HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10171995 - D.7 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSa. a.a_
- - _ C ntra
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR `� Costa
GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
County
DATE: October 17, 1995
SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . ACCEPT the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study which was
completed by the Institute for Community Planning Assistance of Sonoma State
University on November 30, 1994.
2. ALLOW a 30-day period for written challenges.
3. DIRECT staff to return to the Board of Supervisors with options for the next
step in this process after the 30-day period.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact is unclear at this point due to the uncertainty of what amount may
be authorized, how it would be dispersed and how it would be funded.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On June 6, 1995 the Board of Supervisors directed that the County's economic
consultant (ICPA of Sonoma State University) meet with economists representing BFI
and the City of Pittsburg, who provided comment at the Board hearing, to discuss the
details of the study and the economic model which were being disputed. If possible
the meetings were intended to try and resolve these differences.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ./ YES SIGNATURE
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 17, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are APPROVED;
and that the Staff is DIRECTED to return to the Board of Supervisors
with options for the next step :in the process after the 30 day period.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT nnna AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Charles Zahn (510/646-2096) ATTESTED October 17, 1995
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
GMEDA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Keller Canyon Landfill Company COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
City of Pittsburg
Citizens United
Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council BY�a DEPUTY
DD9:KCL-PVS.BO
r �
Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study
October 17, 1995
Continued - Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
After over 100 hours of follow-up work performed by the County's consultant (ICPA
of Sonoma State University) issues are still unresolved. Each discussion begets new
questions and the County's consultant and staff fear that the consultant could spend
another six months reviewing each issue from varying perspectives without any clear
resolution.
The County's consultant is confident that their original recommendations set forth in
their report dated November 30, 1994 have not had fatal flaws in the methodology
or results and they stand behind their recommendations.
Additional background is included in the previous Board Order dated June 6, 1995
which is provided as Attachment Al (accompanied with multiple attachments). Also
a concerned homeowner has submitted a letter which is provided as Attachment A2.
DD9:KCL-PVS.BO
Keller Canyon Landfill .
PropertyValuation Study
1CPA
Institute for Community Planning Assistance
Sonoma State University
November 30, 1994
Project Directors:
Steven C. Orlick, Ph.D.
Department of Environmental
Studies and Planning
Stephen D. Lewis, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
DEDICATION
This report is dedicated to Vicki Conklin, planner with the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department,who passed away while this study was being conducted. It was with a
deep sense of loss that the ICPA staff members who had worked closely with her completed the
remainder of this study.
n
f {.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our appreciation to the many individuals who participated in and
contributed to the two year research effort documented in this report. Jane Riley, ICPA Projects
Manager, had the challenging responsibility of keeping the entire project moving along on
schedule and within budget. Kristine Bickell, ICPA Senior Research Assistant, assumed many
different responsible roles during the duration of the project. She deserves special praise for
overseeing the preparation of the final document. Kim Mahurin-Holt provided invaluable help
both in rechecking the accuracy of the economic analysis sections of this report, as well as with
general proofreading. Misti Cobb skillfully assisted in producing the graphics for the final report.
Helen Persson superbly performed hedonic regressions which helped to refine the analysis. ICPA
Research Assistants, Margaret Pennington, Jeff Cichocki Jr., Robin Kirby, Clare OBrian, Mike
Demers, and Eric Duncan conducted the various surveys, helped construct the database, and
construct and test the model.
Special thanks go to Shelley Chambers, Greg Jann, Karen.O'Conner, Margaret Pennington, Helen
Persson, Anne Shatara, and Theodore Watrous, senior students in Dr. Lewis'Economics 419
(Seminar in Econometrics and Forecasting) class at Sonoma State University for helping to test
certain data and techniques later employed in this study.
We wish to express our appreciation to John Bedford, Bedford and Associates Century Twenty
One, Pittsburg, for allowing ICPA staff to utilize his firm's sales history data sources.
Finally,we would like to thank Charles Zahn and Deidra Dingman, planners with the Contra
Costa County Community Development Department, for the considerable assistance they
provided and professionalism they exhibited throughout the project. We warmly remember the
helpfulness, competence, and good humor of Vicki Conklin, a planner with the same department,
who passed away halfway through our study.
Steven C. Orlick
Stephen D. Lewis
Project Directors
Sonoma State University
iu
r T
A t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................... . 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................ ................ 2
Introduction ......................................................................... 2
Chapter 1: Background and Development of the Study ............................... 3
Chapter 2: Database Construction and Identification of the Neighborhoods ........... 4
Chapter 3: Real Estate Trends ....................................................... 4
Chapter 4: Hedonic Regression Price Model ...... ................................... 5
Chapter 5: Antioch Comparable Neighborhoods ..................................... 5
Chapter 6: Support Surveys ............. .................. .......... ............ .... 6
Lenders and Appraisers Surveys . ................ 6
FieldSurveys .......... ............ ... .. .... .............. ... ... ... . ........... . 6
Community Opinion Surveys ........... ............... . ......... .... . ...... . . ... 7
Chapter 7: Willingness to Pay Analysis ............................................... 9
Chapter 8: Integration of Statistical and Survey Results by Neighborhood ............ 9
Neighborhood NA (Hillsdale) ................. .................... .............. 10
Neighborhood NB (Oak Hills) ...... . ....... ........ .. ..... .. . .. ............ ... 10
Neighborhood NC (Woodside) .................................. ............... 11
Neighborhood NE (Bailey Road) .. . ................... .......... ............... 11
Chapter 9: Recommendations .... .................................. ................. 12
Neighborhood NA(Hillsdale) ..... .............................. ............... 12
Neighborhood NB (Oak Hills) ................................... ............ ... 12
Neighborhood NC (Woodside) ............................. ... ... . ............. 13
Neighborhood NE (Bailey Road) ............................................... 13
Conclusion of the Study ........................................................ 13
PART II, KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY
VALUATION STUDY ............................................... 15
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ......................... . ...... ... 16
History of the Keller Canyon Landfill .............................. ...... ........... 16
ICPA's Involvement in the Study .................................... .. . . ........ 18
Development of the Study Methodology ............................... .. .. ... ... .. . 18
Adjustments to the Work Program While Conducting the Study ... ........ ..... .... . 20
iv
Appraisal Disclaimer ................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 2: DATABASE CONSTRUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF
NEIGHBORHOODS .......................... ............. ..... ....... . ......... 23
Introduction ..................................... ................ ........ ............ 23
Database Development .................................................... ....... .
.. 3 2
Primary Neighborhoods ............................................... ......... 23
Comparable Neighborhoods ........................................ . ........... 23
Availability of Data ....................................... . ..................... 25
Collection of Data .............................................................. 25
Construction of Database ....................................................... 25
Database Summary . ......... ............... ............. ........ ...... ..... . ... 25
Neighborhood Statistics ... .... .................... ........ .. .... ...... . .. ........... 26
Exploratory Data Analysis ... ...... .................................... .......... 26
Year-Built Analysis ................ ................... .......................... 28
Housing Characteristics-Ratios ................................................. 28
Housing Characteristics - Summary Statistics ......... ................. ......... 29
Summary Neighborhood Statistics . ........... ......... ... ....................... 29
CHAPTER 3: REAL ESTATE TRENDS .................. ... ....... .... ............. 30
Statistical Analysis of Geographic Areas ......... ................ ..... .............. 30
Graphical Description . .. ......... ..... ...... ....... .. .... .. .................... 32
Long-Tenn Growth Trends ........ ..... .............. .......................... 32
Long-term Growth Rate Comparisons .......................................... 33
Annual Growth Rates .................... ....................................... 34
Summary of Statistical Analysis for Different Geographical Areas ... . ........ ... 35
Statistical Analysis of Composite Neighborhoods .......... ..... . ....... ............ 35
Graphical Description ....I......... ............................................. 36
Long-Term Growth Trends ..................................................... .36
Long-Term Growth Rate Comparisons ......................................... 39
Annual Growth Rates .......................................................... 40
Conclusion ........................................................................ 41
CHAPTER 4: HEDONIC REGRESSION PRICE MODEL ......................... 42
Review of Literature ... . .... .......... .................................... ......... 42
Model Specification .... . .. ............................... ................. ......... 43
Estimation ................ .......................................... ............... 45
Individual Neighborhoods-Primary and Comparable ..... ....... ....... ....... . .... 46
V
Composite Neighborhoods ...................... .................... ............... 47
Geographical/Locational Variable-Dummy Variable NHD ........ .. ............... 49 ,
NAvs. NAJK .................................... ............ ... ............... 49
NBvs. NBI ...... ............................................ .. ............... 49
NCvs. NCFM ............................. ........................ ............. 49
NHDSummary ............................................... .. .............. . 51
Primary Neighborhoods-Distance Variable DFILL .................. . ........... ... 51
NA and DFILL ................................................. . .............. 51
NB and DFlL.L ...................... ........................... ........... .... 53
NC and DFILL .. ... ......... ......... .......... ..... ........................... 53
Summary DFIL.L ................................... .... ..... . .. . ........ .. . ... 53
Conclusion .... ... .. ... ........ . ....... .. .. .................... .. ... .. ....... . . . .. . 54
CHAPTER 5: ANTIOCH COMPARABLE NEIGHBORHOODS .......... ..... ... 55
Exploratory Data Analysis ......................................... .. ............... 55
Regression Results .................................................. .............. . 57
NAvs. NA/ANC .. ...................................... ....................... 57
NC vs. NC/ANC ............ .. ..... ............... ........................ ..... 59
Summary .. .......... . ........... ...... ................ ......... ..... ........... .. 59
CHAPTER 6: SUPPORT SURVEYS .......... ... .................... ....... . ....... 60
Lenders and Appraisers Surveys . ....... ............ .. ............. ... ......... .... . 60
Purpose ... . ... ... .... .. ..... ...... ...... . . .............. ... .. ... ... . . .. ....... . 60
Methodology ............... ................... ............ ...... .. .... ... .... 60
Findings of First Telephone Interviews with Lenders ..... ............ ........ .. . 61
Findings of First Telephone Interviews with Appraisers ...... ...... ... .... .. . .... 61
Findings of Second Telephone Interviews with Lenders .... ........ . .. ......... . 61
Findings of Second Telephone Interviews with Appraisers .......... . . ........... 61
Conclusions about Lenders and Appraisers . .............. .......... . ............ 62
FieldSurveys .................................................... ... ............... 62
Purpose ................ .................................. ....... . . . .. ....... ... 62
Methodology ..................................................... .............. 62
Findings of Field Surveys ................................... ...... . . ........... . 63
Nuisance Factors ........................................ ........ . . ... .. .... ... . 66
Community Opinion Surveys .......................................... . ...... ...... 67
Methodology .. .. ...... ... .............. ...... .... .......... ... .. ............ . 68
vi
r
Findings of the First Community Opinion Survey ....................... . ........ 68
Design and Distribution of Second Community Opinion Survey ................. 70
Findings of the Second Community Opinion Survey ............................. 70
Design and Distribution of the Third Community Opinion Survey ................ 72
Findings of the Third Community Opinion Survey ............................... 72
Conclusion ............................................................ .. ............ 73
CHAPTER 7: WILLINGNESS TO PAY ANALYSIS ...................... ......... 74
Background ........................................................................ 74
WTP Questions Included in the Community Opinion Surveys ................... . 74
WT?Data .................................................... ..................... 75
Price Variable Differences .... ... .............. ... ........ ... ...................... . 75
Willingness To Pay Analysis . . ........................................ .. ......... ... 76
Summary .... . . . . . . ... . . .... . . .. . . .. ........ . .. . .......... ......... ..... . ... ....... . 77
CHAPTER 8: INTEGRATION OF STATISTICAL AND SURVEY
RESULTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD ..... ............... ...... ......... ....... . . . .. 78
Neighborhood NA(Hillsdale) ... .. ......... ..... .............. ............ ... .. . .. . 78
Neighborhood NB (Oak Hills) ..... . .......... ............. ...................... .. 79
Neighborhood NC (Woodside) .. ........... . .... .......... ................ .......... 80
Neighborhood NE (Bailey Road) ........... . ............. .................... .. .... 81
Lenders and Appraisers Surveys .. ............................. .... ... .... ...... .. . . 81
CHAPTER 9: RECOMMENDATIONS ... . ...... ...... ... ... .... ..... .. ......... . . . 82
Neighborhood-NA(Hillsdale) ... . .. ... ..... . . .... ..... .. .......... .... ......... ... . 82
Neighborhood NB (Oak Hills) .... .... . ... . .. .. ........... ....... .......... .. ... .... 82
Neighborhood NC (Woodside) ......................................... ............ 83
Neighborhood NE(Bailey Road) ...................... ... ...................... ... . 83
Conclusion of the Study ... ... .................. .......... ............ ........ ...... 83
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Keller Canyon Landfill Chronology of Events ............................ .. 21
Table 2 Description of Pittsburg Neighborhoods ................................ ... 24
Table 3 Neighborhood Matches ................................................... 26
Table 4 Year Built Comparisons .................................... .............. .. 28
Table 5 Housing Characteristics Ratios ............................................ 28
Table 6 Housing Characteristics Summary Statistics ................................ 29
Table 7 Exponential Growth Rates for Different Geographical Areas .. ........ ..... 33
Table 8 Long-term Growth Rate Comparisons ...................... .. ......... .. .. 34
Table 9 Annual Growth Rates for Five Geographic Areas ........ ... ..... ....... . . . 34
Table 10 Exponential Growth Rates for Composite Neighborhoods . ... . . . .. ..... . . . 39
Table 11 Long-term Growth Rate Comparisons ...................... .. . . ........ ... 39
Table 12 Annual Growth Rates for Comparable Neighborhoods ................... .. 40
Table 13 Ordinary Least Squares Regressions Individual Primary and
Comparable Neighborhoods .. .......................:......... .......... . 48
Table.14 Ordinary Least Squares Primary and Comparable Neighborhoods ........ .. 48
Table 15 Composite Neighborhoods-NHD Comparisons .... ..... ... ... .. ........ .. 50
Table 16 Primary Neighborhoods -DFILL Comparisons . ............ ... .. ..... .. ... 52
Table 17 Antioch Comparable Neighborhoods ..................... .. .. .... ....... .. 55
Table 18 Composite Neighborhoods -NHD Comparisons ........... .... .. ......... 58
Table.19 Responses from Interviews with Lenders& Appraisers .. .......... ....... . 61
Table 20 Answers of Respondents Who are Familiar with the Area ................. . 62
Table 21 Percentage of Properties Having Views of the Landfill .. .. ...... ... ... . ... . 64
Table 22 Percentage of Properties Exposed to Noise or Sight of Landfill
Trucks ................................................. ... ... .. ........ .. 65
Table 23 Percentage of Parcels Affected by Noise ........................... ........ 66
Table 24 Distribution of Nuisance Factor Ratings ...................... ............. 67
Table 25 Distribution of Concerns ................................ ........ . .. ....... 69
Table 26 Neighborhood A Survey Responses ........................... ............ 71
Table 27 Neighborhood B Survey Responses .................... . .......... ........ 71
Table 28 Neighborhood C Survey Responses ...................... ... ..... .......... 71
Table 29 Overall Survey Responses Regarding Impacts of all
Neighborhoods ............................. ........ .. .. ... .. .. .. . . ... .. .. 73
Table 30 Willingness to Pay Paired Difference Analysis ........ ... ... . .. . .. . . . .. ... . 76
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I Project Location Map .................................................. .. 17
Figure 2 Location of Primary Neighborhoods .................................. 29A
Figure 3 Location of Comparable Neighborhoods ............................... 29B
Figure 4 Composite Neighborhoods ............................................ 29C
Figure 5 Pittsburg Sun Ray Plots ................................................. 27
Figure 6 Annual Median Sales Prices for Five Geographic Areas .................. 31
Figure 7 Annual Median Sales Prices for NA, NJ, and NK .............. ............ 37
Figure 8 Annual Median Sales Prices for NC,NF, and NM ............... ....... .. 38
Figure 9 Antioch Sun Ray Plots .............. ................. ... .. . .. ..... . . .. .. 56
Figure 10 Antioch Comparable Neighborhood ................ ...... .. . ........ . . . 59A
Figure 11 Primary Neighborhoods ....... .................. . ......... ........ ... . 73A
Figure 12 Distribution of View of Service Road .. .......... ... ... ... ... ... . . . . . . . 73B
Figure 13 Distribution of View of Berm . ............ ... .............. .... .. . .... 73C
Figure 14 Distribution of Odor Impacts ............................ . ......... .. .. 73D
Figure 15 Distribution of Traffic Impacts . .......... ................... ....... .. ... 73E
Figure 16 Distribution of Noise Impacts ....... ... ............. . .. ... . .... . . . . . . . 73F
Figure 17 Distribution of Nuisance Factors . .. . .. .. .. ....... .. ... . . . . . .... . .. . .. . 73G
Figure 18 Distribution of Community Opinion Survey Respondents . .. ... . . . . . . .. . 73H
ix
APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary of Terms ........... .... ..................... . . ... ........... 85
Appendix B Community Opinion Survey One ............................ ... ...... . 86
Appendix C Community Opinion Survey Two ............... ..... ............... 87
Appendix D Community Opinion Survey Three .................................... 88
Appendix E Verbatim Answers to Lenders and Appraisers Surveys ................ 89
Appendix F Keller Canyon Dump Alert Flier ....................................... 90
Appendix G Real Estate Sales Database ............................ ............... 91
Appendix H Bibliography ........................................... .. .. ... ........ 92
x
t
PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
r
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
One of the consequences of the growth of population and jobs in communities and regions
throughout the country is the need to expand existing public facilities, and often to build new
facilities. Few people would argue with the need to address certain general problems resulting
from rapid growth, such as expanding a local school system, constructing new streets and roads,
increasing the capacity of the sewage collection and treatment system, enlarging and improving
water supply facilities, developing new medical and research centers, or building a new jail. While
the facilities necessary to accommodate an influx of people and economic activity may be locally
or regionally needed and wanted, many are vigorously opposed by those people who are living
near sites selected for them. This rapidly growing class of facilities has been termed "locally
unwanted land uses," or LULUs.
A solid waste landfill is a typical example of a LULU. Landfills traditionally have been called
"dumps," a term that usually has negative connotations resulting from actual or perceived
environmentalmpacts. In recent years, the technologies used in the design, construction, and
operation of modern "sanitary landfills" have greatly decreased the likelihood of such negative
environmental impacts. Nevertheless, the siting of a needed landfill facility is likely to be a highly
controversial and emotional issue.
Eastern Contra Costa County has experienced considerable growth during the past two decades.
This growth resulted in increasing pressure on County officials to find a local, long-term solution
to the rapidly declining capacity of existing solid waste disposal facilities. After several years of
studies, including the evaluation of a long list of potential landfill sites, the County approved the
development of a "state-of-the-art" sanitary landfill in July 1990. The 2,628 acre site was in Keller
Canyon, located southwest of the City of Pittsburg, in an unincorporated section of the county.
There are four Pittsburg neighborhoods,totaling over 1,300 residential parcels, located within one
and 1/4 miles of the primary waste placement area of the now-operating landfill. Many residents
of these neighborhoods, and other Pittsburg residents and City officials, have objected to the
construction and operation of the landfill. Despite its careful design, many still consider it to be a
LULU.
In attempting to address local concerns,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors applied
numerous Conditions of Approval to the Land Use Permit for the project. One such Condition
was related to one of the major fears voiced by residents, a potential loss in the value of their
properties. It called for the private operator of the landfill to fund a study of the property value
losses(if any)attributable to the construction and operation of the landfill. The County contracted
with the Institute for Community Planning Assistance(ICPA) at Sonoma State University, a
non-profit research center, to design the comprehensive study. The County subsequently
contracted with ICPA to conduct the study. This report documents the findings of ICPA's two
year research effort.
The report is divided into two parts. Part I contains an introduction to, and summary oly the
Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study. It is designed to stand alone and may be read by
2
1 )
a general audience. It presents an overview of each of the nine chapters in Part H. In Part II, the
first seven chapters document in detail the surveys and research conducted by ICPA staff. The
eighth chapter contains conclusions drawn from an integration of the results of the various
components of the overall study. The final chapter contains ICPA's recommendations. Several
chapters in Part II of necessity contain technical language and are primarily intended for a more
specialized and professional audience. An interested reader will find a glossary of terms in the
Appendix section at the end of the report.
Chapter 1: Background and Development of the Study
The development of a landfill in Keller Canyon had a lengthy and eventful history. A complete
chronology of events has been documented. These events reflect four general periods in the
history of the landfill: Pre-Keller Phase(1984-1986); Site Selection Phase(1987-1990); Site
Approval Phase(1990-1991); and Construction and Operation Phase (1991-present).
Briefly,Keller Canyon was identified as a possible landfill location as early as mid-1984 in a
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County study. An Environmental Impact
Report for the Central Landfill project at the Keller Canyon site was distributed in Apr] 1986.
The proposal was later withdrawn by the applicant who cited inadequate political support as the
reason.
The project was revived in mid-1988 by Boyd Olney, Jr. The Board of Supervisors placed it and
three other sites on the.November 1988 ballot for an advisory vote. None received a majority
approval. An Environmental Impact Report on the project was approved by the County Zoning
Administrator in February 1990. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Land
Use Permit to the Board of Supervisors,who held hearings on the necessary General Plan
Amendments and Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. The Board placed a referendum on
the General Plan Amendments on the June 1990 ballot. When the project was not rejected by the
voters, the Board approved the Land Use Permit with Conditions of Approval in July 1990.
Construction of the landfill began in late 1991, and it opened on May 7, 1992.
One of the Conditions of Approval specified that the landfill operator, Keller Canyon Landfill
Company, a subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries(BFI),was to fund the preparation of a
study to determine the extent of property value losses(if any) attributable to landfill impacts. This
study was to serve as a basis for developing a Property Value Compensation Program, also to be
funded by the landfill operator. In response to a request from the Contra Costa County
Community Development Department, the Institute for Community Planning Assistance entered
into a contract in January 1992 to design a study that could be used to evaluate the impact of the
Keller Canyon Landfill on residential property values. The ICPA staff designed the methodology
to meet the needs and requirements specified by County staff The methodology also incorporated
the concerns expressed by the Keller Canyon Landfill Local Advisory Committee, the Property
Valuation Subcommittee, and members of the public. It was to be based on a Hedonic Regression
Price Model, the traditional method used to study property values. However, due to the high level
of concern exhibited by neighbors and Pittsburg city officials, it was designed to go far beyond the
usual property valuation studies and to include surveys such as a parcel-by-parcel observation of
environmental impacts under varying weather conditions,telephone surveys of lenders and
3
appraisers, and a series of community opinion questionnaires called a"Delphi" survey. The latter
survey was to include questions which could be used in a "willingness-to-pay" economic analysis.
A review of the literature suggested that the proposed study was perhaps the most comprehensive
investigation ever conducted for a landfill LULU. The methodology was submitted to the
Community Development Department in August 1992 and approved shortly thereafter.
The Community Development Department and ICPA entered into a.second contract in November
1992 to conduct the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study. The study was to include
data through May 1994, two years after the opening of the landfill.
Chapter 2: Database Construction and Identification of the Neighborhoods
Two of the initial tasks in the Property Valuation Study were delineation of"primary" and
"comparable" neighborhoods, and the development of the comprehensive database. A computer
database was created which included 15 year sales histories and housing characteristic information
for 6,246 parcels in 15 neighborhoods in the Pittsburg area. Because of their proximity to the
landfill (within a one and 1/4 mile radius),three of the neighborhoods were designated as
"primary." These three,_labeled NA,NB, ;md NC,were to be carefully examined for possible
impacts attributable to the landfill. An additional group of homes along Bailey Road, designated
NE, also were considered in the analysis despite a lack of sales data..
The remaining 11 neighborhoods were designated as potential "comparable" neighborhoods.
These neighborhoods were evaluated using a series of graphical and data analysis techniques. All
of these neighborhoods were checked in the field to ensure that matching neighborhoods indeed
were similar. The goal was to match primary neighborhoods as closely as possible with
neighborhoods that have similar housing stock built within the same time frame. Five of the
neighborhoods,N7,NK, NI, NF, and NM were found to be close matches with the primary
neighborhoods. They were designated as "comparable neighborhoods." In theory, if close matches
in housing characteristics could be obtained between neighborhoods near the Keller Canyon
Landfill and those some distance away from it, any difference in selling prices found in later
analyses could be attributable to the landfill.
Chapter 3: Real Estate Trends
In order to evaluate the historical behavior of local real estate values, it was necessary to put these
values in perspective relative to the real estate market in general. An analysis of real estate trends
and growth rates from 1979-1993 was undertaken for the United States, for California, for the
San Francisco Bay Area, and for two "composite" neighborhoods in Pittsburg. The composite
neighborhoods consisted of a combination of a primary neighborhood and its comparable
neighborhoods. This combining enabled a closer look at the similarities and differences of these
neighborhoods.
Real estate behavior in the different geographical areas was found to be remarkably similar. The
statistical evidence suggests that the price experiences in the Pittsburg neighborhoods are similar
to those experienced throughout California as a whole. All Pittsburg composite neighborhoods
experienced significant appreciation of real estate values over the entire 15 year period. Although
real estate values for the Pittsburg neighborhoods generally fell below those of the Bay Area,
4
growth rates for these neighborhoods were found to be similar to those for California and for the
United States. Nothing was found to suggest any obvious differences in real estate values or
growth rates as a result of the decision to construct a landfill in Keller Canyon.
Chapter 4: Hedonic Regression Price Model
The primary focus of this study is the residential property value impacts of the Keller Canyon
Landfill. An extensive literature search was part of ICPA's initial contract to develop the study
methodology. It revealed that the most popular and extensively used technique for measuring the
impact of Locally Unwanted Land Uses on residential property values is the Hedonic Regression
Price Model (HRPM). The model is a statistical procedure that predicts the sales price of a house
based on a collection of housing characteristics, such as square footage, lot size, number of
rooms,bedrooms, bathrooms, view, and location.
The HRPM was developed and tested using data in the comprehensive database for the previously
designated "primary" and "comparable" neighborhoods. A high level of confidence in the results
was achieved. Following this initial statistical analysis, a new element was introduced to measure
potential landfill impacts. This allowed for a comparison between primary and comparable
neighborhoods. Finally, another consideration was introduced into the analysis, distance from the
landfill. This variable was designed to measure the importance of distance from the landfill in
determining property values in primary neighborhoods.
Results for each primary neighborhood were found to be unique. Houses in neighborhood NA
sold for a premium price(buyers paid more)when matched with similar houses in comparable
neighborhoods NJ and NK from 1981 to 1990. This premium declined over this time period from
a high of$8,400 to a low of$4,900. Premiums were found to disappear since 1991. In
neighborhood.NB, a relatively new neighborhood, premiums averaging $12,600 were measured
for the 1989-1994 period.Neighborhood NC experienced no premiums with the exception of
1989, when a premium of$7,200 was measured.
The analyses of the influence of distance from the landfill on sales prices also produced varying
results in the different primary neighborhoods. In neighborhood NA during the periods 1979-1989
and 1991-1992, sales prices increased with distance from the landfill site. This distance premium
disappeared in 1993-1994. For neighborhood NB, a distance premium also was discovered for
1989-1994. Finally, discounts (not premiums)were experienced in neighborhood NC for the
1990-1994 period. This suggests that sale prices declined with increasing distance from the
landfill.
The results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model show that each primary neighborhood has its
own unique sales price history. No general conclusions are possible.
Chapter 5: Antioch Comparable Neighborhoods
In order to determine with some certainty that all neighborhoods in Pittsburg were not in some
way,influenced by the Keller Canyon Landfill, four neighborhoods outside Pittsburg in the city of
Antioch were explored. The approach followed was identical to that used for the Pittsburg
neighborhoods. The emphasis of this investigation was determining whether or not there was any
5
significant difference in the behavior of sale prices between "primary" neighborhoods in Pittsburg,
and comparable neighborhoods in Antioch. This difference might be attributable to the
geographic factor of the possibility or existence of the Keller Canyon Landfill.
The results of these analyses were mixed. When matched with its comparable Antioch
neighborhood, the Pittsburg neighborhood experienced premiums in the early years. These
disappeared and became discounts for 1987-1988. Since 1989,no premiums or discounts have
existed, suggesting an effect potentially attributable to the landfill. No differences in prices were
found for the other primary Pittsburg neighborhoods, suggesting no landfill impact.
Chapter 6: Support Surveys
The Hedonic Regression Price Model described earlier in this summary explains what happened to
residential sales.prices over time. It does not explain why. In order to develop a better
understanding of human and environmental factors potentially influencing property values in the
primary neighborhoods near the Keller Canyon Landfill, ICPA staff conducted a number of
interviews and surveys. These included a two-phase telephone survey of lenders and appraisers,
field surveys to document the existence and distribution of potential environmental impacts, and a
"Delphi" series of community opinion surveys.
Lenders and Appraisers Surveys
During a meeting with the Landfill Advisory Committee (LAC) as part of the methodology
formulation stage of the study, a number of citizens expressed a concern that the presence of the
landfill would cause or had caused difficulty in obtaining mortgage loans or refinancing their
homes. Between February and March 1993,40 lenders and appraisers were randomly selected and
contacted by telephone. They were asked how they felt the existence of the landfill might affect a
nearby home. An additional 40 lenders and appraisers were randomly contacted and asked the
same question between August and September 1993. The purpose of the second set of calls was
to help determine whether their attitudes had changed overtime. The results of the survey
generally did not confirm the expressed concerns of the residents. There was no significant
difference recorded from the first survey to the second. Forty-six percent of all the respondents
said that the landfill would have no effect. Twelve percent said that the landfill would have a
measurable effect. Forty-two percent were unsure, or had no opinion. Of those respondents who
,knew the area in question, 70 percent said that the landfill would have no effect. Only 13 percent
`said it would have a measurable effect. Seventeen percent were unsure, or had no opinion.
Clearly, an overwhelming percentage of lenders and appraisers who knew the area felt the
presence of the landfill would not affect property values.
Field Surveys
In order to develop some understanding of physical effects of the landfill on nearby
neighborhoods, ICPA staff conducted a series of three field surveys. These were conducted for all
1,373 parcels in the primary neighborhoods during different times of the year, under varying
weather conditions, and during specific times and days suggested by the respondents in the
Community Opinion Surveys(discussed below). The purpose of these surveys was to determine
the existence and distribution of effects of the landfill since construction began and operations
commenced. It was hoped that by recording observed effects such as views of the toe berm and
6
other landfill features, noise from the landfill equipment and transfer truck traffic, odor, dust, and
litter for each parcel in the primary neighborhoods, a better understanding might be obtained of
possible reasons for loss of property values(if any) suggested by the Hedonic Regression Price
Model.
Most of the parcels in neighborhoods NA and NC have views of the landfill's perimeter fence,
83% and 82%, respectively. Not surprisingly, neighborhood NA,which is located closest to the
landfill's waste placement area, was found to have a large percentage(31%) of parcels with views
of the landfill's toe berm. There were almost no views of the berm outside this one neighborhood.
This neighborhood also had the greatest landfill-generated noise impacts, with 10 percent of the
parcels affected. LandfiII-generated noise was generally absent in the other primary
neighborhoods. Landfill-generated dust, odor, and wind-carried trash were not found to affect any
of the primary neighborhoods. Those parcels along Bailey Road, in the small area designated as
neighborhood NE, are severely impacted by landfill transfer truck traffic. Almost all parcels (94%)
e::perienced traffic noise, and a lesser but still significant exposure to odor and litter from transfer
trucks. These were not found to be problems in the other neighborhoods.
The field surveys suggested that the parcels and residences along Bailey Road in neighborhood
NE were the most severely impacted in the entire study area. Neighborhoods NB and NC
experienced very few landfill-generated impacts. Less than half of the parcels in neighborhood NA
experienced impacts, and of those that did, most had a view of the landfill toe berm.
Community Opinion Surveys
In order to determine the actual concerns and perceptions of the residents in the primary
neighborhoods, along with their sources of information about the landfill and understanding of the
local housing market, ICPA developed and administered a series of three "Delphi" questionnaires.
A "Delphi" is a systematic method for soliciting and compiling judgments, and possibly reaching
consensus, on a particular topic. Results from the previous round of the survey are provided to
the respondents and serve as a basis for the questions on the next questionnaire. The
questionnaires were administered between May and November 1993 to all residents who had
returned a pre-paid postcard indicating their willingness to participate. Of the 238 who initially
returned the postcards, 185 (78%) completed and returned the first questionnaire. Of the 185
second questionnaires mailed out, 154 (83%)were completed and returned. Of the 154
participants sent the third questionnaire, 119 (77%) responded. ICPA staff was pleased with these
high response rates, suggesting that a high level of interest had been sustained.
The first Delphi questionnaire had broad, open-ended questions. Respondents were asked about
their sources of information about the landfill and whether they felt personally affected by it. The
newspaper was the most popular source of information, and general knowledge had been
achieved over a long period of time. The vast majority of respondents(84%)felt they had been
personally affected by the landfill,with the highest response(92%) coming from respondents in
neighborhood NA.
They also were asked about their perceptions about the value of their homes, and the effects of
the landfill that concerned them the most. Responses varied widely as to the value of their homes,
7
with many possible explanations. The one concern shared by respondents in all the primary
neighborhoods was a potential loss in property values of their homes. Over 72% of respondents
from neighborhoods NA and NC stated that this was their most important concern.
The second Delphi questionnaire contained more specific questions than the first. Respondents
were asked on what their previous estimates of home value were based. Over 36%indicated that
their estimate was based on a professional appraisal,while 25%gave realtors or friends as the
source. Respondents were given the average(mean) estimated home value calculated for their
neighborhood from the previous questionnaire and asked if they wished to change their original
estimate, and why they felt their home was worth above, below, or about the same as,the
average. Two-thirds did not wish to change their original estimates. The particular model of home
related to other models in the neighborhood was the most frequent reason for their variance from
the average.
Respondents also were asked to be more specific about the types of impacts affecting them. Since
the kinds of concerns on the first survey were different in each neighborhood, the tabulated
answers for each neighborhood were reported back only to those respondents in the same
neighborhoods. They were asked if they personally experienced the impacts listed, and if so,
when. "Increased traffic" was frequently listed as being an impact that was personally experienced.
Times of the day and days of the week cited for various impacts were specified, which assisted
ICPA staff in scheduling additional site visits.
The last question in the second Community Opinion Survey asked residents how much more they
would be willing to pay'for their same house in an identical neighborhood away from the landfill.
The results of the "Willingness-to-Pay" analysis are reported in the next chapter.
Questions in the third Community Opinion Survey focused on identifying the level and accuracy
of information about the landfill that was received by respondents, and on determining where
residents experienced impacts they attributed to the landfill. Approximately two-thirds reported
that they recently had received information about the landfill. Of these, 43% mentioned ballot
Measures R and S or Fall 1993 campaign literature as their most recent source. Only twenty-two
percent of the respondents who received this election material indicated that they felt it was
accurate and reliable. A majority of residents indicated that they had not experienced noise, odor,
or blowing trash, either while in their homes or while in their yards. More than 40% of
respondents indicated that they had experienced an increase in dust on their properties.
As a major amount of construction activity had been occurring in.the vicinity of the primary
neighborhoods unrelated to the landfill, respondents were asked about their experiences with the
BART station construction and Highway 4 expansion. They were asked if they had personally
experienced any noise, traffic, dust, or other impacts of these projects. The vast majority(81%)
said that they had. (It should be noted that during the site surveys, ICPA staff members sometimes
found it difficult to pinpoint the landfill or other major non-landfill activity as the source of noise
they heard).
8
Itn.
t
The last question on the third survey sought to determine how much respondents felt the lengthy
economic recession had caused the value of their properties to decline. This proved to be a
difficult question for many to answer. The average perceived loss in value by those who answered
the question from neighborhood NA was$12,589;from neighborhood NB, $14,578; and from
neighborhood NC, $13,000.
The support surveys produced a considerable amount of interesting and useful information. An
integration of the findings of these surveys with the results generated from the Hedonic
Regression Price Model is found in the next two chapters.
Chapter 7: Willingness to Pay Analysis
An objective of the Delphi series of Community Opinion Surveys was to determine opinions and
beliefs of property owners related to real estate values in their neighborhoods. In order to
determine the reasonableness and accuracy of these expectations, the data from these surveys
were compared with the rerAts from the Hedonic Regression Price Model. The general approach
employed by ICPA staff was a modification of Willingness to Pay analysis traditionally used by
economists. Use of this method made it possible to determine the extent to which property
owners in the primary neighborhoods were acquainted with the real estate market in the Pittsburg
area.
In the Community Opinion Surveys, respondents were asked to place a value on their houses and
to estimate the amount they would be willing to pay for houses identical to theirs in
neighborhoods not subject to any potential landfill impacts. Their answers were compared with
objectively determined predictions of house prices from the Hedonic Regression Price Model.
This analysis produced two important findings. First, respondents in all primary neighborhoods
consistently overestimated the amount required to purchase a house with similar characteristics in
a neighborhood away from the landfill by an amount ranging from$15,000 to $30,000. Second,
respondents underestimated the value of their houses in their own neighborhoods when their
responses were compared with the model's predictions.
The main conclusion from this analysis is that primary neighborhood property owners did not
have an accurate picture of the local real estate market. Several statistical measures were applied
to the data, and revealed that the respondents apparently lacked accurate information. They were
willing to pay more than would be required to purchase an identical house in a neighborhood
away from possible effects of the landfill.
Chapter 8: Integration of Statistical and Survey Results by Neighborhood
The primary issue investigated in the Keller Canyon Property Valuation Study has been the
property value effects of the landfill on nearby residential neighborhoods. The methodology
developed by ICPA in the initial phase of this study was designed to approach this emotionally
charged matter comprehensively,that is, from many different directions and perspectives. The
Hedonic Regression Price Model approached it in the generally accepted objective way,
developing a computer model using many years of sales data. Responding to the concerns
expressed by members of the Local Advisory Committee and other residents during the
methodology development phase, ICPA staff designed several "support" surveys to incorporate
9
more subjective "human factors"like concerns and perceptions into the study. ICPA staff
anticipated that the results of the three main support surveys would assist in understanding and
interpreting the findings of the Hedonic Regression Price Model.
L
The results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model and the support surveys were sorted by, and
integrated for, each of the primary neighborhoods. By combining the information applicable to
each of the neighborhoods, a more complete picture was provided of how each had been affected
by the landfill site selection decision, as well as by its construction and first two years of
operation. These pictures generally contain few contradictions.
Neighborhood NA (Hillsdale)
Results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model show that houses in this neighborhood sold for a
premium over similar houses in comparable neighborhoods during the period from 1979 to 1990,
with the one exception being 1980. These neighborhood premiums averaged $5,700. From 1991
to May 1994 no premiums were measured. The disappearance of premiums coincides with site
approval, and construction and operation of the landfill. This suggests that a loss of property
values has occurred. When taking into account distance from the landfill,the model shows that
during the periods 1979-1989 and 1991-1992 the prices of similar houses in this neighborhood
increased with distance from the landfill. Since 1992 no distance premiums were measured.
The results of the Community Opinion Surveys received from Hillsdale respondents show that
there is a very strong feeling in this neighborhood that they have been personally affected by the
landfill. The Willingness-to-Pay analysis indicates that respondents from this neighborhood were
not fully aware of local real estate market conditions.
The findings of the field surveys suggest that few properties have experienced any significant
impacts from the landfill other than having views of portions of it. Most properties have a view of
the landfill perimeter fence, and about one-third have a view of the toe berm. These views appear
to be a primary factor contributing to their feelings. While the results of Hedonic Regression Price
Model suggest that their concerns over loss of property value appear to have been justified since
1990, this is not supported by the opinions given by the majority of the most knowledgeable
lenders and appraisers, who felt the landfill would have no property value effect.
Neighborhood NB(Oak Hills)
Results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model indicate that houses in this neighborhood sold.for
a premium over a similar house in a comparable neighborhood during the period from 1989-May
1994. The average premium was $12,600. Property values were found to increase with distance
from the landfill, perhaps reflecting the desirability of living away from the busy Bailey Road and
nearby commercial areas.
The results of the Community Opinion Surveys received from Oak Hills residents show that nearly
three-quarters felt that they had been personally affected by the landfill. Traffic on Bailey Road
was their primary concern. The Willingness-to-Pay analysis indicates that respondents generally
were willing to pay more for a similar house in a comparable neighborhood than would be
necessary, suggesting that they were not fully aware of local real estate market conditions.
10
The findings of the field surveys suggest that the Oak Hills neighborhood has been virtually
unaffected by any landfill impacts, less so than any of the other primary neighborhoods. As the
Hedonic Regression Price Model found no loss of premium in this neighborhood, it appears that
concerns of residents that they have been affected by the landfill are generally unsupported.
Neighborhood NC(Woodside)
Results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model indicate that with the exception of 1989, houses
in this neighborhood did not sell for a premium over similar houses in a comparable neighborhood
during the period from 1982-May 1994. Since 1990, sales prices were found to decrease with
increasing distance from the landfill.
The results of the Community Opinion Surveys received from Woodside respondents indicated
that nearly three-quarters felt they had been personally affected by the landfill. Their primary
concern was loss of property value. They expressed a "willingness-to-pay" considerably more than
would have been necessary for a similar house in a comparable neighborhood away from the
landfill. The results of the field surveys indicate that this neighbnrhood has experienced very few
impacts. Four-fifths of the parcels have a view of the landfill's perimeter fence. Although the
sound of backup "beeps" from landfill vehicles was recorded for half of the parcels in the early
field surveys, complaints were registered and a change in landfill operations occurred that
eliminated these sounds. This was verified in the last field survey.
Residents in this neighborhood believe they have suffered a loss. Nevertheless,the Hedonic
Regression Price Model has suggested that no loss in property values has occurred in this
neighborhood because of the construction or operation of the landfill.
Neighborhood NE(Bailey Road)
The parcels along Bailey Road represented a unique situation that made their inclusion in this
study problematic. First, the houses are of widely varying type, size, and age. Second, a large
portion of this "neighborhood" was demolished during the study period to make room for the new
BART parking lot. Third, and most importantly, the small number of homes and lack of sales data
made it impossible to perform both Hedonic Regression Price Model and Willingness-to-Pay
analyses. Though this area was included in the Community Opinion Surveys,the small number of
respondents from this area made it difficult to make inferences about the opinions of residents as a
whole. However, these parcels were included in the series of three site visits.
In general, this is a heavily impacted portion of the primary neighborhoods. Almost all of the
parcels are exposed to noise from landfill transfer trucks. Many of the parcels experience transfer
truck titter and odor. One-third of the parcels have a view of the landfill buildings or service
roads. Every parcel in this area is impacted to some degree,with at least one-half experiencing
multiple impacts.
11
Chapter 9: Recommendations
As shown in the previous chapter,the findings of the Hedonic Regression Price Model and
support surveys generally reinforce one another. For example, where landfill-generated impacts
have been observed in the field surveys, computer model results provide a quantitative measure of
their influence on property values. Where results of the model suggest that a loss of premium has
occurred, respondents to the Community Opinion Surveys reported they have felt personally
affected.
Some noteworthy inconsistencies in the results of the model and support surveys have been
found. There is a generally widespread feeling in all of the primary neighborhoods that the landfill
has affected residents and their property values. Yet, in two of the neighborhoods, Oak Hills (NB)
and Woodside (NC), this feeling is not validated by any of the findings of the computer price
model and support surveys. A loss of premium has been found in the Hillsdale neighborhood
(NA), yet the magnitude of the loss is much less than the residents have claimed. The generally
low level of landfill impacts recorded by ICPA staff in the field surveys in this neighborhood
appears to be closely related to the actual level of premium loss calculated by the Hedonic
Regression Price Model.
It must be reiterated here that the results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model are average
values for specific neighborhoods. The actual value of a particular home in a neighborhood at 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 the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation
Study for each of-the primary neighborhoods are as follows:
Neighborhood NA (Hillsdale)
There have been premiums (higher prices paid than for similar properties in comparable
neighborhoods) averaging $5,700 experienced in this neighborhood extending overmany years.
Between 1991 and May 1994, these premiums disappeared. This occurrence coincides with site
approval, construction, and operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill. A general loss of property
values in this neighborhood has occurred.
A compensation or-mitigation program may be warranted for properties in this neighborhood. An
appraisal of each particular property is needed. The sales history of each property must be
documented. It is necessary to know when the parcel was purchased and/or when it was sold, and
._who was involved in the transactions. Compensation would not necessarily go to the current
owner. Alternative compensation approaches should be investigated.
Neighborhood NB (Oak Hills)
There have been significant premiums in this neighborhood over all years relative to comparable
neighborhoods. There has been no loss of premiums in the time between the decision to locate the
landfill in Keller Canyon and its operational status in May 1994.No compensation program is
indicated for this neighborhood.
12
Neighborhood NC(Woodside)
Except for an unusual premium in 1989, no premiums historically have existed in this
neighborhood relative to comparable neighborhoods. Sales prices have been higher close to the
landfill and lower farther away. No compensation program is indicated for this neighborhood.
Neighborhood NE(Bailey Road)
As noted in the previous chapter, there is great variation in the characteristics of the properties
.along Bailey Road. Historical sales data for this area are not plentiful. A large number of homes in
this area recently were demolished for the BART parking lot. The parcels along Bailey Road are
greatly impacted by traffic on this busy thoroughfare. Many of them were found in the field
surveys to be severely impacted by landfill transfer trucks, especially from noise, litter, and odor
emanating from these vehicles, and a few also are affected by views of the landfill service road.
Under this complex set of circumstances, and lacking sufficient historical sales data, it is difficult
to provide any definitive recommendations for this area. Because parcels along Bailey Road are
heavily impacted by landfill traffic activities, more so than parcels in the primary neighborhoods, a
compensation or mitigation program may be warranted. Because of the existing traffic and other
activities appraisals of individual parcels will be needed.
Conclusion 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 facility on
nearby neighborhoods has emerged. The Keller Canyon Landfill has been found to be a classic
example of a 'locally unwanted land use" (LULU). A loss in property values has been
documented for one neighborhood near the landfill but not for two others.
One conclusion has emerged from this study. The cause and effect relationship of the introduction
of a landfill into the landscape near established neighborhoods, and the resultant adjustment in
housing prices, can be much more complex than initially it might appear. The distance from the
landfill alone may not be enough to explain the value prospective buyers place on homes in a
neighborhood. The level and accuracy of housing market information held by buyers and sellers
may be a factor. Landfill impacts, whether real or perceived, may contribute to the "image" of the
neighborhood held by its existing residents, local realtors, and prospective buyers. This may
translate into a greater eagerness to sell on the part of homeowners. The attitudes of, and negative
publicity generated by, neighborhood residents may damage the image of neighborhood. This is
what Alan K. Reichert in his 1991 study of the impact of landfills on property values terms a
"self-fulfilling prophesy."
It is difficult to pinpoint what or who actually 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 of eastern Contra Costa County has resulted in a need for an additional solid waste
disposal facility. Keller Canyon was selected as the site for a state-of-the-art sanitary landfill. The
landfill was constructed and has been operating for over two years. It has been a locally unwanted
land use. Many nearby Pittsburg residents and city officials have vigorously opposed it over a
period of several years. This opposition has been well documented in the media. The construction
13
and operation of the landfill=has had some impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. Finally,
one neighborhood has experienced a loss of premium since the decision to locate the landfill
nearby.
14
Table 1:Keller Canyon Landfill Chronology of Events
Pre-Keller Phase(Spring 1984-December 1986)
FSpring1984 Landfill siting study identifies the Keller location as a potential landfill site.
Mid-1994 This location is first identified as a possible site for a landfill.
all.1984 The Central Landfill'project is announced. This project specified the use of three
canyons for landfills,including a portion of the Keller Canyon.The head of the canyon
was not part of the proposal.
y 24, 1985 Notice of Preparation is given for the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the
Central Landfill.
Spring 1985 The original sponsor submits a project description for a smaller version of the landfill
(does not include the southern part).
April 28, 1986 The Draft EIR for the Central Landfill is circulated for Comment.
June 16, 1986 Comment period for the Central Landfill Draft EIR ends.
December 1986 The Central Landfill application is withdrawn,citing inadequate political support.
Site Selection Phase(1987-January 1990)
1987 Blue Ribbon task force studies sites for landfill. Keller Canyon is not included on the
list.
November 1988 Application is submitted for Bailey Road Landfill General Plan Amendment.
November 1988 Board of Supervisors puts this site on the ballot as an advisory measure along with three
others.None receives a majority vote.
December 1988 The original sponsor announces taking an option on the southernmost Keller Canyon
parcel.
January 1989 An agreement is reached between the California Waste Management Board (CWB)
and the County of Contra Costa that the site would be designated as a"reserve site"in
the County Solid Waste Management Plan(CoSWMP)and General Plan in order to
demonstrate the Count's disposal capacity.
February 1989 Bailey Road Landfill General Plan Amendment application is withdrawn.
February 1989 Keller Canyon Landfill project is proposed by Boyd Olney.
April 1989 A public scoping session is held for the Keller Canyon Landfill EIR-
y 1989 Contra Costa County enters into a contract for preparation of the EIR
une 1989 Zoning Administrator(public)hearing is held regarding the Draft EIR for the
CoSWMP,where Keller is cited as one of five possibilities.
August 1989 CoSWMP is circulated to cities for approval.
October 1989 Board of Supervisors approves the General Plan Amendment with five landfill sites,
including Keller Canyon.
October 30, 1989 The Keller Draft EIR is distributed for Comment,starting the required 45-day comment
period.
November 28, A public hearing is held at Ambrose Center to allow public comment of the Draft EIR.
1989
December 6, The County Solid Waste Commission holds a hearing to provide staff.with comments
1989 on the Keller Draft Ea
21
.. I
O
NZ � < r i r
o
Q M 0 = y N
o
1V Al
IT
j '`;:�'''• �� .: -/' d� ,. \'— Iilii :lid :'^Z'�� -t'•..
L < •....: ,fir � - _ • --T ; ."
v ,I �� i� ����J. I J+ '.l• L.�vT v r�•ror..��� I i i• (A1
I ,- ^: !_ � r.. '�. •a, ;I � �brN �j� u ashy 'v �
ad
zi
I - `'�• —i'y-•tic
L
'v I ��� •I i ,� �i I o .J �= � •�w :;� I <,�< �; ire; I
! •I
r , q!
- I -
�i � � � O I: ��'• vow - �:l�:':i:'J__.� I � `rl
I1 f I y �i 1 ,_ •� rC ._ !t�::.: F"=�• . a•.;:,•.. a.t � � I � I �,�
///11y-1� ——j 1=,J" � 10•. �h 4 •1]11r. ! �y�•t:
CI
1
I .ICS I r_, � I � ,.4• I �J��
W I JW
� t V
Ujo `
MLU ,;,,,�• I I T I + �� C�
' JAMES R. LEARY Attachment A2
11 LA MESA LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFO,*bllA`.Qi4li'o-.-
jos j R�
/ 3H / W•
J331
awc
oA
17
} JAMES R. LEARY
11 LA MESA LN,
WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94598
A ffoarn�
MINUTES OF THE
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 8, 1995
Members Present
Glen Williams, Chair, Say Point MAC
Dave Hobbs, Alternate, City of Pittsburg
Roger Riley, Delta Board of Realtors
Al McNabney, Mt. Diablo Audubon Society
Frank Aiello, Citizens United
Scott Gordon, Alternate for KCL, Bruen & Gordon
Members Absent
Mary Erbez, City of Pittsburg, (notified staff)
Carmen Gaddis, CCC Planning Commission
Rev. Lynn E. Kirkland, IDMA
Rev. Frank Selkirk, Pre-school Coordinating Council
Alex Dongallo, Ambrose Recreation and Park District
Timothy J. Cox, Keller Canyon Landfill Company
Others Present
Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development
Charles A. Zahn, County Community Development
Deidra Dingman, County Community Development
Rebecca Ng, County Environmental Health (LEA)
Steven C. Orlick, Institute for Community Planning Assistance (SSU)
Steve Lewis, Institute for Community Planning Assistance (SSU)
Jane Riley, Institute for Community Planning Assistance (SSU)
Dave Hobbs, City of Pittsburg
Kevin Carunchio, City of Pittsburg
Bob Maes
Rita Hinde
Jim MacDonald
Jose-Luis Agredano
Antonio Loze
Lance J. Dow
Mark Clark
Mary Martin
Grace Jones
Andrew Kobayashi
R.M. Benson
Greg Adams
Peter S. Terry
t,
Others Present (continued)
Stefan Burdt ''
Frank Sharkey
Gary Carr
Vicky Carr
Sally Bere
Bob Miller
Meredit Furtney
Jeff Fischer
Jane Fischer
Dave Fogleman
Pat Baird
1. INTRODUCTIONS. Introductions were made. ANNOUNCEMENTS. There were
was not a quorum of members present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. No action could
be taken due to the Lack of a quorum. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business.
2. FACILITY OPERATIONS UPDATE. Scott Gordon indicated that there were no
changes in operations to report. ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER PROGRAM. Roger
Riley asked when the Alternative Daily Cover Program would take effect. Scott
Gordon replied' that BFI had scheduled to begin in late spring pending necessary
approvals.
Frank Aiello asked if the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) would allow stockpiling.
Rebecca Ng responded that they are awaiting word from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD). There is no formal review or formal application. If the RWQCB and
BAAQMD approve the proposal then the LEA is likely to approve it.
Frank Aiello inquired if the dust suppressant used is magnesium chloride. Rebecca Ng
indicated that this compound is designated by the BAAQMD for use as a dust
suppressant. Scott Gordon added that there are no health-based impacts related to
the compound. Frank Aiello indicated that he felt a health risk assessment is needed
to analyzed potential impacts associated with the spraying of magnesium chloride d
on a contaminated soil stockpile. Rebecca Ng replied that the matter would be
discussed with the BAAQMD before a decision is- made. Frank Aiello said the
information should be made available to citizens before the ADC is approved. Scott
Gordon said research has been done previously by the BAAQMD and that public
hearings were held on the permit.
2
Roger Riley inquired as to the nature of the contaminated soils. Scott Gordon said
that the soils were contaminated by materials as diesel fuels, heavy oils, gasoline
remnants. The soils typically come from gas tank removals or industrial sites. These
soils are wastes which are already approved for disposal at the landfill.
Dave Hobbs stated that Mayor Erbez has written to the LEA discouraging approval of
the ADC program. Additionally, it is the ' City's position that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process is needed prior to approval of the ADC
program.
Dave Hobbs said the second page of the advisory, which had been handed out, is
missing and that the LEA advisory is not intended as a substitute for CEQA. Hobbs
indicated he as pleased that Rebecca N_g indicated that the County is looking at this
matter seriously.
Al McNabney inquired if there was an application. Rebecca Ng.replied that there is
no application but a letter of proposal. Many other requirements need to be met
before a permit is actually filed or modified. The proposal is intended to start
preliminary discussion regarding the proposal, without having to file an application and
trigger the state permit processing timelines.
Glen Williams noted that Frank Aiello's concerns are being looked at. Frank Aiello
commented that in the LAC meeting in July that BFI representatives had stated that
there was no need for cover material. Glen Williams asked that the LAC and
community be kept informed about the ADC program. Rebecca Ng said she would do
SO.
Glen Williams asked if anyone had any questions for Rebecca Ng. James MacDonald
indicated that he felt the issue regarding toxins on top versus toxins inside, because
the reactions could be very different. Rebecca Ng responded that the LEA would not
act alone but would work closely with the BAAQMD and RWQCB.
3. PRESENTATION ON FINDINGS OF THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY
VALUATION STUDY BY THE INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSISTANCE
(ICPA) OF SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY. Steve Orlick, Project Director, extended
appreciation for the attendance by the LAC members and audience. He explained that
the ICPA is a non-profit, independent research center. The students used for project
research are carefully selected and trained.
The property valuation study was a more comprehensive study than ever done before
for "locally unwanted land uses" (LULU's). ICPA was cognizant of the sensitive
nature of the report. The approach used included a standard economic methodology
and model, community opinion questionnaires ("Delphi"), field studies related to
3
physical issues (three rounds under different conditions), attitudes and opinions of
lenders and appraisers: 'The various segments of the study supported each other and
the results were consistent.
By a show of hands, most members of the audience indicated they were residents of
a "primary" neighborhood, primarily from Hillsdale (Neighborhood A).
Steve Orlick explained the document. It is divided into two parts: the Executive
Summary and the full report. While most of the document is written for the
understanding of a general audience, portions by necessity are in technical jargon. A
glossary of terms is therefore included.
Steve Orlick explained that the methodology used in the survey which included such
factors as real estate trends, price models, comparable neighborhoods, support
surveys and integration of statistical and survey results by neighborhood. Steve Orlick
said the LAC provided good input which was included in the study.
Steve Lewis, Project Co-Director (an economist and statistician), explained that the
study was a detailed analysis. He looked at impacts from many different angles. A
wealth of information was collected and analyzed.
Real Estate Trends. The analysis included looking at the sales price of homes
between 1979 and 1993 for the Bay Area, California, the United States and two
"composite" neighborhoods in Pittsburg. The composite neighborhoods consisted of
a combination of a primary neighborhood (which are in close proximity to the landfill)
and comparable neighborhoods.
Statistics indicated similarities in prices in Pittsburg neighborhoods compared to the
state as a whole. All Pittsburg composite neighborhoods experienced significant
appreciation of real estate values over the entire 15 year period. Although real estate
values for the Pittsburg neighborhoods generally fell below those of the Bay Area,
growth rates were similar to those of the state and the United States.
General Categories Considered. General categories used in the analysis included: base
price, business cycle, housing characteristics, geographic area and location. The sales
history for each home was reviewed.
A larger range is used to reduce the margin of statistical error. Sometimes numbers
are called "insignificant" for purposes of the report.
Neighborhood Premiums. The most popular and extensively used technique for
measuring the impact of LULUs on residential property values is the. Hedonic
Regression Price Model (HRPM), a statistical procedure that predicts the sales price
of a house based on a collection of housing characteristics -(such as square footage,
4
.I-
lot size, number of rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, view and location). The same types
of .homes were analyzed, both close to and farther away from the landfill. In
Neighborhood A (Hillsdale) buyers paid a premium (paid more for a home in Hillsdale
that a similar home farther away from the Landfill) of $5,000 to $8,000 until around
1989-1990. After 1990, these homes sold for the same as comparables (similar
homes not near the landfill), this is an indication that the landfill could have impacted
the prices.
Neighborhood C (Woodside) had positive premiums in only 1989. Neighborhood B
(Oak Hills) was unique (for statistical reasons) because it is quite new and there have
been positive premiums since 1989.
Distance Premiums. Within the primary neighborhood, the distance was looked at in
feet from the landfill to the parcels. These are included as averages. For Hillsdale,
the premiums were on areas further away from the landfill, however many of the
premiums were from 1979-1983 when the landfill was not a factor. Oak Hills homes
had positive premiums from 1989-1993, except in 1990. Woodside homes had
positive premiums although they were closer to the landfill from 1990-93, which was
unique but could be due to the golf course expansion.
Lenders and Appraisers Survey. In this, the first support survey, 40 lenders and
appraisers (picked at random), were anonymously called and asked questions
regarding loans or appraised value on homes on Jacqueline Drive. Six months later
another 40 lenders and appraisers (picked at random) were called. Seventy percent
said the landfill would have no effect. Others, less familiar with the area, said they
didn't know or guessed it might.
Field Surveys. Field surveys were done to determine if physical impacts could be
observed. If trends were found then the physical impacts may be able to further
explain or discredit the information due to such factors as view or odor. In
Neighborhood A (Hillsdale) most had a view of the perimeter fence and others could
see toe berm, in Neighborhood B (Oak Hills) there was a partial view of fence or berm,
and in Neighborhood C (Woodside) almost nothing could be discerned of the landfill.
Neighborhood E (Bailey Road) was the most affected, mostly by trucks, some noise
and escaped trash and/or odor.
Community/Delphi Surveys. A Delphi survey is a systematic method for soliciting and
compiling judgments, and possibly reaching consensus, on a particular neighborhood.
The study tried to determine the feelings and concerns of the residents (also to help
focus observations for the next round of field surveys). A series of surveys were
conducted, then given responses for purposes of fine tuning (price, why sales prices
were different). Instead of cross sections/random sampling, a determinations was
made to. invite all of those interested to participate. There was a good return rate.
5
i`
An analysis of the results of different survey approaches supported each other. It was
found that anxiety was1iigher in Neighborhoods B and C than physical evidence could
support. Lenders and appraisers did not support economic findings.
Recommendations. There has been a loss of premiums in Hillsdale since 1990. It
was felt that this could be due to the landfill siting, approval, construction and
operation. It was recommended that a compensation program may be warranted.
Any compensation program would be up to the County Board of Supervisors.
Appraisals were recommended for the Hillsdale neighborhood prior to or as a part of
the compensation program. It recommended that no additional analysis or
compensation would be warranted for the Woodside and Oak Hills neighborhoods.
Bailey Road may have been affected, but further conclusions could, not be made
because there was limited data due to the unique nature and age of this
neighborhood. Appraisals were recommended for the Bailey Road neighborhood
would be warranted.
The reason for the loss of premium is at best speculative, the desire is to limit
conclusions of the study and any additional compensation program to facts and data.
Public Comment on the Property Valuation Study. James MacDonald noted that the
trend of developers is scaling down in new development because they don't feel they
can sell bigger homes in Pittsburg and homes are being converted to rentals. Steve
Lewis said there was no data on rentals, looked at housing characteristics and sales
data. James MacDonald said smaller homes mean more rentals and lower values.
Val Alexeeff responded that the City of Antioch experienced the same issue, all of
East County does. There is an opposite issue in the San Ramon Valley. Antioch and
Pittsburg have continued to battle to get housing diversity. The issue of "developer
preferences" is an ongoing Countywide/statewide issue. This is different and
separate than landfill impacts. He indicated that upon determining an impact that the
next step is to determine the exact degree.
-Steve Lewis explained that they were not asked to look at new development or
projects, but instead evaluated potential impacts on existing residences.
Andrew Kobayashi said the report did not look at how long homes were on the market
compared to other areas. Steve Lewis replied that was not a part of the report; it
would be difficult to pinpoint that as a landfill impact and additionally that factor does
necessarily directly affect property values.
Andrew Kobayashi then asked how to look at time on the market, how can this be
measured in dollars. Steve Lewis replied that he did not have access to that
information, but that some historical sales information in the report may be helpful.
6
Frank Sharkey asked if Bailey Road was compared to Arthur Road in Martinez; he felt
these could be comparable neighborhoods from years of landfill traffic. They would
both share a stigma related to proximity to a landfill. Steve Lewis indicated that it is
difficult to fully analyze because of the complexity of the neighborhood and lack of
comparables. Arthur Road is different because it is an older landfill. Many property
value studies have been-done, the results are very different dependant on site/location
and many other factors. Frank Sharkey said he understood the recession trends but
felt Bailey Road was unique. Bob Mull said he felt that the landfill traffic would be
comparable on Arthur Road or Bailey Road.
There was concern about depreciation that will be suffered, but think it should be
considered when compensation is discussed and decided on.
Lance Dow said he appreciated the fact that refinancing was looked at but what about
debt-to-equity ratio, he felt additional information is still needed. He had to pay
$15,000 to refinance because there was no debt-to-equity ratio. As interest rates
were low people wanted to refinance, but without a debt-to-equity ratio one could
only refinance if they had cash. He is now stuck with a higher interest rate and this
is a loss which should be considered in the Property Valuation process.
Dave Hobbs said there was more loss than $5,000 or $6,000 if someone is stuck at
the higher interest rate due to lack of debt-to-equity ratio. Steve Lewis indicated that
this was-not a part of the study. The refinancing/interest rate issue is complex, but
that it would be difficult maybe even impossible to quantify and include into the
study.
Val Alexeeff asked the LAC members and audience to follow-up in writing with the
County on those questions that were more complex and could not be answered in this
meeting. Upon receiving the written materials the consultants could respond and/or
request authorization from the County if additional work was requested.
Dave Hobbs asked where the County planned to go with the Study now. Val Alexeeff
said it would go back to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee, then to the full Board
of Supervisors to decide.
Roger Riley said that lost equity (and lack of ratio) and related difficulties in
refinancing which resulted in continued higher interest rates are a bigger/long term
effect. He asked whether this be addressed at the meetings of the Ad Hoc Solid
Waste Committee or Board of Supervisors. He indicated that a comparable
neighborhood used in the report (ANC) in Antioch was affected by the Antioch dump.
He indicated he had also experienced occasions where a sale was lost after disclosure
(before landfill approval). It was stated as the reason for cancellation of sale. He felt
these issues should be considered before the matter is taken to the Board of
Supervisors.
7
Val Alexeeff stated that.he appreciated the comments and that having them in writing
would be helpful. There is not good data for statistical analysis of "opportunity costs"
- how much and when.
Steve Lewis said the Antioch neighborhood was not a major factor in the study. They
conducted that study to include the matters required by their contract with the
County. Premiums could be tracked by years so can relate to chronology/timeline.
The annual data gave much more to work with that the month-by-month.
Frank Aiello said he wanted to point out: (1) negative press by neighborhood could
have impacted, but what about press by the landfill - what impacts might this have
had, (2) appraisals from the lawsuit showed $20,000 plus loss - how can this
discrepancy be cleared up, (3) the lenders and appraisers can't "redline" so he felt the
telephone survey is not realistic.
Jim MacDonald stated when he moved in homes sold very quickly, but now sales just
sit there for a long time and as a result the homes are turned into rentals. Did the
survey consider rentals. Steve Lewis replied that the report did not look at rentals
versus owner occupied residences; it just analyzed values (sales); if rentals were
affecting property values this should show up in sales data when the homes ultimately
sold.
Frank Aiello inquired if San Marcos houses were looked at as comparables. Steve
Lewis responded they were not looked at as comparable because they are too far
away to account for all the necessary characteristics. Many other property value
reports were looked at.
Roger Riley stated that lenders and appraisers are not useful for this report because
they are on commission. They are very limited as to what they can and cannot say
and that there were misinterpretations because of not being familiar with the industry
jargon. Steve Lewis replied that it was just a part of the whole study and he did not
think the information should be thrown out.
Bob Creaman said there should be clarification ' regarding the appraisal
recommendation. It should be recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the
appraisal were done on Neighborhoods A and E but not on Neighborhoods B and C.
Steve Lewis and Steve Orlick both noted that was correct, the recommendations were
to further look at Neighborhoods A and E.
Val Alexeeff stated that they have answered their charge; the property by property
analysis is not a part of this report. The assumption is that this could be the next step.
Jeff Fisher inquired if the potential impact BART could have on property values was
8
looked at. Steve Orlick replied that homes disappeared due to the BART extension.
Jeff Fisher inquired if BART and interchange construction could have skewed results
(because they would have a positive impact). Steve Lewis replied that it was not
quantified. Val Alexeeff noted that studies in the past have shown BART has a
positive impact. Dave Hobbs said that if BART is not considered then there is a hole
in the study. This offset must be part of the consideration.
Val Alexeeff replied that those questions should be included in a letter and sent to the
attention of the Ad Hoc Committee. Of course, there are many levels of
consideration. The next step is to determine to what extent and how to deal with it,
pose it to the Ad Hoc Committee and then to the Board of Supervisors. We will send
notices to interested parties to attend the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee meeting.
Grace Jones inquired if this was all, or would there be additional studies a year or
more from now because things change. Val Alexeeff replied that the more time that
passes the harder it is to quantify, but that the study was to look at property values
through two years of landfill operation and that has been done.
Steve Lewis said the impact of BART could impact a five-mile area. Facts and figures
are hard to come by to quantify future impacts, this would likely be inaccurate for
statistical or modeling purposes.
Grace Jones stated she did not want this to be the final word; she wanted this matter
to be open for further analysis in the future.
Frank Aiello urged keeping in contact with the Board of Supervisors; without the
community keeping vocal concerns will like not be heard.
Al McNabney said it seems that the general/large-scope has been completed. For
individuals to deal with specifics one should make their concerns known in writing to
Val Alexeeff and the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee, then the Board of Supervisors.
Val Alexeeff agreed with Al McNabney. He added that he is unsure where the Board
will go from here.
There were no further questions.
Glen Williams stated that the function of the Committee is to provide a written
response, but without a quorum there can be no vote to write a letter to the Board of
Supervisors. The intent is that the minutes will represent the Committee's concerns
to the Board of Supervisors.
Frank Aiello said it takes three members to call a special meeting next month per the
by-laws (ADC,etc.). There was no interest expressed by other members to hold a
special meeting.
9
A
1
yjs
4. CONSIDER THE DURATION OF THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL LOCAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Due to the lack of quorum no action could be taken.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT. No separate public comment was submitted aside from
that which was provided in discussion of the above agenda items.
6. AGENDA TOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING. This Committee is not expected to
schedule additional meetings (Committee sunset date of February 28, 1995 has been
established by the Board of Supervisors).
7. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned.
DD81ACFE895.MIN
10
A4+acA meA+ C
.S,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
AD HOC SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE
May 4, 1995
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY
Questions and comments discussed at the meeting:
Glen Williams indicated that the positive impact BART was expected to have on the
property values of the local neighborhoods have not come to be (and may not be for
quite some time), residents feel that it Is due to impacts from the landfill.
Frank Aiello indicated that there were a number of unanswered questions which had
been expressed at the Keller Canyon Landfill Local Advisory Committee (LAC) meeting
on February 8, 1995. He indicated that on February 8th persons at the meeting had
raised the following issues which they felt should have been included in the study: (1 )
potential impacts to homeowners which were unable to refinance and therefore stuck
with a "5200-5300 per month" loss due to the higher interest rates and some
homeowners could lose their home; (2) potential impacts from negative press
generated by the landfill (like the recent press surrounding the contaminated soils &
asbestos) which may now be new additional "disclosure" required for real estate
transactions -- unfair that the report "blamed" the residents for negative press; (3) he
felt this study and the process to date has been in conflict with the "good neighbor"
presence and promises from the County Board of Supervisors that residents would not
be able to "see it, hear it or smell it"; (4) potential impacts from the "intangible" of
homebuyers which are lost because of the proximity of home to the landfill; and (5)
residents deserve compensation and the issue of how to pay that compensation
remains - he felt that the landfill should pay for the appraisals and lump sum
compensation to residents.
Supervisor Gayle Bishop asked staff to contact the Air Board (BAAQMD) and Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) to determine if there have been any verified complaints and
if so how many.
Mr. Gruen raised questions regarding selection of comparables and residents
knowledge of "sales trends". Steve Lewis responded and Val Alexeeff provided a
copy of the Property Valuation Study report with the corresponding information.
- Page 1 -
f.
Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee
Keller Canyon Landfill
Property Valuation Study
May 4, 1995
Lance Dow requested that the consultants provide responses to the following
questions which were raised at the February 8th LAC meeting: (1) refinancing
problems for residents near landfill; (2) impacts from local homes becoming rentals;
(3) impact to values of homes which remain "on the market" for long periods of time;
(4) relationship of study and property values with the incoming BART station; (5) were
crime statistics looked at in the selection of comparable neighborhoods (the contention
is that the primary neighborhoods from the study area are "low crime" and that is a
factor of property values); (6) potential impact to homeowners from the "expectation
of appreciation"; (7) due to the requirement for "disclosure" of proximity of home to
landfill, residents have limited pool of interested homebuyers and that could affect sale
price; and (8) what are impacts to property values in light of "kickbacks" which are
not shown in the sales price like who pays for termite inspection and other such costs.
Frank Sharkey expressed his frustration that this process has taken so long and that
it has been almost five years since the landfill was approved and residents have still
not been compensated. He wanted to know when this would be resolved and by
who, if he did not get action soon from the County he would turn to the courts.
Supervisor Bishop indicated that the Board was ready for this, issue to be resolved.
Supervisor Gayle Bishop indicated that she felt that the above issue about "kickbacks"
was a valid point and hoped it could be addressed.
Dave Fogleman provided written documentation which he felt proved his inability to
sell his home. He asked that the information be considered in this process.
John Hawthorne indicated that residents should be compensated because residents
moved to this area to be near the open space (per the County General Plan).
Supervisor Bishop felt there were still things to be worked out like debt-to-equity ratio
(refinancing). She thought that financial hardships are real but most often a function
in a change of income (loans are issued based on income) and that the overall real
estate market is down (i.e. Vallejo and general real estate trends).
James Chalmers (economist representing BFI) presented different approach which they
felt would yield different results (i.e. Average Price, distance from landfill).
Supervisor Jeff Smith asked that BFI have there information written out and forwarded
to the County staff prior to the Board hearing on June 6th and in time for some
analysis.
Page 2 -
Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee
Keller Canyon Landfill
Property Valuation Study
May 4, 1995
Supervisor Bishop asked that a full presentation be given to the Board on June 6th.
This Committee takes the following actions:
1. Forward the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study report to the Board
of Supervisors with the following recommendations:
a. Determine whether an impact has taken place on property values.
b. Direct staff to determine method of evaluating impact on specific values,
if determined there has been a negative impact.
C. Determine extent of landfill operators (BFI) responsibility.
d. Recommend method of payment if any.
e. Direct staff to report back to the Board regarding validated complaints
registered with the BAAQMD and LEA.
Supervisor Smith recommended that the consultants: (1)further study Neighborhoods
A & E related to the appraisal/statistical issues, (2) prepare formal responses on issues
raised by Lance Dow (i.e. debt to equity), and (3) respond to issues raised by James
Chalmers. Supervisor Smith asked that the matter be brought to the full Board of
Supervisors on June 6th with as much information as possible.
Supervisor Smith accepted the amended motion.
DD8:ADHOC.KCL
Page 3 -
. 05/23/95 14:34 BPAOMD
,.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
AGES
N'T' DISTRICT
FAX COVER MEMO
CCNTRA COSTA COUNTY
(;OMMWITY L)Z ;.Lni''M1rw 1)1-,'1'ARTM=
COUNTY ADMIN. BU1Lt1TNG
TO: DEIDRA n I Nl'MAI DATE., .., 1995
FROM: MILTON FELDMT,IN, APCO
MESSAGE:Yul('1'11LN RFSrL)TI31; TO YOUR LFT TER (FAX) MAY 22:
Jana 1 , 1992 - ?? May, 1.99
1 k c:cnfi�rm,-,d c�jlmi)1 4lil�t,'
9t1 imronfirmcd complaints
0 violntinn noticca iuuucd
6 PAGES TO FOLLOW
IF YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS RECEIVING.
PLEASE CALL- GLORIA PERRYMAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PHONE 41S 749-4956 EXT, 4956
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FAX NUMBER (413) 928.8560
939 ELLIS STREET • 5AN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94109 • (415) 771-6000 • FAX (415)929-9560
05/23/95 14:34 BAAQMD 002
' ` T
Bad► Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95
For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Page 1
>> COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST <<
Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company
4618 901 Bailey Road
Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant
--------------------------------------------------------••-------
17261 Dust "GRATING DUST"
Cnfrm Rec 19Aug92 (10:54) Contct 19Aug92 IDP 8093
Occd 19Aug92 ( 8:45) Report 20Au992
Dspd 19Aug92 (17:02) Update .28Aug92
Contact in Person I552 (11:24)
17587 Dust
Uncnf Rec 04Sep92 (16:14) Contct 04Sep92 ID01 8381
Occd 04Sep92 ( 5:00) Report 10Sep92
Dspd 04Sep92 (16:27) Update 115ep92
Contact In Person I557 (16:31)
17680 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Uncnf Rec 11Sep92 ( 8:02) Contct 11Sep92 IDf 6470
Occd llSep92 ( 7:55) Report llSep92
Dspd llSep92 ( 8:41) Update 18Sep92
Contact Tn Person 1552 ( 9:00)
17743 Dust
. Uncnf Rec 15Sep92 (15:22) Contct 15Sep92 IDS' $528
Occd 155ep92 (12:00) Report 16Sep92
Dspd 153ep92 (10: 19) Update 25Sep92
Contact None Requested 2552 (16:30)
17760 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Uncnf Rec 168ep92 (10:25) Contct 155ep92 IDI 8545
000d 165ep92 (10:25) Report 15Sep92
Dspd 16Sep92 (10:38) Update 255ep92
Contact In Person 1552 (10:40)
17766 Dust
Cnfrm Rec 16Sep92 (13:30) Contct 16Sep92 IVI 8551
Occd 163ep92 (13:10) Report 07oct92
Dspd 16Sep92 (13:42) Update 08oct92
Contact In Person 1550 (13:56)
17885 Dust
Cnfrm Rec 22Sep92 (14:22) Contct 22Sep92 IDI 8662
Ocod 22Sep92 ( 9:00) Report 235ep92
Dspd 22Sep92 (14:41) Update 25Sep92
Contact In Person I552 (14:47)
17951 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Cnfrm Rec 24Sep92 (13: 16) Contct 24Sep92 IDO $720
Occd 24Sep92 (13:00). Report 220ct92
Dspd 24Sep92 (13:35) Update' 04Nov92
Contact In Person 1550 (13:44)
i
05/23/95 14:35 B44DMD 003
Bay Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95
For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Page 2
» COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST <<
Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company
14618 901 Bailey Road
Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant
------------------------------------------------------••-----•----------
18399 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Uncnf Rec 120ct92 (13 :21) Contct 130Ct92 IDI 9131
Occd 120ct92 (13:21) Report 130ct92
Dspd 130ct92 (10:38) Update 09Nov92
Contact In Person I552 (15:20)
18608 Dust
Cnfrm Rec 190ct92 (14:03) Contct 190ct92 IDI 9319
Ocad 190ct92 (10:00) Report 200Ct92
Dspd 190ct92 (14: 11) Update 18Nov92
Contact In Person I552 (14:30)
18939 Dust
Cnfrm Rec 02NOV92 (13 :38) Contct 02NOV92 IDI 9614
Occd 0,2Nov92 (13 :15) Report 07Dec92
Dspd 02NOV92 (13:44) Update 09DOC92
Contact In Person 1557 (14:01)
18956 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Cnfrm Reo 03Nov92 (11:30) Contct 03NOV92 IDI 9630
Occd 03Nov92 ( 8:30) Report 03Nov92
Dspd 03Nov92 (11:50) Update 09NOV92
Contact In Person I552 '(11:49)
118958 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Cnfrm Rec 03Nov92 (11:42) Contct 03NOV92 IDI 9632
Occd 03Nov92 (11:30) Report 03Nov92
Dspd 03Nov92 (11:51) Update 09NOV92
Contact In Person I552 (12:58)
19125 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Cnfrm Rec 09NOV92 (10:48) Contct 09NOv92 ID# 9785
Occd 09Nuv92 (10:20) Report IONOV92
Dspd 09Nov92 (10:57) Update 18NOV92
Contact In Person 1552 (11:23)
19132 Dust
Cnfrm Rec 09Nov92 (13:51) Contct 09Nov92 IDS` 9791
Ocod 09NOv9.2 (10:00) Report IONOV92
Dspd 09Nov92 (13:58) Update 18Nov92
Contact In Person I552 (14:42)
19155 Dust
Cnfrm Rec IONov92 (15:07) Contct IONav92 IDI 9812
Occd 10Nov92 (15:00) Report 08Dec92
Dspd IONov92 (15:15) Update 16DeC92
Contact Message 1557 (16:37)
05/23/95 14:35 BAAQMD 004
Bay Areta Air Quality Management District 05/23/95
For period (01Jan92 a 22May95) Page 3
» COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST tK
Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company
0 4618 901 Bailey Road
Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
19543 Dust
Uncnf Rec 30NOV92 (14:13) Contct 30Nov92 ID# 10169
Occd 30Nov92 (13:00) Report 17Dec92
Dspd 30Nov92 (14: 18) Update 22Dec92
Contact In Person IS57 (14137)
19545 Dust
Uncnf Rec 30Nov92 (15:03) Contct 30Nov92 IDIS 10171
Occd 30Nov92 (14:50) Report 17Dec92
Dspd 3ANov92 (15:18) Update 22Dec92
Contact In Person T557 (15.32)
19546 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Uncnf Rec 30MOV92 (15:07) Contct 30Nov92 IDf 10172
Occd 30Nov92 (13: 30) Report 17Dec92
Dspd 30Nov92 (15:21) Update 22Dec92
Contact In Person I557 (15:07)
19547 Dust
Uncnf Rec 30Nov92 (15: 18) Contct 30Nov92 IDS` 10173
Occd 30Nov92 (13:30) Report 17Dec92
Dspd 30Nov92 (15:21) Update 22Dec92
Contact Message I557 (15:47)
19913 Dust
Cnfrm ReC 21Dec92 (15: 15) Contct 21Dec92 IDf 10490
Occd 21Dev92 (15:00) Report 21Dec92
Dspd 21Dec92 (15:20) Update 28Dec92
Contact In Person 1552 (15:35)
20315 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Cnfrm Rec 26Jan93 (13:45) Contct 26Jan93 ID* 10859
UCcd 26Jan93 (13:00) Report 187eb93
Dspd 2661an93 (14:03) Update 24Feb93
Contact In Person 1550 (14 :17)
20432 Dust
Cnfrm Roo 29Jan93 (13:55) Contct 29Jan93 IDP 10969
occd 29Jan93 (13:30) Report 18Feb93
Dspd 29Jan93 (14:15) Update 24Feb93
Contact In Person 1550 (14:34)
22723 Duet
Uncnf Rec 06May93 (15:17) Contct 06May93 IDI 13138
Occd 06May93 (15:10) Report 06May93
Dspd 06May93 (15:21) Update 11May93
Contact Phone T552 (15:23)
0523/95 14:36 BAAOMD 005
r '
Bay Area Air Quality Management District " 05/23/95
For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Pa ge 4
» COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST
Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company
IF 4616 901 Bailey Road
Pittoburg, 'CA 94565 Complainant
----------w-----------------------------------------------------------
23350 Smoke
Uncnf Rec 14Jun93 (14:54) Contct 14Jun93 10# 13709
Occd 14Jun93 (14:47) Report 14Jun93
Dspd 14Jun93 (15:37) Update 18Jun93
Contact In Person I552 (15:47)
32585 Odor 11GARBAGE11
Uncnf Rbc 13Sep93 (17:05) Contct 13Sep93 IDI 15522
Occd 135ep93 (17:00) Report 13Sep93
DBpd 13Sep93 (17;11) Update 213ep93
Contact Phone I552 (17:30)
25326 Dust 11DEBRIS11
Uncnf Rec 305ep93 (16:00) Contct 303ep93 IDO 16016
Occd 29Sep93 (16:00) Report 30Sep93
Dspd 30Sep93 (16:14) Update 04oct93
Contact Phone 1552 (16:20)
25736 Smoke
Uncnf Rec 20OCt93 (21:36) Contct 210ct93 IDI 16418
Occd 200ct93 . (21:36) Report 210ct93
Dspd 210ct93 ( 9:07) Update 280ct93
Contact In Person I552 ( 9:40)
25679 Odor 'RAW SEWAGE"
Uncnf Rec 07Apr94 (15:06) Contct 07Apr94 XD/ 19109
Occd. 07Apr94 (14:30) Report 08Apr94
Dspd 07Apr94 (15:33) Update 12Apr94
Contact In Person 1552 (16:30)
28680 Odor "GARBAGE"
Uncnf Rec 07Apr94 (15:15) Contct u7Apr94 ID# 19110
OCCd 07Apr94 ( 9:00) Report 08Apr94
Dspd 07Apr94 (15:34) Update 12Apr94
contact In Person I552 (16:40)
28739 Odor "STINKS"
Uncnf Rec ilApr94 (21;29) Contct ilApr94 ID# 19172
Occd 11Apr94 (21:29) Report 11Apr94
VSpd 11Apr94 (22:29) Update 10May94
Contact Phone 2563 (22:30)
29369 Dust "EXCESSIVE"
Uncnf Rec 27May94 (13:26) Contct 27May94 IDI 19747
OCCd 27May94 (12:30) Report 27May94
Dspd 27May94 (14: 11) Update 01Aug94
Contact Phone I550 (14:29)
05/23/95 14:36 BPAQM1D 006
' a
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 05/23/95
For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Page 5
>> COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST <<
Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company
4618 901 Bailey Road
Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant
--------------r-------------------------------------------------
2546
-------
2546 Odor "TERRIBLE"
Unonf Rea 03Apr95 (19:46) Contct 04Apr95 ID# 2396
Occd 03Apr95 (17:00) Report 04Apr95
Dspd 04Apr95 ( 8:49) Update 06Apr95
Contact Phone 1552 (15:42)
3003 Odor "PAPERMILL"
Uncnf Rao 02May95 (17:53) Contct 03May95 ID# 2817
Occd 02May95 (12:00) Report 04May95
Dspd 03May95 ( 8:48) Update 16May95
Contact Phone 1552 ( 9:25)
05/23/95 14:37 HAAOMD 007
.r
Q;' Bay Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95
For period (O1Jan92 - 22May95) page 6
>> COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST <<
. Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company
4618 901 Bailey Road
Pittsburg, CA 945G5 Complainant
----------------------- -------------------------------------
S U M M A R Y
Complaints
Confirmed. . . . . . .14
Unconfirmed. . . . .20
Pending. . . . . . . . .0
Total. . . . . . . . . . .34
Violation Notices
Total. . . . . . . . . . .0
r-----GOA.{y�}mC1mCCC----v-------r----�lN!
send output to Screen (S)<default>, or System Printer (P) , or Exit(E) ?
��/K "h
05-30-1995 09:03AM CCC ENVIRONMENTL FILTH
Il
CO`ntra Health Services Department
Costa
Ii � rK ENVIRONMENAL HEALTH OMS
ION
1111 Ward St6@tCo�nty MartlneL Calffornia 94553-132
I i
(610)848-2521
I
I i
j
DATE: May 30, 1995
i
TO: Deidra Dingman, Planner
Community Development Department
I
FROM: Rebecca Ng, Senior Environmental Health Specialist
Environmental Health Division-General Programs
i SUBJECT: Keller Canyon Landfill Complaints
This is in response to your inquest for information on Keller Canyon Landfill complaints.
Approximately 85 operational complaints on Keller Canyon Landfill have been recdived by this Division
since December 1991. Only 2 of the 85 complaints were substantiated by the LEA staff. Both of the
substantiated complaints occurred before May 1992 during the construction of the landfill. One I
complaint was of excessive dust being generated and the other complaint was regarding noise from earth
moving equipment. In both instances, the landfill operators immediately corrected the problems upon
verbal notification.
Additionally, approximately 52 calls on the Keller Canyon Hotline were received from May-November
j 1992, complaining that Keller Canyon was not opened to the public.
RN:sit
j114:dirW=.m
i
I
i
t
' 1
I
I
I
A,?SA (10/921
TOTAL P.02
t Af f0c F-
41pgtATE'�ti�`�
1801 East Cotai A+anue
�s SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY RornanParx.Ca1,tania949M3KQ
Department of Enrlronnnental 8luotea*no Planning
707 E6 -Z=
i--
May 30, 1995
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors:
This letter is in response to issues raised by members of the audience
during the May 4, 1995, meeting of the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors, Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee. Each issue raised at the
meeting is listed below followed by our response. Issue 4 actually consists
of several issues that all require the same response and are therefore
grouped together.
Issue 1: Several members of the audience brought up the subject of the
new BART station along Bailey Road. The BART station was supposed to
have a positive effect on property values, but this has not yet been
experienced by the property owners in the area. They say that this is
because of the negative impacts of the landfill. Further, the property
valuation study did not include the relationship between the new BART
station and property values.
Response: BART can be expected to affect all of the surrounding
neighborhoods, including the neighborhoods that were included in
the Keller Canyon Landfill study. Any effects of the BART station are
accounted in the sales data collected for the study neighborhoods. We
did not separate out the impact of BART on property values. The
model did consider the general appreciation and depreciation of
property values over the time period.January 1979 to May 1994.
Property value appreciation resulting from the anticipation of a
BART station at Bailey Road is automatically included in our
Average Price variable (AP) which was calculated annually. The
impact of BART should have affected all neighborhoods in the vicinity
and not just those in close proximity to the landfill.
The California State University
Board of Supervisors WO/95 2
Issue 2: It is unfair that the report suggests that the residents have
generated negative press, when the landfill also has generated negative
press.
Response: There can be two kinds of negative press, that which is
generated by the residents and that which is a result'of the landfill's
activities. The loss of premium occurred in the neighborhood that
had the most concerned and vocal residents. This also is the
neighborhood which is closest to the landfill and the neighborhood
that has the greatest view of the landfill. Any effect of negative press
generated solely by the landfill might have impacted neighborhoods B
and C, but no property value impacts were found in these other
neighborhoods.
Issue 3: What is the potential impact to homeowners from the "expectation
of appreciation"?
Response: The resident's responses to the questions in the
Community Survey regarding the value of their homes indicated that
they were not generally familiar with the housing market. The
survey found that they over-estimated the actual value of their
homes. Their expressed concerns suggest they have failed to
recognize that real estate values depreciated throughout the county,
region, and state during the early 1990's.
Issue(s) 4: Some residents expressed the view that they were unable to
refinance their homes and therefore are loosing$200 to $300 per month due
to higher interest rates. Issues that the speakers also felt were not
addressed in the study included: the impact of neighborhood homes
becoming rentals; the impact on the value of the homes which remain on
the market for long periods of time; crime statistics in the comparable
neighborhoods versus the primary neighborhoods; the "pool" of buyers for
the study area neighborhoods versus other neighborhoods because of
having to "disclose" the landfill; and the impact of"kickbacks" on property
values which are not included in the officially recorded sales prices.
Response: These issues were not part of the original study, nor were
they raised during the original design phase of the study. Both the
Local Advisory Committee and Ad Hoc Committee had input during
this process. Consequently, we do not have data upon which to
address these issues. While it is tempting to engage in speculation
and rely on anecdotal evidence,it is our position that only a thorough
analysis will provide accurate answers. A thorough analysis of these
issues would require direction from the Board of Supervisors,
additional time, and a new budget contract.
A response to the report of James Chalmers, the economist representing
BFI, can not be provided until the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 6,
ig t
fBoard of Supervisors 6/30/95 . 3 ,
1995. His report was not received by ICPA until May 24, 1995. The report
itself lacks substantial documentation to permit us to give a through
response. Nonetheless, Dr. Lewis will be prepared to continent on this
report at the meeting.
A brief written response to the letter by Mr. Claude Gruen, dated May 25,
1995, will be provided to staff at the Community Development Department,.
before the June 6th meeting.
Sincerely,
Steven C. Orlick, Ph.D.
Professor and ICPA Director
c.c. Deidra Dingman
1tl t
` Co. Coopers & Lybrand LLA 2901 North Central Avenue telephone (602) 280-1800
/V= a professional services firth suite 1000
& L rand
Phoenix,Arizona 85012.2755 facsimile• (602) 21341999
yFln.ndeJ,►dv,.or,,8.rtrke.
Hach �-
�f
Coopers&Lybrand L.L.P.has been asked by BFI to provide commentary on the Keller Canyon Landfill Property
Valuation Study prepared by the Institute for Community Planning Assistance at Sonoma State University.
I. INTRODUCTION
The homes surrounding the Keller Canyon Landfill(the"Landfill")are alleged to have suffered adverse value
impacts from the presence of the Landfill. To analyze this claim,the prices of homes with and without the presence
of the Landfill need to be determined. The prices of the homes with the presence of the Landfill can readily be
observed from the market.
The difficult judgment is to estimate the value of homes in the absence of the Landfill. The only way this can be
done is to go outside the neighborhoods close to the landfill("subject"neighborhoods)and identify neighborhoods
that are comparable("comparable"neighborhoods). Rather than analyzing the sales individually,the most reliable
way to estimate the value of homes in the absence of the Landfill is to compare values between the subject and the
comparable neighborhoods by looking at a large number of sales using statistical analysis.
Once it is determined,through statistical analysis,that there is a value impact,the value impacts on individual
homes can be determined through the use of appraisals. The process to determine if the Landfill is having an
impact on the value of residential housing in the surrounding area is outlined in the following graph:
Process to Determine Value Impacts of the
Keller Canyon Landfill
Are Two Value Impacts? What Caused the It There are Operational
e Neighborhood Effect Value ImpIs?
esitnp Impacts.What are the Val
eprsbnoeEffect eOperabions Impactson
YkMitidual Homes?
l II. ARE THERE VALUE IMPACTS?
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT:
The first step in this process was to determine if a Neighborhood Effect existed. Sonoma State investigated
whether any systematic difference existed between the neighborhoods that are close to the Landfill and comparable
L neighborhoods that are distant from the Landfill. The Keller Canyon Landfill Study(the"Study")performed this
test tiring a statistical procedure referred to as regression analysis. The results of the Study from this test can be
found on page 50 of the Study.
Coopers 8 Lybrand L.L.P..a registered limited liability partnership.Is a member firm of Coopers 8 Lybrand pnternat,ona!)
�
A regression analysis is simply a method for measuring relationships between variables. When many variables and
relationships exist,a regression analysis enables one to examine the relationship between two of the variables while
holding all of the other relationships constant. In this instance,the regression analysis allowed a comparison of
being in different neighborhoods while holding the size,age,and other attributes of the house constant. The Study
found that of the three subject neighborhoods,only Hillsdale showed any sign of a Neighborhood Effect.
Hillsdale was compared with two other neighborhoods,Hillsdale II and Country Club. A map showing the
relationship between the subject neighborhood(Hillsdale)and the comparable neighborhoods(Hillsdale II and
Country Club)can be seen in the Appendix A.
Sonoma State's estimate of the Neighborhood Effect for Hillsdale can be seen in Figure 1. In the year 1981,
Sonoma State's calculation estimated a premium of$8,400 for Hillsdale over the combination of Hillsdale II and
Country Club. This means that holding all of the other variables constant, Sonoma State found that a home in
Hillsdale sold in.1981 for approximately$8,400 more than a comparable home in either Hillsdale II or Country
Club. The amount of the premium is measured on the left hand side of the graph.The$8400 also has a reliability
measure associated with it that was obtained while doing the regression.
The reliability measure is shown by the tone of each bar. The darkest bar shows a 95%level of confidence. This
can be interpreted as a"reliable"premium estimate. The medium bar shows a level of confidence between 90%
and 95%. This can be interpreted as a"marginally reliable"premium estimate. The white bar shows below a 90%
level of confidence. This can be interpreted as an"unreliable"premium estimate.
Pulling alt of these notions together,Sonoma State estimated that a premium existed for Hillsdale over the
combination of Hillsdale II and Country Club from 1979- 1990(excluding 1980)and that the premium
disappeared after 1990. On this basis, Sonoma State concluded that Hillsdale homes had been diminished in value.
(See Figure 1).
Figure 1
Sonoma State Estimate on Hillsdale Premium
Relative to Hillsdale II and Country Club
(
$15, Pre-Keller Siting Approved
$10,00(-
$5
1o,s5,
so
{S5'ODO 79 80 81 82 83 64 85 86 87 88 89 90 81 92 83 94
Years
■1-=95X®90%•9510<9 %%
DISTANCE EFFECT:
Since Hillsdale was the only neighborhood with an effect,a closer examination was merited. Sonoma State
performed a second test which is a more refined test than the first. The neighborhoods being examined are
relatively large and vary considerably in their relationship to the Landfill. The Distance Effect test was designed
s
by Sonoma State to determine if proximity to the Landfill had a significant impact on property values. Again,a
regression analysis was used to determine whether proximity to the Landfill within Hillsdale affected property
value,other things being equal. The Study found that there was no systematic effect arising from proximity to the
Landfill in Hillsdale. This suggests that there is no decrease in value due to the Landfill. This can be found on
3
page 52 of the Study.
' Page 2
%vin'THE CONFLICT?
When we were analyzing the Study,the apparent conflict between the findings of the Neighborhood Effect
(dwrc=in value)and Distance Effect(no decrease in value)indicated that further analysis was required. On
examination of the data it became evident that these three neighborhoods had different numbers of sales. Over the
15 year period,Hillsdale had 1231 sales,Hillsdale II had 898 sales and Country Club had 385 sales.
In the Study,the average sales price was one of the important variables used in the regression analysis,but Sonoma
State's calculation of the average sales price variable did not recognize the unequal number of sales in each of the
neighborhoods. We found that this failure to use a true"weighted"average in determining the average sales price
for the combined three neighborhoods introduced a bias into the analysis.
In addition,the Study states on page 49,"Since the price history experiences for composite neighborhoods are
di8erent,each is considered separately." This observation,in conjunction with a site visit, prompted a
consideration of comparing Hillsdale with Hillsdale 11 and Hillsdale with Country Club separately. The Hillsdale
Il and Country Club neighborhoods are quite different and we suspected that pooling of the two blurred the effects
of each in comparison to Hillsdale.
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT REVISITED
The conflict,therefore, arose from two problems; 1)the calculation of the average sales price and 2)the effect of
combining two dissimilar neighborhoods—Hillsdale II and Country Club.
A simple analogy of the method employed by the Study in the calculation of the average sales price variable is the
computation of a grade point average(GPA). Suppose a student received an A in a 1 hour P/E class and a C in a 4
hour Math class. Employing the method used in the Study,the student's GPA is a B. This,however,ignores the
relative number of hours of each class. A true GPA takes into account the different number of hours in each of the
two classes and weights them accordingly. The true GPA for the student would be a C+. In modifying the
egression performed in the Neighborhood Effect test,a true average price was calculated for the composite
neighborhood for each year.
Ager correcting for the average sales price variable,we compared Hillsdale to Hillsdale Il independently and we
compared Hillsdale to Country Club independently to determine if a Neighborhood Effect really existed in the
Hillsdale neighborhood.
Page 3
Comparing the Hillsdale and Hillsdale U neighborhoods,using the correct average sale price,gave a differtnt
answer with respect to the Hillsdale premium. Figure 2 shows that 9 of the 13 variables were "unreliable"
premium estimates. (only 1982, 1983, 1985& 1987 were"reliable"). A premium for Hillsdale existed in 1982,
1983 and 1987,but a discount existed in 1985. This demonstrates that Hillsdale has not had a consistent premium
V%,er Hillsdale 12 over the time period. Contrary to the Sonoma.State conclusion,there is no evidence of any
decrease in the value of the Hillsdale neighborhood due to the Landfill.
Figure 2
Hillsdale Premium Relative to Hillsdale Il
615.00 Pre-Keller Siting Approved
510,00
55,00 .
=o
62 63 64 6S 66 67 66 69 90 91 92 93 94
Years
In—95%8 90%-960C 90%
Comparing the Hillsdale and Country Club neighborhoods,using the correct average.sales price,contradicts the
Sonoma State conclusion as well. Figure 3 shows 13 of 15 variables are"reliable"premium estimates(only 1980
& 1985 were"unreliable"). This demonstrates that Hillsdale has consistently had a premium over Country Club
and that the premium continues to be strongly present since Keller Canyon was built. Again,contrary to the
Sonoma State conclusion,there is no evidence of any decrease in the value of the Hillsdale neighborhood due to the
Landfill.
Figure 3
Hillsdale Premium Relative to
Country Club
1S
Pro-Keller Siting Approved
s1a,
ss.ODC
so
(S5'000 6Do.i 62 63 64 65 66 67 66 6.9 909.1 92 a3 94
Years
■�"9sx�Sox-9510�oe>r:
Page 4
Appendix A
Map of the Subject and
Comparable Neighborhoods
The Sonoma State Study concluded that the Hillsdale neighborhood suffered a decrease in value on the basis of a
premium that disappeared after 1990. This conclusion is incorrect due to two factors—1)the method of
calculating the average sales price variable and 2)the combination of two dissimilar neighborhoods.
By using an average sales price variable that was a true average and separating Hillsdale II and Country Club,our
analysis showed That there never was a premium for Hillsdale above Hillsdale H and that the premium for Hillsdale
above Country Club has existed over time and continues to be strongly present. The results of our analysis of
Hillsdale were the same as Sonoma State found in the other subject neighborhoods,namely—there was no
evidence,by either test,of property value diminution due to the landfill.
The foregoing represents the work performed by James A.Chalmers,Ph.D.of Coopers&Lybrand L.L.P. Dr.
Chalmers'Statement of Qualifications is attached as Appendix B.
Coopers&Lybrand L. .
Page 5
O •
O O • Y
• •
O • A\ ���
-- RM ��� ♦..
°' Z
c�
LE 75
Z CO
w
O C� mY
L
L
CO
� 3 • jam:'%/ ,..
Z � • —
................. ...
• y\ •'••••....................•.
cn
• 2
• i O _
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix B
Statement of Qualifications
for James A. Chalmers, Ph.D.
JAMES A. CHALMERS
PAGE l
POSITION
Principal, Financial Advisory Services, Coopers&Lybrand L.L.P.
EDUCATION
Ph.D. -Economics, University of Michigan
B.A. -Economics, University of Wyoming
EXPERIENCE
1. ECONOMICS
Broad range of experience in quantitative economic analysis and problem solving applied to
regional and urban growth issues, public planning, economic modeling, fiscal analysis, industry
economics and socioeconomic impact assessment. Selected engagements are described below:
RegionaUUrban Economics
• City of Phoenix. Economic and residential development strategies for newly annexed peripheral
areas.
• Maricopa Association of Governments. Official population, employment and land use
projections for Metropolitan Phoenix at the traffic analysis zone(1300 zones) level of analysis.,
• Arizona Department of Economic Security. Demographic and employment projections for each
county in Arizona, adopted as the State's official planning projections.
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Effect on California's Central Valley economy of limiting water
rights to farms no larger than 160 acres.
Economic Development/Site Selection
• Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force. Assisted the State of Arizona in preparing a proposal to
site the U.S. West Advanced Technology core research facility in Arizona.
• Clark County, NV. Market studies of heavy industry demand, land absorption projections, and
implementation program for APEX Heavy Industry Park outside Las Vegas._
• Greater Phoenix Economic Council. Competitive city operating cost comparisons for six
different industrial sectors.
Impact Assessment
• Colorado Cumulative Impact Task Force. Project director for consortium of energy companies
and local governments to establish database, standards for impact analysis, and common
analytic tools for assessing socioeconomic and fiscal impacts of oil shale projects in six-county,
western Colorado region.
• U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Economic and fiscal impacts of coal development in 40
county region of eastern Montana and western North Dakota.
JAMES A. CHALMERS
PAGE 2
i
} U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Case studies of the impacts of 12 nuclear power plants
on their host communities across the United States.
Litigation Services
• Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Kansas City, MO. Prepared testimony with respect to
redevelopment of Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri.
• Clifford Chance, London. Provided expert testimony with respect to market conditions in the
interdealer broker industry in the late 1980's.
H. REAL ESTATE
Experienced in applying economic and financial analysis together with relevant market data to real
estate development, investment counseling, asset management, and real property valuation.
Projects include large, urban, mixed-use projects, single use projects of all types, and large
master-planned community studies. Selected engagements include the following:
Development Consulting
• Belmont Corporation. Designed and managed research to investigate feasibility of
master-planned community in western Maricopa County.
• Evans-Withvcombe. Carried out market and feasibility analyses for proposed high-density
residential developments.
• National Golf Foundation. Advised with respect to market forces affecting participation and
frequency of play.
• Summa Corporation. Advised with respect to timing and market positioning of commercial and
industrial development in Las Vegas,Nevada.
• Symington, Company. Evaluated commercial office market conditions for purposes of
evaluating both proposed and existing projects.
Investment Counseling
• Bay State Milling. Provided ongoing counseling with respect to the redevelopment options for
the Hayden Flour Mill property in downtown Tempe,Arizona.
• Arizona State University -West Campus. Evaluated market conditions relative to privatization
of 70 acres of the ASU West Campus.
• Banning-Lewis Ranch. Evaluated and provided development counseling for 25,000 acre
property in Colorado Springs.
• Scottsdale School District. Advised the Scottsdale School Board regarding alternative scenarios
for disposition of the 38-acre Scottsdale High School site located in downtown Scottsdale.
Workout/Disposition Counseling
• Cole Equities. Evaluated loan restructuring options for large office complex.
• Kidder Peabody. Prepared due diligence for securitization of$250 million apartment portfolio.
• Denro, Ltd. Developed and analyzed repositioning strategies for 1,300 acre, golf-oriented .
master planned community.
JAMES A. CHALMERS
PAGE 3
• Resolution Trust Corporation. Developed asset management alternatives for 2,500 acre
mixed-use commercial and master planned residential community in Mesa, Arizona.
Litigation Services
• Baker & Botts, Houston. Provided an analysis of overall trends in values of office, industrial,
multi-family,hotel and raw land properties in several Arizona markets.
• Lewis & Roca, Phoenix. Analyzed distribution of benefits from a proposed special
improvement district.
• Bodman, Longley &Dahling, Detroit. Produced evidence on alternative development concepts
for a golf course community in Michigan.
• Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre and Friedlander, Phoenix. Provided testimony with respect to
appropriate due diligence procedures in a commercial real estate fraud case.
• Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco. Developed evidence with respect to evolution of
multi-family market conditions in the southwestern United States since 1980.
III. REAL PROPERTY VALUATION/DAMAGES QUANTIFICATION
Have applied real estate and economics background to litigation oriented engagements focused on
the value of real property in the context of eminent domain, valuation of contaminated property,
and valuation of property affected by hazard or risk. Selected engagements include:
Eminent Domain
• U.S. Attorney's Office, Phoenix. Analyzed highest and best use for lands surrounding Lake
Pleasant, north of Phoenix.
• Burch & Cracciolo, Phoenix. Provided testimony on behalf of landowner whose property -%vas
taken for a city hall expansion.
• City of Chandler. Provided testimony with respect to highest and best use and market value of a
small office building in the redevelopment area of Chandler,Arizona.
• Fadem & Douglas, Los Angeles. Provided evidence with respect to master-planned community
from which land was taken for a recreation area and reservoir.
• Nevada Attorney General. Prepared evidence relating to the highest and best use of a large
commercial parcel that was partially taken for purposes of highway improvement.
• Fadem & Douglas, Los Angeles. Valued abandoned railroad ROW in'Manhattan Beach,
California in the context of inverse condemnation action.
• Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, Columbia, S.C. Prepared testimony with respect to master
planned community on Hilton Head Island impacted by freeway alignment.
• U.S. Attorney's Office, Salt Lake City. Prepared market, financial feasibility and highest and
best use evidence in several cases stemming from the creation of the Jordanelle reservoir.
• Arizona Attorney General. Provided testimony with respect to development timing and highest
and best use on lands impacted by freeway development.
• Michigan Department of Transportation. Prepared evidence to support litigations in the M-59
corridor,northeast of Detroit.
' JAMES A. CHALMERS
PAGE 4
Valuation of Contaminated Property
• Faullrner, Barfield, Doogan & Holmes, Anchorage, AK. Defense of major oil company %%ith
respect to property value diminution claims associated with storage of heavy industrial
equipment.
• Aspey, Watkins & Diesel, Flagstaff, AZ. Quantified damages to property owners stemming
from the malfunction of a lake in a master-planned community in northern Arizona.
• Holme Roberts & Owen, Denver, CO. Assessment for a major oil company of damages to real
property from groundwater contamination.
• Streich Lang, Phoenix, AZ. Quantification of damages to building supply business stemming
from property contamination by a previous owner.
• Coffield Ungaretti & Harris, Chicago, IL. Damage assessment for midwestern manufacturing
client with respect to groundwater contamination claim by an adjacent property o%%mer.
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Los Angeles, CA. Quantified damages to an industrial property
from ground water contamination from an adjacent property.
• Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Washington, D.C. Quantified damages to industrial land
developer from lost sale due to soil and groundwater contamination from adjacent industrial
facility.
• Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Kansas City, MO. Estimate diminution of value to large,
industrial property due to smelter tailings and lead paint related contamination.
• Paul, Weiss,• Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York. Review documents pertaining to
diminution of value to resort property affected by petroleum spill.
• Arnold & Porter. Los Angeles, CA. Evaluated diminution of value claims for an industrial
property in the Long Beach area.
• McCarter & English, Newark, NJ. Quantified damages to industrial property due to soil
contamination.
• Graham & James, Los Angeles, CA. Quantified damages to a property in Los Angeles
resulting from a leaking UST.
• Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Atlanta, GA. Evaluated diminution of value claims for
industrial property in South Carolina.
Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts, Kansas City, MO„ and Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan,
Newark,NJ. Evaluated diminution of value claims for residential property in the Midwest.
• Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, Irvine, CA. Evaluated diminution of value claims for
industrial property in Southern California.
• Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, DC. Evaluated diminution of value claims
for industrial property in Colorado.
• Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, CT. Evaluated diminution of value claims for industrial
property in Connecticut.
• Howrey & Simon,Washington, DC. Quantified damages to a property in Virginia due to soil
and groundwater contamination.
.• JAMES A. CHALMERS
PAGE 5
• Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Washington, DC. Quantified damages to a propem in
Orange County,California.
• Jones,Day,Reavis &Pogue,Los Angeles,CA. Analyzed property value diminution due to soil
contamination at a manufacturing and.warehousing facility in central Los Angeles.
• McClintock, Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, Los Angeles, CA.
Analyzed residential market conditions relative to a damages claim at a large mixed-use
property in Riverside County,CA.
• McClintock, Weston, Benshoot Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, Los Angeles, CA.
Analyzed property value diminution claims for an office/industrial property in Sunnyvale. CA
affected by petroleum and VOC contamination.
• Union Pacific Railroad Company. Investigated diminution in value claims associated with
commercial property in Riverside County, CA affected by lead contamination.
Valuation of Hazard Impacted Property
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Assessed the fait range of economic damages associated
with the accident at Three Mile Island.
• Latham &Watkins and Fadem & Douglas, Los Angeles, CA. Produced evidence for Howard
Hughes Properties with respect to-damages stemming from proximity to a major,high-pressure,
interstate gas transmission line.
• Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office. Project director for the State of Nevada for a five year,
$8 million study of the effects of a proposed high level nuclear waste repository on the State of
Nevada.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
Coopers &Lybrand L.L.P. Principal,Financial Advisory Services. 1990 to present.
Mountain West: 1974 to 1989. President and Economic Consultant.
Arizona State University: 1972 to 1979. Faculty of Economics, College of Business.
Rockefeller Foundation: 1970 to.1972. Special field staff at Thomasatt University, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Amherst College 1966 to 1970. Faculty of Economics.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS AFFILL4 TIONS
American Society of Real Estate Counselors
Urban Land Institute
Lambda Alpha,National Land Economics Honorary,Phoenix Chapter,Past President(1988).
East Valley Partnership,Board and Past President
Pension Real Estate Association
iJAMES A. CHALMERS .
PAGE 6
PUBLICATIONS
Books Published
Economic Principles: Macroeconomic Theory and Policy (with Fred R, Leonard) MacMillan
(1971).
Selected Articles Published
"Valuation Issues - Assessing Value of Environmentally Impaired Properties" (with Jeffre Beam
and Robert Ecker), forthcoming as a chapter in Environmental Aspects of Real Estate
Transactions, to be published by the ABA Section of Natural Resources, Energy and
Environmental Law.
"Supporting Appropriate Adjustments in Large Scale Condemnation Actions" (with Daniel
Sorrells), The Appraisal Journal, October 1994.
"Property Value Diminution: Residential and Commercial Cases Demand Different Approaches"
(with Jeffre B. Beatty),Environmental Compliance&Litigation Strategy, February 1994;4-7.
Valuation of Property Affected by Contamination or Hazard (with Jeffre B. Beatty) forthcoming
as a chapter in Environmental Risk Mana¢ement. a Desk Reference. Second Edition to be
published by RTM Communications, Inc. in Spring 1995.
"Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated Property" (with Scott A. Roehr), The Appraisal Journal,
Vol.61,No.1,January 1993;28-41.
"Importance of.Valuing Contaminated Property" and "Choosing Valuation Method Depends on
Needs, Facts" (with Dale R. Hurd, Ph.D.),Hazardous Waste and Toxic Torts,Vo1.8, Nos. 1 & 2,
1992.
"Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste
Repository in Nevada" (with Paul Slovic et al),Risk Anal sis%Vol. II,No. 4, 1991;683-696.
"A Methodology for Valuing Contaminated Property" (with Steve Pritulsky, Scott Roehr, and Dan
Sorrells), Land Rights Neves,November 1991.
"Contributions of Real Estate Economics to Right-of-Way Acquisition and Valuation" (with S.
Pritulsky and D. Sorrells), Right-of-Way June 1991; 8-13.
"Impacts of Nuclear Generating Plants on Local Areas" (with D. Pijawka), Economic Geoeraohv.
Vol. 59,No. 1,January 1983,66-80.
"Evaluation of Underutilized Resources in Water Resource Development" (with J.R. Threadgill),
Water Resources Research, 1981.
"Integrating Planning and Assessment through Public Involvement" (with James L. Creighton and
Kristi.Branch), Environmental Impact Assessment Review,Vol. 1,No. 4;349-353,April 1981.
"An Empirical Model of Spatial Interaction in Sparsely Populated Regions" (with E.J. Anderson,
T. Beckhelm,and W. Hannigan), International Regional Science Review.Vol. 3,No. 1,Fall 1978.
"Some Thoughts on the Rural to Urban Migration Turnaround" (with M.J. Greenwood),
International Regional Science Review,Vol. 2,No. 2,Spring 1978.
"The Role of Spatial Relationships in Assessing Social and Economic Impacts of Large-Scale
Construction Projects,"National Resources Journal.Vol. 17,209-222,April 1977.
JAMES A. CHALMERS
PAGE 7
"Shift and Share and the Theory of Industrial Location" (with T. Beckheim), Regional Studies.
Vol. 10; 15-23, 1976.
TESTIMONY
California Energy Commission
Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects
United States District Court
Anchorage, Alaska
Baltimore, Maryland
Charleston, South Carolina
Las Vegas,Nevada
Salt Lake City, Utah
Arizona Superior Court
Coconino County
Maricopa County
Missouri Circuit Court
Jackson County
Virginia Circuit Court
Loudoun County
England. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division
CERTIFICATIONS
Arizona: General Real Estate Appraiser#30487
California: Certified General Appraiser#AG 024655
Michigan: Certified Appraiser#1201003624
Missouri: General Real Estate Appraiser#002753
Nevada: General Real Estate Appraiser#00542
Appraisal Institute, Candidate#M91-0426
MAI`-25-1995 16:05 FROM Gruen Gruen +Associates. TO
r {SS
y
t�
May 25, 1995
Valentin Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management
& Economic Development Agency
651 Pine Street, Second Floor
North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553.0095
SENT VIA FAX: 510 646-1309
Dear Val:
Ms. Yolanda Lopez, the Assistant City Manager for the City of Pittsburgh, asked me
to sit in on the May 4th presentation of the value study, and questions by Dr. James
Chalmers. She has also asked that I review a copy of the study itself, and be
prepared to make comments at the September 6th meeting of the Board of
Supervisors.
But when- I told Yolanda that I had some questions for Dr. Stephen D. Lewis at the
Institute for Community Planning Assistance at Sonoma State University, she told me
that he was not responding directly to questions. She told me that what I should do
is write my questions down and submit them to you. I have done so below and hope
that you will forward them quickly to Dr. Lewis.
As I think you will see when you look at the questions, I have tried to phrase them so
as to minimize Dr. Lewis' time by asking most of them in a form that would permit
him to simply mark yes or no on a copy of this letter or an attachment. However, if
he would like to expand. on any answers, or give me a call, please tell him to do so.
Your willingness to expedite these questions to Dr. Lewis, and his willingness to
respond to them quickly are much appreciated.
1. As 1 read your report your Hedonic Regression Price Model indicated that
property values in Oak Hills (neighborhood NB) were found to increase
with distance from the landfill. Am 1 right about that? Incidentally, I do
understand that you interpret the distence premium to reflect proximity
to commercial area and transportation rather than distance from the
landfill. Am I correct on this point?
2. As I read your report, property values in Hillsdale (neighborhood NA) were
also found to climb with distance from the landfill until the 1993-1994
period when the 'distance premiums' were insignificant. In the light of _
your Hedonic Regression Price Model finding that Hillsdale's former
neighborhood-wide price premium had disappeared by 1994, Is It not
reasonable to assume that by the time Keller actually went into full
operation, the distance effect of the prospect of the landfill had been
swamped by the reality of the landfill's effect on the whole
neighborhood? I ask this long question after reading in a Coopers &
Gruen Gruen+Associates
564 Howard Street
San Franclsoo,CA 94105-3002
Tel: (415)433-7598
FAX: (415)989-4224
MAY-25-1995 16:05 FROM Gruen Gruen + Associates. TO 15106461309 P.03
Val Alexeeff
Msy 25. 1995
Page 2
Lybrand commentary written by Dr. James Chalmers that your study had,
`found that there was no systematic effect arising from proximity to the
landfill in Hillsdale." Isn't Mr. Chalmers' interpretation of your work Just
plain wrong?
3. Did you select the three Pittsburgh neighborhoods as primary, or
potentially impacted areas only because they were within one and 114
miles of the primary waste placement area? If this was not the only
factor considered in selecting the neighborhoods labeled NA, NB, and NC
as "primary," could you list the other factors you considered in picking
them as potentially impacted?
4. How far from the primary waste placement area were the 15 Pittsburgh
neighborhoods you considered as potential 'comparable" neighborhoods?
5. How far were the five Pittsburgh neighborhoods you found to be close
matches with your primary neighborhoods?
6. On page 2 of your report you note that there are four Pittsburgh
neighborhoods within one and 1/4 miles of the primary waste placement
area. Was the fourth area you did not study as a primary or potentially
impacted area the Baily Road area (NE) which you did not consider
because of a lack of historic sales data?
7. Am I correct that distance premiums were also found for Oakhills (NB)?
In fact, weren't the distance premiums found for this relatively new
neighborhood the biggest distance related premium found?
8. Was Woodside (neighborhood NC) the only one where the distance
variable WILL) was found to be insignificant or even negative with
respect to value?
9. Did you delete any of the comparables suggested as good matches by
your "sun ray analysis" due to construction date differences?
10. Were any socio-economic variables considered in your search for
comparable neighborhoods and construction of the composite
neighborhoods?
11. Were any of the Antioch neighborhoods treated as comparables within
one and 114 miles of the recently closed landfill in Antioch?
12. Were any socio-economic characteristics Involved in the HRPM analysis
or selection of Antioch neighborhoods?
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Board of Supervisors 6/30195 . 3
1995. His report was not received by ICPA until May 24, 1995. The report
itself lacks substantial documentation to permit us to give a through
response. Nonetheless, Dr. Lewis will be prepared to comment on this
report at the meeting.
A brief written response to the letter by Mr. Claude Gruen, dated May 25,
1995, will be provided to staff at the Community Development Department,.
before the June 6th meeting.
Sincerely,
Steven C. Orlick, Ph.D.
Professor and ICPA Director
c.c. Deidra Dingman
lil i
MAY-25-1995 16:06 FROM Gruen Gruen + Associates. TO 15106461309 P.04
Val Alexeeff
May 25, 1995
Page 3
13. Did the screening of Antioch neighborhoods for •comparable" status also
consider construction dates?
13. Am I correct that in your comparison of the three primary Pittsburgh
neighborhoods with the Antioch neighborhoods you found comparable,
provided only one significant result which was that: The Pittsburgh
neighborhood (Hillsdale) was at a premium over the Antioch
neighborhood from the beginning of the data series until 1989, the year
the Keller site selection was made, but that thereafter the premium
disappeared?
Sincerely,
Claude Gruen
Principal Economist
CG:jg
cc: Yolanda Lopez. City of Pittsburgh
Gruen Gruen +Associates
TOTAL P.04
/aN.I
u!; h 1�.;vi b X3..1 rig
Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED
October 17, 1995 OCT I '7 199
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The Honorable Gayle Bishop, Chair CONTRA COSTA CO.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
RE: AGENDA ITEM D.7: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY
Dear Supervisor Bishop and Members of the Board:
The City of Pittsburg supports the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study and urges you to
accept it unanimously.
Is there really any question that a landfill, sited adjacent to existing homes, will decrease property values in
the surrounding neighborhood?
This question might be interpreted as rhetorical if not for the fact that the well-motivated opponents of the
Property Valuation Study are suggesting, with a straight face, that Keller Canyon.Landfill may actually be
an amenity to the community located in the shadow of its dam-like toe berm.
The City of Pittsburg has no doubt that landfills negatively impact surrounding property values. In addition
to being simple common sense, this conclusion has been supported by studies, like the one you are
considering tonight, conducted throughout the country. And just this year, the California Superior Court
reached a similar conclusion regarding the San Marcos Landfill in San Diego County. In fact, the Court
appears to have fully embraced this premise in rendering its decision in Paul McKee and Betty Bates-McKee
v. County of San Diego.
These precedents, as well as our own independent review of the methodology employed by the Institute for
Community Planning Assistance (ICPA), have led us to surmise that the Property Valuation Study's
fundamental conclusion is irrefutable; specifically, Keller Canyon Landfill has decreased property values in
Pittsburg's neighborhoods.
We can appreciate the Board's cautionary measures in considering the Study, including allowing proponents
and opponents to meet with the Study's authors, and would like to recognize your cooperation and the
cooperation demonstrated by your staff in carrying out this process. As you know, the City retained the
California Healthy Cities Project
National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993
City of New Horizons
The Honorable Gayle Bishop; Letter
October 17, 1995
Page Two
services of Dr. Claude Gruen for the purpose of reviewing the Study. We expect to provide you with a
detailed report of Dr. Gruen's analysis of the Study during the 30-day written comment period being
proposed by staff.
Please note that the two or three hours spent by Dr. Gruen conferring with the Study's authors appears
relatively brief compared to the 100-hours of total follow-up work spent on the Study by ICPA, as reported
by County staff. However, when coupled with his review of the actual Study, this somewhat limited
consultation was sufficient for Dr. Gruen to feel comfortable standing behind the authors and their
conclusions.
In fact, Dr. Gruen has reported that if a serious flaw does exist within the Study, it is that the economic
model employed by the authors served to under-estimate to degree of property value loss in the affected
neighborhoods. Based on Dr. Gruen's review, it appears that if the authors had used the economic model
advocated by the Study's opponents, the resulting degree of damage being indicated would be much greater.
We are extremely confident that Dr. Gruen's argument for greater damages can be substantiated, however,
the cost of such a demonstration would be extraordinary in terms of time and expense. Regardless of the
reason, or likely result, at this time we believe that further delays in this process would be highly
inappropriate. As you know, the provisions for studying Keller's impact on neighboring property values
dates back to the Landfill's 1990 Land Use Permit, and the development of the Study being considered
tonight began in 1992. After nearly six years, we believe that it is incumbent upon the Board to avoid
further delays, and to move forward with compensating affected property owners.
For this reason, we not only support staff's recommendation to accept the Study, but ask that you also
direct staff to begin exploring various models of compensation during the 30-day written challenge period.
We would be happy to work cooperatively with County staff toward this end. We also suggest looking at
the San Marcos case and the methods of restitution being considered in San Diego County.
The City understands that this has not been an easy or expeditious process, and thanks you for your
cooperation and perseverance in upholding reasonable and appropriate permit conditions.
Sincerely,
,Jep ciamilla
e Mayor
cc: Mayor and City Council
Michael Woods, Interim City Manager
Dr. Claude Gruen, Gruen Gruen & Associates
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: n.,c Y-x-Kz� f4 c,i►o Phone: '7o9- t.2 c 7
1 am speaking for myself ,/or organization:
(name of orpniution)
CHVONE:
1 wish to Weak on Agenda Item #b--2— Date-.-
My
ate:My comments will be: general for_against .
1 wish to speak on the subject of
_ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider:
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: Z-
Phone. ILEa
If
Address: city.•
,
am speaking for myself or organization:
(flame of orpnlrabon)
CHECK ONE-
1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #La Date-.-2L-Z2--,Z
My comments will be: general —for—against.--
i
oragainst .1 wish to speak on the subject of
1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider:
. UATE:
. , 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. G
NA.1dE: �i4/llC ��0� PHONE: --5 �a,- ` f 1 !
ADDRESS: Oda sa t'�r✓c ,r
CITY:
I. am speaking formyself OR organization: Cl
(NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general X 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.
1
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: _ II., Phone: 21 C- -3I I 1
Address:
1 am speaking for myself or organization:_ -_=---
(nam of orpnizatm)
CHECK ONE:
1 wish to speak on Agenda Iters -
My comments will be: general for._fgainst .
_ 1 wish to speak on the subject of
_ i do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider:
Request to Speak Form ►
.
( THREE (3),,MIN.UTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum
before addressing the Board.
Name: GC/F Phone: Vv3
Address:--L D Z� e,.9, �i2or�yve City: bar
am speaking for myself or organization -,,IV o.7C
(flame of or rpniz dkm)
CHECK ONE:
i wish to speak on Agenda Item #-2.:Z— Date-.-z-E.-1,7 - ss,
My comments will be: general —J&—against--
I
for against .
I wish to Weak on the subject of
_ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to considers