Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 12031991 - H.2
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR - GMEDA DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Keller Canyon Landfill SPECIFIC I�EQUHSl-(S)OR A ACKG1k0UN7T\N15 1USTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCEPT report from Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, regarding issues presented by Jim Hicks, Chairman, Citizens United, on the Keller Canyon Landfill project, and to questions raised by Supervisor Torlakson at the October 8, 1.991. Board meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On November 1.9, 1991, Jim Hicks sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors which requested that the Board initiate the preparation of a property value compensation/direct acquisition program to .determine to what extent, if any, the development and operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill will affect property values in the surrounding area. The Community Development Department will hire a land value expert to evaluate the affect of the landfill on property values in the area. The Department has contacted a university study team for assistance in designing studies for both landfills. On October 8, 1991, Supervisor Torlakson referred several questions for response. The questions and responses follow: I. What analysis has been conducted of the total expected rate impact under the new landfills and the proposed transfer stations? The Community Development Department prepared the attached table on October 31 indicating the different implementation and mitigation monitoring requirements necessary for the landfills. We are working on the costs associated with the improvements. We identified the conditions in the table and are working with the landfill owners to determine what the Keller costs will be. Also attached is a Preliminary Solid Waste Cost Analysis dated March 1.3, 1990. In the case of both landfills, we have not been provided with the final costs at this time. (See Page 2 for further responses.) CONIIMIED ON ATTACHME . X YES S16NATURE- I C N A ) )N OFROARD COMM= APPROVE O'ITIER SIGNAIUREM: AC110N OF BOARD ON December 3 , 1.9 91 APPROVI--'L)A.SIUECOMMP,NI)F.D X OM IER X See Addendum for Board action . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CER'II1,-Y 'n IAT THIS IS A TRIJE AND CORRI Cr COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSEN'r ) EMERED ON '[1ILi MINITIES OF '11IE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON'1111:DATE SI IOWN. AY�s: Nobs: ;1) December 3 1991 nrl�s•11 ABSEN•I': ABSTAIN: PHIL,BAI'CHF..L t,CL.EKK OF'rliE BOARD OF SUPT: ORS )COIJN'Y )MINIYI'RAI'OK VA-dg Iandfill.bo BY ,DEPUTY CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMI3DA Departments Landfill Board Order December 3, 1991 Page 2 2. Is there really enough garbage in the County to support the enormous.(;apital investment in two landfills? In the long run, there is sufficient solid waste. We do not have the information to identify the break even point at this time. 3. What are the current projected capital costs for setting up the landfills and the operating costs to meet the state-of-the-art, strict, modern operational conditions the Board of Supervisors has imposed? Staff is working with the landfill developers to determine these exact numbers. 4. What legal steps does the County still have within the franchise agreement and any other permitting authority to regulate this situation? Establishment of waste shed areas is obviously one tool. But, do we have the authority to allow one landfill to be 'land banked" while operating only one for full operation at this time if it is determined that the fate impacts of setting up two sites ar so great as to warrant this? We do not have a clear set of procedures that we can describe which would enable us to select one landfill for current operation while land banking the other. We are proceeding with both landfills' construction documents on the basis that both have received County planning entitlements and are entitled to due process. The County Counsel concurs in this regard. 5. The major statewide efforts being implemented under AB939 in recycling and waste reduction will significantly alter the projected waste stream volume, therefore reducing the amount of garbage to support landfill operations. What are the actual tonnage reductions we can estimate at this time to be effected through the combined curbside recycling efforts, thorough recycling at the transfer stations/material recovery centers combined with extensive public education and potential consumer purchasing modifications`? Based on the experience of the last year, it appears that the economy has done more to affect the volume of waste than recycling. However, a rough application of AB939 of a reduction of 25% could be applied to 1,000,000 tons of garbage generated and yield a required reduction by the year 1995 to be about 770,000 tons. Supervisor Torlakson also directed staff to respond to the Board regarding consideration of permits for construction.activity that is being planned. At the present time, it is our best judgment that the law suits will govern the possible opening of the landfills and not the permit process, although the Marsh Canyon landfill has not yet received all of its regulatory agency policy permits. Assuming that the current process is not affected by law suits, it is our estimate that the construction process will be complete for the opening of Keller Canyon in the March to June period, and the construction process will be complete for the opening of Marsh Canyon in the July to November period. There are no further significant permits to be granted within the control of the County's Board of Supervisors. ADDENDUM TO ITEM H. 2 DECEMBER 3 , 1991 On this date the Board of Supervisors considered the report from the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development on the Keller Canyon Landfill . Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, presented the staff response to issues raised by Jim Hicks, Citizens United and questions by Supervisor Torlakson at the October 8, 1991, Board meeting. The following persons presented testimony: Jim Hicks, P.O. Box 8011, Pittsburg, Chairman of Citizens United, spoke and presented two memos from Mr. and Mrs . Mike Wall relative to a loss of home sale and a gopher problem; Frank Aiello, 2247 (no street given) , Pittsburg; Wilbert Cossel, 16711 Marsh Creek Road #134, Clayton, Clayton Regency Residents Association; Margaret Wise, 1148 Los Palos Court, Pittsburg. Following discussion of the issues including complaints, vectors, monitoring, reporting, and notification of landowners, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report from the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, is ACCEPTED; and the Keller Canyon Advisory Committee is REQUESTED to report to the Board on a regular basis on issues presented to them. Li t y m c ? cv c n rr r L7 M d r ti m v T Dc.. Z ay C c ` m D o D rD- c m - c m w o r- = Z m w co -i U} N - Z! c n `` D O a J w D c D 3 y M d L� v rn u^ -i Z p M Z rnw n C1 T VZ} p pp p Z � D > 0 r ° rn D o r... J r D O �U co > n t. � m D � < p C z m ` prm- r o < CD rn 0 . n0 w Zz oC) z N DD xx ,approval" `' O co 0 Z y �, w o @ � ; z � � mE m" cn 3 ,. 91 3 o -• o U) Z o CD ccs t7 , o a Gl -O z r-- ? CD N =' a c m 0 y z > 3 -v B o o ra a •' O CD to CD ni } D a y o 3 0 3 D �, G) -4 o N ° , o cn D -n c N o a 3 c m ° ' °�' w m o =. P ? mG) to p ' w to ° o D m 't7 o_ ° z Q G) 0 0 o D C) o Z p ° o o � a „ * oz G� D 7� Z C's N _ J N "{ o c W ° v Q v O „a � w (D co r•• n m Cn CD•, a w W CD � ci E — C o N N is 3 0� � a w —1 'n -. CD a wLO CL co (n CD w w ° 0 n a 0 r CDn> D Q m CD N CD O CD _ cn O -+ Ln y ? W N 0 W ►v = a n " a Z Q ° C N O > Z cu m Q 0 n = AO CU v — r (D -< O o' O O m ° D y n �' n O 3 0 �' o'. a m D � f° ° D co 3 > > 5 D. n W ti CD n 0 O a c 3 ? m a. O m CD 1 (o• o s 3 Co. 3 CD w 3 O D v _a r o O 3 m' O ° o 'D : CD T ^ V CD O N CCD o t .» O ° - ^ ^ CU U I o (n 3 o D ?• > m m c o C CD ra CD 3 . co c7 c7 D -U' co 0o cn n 2 p c7 2 D D O o O cn O O T p cn C{ O.cn () - C ° 0 n 0 W C o -< D cud rtn D � mZ _0 CD CD ZOmm m � Z Z c 90N X X X X Approval' O C C D sD Cp 0 CD CD CD - CD .+ a 0 (<D 0 CD c 3 w z C6 Z o ., . ,.. tv ° � .. :.r 7 Q ° " m ,< m (D � O CC) cn c co -,, a - < 7CD 000 CD �• d v W o CD Z 'rl a to ;; � � w O CD D cn CD N < cn CD ° 3 (n W CL 0 � 'D a N W CD < O 3 cn D r C) co O O O co -noc=n cn 00m p cn cn cn 0 O M O Z -0 n 0 O � co W Z O • -u m . � z X X X X 0 Z .. DD r— n000nO coCD cna) � (3) O CD O CD m C) O m O -t 6 O nch � n m - CD a � � cn O. Jia � D m ^ o CO m ` per � C s 3 m o 3 co ° mcn n .O n O CD O �.. Q W CD CD CD o 0 ccD � v r r r co r r -n (n c) r r G c) -. -+ J w w w w w CD w c w CD 7 l� W N O D O -• 7 w A y w O o� CD CL a a CD a .n = -+•a fD n c ai -+ '' N Z � c Co En n _ 0 o a cn a to D N D o0) CD O n'0 n7i -0 o D m N m m �. n Z m y 0 CD w CD O CD w n x t�D T a m w 06) o. o n C °' n m Q z U v °i w 7CD tD w O N 7 2 m .; o v Cn a � ID n n m fn CD < < O-n. ET O a` w O — O y < O 0 M O O m CD D D cn 7 w O 7 Ch n 7 go > <• cCDD a a cu c N 3 9 m w - y m < m O w m D m a D G w CD to O O 7 t0 m ET (n .. 0 CD CD SD w m w to 3 N _ Z 3 Z 0 r 1 � (n o m O w 3 cn j -1 w o CD z < 3 CD D - CD O to O aN O o y n� < C o _ o o s E m 3 O w cc ET CD -Am CD o 0 o cn �• D Cn n• Ch w cn - w O R w CD (n 0 D n CD CD w (n' w _{ CD •<' CcD 7 C w D O 0 n CD CD n n n n n n n n n n n n n co oo D D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 -V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cn (n m Z 0 -- D r -0 21 m Z x Z m D Orr < O m m z cn 20 w x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Approval' m cn D a :3O 3 c zZ °' -=i c) a a 0 - M 0 w z C) o cn =r C 0 CD a' CD c 0 CD D CD r 0 00m Z O O m Z O • -0 T i � Z 0 D O Z Dn � D .. r n n n n. , n n n n n n n n n n � � n („ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 083 � D m CD CD CD CD CD CD m CD m CD CD CD CD m CD C ,+ .+ .. .+ .. .-. ,+ .+ .+ .+ 0 .+ m Cn CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD, CD CD CD Z n � G (n n O j� O O � 7 (D O Q � n v+ cn cri v� cn D y (D :3 CD 0) C m �, m �, "0 CD C 0 o :3M =5D m Pm a' O N CD j N -+ �. `S < G CC) = Z ca a)c CD Do DO p cD m c �' O c CD o < d m ,» Q° ro < a o o � o D a S o CD OCD r o CD CD Z o � 3 -0 3 -�' O mRo _ m m D n ] H O m CD CD CD SZ° �- CD 3 n CD CD CD O < O O 7 a D CD 3 m < CD a S' > m - m ? y -i _ C z 0 0 o gu)-o -n � v=i0 0 0 o D n 0 -V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn m Q Z Q 3 p 0 W co D r s OT m cn CD X CD CD CD CD CD Z0mr <m O m ni m m v m 0 v m m -Z1 20 X x x x x x X x x X x X X, x Approval" cn o cn cn cn cn D -1 c c c c c o O 3 3 3 3 3 C: zz . N -i O v o a O O cD -, o' -0 o' o' o' o' z -n C: - o <On o 0 0 0 G1 ., to n n n n CO C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 co (A 3 cn cn c En c n c c c c n n 0 n 0 at ., 0. 0 0' 0 0' o' o > > o 0 C-) O O O O 00 m O o 0 0 o cn O 0 � z O 0 � z O , -a n . � z OD C) n. D D m -T n � � ` rte °� o:�' p -+ w nCn i y ., cp v O -0 N v N C Ga CD N O -I CD N c -t 7 tea, n nOi n 3 w = o n0 wy �C00 A O 0 t� wo � > cn m o. o .* O < cn C co f) co w ca < o � C � (D ,, .�, O c < CO p O CO ,cn r CD to f jD 3 co c y Da 'Cn 3 Nom: Q ° -� ZN C) m a y � A 7 < ;; O 0 c � -n o � Dao W3 NCD o cn� m CD cn En CD CD CD CD r C) N {v i r r CD O rn rn `' cn � v CD C cNo � CD o rn rn rn rn p C) m � � � o o_ o cn Pb W N O . =. ". .. -.. 7 -`I (n Cn O0 (p O N 0 - = N r G) r (n "o > > - � D O — O CD j m m n < — m N Z �`� a m a 3 z cDN W � o ; � K oCD m v, O o 0 O m p o. 20 v " D o N n y m O c m n=i M CC)' c to, -o = 3 `o a v O D CD CD cf) D > > ;t CD m < Ln cn m c�o 3 D j r= o c m to m -- " --� :3 v O N 2- (n D y � m N � O C CJT � 0 co O Q O 0 cn n n cn n n cn n cn -o n M 2 0 cn 2 0 m n co D D o T 0 0 "n 0 O T O -n 0 < cn o T cn 0 cn O D 0 "D 0m a 0m a 0 � 0.� o X00 X00 00D zM o o Q Q p Q Q 0 -< < o W m co co _ s r� OT M X X X X X X X Z CD m D Orr < O m -v. mm ZZ c 20 x x x x x x x X x x Approval' 00 00 0 -0 0 c -0 c0 c 3 m m o m o m o m• is m a0 2. 2. o0 o0 o0 3. w � 3. � � to to o T o T o T cn v X00 O DC7 O DCC7 O DCC7 p' N O T C Q C Q C Q 0 0 N n O n C7 0 n 0 n C N j N j N O -n mco T CD C� O O O n < O A En cn cn :3 coo r cn n 0 c n c� C-) c� —t -n0 o 0 0 0 0 OOm q � O O O O O Z O p 0 m cuCD c 7J cn z .� C) T • 77Z x 0Z D D r � Wo c cn pNi 0 O � � = c CD c m cn Ln � < Z � n -i cn - oma � O o .. _ o io K v � n CD O V V V V V V V Q) Q) Q) cn Z CQ V QS Ln W ND O p p G) r r O O -0 y -i n� N o o m 0 C cn N o Q O m' CD C C') d Z p a --� n Z m O ' '� O m . 3 Q _ ,� 3 w. T m m m r D m O cu CD n a oco cn d o o v m m, C? c� o < CD S — o h O o m -,. -i < 0 o O > CD c n, o ° v)m ` n m a = o o 3 m D p. 3 3 y �. o cn o m m G7_ .: 3 `� :3m ° D cn rn m CO CI) m j n cn Ln cn m C D n 2 cn Z (nT.n cn n cn . n cn 2 (� 2 0 to D D D (n -n p cn -n cn D T D m D -n cn D (n p -n G) -0 DDS D D DC7 D � C7 DD DC7 . m -U v, z p • o p p Q C-) < n co M Z X X X X X X z m D O0 r m m Z Z (n 20 C) Approval* O O. mCo n Quin T cn _ ? O m ? f C. ._ N C O 0 ti m O CL Q m m CD Z O 0 0 < C CDD N 3 O O O Z n = „F W -{ v cn 0 W :+ N p < O m CL N -n p < zm J G) cn chi W C CD o n N N m CD a N CD ,< CD N D D Q r y p n m 2 (n Co C 2 cn (� m cn o D *� po D � M c 0 � U :3 oZ0 pD: CO DQ CD 0 T Wc W � a 0\� :pO W ce o 2c L) * v T * 0 2 OD C) z D D r n cn - O D m En z C-) -� < C) j O CD o � co C W r.-- y fi t9 tp t> �, p 7 n 6 r- O W co co a O tr W- m `G 4 -1 � O A cOn ) '" o d O CD to c, co N w ^ to4 -Ar. m Nc O 9{ N 3 a o 3 3 a v NCD 0 o TTI N rn c ^. 2 N -A C to -a w 0 3 d 0 p71 Z N U) �O N Ln 3 G 2 O Q p 03 a p Z cpZ pm" r O o -o O d rn N m ��{ co ' N ¢o I d m APP�ava�t 1 X � OO Z 3 to N o c0 c � na6 ° c¢ to �© c N O N - � � N T C O r- 0 O cD 7 ^ to 3 �' ©�� J N ZNt1 r O 7, 0 p o G C? .rL pm tfl `° O ° O0 ' A �¢C NZC� T �Z V _ Cp A CD CD 0 N m D 03 C> L CO C-) 6 N 3. Z � N CY �� J ^ N coo ALL O N o o ' j r n N N N N N N N N D tJ N N N cD O O 0 0 O O O O O n O . O O O73 Z to O OD �J CJS W O �J CIi 1� W N -• O D D, 0 ti nri r C7) O ---4 < D o c CD O O •-CD C/) - p y CO CD .7•. T .�. C Z cc CD o ° _ CD CD to0 o c n o T G7 > ° O cn �_ w ° p D CD ' = O Q° p d . r. O Ln < O O ° CD N CD o n) (�m ° y D < .< y — :3 0.) m O r `° cn CD < T. m ° ° 3 cA m ° o w 3 ° N 3 c 00pLT� f CD N AW c 0 nzm a) cn -r DD D cn D D p p p D 0 O Q cn cn 0 cn 0 m cn 0 -o CODDO O 0 DO O O O 00 OO MO Z O OO � 0 0 O D c7 co D r v = O Z m X X X X w m Z m D O r r < O m - m m ZZ C 00 Approval O -I O O O O p —I c O ? O O 7 -0 �' 7 ' O Cp o- cr m c '0 m: to rn O .* CD p CD CD O w w O' O O Z Z �_ ' CL 5 a n 3 0 CD co CD m m 3 co cc m O m O c�D CCD CCD O Z T 3 3 3 ,� G) CCD - CDD C=D ° cn CL a Q.. C. sv O o = r d D CD =r D Cn D pCDN p N C7.cn O m D D CD (D D D D D CD O tD m CD Z O in 0 _ v °' cnm o o• O -i pN O < O D cCDp c 70 CD N cn N Z # Tt * � Z OD O Z D n D .. r -n'o Nop En O,p' en p - _° � 3 m � > x OS+ c � C. Cm cn cn O •+ Zi n c O d cn 7 S = . m O O _ � v J 0. N ► N N n N N N W N N N N N N O 0 N NN N N N Z p p p Z i O A - 00 N0 N N N0 m W N N A p 7 -H _ o m D o m m N T 6 0 d m f0 7 r- 0 c O ' O v0i A -" O o _0 c O CD 0co 0 C °' Z 3 cD 0 T CD O 3 D m O -1 c� -^ D n O D' r �. 70 v m r_ "O o� 0 c o � D m m O M CT) U) d m ~ a Q -� > > co < — D CD O 3 CD o < 3 r CD CD cc QO 0 CD ti N V O Q CD N Nd O N ma D N 0° n K N N m Cn N �• -i m C O 0 CD < o_ n n 2ncti zn Zn n -v DD 0 0 ::E 0 O O (n0D (n0 (n0 0 ::E G) -0 0 0 O O O 0 O D 00 00 0 m � O r d > � Mz X X X m m X X z M m D Ori m °' m Z z cn 90 O X X Approval' O O --d O O O _I 0 0 0 c 0 w O 0 0 m _o o Z Z 3 m m 0 '0 O O < - m O CD 3 o Z CD L7 Q y C 0 C CD � o' c7n D r CCD 0-0 ccnD O ccnO m n m y0 00 0 D 00 N co 0 OZ _O CU (DACA Q U) .0 d U) 0 -4 O c _ O c 0 CD coH N Z ti .y Q • -0 T * 77 Z Oy • � 2 D A r r r n. co 0. po r o 3 m o po n (n D D cD n :° n D 0. m �. �r ? n0 -1 n n v v , n omc°'n00. yg � D O O o Qn. m N m y — C CD m < < m c0 0 0 m fn CD m av, n v, m a• m cn oCD Z < j Gm m CA �' < cn .. C m o' (n 2 0 0 (0 co 0, 1+ O c � 1 N � � ► cD ► W � n A A A A FW n W W Ni ro Na W A N N OZ v CIl A m co Ln (a N G7 ° n A N :3 —1 cr 77 ( ° a hQ O n D - nr 0 C to v - Z ~ c� ° �p m CD = Tn K C OO < m n --I D ° si o E ° m m r y 7 v o O D °—' cn 'c co A m' cn o_ o o m' 7 0 0 Z o = < Om - o O_ N m D Z a 90 a r, W N r o < 3 0 -_v O cn cn n 3 m O c o m n r ci < 3 CD n o m O m �< o N C) o y o O > o o' D CD v o ° 33 d ° n CL o N -'� C A� a 0 c� c < 3 3' CD CD a m ' 2 2 = 2 n 2 n n ° n n n n n D D (n cn cn cn cn 0 ° o 0 0 0 0• G) -v 0" 0 0 0 00 0 cin G1 0 0 0 0 Z -mac -� (-) D r N D o T m Z X X X X mCD rD- _ O.r m m m Z Z U) 90 O X X X X Approval' O O O O 3 > > 0 O O O O -0 > CD< o O ooZ0 o o , Z0 0 0 0 to co to cc 3 3 w m to .0 m O N y N y = =CD m p- Z T CD cn co m go (D (D CD CD (L] W ' D r = 3' cn z3'. cn nc �o �o cn-0 cn-0 0 cn U) Cn @ 00' 00mo oD D.o 0o Do 0 Om Om 0o ZO c {� .n m .0 .o 0 0 a p -i o I -n c 70. CD CD CD N N !n Cn cnN - Cn Z .n * 'p -Ti * � Z OD o Z � D yam. D D n �i CD 3.'M n n D m �• � 3 3 � c Q. rF m a 0 m N m � j 0 o N < < cn CD 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N fD 0 rn rn rn 0) 0) cn cn to A Z �) Q) Ln A W N C — CD 00 v U1 N O m m T m m m mr O r" O O N f y 3 3 3 3 3 O cD y., '0 10 CD C7 m (D y y v' a - Z t0 t0D 0 0 m CD cD ,< •< cD m :3 Dco C� p < O D D a CD CD c D C f° O z O T m CD CD r N r ., .» < D cn to m CD m r co CD CD n) m o °' CD v = o y CD m p o. 0 CC) 3 3 Z a ° ° 0 v c t° m O n' n m 0cc C) D tin o N m to d r sz� to ' T 3 ° It 3 m m s ° 3 D 0 O 0 N L7 CD < m rn D CD 3 N -i C 0 2 2 2 2 2 (7 2 n 2 2 2 2 D D cn cn cn cn cn 0 cn O cn cn cn cn O -o O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 . 0 m n O D r D m Z Z0 � � < O Z Z cn Qo Approval* O O O O > O O O KCD CD o• o• oOm to to to m 0 0 0 0 a - Z0 0 o o o to to to m o 0 0 w m to O O 'a — o m O CD CD CD 1 Z T D 3 O c O oo' o' rL G7 O O 7 to cn C to y S m W flj C N � D 3• � r = cn = cn = cn = c = cn = c = co -0 = c CD _ D 3: ; cn '; cn r: cn =+ cn-0 cn cn'D cn O cn"o .6 cn m cn .0 (A O O m OCD OCD 0 C 0o OCD 00 0 c 00 m 0 c 0 m 0 ZO N• N• y y rrA C (n C N C CD tD tD 10 10 '"� 'O ...� m 'D D .0 O O O O CD cCD C C 7 7 7 O' O O O .CD CD In yr .y+ G) 7 7 7 7 t -v T_ * Z X � Z D C7 � D .. r n cn OD � C C:cn Z n -1 < m N n — o < A 0 0 O c to _ � v .� J ' v N N ► N � (7 N N N N N N V N N m 0 CO CO CD CD 00 \l V N 'Dcn Z O) Ln A W m A C A N -i CD 00 O ::3 -i W v nri Z D -i cD (n. m W O cD co a n. � m c n CD m y C Z CD r < m' CD o 0 o m D -c _ n n 0 0 r cu o D CL a .» c D m m -n -� r v n CD —1 < N m D, p' d CD CD m m c�D a Z m :3 O r 0 v o D o n 0 C/) C) D' m m c. m m -V _ a C y o O CD c° G D m )d -a No 3 > D O Z LrI (n • C v n I D D 0 (n p v (n v (n (n O 'v (n v v 71 O O v 00 0 v v m O n 0p � D r s' -o � p �n X X °' D � < Z y D X' X CD Zm Omr m Z Z -i -I _ (n {Zo N X Approval' C» -v -0 _0 O 00 -0 o 0 0' O C- C: o 0 0 0 0 °; �, Z a o' o' o' 3 O G7 .< 0 0 0 m m 3'. CD CD CD3 (nZ OT D o G7 v, cn to �• [p n m O r C) -V (n n n D 2 C 2 (n m v o v v =- o p v, (n'D cn - p m D O O O CD o v0 00 vCD O � 0 CD 0 Z O CD y CD ni 0 >, -. �*. • -V T * � Z X G) Z D n � D .. r r Q -n D CD C) CD v � D < cn 0 c F. m cn CD CD CD Z < d 0- no < O 0 O CD O 3 v ► ► ► w - � n W W N N N N CD .O O W O W W CD w CD CD y Z v O A O O 10 CD co Id O D n -v m I 7o C7n =� O TI c O 21 c W CDO O :3CT > > m °' w Z 0 CDN C1 c n (n < n -0m G O n OQ < fD ... n CD •G w O T CD CD a) CD m Qo p' :3 D 0 CD a) C/) cCD CLCD V coCD N'a � CD v -c n - < 0 CD m 3 N v O Cf) r c 3 w 0 CD `D :3 o - m m ? w .. .-. O �• N - 10 CD .CCD m N C< 3 A CD D D S > 3 7 ni w CD '+ 7 D O m .O' N CD \ y ccn CLc v 2n m n2n2n n 'D n 'o co cc DD cn v < cn v cn n D cn v < cn v -0 g v * O O M -0 vv -nO vv � n vv � vv v v cn cn m -0 v 00 v n 0 -< < " D r S S S S S S S S S D m - w w w w w w w w w C/) En !n cn X N cn N N N < D X X X x CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD Z O m r- < O w w w w w w w w w m 0 m m � � cn 20 w x x X x X X X X X Approval` CD v cn -0 _0 -0 p h CD p O 'D < a' o 0 0' w 00) O CD CD C1 O 3 3 C"D n O O `G 'D N O r+ 37 CD CD O CD .y+ 7 CSD CSD .. 7 cn ._« cn CD .+ .+ c O cu L7 o ? 3ch O y ,y .+ 7 O D c 7 c y � Cn O N (n co < O r+ O S � D S n n n 0 n n n n -I � x v v v 0-00 v v v O O m v v v 00 v v v v zo U).D p -� v c C(n Z C) t -o T t M Z x XX 0 D � Z � D .. r 0 w D n cn CD CD n O D (D m 3 m C m :3 :3 CD Z N n D 0 <cn 0< (D O CD' meq ; 0 o cCO � _ � v WLj C CCD D w W W w W W W N Q rn O1 P. w 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 * a CD ° CD coo CD o (rp � --� m � T T T O � 0 ° 3 m - - - = z m n. '0 - rn ." v O ° 3 CD m m m N .» O O N 00 w — m CD O CD ti O N •+ CD 0 m � CO X m O T o �' CD CD CD -^ D. CD m CCD O 0 -D' cn n a) 0 CD O X- m M r' � m O 0 3 CD cn O N N CD y O 3 m T. r,- 0- 0 7 m CD o ° � O 2 C 3 CD N _ < 0 c -< c Qo -* .a O 0 D o Di < m r (D v m _' CD 70 f3D G m CL 0 CD D CD N C) CCD m- 70 3 O C D • < n N O 7o n O O -, `G :r .. -C m N r 37 3 c a� N D . 3 v �° ° n cn N N ° O u C 3 0 3 m 0 0 h O 1 N n n p e n n n n m m n = _ _ = D D 0 0 o cn o 0 0 0 < o 0 0 to 0 M - 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 T0 0 0 0 0 1m U) p z 70 70 70 70 < < < < 0 T T T1 T D 0 0 0 0 s s r 0 T D -n < Z X X XX x m m m m m z0Mr < 0 m Z Z 20 X X X X X Approval' ° m •o ° ° 0 ( ° o M 'a m m o ° ° ° ° z CD CD CD y y- m d O m m N .y-r O O O O 7 m y a j' O C O 0' -0 CD Oh � 0 CL 0 co ai ; :3n M CD n CD Z Tl O m Q (n C0 d.+ to 0 DO .+ cn mOh _? y rr 7 _? 7 7 c 10 :3 m m O to W CD CD 0 O m m .n a) O 3 <_ CD 3 c 3' pa o 3O o 0 P D ?• O m o o ° r fn 0 -0 co p -0 00m O 0 0 (n f - - - - j z 0 CD co .0 O CD CD p m N y G)r+ 'y t -a T_ " Mz OD O z � D .. r cn cn cn cn cn n cn .m m m m m O CD m m m CD K D> cn cn. cn UI cn K C m cn z , n � � p � CD O J s 'p W ► W ► W A W W W y CD W fV W m O W (A) D N W W a. Ol N NCD N C) '0 z co ] N r C) A ,n, W p CD O o cn D N O 2 (n3 0 0 c D Z n N -1 O a 3m 7D �' to o N C O m Z �' m :3 to < m C C T TJ p c' R° ' m > M 70 o D < ° O a d y r C. m r7 W �' > j y Z c ° M CCD = 0 m �' ° — D a O 3 a c c c m 5' 0 CD = < CD m p O m D D N m 0 c < (D r -a C a 0 5• -I 0 :) it to F7n < CD CA D 9 m CCD � < m 0.0 D v m n O cn Z y < m m m .+ n 0 Z cu D D CD M p m 3 T.D n o O CU O c C CD m d < N o 1 O 0 n co m 3 n X 2 cn C) 2 n cn z C) _0 C) co D D o cn Cn -n o m T cn o o O 0 -V oo � m o 0 0cn zM 0 CD coco D r D < Z CD CD z O r r CU m K K m m Z Z _ cn Qo U1 X X X Approval* 0 CO nto 3 m M0 0 C cn p -v v C T ET On N M 0 5. :3cr m o 0 oCD 0O 3 0 0 c O 0. 0 m ; �• 0 0 � -i O m C) v,' fD CL m 0 o a O 0 -0o W 3 0 < n 0 'D c m F• N .-� _ N CD N Z T CD =r 3 06) CCDD O .a > CD 7 :3 cO _ E a w o' h cn •+ C T , r. 0 O O CSD o co 0 3 Nco Q () ? O CDU)— U) N CD gj O CD to .' D m p O cn 'D cn N o o O 0m p cn 0 0 o `D O O 0 n o a p -1 o c CD CD W O (Z * -u T_ * Z X G7 Z X D D r m cn 0 < 00 n N ,, O CD p n CD � D CD 0n m e CD = Z O --iC) pap O En < 0 90 D CD Cb O d � ca -V C') O N Z 'a O rn W (()I U% W N -i C-) 6• Z CD r- ?o "4 -n O� N c v .:I a 0 0 cn a O -o O, o CD 2 CD p 7 m d coo 4 D a O 0 0 o c o co p Z O r < N co 3m O C) @ c O �. a n p A co '� A 3 N rn r in co @ m w G D w o D 3 CD C A p O Z � rm.r GO m � ZZ N Rpproval. • � X O� C7 G •° p =� f� C t o c c a O O Cn CD Cf c co -+ a� a I C CDN to. 0 N a- C CD .C� 0o L N •a a. O v --' cr •G _ o CA p Z O w03 C U D D D *0 X X � n m O �. a tn CD O � . 71 n a n a � 7� O � D -n m C-) n b n C. Db n o > -n > m — m ch a) Oj -n -n --4 W W C) to 9 m rn co (D U) 11 0 11 co C) 0 lI ii 03 m c CO C, co a (b C-) 0 0 CL 0 = m n co 'A M = r- w Q) . 0 3 10II p 0 0 T 0 — D < r- 0 - 0 3 CO. CD CL m m � w > c o 5 (U U) - (A — a- to m Co 0 m w C) < 0 CD m 11 it Z 0 a- a. - > < m < :3 CD 7r CD < 0 Cl) > 'a to (A < 0 --% c 0 CL " r- (n U, -n (A 0, m 0 — 0) 0 'o CD M — 4 , cl) 0 10 (0 0 CA M > w w -n < (D -0 CD -n D B — W 3 2D :� 5 :r - = > 0 (n < CD CD. — * , C, CD E. m w < c 0) -n 0 0 0 =1 0 Z CD 0 cn :3 -0 =3 w 0 CD 0 , 0 cu 0 CD " -1 3 cr M En !:+� 0 0 0 90 — 0 , -V m 3 c m c CD m 3 w En CD — ;I ;:�+ c C QO CD -r 0 3 3 :3 Q. m m -#� 90 -- 0 0 , . 0 -< cv 0 CD — Fn C 3 c 3 CD a w p w n < cn CD En < a) 0 tj o 3 cn w c A c (D CD te n, rn0 to a Cb 3 CD CA m m < CD m cn 3 CD 0 0 E 3 0 CD c co S 0 < "D 0 CL zttcr m Nm co 3 O c 0 CL 0 CP Co a- 0 r. 0) c 0 ro CD C 0 CL 77 M CD to to *tLn -P,- < < m cn to CL CL 0 tyD CD CD 0 Q. a CL V n C-) 0 p C7 0 co m CD En 0 c c 3 10 V 0- CD co CD CL CD > w CD to 0 < =r 0 0 Qo 20 tG o 0 co CO 0 m < m :3 to 0 (n Cl. m < rz (A < =; o < CD co M tr March 13, 1990 PRELIMINARY SOLID WASTE COST ANALYSIS Numerous questions have been raised on the relative cost advantages of the Keller Canyon and Marsh Canyon Landfill proposals. At this time, both sites are in a preliminary design phase. Consequently, any costs must be regarded as very tentative. Individual site design characteristics also affect costs greatly. To give the Board of Supervisors and the public a better perspective on the landfill cost issues, the Board directed staff to prepare an analysis of costs. In many areas, data is available that allows a comparison of costs by landfill (where assumptions do not vary widely and most of the cost elements have been determined) . These areas of cost include: Collection Costs Transfer Station Costs Transportation Costs - Land Costs - "Soft" Costs _ Operations Costs _ .Off-Site Improvements Costs In some cost areas, the applicants submitted cost data based on assumptions or costing methodologies that could not be reconciled at this time. In other cost areas, design is just too preliminary to determine costs. Consequently, direct comparisons are not possible at this time. These cost areas include: Construction and On-Site Improvement Costs Closure/Post-Closure Costs Regulatory and Program Costs _ ATTACHMENTS: Keller Canyon Data Submittal Marsh Canyon Data Submittal I s PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE COLLECTION (COSTS (c) KELLER MARSH Cost Element CANYON CANYON Collection Costs (a) $90.00/ton $90.00/ton Curbside Recycling (b) $ 6.70/ton_ $ 6.70/ton i (a) . Assumes that 15�/month residential collection is equivalent to $1.00/ton and average collection cost (excludes disposal) of $13.50/month per residential household. Based on average incremental disposal costs derived from the 2/15/90 . Rate-Setting Analysis by Central. Sanitary District for. Valley Waste Disposal. This is no change in current rates. (b) Assumes $1.00/month cost per residential household and conversion of 15�/month equivalent to $1.00/ton. Curbside collection programs are being established. (c) . Additional costs for collection such as city or sanitary district franchise fees and assessments for the closure of old landfills not included. Note: Data developed by Staff -2- . ti PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE TRANSFER STATION COSTS Keller Marsh Cost Element Canyon Canyon WEST COUNTY Capital Costs/Year (a) 2,489,000 2,489,000 Operations/Year (b) 5,860,400 5,860,400 Tons/Year (c) 254,800 254,800 Cost/Ton 32.77 32.77 CENTRAL COUNTY Capital Costs/Year (a) 2,489,000 2,489,000 Operations/Year (b) 12,558,000 12,558,000 Tons/Year (c) 546,000 546,000 Cost/Ton 27.59 27.59 EAST COUNTY Capital Costs/Year (a) 1,742,000 1,742,000 Operations/Year (b) 3,348,800 3,348,800 Tons/Year (c) 145,'600 145,600 Cost/Ton 34.96 34.96 WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST/TON (d) 30.08 30.08 (a) Assumes capital costs of $25 million for West County (Richmond Sanitary preliminary design estimate) ; $25 million for Central County (Acme Transfer Station 1987 EIR costs, escalated) ; and $17.5 million for East County (estimate based on - relative size) . Assumes financing at 9% interest, repaid over 20 years, 1 payment per year, amortization over 25 years and 25-year 'life of transfer station. Assumes no transfer vehicle costs (included with transportation costs) . Assumes no differences in capital or operating costs resulting from differences in travel distances, avoiding peak hour traffic or landfill operating times. (b) Assumes $23/ton operations, including profit (based upon costs of Acme Interim Transfer Station) . Assumes 7 day/week operations, with West County at 700 tons/day, Central County at 1,500 tons/day and East County at 400 tons/day. (c) Assumes tonnages noted in (b) . (d) Weighted average according to .percentage of total tonnage (946,400) : West County 27%; Central County 58%; and East County 150. Note: Data developed by Staff . -3- r PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE TRANSPORTATION COSTS Keller Marsh Canyon (a) Canyon (b) WEST COUNTY/Year $1,555,900 $3,029,300 CENTRAL COUNTY/Year $1.,822,600 $4,328,000 EAST COUNTY/Year $ 417,500 $ 942,400 TOTAL $3,796,000 $8,299,700 (a) Keller: Annual transportation costs of $3,796,000 compare to CH2M Hill's estimated transportation estimated transportation costs (restricted hours) of $3,773,000. The two estimates are similar because assumptions used by CH2M Hill have been incorporated in this analysis. This analysis goes further to estimate the transportation costs from each part of the County (see attached chart) . (b) Marsh: Annual transportation costs of $8,299,700 compare to an estimate of $8,155,000 determined by using Waste Management, Inc. estimated unit costs. Details of the analysis are based on other cost information presented by the applicant and industry comparable operating costs (see attached chart) . (a) & (b) Assumes restricted operating hours of 7:00 am to 7:30 pm for Keller and 7:00 am to 8:30 pm for .Marsh.. Note: Analysis by Deloitte-Touche using data in applicant submittals except variable and operating costs, which are based on comparable hauling operations. All costs are preliminary, subject to further refinement. -4- 01 TRANSPORTATION ASSiJMPTIONS AND COST DETAIL KELLER West ' Central East Total miles 57 24 9 17tons/day 700 1,500 400 tons/truck 22 22 22 #trips required 32 69 19 miles/yr 665,760 604,440 62,415 1,332,615 tons/yr 255,500 547,500 146,000 949,000 ton miles/yr 14,563,500 13,140,000 1,314,000 29,017,500 #trucks required 13 16 4 miles/day 1,824 1,656 171 j cost/truck $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 capital costs $1,690,000 $2,080,000 $520,000 1 amort pd 6 6 6 cap cost/yr $281,667 $346,667 $86,667 op costs/yr $988,000 $1,216,000 $304,000 variable costs $286,277 $259,909 $26,838 ----------------------------------------- total cost/yr $1,555,943 $1,822,576 $417,505 $3,796,024 j cost/mile $2.34 $3.02 $6.69 cost/ton $6.09 $3.33 $2.86 cost/(ton*mile) $0.11 $0.14 $0.34 I variable costs est. - fuel $0.25 $/mile - tire $0.18 $/mile operating est. - insurance $6,000.00 $/truck - main.. $25,000.00 $/truck - labor $54,000.00 $/truck MARSH miles 117 84 54 tons/day . 700 1,500 400 tons/truck 22 22 22 #trips required 32 69 19 miles/yr 1,366,560 2,115,540 374,490 3,856,590 tons/yr 255,500 547,500 146,000 949,000 ton miles/yr 29,893,500 45,990,000 7,884,000 83,767,500 #trucks required 25 35 8 miles/day 3,744 5,796 1,026 cost/truck $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 capital costs $3,250,000 $4,550,000 $1,040,000 amort pd 6 6 6 cap cost/yr $541,667 $758,333 $173,333 op cost/yr. $1,900,000 $2,660,000 $680,000 variable $587,621 $909,682 $93,623 ----------------------------------------- total cost/yr $3,029,287 $4,328,016 $946,956 $8,299,667 cost/mile $2.22 $2.05 $2.53 cost/ton $11.86 $7.91 $6.49 cost/(ton*mile) $0.10 $0.09 $0.12 -5- - r PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE LAND COSTS Keller Marsh Cost Element Canyon Canyon Project Site 6,001,400 (a) 5,013.,000 (b) Mitigation Land 3,722,200 (c) 2,486;,000 (d) Off-Site Improvements -0- (e) undet. (e) (a) Keller: The 2,628-acre site includes the 1,622:-acre Primary Project Site and the 1,006 Special Buffer Area. , Average land cost is calculated at $3,700 per acre. (b) Marsh: The site is 1,123 acres. Average land cost is calculated at $4,464 per acre. This includes acreage for water extension reservoir site and wetlands mitigation around sedimentation ponds. (c) Keller's Special_ Buffer. Area (1,006 acres) is mitigation for agricultural values. Lawlor -Creek enhancement includes 35 acres to mitigate for the loss. of approximately 3 acres of wetlands in the footprint. (d) This includes the south parcel of the property (portion of Section 7,TIS RZE) .under option to Waste Management, Inc. The mile square section was explicitly excluded from the project site description in the EIR and was not evaluated in the EIR' s biotic resources or ' aesthetics analyses. The applicant proposes to use it along with property, on the site itself for 80 additional acres of oak woodland mitigation along with any additional habitat improvements which may be desired. The applicant proposes to mitigate on-site for 60 acres of the 140 acres,of oak woodland lost. Its value is also calculated at $4,464 per acre, the approximate average cost per acre for total property under option. (e) Marsh: Land may need to be acquired for roadway improvements. However, the need for such acquisition cannot be determined prior to design of the improvement. Keller: Roadway widening would occur on .Keller property. r PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE "SOFT" COSTS Keller Marsh Cost Element Canyon Canyon Permitting and Design 7,219,000 (a) 9,200,000 (b) EIR Costs 244,000 (c) 396,000 (c) Financing-One Time Costs 33,086,761 (d) 34,068,245 (d) Financing-Other Costs undet. (e) undet. (e) (a) Keller: This cost is based on a percentage of the estimated construction cost. The initial permitting and design costs to open the landfill are assumed to be approximately 50 percent of initial construction costs. Thereafter (i.e. Year 1-10, Year 11-20, etc. ) , these costs are assumed to . be part of the operations costs. (b) Marsh: This cost is based on current and projected construction costs for activities required by this phase of project. (c) Both: Charges for EIR costs incurred by the County. (d) Both: Based on cost of financing non-recurring costs necessary to open the landfill, including land costs, construction costs to open . and off-site improvements that are know at this time. For Keller, non-recurring costs are $27,782,300. For Marsh, non-recurring costs are $28,606,400. Assumed 9% interest note, paid over 20 years. These costs derived by Staff using applicant data. (e) Both: Financing of costs other than non-recurring costs are not estimated, due to uncertainity on need for financing such costs. . -7- PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OPERATIONS COSTS (a) Keller Marsh Operating Period Canyon (b) Can on. (c) Year 1-10 79,083,000 79,083,000 Year 11-20 79,083,000 79,083,000' Year 21-30 79,083,00.0 79,083,000, , Year 31-40 63,267,000 79,083,000 Year 41-50 N/A 79,,083,000 Year 51-60 N/A 39,583,000 TOTAL 300,517,000 434,998,000 (a) These costs are based on an assumed standard operating cost of .$5.00 per cubic yard of waste placed and a standard conversion factor of 0.6 tons per cubic yard of waste. The approximate landfill lifetime is based on ..an . average total County wastestream of 949,000 tons per year (1,581,667 cubic yards of waste per year) . The $5.00 per cubic yard of waste placed operating cost represents the labor costs associated with the landfill exclusive of specialized construction activities'' such as liner, underdrain, ' gas collection system, and final cover installation. It includes on-site equipment, depreciation and equipment variables !.such as fuel and maintenance. It also includes: administration; ongoing engineering, legal, and accounting services; litter control;% environmental monitoring; other on-site routine activities; and miscellaneous costs such as utilities, annual surveys, operating supplies, etc. It does not include taxes, profit, franchise fees, or governmental assessments. (b) Keller: The Keller Canyon Landfill has an estimated airspace - (volume enclosed between base grading plan and the final° buildout plan) of approximately 75,254,000 cubic yards. The finalicover; leachate collection system, clay liner and underdrain occupy approximately 3,850,000 cubic yards of this space. Subtracting this volume from the airspace yields a volume of 71,404,000. cubic yards available for waste : including daily and ' intermediate cover. The daily and intermediate cover is estimated to occupy approximately 10,710,000 cubic yards. ' Thus, approximately 60,694,000 cubic yards of volume (or 36,416,400 tons) is, available for waste. Assuming that an average of 949,000 tons of waste is placed in .the landfill each year, the approximate life of. the landfill is about 38 years. (c) Marsh: Assumes a capacity of 87,000,000 million cubic yards (52,200,000 tons), as noted in the project application. Assuming an average of 949,000 tons of waste is placed in the landfill each year, the; approximate life of the landfill is about 55 years. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Keller Marsh Canyon Canyon Road Entrance 102,900 (a) 145,000 (a) Road Reconstruction 2,411,700 (b) 4,300,000 (b) Left Turn Lanes -0- 753,000 (c) Road Maintenance undet. (d) undet. (d) Traffic Signal 150,000 (e) -0- Intersection/interchange undet. (f) 300,000 (f) Noise Studies 20,000 20,000 { Traffic Management Plan 30,000 30,000 Delta Expressway -0- undet. (g) Area of Benefit Fees -0- undet. Water Serice Extension -0- 2,400,000 (h) (a) Improvements at landfill entrance. Keller: 150 ft. storage lane, 1200 ft. acceleration lane; 320 ft. approach taper. Marsh: 150 ft. storage lane; 150 ft. storage lane; 150 ft. acceleation lane; separate right turn lane. (b) Keller: Bailey Road reconstruction including 2-12 ft. lanes, 2-8 ft. shoulders, right hand traffic lane. Marsh: Marsh Creek Road reconstruction including 2-12 ft. lanes, 274 ft. shoulders, replacement of Marsh Creek Bridge, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. (c) Marsh: left turn lanes at Mobile Home Park, Deer Valley Road and Walnut Boulevard. (d) Keller and Marsh: Maintenance costs of above would be proporionate to traffic generated, adjusted for truck weight and number of axles (e) Keller: At landfill and Bailey Road. Would be installed at a future date if warranted by traffic conditions. (f) Improvements are Balfour Road intersection in Brentwood for Marsh and Hwy. 4/Bailey Road interchange in Pittsburg for Keller. Contributions for both projects are proposed to be proportionate to the projects' traffic generation increment, adjusted for truck use (a very conservative - high range - factor of one large truck equals fifteen average vehicles is being used for planning purposes) . The County Public Works Department estimates the landfill's share of the Balfour Road intersection to be $300,000. Part of the cost of intersection work being . the additional traffic signals. There is no reliable estimate for the Hwy 4/Bailey Road interchange. An EIR is about to be prepared for it. Keller's engineer estimates the interchange at $8,000,000 and the landfill's share at $2,400,000 (20 of traffic times 15:1 truck adjustment equals 300) . -9- (g) Again, only rough figures for a Delta Expressway are available, and the preparation of an EIR is .only getting underway. Discussions with the County Public Works Department indicate that the estimated costs reported in the Community Development Department's memorandum to the Board of Supervisors are as good as any that might be generated at this time. That memorandum noted: "According to information just obtained from the Public Works Department, the cost of the road at an initial level of development (a 2-lane, at grade, roadway in a 4-lane right-of-way) would cost about $70 million for the Delta Expressway proper and about another $10 million for a 2-lane .connector to Vasco Road at Walnut boulevard. At an intermediate level of development (4-lane, without general grade separation), the cost would be about $95 million for the Delta Expressway and about another $15 million for the connector to Walnut Boulevard. The. Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval have not required the landfill project to make a specific contribution to the Delta Expressway because the COA for landfills typically do not propose special contributions to general purpose highway improvements, and in this case the cost and timing of improvements are uncertain. The COA, however, did provide that the landfill should participate in a benefit area if one is created. The participation would be based on the' extent the project contributed to the highway's traffic, adjusted for truck use. Currently, average daily traffic counts on Highway 4 east of the freeway are 17,500 ADT (at Neroly Road) . With beginning truck traffic at the landfill expected to be about 246 vehicles, the extent of use expected on a Delta Expressway would be about 1% to 1.4%. A conservative (high) multiplier for large trucks could be as high as 15:1. Assuming that existing, comparable-sized truck traffic is 5% of the total traffic on this section of Highway 4, landfill-generated j truck traffic would compromise approximately 8.3% to 11.4% of the equivalent average daily traffic (ADT) . Therefore, landfill traffic i would be responsible for about $6.64 million to $9.12 million (depending on whether the ADT volume at Cypress .Road or Neroly road is used) of an $80 million project. i l The above estimate does not take into account the costs of construction of the Expressway at an intermediate level (4 lanes at grade) or ultimate . level (4 lanes with grade separation) of development. The actual contribution that would be required by the landfill project to fund, its share of the Delta Expressway would be determined by an in-depth study." (h) The source of this estimate is the Contra Costa ' County Water District's i rough study for the extension of water service to the Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park area which was reported on in CCWD's letter of October 30, 1989, to the applicant (DEIR, Volume 2, Appendix L) . The extension was estimated to be $2,400,000; of this, about $316,000 (County Health Services Department estimate) represents the incremental . costs of extending the water main from the Marsh Canyon Landfill to the mobile home park. Source: Public Works Department Estimates except where noted. -10- i l t.; ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS COSTS FROM OPENING TO CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL Keller Marsh Cost Element Canyon Canyon i 1. Earthwork - Excavation to base grading plan see footnote (a) - Engineered fill (berms) 4,827,000 240,000, 1 2. Liner/Leachate Collection - Underdrain see footnote (b) - Clay layer 1,068,000 (c) 2,807,000 (c) - Flexible membrane 11,658,000 (d) 14,947,000 (d) - Leachate collection & removal see footnote (e) I 3. Landfill Gas Collection see footnote (f) i and Processing 4. Water Supply and Storage 448,000 (g) (g) (On-Site Facilities) 4,100,000 5. Ancillary Facilities 1,691,000 (h) (total for (h) . items 4,5,6) 6. Drainage and Runoff Controls 1,200,000 (i ) (i ) 7. Habitat/Agricultural, Mitigation 1,269,000 (j) 600,000 (j ) Landscaping, Other On-site 8. Construction Management see footnote (k) (a) Earthwork, Keller: 21,855,000 Marsh: 33,570,000. Keller generally "works" more earth for excavation and, especially, berm construction. Marsh, however, must work harder materials, "ripping" bedrock in some instances. If the County were to require lift level berms on Marsh, the differences- in Earthwork costs would be less. (b) Under-drain, Keller: 8,327,000 Marsh: 0. Keller proposes to install a "blanket" under-drain of gravel beneath the landfill foundation to drain off ground water and provide a back-up leachate conduit and collection system No comparable under-drain is proposed by Marsh because it has a somewhat drier site. However, the Contra Costa Water District has proposed, and staff concurs, that the County should require Marsh to provide a similar under-drain because leachate leakage would be a more serious problem in an area served by wells. -11- t (c) See applicant data submittals for assumptions. (d) See applicant data submittals for assumptions. (e) Leachate collection and removal , Keller: 14,940,000 Marsh: 7,403,000. To _ open the landfills, Keller reports a cost of $2,426,000 while Marsh expects an expenditure of $335,000. The disparities ,continue in the year 1-10 period. Keller estimates expenditures to be $5,479,000 compared with $847,000 for Marsh. Although there is somewhat more rainfall at the Keller site, the amounts of leachate that might be produced at both sites ought to be similar for comparable years of operation. One aspect of differences is that Keller provides a' figure for leachate collection and treatment while Marsh lumps leachate treatment within a generic ancillary facilities cost center. (f) Gas Collection and Processing Costs, Keller: 11,175,000 Marsh: 3,480,000. To open the landfills, Keller reports a cost of $187,500 while Marsh reports no expected costs. The difference might be attributable to Marsh's expectations that - it would not have to install a gas collection system until 1,000,000 tons of waste was in place rather than concurrently with the early depositions of waste, but the disparities continue: in the year 1 - 10 operations, for example, Keller _ forecasts spending $1,916,000 while Marsh proposes to spend $336,000. j (g) See applicant data submittals for assumptions. { (h) See applicant data submittals for assumptions. (i ) See applicant data submittals for assumptions. i (j) See applicant data submittals for assumptions. (k) Construction Management, Marsh: $2,610,00.0 Keller: $8,165,000. Marsh s uses an estimate based upon $9,000/acre. Keller uses .10% of construction costs: Yet, construction management should be approximately the same, once adjusted for the life of the landfill . i. t -12- i 1 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE COSTS Keller Marsh Cost Element Canyon Canyon Final Cover - subtotal 5,095,000 (a) 7,746,000 (b) - Foundation 1,834,000 detail not avail. - Cap Layer 1,427,000 detail not avail. Topsoil/protective soil 1,834,000 detail not avail. Annual Maintenance See footnote (c) jBiannual Survey for Settlement See footnote (d) Annual Monitoring, Air See footnote (e) and Ground and Surface Water r (a) Keller: The final cover consists of a two-foot foundation layer of compacted soil, a one-foot clay cap layer, and a two-foot topsoil/ protective layer. The unit prices are: $2.25 per cubic yard for the foundation layer; $3.50 per cubic yard for the clay cap layer; and $2.25 per cubic yard for the topsoil layer. The costs estimated above are for the entire system. In reality the final cover will be placed as filling progresses. The approximate periods and percentage of final cover installed are: Year 1-10, no cover; Year 11-20, 130; Year 21-30, 26%; Year 31-40, 620. (b) Marsh: The final cover consists of a two-foot foundation layer of compacted soil, a one-foot clay cap layer, and a one-foot topsoil/ protective layer. The unit prices are: $1.32 per cubic yard for hauling soil; $2.05 per cubic yard . for spreading soil; $.65 per cubic yard for soil compactor and $.50 per cubic yard for fine grading. Final cover assumes the foundation is intermediate cover. Calculated at 4839 cubic yards per acre (290 acres) . (c) Annual Maintenance. Keller: $160,000. Marsh: $1,015,000.. Keller figure based on personnel cost and a yearly cost for .leachate management. Marsh figure based upon per acre costs for fine grading, drainage maintenance, vegetation maintenance and a yearly figure for security. These costs should not differ so greatly. (d) Biannual Survey. Keller: $20,000. Marsh: $750/acre. On a per acre basis, Keller costs are $91. On a yearly basis, Marsh's costs are $217,500. Marsh references Mean's Cost data (page •3) and assumes "1/2 of .maximum topographic cost." Keller references typical costs of performing an aerial survey and producing a digitized map. These costs should not differ so greatly. (e) Annual Monitoring: Keller: $37,000. Marsh: $3,492,000. Keller figures based upon frequency of monitoring by task. Marsh figures based upon frequency of monitoring by cost per acre. These costs should not differ so greatly. -13- ESTIMATED REGULATORY AND PROGRAM COSTS BOTH LANDFILLS . . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Property Taxes/Ton Planning Surcharge/Ton 1.00 Inspection Surcharge .35 Development Coordinator Recycling Coordinator Franchise Fee Geo-Technical Inspector Transportation Benefit Area COSTS UNDETERMINED i Advisory Committee EXCEPT AS NOTED Drainage Area 'Fee OTHER GOVERNMENT CHARGES Water Hook-Up (CCWD) AB 939. 1.00 j State Closure Fund . RWQCB Monitoring BAAQMD Monitoring LANDFILL SITE PROGRAMS Recycling Household Hazardous Waste III Composting Abandoned Vehicle Storage 1 I i -14- CONTRA COSTA'COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 25, 1991 TO: Supervisor Tom Powers, Chair, Board of Supervisors Supervisor Nancy H. Fanden Supervisor Sunne McPeak Supervisor Robert Schroder Supervisor Tom Torlakson FROM: Charles A. Zahn, Assistant Director (:7— SUBJECT: INITIAL CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS FOR THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL I thought it appropriate to inform the members of the Board of Supervisors that the Keller Canyon Landfill Company has met the prerequisites necessary to proceed with the construction of the initial components of the Keller Canyon Landfill. These components are: grading for the first fill module, construction of the toe berm, grading of the sedimentation basin, and grading for the main on-site access road.' Collectively, these are known as the Phase 1 a improvements. In addition, the project sponsor has met the requirements to proceed with improvements to the Lawlor Creek Corridor habitat area consistent with the California Department of Fish and Game's Streambed Alteration Agreement 1461-90. Technically, the Keller Canyon Landfill Company has complied with components of the project's Final Development and Improvements Plan. The Conditions of Approval of Land Use Permit 2020-89 specify the contents of the }Final Development and Improvements Plan and allow phasing. Keller Canyon's Final Development Plan was first submitted to County start in an initial form on July 23'd and has been under continual staff review since then. Although the project sponsor obtained regulatory agencies' policy 1-roprovais (discretionary permits) or their terms by August 8`", several agencies' :approvals, primarily at the staff level, were necessary before the Community Deveiopnler.t Department could authorize construction. These were: the Board of Supervisors' f nal step in canceling the Williamson Act Contracts of the site, the Riverview Fire District's approval of the fire protection plan for initial construction, clarification of the C.11+fornil-I Department of F!sn 111)cJ Gurnr;'s Streamt)ed Alteration Agreements pertaining to 1 erosion and sediment control, acceptance of construction plans!by the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, and acceptance of Phase 1 a construction plans by the County Public Works Department (and Flood Control District staff). In addition, several submittals which the Land Use Permit made prerequisites to construction were received and reviewed. These remaining approvals and submittals were accounted for as of today October 25, 1991 . As noted in previous memoranda, the next stage 'of construction pertaining to the landfill itself would be the installation of foundation improvements (i.e., sub-drain, liners, leachate collection system). CAZ:se cz:KCconst.mem cc: County Administrator County Counsel County Health Services Department CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 15, .1991 (Updates listed on page 4) TO: Charles Zahn, Assistant Director Ray Valone, Project Manager FROM: Vicki Conklin, Assistant Project Manager SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL: Pre-construction compliance to Conditions of Approval - PHASE IA As a result of our October 1, 1991 meeting with Chris Choate, Phil Wheeler and Pam Molsick, Brown and Caldwell, several items were identified as not yet received from the project applicant. At our meeting on October 8, 1991, with Scott Gordon representing the applicant, we were informed that the below• listed items will be submitted prior to the County authorizing the complete package constituting Phase la construction of the project (on-site access road, toe berm and sedimentation basin) as follows: Substantiated/ Approved: X 1. Condition 3.9 Notice Coordination: Submit QA and QC plan. Substantiation by CDD. (Received and substantiated by CDD on 10/15/91 ) X 2 . Condition 3.11 Master Chart: Submit phasing plan ( see 417 ) and master chart detailed for Phase la, indicate when subsequent submittals will be provided. Approval by CDD. ( Construction Flow Chart received and approved by CDD on 10/25/91 ) . X 3 . Condition 9. 6 Special Buffer Area: Provide documentation of offer to dedicate to (7junty. Substantiation by CDD. (Received and substantiated by CDD on 10/23/91 ) X 4 . Condition 11. 3 Insurance/Bonding: Provide documentation of insurance or bonding, as required ( e . q. by PW) . Substantiation by CDD. The only agency that )ias required a bond at this stage is SFRWQCB. ( Received and substantiated by CDD on 10/25/91 ) . or- X 5. Condition 14.2 Regulatory Approval: Provide copies of Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFG. Substantiation by CDD. (Received and substantiated 10/21/91 by CDD) . X 6. Condition 16 Slope and Seismic Stability: Provide letter of authorization from SFRWQCB. Substantiation by CDD. (Received and substantiated by CDD on 10/23/91 ) . X .7 . Condition 16.3 Landslide Study: Provide certified study by licensed geotechnical professional. Substantiation by CDD. (Substantiated by CDD on 10/25/91) . X 8 . Condition 18.2 Surface Drainage System: Submit letter of approval from SFRWQCB. Substantiation by CDD. (Received and substantiated by CDD on 10/23/91) . X 9. Condition 18.4.e Surface water management & sediment control plan - Sedimentation Ponds: Submit plan for Phase la; sedimentation basin, slope stability analysis; baseline water quality and revegetation plan. Approval by CDD, HSD, PW, SFRWQCB. (Received and approved by CDD and SFRWQCB -on 10/23/91 . Received and approved by HSD 10/24/91. Partial approval from PW on 10/23/91 ) . X 10. Condition 18.5 Surface water monitoring program: Provide letter of substantiation by SFRWQCB.- ( Submit report establishing baseline water quality for surface water discharge to CDD) . [Report establishing baseline water quality for ,surface water discharge received by CDD on 10/15/913 . Approval HSD. (Received and approved by HSD on 10/24/91 ) . ll . Condition 21.2 Noise Monitoring Program: While not required as a pre-construction condition, it is advised that baseline noise levels be measured at sites referred to in condition 21 . 2 prior to , construction. Substantiation by .CDD. X 12 . Condition 22.2 Landscape Plan: Provide landscaping plan for Phase la, including screening of securit_, fencing, toe berm landscaping ( see #13 ) and cut slope revegetation. Approval by CDD. ( Cut slope and toe berm revegetation received and approved by CDD on 10/23 / 31 . Landscape screening _referred to the Local �'dvisorl Committee for their review and approval ) . X 13 . Condition 22.3 Toe . Berm: Submit copy of slope stabilityanalysis approval '(as part of the Sediment Control Plan ) from SFRWQCB; revegetation plan. Approval by CDD. (Received. and approved by CDD on 10/23/91) . X 14. Condition 23.9 Supplemental Wildlife Survey: Provide copy of submittals to USFWS. Substantiation by CDD. (Received and substantiated by CDD on 10/15/91 ) . X 15. Condition 27.2 Security Fencing: Show screening (see #.12) from Bailey Road and Jacqueline Drive in relationship to security fencing, firebreaks, and habitat enhancement areas ( see #19) . Approvals by RFPD, HSD, CDD. (Approved by RFPD on 10/22/91, approved and refered to Local Advisory Committee by CDD on 10/23/91, approved by HSD on 10/24/91) . X 16 . Condition 30: Site Services and Utilities Plan. Provide water supply and fire protection plans for Phase la covering: X 30. 3 On-site water wells: documentation that existing wells are sufficient for construction and fire protection purposes. (Received Technical Memorandum on 10/21/91 ) X 30. 5 Fire protection component. X 30.7 Construction Timing ( access roads and water supply system) . X 30 . 8 On-site water storage. X 30 . 12 Fire Breaks ( see #12 and #19 ) . X 30 . 13 Fire Extinguishers. X 30 . 17 Emergency Equipment Access. Submit documentation of approval of the Phase la plan by RFPD. Approval by HSD and CDD. ( Received documentation of approval by RFPD on 10/23/91 . approved by CDD on 10/23/91 , approved by HSD on 10/24/91 ) . X 17 . Condition 32.4 Phasing Plan: See z2 . approval by CDD. ('Received and approved by CDD on 10/25/91 ) . X 18 . Condition 33 .2 Funding of Closure & Postclosure Maintenance Plan: Provide documentation of funding mechanism submittal to HSD. Substantiation by CDD. ( Documented submittal to HSD and substantiated by CDD cn 3 19 . /Sheet 3 Design ! Drawings: Site Plan: Submit consolidated site plan showing locations of habitat enhancement (mitigation) areas, firebreaks, security fencing, screening, ground water monitoring system, landfill gas monitoring system, livest_ockfencing, property lines, and limit of l initial berm construction ( see #12, #15, and #16) . Approval by CDD. (With CDD' s authority, site plan will be received within 1 to 3 weeks of this date) . 0,c(i*,P("C11 /LLCe�,b�.,v- ,C.e t i�c'ce s7W-�-f t-�. CG���I?«c!��`- • �- X 20. Final , (Wetland). Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: Provide documentation of compliance with item #1 of the 10/3/91 conditional certification from SWRCB. Substantiation by CDD. (Received and substantiated on 10/21/91 by CDD) . X 21 . Final Development and Improvement Plan: Submit Appendix I - Cut and Fill Slope Stability Analysis. Approval by CDD. (Received on 10/21/91 by CDD, approved by ,CDD ori 10/23/91 ) . Updated October 17, 1991 ( # ' s 1 , 10, 14 ) Updated October 21, 1991 ( # ' s 5, 20 ) Updated October 24 , 1991 ( # ' s 3 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 13 ,' 15 , 16 , 18 , 21 ) Updated ,October 25, 1991 ( # ' s 2, 4, 7 , 9 [partial] , 17 ) LEGEND: CDD: Community Development Department ( County) HSD: Health Services Department (County) PW: Public Works (County) RFPD: Riverview Fire Protection District CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game SFRWQCB: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board vc3 : KLRCOA.00T 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 14, 1991 TO: Val Alexeeff, Director Growth Management & Economic Development Agency FROM: Charles A. Zahn, Assistant Director - Conservation Programs SUBJECT:. KELLER CANYON AND MARSH CANYON LANDFILLS CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS This is in response to your request for the status of construction approvals for the two landfill projects. In making the evaluation provided below, it had to be assumed that neither project would be held up by litigation or unusual regulatory agency delays. Keller Canyon Landfill As reported in the attached October 13" Contra Costa Times article, Keller Canyon Landfill has obtained its regulatory agency construction permits (policy approvals). The sequence of construction that can be followed depends on whether the California Department of Fish and Game will allow grading in the Keller Canyon drainageway between October 15th and .April 1s' (it had been understood that grading would be allowed subject to thorough sediment and erosion control requirements). If grading in the Keller Canyon drainageway is not allowed during the wet season, other construction components could be pursued but in a different sequence and the timeline to opening would be extended by several months. It is noted that the Streambed Alteration Agreements do not control all construction; and,, one actually requires some installations to be made during the wet season. Initiating construction is contingent on the Community Development Department, and other departments for specific -improvements, approving parts of the Final Development and Improvements Plan. In turn, the Community Development Department is awaiting letters or similar agreements from other agencies having jurisdiction such as the Riverview Fire Protection District (e.g., locations of fire breaks), the Public Works Department and Flood Control District (roads and drainage features), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff (approval of sedimentation. pond fixtures), as well as copies of certain studies pertinent to initial construction. These are implementation, not policy, items. Approvals might be received in a matter of a few days to a few weeks. Staff has been reviewing construction-related documents since a basic overall Final Development and Improvements Plan was submitted in late July. As our letter of August 216t to the Keller Canyon Landfill Company stated, we expect to allow construction through a series of approvals of individual installations (the conditions of approval allow phased approvals and construction). Most of our approvals involve "checking" to, insure that various agency approvals are included in the plan and fit together. Some of these, such as landscaping, allow discretion and we expect to discuss them with the Local Advisory Committee before giving approvals. We expect to be involved in reviewing documents and giving approvals up until the time of opening. Keller estimates that construction will take four to six months. During this time, the permittee would have to obtain a number of non-construction approvals such as a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, from the County Health Services Department and California Integrated Waste Management Board, and disposal rates from the Board of Supervisors. Included are arrangements for participation in several AB 939 programs which are currently under development by the County and the AB 939 Task Force such as household hazardous waste. Marsh Canyon Landfill Again, as reported in the October. 13th Contra Costa Times article, the permittee has obtained most of the regulatory agency permits required for construction, but still lacks a Corps of Engineers' permit. Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) is beginning efforts tory obtain local approvals for construction. The firm is discussing an annexation proposal with the Contra Costa Water District and.the Local Agency Formation Commission relative to extending a water line to the site. Similarly, discussions with the County Public Works Department on the reconstruction of Marsh Creek Road have resumed. Late last week, WMI engineers requested an appointment with the Community Development Department staff to discuss Final Development and Improvements Plan submittals. On September 4th, they were told that they could pursue a course similar to Keller's. At this point in the process, we do not have adequate information to plot a flow chart. We do not know, for example, how the Central Valley RWQCB staff will react to the construction drawings submitted to.them (the RWQCB approvals, in effect, determine the actual construction of the landfill itself) and how long they will take. Based on our experience with Keller, it appears to be possible for WMI to obtain construction approvals in early 1992 and to build the facility and its off-site improvements by late 1992. CAZ:gms czACL&MCI.Val Attachments: October 13th Contra Costa Times article August 21St letter to Keller Canyon Landfill Company Lem,.munity CopraDiieciorHarvey E. n 'De V elOpml.+nt of Community Development Co 8ta Department County Administration Building Count 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 r` Phone: 646-2096 -�_=-`? .'':.� August 21 , 1991 Mr. Boyd M. Olney, Jr., President Keller Canyon Landfill Company 441 North Buchanan Circle Pacheco, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Olney: SUBJECT: INITIAL SUBMITTAL OF KELLER CANYON LANDFILL FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN This is to acknowledge the receipt of the Keller Canyon Landfill Company's Final Development and Improvements Plan submittal on July 23`d and to confirm the understandings reached at meetings on July 25?''. and August 2"d regarding its processing with your representatives (Bruen and Gordon, CI-12M Hill), the Community . Development Department (Zahn, Valone, Conklin), and our consultant, Brown and Caldwell (Choate, Wheeler). 1 . The July, 1991, Keller Canyon Landfill Company Final Development and .Improvements Plan submittal will be used by the Community Development Department as its primary basis for the review of Final Development and Improvements Plan components. The Community Development Department's acceptance of the submittal as a working document does not constitute approval of any Final Development and Improvements Plan component. 2. The Keller Canyon Landfill Company : will submit any additional Final Development and Improvements Plan component information to the Community Development Department and other departments, if requested, for review and consideration for approval. The additional information may include such supplemental data, calculations, tests, analyses or regulatory agency materials that the Community Development Department may require to perform an adequate technical review of the component. The supplemental materials may include specific references to subject matter in the previously submitted Comprehensive Project Description, Site Characterization Report, Report of Disposal Site Information, or regulatory agency permits. Typically, the reviews of engineering and geo-technical subject matter will be performed by Brown and s .. Mr. Boyd Olney, Jr. (`r Date: August 21 , 1991 Initial Submittal of KCL Final File: R-25G-2 Development & Improvement Plan -2- Caldwell for the Community Development Department. Construction activities will be authorized upon Community Development Department approval of individual Final Development and Improvements Plan components. . 3. The Brown and Caldwell reviews for the County will not duplicate engineering and scientific reviews by public agencies having primary jurisdiction, such as the Public Works Department for County roads, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff for installations subject to Chapter 15 Compliance, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, etc. 4. The Keller Canyon Landfill Company will provide an expected schedule for submitting component documents for later phasing of landfill development. The phasing schedule shall include submittals to regulatory agencies. The initial schedule and any subsequent revisions will be subject to. Community Development Department approvals.' 5. The Community Development Department will not "get ahead" of the RWQCB, or any other regulatory agency with outstanding approvals. In cases where compliance of approved permits from other agencies is contingent upon timely. receipt of plans and/or reports, the Department will monitor these requirements for compliance by the Keller Canyon Landfill Company. The Department understands that the RWQCB staff's approval of the landfill's construction plans,is taking place and entails review of part of the Final Development and Improvements Plan. Until this approval is made, the Community Development Department expects the Keller Canyon Landfill Company to obtain .clearance from the RWQCB for components which could affect aspects of the project under its jurisdiction before the County Community Development Department will approve those components. 6. The Community Development Department will coordinate reviews with other affected County departments by circulating documents and keeping them informed. The Keller Canyon Landfill Company, however, needs to apply directly to those departments for their permits and required approvals. These include off-site road improvements through the :Public Works Department, building permits through the Building Inspection Department, and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit through the Health Services Department. 7. The Community Development Department acknowledges the Keller Canyon Landfill Company's interest in immediately commencing Phase I module grading and the construction of the initial phase of the toe berm prior to the wet season Mr. Boyd Olney, Jr. vate: August 21 , 1991 Initial Submittal of KCL Final File: R-25G-2 Development & Improvement Plan -3- and to enable re-vegetation to become established. Condition 22.3 requires the toe berm to be constructed first to provide visual screening and noise reduction. 8. The on-site haul road improvements and the off-site improvements to Bailey Road in the unincorporated area, including the entrance intersection, should be carried out as soon as practicable. Keller Canyon Landfill Company will provide the Department with an overview of the site construction schedule. 9. The Community Development Department intends to schedule a meeting of the Local Advisory Committee as soon as practicable. 10. The Community Development Department expects that all applicable Conditions of Approval for Land Use Permit 2020-89 will be complied with prior to the opening of the landfill to receive waste, including the conclusion of franchising and rate setting arrangements by the Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions, please call me at 646-2096 or Ray Valone at 646-4194. Sincerely yours, Charles A. Zahn Assistant Director CAZ:gms cz:B•Olney.KCL cc: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development Mr. Scott Gordon, c/o Keller Canyon Landfill Company Brown and Caldwell County Administrator County Counsel Health Services Department Building. Inspection Department Public Works Department He R-25G-2 r��� i.,,s•+•r'."^ �'!`K•; sd '�".`•'ti�,�ft'^rar' ".�x' ~''fit w• .. -v R ...-w b ,'r� ,�.dlz -i �•~ ,' C�o t7 r •,, Landfills n-ay be in home' shviintch : nothing is certain,"Rowden says. Two operators 0 CONTRA COSTA LANDFILL PROJECTS STATUS Keller Canyon foes have filed project opening MARSH KELLER four lawsuits to stop the project. Three of those suits were filed by PERMITS/APPROVALS CANYON CANYON the city of Pittsburg,with the city of byend of X((��72 Local entitlements Concord joining the fourth. Brown- by successfully fought one By Gayle Vassar Melvin (Includes General Plan ✓ ✓ suit, only to have it appealed to a Sun writer amendment,land-use permits) higher court. MARTINEZ — Construction of Two suits,appeal of permit Contra Costa's first new landfill in Regional Water Quality Control 35 years could begin within weeks. The Marsh Canyon landfill faces I Maybe. 2 Bay Area Air Quality legal challenges from the city of After chopping through political Mana ement District Brentwood, the Sierra Club, the g East Bay Regional Park District and and regulatory forests, garbage gi• ants Waste Management and A pwi„ the ui Marsh Creek Association. Two Browning-Ferris both appear to be i Army Corps of Engineers ,vso .�,,t ✓ suits are pending against the Marsh entering the final leg of the drive to Canyon project as well as an appeal '' $> State Dept.of Fish and Game � , of the landfill's air quality permit by build n county landfill. e,aa q m„ Spokesmen for the two compa- a neighborhood group. nies say they expect to be in busi- Final Development d Improvement Plan Review Each landfill developer also must ness before the end of 1992. Regional Water Quality Control Board In have an approved final development The sooner the better, says review,Contra Costa County review progress and improvement plan in place be- Chuck Zahn, the county planner fore building begins.The plan goes charged with guiding the landfills Williamson Act cancellation WA through two reviews,one by county through the-permit process.Contra officials and the other by the Re- Costa's remaining landfills are fill- Franchise agreements ✓ ✓ gional Water Quality Control Board. ing up rapidly, and the cost of ex- Rowden says he expects Waste porting waste to other counties isoz Management's plan to be ready for likely to skyrocket in upcoming ne- F Solid Waste facilities permit review by the end of the month. gotiations,he says. 9 Browning-Ferris has submitted its "We're playing against the clock $ Closure/post-closure maintenance,' final development plan for Keller here." Zahn said. It's like Elva Canyon, says county planner Ray ,crossing the river in front of Uncle Valone. Tom's cabin by stepping on ice Time. floes.It's nerve-racking,and you're "Getting that equipment on site we be allowed to build.We're in a Although the plan o a whole has never really guaranteed of that next was a real gutsy move," he says. !position where we could be up and not been approved, county and re- piece of ice." . "They do it with a level of risk." running as early as February." gional boards have approved sec- John Rowden, project manager Next vote on Tuesday Waste Management stiff lacks tions dealing with initial grading .for Waste Management's Marsh one key permit. The U.S. Army and the construction of a berm to ,Canyon landfill southeast of Brent- Attorney Tom Bruen, represent- Corps of Engineers, acting as the hide the landfill from the sight of wood, says it's too early to declare ing Keller owner.Browning-Ferris, regulatory agency for U.S.Fish and nearby homes. the landfill dilemma resolved. says he expects the risk to pay off. .Wildlife, coninues to withhold that "We expect to give approvals on In California, one thing is for County supervisors will vote again permit while Waste Management what you might call the installment certain," he says: "It's never over on lifting the agricultural preserve, develops a satisfactory mitigation plan,"Valone says. "When you say 'fit it's over or Williamson Act, status on Tues- program for the endangered San 'go construct' it's not like an office Browning-Ferris, owners of the day,and Bruen says he believes this Joaquin kit fox.The fox has never building that}ou do all at once." Keller Canyon landfill near Pitts- time the vote will favor Keller Can- been sighted on the Marsh Canyon Keller Canyon has several other burg, learned that lesson Tuesday yon, land,but there have been sightings loose ends to fie up before construc• when a majority of county supervi- If he's right, Keller Canyon will within a mile of landfill property. tion can begin,says Zahn. som refused to lift the landfill site's probably be the first to break Rowden says the mitigation Those loose ends include a con- agricultural preserve status. ground.But Bruen says he isn't con- study should be done by the end of struction landscaping plan and fire Before that decision, Browning- corned about winning the landfill the year. district approval of emergency ac- Ferris had already moved $l0 mil- race. Even with all key permits in cess routes, he says. The operators lion worth of huge, dust-colored "If you ask me,who opens first hand, both landfill companies face will also have to-In two operating equipment onto the 2,600-acre site. isn't a big deal," he says. "But it legal challenges. Ipermits before accepting waste. They might have moved too makes a difference to us that now "You can get all the permits,but The permit process has been a soon,says Rowden- that we have the permits to build, '-until the appeals are exhausted, rocky one,Zahn says. Ad e--Ovz7 - � G , .�� �- vk" AIJ -� �40 U� Joseph"Joe"Arrigo Owner/Broker Realtor ii-21-91 Dear Mr and Mrs Wall , Thanks for accepting my clients offer to purchase your home . They were jumping with joy when they heard that you had accepted their offer . As you know, I have a fiduciary responsibility to my buyer as well as the seller . After checking with the planning dept . I found out that the garbage dump was only 1800 feet away from your home. This is unbelievable . Needless to say, my client told me not to open escrow and to look for a home in a different area . I 'm sorry about all -this . I hope the best for you . Sincerely, Joe Arrigo/Realtor Broker 1677 6th Street • Concord, California 94519 • 415-671-0390 C6%A6 soler we .L J November 27, 1991 °n ECOV 10 Tom Powers, Chairman DEC — 2 1991 and Members Board of Supervisors CLERtt ROARS®R SURER(;R8' Contra Costa County coiVTRA coss,�co. County Administration Building P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: Agenda Item H.2, December 3, 1991; Proposed Methodology to Determine Extent of Property Value Losses Related to Keller Canyon Landfill: Keller Canyon Permit Conditions of Arwroval (20-20-89) Section 35.3 Dear Chairman Powers and Board Members: At the request of the City of Pittsburg, I am writing this letter to set forth appropriate methodology regarding the special condition of approval for the Keller Canyon landfill that calls for the implementation of a property value compensation program. As a part of that program a study to determine the extent of property value losses and the means of compensating for such losses is to be conducted. The methodology that would be appropriate for such a study is suggested below. I am also writing to emphasize the importance to any such study of having access to the data base on sales prices and dwelling characteristics that is maintained by the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office. Any study to estimate the effect of the landfill's operation on property values should consider the relevant economic theory and past experiences in order to hypothesize the likely effects of the landfill operation and test these hypotheses with empirical research. The empirical research should use a statistical technique referred to as multiple regression hedonic price modeling to measure the impact of the landfill on property values. Hedonic price models are predictive equations that explain variation in property values as a function of differences in the levels and combinations of structural, neighborhood, accessibility and amenity characteristics of property. Behavioral research with a relevant sample of people in the affected land use markets and those familiar with their motivations and actions, e.g. realtors, should also be conducted both to augment and aid in the interpretation of the statistical results. A large body of economic literature exists on the determinants of real estate value. In the jargon of that literature, nearby activities that enhance demand for land uses at Gruen Gruen+Associates 564 Howard Street San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3071 (415)433-7598 cc: DARD MEMBERS (Provided) Tom Powers, Chairman and Members — Board of Supervisors November 27, 1991 Page 2 a location are referred to as positive externalities or amenities. Nearby activities that lessen demands for land uses or increase the availability of uses at a given price within an area are referred to as negative externalities or disamenities. The literature includes past studies of the effects of perceived disamenities, including landfills, and should be utilized in order to frame the two empirical portions of the research on the effects of the Keller Canyon Landfill operations on the relative value of property in affected locations. Time series data on residential values, reflected by sales prices, at alternative locations should be studied to test hypotheses about the impact of the landfill and measure statistically identifiable effects on values. The statistical technique of multiple regression should be employed to define hedonic pricing models that can be used to sort out the effect of the landfill's operation from the many other factors that affect value. What this hedonic technique permits the analyst to do is develop equations that reliably predict residential sale price (the dependent variable) as a function of housing characteristics (the independent variables) such as size of living area, physical quality, the presence or absence of swimming pools, views, decks, lot size, proximity to transit, neighborhood characteristics, etc. With such equations identified and on a computer the analyst can then vary one variable in a data base such as distance to a landfill in order to estimate the value impact of the landfill. The utility of this regression technique is dependent upon the appropriateness of the interpretation that is made of its results and the statistical validity and adequacy of the data used to build the regression equation. Fortunately the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office has long been collecting and maintaining, on computer files, excellent time series data of just the type needed to develop good hedonic pricing models through the use of multiple regression. The information that the Assessor's Office collects identifies the last sales price, and the physical and locational characteristics of all residential parcels in the County. The comprehensive nature of the characteristics identified for each geographically-defined parcel makes this data base particularly useful. O Tom Powers, Chairman and Members — Board of Supervisors November 27, 1991 Page 3 A second kind of empirical research should also be employed to augment and assist in the interpretation of the hedonic .pricing models and their use to identify and estimate the scale of any impacts on property values. Value effects result when the number and desire of would-be buyers is diminished causing a demand decrease or when the number of would-be sellers at a given price increases. Therefore, to check out hypotheses and assist in the interpretation of the statistical analysis, interviews should also be conducted of buyers and sellers or those familiar with the motivations, behavior and number of would-be buyers and sellers in the relevant markets. Both of the empirical techniques suggested above as appropriate methodology should be conducted initially to identify and estimate the extent of the impact of the anticipation of and operation of the landfill on property values. These techniques should then be used periodically to monitor potentially changing effects over time. Sincerely, Claude Gruen Principal Economist CG:sb cc: Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management & Economic Development Agency Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Jim Hicks, Chairman, Citizens United Victor J. Westman, County Counsel O ' DATE' '^' � '6 REQUEST TO .SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressingqie Board. NAME: PHONrtr ADDRESS: Cny: r Y .I am speaking formyse'w><o , OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANI ATION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda item # My comments will be: generaI4—,�:,-� for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2.' You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are' speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons maybe heard.) DATE: REQUEST TO. SPEAK FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: � �trsh Cis c�P.K /t.c�}�a[ #l3�y CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: 0 o R c , Q 55X, Check one: (NAME OF RGA 17.ATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board-to consider. SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name ,and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK F' ORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 7/ Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: C PHONE: ADDRESS: CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGAN17V'ION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # / My comments will be: general fory against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these.comments for the Board to consider. SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. t 3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking. for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation. if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) DATE: REQUEST To SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. . p NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: P0, "BO)I, 1�b I) CITY: el-r-r-sourz-a I am speaking formyself_`OR organization: C4-02jeM-5 0h(r (NAME OF ORGAN17aTlON) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item it FI , My comments will be: general for V/ against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. SPEAKERS I. Deposit the "Request. to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating, your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)