters from
acceptirig additional types of materials formerly classified as hazardous materials
that now or soon may be made eligible far Class 11 site disposal. (See#1 of my June
4th Board Order.) Alternatively, per June 4th Board of Supervisors direction, if BFI
agrees to bind Keller Landfill forever to the original approved list of materials eligible for
disposal, then drop consideration of legislation. This could be part of the proposed
Good Neighbor Agreement between the City of Pittsburg and Keller Landfill, and should
be further reinforced by changes reflecting the commitment in the Land Use Permit and
the Franchise Agreement.
4_ Based on Sonoma State University Study unanimously agreed upon by the Board of
Supervisors in March 1892 and unanimously accepted by the Board of Supervisors in
October 1995, the Board of Supervisors makes a finding today that a Compensation
Program is NECESSARY AND JUSTIFIED. This finding should be made in context
of Land Use Permit Condition 55.3, which directs the Board to conduct a study
and then consider adoption of a compensation rarogram.
5. Further, the Board of Supervisors finds that the method of payment shall be made
directly by BFI/Keller Landfill(see#4 page 2 of the June 25th Finance Committee
Report). This direction is also made in the context of Condition 35.3 which directs the
Board as follows: "The Landfill developer shall fund it (the study results identifying
losses and reductions) in the manner specified by the Board.'
6_ Direct staff(CDD, County Counsel, CAO)to finalize details of the Compensation
Program and return to the Board on August 6th for final adoption of a payout plan --
again consistent with the direction in Condition 35.3_ (See #3 of June 25th Finance
Committee Report, Page 2, last paragraph.) The property owners, the City of Pittsburg
JUI4-��-1yjb 1C=1b 5104278142 P.04/17
Keller Canyon Landfill
June 28, 1996
Page Two
and BFI are all to be thoroughly involved in the discussion leading to the staff report
detailing the Compensation Program_ A major goal of this direction is to implement the
payout plan as soon as possible, and no later than September 1996. (See Page 2, last
paragraph of June 25th Pittance Gommrttee Report_) An option should be considered
of having this Compensation Program also in the context of a Good Neighbor
Agreement.
7. Direct staff and BFI to implement an air monitoring program as soon as possible. After
reviewing the staff report on this matter, specify the financing method and precise
implementation deadline for this program. Encourage BFI and the City to reach
agreement as to the specified length of time for this monitoring to be done. Again,-also
encourage consideration of this item in the context of a Good Neighbor Agreement.
Please nate the attached chronology. No further delays should be tolerated in moving forward
and making decisions on these important matters_
Thank you for your consideration and help in moving forward to act on these items_
TT:kmg
Attachments
cc_ Deidra Dingman - CDD
�ic{Y-moo-1a C its-lv� `aIW42YU142
MRY-30-1996 11:10 P,oa
Centra
fa BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa .
PROM: Supervisor Torn Tcrlalaon County
WE ,lune 4, 1996
WRJE-Cr. CITY OF P11TS>aURG AND THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
apIs:tarre I'iECrrMS)OR RECOWfiNOA>icm M AND JUSTMCATION
p;,QCOti�Al�N'Dt?C!JICTt[rtd•
1, Suppettand aneourrRgb iagist on vAlkh would forbld Iandfitts nppmved by the ekCtDtatz htm accepting
additiont;jtypas of rhat Aaks f mwrty Ctgsclfit d as Inm2ardous rmledets that are now potenlafly eaoeptable In Glass V
tandtlffs undar Hm bamdRAM defrrAffan Teeerrtly adapted by the Department&TO*Substance Control.
I ulmdtthe County Local EnfOreevant Agency to Wolk With the t:lty Of P tfsbuM In an effort to Aetzbnah m air
gua>ty monbtortng pTogam set iha Keitsr Canyon LsfWffi .
s, Reastm the cotrrlty's pa!�and candhbn of approval that Contra Cada County Is 00" ,sht -A to m wive the
mvp"vWgh�o stO in� Cf Canyon 1_andN and consider a pre6se t mebbla for pvbnc heanng
4. Consider host rniliation teas. the City of PAsbuTg,end a ood nalghber tp=r lent between BFi and ne City
of Ptttsburg-
BAg}4�r)INFORMA'I9&-
The ft of FKabulg wilt bo addressing on.lung S,11998,ischio tt ttealr ca mil nve*V relative tc matters
mncemlI►9 the Keller Canyon Laandlla. Tho G*of Pittsburg Would hke the hoard of Supeviaarsto r oaffirrn and give
eseursnom on rntrtfara that relate to the iondllil that lf`haa eddns *Z In the peat. Moms or the matters wen•adelpmed In
the itafierr CaMmn t ardNI Lurid Use Pinrs}#and tete War Canyon Pmpany VAIuattcn Mdy. Melt hays bsen discussed
by the Board tAd ane In rAportu from county sftf (0Wositian to Keller gym Landfill WIV new categories of waste and
.err man'Itnriny}.
M have sttempted m res dive dt cav=es betomen the Bo"and the My of P tl`sbvrg wear the Keller Cernyan
LatiM. Endorsirtig the above f0pr re=rmmn4ttons A go a.forth way tramM settling thus Oftrtnce's land Improving
tis relailanship belmmen the Roam at superyisom and the Ctty of Pitt burg,
onxtrxu®aa AarAam►rtrwt�>sg lsto>utul9ts ���� � ��
r traaTtGer CSF GGMUHIY AbaraafazltaTCp Rg;;:M9N*A=N OF 110A0 OCLtIlrTr1¢E
.- APPROY>r< OTHER
StY3nATtIRF(A}
ACTION-OP WARM OR APPROAD At lu=m mliDEtY: � omen_,
V=OF 8UP11WISORLc
�,_ pw�Nteaaris fAttbercr t
ATM Nora,
ASSlr : A WPIN- —
HEMP CMt.FYTMT"M A TRUE AHP Cs? Gt Cory
OF AN ACTION TAXER AND etT MM ON THE All40ft or
714%804RD OF SUPpEFtYl9ORS ON THE DATE$14OWN.
aT►'F�r;`a
PFOL DATCi49WI,CLARK OF M sa,kn OF
SUPERMOFta AND COUKI"Y AIAKIMSTRAlOR
MPUTY
j Lit 5104278142 P.06/17
D q
ocrit
Ca
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS courty
FROM: Finanw Committee
DATE, June 25t 1996
SUBJECT: use of Keller Canyon Mitigation Ravenues and Review of Koller Valuation Study
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR R5COMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONUS);
1 COMMIT$1.25 of the$3.00 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fee to the City of Pittsburg to finanCe
mitigation programs in fiscal year 1997.98 and thereafter.
2. REQUIRE an addilflonW$.25 to the$1.26 commitment for wai years 1997-438,199"0 and
1999-2000 for a total of$1.50 of the$3.00 in Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees. tomer this amount
to the City of Pittsburg to make up for the revenue they had planned on an,'budgeted for this
coming fiscal year, 1996-97.
3. REQUEST that the City. County and 5FI continue to examine the Valuation study and
formulate a fair method to compensate Citizens in the target area. SET June 25, 1996 for a
full discussion to Consider a status report on the valuation study and the options and precise
time table to resolve the valuation Study and complete a compensation program. SET August
6. 1996,as the date for presentation and decision on the final details of the compensation
COWINUEDONAWACHIMENT; —YF3 s123kATuRr:-
OF COUNTY ADIIIIIIIIIISTRATOR—FMCaMVfWDAM"OF60ARD CotjmrffEF-
APPROVE —OTHIER
ACTION OF 130ARD ON APPROVED KS RECOMMENDW—OTHER
VOTE OF SUPE"SoFc%
I HEREUY CERTIFY THAT THIS 13 A
'MUE AND CORRE-CT COPY OF AN
ACON TAKER AND SWURED
NOW;_ TI
ON MINUM OF THE SOARn OF
A83EWT:�_AUSTAft— 5t)PUMSORS ON TME DATE SWAM
c4)MjW=Jany Entk 9464M ATTIIiSTED—
PRIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPER MO
Cell ory ul PitlsbvW AND COUNTY AMWISTRATOR
GMEDA
ctuaty
CAO
J UIY-GO-1770 10.11 51F�4�'rti14� t-'.t4'7/1:?
S�
FISCAL IMPACT
Without any additional sources of revenue included in this proposal,the future funding of mitigation
projects will be reduced by$426,000 to$520,000.
gACKr;RQUtJDfREASc]N(,%FOR RI;CQMMr; DSV A110N(S)'
On June 4, 1996,the Board of Supervisors referred to the Finance Committee,the Issue of Host
Community Mitigation to the City of Pittsburg and the Issue of financing the results of a Property
Valuation study involving property owners In close proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill site in
Pittsburg (see attached board order). On June 17, 1996,the Finance Committee discussed the issue
wRh representatives from the Administrative Office,Growth Management Agency,County Counsel
and the City of Pittsburg. Supervisor 7orlakson noted the tong history of attempting to resolve a fair
share of mitigation funds for the City of Pittsburg to directly administer. He suggested that the
County offer Pittsburg$1.25 per ton as a"base"fair share and that a surcharge of$.25 for 3 years be
added to compensate for revenues Pittsburg had anticipated this fiscal year. The City of Pittsburg
was riot aware that the mitigation fund had been allocated and budgeted through fiscal year 96-97.
As it relates to the valuation study,possible options to finance property owner mitigation discussed
were:
I. Raising County fees at Keller above the current rate of 25%of the total per ton charges,
2. Earmarking incremental revenues from increases in refuse tonnage in future years;
3' Redirecting a portion of current revenues allocated for community.transports tion and
open space mitigation;and
4. BFI itself to pay for the compensation program.
The Board of Supervisors should receive public comment and review these options on June 25 and
make a decision on which way to proceed. This issue has not been resolved since the landfill
opened four years ago. Therefore,the Board of Supervisors should set the first meeting of August
as the deadline for presentation of the final details of the compensatlon plan and push for actual
implementation this summerlfall-.
2
JUI4-ed-IyJJt lb;IZ 5104278142 P.08/17
Supervisor Torlakson:
A.couple of key dates which come to mind for the chronology you expressed an
interest in. Below I have noted these dates:
July l 990 Keller Canyon LandM Land Use Permit approved by the County
Board of Supervisors including the Condition 35.3 .for the
"Property Value Compensation Program-
March 1992 Entered into a contract with Sonoma State University (SS" to
complete a methodology for the Property Valuation Study
October 1992 Board approved a contract with SSU to prepare the Property
Valuation Study (Board Order enclosed)
November 1994 SSU completed the Study and presented. Study conclusions to the
Board's Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee
October 1995 Board accepted the SSU Study as complete (Board Order
enclosed)
March 1996 Beat Estate/.Appraisal consultant,ANDERSON &.BR.A.BANr',
began Phase I of his work on the Property Valuation project- he
presented his conclusions and recommendations for Phase 11 and
Ill in April.
June 1996 Board approved a contract amendment with ANDERSON &
19P ARANT Inc- For phase II and HI of his work-to develop
recommendations on compensation amounts and distribution
methodology (Board Order and DRAFT contract amendment
_
enclosed)
The following information regarding the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation
Study is provided pursuant to your request of)une 28, 1996:
1. Recommendations section of the Sonoma State University/ICPA.shady
(1 1. 0194) which includes the potentially impacted neighborhoods (A. and E) -
-and- map and table which identify boundaries of neighborhoods identified in
the study; 5 PAGES
2. Board Order dated September 24, 1992 which approved the contract with
SSU to conduct the Study, 2 PAGES
JUN-2b-1trJb IU=12 5104278142 P.09/1'?
A
3. Board Order dated June 6. 1995 which requested Board direction regarding
various issues; S PAGES
4. Board Summary for June 6, 1995; 2 PAGES
5. Board Order dated October 17, 1995 regarding accepting the SSS'Study;
2 PAGES
6. Board Summary for October 17, 1995; 2 PACES
7. Board Order dated December 12, 1995 regarding challenges and next sups;
5 PAGBS
8. Board Sun n my dated December 12, 1995; I FACE
9. Memorandum from Charles Zahn dated-November 30, I994 regarding
background of the Property'V'aluation Study; 3 PAGES
10. Board Order dated May 28, 1996 (approved by Board on June 4, 1996) for
contract amendment with Anderson &Brabant; 2 PAGES
11. DRAFT Contract Amendment with Anderson &.Brabant, real estate/appraisal
consultant, for Phase 11 and Phase III of his work, 7 PAGES
1 cape this information meets your needs,
Deidra Dingman
County CDD, 335-1224
JUN-28-1596 18:12 5194278142 P.10f17
• — 's - •— • 1„/•
Chapter 9; Recommendations V•Y
As drown in tete previous chapter,the findings of the HWOC ie Regressions Price Model and
support surveys generally reinforce one anotlur.For entrnple,where landfill-generated impacts
have been observed in the field sonrgs, computer model results provide a quawitative measure of
their influence an property values.Where results ofthe woodel suggest that a loss of premum has
occurred, respondents to the Community Opinion Surveys reported they have felt personally
affected.
Some noteworthy inconsistencies in the results ofthe model and support surveys have been
found.There is a generally widespread feeling in all ofthe primary neighborhoods that*e landfill
has affected residents and their property values. Yet,in two ofthe neWxwhoods,Oak Hills(NB)
and Woodside(NC),this felling is not validated by any of the findings ofthe computer price
model and support surveys. A loss of premium lam been found in the Hillsdale neighborhood
(NA),yet the ma*tude ofthe loss is much toss than the residents have claimed.The generalky
law level ofbmdfill impacts recorded by ICPA staff in the field survgs in this neighborhood
appears to be closely related to the actual level ofpremium loss calculated by the Hedonic
Regression Price Model,
It must be reiterated here that the results of the Hedo4a Regression Price Model are average
,values for specific neighborhoods. The actual value ofa particular home in it neighborhood fit any
point in time is dependent on many factors.An appraisal would be needed to establish the price of
any particular parcel The recommendations of tete Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation
Study far each of-the primary neighborhoods are as follows:
rv:alues
hborhooad N,4 (Hitlsdak)
e have been premiums (Nigher prices paid tI>a»for sirnilar properties in comparable
hor Ms)averaging gS,7p0 experienced in this neighborhood extending over nY yews.
een 1991 and May 1994,these premiums disappeared.'This occurrence.coincides with site
approval, construction,and operation of the Keflet Canyon Landfill. A general loss gf'properxy
in this neighborhood has occurred.
mpensation or mitigation program may be warranted for properties in this neighborhood. An
Oo appraisal of each particular property is needed.The sales history of each property must be
documented. It is necessary to know when the parcel res purchased m mor when it was sold, and
who was involved in the transaction. Compensation would not necessarily go to the currant
owner.,Alternative compensation approaches should be invesfiUWCedd.
Werghborhoadm (ooTr. ls)
There have been signii=t premiums in this neighborhood aver all ymrs relative to comparable
neighborhoods. "There has been no loss of previuma in tka time between the decision to locate:the
landfill in]Keller Canyon and its operational status in May 1994. No compftuation progrm is
indicated for this neighborhood.
12
JUN-2d-IJ'Jb lb;1,5 5104278142 P. 11/17
—D olk
Neighborhood NC(Wbodside)
Except foo`an unusual premium in 1989,no premiums historically have existed in this
neighborhood relative to comparable neighborhoods. Sales prices have beem higher close to the
landfill and lower farther away.No comper►wAon program is kulicated for this neighborhood.
Neighborhood NLS'Filey fid)
As noted in the previous chapter,there is great variation in the characteristics of the properties
along Bailey Road. Historical sales data for this arca are not plentiful. A large number of homes in
this area recently were demolished for the DART parking lot.The pari ds along Bailey Road are' 1
greatly impacted by traffic on tWs busy thoroughfare. Marry sof them were found in the field I
surveys to be severety impacted by landfill transfer trucks,especially from noise,litter,and odor
emanating from these vehicles,and it few also are affected by views of the landfill service road.
Under this complex set of circumstances, and lacking sufficient hisrox`cal sales data, it is difficult
to provide any definitive recommendations for flus area.BecauGsn parcels along Dailey Road are r
beavlly WWcted by landfill traffic$equities,more so than parcels in the primary neighborhoods,a 1
eompoisation or mitigation program may be warranted. Because of the existing traffic and other
activities appraisals of individual parcels will be heeded.
Conausion of the,Study
In approaching the Keller Canyon Property'Valuation Study from so many different perspectives,
a comprehensive picture of the effects of this regionally needed but locally unwanted fatuity on
nearby neighborhoods has emerged.The Keller Carryon Landfill has been found to be a classic
example of a'Iocally unwanted land use(LULU). A loss in property values has been
documented for one neighborhood near the landfill but not for two other's.
One conclusion has emerged from this study,The cause and d1bo relationship ofthe introduction
of a landfill into the landscape neap'established neighborhoods,and the resultant adjustment in
Dousing prices,can be much more complex than initially it might appear. The distance from the
landfd] alone may not be enough to explain the value prospective buyers place on homes in a
neighborhood. The levet and accuracy of h=sing market information held by buyers and sellers _
may be a factor. Landfill impacts,whether ural or perceived,may eown'bute to the Rimae" of the
__neighborhood held by its existing residents,local reactors,and prospective buyers. This may
uvzIate into a greater eagerness to sell on the part of homeowners.The attitudes of,and negative
pubadty generated by,neighborhood residents may damage the image ofnighborhood This is
that Alan K.Reichert in his 1991 study of tha impact of landfills on property values terms a
"self falfilling prophesy."
It is difficult to pinpoint what or who acftWly may have caused a loss of property values in one of
three neighborhoods near the Keller Canyon Landfill.What can be said with certainty is that the
growth ofeastern Comm Costa County has matted in a need for an additional solid waste
disposal fisoility.Keller Canyon was selected as the site for a state-of-thwart sanitary laaditll. Ilse
Iandifi]] was constructed and has been operating for over two yeam It has been s locally unwanted
land use. Many nearby Pittsburg residents and city afiacWs have vigorously opposed it over a
period of several years. This opposition has been well documented in the media. The comstruction
� J�i4-CG-lyyb :Lti1,.5
5104278142 P.12.r17
5fiidy
and operation of the Wdfill hM had some unpacks on nearby residential neighborhoods.Fully,
one neighlborltood has experiameed a loss of prmfmm since the decision to locate the knd6Sl
nay' Y'.
14
TQTPL P.007
5104278142 P-13/17.
JUN-26-11"b 18:14
Contra
TO., BOARD OF SUMMSORZ costa
FROM HARVEY E. MAGDON County
DIRE=R 07. COMMITY DWELOPMEM
DA z: September 24, 1992
SUDZECTI CONSIMUM cox"im rOK KEIZZIt C"YON 1"DrILL
PROPERTY VIM DATZON 57=1
ME Ju�1TRIVICATIa
aptibXPIC REQUVOT(O'l CM ROOMMMATION(GI 0 UMM
Authorize the Direct" of Community Development to execute a
Contract with The Tzstltuta for Comunity Planning Ausistance at
Sonoma State University to conduct a Property Valuation Study to
evaluate any impacts an nearby properties doe to (operation of) the
Kellor Canyon Landfill. The amount of this contract shall not
exceed $139,633,
FISCAL MPACT
None- The Operator rat the Landfill is required to provide funding
for this Study-
B&M=WDIMSP-= POR XL==PATjQMS
Land use Permit mo-eq Condition of Approval 035.3 rqaquirez a
Property VAlue covpensation Program Study to address the means of
detAwuinilng the extent of property value losses or reductions
Attributable to )Aodfill topacte, such as aesthetign, 'noise,
traffic, or pollution.
CONTINM ON ATTACRKM.- Yze sz=7w
BECOME WTIEW or CUMMY MMMMMT-ou WCOMENZOMON 00 YMw EIi
APPROVE
KC-T-1--ow or UUMD ON HCOMMMUD ><- 0MR
VDTV Or SUPERVX80
IUMEST CERTIPT TRAT THIS XS A'
TRUZ Am co=ECT copy or AN
XTEB: ACT10N TAX= MM 2=XRM ON THE
xmims OF TM So= 03'
T-- 02' OU'PX arptRwano ON TXz VATz AUCnM.
SIFX
<®rD
'ga
S;=S
a*zta* Vicki COWI*kli (SIOIC46-4194
PRZL ZATCX=OR, GLEUX 07
TEE B036RD Or 8UPZAVj50R8
AMMISTRATOR
By a/Li - MUTY
gun-co-l�ao 1C•14 �IU42YU142 F.14-11'e
The lnatitute for Co=unity ]Planning Msistoln= vaa retained for Phase 1 Which
0steo'mpassed designing and developing the methodology for the Study. workinq with
staff, the Kellar Carryon Local Advisory committee wad interested members or the
Public, the afithodalo" has been finalized.
The Purpose of the recommended sethodology is to measure the actu4LJ affecto on
property values attributable to the Roller Canyon landfill and to identity the
Market historian arse trends of residential property values in the vicinity of the
laanafill. To reach this end, the three objectives of the methodologies are to:
1. Gather and compile acmrate factual information abouut. property 'values
within a given radius of the waste placement area of the Landfill,
2. Separates out any property value 100506 or gains Which may 1oi
attribuUble to 11%dependent events (i.e., recession, the SOT station) from
those gains or losses which may be attributable to the landfill; ard _
3. Explore the underlying ass=ptions and information or misinfor'matioa
which are held by or have been communicated to the public regateding Che
TAndfi.11. and any rosulti.rig gains oX losses of property value and to
determine the areas in Vhich impacts may bs found.
Pbft&Q 2 will encoopats cohducting the Study, proposed to be completed over the
next two years. The prOV0994 Study includes an analysis of the results of the
modeling effort and suxveye and a detailed report. The report will include
recommendations and a determination of the property value diminution, if any, for
afi'eated properties in the study area.
vc:e..
Jur•r-2b-l'JJb 11;:14 5104278142 P.15/17,
TO: BOARD'OF SUPERVISORS Cwtra
ecoufty
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ��a
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE; June 6, 1995 b•�
SUBJECT. KELLFM CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY WORT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDAMON(S) A BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REQQMMENDATl0NS
1. Determina whether an impact has taken place on property values.
2. Direct staff to determine method of evaluating impact on specific values, if
determined there has been a negative impact.
3. Establish procedure to determine the extent of the landfill operator's {BFI)
respen$ibility.
4. Direct staff to pursue recommendations for methods of payment If any.
FISCAL IMPACT
No identified impact to the County General Fund.
I3ACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study ["Study') was required by a
Condition of Approval(35.3)in the Lend Use Permit(2020-139). The purpose of the
Study is to "address the means of determining the extent of property value lasses or
reductions attributable to Landfill impacts, such as aestfwdcs, noise, traffic, or
pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said I es or
reductions".
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: 4 YES SIGNATU
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS Rfico m d _ Yl•i _
4
llui
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CRTIFV THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMouS(ABSENT. _ AND CORRECT COPY 01!AN AC?10N TAKEN
AYES,. r`NOES: ANDEVTEFsED ON THE IAINW ltS Of THE MAM
ABSENT:-. ABSTAIN; OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHDWNI
Canted: Charles Zahn 151016413-20951 ATTESTED
ca: , Community Davetopmant Department TCDD) PHI[,BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE
GMEDA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
!Cellar Canyon LandfLU Company COUNTY AOMINtSTFIATOR
City of Pittsburg
Citizens United
May Point Municipal Advisory Council BV DEPtTry
ooePnvr.vAc.eo
TOTAL P.W4
J UIY-Gt"i-177G 1♦-i=15 `J1b4�'f�1�� f''.1�+�1'7
Keller Ceriynn Landfill PropgKy Valustion Study Repon-
June 6. 1995
Continued-Page Two
IIACK0812UNDIRFASONS dee RECpMlalENi TlOWS Icontinrtadl
Tris Land Vse Permit 2020-89 Conditiors of Approval 35.3 "property Value
Compensation Program"states,
The Landfill operator shall provide funding for the preparation of a
property value compensation program study when requested by the
County of Contra Costa. The study will address the mans of determining
the extent of property value losses or reductions attributable to Landfill
impacts, such as aesthetics, noise,traffic, or pollution, and the means
of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions, When
a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the
Landfill developer shall fund it In the manner specified by the Board. If
the Board of Supervisors determines that progress on the impiementation
of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the
Board may require the use of a facilitator andfor an arbitrator. The fee
shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes
of rate setting.
In March 19' 2 the);antra Costa County Community Development Department entered
Into a Contract with the Institute for Community Planer ing Assistance of Sonoma State
University ("Institute") to develop a methodology for the Keller Canyon Landfill
Property Valuation Study. The Institute completed the Study methodology.
in October 1992 the Contra Costa County Community Development Department
entered into a contract with the Institute to undertake the Study. The Study was
developed to occur over a two-year period which allowed data to be collected under
varying conditions: i.e.construction and operations as well as different seasonal and
weather conditions. The Study was completed and released on November 30, 1994.
The Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Executive Summary is attached
(Attachment A), The Executive Summary includes the Study approach and
recommendations. The Study area consisted of four primary neighborhoods. The
Study concluded that there had been an impact to property values (loss of premiums)
in the Hillsdale neighborhood lNeighborhood A(since 1990which Could be attributable
to the landfill siting,approval,construction and operation. The Study recommended
that a compensation program may be warranted and also recommended appraisals for
the Hillsdale neighborhood prior to or as a part of the compensation program, The
Study recommended that no additional analysis or compensation would be vmrranted
forthe Woodside(Neighborhood C)or Oak Hills(Neighborhood 8)neighborhoods. The
Study indicated that the Bailey Road(Naighborhood EI neighborhood may have been
affected but further conclusions could not be made because There was limited data
due.td the unique nature and age of this neighborhood. The Study recommended that
appraisals would be warranted for the Bailey Road naighborhood-
On November 30, 1954 the County Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Solid Waste
Committee heard the first presentation of the Study by the Institute. The Ad Hoc
Solid War,te Committee forwarded the matter to the Keller Canyon Landfill Local
Advisory Committee and directed the marter to go back to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste
Committes bafore going before the full Board of Supervisors.
The matter was presented and discussed at the)teller Canyon Landfill Local Advisory
Committee meeting of February a, 1995. There was not a quorum present at that
Committee meeting and therefore no action or votes Could take place, however the
meeting included discussion and public comment. Staff has prepared Minutes from
the Commitee rnesting held on February 8,1995 whii-,h are attached{Attachment B)-
The matter was brought back to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee on May 4, 1995-
The Committee received public comment about the Study, Committee members
discussed the Study and the Committee forward the Recommendations itemized above
JU1 -GV-1770 1G•1.� J1�1}��rl G r.1 r/1 I
Keller Canyon Landfill Froperty Valuation Study RepOn
June 5. 1995
Continued-Page Three
r •
BACK13ROUNDLAEMONS Fo�>S�r
to be brought before the full Board of Supervisors on June B, 1995- Staff has
prepared a summary of the public Comment and discussion portion of the Ad Hoc
Solid Waste Committee meeting on May 4, 1995 which is attached (Attachment C),
At the May 4, 1,095 meeting, the Ad Hoc Solid Waste committee directed staff to
obtain inforrtmation regarding complaints received by the Bey Area Air Duality
Management District (OAAQMD) and the County Local Enforcement Agency (LGA).
The complaint information from the agencies is summarized below:
The BAAQ,MD indicated that there had been 34 complaints received Since January 1,
1992-May 22, 1995, Of the 94 complaints, 14 had been confirmed. The SAAGIAD
has not issued any violation notices to the Landfill. All confirmed complaints occurred
between January 1992-January 1983 and all were dust complaints. The January
1992 -January 1993 time period included construction activities which were more
likely to generate dust than landfill operational activities. ThiS was 81S4 the time that
major construction was taking place at the State Route 4/Bailey Road Interchange.
The complaint information provided by the BAAaMP is attached (Attachment D).
The LEA has indicated that approximately 85 operational complaints were received
since December 1991. Only 2 of the 85 complaints ware substantiated by LEA staff_
Both of the substantiated complaints occurred before May 1992. during the
construction of the landfill, One complaint was of excessive dust the other was
regarding noise from earth moving equipment. In both instances,the LEA reports that
the landfill operators immediately corrected the problems upon verbal notification. The
complaint information provided by the LEA is attached (Attachment E).
Also at the May 4, 1995 nwetingr the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee recommended
that the Institute, in light of issues raised at the meeting-, (a) further study the
impacted neighborhoods (Neighborhoods A & E) related to the appraisaltstati&tical
issues, (b) prepare formal responses to issues raised by Rance Dow, Citizens United
(i.e. debt-tet-equity ratio). and (c) fespond to issues raised by James Chalmers
trepresenting DFI)• The Committee further asked that the matter be brought to the full
Board of Supervisors on.lune 8, 1995 Wth as much information as possible.
The 1nstUte prepared written responses to as many of the auestionstcornmmenrs as
time permitted which are attached(Attachment F). The institute will also continue to
prepare additional responses to be presented orally at the June 6, 1995 Board
meeting.
Two written correspondences have been receivod regarding the Study. A commentary
report from James Chalmers, Coopers &Lybrand (representing BFI) and a letter from
Claude Gruen,Gruen &Gruen(representing the City of Pittsburg), These documents
are attached (Attachments G & H respectively)
Lam@,tmgms_.
A Property Valuaftn Study Executive SUMMM
8 LAC Minutes of February 9, 1995
C Summary of pubEc comment recoivte at 1ha Ad Hoc Sow Waste Committee 18,41951
D 8AA0100 Complaimt lnfvrma on
E LEA Compliant Information
F ICDA Rewe mss dated 6134195
G James Chairrmrs trepreeonting 8R) Commentary
F9 Claude Gruen(ruprq&vnft Chy of Pittsburg)tetter
ppe�raor.vwa.eu
TOTAL P-1,