Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061995 - D5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CQtltl"a FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON / Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ClJu f DATE: June 6, 1995 SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY REPORT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Determine whether an impact has taken place on property values. 2. Direct staff to determine method of evaluating impact on specific values, if determined there has been a negative impact. 3. Establish procedure to determine the extent of the landfill operator's (BFI) responsibility. 4. Direct staff to pursue recommendations for methods of payment if any. FISCAL IMPACT No identified impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study ("Study") was required by a Condition of Approval (35.3) in the Land Use Permit (2020-89). The purpose of the Study is to "address the means of determining the extent of property value losses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts; such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions". CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ✓ YES SIGNATU ACTION OF BOARD ON June 6, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMM NDE _ -THER x See Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 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 June 6, 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 BY06. ° DEPUTY DD8:PROP-VAL.BO Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Report June 6, 1995 Continued - Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) The Land Use Permit 2020-89 Condition of Approval 35.3 "Property Value Compensation Program" states: The Landfill operator shall provide funding for the preparation of a property value compensation program study when requested by the County of Contra Costa. The study will address the mans of determining the extent of property value losses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions. When a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the Landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified by the Board. If the Board of Supervisors determines that progress on the implementation of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the Board may require the use of a facilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. In March 1992 the Contra Costa County Community Development Department entered into a contract with the Institute for Community Planning Assistance of Sonoma State University ("Institute") to develop a methodology for the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study. The Institute completed the Study methodology. In October 1992 the Contra Costa County Community Development Department entered into a contract with the Institute to undertake the Study. The Study was developed to occur over a two-year period which allowed data to be collected under varying conditions: i.e. construction and operations as well as different seasonal and weather conditions. The Study was completed and released on November 30, 1994. The Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Executive Summary is attached (Attachment A). The Executive Summary includes the Study approach and recommendations. The Study area consisted of four primary neighborhoods. The Study concluded that there had been an impact to property values (loss of premiums) in the Hillsdale neighborhood (Neighborhood A) since 1990 which could be attributable to the landfill siting, approval, construction and operation. The Study recommended that a compensation program may be warranted and also recommended appraisals for the Hillsdale neighborhood prior to or as a part of the compensation program. The Study recommended that no additional analysis or compensation would be warranted for the Woodside (Neighborhood C) or Oak Hills (Neighborhood B) neighborhoods. The .Study indicated that the Bailey Road (Neighborhood E) neighborhood 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. The Study recommended that appraisals would be warranted for the Bailey Road neighborhood. On November 30, 1994 the County Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee heard the first presentation of the Study by the Institute. The Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee forwarded the matter to the Keller Canyon Landfill Local Advisory Committee and directed the matter to go back to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee before going before the full Board of Supervisors. The matter was presented and discussed at the Keller Canyon Landfill Local Advisory Committee meeting of February 8, 1995. There was not a quorum present at that Committee meeting and therefore no action or votes could take place, however the meeting included discussion and public comment. Staff has prepared Minutes from the Committee meeting held on February 8, 1995 which are attached (Attachment B). The matter was brought back to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee on May 4, 1995. The Committee received public comment about the Study, Committee members discussed the Study and the Committee forward the Recommendations itemized above Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Report June 6, 1995 Continued - Page Three BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) to be brought before the full Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1995. Staff has prepared a summary of the public comment and discussion portion of the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee meeting on May 4, 1995 which is attached (Attachment C). At the May 4, 1995 meeting, the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee directed staff to obtain information regarding complaints received by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). The complaint information from the agencies is summarized below: The BAAQMD indicated that there had been 34 complaints received since January 1 , 1992 - May 22, 1995. Of the 34 complaints, 14 had been confirmed. The BAAQMD has not issued any violation notices to the Landfill. All confirmed complaints occurred between January 1992 - January 1993 and all were dust complaints. The January 1992 - January 1993 time period included construction activities which were more likely to generate dust than landfill operational activities. This was also the time that major construction was taking place at the State Route 4/Bailey Road Interchange. The complaint information provided by the BAAQMD is attached (Attachment D). The LEA has indicated that approximately 85 operational complaints were received since December 1991 . Only 2 of the 85 complaints were substantiated by LEA staff. Both of the substantiated complaints occurred before May 1992, during the construction of the landfill. One complaint was of excessive dust the other was regarding noise from earth moving equipment. In both instances, the LEA reports that the landfill operators immediately corrected the problems upon verbal notification. The complaint information provided by the LEA is attached (Attachment E). Also at the May 4, 1995 meeting, the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee recommended that the Institute, in light of issues raised at the meeting: (a) further study the impacted neighborhoods (Neighborhoods A & E) related to the appraisal/statistical issues, (b) prepare formal responses to issues raised by Lance Dow, Citizens United (i.e. debt-to-equity ratio), and (c) respond to issues raised by James Chalmers (representing BFI). The Committee further asked that the matter be brought to the full Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1995 with as much information as possible. The Institute prepared written responses to as many of the questions/comments as time permitted which are attached (Attachment F). The Institute will also continue to prepare additional responses to be presented orally at the June 6, 1995 Board meeting. Two written correspondences have been received regarding the Study. A commentary report from James Chalmers, Coopers & Lybrand (representing BFI) and a letter from Claude Gruen, Gruen & Gruen (representing the City of Pittsburg). These documents are attached (Attachments G & H respectively) Attachments: A Property Valuation Study Executive Summary B LAC Minutes of February 8, 1995 C Summary of public comment received at the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee (5/4/95) D BAAQMD Complaint Information E LEA Compliant Information F ICPA Response dated 5/30/95 G James Chalmers (representing BFI) Commentary H Claude Gruen (representing City of Pittsburg) Letter DD8TROP-VAL.B0 ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 5 JUNE 6 , 1995 On this date the Board of Supervisors held a hearing on the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study. Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Department, presented the staff report . The following persons presented testimony: Claude Gruen, 564 Howard Street, San Francisco, representing the City of Pittsburg; Frank Aiello, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg, representing Citizens United; Warren L. Smith, 1100 Bailey Road, Pittsburg; Tom Bruen, 1990 N. California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, representing Browning Ferris Industries; Jim Chalmers, 1990 N. California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, representing Browning Ferris Industries; Frank Sharkey, 751 Bailey Road, Pittsburg. The Board discussed the matter and took the following actions : REFERRED to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee, the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study and the issues raised today for report to the Board of Supervisors on July 25, 1995; DIRECTED staff to prepare the appropriate material on process and numbers issues before consideration of the matter by the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee; AUTHORIZED staff to obtain necessary additional expertise to analyze data providing that a contract for such services is presented for Board approval prior to doing so; REQUESTED County Counsel to provide an opinion on legal procedures involved in a possible process . Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation 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 I 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. jt. } 11 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SVMMARY ... ................. .................... . ........ ..... ...... 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 L Neighborhood NC (Woodside) ... ..... .... ........... 11 Neighborhood NE (Bailey Road) .. . .. ......... .......... ........ .... ........ .. . 11 Chapter 9: Recommendations .... ....................... . . ......... .. . ......... ..... 12 6 Neighborhood NA(Hillsdale) ................................. ... .............. 12 Neighborhood NB (Oak Hills) . ............ ................. ... .. . ...... ...... .. . 12 Neighborhood NC (Woodside) . ......... .................... .. .. ....... ........ 13 Neighborhood NE (Bailey Road) ........... .. ................. .. ..... ......... . 13 Conclusion of the Study ....................... . ............... ... .............. 13 P PART II. KELL,ER 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 Cto 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 .................................................... ......... 23 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-Term 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 ............. ................... ......... ..... ............ 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 DFIL.L ............. ..... . ...... ........ 51 NAand DFILL ................................... .............. . .............. 51 NBand DFILL ...................... ................ ............ .... ......... 53 NCand DFILL ....... ................................ ........ . .. .. ....... ...... 53 SummaryDFILL . ............... ....... ... ... ... ... ... ..... . .... ...... . ... 53 Conclusion ...... . ............. ...... ... .. ................. ... .. ... ........ . . . . .. . 54 CHAPTER 5: ANTIOCH COMPARABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ... . ...... ....... . 55 Exploratory Data Analysis .......... ................................. ............ ... 55 Regression Results .............. ...................... ......... .................... 57 NAvs. NA/ANC .. .. ........................... ......... ....................... 57 .�g. 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 bf Second Telephone Interviews with Appraisers ........ .. . ............ 61 Conclusions about Lenders and Appraisers ... ............ .......... . . ............ 62 FieldSurveys ................. ........................... .......... . ............ 62 Purpose .... .. . .. ... . .... .... ................ .................... .. . . . .. ..... ... 62 Methodology ........................... ........................ .... .......... 62 Findings of Field Surveys . ....................................... .. . :.. .. .... .. . 63 NuisanceFactors . . . .......... .............................. .... . . . ..... .... ... . 66 Community Opinion Surveys .................................. ..... . . ... ....... . 67 Methodology . . .. .. . ............... .... ............... ...... ..... . . .. ........ ... 68 vi 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 WTPData ... ..... .. ......... .......................................... ............ 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 Hi ls) ... ........ ...... ..... ........ .......... . ... . ..... .... 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 II 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 4., 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 An 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 1 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 .................. .I..... ... .. .... . .. 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 PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 peoplewould 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 landk 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 environmental ;enpacts. In recent years, the technoloes 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. r 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 ICPAs two year research effort. The report is divided''into two parts. Part I contains an introduction to, and summary of, the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study. It is designed to stand alone and may be read by 2 y,a a general audience. It presents an overview of each of the nine chapters in Part II. 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 April 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 r 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,and 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,NJ,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 diifference 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 m)re)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 over time. 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 existenceand 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 landfillequipment 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. Landfill-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%) experienced 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.. w Community Opinion Surveys i 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 z 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 ori 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 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 rar-�dts 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 6, 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. 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. r. The results of the Community Opinion Surveys received from Iiillsdale 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, suggestingthat 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 "will:n3ness-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 neighborhood 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 litter 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 recommendations4of 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 over many 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 :long 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 ani 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 9 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) Spring 1984 Landfill siting study identifies the Keller location as a potential landfill site. d-1984 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 - May 1989 Contra Costa County enters into a contract for preparation of the EIR- June 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 EIR 21 ecember 12, The County Board of Supervisors approves the CoSWMP,and Contra Costa County 1989 accepts it. ecember 14, Draft EIR comment periods ends. 1989 j January 1990 AB 939 is enacted,which includes the requirement for new county waste management plans(Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan). Site Approval Phase(February 1990-May 1991) February 1990 The Zoning Administrator(public)accepts the Keller Canyon Landfill EIR as adequate and complete and recommends that the Board of Supervisors certify it. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Permit(LUP)for the Keller Canyon Landfill to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors certifies the EIR. The Board holds its first public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval(COA). The Board orders the General Plan Amendment referendum to be placed on the June 1990 ballot. June 1990 The public rejects the referendum to not accept the Keller Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment. A public notice is published for the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit hearing. July 1990 The Board approves the Land Use Permit subject to the Conditions of Approval. ch 20, 1991 The Regional Water Quality Control Board issues the Keller Canyon Landfill Waste Discharge Requirements. May 30, 1991 The Bay Air Quality Management District issues the Keller Canyon Landfill Authority to'"Construct. Construction and Operation Phase(November 1991 to Present) October 25, 1991 Initial construction of Keller Canyon Landfill authorized by Contra Costa County. January 1992 Contra Costa County Community Development Department contracts with ICPA to ii design property valuation study. May 7, 1992 Keller Canyon Landfill opens. November 1992 Contra Costa County Community Development Department contracts with ICPA to conduct property valuation study. August 22, 1993 Keller Canyon Dump Alert meeting,sponsored by Citizens United,is held at Stoneman Park in Pittsburg.Topics on the agenda included: 11 1) Request by Keller to mass import asbestos,contaminated dirt from military and infectious medical wastes. 2)Heath risk report-blowing dust and contaminated garbage. 3)Property values update-average loss$40,000 per home. 4tommunity mitigation fees.. 22 Erm t. t r -• � o � I I I I I `_� I ---}-----}-----{-ti-----F - �-- -i-- v ' JLI i 1 M It �.�Wl cm vitir Atli: �1 / 1 • 1 •: r I �- ,,- iu �• � .. •.., � .r €j , I 1�jfR�' �• ��, I ,,., �� s�`� �,* moi. 4.�,,, .�-��e If � ,I 1 I 1 � l I IA lb TlwtY— If � I "•�, ^�.�;t� c¢.r•.,–�� �, •1 r. r.u,.l �/[,i! I ' :�� 1 E i l 4 a I , n r'' �P 4AA a- P},,y /pkgq'' ,F�/+� 'y14 , ,�Q �, Jr;�:, �( • , �•.• � I i o. , � r 4 F j 0. f' e`T•'� A.is •. !'S' }�, •';:I F•-/. , �•1.• I ,�, � � T ' ��"°, t.:•. �� .i•Y+�'� •• r � ' ' 0. r •j� II _��C .� w {♦F T. I I< •� tis i, •i'-6'. t } • 4 .ti•�/j• Yr n � I �••,I .t h :/ f f((, i� p I� I � — i !� r L• �.•f.M Ze fi to :�i,. � � �/— �•e' �� 1 ———"I-�— E*. z � � r _ v W .«o ar. r x n a .44 o "e°A O z. N Z °o O < .0 �, /+ 7--+ nm_ 3*1 r 1 11V�/� i � ij�..• i� _1[_ i. ' .� '_< yc22aff � L t( 1 O '•t"� � ( 16-1 10 �R[i� t' ��� '.. �l'.'-.-^.`:.. � �• _•,yam_ r u�., r ,Y - .'MAA R- P ::.� t k♦ � <r?f :;•... /"-s;n �1- };•� _ �r 17 [\,1`� � �^" i0. �+~l� �•.y '[t` '••;Ili ^.+�;K .f,�•. f` �.J •`^� f^ � O '{ Y �� j �S "�,, ••,t,;/"T'•'�;. •:i l T S� a � �iq' y,�*' ",,� T�¢7 ( 7t "�,..�•-y( x /! 4 t—_—N �'• G r ! {- / ( —to .X• � t � ( �rt,ti f� � .z`/fr IF±t �•/ s•a l/ •fi fi (� r ,O lit I Tits i• t tr � L •�.�, !• rte }'; i� -.� "1 ..,;,` - t� fi - :' �� vi. Nit F rz n r ry �-�► x c) o Q . yV MINUTES OF THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 8, 1995 Members Present Glen Williams, Chair, Bay 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 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 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 An analysis of the results of different survey approaches supported each other. It was found that anxiety was higher 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 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. DD8:LACFEB95.MIN 10 A+[acAme*wf- C 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 "$200-5300 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 - 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 BAACMD �- BAY AREA AIRQUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FAX COVER MEMO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY QOMMUNlTY DE zl0T14F7T I)KPAI TMEIYT COUNTY ADMIN. BUILDING TO; DEIDRA 1)1 NGMAN DATE M=� ��_ 3-995 FROM: MILTON FELDSTE IN, APCO MESSAGE:Yu"TAER RFSPCVOE TO YOUR L,FTTTR (FAX) MAY 22: Jan 1, 1992- 2? May, 1995 14 confirmed comulairito PO unc onfirmcd complaint8 D violation nntic:ccs iuLjucd 6 PAGES TO FOLLOW IF YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS RECEIVING. PLEASE CALL: GLORIA PERRYMAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PHONE 415 749-4956 EXT. 4956 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FAX NUMBER (413) 928-8560 939 ELLIS STREET 0 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 - (415) 771-6000 FAX (415)926-8560 05/23/95 14:34 BRROMD 002 Ray Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95 For period (O1Jan92 - 22May95) Page 1 >> COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST << Plant Keller Canyon Landfill company 4618 901 Bailey Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant --------------------------------------------------------�r.rir.i---- -iiii---iiii 17261 Dust "GRATING DUST" Cnfrm Roo 19Aug92 (10:54) Contct 19Aug92 ID# 6093 Occd 19Aug92 ( 8:45) Report 20AU992 Dspd 19Aug92 (11 :02) Update 28AUg92 Contact Tn Person I552 (11:24) 17587 Dust Uncnf Rae 04Sep92 (16:14) Contct 04Sep92 ID# 6381 Occd 04Sep92 ( 5: 00) Report 10Sep92 Dspd 048ap92 (16: 27) Update 11Sep92 Contact In Person 1557 (16:31) 17680 Dust "EXCESSIVE" Uncnf Ree 11Sep92 ( 8:02) Contct llSep9z 10f 0470 Occd 11Sep92 ( 7: 55) Report llSep92 Dspd llSep92 ( 8:41) Update 18Sep92 Contact Tn Person 2552 ( 9:00) 17743 Dust Uncnf Rec 15Sep92 (15.22) Contct 15Sep92 ID# 0520 Occd 15Sep92 (12:00) Report 165ep92 Dspd 153ep92 (16: 19) Update 25sep92 Contact None Requested 1552 (16: 30) 17760 Dust "EXCE"SSIVE't Uncnf Rev 16Sep92 (10:25) Contct 155ep9z ID,O 8545 Ocud 16Sep92 (10:25) Report 15Sep92 Dspd 16Sep92 (10:38) Update 25Sep92 Contact In Person 1552 (10:40) 17766 Dust Cnfrm Rea 16Sep92 (13:30) Contct 16Sep92 I01 8551 Ooud 16Sep92 (13:10) Report 070ct92 Dspd 16Sep92 (13:42) Update 0800t92 Contact In Person 1550 (13:56) 17885 Dust Cnfrm Rao 22Sep92 (14:22) Contct 22Sep92 IDS}` 8662 Occd 22Sep92 ( 9:00) Report 23Sep92 Dspd 22Sep92 (14:41) Update 255ep92 Contact In Person I552 (14:47) 17951 Dust "EXCESSIVE" Cnfrm Rea 24Sep92 (13: 16) Contct 24Sep92 ID# 0720 Occd 245ep92 (13: 00) Report 22OCt92 Dspd 245ep92 (13:35) Update 04NoV92 Contact In Person 1550 (13:44) 05/23/95 14:35 BRAQMD 003 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95 For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Page 2 >? COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST S< Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company 0 4618 901 Bailey Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant --------------.......- -- ..------err---r-rr---__---_ 18399 Dust "EXCESSIVE" Unonf Roo 120ot92 (13 ;21) Contct 13oct92 IDI 9131 Occd 120ct92 (13:2].) Report 130ct92 Dspd 130ct92 (10:38) Update 09Nov92 Contact In Person I552 (15:20) 18508 Dust Cnfrm Rec 190ct92 (14:03) Contct 190ct92 1Df 9319 Occd 190ct92 (10:00) Report 200ct92 Dspd 190ct92 (14: 11) Update 18Nov92 Contact In Person 1552 (14:30) 18939 Dust Cnfrm Rec 02Nov92 (13:38) Contct 02Nov92 IDI 9614 Occd 02Nov92 (13;15) Report 07Dec92 Dspd 02Nov92 (13:44) Update 09DOC92 Cvntaot In Person 1557 (14:01) 18956 Dust "EXCESSIVE" Cnfrm Reo 03Nov92 (11:30) Contct 03NOV92 101 9630 Occd 03Nov92 ( 8:30) Report 03NOV92 Dspd 03Nov92 (11;50) Update 09NOV92 Contact In Person 1552 (11.49) 18958 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 1552 '(12:58) 19125 Dust "EXCESSIVE" Cnfrm Rec 09Nov92 (10:48) Contct 09Nov92 IDD 9785 Occd 09Nov92 (10;20) Report IONOV92 Dspd 09Nov92 (10:57) update 18NOV92 Contact In Person I552 (11:23) 19132 Dust Cnfrm Rec 09Nov92 (13: 51) CUntut 09Nov92 ID* 9791 Occd 09Nov92 (10:00) Report IONOV92 Dapd 09Nov92 (13:58) UpddLe 18Nov92 Contact In Person, 1552 (14 :42) 19155 Dust Cnfrm Rec: IONov,92 (15:07) Contct IONov92 IDO 9812 Octad 1ONov92 (15:00) Report 08DeC92 Dspd IONov92 (15;18) 'Update 16DeC92 Contact Message 1557 (16:37) 05/23/95 14:35 BAAQMD 004 Hay Area Air Quality Management Dietrict 05/23/95 For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Pace 3 A> COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST K< Plant Kellar Canyon Landfill Company # 4618 901 Bailey Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant -----------------------------------------------------------------..._------- 19543 Dust Uncnf Rec 30Nov92 (14 : 13) Contct 30Nov92 ID# 10169 Occd 3ONov92 (13: 00) Report 17Dec92 Dspd 30Nov92 (14: 18) Update 22Dec92 Contact in Person I557 (14137) 19545 Dust Uncnf Rec 30Nov92 (15:03) Contct 30Nov92 IDI 10171 Occd 30Nov92 (14:50) Report 17Dec92 Dspd 3ONov92 (15:18) Update 22Dec92 Contact. In Pernon 1557 (15:32) 19546 Dust "EXCESSIVE" Uncnf ReC 30NOV92 (15:07) Contct 30Nov92 ID# 10172 Occd 30Nov92 (13: 30) Report 17Dec92 Dspd 30Nov92 (15:21) Update 22Dec92 Contact In Person 1557 (15:07) 19547 Dust Uncnf Reo 30Nov92 (15: 18) Contct 30Nov92 ID# 10173 Occd 3014ov92 (13:30) Report 17Dec92 Dspd 30Nov92 (15:21) Update 22Dec92 Contact Message I557 (15:47) 19913 Dust Cnfrm ReC 210ec92 (15:15) Contct 21Dec92 ID# 10490 Occd 21Deu92 (15:00) Report 21Dec92 Dspd 21Dec92 (15:20) Update 28Dec:92 Contact In Person 1552 (15:35) 20315 Dust "EXCESSIVE" Cnfrm Rec 26Jan93 (13 :45) Contct 26Jan93 ID# 10859 OCCd 26Jan93 (13:00) Report 18Feb93 Dspd 2GJan93 (14:03) Update 24Feb93 Contact In Person 1550 (14 :17) 20432 Dust Cnfrm ReC 29Jan93 (13:55) Contct 29Jan93 ID# 10969 pccd 29Jan93 (13: 30) Report 18Feb93 Dspd 29Jan93 (14:15) Update 24Feb93 Contact In Person 1550 (14:34) 22723 Dust Uncnf Rec 05May93 (15:17) Contct 06May93 ID,# 13138 Occd 06May93 (15:10) Report 06May93 Dspd 06May93 (15:21) Update 11May93 Contact Phone T:5:52 (13:23) 05/23/95 14:36 BAAQMD 005 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95 For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Pana 4 >> COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST << Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company 4616 901 Hailey Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant ----------w-----------------__--_-y-------- _ --- 23350 Smoke Uncnf ReC 14Jun93 (14:54) Contct 14Jun93 ID# 13709 OcCd 14Jun93 (14:47) Report 14JUn93 Dapd 1467un93 (15:37) Update 18Jun93 Contaot In Person 1552 (15:47) 32585 Odor O'GARBAGE" Uncnf ReC 13Sep93 (17:05) Contct 13Sep93 IDI .15522 Occd 13Sep93 (17:00) Report 13Sep93 DSpd 13Sep93 (17:11) Update 21Sep93 Contact Phone I552 (17:30) 25326 Dust "DEBRIS" Uncnf Rec 305ep93 (16:00) Contct 30Sep93 ID,O 16016 Occd 29Sep93 (16:00) Report 30Sep93 Dspd 3OSep93 (16:14) Update 04oct93 Contact Phone 1552 (16:20) 25736 Smoke Uncnf Rec 20OCt93 (21:36) Contct 21OCt93 IDI 16418 OcCd 2OOct93 (21:36) Report 210ct33 Dspd 210ct93 ( 9:07) Update 280ct93 Contact In Perevn I552 ( 9:40) 28679 Odor "RAW SEWAGE" Uncnf Stec 07Apr94 (15:06) Contct 07Apr94 ID# 19109 OcCd 07Apr94 (14:30) Report 08Apr94 uspd. 07Apr94 (15;33) Update 12Apr94 Contact In Person 1552 (1.6:30) 28680 Odor "GARBAGE" Uncnf ReC 07Apr94 (15:15) Contct 07Apr94 IDO 19110 ocod 07Apr94 ( 9:00) Report 08Apr94 Dspd 07Apr94 (15:34) Update 12Apr94 Contact In Person 1552 (16:40) 28739 Odor "STINKS" Uncnf Ree llApr94 (21:29) Contct ilApr94 ID# 19172 OCCd IlApr94 (21;29) Report 11Apr94 VSpd 11Apr94 (22:29) Update 10May94 Contact Phone 1563 (22:30) 29369 Duet "EXCESSIVE" Uncnf Rec 27May94 (13:26) Contct 27May94 IDI 19747 VC+Cd 27May94 (12:30) Report 27May94 Dspd. 27May94 (14: 11) Update 01Aug94 Contact Phone 1550 (14:29) 05/23/95 14:36 BAAQMD 006 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95 For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Page 5 >> COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST << Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company 0 4618 901 Bailey Road Pittsburge CA 94565 Complainant ----------w--------------------------------------------- ------- 2546 Odor "TERRIBLE" Uncnf Reo 03Apr95 (19:46) Contct 04Apr95 1D# 2396 OCCd 03AIjr95 (17;00) Report 04Apr95 Dspd 04Apr95 ( 8;49) Update 06Apr95 Contact Phone 1552 (15:42) 3003 Odor "PAPERMILL" Uncnf Rea 02May95 (17;53) Contct 03May95 IV# 2817 Occd 02May95 (12:00) Report 04May95 06pd 03MAy95 8:48) Update 16May95 Contact Phone 1552 9:25) 05/23/95 14:37 BRACMD 007 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 05/23/95 For period (01Jan92 - 22May95) Page 6 » GQNPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST << Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company 4618 901 Bailey Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 complainant --------»-------------------------------------------------------------- Q�c_-_xrsrr�=== S U M M A R Y --------- Complaints Confirmed. . . . . . . 14 Unconfirmed. . . . .2o Pending. . . . . . . . .0 Total. . . . . . . . . . .34 Violation Notices Total. . . . . . . . . . .0 Send output to Screen (S)<default>, or System Printer (P) , or Exit(E) ? 05-30-1995 09:03AM CCC ENVIRONMENTL HLTH ontra ,ter_ Health Services Department oSta .,/ ENVIRONMENTAL HE1 LTH DIVISION r 1111 Ward Street County 7V` :�a I ti Martinez.California 94553-1352 i t QyH (510)646-2521 k j � f DATE: May 30, 1995 I TO: Deidra Dingman, planner Community Development Department j I I FROM: Rebecca Ng, Senior Environmental Health Specialist Environmental Health Division-General Programs I I j SUBJECT: Keller Canyon Landfill Complaints ! II I i - I This is in response to your request for information on Keller Canyon Landfill complaints. I Approximately 85 operational complaints on Keller Canyon Landfill have been received 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 t 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. I , Additionally, approximately 52 calls on the Keller Canyon Hotline were receivedfrom May-November j 1992, complaining that Keller Canyon was not opened to the public. I I RN:slt j14c:dirgcaaa.m I I ' f I I � I I I I II+ I 1 I ( I I I A373A (10/92) TOTAL P.02 AfUa F ATE Boi East Gotev Avenue SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY Rotnen ParX.Ua11fO1A18949Mft9 4 Department of Environmental Studio$and Planning -2306 707 W4 May 30, 1995 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Community Development Department Administration Building 661 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 fol']owed 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 valuer, 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 7 I= I Board of Supervisors 5/30/95 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, Board of Supervisors 5/30/95 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 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, o3�� Steven C. Orlick, Ph.D. Professor and ICPA Director c.c. Deidra Dingman Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. 2901 North Central Avenue telephone (602) 280-1800 X00 rs a professional services firm Suite 1000 Ly i'ce Pfgenix,Arizona 85012-2755 facsimile (602) 280.1999 Fittancief Ativtaoty SerYites 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 There Value Impacts? What caused the If There are Operational •Neighborhood Ettect Value ? impacts,What are the Valu 004tance Effect 90pen Impacts on iOpemtions Individual Homes? 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 neighborhoods that are distant from the Landfill. The Keller Canyon Landfill Study(the"Study")performed this test using 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&Lybrand L.L.P.,a registered limited liability partnership,is a member firm of Coopers&Lybrand(International). tb. 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 H 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 H 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 all of these notions together, Sonoma State estimated that a premium existed for Hillsdale over the combination of Hillsdale Il 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 11 and Country Club $15, Pre-Keller Siting Approved MAC $5, $0 (S5'000 79 80 81 82 83 84 A A 87 A 89 90 91 92 93 94 Years ■>=95%E390%-95-C<80% 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 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 page 52 of the Study. Page 2 WHY THE CONFLICT? When we were analyzing.the Study,the apparent conflict between the findings of the Neighborhood Effect (decrease 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 H 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 different,each is considered separately." This observation,in conjunction with a site visit, prompted a consideration of comparing Hillsdale with Hillsdale H and Hillsdale with Country Club separately. The Hillsdale I1 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 H 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 regression performed in the Neighborhood Effect test,a true average price was calculated for the composite neighborhood for each year. After correcting for the average sales price variable,we compared Hillsdale to Hillsdale 11 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 11 neighborhoods,using the correct average sale price,gave a different 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, I983 and 1987,but a discount existed in 1985. This demonstrates that Hillsdale has not had a consistent premium over Hillsdale 11 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 11 $15,00Pre-Keller Siting Approved $10,00 $51000- 0o1— n flin n ($5,0 5,00So '080 81 . :�j 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Years ■>=95%M 9096-959{C}<9o%j 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 $15,00C ---- Pre-Keller Siting Approved S5.00C $0 tt5'000 80 81 82 83 64 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Yeam I 0>:95%0 90%-9590<90%] Page 4 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 11 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. C*-� L L.P. Coopers&Lybrand L. . . c Page 5 Appendix A Map of the Subject and Comparable Neighborhoods AME IME NOWN, 0 Em Appendix B Statement of Qualifications for James A. Chalmers, Ph.D. JAMES A. CHALMERS PAGE 1 POSITION Principal, Financial Advisory Services, Coopers&Lybrand L.L.P. EDUCATION Ph.D. -Economics, University of Michigan B.A. -Economics,University of Wyoming EXPERIENCE I. 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: Regional/Urban 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 DevelopmenvSite Selection • Govemor'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 • 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. II. 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-Withycombe. 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 5250 million apartment portfolio. • Denro, Ltd. Developed and analyzed repositioning strategies for 1,300 acre, golf-oriented master planned community. 1 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 l 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 & CraccioIo, Phoenix. Provided testimony on behalf of landowner whose property %vus 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 Contandnated Property • Faulkner, Banfield, Doogan & Holmes, Anchorage, AK. Defense of major oil company with 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 owner. • 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 property 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, Benshoof, 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 full 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 BUSINESSAFFILIATIONS 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 JAMES 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 Beatty and Robert Ecker), forthcoming as a chapter in Environmental AsRects of Rea) 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 Management, 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.6 1,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, Vol.8, Nos. I & 2, 1992. "Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada"(with Paul Slovic,et a]),Risk Analysis, Vol. 11,No.4, 1991;683-696. "A Methodology for Valuing Contaminated Property" (with Steve Pritulsky, Scott Roehr, and Dan Sorrells), Land Rights News,November 1991. "Contributions of Real Estate Economics to Right-of-Way Acquisition and Valuation" (with S. Pritulsky and D. Sorrells), Right-wQW-Way June 1991; 8-13. "Impacts of Nuclear Generating Plants on Local Areas" (with D. Pijawka), Economic Geogra2hy. Vol. 59,No. 1,January 1983;66-80. "Evaluation of Underutilized Resources in Water Resource Development" (with JR. Threadgill), Water Resources Research, 1981. "Integrating Planning and Assessment through Public Involvement" (with James L. Creighton and Kristi-Branch), Environmental Imag 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 Revimy,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. 17,109-2 22,April 1977. JAMES A. CHALMERS PAGE 7 "Shift and Share and the Theory of Industrial Location" (with T. Beckhelm), 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 430487 California: Certified General Appraiser#AG 024655 Michigan: Certified Appraiser#1201003624 Missouri: General Real Estate Appraiser 4002753 Nevada: General Real Estate Appraiser 400542 Appraisal Institute, Candidate#M91-0426 MAY-25-1995 16:05 FROM Gruen Gruen + Associates. TO WA 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 I read your report your Hedonic Regression Price Model indicated that property values in Oak Hills (neighborhood NB) were found to iaccease with distance from the landfill. Am 1 right about that? Incidentally, I do understand that you interpret the distance premium to reflect proximity to commercial area and transportation rather than distance from the landfill. Am i correct on this point? 2. As 1 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 Francisco, CA 94105-3002 Tef; (415)433-7598 FAX; (415)989-4224 MAY-25-1995 16:05 FROM Gruen Gruen + Associates. TO 15106461309 P.03 Val Alexeeff May 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 1/4 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 (DFILL) 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 1/4 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 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:)g cc: Yolanda Lopez, City of Pittsburgh Gruen Gruen +Associates TOTAL P.04 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: June 7, 1995 TO: Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Jim Rogers Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Tom Torlakson FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director By: Charles A. Zahn, Assistant Director <f�— . SUBJECT: Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Hearing (ITEM D.5 - Board Agenda for June 6, 1995) Attached please find the materials submitted by Claude Gruen of Gruen & Gruen, at the above referenced hearing, as a part of his testimony. Copies are being provided to each Supervisor for your information. The original is being provided to the Clerk of the Board for their records. Please let me know if you have any questions. Attachment cc: Jeanne Maglio, Clerk of the Board RECEIVE® RT E8 {99� CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. DMBOSGRUEN.MEM INTRODUCTION Dr. Claude Gruen is an urban economist with broad experience in the analysis of urban land use markets. His firm, Gruen Gruen + Associates, has been conducting impact analyses and market studies for public agencies throughout the United States for more than 25 years. He holds a Ph.D. in economics, served on the faculty of the University of California Berkeley, and has published extensively. Dr. Gruen has frequently led studies of the effect that negative externalities or disamenities such as land fill sites have on property values. He led the 1990 impact analysis of the proposed hazardous waste storage and incineration facility proposed by Rhone/Poulnec here in Martinez. His firm conducted that study for The Martinez Local Assessment Committee which approved of his conclusions after extensive hearings. His clients include public agencies and real estate investors throughout the United States. He recently produced a study on the impact of Chevron's expansion on the Richmond economy. In Contra Costa County he has conducted research for many private sector clients and prepared studies for the Cities of Martinez and Antioch and the County. The most recent Gruen Gruen + Associates publication concerning a Contra Costa city is a case study of Walnut Creek published by the Urban Land Institute this year under the title "Housing in Suburban Employment Centers." The City of Pittsburg has asked Dr. Gruen to review the Sonoma State study, the submission by Coopers & Lybrand for BFI, and to consider his own understanding of west Contra Costa market conditions in order to judge the effect of the land fill on property values in Pittsburg. Gruen Gruen +Associates 564 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3002 Tel: (415) 433-7598 FAX: (415) 989-4224 Outline of June 6th Testimony to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors by Dr. Claude Gruen, Principal Economist Gruen Gruen + Associates. Scope of Testimony • Will comment on Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study conducted by the Institute for Community Planning Assistance of Sonoma State University ("Institute"). • Will comment on the critique of the Institute study presented by Mr. James Chalmers of Coopers & Lybrand on behalf of BFI. • In the light of the Institute study and my own knowledge of relevant market conditions will summarize my opinion concerning the likely affect that the Keller Canyon Landfill has and will have on property values in Pittsburg. The Institute For Community Planning Assistance Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study. • The Institute study tackled a very tough job because estimating the affect of a negative externality or disamenity like a new landfill is complex. I feel the work they did, and in particular the results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model, clearly shows that the announcement and development of the landfill significantly diminished property values. That finding in very consistent with the conclusions of virtually all previous academic studies of landfill impact. • The Institute model found that the premium of $8,400 per unit in the Hillsdale neighborhood that included more than 50% of the units tested declined to a low of $4,900 in 1990 and then disappeared. Thus they found that a premium averaging $5,700 over many years from what was charged in the two comparable neighborhoods (Hillsdale II and Country Club) disappeared due to the landfill. Since there are approximately 750 units in Hillsdale that suggests a value diminution of $4,275,000 in that neighborhood alone. Incidentally the two neighborhoods 1 compared to Hillsdale did have households with roughly similar median incomes (Hillsdale $55,329, Hillsdale II $51,020, and Country Club $54,628). • The Institute model was not applied to the Bailey Road area because of insufficient data. However, my understanding of the report presented at a meeting of the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee on May 4th is that the study's authors agree that the existence of the landfill has diminished values in the area. • 1 do not believe the study's comparison between Oak Hills in the area west of Bailey Road and California Season near the industrial area and railroad in North Pittsburg to be valid. These areas are not only very different in terms of their socio-economic make up, but in terms of what is going on in the areas near them. Oak Hills is within census tract boundary 3132.02, where the median household income is $47,568, while California Season is in census tract 3141.01, where the median household income.is $16,250. 1 believe it is very likely that the value affecting dynamics that apply to these two neighborhoods differ sufficiently to make them less than ideal as comparable neighborhoods. We don't in fact know if Oak Hills was unable to keep its premium over California Season not because Oak Hills values were unscathed by the landfill but because California Season lost ground for reasons that failed to impact Oak Hills. • Similarly the primary neighborhood of Woodside differs substantially in terms of factors such as the crime rate from Willow Glen, one of the two areas the Institute model considers "comparable" (again the Willow Glen household income difference are also great). If one considers variables other than the physical variables considered in the Sun Ray plots used by the Institute, the presence of socio- economic and neighborhood differences again make it likely that looking at premiums between these neighborhoods is not a solid foundation from which to measure the affect of the Keller Canyon Landfill. • The same failure to consider anything but the physical characteristics of the housing units, price, and distance from the landfill when selecting neighborhoods to compare 2 units, price, and distance from the landfill when selecting neighborhoods to compare with the primary impact neighborhoods also works to invalidate the probative value of the Institute's attempt to use four Antioch neighborhoods to test the possibility that all Pittsburg neighborhoods might be impacted by the Keller Canyon Landfill. In fact the first two of the Antioch neighborhoods identified as comparable neighborhoods are subject to the opposite end of the landfill value cycle impact. The first two are described on page 55 of the Institute study and are near the recently closed Antioch landfill that is being landscaped to serve as an attractive neighbor. That same situation may occur in the Keller Canyon area in 40 years, but it is not comparable with the relevant time span affecting Pittsburg neighborhoods. • While I have not had time to study the other Antioch neighborhoods identified as comparable to the Pittsburg primary test areas, a Realtor familiar with the area has indicated to me that he does not consider the Antioch areas comparable. • Therefore the conclusion I draw from the Institute study is that they have shown that some significant diminution of value has been caused by the landfill. Further in those instances where the Institute model found no evidence of damage, the critical comparability of the matched neighborhoods was flawed. The reason I believe they have significantly understated the diminution of value is linked to their total disregard of socio-economic variables. Trying to write about property values without considering socio-economic variables is like writing Hamlet without reference to the Danish Prince. As I will describe below, Pittsburg values were rising prior to the siting of Keller because the city was starting to attract higher income households in the area near the landfill. When the landfill discouraged this demand shift it dealt Pittsburg future values a significant blow. The Institute study was blind to this important negative effect, one that reading the literature should enable us to expect — to say nothing of common sense. Before discussing the basic dynamics of the housing market in East Contra Costa county and elsewhere and summarizing my opinion on the question before the body, I'd like to 3 The Coopers & Lybrand Critique In the Coopers & Lybrand critique, Dr. Chalmer criticized the Institute's finding concerning the identified diminution of value in the largest area studied, Hillsdale and contends that there was no systematic effect arising from proximity to the landfill. Dr. Chalmer noted that, as discussed on page 51 of the Institute report, the distance variable (DFILL) for the Hillsdale neighborhood indicated that for the Pre-Keller site approval and early part of the construction period there was a premium paid within the neighborhood not to be located near the landfill. But during the last two years (1993 -1994) the distance variable was found to be insignificant. Instead of interpreting this to mean that there is no distance affect which is what Dr. Chalmer does, I would suggest that by 1993 and 1994 the affect of the landfill on the entire neighborhood - if not the entire city, swamped the effect of relatively short distance. I believe that rather than invalidate the conclusions their findings support the hypothesis that the affect of the landfill goes far beyond the immediate 1 Yz to 2 miles near the landfill. Summary of Opinion concerning the Effect of the Keller Canyon Landfill on Property Values for Pittsburg. • There is nothing surprising about the Institute Hedonic Regression Price Models providing empirical evidence that suggests that the landfill has diminished values in adjoining neighborhoods. The pioneer in the field of study was the late Professor Joseph Havlick of Ohio State University whose measurement of the impacts of solid waste disposal sites led him to conclude in 1971: "The Empirical results suggest magnitudes of costs impose and indicated the nature of their distribution around solid waste disposal sites. In decisions concerning disposal sites location, external social cost and benefits are an integral and possibility major factor" - Joseph Havlick, "Measuring the Impacts of Solid Waste Disposal Site Location on Property Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, December 1979. To quote from a more recent source " -- this paper demonstrates that at perhaps less than 2.5 miles from the center of the landfill, residential property values will likely be adversely 4 To quote from a more recent source " -- this paper demonstrates that at perhaps less than 2.5 miles from the center of the landfill, residential property values will likely be adversely affected. ---- the price effects of landfills on single family values presented here are common to other landfills as shown in the literature review" pg 364 Nelson, Genereux and Genereaux, Price Effects of Landfills on Home Values and Economics, November 1992. In evaluating such impacts one should keep in mind the admonition of the famous mathematician Norbert Wiener, "--- the modern apparatus of the theory of small samples, once it goes beyond the determination of its own specially defined parameters and becomes a method for positive statistical inference in new cases, does not inspire me with any confidence unless it is applied by a statistician by whom the main elements of the dynamics of the situation are either explicitly known or implicitly felt."(Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, MIT Press, February 1965) The dynamics of Pittsburg are suggested by a finding we reported in the study GG+A did for The Martinez Local Assessment committee in 1990 and an article that James Jakel and I wrote for the league of California Cities magazine in March of 1991. The finding was that: In the period during which we collected sales data from the Contra Costa County assessor 1984- 1989 the rate of appreciation of Pittsburg housing per square foot was consistently less than the average of such appreciation for the county or other West Contra Costa County communities. When the Dr. Havlick was alive he and I discussed situations wherein the ability of a community to attract higher income housing demands is hurt by the placing of a landfill in the community. In September of 1990 we at Gruen Gruen + Associates interview six Pittsburg area Realtors about the dynamics of the market in Pittsburg. The following are three conclusions reported to us these Realtors with a high degree of consensus. 1 . Over the last decade, Pittsburg has significantly improved its image as a desirable residential community. Nonetheless, the City continues to offer the most affordable housing in East contra Costa County. This supports what is 5 higher-income white collar resident base in the City of Pittsburg. The attraction of these higher-income residents to the City is playing a part in raising the locational values of Pittsburg as a residential location. 3. Some of the City's newest most desirable housing developments are located in close proximity to the proposed Keller Canyon Landfill. I believe these Realtors had it right and that at a minimum the Institute study is correct when it indicated that proximous neighborhoods like Hillsdale are worth less because of the landfill. But the study never checked for the socio-economic effect of the landfill in terms of how it affected Pittsburgs ability to attract relatively higher income households to many of its neighborhoods. Therefore, I believe it failed to test for the most likely significant effect. Not only do most Hedonic studies of housing values suggest that the ability to attract higher income buyers to a neighborhood increase value while the lessening of this ability shrinks values, most of us have personally observed the same phenomenon. For almost 30 years I have enjoyed living in EI Cerrito in a house big enough to raise 5 sons. I like my house and I like my neighborhood. But I recognize that because EI Cerrito attracts a less affluent group of buyers than would be attracted to,a house like mine in say Moraga or Orinda my house would sell for less than a physically similar house in those communities. What Keller has done is work to hinder the ability of the Pittsburg market to attract more affluent buyer. By doing this it has hurt values. I hope you recognize the validity of this conclusion as it is suggested in the Institute study and seems self evident in the light of relevant experience. 6 „ x\'zN \ `'�� �J� � � � "`� � £ ��e ".�r`€��i�"\a �,� i\� .� \� iii ��'zw �, �•,\�\s�\� \ � \� �\ \� �� 2�Z���. �:\a\i\\.:.?�\�`��c�,�.,o.a�a'�� �\���\ \ ''` .. . x.,, _�� � z�\�"�� �.. ..��b`,...w�.�\�,'a, \�.l\�\.. ?�n\l`.o„_x.,^�.�.+;�� _ Z\\�...T�..'r... ,\• Tile Economics Of Disamenities: What To Do Wh�n Nobo(ly Wants IJ Oning and most academic definitions are other local land � � m often replaced with easier- use regulations � � � ���� � .� to-understand acronyms. ,�� �� °°�_ � a Such is the case with the are instituted be- � � � � terms negative externali- cause Of the ex- ties or d samenities that istence Of What �� �' have been replaced with the arcane laN #,, i the acronym `LULU" as of economics defi � �p many communities debate ' � a whether to accept or reject as externalities. Externalities exist � '�� toxic waste treatment facil- ities, landfills and other whenever a resource Locally Undesirable allocating entity 4` � i Land Uses. imposes costs(nega `,, j_ tive externalities) or From a regional or benefits (positive exter- national perspective, a� such uses provide need- nalities) on individuals, ed services,but they are property or businesses viewed as undesirable by outside of the decision making entity.Your neigh- the citizens and property owners of the localities bor generates a positive asked to host them. externality,also called an amenity, when he culti- LULU's are needed by everyone but wanted by vates a beautiful gardenia'( no one. As William D. that you enjoy without Ruckelshaus, the Chief paying for it.He creates a Executive of Browning- negative externality or dis- amenity when he saves Ferris,the nation's second largest waste handler,said money by allowing his about garbage,"Everyone yard to become cluttered with junk and weed-filled so that wants you to pick it up and no one wants you to put it down." you dislike looking out the window. It was in recognition of a need to encourage communities to When academically described situations become commonplace, find a way to"put garbage down"that the California Legislature passed the Tanner Act,AB 2948, Chapter 1504, Statutes of 1986. JamesJakel is the City Manager of Martinez,California.Claude Gruen Among other provisions, the Act authorizes the host community is the principal economist of Gruen Gruen+Associates. (7he opinions to collect a ten-percent tax or user fee on the revenues of haz- expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and may not rep- ardous waste treatment facilities and other waste-related dis- resent opinions of the Martinez City Council. The proposed project dis- amenities to encourage localities to allow the construction of such cussed in this article has not been acted on by the City of Martinez.) necessary,butlocally undesirable,land uses.The Act also autho- 6 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES by James Jakel and Claude Gruen rizes communities to negotiate for further persons or property,is the operating entity the techniques of market research and remuneration, such as establishment of likely to be able to compensate the dam- financial analysis that are appropriate for parklands or other amenities. aged parties?What revenues are likely to most capital financial feasibility analysis can Martinez, California,is among the first be collected by the operation,10 percent of also be applied to controversial land-use cities in the state faced with the potential which will go into city's General Fund disamenities.The canons of municipal fis- for siting a LULU for which the ten-percent under the Tanner Act? cal analysis and inter-industry analysis Tanner tax is a consideration.How that city work well to forecast the fiscal and is handling the economic analysis of the n Fiscal—What will be the net fiscal jobs/income effect of such projects.Again, benefits and liabilities of LULU could pro- impacts of the project on the City of this is because the manner in which dis- vide a model for other cities. •Martinez,in terms of additional costs amenities affect municipal costs and rev- likely to be induced and the revenues the enues is similar to that of other land uses n 1985, the Rhone-Poulenc Company city can expect to receive from the con- that are traditionally studied with fiscal (RP)proposed converting excess capac- struction and operation of the project? impact methodologies and their effect on ity in a sulfuric acid regeneration plant the micro economy is not unique. within that northern California communi Jobs and Income—What are the like- The manner in which disamenities affect ty into a facility for the commercial stor ly costs and benefits of the facility in values and development around them, age and incineration of hazardous waste. •terms of its impacts on the health of which is discussed next,is less well-under- The Martinez City Council's response to the local economy and in terms of the pro- stood and,therefore,the tools used to mea- the application by Rhone-Poulenc included ject's ability to generate jobs and income? sure disamenity effects are sometimes setting up a Local Assessment Committee inappropriately selected and employed. (IAC)to review the application and the com- L and Use —What, if any, are the r f missioning of several in-depth studies as likely impacts of the project on prop- The Spillover Effects part of the preparation of an environmental y values and development else- impact report(EIR)on the proposed project where in the city? Of Disamenities The LAC was very sensitive to the need to A disamenity affects the values,develop- be particularly careful to identify all of the Positive Economic Effects ment and'maintenance of uses at other environmental impacts of the proposed facil locations by altering the perceptions and ation were estimated to be in excess of ity in its hearings on the proposal. Revenues of the proposed plant at full ss f expectations that underlie the demands for The Martinez LAC recognized the need land uses at these other locations.The to complement the extensive environmental $11,500,000,in 1989 dollars.The Tanner Act demand for nearby locations is affected by analysis of the proposed project with an eco- tax on this revenue would add$1,150,000 per the expectations and perceptions of exist- nomic analysis that would be equally com- year to the city's General Fund.Additional ing and would-be buyers and renters about prehensive.Although not required by the property and sales tax proceeds would also environmental changes such as increases accrue to the city if the project is approved. California Environmental Quality Act,infor- in traffic,odor and noise,and decreases in mation about the economic impacts of pro- When the estimated additional municipal ser- air quality, aesthetics and safety. The posals such as that made by RP provides a vice costs likely to be induced by the project demands for locations,both nearby and base for judging the impact that the pro- Fere subtracted from all the added revenues, elsewhere in the community, are also posed project would have on the economic the positive balance of receipts over costs affected by the social changes that are welfare of the community.The Martinez Fere estimated to exceed$1,290,000 per expected and perceived to occur as a result LAC retained Gruen Gruen&Associates year if the facility were in full operation. of the disamenities'entry into the commu- (GG&A), a San Francisco-based firm of About twelve new jobs were forecast to be nity.These two kinds of demand effects urban economists and land use market an- created by the project and about$475,000 interact with each other and are influenced alysts to prepare a study of the economic per year added to present yearly wages and by the social,environmental and land-use and fiscal impacts likely to result from the salaries.This predicted direct impact on history of the community. operation of the proposed hazardous waste local jobs and income is obviously not large; Research on the impacts of similar dis- incineration and storage project.The LAC like much of the chemical industry,the in- amenities built and operated elsewhere on asked GG&A to answer the questions listed cineration of hazardous wastes is a relatively property values can be used to approximate below to forecast the four categories of eco- capital-intensive process.However,the con- the range of quantitative effects likely to nomic impacts that could be induced by the sultant study also pointed out that an indi- occur and to get a feel for the relationships proposed LULU or disamenity: rect result of the proposed facility's opera- that affect locational values when disameni- tion would be to reduce costs for the plants ties are present.To gain this perspective on Financial—Is the proposed project within 50 miles of Martinez that are now the likely effect of the RP incineration and likely to be economically feasible so it producing hazardous wastes they must now storage operation,researchers did a general •could provide incentives for careful ship outside of the area for disposal. search of the literature,conducted interviews stewardship and ongoing maintenance of The relationships that produce the eco- and gathered data to prepare case histories of the storage facility and incinerator?In the nomic effects that are projected to be posi- the impacts on property values and locational event of accidents or other occurrences tive for the project proposed for Martinez demands of existing RP industrial furnaces in whereby the project could cause damage to are reasonably well-understood.Therefore, Continued 7 WESTERN CnY,MARCH 1991 LULU,Continued TIRff Hammond,Indiana;Houston,Texas;and Baton Rouge,Louisiana These three facilities SALE S AREAS' 1984 1985 are similar in many respects to the proposed Martinez hazardous waste plant.The plant managers as well as environmentalists,real u X87.20 $91 74 Comparison o�the Average Pleasant Hlll estate professionals and assessors were in ' :•' Price Per Square Foot, in ' terviewed in each of the communities.All Nominal Dollar of o�Single- $80.16901X82.92 three facilities are located in areas that have familyNominal Home Sales by Selected Martinez long served as locations for heavy industry. : In Baton Rouge,no residents are located Contra Costa Sales Area, within a one mile radius,while both the January 1984—Early June, 1989. $79 $83.28 Concord. Houston and Hammond facilities have resi- dents located within 300 feet of the plant. To varying degrees, some people in all ADi(ference Fromntioch X63.91 X68.63 three communities were concerned aboutPriCC2 -18.54% AVerIDC COLHILY 11 the potential environmental effects of plant operations,particularly the potential for Pittsbur $61.42 X64.57 spills and possible degradation of air quali- •'. ty.Despite these concerns,which suggest Costa Sales Area, JaIlLI, ed that residential property values might COUNTY $81.34 X84.25 be affected,there was no indication of any decrease in property values within any Of the three COITllT1ut11tieS.* 1 Recorded.sales through 2 Certified-"' , corded.sales of single-4amily 3 Sales°areas These Case studies did Suggest that Jure:12, 1989:Certified` homes located.on snigle lots,excludes sales records - 'of Assessor's the relative proximity Of middle-class res saes Price Per Square with price-per-square footrattos_greater than$250 approximately idents t0 the Hammond facility probably Foot of Liviug Area. :,Zrless than i25,adjusted to 1984,eonstariti dollars.` city=spheres made it the most likely of the studied facilities to have been able to induce some negative impact on residential property value in the, Hammond area But,local real estate experts indicated they had detected no such influ- ence.However,it would not have been easy 0M ® for them to notice such effects because of the R R general downward pressure on residential values caused by the decline in the steel in- RUBBER GRADE CROSSING SYSTEMS dustry that is so important to the economy of Hammond and nearby East Chicago. Much of the best quantitative work report Attention, City Officials ed in the relevantliteraturet ch documents the use of the econometric technique of regres- sion analysis known as"hedonic price mod- If you have railroad grade eling"to estimate the effect of disamenities crossings in your area that need on locational values.The hedonic method I-- improvement,you may qualify permits the analyst to filter out statistically the for federal funds from the effects of other factors from those that stem Section 130 Rail-Highway Grade from the impact of the disamenity on values. Crossing Safety Improvement In many y past studies using the hedonic Program.Contact CALTRANS for - more details. method,negative effects on property value from controversial projects have been found, And for the smoothest and safest but in others,including studies ofthe Three - grade crossings available,specify Mile.Island site of the March 28,1979,nucle- �� an OMNI Rubber Grade Crossing ar accident,no property value decreases have System.Some of the many . been suggested. benefits OMNI offers include: A milestone study,conducted by Mary Cost effectiveness and fast Dunn Baker in 1986,utilized a hedonic pric- A safe,smooth OMNI rubber crossing. and easy installation. ing model to estimate the impact of the Virtually no maintenance Union Carbide Chemical Plant on residential required. Made• Help in fulfilling environmental "An important reason for this'appears to be the nature in America Nearly 100% responsibilities by using of the many other uses near each of the other plants that Four Plant Locations Recycled Rubber recycled rubber. are perceived as generating negative externalities them- selves.The indications are that these other nearby dis- amenities would be perceived as generating odors,poor aesthetics,noise and traffic congestion,even if the incin- 8 eration facility was not present LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES r" tions within other Contra. less-industrial Pleasant Hill are shown along 1986 1987 1988 1989 Costa Countyjurisdictions. with the values of three communities whose The prices shown in the table locational values have been climbing at a are per-square-foot of single-family slower rate than those in Martinez. $99.97 $107.06 $118.73 $138.65 homes sold in the County between 1984 and Interviews with Martinez Realtors suggested 1 •'. 1989.The prices of all homes went up during that Martinets relative locational values were $88.90 $95.67 $103.72 $118.72 the period.Martinez prices went up at a rate on the way up as"more,higher-income,up- that suggested their locational values were scale buyers moved in."The social map of : . -0.10% just a little bit below County averages.In the Martinez has been changing recently as $90.28 $95.62 $104.64 $117.94 percentages shown in Table 1,the County's white-collar and professional households average increase has been indexed to zero so move into traditionally blue-collar areas. -0.64%• • •'• that the higher locational value of nearby, Continued $74.06 $77.91 $82.21 F$90.34 • $70.36 $74.96 $77.07 $85.20 IYI II`III i $90.87 $97.10 $107.53 $118.84 y s defined as aggregates Sources Contra Costa rriap book areas County Assessor's Office, � coincident with Property Sales Records; of influence. Gruen Gruen&Associates. property values in Institute,West Virginia. Baker found the impact of the plant on prop- erty values extended to three miles,and that ' within this three-mile radius homes sold for 4.3 percent less than outside that ra- dius.Baker also tested the impact of the December 3,1984,announcement of a catas- trophic accident at a similar Union Carbide ®e shape our buildings plant in Bhopal,India,on property values in Institute,West Virginia.Her analysis indicat- ed ndicated a general decline of 2.5 percent in resi- thereafter they shape us. dential property value throughout Institute. Insights into how controversial projects WINSTON, CHURCHILL have affected other communities narrow the range of the effects likely to be induced It's true. The cost of operat- estimating duringdesign,will by a new proposal and suggest what to look for locally.But,to estimate or forecast the ing your new.facility over its . Help you balance first cost vs. effects of a particular disamenity,it is cru- lifetime may exceed its first cost life cycle cost decisions. cial to obtain an understanding of the 10-20 times. Construction Achieving your project goals dynamics of the local residential land-use management services, includ- in terms of budget,schedule, market and how consumers within it are ing facility life cycle costing, quality'and life cyclecosts,is our likely to act with and without the changes value engineering and cost business. Our only business. to local perceptions that will be introduced by the project.'Therefore,we conducted research on the present and historic rela- tive demand for residential locations in Martinez,the social and other determi nants of that demand,how it is likely to Vanir 55 Capitol M Management,Inc. 555 Capitol Mall,Suite 350 alter if no new factors such as the project Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)444-3700 are introduced,and the effect other dis- amenities have had on locational values. YOUR GOALS+OUR CONTROLS=SOLUTIONS The data on prices,over time,in Martinez educational•criminal justice•healthcare•public works and other communities shown in Table 1 pro- vides an indication of the value of Martinez residential locations relative to those of loca- 9 WESTERN CITY,MARCH 1991 LULU, Continued To augment data on trends in locational agement company and which had been a the other site seem values and to gain further insight into the drum storage hazardous waste facility.The to be 11.3 percent *L dynamics of the local market, we results of the estimated effect from the less than they would employed a hedonic pricing model, to waste company headquarters (IT) are be three miles away. empirically measure the impact of existing shown in Table 2.The indicated results of The closest residen- disamenities on the neighborhoods close proximity to the boilers on property values tial neighborhood to INTERNATIONAL to the industrial belt where the proposed are also shown in Table 2. the proposed RP TECHNOLOGY furnace would be located.Two existing Each site appears to have had a negative facility is located Estimated Effect of facilities were chosen as sites from which impact on values.The Shell Incinerator 1.25 miles from the ` Relative Proximity to to measure property values,the Shell Oil appeared to have reduced housing prices plant site. the International Company Carbon Monoxide Boilers now 1.25 miles awayfrom it by about 5.7 per- The statistical anal- Technology Site used as incinerators,and a site that is now cent below what they would be three miles ysis strongly.sug- on Housing Values, expressed in both the transportation center of a waste man- away.The locational values 1.25 miles from gested that industrial dollars and percent disamenities in and difference from a near Martinez are house 3 miles away. working in combina- Independent financial consultants serving tion to impact the rel- California municipalities. ative locational desir- SHELL ability of Martinez Estimated Effect of Clients Served- Financing For: neighborhoods ver- Relative Proximity sus neighborhoods to the Shell Carbon ■ San Diego Assessment Monoxide Boilers g in other jurisdictions. Site on Housing ■ Orange ■ Mello-Roos GG&A pointed out Values,expressed ■ San Francisco ■ Parking that the full effect of in both dollars and any one hedonic equa7 percent difference from ■ Riverside ■ Redevelopment tion such as those a house 3 miles away. ■ Sacramento ■ Infrastructure used to produce the results shown in ■ Inyo ■ Leasing Tables 3 and 4,should not naively be attributed to a single EVf N S E N DODGE, INC. drsamenity but,rather,interpreted as the cumulative result of many disameni- 650 Town Center Drive 44 Montgomery Street ties located in the industrial areas to the Suite 430 Suite 500 north of Martinez.Because the nearest res- Costa Mesa,CA 92626 San Francisco,CA 95104 714/545-1212 415/955-2675 idential neighborhood is more than 1.25 Timothy J.Schaefer Richard Morales miles distant from the RP plant and the rel- Cheryl E.Yanagida atively low incidence of property value ef- fects found to have been induced by similar plants elsewhere,GG&A concluded that,in the absence of property-enhancing mitiga- tions,the project would cause residential property values throughout Martinez to ' 1 ' drop between one and two percent. The predicted one-to two-percent nega- tive impact on all Martinez residential val- 1 tree absorbs 50 lbs of CO2 / year & releases 36 lbs of oxygen! ues was expected to be stronger near the facility.The consultant predicted this effect Currently, 4 trees die or are removed for each new tree planted! would occur if the plant's operation does 3 well-planted trees can reduce energy costs up to 30%! not cause noticeable changes in the envi Trees use only .5% of all water in a community! ronment or induce fear of accidents nearby. The overall decrease in residential values Helping You Create a predicted to occur,if not mitigated,was not Better Community Through Trees described as a short-term,one-time-only effect. Because it would reinforce the •Grant Writing •Irrigation Audits .Appraisals •Seminars & Workshops industrial image of Martinez and interfere .Tree Studies *Enormous Site-Specific with the trend of observed increases in •landscaping Sustainability Tree Database Y- •Tree Master Plans sociall linked desirability, the proposed facility was predicted to diminish the rela- Urban Forestry Consultants tive place that Martinez locations have in P.O. Box 92, East Irvine, CA 92650 the hierarchy of Contra Costa community (714) 651.9665, FAX (714) 651.9605 locational values. 10 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DISTANCE Internationae� Boer TO SITE TeC�inology'Site Site (miles) PRICE a FERCIN'T' PRICE° PERCENT 0.25 $120,785 28.82% $128,120 15.31% Ethics is on everyone's lips 0.50 $132,799 21.74% $134,199 11.29% these days.In the halls of gov- 0.75 $140,373 17.27% $137,888 8.85% ernment,from the United States House and Senate to 1.00 $146,007 13.95%. $140,566 7.08% every City Hall,ethics is an increasingly potent issue.As 1.25 $150,533 11.29% $142,680 5.69% a public official,you cannot /o afford to ignore its impor- 1.50 $154,335 9.05% X144,430 4.53% tance to yourself and to the 1.75 $157,624 7.11% $145,927 3.54% public you serve. 2.00 $160,530 5.40% As ethics and political reform ° $147,236 2.68% laws become increasingly 2.25 $163,138 3.86% $148,401 1.91% complex and detailed,compli- ance requires expert legal 2.50 $165,506 2.46% $149,450 1.21% counsel. 2.75 $167,678 1.18% $150,406 0.58% At Olson,Connelly,Hagel, Fong&Leidigh our political 3.00 $169,686 0.00% $151,283 0.00% law experts combine to pro- - vide over 35 years of solid ex- Sounee: G""risen Gruen Fd As, , perience in interpreting and complying with California more factors than proximity to in- and Federal campaign,con- OrCompensate dustriat uses.For example,farm- p g Or Mitigate? lies are attracted to communities flict of interest,disclosure& A two-percent predicted decrease in that offer superior educational op ethics laws. Martinez residential values,would be '" ` " portunities to their children,aestheti- One of our firm's specialties equivalent to about$40 million in marketvalue, "'' c y-pleasing neighborhoods and relatively is the preparation of annual or about$23 million in assessed value.In pre- good transportation systems.Therefore,the Statements of Economic Inter- senting its conclusions to the Martinez Local consultant suggested that the predicted effect est.We provide a thorough Assessment Committee,GG&A recommend- of this disamenity could be offset if funds review of your financial inter- ed the city should not seek funds from the ap- were spent to improve Martinez schools,aes- ests and consultation on your plicant to compensate existing property own- thetic image,streets and other population- reporting requirements. ers if it decides to approve the project Instead, pleasing amenities.Further,it was suggested as discussed further below,the cit,/s economic that setting up a system to monitor and quick- For expert,professional assis- consultant recommended that funds be sought ly remedy any negative environmental effects tance call on Olson,Connelly, to offset or mitigate the predicted effects by such as odors or noise could prevent the fear Hagel,Fong&Leidigh. making Martinez neighborhoods more desir- reactions that might alarm nearby residents, able.Further,it was recommended that the and thereby ward off any decline in residen- project be carefully monitored so that it did not tial property value. threaten or damage the environment of nearby The Martinez LAC is currently studying ,.CONIELLC residents. The consultant recommended these and other recommendations of their HAGEL FANG against a one-time compensation of existing consultants and supervising additionally uID"I' GH , property owners both because GG&A be- called for environmental studies.The eco e lieved that the forecast negative impacts could nomic report on disamenities will be summa- A SC1I IID B lVD be offset and because of the continuing nature rized as part of the Final EIR on the pro fj AW ANPOLITIGS of the potential damage. posed project.The information about the The research suggested the demand for economic and fiscal effect of the project 300 Capitol Mall,Suite 350 residential location would be negatively af- could also be used by the Committee as it ne- Sacramento,CA 95814 fected,and the perceptions of buyers and gotiates with the applicant about an equitable (916)442-2952 renters would be that the industrial uses of sharing of revenues in the light of the fore- Fax. (916)442-1280 the area were being augmented.But the con- cast impact the LULU is likely to have on sultants'search also suggested that home property values in the host city. Call or write for our firms buyers and renters are interested in many 0 resume and a proposal. 11 WESTERN CITY,MARCH 1991 Reprinted with permission of Western City magazine. ' D.5 City )f Piasburg Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg,Caljfornia 94565 Y OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL June 5, 1995 OD� The Honorable Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors jUN7 -6 1995 651 Pine Street 1 Martinez, California 94553 CLERK BOARD of SllP.ERvisoR� coNTRA cosTA co. Dear Supervisor Bishop: As a Pittsburg City Council Member and as a member of the Keller Canyon Local Advisory Committee I would like to offer a few comments regarding the Sonoma State University ICPA "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study." I want to preface my remarks by stating that those of us<in Pittsburg who have watched Keller's siting and operation unfold, know that this facility has negatively impacted our community. Keller's severest impacts have been, and continue to be, on those in the Hillsdale subdivision and the residents who live along Bailey Road. The City contends that the negative impact of Keller on Pittsburg extends beyond those areas detailed in the study and will offer analysis by Dr. Claude Gruen to support this claim. I want to take a moment to consider the obvious, that a landfill in your backyard is an unwanted neighbor. When you combine special environmental conditions such as world-class winds which pass over a facility that receives contaminated soils, ash, and sludge the negative impact of Keller is clear. I ask you to consider whether Keller would have received much support from Contra Costa voters if they where told that contaminated materials where going to be placed in this wind tunnel so near homes in our community (over 1,300 parcels within 1 1/4 miles of primary waste placement). Some supporters of Keller have stated that any negative effect of the landfill on our community has been caused by our own "bad breath" which has come from the active opposition of resident groups and the City. The strategy of blaming the victim has always been popular as both a legal and political defense of responsibility. I would hope that this Board would not support such a tactic in terms of Keller's impacts on Pittsburg. California Healthy Cities Project National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993 City of New Horizons Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors June 6, 1995 Page Two By passing Ordinance No. 89-81, which established a mechanism for jurisdictions impacted by a waste disposal facility to request compensation, and by establishing a land use permit condition for Keller to ascertain property valuation impacts the County has shown that it understands that the siting and operation of a landfill is apt to cause negative impacts. It is our impression that the County has been "made whole" for its cost related to the siting of Keller. It is now time to constructively deal with the impacts of this facility on the host community of Pittsburg. Sincerely, Mary rbez Counci ers cc: Members, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Members, Pittsburg City Council Michael Woods, Interim City Manager and City Attorney e: Cityof Pittsbuxg -r Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 I OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL June 5, 1995 RECEIVED The Honorable Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors JUN 6 1995 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 CLERK CBOARD ONTRA�COSTA COIS©RS Dear Supervisor Bishop: As a Pittsburg City Council Member and as a member of the Keller Canyon Local Advisory Committee 1 would like to offer a few comments regarding the Sonoma State University ICPA "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study." I want to preface my remarks by stating that those of us in Pittsburg who have watched Keller's siting and operation unfold, know that this facility has negatively impacted our community. Keller's severest impacts have been, and continue to be, on those in the Hillsdale subdivision and the residents who live along Bailey Road. The City contends that the negative impact of Keller on Pittsburg extends beyond those areas detailed in the study and will offer analysis by Dr. Claude Gruen to support this ' claim. I want to take a moment to consider the obvious, that a landfill in your backyard is an unwanted neighbor. When you combine special environmental conditions such as world-class winds which pass over a facility that receives contaminated soils, ash, and sludge the negative impact of Keller is clear. I ask you to consider whether Keller would have received much support from Contra Costa voters if they where told that contaminated materials where going to be placed in this wind tunnel so,near homes in our community (over 1,300 parcels within 1 1/4 miles of primary waste placement). Some supporters of Keller have stated that any negative effect of the landfill on our community has been caused by our own "bad breath" which has come from the active opposition of resident groups and the City. The strategy of blaming the victim has always been popular as both a legal and political defense of responsibility. I would hope that this Board would not support such a tactic in terms of Keller's impacts on Pittsburg. California Healthy Cities Project National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993 City of New Horizons ,i Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors June 6, 1995 Page Two By passing Ordinance No., 89-81, which established a mechanism for jurisdictions impacted by a waste disposal facility to request compensation, and by establishing a Ian d use permit condition for Keller to ascertain property valuation impacts the County has shown that it understands that the siting and operation of a landfill is apt to cause negative impacts. It is our impression that the County has been "made whole" for its cost related to the siting of Keller. It is now time to constructively deal with the impacts of this facility on the host community of Pittsburg. Sincerely, Maryrbez Counci ers cc: Members, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Members, Pittsburg City Council Michael Woods, Interim City Manager and City Attorney Citi{ of Flusbfur t. Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL June 5, 1995 The Honorable Gayle Bishop, Chair JUN, 6 1995 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street CLER BOARD OF SUP ISORS CONTRA COSTA CO.Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisor Bishop: As a Pittsburg City Council Member and as a member of the Keller Canyon Local Advisory Committee I would like to offer a few comments regarding the Sonoma State University ICPA "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study." I want to preface my remarks by stating that those of us in Pittsburg who have watched Keller's siting and operation unfold, know that this facility has negatively impacted our community. Keller's severest impacts have been, and continue to be, on those in the Hillsdale subdivision and the residents who live along Bailey Road. The City contends that the negative impact of Keller on Pittsburg extends beyond those areas detailed in the study and will offer analysis by Dr. Claude Gruen to support this claim. I want to take a moment to consider the obvious, that a landfill in your backyard is an unwanted neighbor. When you combine special environmental conditions such as world-class winds which pass over a facility that receives contaminated soils, ash, and sludge the negative impact of Keller is clear. I ask you to consider whether Keller would have received much support from Contra Costa voters if they where told that contaminated materials where going to be placed in this wind tunnel so near homes in our community (over 1,300 parcels within 1 1/4 miles of primary waste placement). Some supporters of Keller have stated that any negative effect of the landfill on our community has been caused by our own "bad breath" which has come from the active opposition of resident groups and the City. The strategy of blaming the victim has always been popular as both a legal and political defense of responsibility. I would hope that this Board would not support such a tactic in terms of Keller's impacts on Pittsburg. California Healthy Cities Project ^11A,, National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993 City of New Horizons Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors June 6, 1995 Page Two By passing Ordinance No. 89-81, which established a mechanism for jurisdictions impacted by a waste disposal facility to request compensation, and by establishing a land use permit condition for Keller to ascertain property valuation impacts the County has shown that it understands that the siting and operation of a landfill is apt to cause negative impacts. It is our impression that the County has been "made whole" for its cost related to the siting of Keller. It is now time to constructively deal with the impacts of this facility on the host community of Pittsburg. Sincerely, Mary rbez Counci e rs cc: Members, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Members, Pittsburg City Council Michael Woods, Interim City Manager and City Attorney D -S City of Finsbuirg u Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECEIVE June 5, 1995F�, ' The Honorable Gayle Bishop' Chair JUN 6 I995 L: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street CLERKOSUPERVISORS CON RAA COR CO. Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisor Bishop: As a Pittsburg City Council Member and as a member of the Keller Canyon Local Advisory Committee I would like to offer a few comments regarding the Sonoma State University ICPA "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study." I want to preface my remarks by stating that those of us in Pittsburg who have watched Keller's siting and operation unfold, know that this facility has negatively impacted our community. Keller's severest impacts have been, and continue to be, on those in the Hillsdale subdivision and the residents who live along Bailey Road. The City contends that the negative impact of Keller on Pittsburg extends beyond those areas detailed in the study and will offer analysis by Dr. Claude Gruen to support this claim. I want to take a moment to consider the obvious, that a landfill in your backyard is an unwanted neighbor. When you combine special environmental conditions such as world-class winds which pass over a facility that receives contaminated soils, ash, and sludge the negative impact of Keller is clear. I ask you to consider whether Keller would have received much support from Contra Costa voters if they where told that contaminated materials where going to be placed in this wind tunnel so near homes in our community (over 1,300 parcels within 1 1/4 miles of primary waste placement). Some supporters of Keller have stated that any negative effect of the landfill on our community has been caused by our own "bad breath" which has come from the active opposition of resident groups and the City. The strategy of blaming the victim has always been popular as both a legal and political defense of responsibility. I would hope that this Board would not support such a tactic in terms of Keller's impacts on Pittsburg. California Healthy Cities Project National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award 1993 City of New Horizons Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors June 6, 1995 Page Two By passing Ordinance No. 89-81, which established a mechanism for jurisdictions impacted by a waste disposal facility to request compensation, and by establishing a land use permit condition for Keller to ascertain property valuation impacts the County has shown that it understands that the siting and operation of a landfill is apt to cause negative impacts. It is our impression that the County has been "made whole" for its cost related to the siting of Keller. It is now time to constructively deal with the impacts of this facility on the host community of Pittsburg. Sincerely, Mary rbez Counci e rs cc: Members, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Members, Pittsburg City Council Michael Woods, Interim City Manager and City Attorney EDBRUFCONM EN & GORDONA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARDSUITE 608 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596510)295-3131 PERVISOR$FAX(510)295-3132 A eO. June 5, 1995 The Hon. Gayle Bishop, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Keller Canyon Landfill; Agenda Item D.5; Keller Canyon Property Value Study Dear Chair Bishop and Members of the Board: We are writing on behalf of our client, the Keller Canyon Landfill Company (BFI), in connection with Agenda Item No. D.5 scheduled for hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 6th. In summary, we believe that the Sonoma State Property Value Study does not support any claim for property value compensation to be funded by the Keller Canyon Landfill Company, nor justify the hiring of appraisers to allocate any compensation award amongst individual homeowners. We request that our client be allowed an opportunity to fully present the evidence on this issue at a formal evidentiary hearing in the event that the Board believes it should give any further consideration of compensation under the Keller Canyon Landfill Use Permit Condition No. 35.3. Background of Use Permit Condition 35.3 The County's Environmental Impact Report for the Keller Canyon Landfill contained a study (Appendix N to the Draft EIR) which discussed the potential impacts of the Landfill project on residential property values. That study distinguished between the potential property value impacts from physical operations of the landfill (i.e., the possibility of visual, traffic, noise, dust, litter, and odor impacts on neighboring residences) and "psychological" effects associated with the presence of the landfill. The Appendix described these psychological effects as possibly being based on the mistaken perception that the landfill would be run like an open dump of the past-- instead of its being a closely regulated, state-of-the-art facility-- or based on a perception that the County did not intend to maintain the environmental quality of the neighborhood. The study concluded that with the mitigation measures recommended for the landfill project in the EIR, it was likely that "no Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 2 repercussions on the physical environment would be experienced, and therefore no further mitigation [for potential property value effects] would be needed." In approving the conditional use permit for the Keller Canyon Landfill, the Board of Supervisors found that if the landfill operator complied with the mitigation measures set forth in the conditions of approval for pollution, traffic, noise, dust, litter and odor mitigation, the"potential of the project to adversely affect property values [will be mitigated] to a level of insignificance." (Board of Supervisors Findings, at p. 39.)1 Even though the Keller Canyon EIR and the Board both concluded that physical impacts of the landfill were unlikely to affect property values, the Board added to the Conditional Use Permit for the Keller Canyon Landfill project' a Property Compensation Study provision which required BFI to fund a property compensation study to determine if physical impacts (i.e., "such as aesthetics, noise,traffic, or pollution") of the landfill's operations were causing property devaluation in nearby neighborhoods. However, Use Permit Condition 35.3, does not require the landfill operator to provide compensation for potential losses in value arising from psychological reactions of residents to the County's decision to site the landfill, or for potential losses in value not arising from physical impacts of the landfill on the environment.' The property compensation study was designed to measure property value impacts in the event that the mitigation measures in the use permit were not implemented by the landfill operator or proved inadequate to prevent physical impacts on nearby residents' homes. 'We request that the Board take administrative notice of the County's Environmental Impact Report for the Keller Canyon Landfill project and the Board's Findings approving the Conditional Use Permit and other entitlements for the Landfill project. z A similar condition had been earlier imposed by the Board of Supervisors on the Marsh Canyon Landfill project. ' The Sonoma State study refers to these psychological impacts as being the"stigma"associated with the perception that a landfill will adversely affect property values regardless of whether the landfill is having any physical impacts on a neighborhood. The study referred to this affect as possibly being a"self-fulfilling prophesy". The Keller Canyon Landfill was approved by the Board of Supervisors and the voters of this County in a County- wide referendum,to fulfill an urgent County need for additional disposal capacity. Therefore,any psychological affects not attributable to the landfill's physical impacts on nearby residents,nor associated with the landfill's failure to comply with the mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of the landfill's use permit,are not and should not require compensation to be paid for by the landfill operator. The County has already imposed a fee on the landfill operator for host community mitigation,and any compensation arguably justified because of the very fact of the County and its voters decision to approve the site for the Keller Canyon landfill should be compensated,if at all,out of such existing mitigation fees. Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 3 As discussed below, there is no evidence that the Use Permit mitigation measures are inadequate or that the landfill has physically impacted nearby neighborhoods. The Sonoma State Report The Sonoma State Study used two statistical approaches to determining whether landfill impacts had caused property devaluation: (1) a comparison of the trends in average prices between neighborhoods near the landfill and comparable neighborhoods more distant from the landfill--to see if neighborhoods near the landfill lost value in relation to the more distant neighborhoods after operation of the landfill began; and (2) a more detailed analysis of price trends of homes over time based on distance from the landfill, measured in fifty (50) foot increments. The Study's principal conclusions are: * That the most detailed "distance" analysis showed no affect on property values due to construction and operation of the landfill. (p. 53) (In one neighborhood-- Woodside-- property values for homes near the landfill compared with more distant homes actually increased after the landfill became operational. (p. 11). The same happened for the Hillsdale neighborhood for the years 1993 and 1994. (p. 53).) * That one neighborhood(the Hillsdale neighborhood) appeared to have suffered a loss of value compared with two other neighborhoods (the Hillsdale 11 and County Club neighborhoods) "since the decision to site the landfill nearby". (p.14). * Sonoma State's field surveys in the neighborhoods found that physical impacts from the landfill were minor and affected few homes. (pp.62-7). Except for the fact that 31% of the homes in the Hillsdale neighborhood could see the vegetated toe berm, the only other impacts noted in Hillsdale were that some noises from the landfill could be heard in about 10%of the homes. (pp.64-5). These noise impacts were temporary, in that they were associated with landfill vehicle back-up beepers which have since been discontinued and from large machinery used for construction. (pp.65-6).4 The study found no evidence of dust, litter or odors affecting nearby residents. (pp.64-6). Some traffic impacts associated with landfill traffic were also noted for a few homes along Bailey Road. No impacts were found in the other study neighborhoods. (p.62- 7). Noise impacts were also identified with the Freeway,BART construction,PG&E construction along Leland Road, and other local sources. (p.65). Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 4 * Sonoma State found that a property compensation program "may be warranted" for the Hillsdale neighborhood because the alleged loss of value in this neighborhood "coincides with site selection, construction and operation" of the landfill. (p.82). However, the study does not attribute this alleged loss to physical impacts of the landfill. The study states that "imagined" versus real impacts from the landfill, along with negative publicity created by local residents, may have created a "self-fulfilling prophecy" affecting property values. (p. 83). The Study concludes that "It is difficult to pinpoint what or who may have actually caused a loss in property values" in the Hillsdale neighborhood. (p.83). * No physical impacts from the landfill (even assuming for the sake of argument that a view of the vegetated toe berm is treated as an impact at all) were documented for the large majority of homes in the Hillsdale neighborhood. (p.62-7). The Chalmers Report. A copy of the report of Dr. Chalmers was previously provided to the board, and is attached to the Staff Report as Attachment G. It is important to note that Dr. Chalmer's report is based on the identical sales data used by Sonoma State and that Dr. Chalmers used the same regression calculation, except that Dr. Chalmers used a more accurate average sales price to account for inflation as described in his report. Therefore, the statement made in Sonoma State's letter attached to the Staff Report that Dr. Chalmer's report "lacks substantial documentation to permit [Sonoma State] to give a thorough response" is puzzling. Using Sonoma State's own data (provided to Dr. Chalmers on computer discs by Sonoma State) and the same calculation methods, Dr. Chalmers has demonstrated that when the Hillsdale I neighborhood is compared separately with the Hillsdale II neighborhood, there was no difference in average sales prices between the two neighborhoods either before or after construction of the landfill. Furthermore, when the Hillsdale I neighborhood is compared separately with the Country Club neighborhood, Hillsdale I had higher average sales prices than the Country Club area before the landfill was built, and this difference in the average price of Hillsdale homes has increased since construction of the landfill! All of these results pass the recognized scientific requirement of being statistically significant. Therefore, Sonoma State's conclusion that Hillsdale I has lost value in comparison with the Hillsdale H and Country Club neighborhoods since the decision to site the Keller Canyon Landfill is erroneous. Instead, a more detailed analysis of the Sonoma State data reveals that the landfill has not caused property devaluation due to any cause. Moreover, even if there were a drop in home values in the Hillsdale area, Sonoma State is unable to attribute this to physical impacts of the landfill. Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 5 Sonoma State's Lack of Response to the Chalmers' Report. We have attempted since early March to schedule a meeting with Sonoma State so that Dr. Chalmers could present his findings to them and so that they could ask questions about his work. Our feeling was that an informal, non-confrontational effort to get at the truth would be productive for all parties. Unfortunately, Sonoma State declined to attend such a meeting. As a result, Dr. Chalmers prepared a technical memorandum on his findings dated April 25, 1995, which was given to County staff on April 28th and, in turn, forwarded to Sonoma State. (A true and correct copy of this earlier, more technically worded version of the report is attached as Exhibit A). Moreover, at the workshop held before the Board's Ad Hoc Solid Waste Subcommittee on May 4, 1995, Dr. Chalmers again presented his findings, and Sonoma State representatives were in attendance at the workshop. It was not until we received the staff report with a copy of Sonoma State's letter of May 30th that we were informed that Sonoma State needed more information in order to give a thorough response to Dr. Chalmers' findings. Since Dr. Chalmers used Sonoma State's own data and calculations except for the one change he describes in his report, and compared Hillsdale I separately with the two comparison neighborhoods, we are uncertain what additional documentation we could possibly provide to Sonoma State. At the conclusion of the workshop, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee asked Sonoma State to respond to Dr. Chalmers' comments, so that interested parties (including BFI) would be able to consider and further reply to the Sonoma State response. We ask that the Board inquire as to what additional information Sonoma State claims it needs to respond to the Chalmers' findings, which we will provide. As before, we will be happy to arrange a meeting between Dr. Chalmers and the Sonoma State representatives and/or an exchange of further information or documentation. Sonoma State should then be required to provide the Board and interested parties with a thorough response to the Chalmers findings. Aiello Trial Results. The case of Aiello v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. C 93- 05477, involved identical issues to those now before this Board. The plaintiff families in that case claimed that physical impacts of the landfill(principally dust, odors, and litter) had caused devaluation of their homes. Several of the plaintiffs live in the Hillsdale I neighborhood. The jury found that Keller Canyon had not caused any loss in property values in any of the plaintiffs' homes, even in those closest to landfill. The jury also found that the plaintiffs had not suffered any health impacts from the landfill, including asthma, allergies and other health impacts, which the plaintiffs had claimed were caused by dust, special waste and other materials in the landfill. Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 6 The trial of the Aiello case took three and one-half weeks. All of the plaintiffs, BFI personnel, expert witnesses for both sides, and regulators from the County, Local Enforcement Agency, Integrated Waste Management Board, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District testified under oath and were cross-examined. BFI produced evidence for the jury that many of the plaintiffs were people who had been long-time opponents of the landfill, even before it had been constructed. The majority of the complaints that were lodged with the County and with other regulatory agencies about landfill operations had been made by these plaintiffs. BFI produced evidence that demonstrated that the landfill was not generating any measurable dust off site or causing a nuisance by reason of any odors, litter or other problems. Representatives of the Contra Costa County Health Department, LEA, Integrated Waste Management Board and of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District testified that the landfill was operating in compliance with its permits and that they had investigated the plaintiffs' complaints and found that they were unsupported. Pre-eminent experts in the fields of fugitive dust emissions, landfill operations and medicine all testified that the landfill was not a nuisance, had not caused any trespass on the plaintiffs' property, and that the plaintiffs had not suffered any injury or damages. The plaintiffs used the Sonoma State study in an attempt to show they had suffered a loss in property values, and Dr. Chalmers testified about his work and conclusions. The evidence convinced the jury that the property values for the plaintiffs' homes and in the plaintiffs' neighborhoods, both before and after the landfill was constructed, had risen and fallen to the same degree as the prices of homes in other areas, and that the plaintiffs' property values had not been affected by construction or operation of the landfill. Similarly, medical testimony established that the claims of some children's asthma being aggravated by the landfill were simply untrue. Medical records established that all of the plaintiffs' children had asthma before the landfill was constructed and that their conditions were at least as severe, and in some cases more severe, before the landfill was built than when after the landfill began operations. The jury found that the Keller Canyon Landfill was neither a public nor a private nuisance, and that the landfill had not caused a trespass on any of the plaintiffs' properties. Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Ignacio Ruvolo presided over the twelve member jury. Attached hereto are the following materials used in connection with the Aiello case: * The Declaration of Charles Zahn, Contra Costa Community Development Department, dated December 21, 1994 --Exhibit B. * The Declaration of Rebecca Ng, Contra Costa LEA, dated December 21, 1994 -- Exhibit C. Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 7 * The Declarations of Tim Cox, BFI's landfill manager, dated October, 1994, and January 17 and 20, 1995--Exhibit D. r * The Declaration of George Tchobanoglous, a former member of the Waste Management Board and expert on landfill operations, dated December 20, 1994-- Exhibit E. * Copy of BAAQMD Enforcement Division Complaint Guidelines re Regulation 1, Section 301, concerning standards for determining permit violations due to dust and other airborne nuisances --Exhibit F. These materials demonstrate: * That the Keller Canyon Landfill has been found by County staff and other permitting agencies to be in substantial compliance with the County's Conditions of Approval for the landfill, and with all of the landfill's other permits from regulatory agencies, including the Permit to Construct and Operate issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. * That citizen complaints of dust, litter, debris and odors leaving the landfill site were investigated by several independent regulators and found to be without merit. The majority of these complaints were made by Frank Aiello, Robert Maes and Lance Dow. [Note: Mr. Maes and Mr. Aiello's family were plaintiffs in the Aiello lawsuit. Mr. Dow testified as a witness for the plaintiffs in that case.] * That Keller Canyon is run as an exemplary, state-of-the-art landfill, and that the landfill has not caused any physical impacts on neighboring residents or homes. At the trial, a representative of the BAAQMD, Chris Berglund, testified that he was an inspector of the Keller Canyon Landfill for the BAAQMD and has investigated many of the neighborhood complaints. Most were made by the same individuals who complained to the County. Another BAAQMD inspector, Patricia James, testified that on one occasion when she spoke with Mrs. Aiello,Mrs. Aiello said they were preparing a lawsuit against BFI and were calling in complaints in an attempt to have five confirmed complaints in one day-- which would constitute a violation of Keller Canyon's air permit. Mr. Berglund testified that there were never five confirmed complaints in one day. Chris Berglund testified that the BAAQMD records show that of the complaints received, only 14 were confirmed, and no complaints have been confirmed since January of 1993. Of these confirmed complaints, which largely were confined to the period of construction of the toe berm, dust Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 8 was not observed to have left the Keller Canyon Landfill site. Rather, a dust complaint will be considered "confirmed" by the BAAQMD if dust could be seen on the landfill site from a residence, even though the dust settled back down and did not leave the site. Such dust complaints are called "aesthetic" complaints because they involve no physical impacts on neighboring properties. (Attached as Exhibit G is a recent letter from the BAAQMD affirming that the Keller Canyon Landfill has an exemplary record in mitigating potential air impacts from landfill operations.) The judgment in the Aiello trial conclusively establishes that the Keller Canyon Landfill is not a public or private nuisance, and that the landfill has not caused any adverse impacts on neighboring properties and has not adversely affected property values.' We ask that this Board take Administrative Notice of the verdict in that case and of the proceedings before Judge Ruvolo. (A copy of the judgment on the jury's special verdict is attached as Exhibit H.) Conclusion and Due Process Considerations. As demonstrated above, section 35.3 of the Keller Canyon Conditional Use Permit only would require property compensation if the evidence demonstrated that a loss in property values was caused by landfill impacts such as aesthetics, noise, odor or pollution. The verdict and record in the Aiello case prove that the Keller Canyon Landfill is not adversely impacting the neighborhood environments or adversely affecting property values. Moreover, Dr. Chalmers' findings show that Sonoma State's own data, when properly analyzed, reveal that there has been no loss in property values in the Hillsdale neighborhood occasioned by the landfill. The Sonoma State Study concludes that"who or what" caused any alleged value loss in the Hillsdale neighborhood is difficult to pinpoint, and the study makes no determination on the issue of what caused any claimed loss in values. Indeed, the Sonoma State field survey shows no landfill impacts of any kind were documented for the large majority of homes in the Hillsdale neighborhood. Therefore, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that there is no justification for any payment of compensation to property owners by the Keller Canyon Landfill Company. If the Board were to give any further consideration to this issue, we request that the Keller Canyon Landfill Company be afforded due process by being granted a hearing before an unbiased hearing officer or panel, and that witnesses offering testimony or evidence before the hearing officer or panel be required to testify under oath and be subject to cross-examination. We further request that written findings be prepared based on the evidence presented. We believe that when a complete evidentiary record is developed,the weight of the evidence will further confirm that compensation should not be required under section 35.3 of the Use Permit. 'This judgment should be treated as collateral estoppel or res judicata with respect to the specific families who were plaintiffs in that case. Chair Gayle Bishop and Members of the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1995 Page 9 We request that this letter and the attached exhibits be made a part of the record of the hearing on Item No. D.5. Respectfully submitted, BRUEN& GORDON By: Thomas M. Bruen Counsel for Keller Canyon Landfill Company TMB:jcf Enclosures cc: Mr. Val Alexeeff, GMEDA Victor Westman, CCC County Counsel Mr. Dennis P. Fenton, BFI Mr. Ken Etherington, BFI Mr. Michael Caprio, BFI P Memorandum To: Diedre Dingman From: James Chalmers Date 04/25/95 Subject: Keller Canyon Landfill Study The Keller Canyon Landfill Study("KCLS"or the"Study")conducts two levels of statistical testing on each of the subject neighborhoods in the form of regression analyses. The first level attempts to identify if any difference exists between the subject neighborhoods and the comparable neighborhoods due to location,and if the effect varies over time. The second level attempts to identify if proximity to the landfill has any effect on the sales price of a home within each of the subject neighborhoods. The subject neighborhoods are named NA,NB,and NC for neighborhoods A,B,and C respectively. TEST LEVEL ONE The method employed to determine if a subject neighborhood sold at a premium or a discount from the comparable neighborhoods was to use a"dummy variable"called NHD. The data from the subject neighborhood was pooled with the data from the comparable neighborhoods. The variable NHD is equal to 1,if the sale occurred in the subject area and equal to 0,if the sale occurred in one of the comparable neighborhoods. The results of the regressions can be found on page 50 of the Study. This is considered a"first pass"in that the effects,if any,of being near the landfill may appear on a neighborhood wide basis. Neighborhood A The Study found that a premium existed for NA over the composite of NJ and NK from 1979- 1990(excluding 1980)and that the premium disappeared after 1990. Neighborhood B The Study found that a premium existed for NB over NI from 1989- 1994. Insufficient data was available to examine the time period prior to 1989. Neighborhood C The Study found that a premium existed for NC over the composite of NF and NM for only one year, 1989. All other years showed no statistically significant premium or discount. Conclusion The KCLS summarizes the findings from this level as: "...In NA,neighborhood premiums existed in pre-landfill years but declined over time as would be expected if the landfill has had a negative impact on property values. For NB,premiums occurred for all years. Finally,for NC no premiums or discounts were found except for the lone premium in 1989." TEST LEVEL TWO Because the neighborhoods are relatively large and vary considerably in their relationship to the landfill,a second, more refined,test is necessary to see if proximity to the landfill affects home value. The method employed to determine if proximity to the landfill had a significant impact on property values was to use a quantitative dummy variable called DFILL. The data from the subject neighborhood was pooled with the data from the comparable neighborhoods. The variable DFILL is equal to the distance,approximated to 50 feet,from the property to the landfill,if the sale occurred in the subject area and equal to 0,if the sale occurred in one of the comparable neighborhoods. The results of the regressions can be found on page 52 of the Study. This test is more rigorous than the Level One test. This regression tests if the distance from the landfill impacts sales price. Neighborhood A The Study found ambiguous results of distance from the landfill. During what the Study calls Pre-Keller and Siting Approval phases,the distance premium declined. The Study calls this"...opposite of what would be predicted if negative impacts occurred." In the final two years(1993 - 1994)the DFILL coefficients were insignificant. This suggests that no distance premium existed during the years of landfill operation. Neighborhood B The Study found that the proximity tests here"...resulted from the commercial area and busy transportation corridor rather than impact from the landfill." Neighborhood C The Study found"These results suggest that in recent years(during Site Approval,and Construction and Operation periods)houses with similar characteristics sold for more the closer they were situated to the landfill. Negative impacts do not appear to have occurred in this neighborhood." Conclusion The lack of adverse impact from proximity in the subject neighborhoods confirms the findings for neighborhood B and C that the landfill has had no adverse impact on property values on a neighborhood wide basis. The lack of adverse impact from proximity in NA is in conflict the findings from the Level One test. FURTHER ANALYSIS The apparent conflict between the findings of the Level One test and the Level Two test for NA indicate that fiuther analysis is required. Examination of the sales in the three neighborhoods showed they were of substantially different sizes. NA contains 1231 sales,NJ contains 898 sales and NK contains 385 sales. The relative sizes of the neighborhoods has to be reflected in the calculation of an average price. Calculation of the AP variable that did not recognize the unequal size of the neighborhoods, as was done in the KCLS,might introduce some bias into the analysis. In addition,the Study states on page 49, "Since the price history experiences for composite neighborhood are different,each is considered separately." This observation,in conjunction with a site visit, prompted a consideration of comparing NA with NJ and NA with NK separately. The comparable neighborhoods NJ and NK are quite different and pooling the two together might have some blurring effects when comparing them to NA. TEST LEVEL ONE MODIFIED The KCLS creates the AP variable for the composite neighborhood NAJK by performing the following calculation for each year: (AP,,+ AP,,, +AP,, )/3. This is not a true average price for the sales that occurred each year in the composite neighborhood NAM In modifying the Level One test,a true average price was calculated for the composite neighborhood as follows for each year: (Sum of the sale prices for NAM/Number of sales). Performing the same regression analysis as the KCLS on page 50,produces different results. The years 1992 and 1993,which were insignificant before,are now statistically significant at the 90%level and within the dollar range of previous years. The 1994 premium is statistically insignificant,but that year has the least observations of any year in the sample. This analysis helps to resolve the apparent conflict between the Level Two results of no adverse impact and the previous Level One result of a"disappearing premium". NA vs NJ AND NA vs NK SEPARATELY The KCLS observes on page 49 that the comparable neighborhoods have different characteristics. It is for this reason that separate regressions are run for NAM,NBI,and NCFM. This same concept holds true within the subgroups. Rather than pooling NAJK,it is informative to compare NA to NJ independently of comparing NA to NK. When the same regression is performed on NAJ, 9 of the 13 NHD variables are statistically insignificant. (only 1982, 1983, 1985 & 1987 significant). The regression applied to NAK results in 13 of 15 NHD variables being statistically si cant. (only 1980& 1985 insignificant) This implies that NA has not had a consistent premium or discount from NJ but that NA has consistently had a premium over NK. This premium has not disappeared over time. As a result of the separation of NAJK,it can be seen that the apparent conflict between the Level One test and the Level Two test is further resolved. The Level One test initially showed a disappearing premium,however it appears to be the result of two considerations-- 1) the method of calculating the AP variable as discussed before and 2)the combination of two distinct neighborhoods. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the apparent conflict in the KCLS between the initial Level One test and the more rigorous Level Two test is resolved in two ways. 1)Using an AP variable that is a true average 2) Separating NAM into NAJ and NAK which shows a)there never was a premium for NA above NJ and b)the premium for NA above NK has existed over time and continues to be statistically significant. When these issues are addressed the apparent inconsistency between the Level One test and the Level Two test disappears. The results of the analysis of NA are the same as for NB and NC,namely—there is no evidence,by either test,of property value diminution due to the landfill. 1 JOHN E. CARLSON (Ca. Bar #93601) MICHAEL E. MOLLAND (Ca. Bar #111830) 2 HOWARD HOLDERNESS III (Ca. Bar #169814) BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON 3 One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105 4 Telephone: (415) 442-0900 5 THOMAS BRUEN (Ca. Bar #93324) SCOTT GORDON (Ca. Bar #99716) 6 BRUEN & GORDON 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 608 7 Walnut Creek, California 94596 8 Attorneys for Defendants Browning-Ferris, Inc., Browning- 9 Ferris Industries of California, Inc. and Keller Canyon Landfill Company 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 13 14 BARBARA AIELLO, BARBARA AIELLO as ) Case No. C 93-05477 guardian ad litem for ANTHONY AIELLO, a minor, ) 15 KRISTIN AIELLO, a minor, JONATHAN AIELLO, ) a minor; ROBERT MAES; CINDY MAES; CINDY ) DECLARATION OF CHARLES 16 MAES as guardian ad litem for ALYSE MASS, a ) ZAHN IN SUPPORT OF minor; FAY WILLIAMS; C.J. WILLIAMS; JOHN ) DEFENDANTS BROWNING- 17 HOPKINS; ROSE HOPKINS; ROSE HOPKINS as ) FERRIS, INC.'S, BROWNING- guardian ad litem for JOHN HOPKINS, JR., a minor; ) FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF 18 CHRISTOPHER DRUMMOND; JULIA ) CALIFORNIA, INC.'S AND DRUMMOND; JULIA DRUMMOND as guardian ad ) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL 19 litem for JASON DRUMMOND, a minor; and ) COMPANY'S MOTION FOR DAVID DRUMMOND, a minor; and JOE BRAZ, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR 20 ) IN THE ALTERNATIVE Plaintiffs, ) SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 21 ) OF ISSUES VS. ) 22 ) BROWNING-FERRIS, INC., a Delaware corporation,) Date: , 1994 23 BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF ) Time: CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, and ) Place: Dept. 6 24 KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY ) INCORPORATED, a California corporation, ) 25 ) Defendants. ) 26 ) 27 28 1 I, CHARLES ZAHN, declare, 2 1. I am an Assistant Director of the Contra Costa County Development 3 Department and have been employed by the County for over 25 years. During the past 13 4 years, I have been the County staff person primarily responsible for processing 5 environmental documents and land use approvals and entitlements for new sanitary landfills 6 and other solid waste facilities in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. I am one 7 of approximately 64 employees who work within the Community Development Department 8 of Contra Costa County. I report to Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community 9 Development, who in turn reports to Val Alexeeff, director of the Growth Management and 10 Economic Development Agency. 11 2. I was and am the County staff person primarily responsible for 12 processing the County's land use permits and approvals for the Keller Canyon Landfill. My 13 responsibilities have included oversight and supervision of the land use permit conditions and 14 other land use entitlements for the Keller Canyon Landfill. 15 3. The statements in this declaration are based on my direct, personal 16 knowledge, and if called as a witness to testify in this action I could and would competently 17 testify thereto. 18 4. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department 19 administers the Conditions of Approval of Land Use Permit 2020-89, which is the primary 20 local government permit for the development of the landfill. 21 5. The County Ordinance Code generally authorizes the Community 22 Development Department to administer land use permits. Additionally, Land Use Permit 23 2020-89 (Condition 11.9) authorizes the Director of Community Development to interpret 24 the Conditions of Approval for the Keller Canyon Landfill. 25 6. Subsequent to the opening of the Keller Canyon Landfill on May 7, 26 1992, the Community Development Department carries out the following monitoring 27 activities in connection with the Land Use Permit:: 28 DECLARATION OF CHARLES ZAHN 2 1 a. Performing site visits, sometimes in connection with conducting 2 site tours for visiting officials, generally at least monthly. 3 b. Reviewing, for consistency with the Land Use Permit, 4 development and program proposals (for phased programming or improvements) submitted 5 by the permittee. 6 C. Assigning the engineering/geo-technical firm (Brown and 7 Caldwell) retained by the Department to review phased development proposals and to inspect 8 the installations. 9 d. Reviewing reports and information submitted by the permittee. 10 e. Coordinating with the County Health Services Department, and 11 other regulatory agencies where appropriate, regarding the interpretation of conditions and 12 the investigation of complaints. Responding to complaint letters and complaints and questions 13 on the Land Use Permit's requirements brought forth at the Keller Canyon Local Advisory 14 Committee meetings also accomplishes a form of monitoring. 15 7. The Community Development Department has not found the Keller 16 Canyon Landfill to be out of compliance with the Land Use Permit. The Department is 17 typically involved in defining and interpreting what constitutes compliance, usually in 18 advance of an activity being performed or an installation being established by the permittee. 19 Once a determination is made, precedent is established. The permittee has been 20 conscientious in conforming to the terms of the Land Use Permit and the Department's 21 determinations. 22 8. I have responded to, or assisted in responding to, complaints from 23 Citizens United.regarding the landfill's compliance with the Land Use Permit. The formal 24 complaints primarily were included in 23 letters directed to the Board of Supervisors, other 25 County Staff, or to the Community Development Department subsequent to the opening of 26 the landfill. As noted, I have cooperated with the Local Enforcement Agency in responding 27 to Land Use Permit and related complaints made to their personnel. 28 DECLARATION OF CHARLES ZAHN 3 1 9. The meetings of the Keller Canyon Landfill Citizens Advisory 2 Committee, twice monthly at the start of operations and every other month recently, have 3 provided a forum for the voicing of complaints, expressions of concern, or questions from 4 the Committee members (including Citizens United) and the audience. The minutes provide 5 a record of the matters raised and the responses given by County staff and/or the permittee. 6 10. After early complaints over non-accessibility of the landfill to the 7 public and the audibility of vehicle back-up beepers during operations (an annoyance, not an 8 a matter of non-compliance), the Department has received few complaints by telephone since 9 the landfill opened. 10 a. Dust and garbage escaping from the KCL. There have been it persistent complaints from Citizens United and, mainly during construction episodes, from 12 other local residents. The complaints have been investigated by the local Enforcement 13 Agency and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Even during construction, we 14 deferred to their expertise. During site visits, some on very windy days, we never saw dust 15 raised other than minimal amounts in the immediate vicinities of grading, earth moving or 16 load-discharging equipment. Similarly, even on windy days, we seldom observed litter 17 escaping the litter fences, and never blown off-site. We did not observe signs of dust, such 18 as accumulations of dust on vegetation, or litter outside the site. In short, we did not find 19 the KCL to be out of compliance with regards to the escape of dust or garbage. 20 b. Landscaping not being conducted in a timely manner. The 21 provision of landscaping has been a long-standing Citizens United issue in two particular 22 locations: at the front of the emergency access road at Santa Maria Drive and at the end of 23 Jacqueline Drive. The former screens a narrow view of trucks on the internal haul road; the 24 latter partially screens views of the landscaped toe berm. Elsewhere, the screening plantings 25 agreed upon in consultation with Keller Canyon Local Advisory Committee were either made 26 prior to the opening of the landfill or in connection with the first subsequent rainy season. If 27 wetland plantings (which numbered about 2,500 plants into the Lawler Creek drainage way) 28 are included as landscaping, these were installed in the first and second rainy seasons DECLARATION OF CHARLES ZAHN 4 1 according to plan. Similarly, the restoration of the site's over-grazed grasslands and hydro- 2 seeking of graded areas proceeded routinely. 3 The particulars of the planting screen at Santa Maria Drive were resolved during the 4 first year of operations with plantings inside the fence (on the landfill site) but without the 5 desired (but not required) plants on the residential side. The latter would have needed City 6 of Pittsburg irrigation water. The Jacqueline Drive area planting screen was not resolved 7 until early 1994 with the installation of trees on the edge of the landfill property rather than 8 the preferred location, off-site, at the edge of the residential area. The latter required the 9 approvals of third parties.. The matter was tracked before the Local Advisory Committee, 10 which assisted in attempts at resolution. I do not regard the delay in the installation which 11 occurred during an active resolution process as an instance of non-compliance with the Land 12 Use Permit. 13 C. The KCL operating during hours outside those specified in 14 the permits. After resolution of early construction period issues (e.g., associated vehicle 15 maintenance and warm-up rather than construction), complaints on operations outside of 16 specified working hours have been rare. They have usually been investigated by the Local 17 Enforcement Agency, which inspects the facility's load logs. No instances of non- 18 compliance have been reported to the Community Development Department. We have 19 informally looked into inquiries, such as alleged off-hours cattle deliveries, and discovered 20 no instances of non-compliance. Our observations indicate that the landfill facility usually 21 has completed receiving wastes and has covered them and shut-down before the times (7:00 22 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., respectively) specified in Condition 9.1 of the Land Use Permit. 23 d. Dirt and litter falling off trucks entering the KCL. The 24 Community Development Department has received a few complaints of dirt and litter 25 escaping waste-hauling vehicles. All waste loads are required to be covered, even earthen 26 material and rubble loads not required by other agencies' rules to be covered. Transfer 27 vehicle loads are covered by screens. The permittee is required to perform litter pick-up on 28 a segment of Bailey Road irrespective of the source, and the permittee occasionally picks up DECLARATION OF CHARLES ZAHN 5 1 litter illegally abandoned along Bailey Road by unknown parties. I have never observed 2 landfill-caused littering to be a problem. 3 e. Use of unpaved roads on the property. I don't recall that the 4 Community Development Department has received any complaints on the matter. The sole 5 on-site waste haul road is paved from the Bailey Road entrance to within about 400 feet of 6 the disposal area by Bay Area Air Quality Control District. Waste loads go directly to and 7 from the end of this pavement to the disposal area. Except during periods of construction, 8 only grading, earth moving, and compaction equipment use unpaved roads in the vicinity of 9 the disposal area, and this activity is almost always not visible off-site (disposal activity is 10 never visible off-site). Fire and emergency roads are used by the permittee's policing and 11 inspection personnel, and occasionally by regulatory agency inspectors, guided tour groups, 12 and, say, visiting geologists. 13 f. Vehicles operating on the KCL at excessive speeds. The only 14 instance of a complaint on vehicles traveling at excessive speed during operations which I 15 can recall took place at a Local Advisory Committee meeting when a party charged that 16 landfill site policing personnel were traveling too fast on the site's fire and emergency roads. 17 The landfill's representative said he would notify his staff that speed limits must be observed. 18 There was no further evidence of non-compliance. 19 g. Excessive noise. There have been frequent charges, mainly by 20 Citizens United, that allowable noise limits at the landfill have been exceeded. The 21 Community Development Department has deferred to the Local Enforcement Agency on 22 investigating noise level complaints because that agency has field-use instruments and 23 personnel trained in their use. We are not aware of any instance where the noise level 24 requirements of the Land Use Permit (essentially, the residential noise-level criteria of the 25 General Plan Noise Element) have been exceeded during landfill operations. Even during 26 construction, with a possible single exception, the noise level checks met the operating 27 criteria. 28 DECLARATION OF CHARLES ZAHN 6 0 1 Particular complaint subjects during the landfill's first year of 2 operations concerned the annoyance of back-up beepers on transfer vans, compacting, and 3 earth moving equipment, and noise from anti-bird devices during the winter season. None of 4 these noises exceeded allowable levels but they bothered people. In the first instance, after 5 the matter was raised at the Local Advisory Committee, the permittee obtained an exception 6 from California OSHA to disconnect the beepers in light of effective site traffic management. 7 In the second instance, which pertains to only a few months out of a year, the permittee has 8 experimented with devices and is now using less noisy controls. 9 1 h. Excessive numbers of birds attracted to the KCL. Bird 10 complaints pertaining to the Keller Canyon Landfill have been rare and to the best of my 11 recollection, have been raised only by Citizens United. Our observation is that there is no 12 resident Gull population at the landfill. A small flock appears in early December when Gulls 13 migrate inland and occupy parks, school grounds, shopping centers, and business areas for a 14 few months. At Keller, the numbers diminish as the Gulls find that they cannot get to the 15 waste at the small (about 1/4 acre) working face. By early April they are gone. Their 16 short-term presence complies with the Land Use Permit. There is a small flock of resident 17 birds, which are typically found on ranches and farms. I am not aware of any complaints 18 pertaining to them. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and 20 was executed this 4 st day of December, 1994, in Martinez, California. 21 22 Char"n n 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CHARLES ZAHN 7 L 1 JOHN E. CARLSON (Ca. Bar #93601) 2 MICHAEL E. MOLLAND (Ca. Bar #111830) HOWARD HOLDERNESS III (Ca. Bar #169814) 3 BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower 4 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-0900 5 THOMAS BRUEN (Ca. Bar #93324) 6 SCOTT GORDON (Ca. Bar #99716) BRUEN & GORDON 7 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 608 Walnut Creek, California 94596 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 Browning-Ferris, Inc., Browning- Ferris Industries of California, Inc. 10 and Keller Canyon Landfill Company it SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 13 14 BARBARA AIELLO, BARBARA AIELLO as ) Case No. C 93-05477 15 guardian ad litem for ANTHONY AIELLO, a minor, ) KRISTIN AIELLO, a minor, JONATHAN AIELLO, ) 16 a minor; ROBERT MAES; CINDY MAES; CINDY ) DECLARATION OF REBECCA MAPS as guardian ad litem for ALYSE MASS, a ) NG IN SUPPORT OF 17 minor; FAY WILLIAMS; C.J. WILLIAMS; JOHN ) DEFENDANTS BROWNING- HOPKINS; ROSE HOPKINS; ROSE HOPKINS as ) FERRIS, INC.'S, BROWNING- 18 guardian ad litem for JOHN HOPKINS, JR., a minor; ) FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF CHRISTOPHER DRUMMOND; JULIA 11 ) CALIFORNIA, INC.'S AND 19 DRUMMOND; JULIA DRUMMOND as guardian ad ) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL litem for JASON DRUMMOND, a minor; and ) COMPANY'S MOTION FOR 20 DAVID DRUMMOND, a minor; and JOE BRAZ, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE 21 Plaintiffs, ) SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 22 vs. ) 23 BROWNING-FERRIS, INC., a Delaware corporation,) Date: , 1994 BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF ) Time: 24 CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, and ) Place: Dept. 6 KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY ) 25 INCORPORATED, a California corporation, ) 26 Defendants. ) 27 ) 28 1 I, REBECCA NG, declare, 2 1. I am an employee of the Contra Costa County Health Services 3 Department and have been employed by the County for three years. During the past two 4 years, I have been one of five County staff people primarily responsible for processing 5 environmental documents and entitlements for new sanitary landfills and other solid waste 6 facilities in the Contra Costa County except the City of Pittsburg. I report to Daniel Guerra, 7 Deputy Director of Environmental Health, who in turn reports to William Walker, M.D., 8 Health Officer of the Health Services Department, 9 2. I was and am the County staff person primarily responsible for 10 ensuring compliance with the State and Federal landfill minimum standards at the Keller 11 Canyon Landfill ("KCLF"). As such my responsibilities have included oversight and 12 supervision of the solid waste facilities permit conditions for the Keller Canyon Landfill. 13 3. The statements in this declaration are based on my direct, personal 14 knowledge, and if called as a witness to testify in this action I could and would competently 15 testify thereto. 16 4. The authority for the Health Services Department to monitor the solid 17 waste facilities permits for solid waste facilities in Contra Costa County include Public 18 Resources Code, Chapter 2, Article 1 (commencing with Section 43200), Title 14, California 19 Code of Regulations ("CCR"), Division 7, and Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 20 257 and 258 - Subtitle D. 21 5. I inspect KCLF monthly. During my inspection, I look for non- 22 compliance with the State minimum standards as outlined in CCR Title 14, the solid waste 23 facilities permit, and the Report of Disposal Site Information. Reviews of records and files 24 are conducted as well as a physical inspection of the landfill site during the monthly 25 inspection. After each inspection I prepare a report and submit it to the California Integrated 26 Waste Management Board ("CIWMB"), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control 27 Board, and the Landfill owner. With the reports I send to the Landfill owner I include any 28 DECLARATION OF REBECCA NG - 2 1 photographs I have taken during the inspection. If non-compliance is noticed, I will inform 2 the site manager and list the violation in my report of the inspection. 3 6. If violations of other standards are noticed, a referral is sent to the 4 agency having jurisdiction, i.e., the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If 5 complaints are received, I will inspect KCLF in regard to that complaint. 6 7. I review all reports and documents regarding KCLF that are submitted 7 to this Division. KCLF is required to submit quarterly reports to this Division. The reports 8 contain daily tonnage receipts, tonnage by waste types, and tonnage by origin. 9 8. KCLF is required by the RWQCB to conduct self monitoring of the 10 groundwater conditions, leachate monitoring, and waste fill quantities and locations. The 11 results of the self monitoring are reported to the RWQCB semiannually. Additionally, 12 KCLF submits documents on construction of waste cells, slope stability studies, gas 13 monitoring system implementation, etc., to my office. 14 9. Although investigations by my office revealed a number of instances of 15 non-compliance, such instances appeared not to have caused any injuries or damage. 16 Corrections in each instance were made. 17 10. The Keller Canyon Hotline was installed in the Environmental Health 18 Division office to accept complaints from the public. Numerous complaints were received on 19 the KCLF Hotline. The majority of calls were from Frank Aiello, Bob Maes, and Lance 20 Dow of Citizens United. The types of complaints and the approximate numbers are: 21 Dust 7 22 garbage/litter escaping KCLF 18 23 KCLF operating outside permitted hours 2 24 Litter falling off transfer trucks 3 25 Vehicles operating at excessive speeds on KCLF 1 26 Excessive Noise 14 27 Bird Nuisance - harborage & propagation 8 28 flooding 1 DECLARATION OF REBECCA NG - 3 1 mosquitos 1 2 vectors - mice, snakes, rats 3 3 smoke/possible fire 2 4 odors 8 5 vehicles entering/leaving KCLF early 4 6 miscellaneous 5 7 Each complaint was investigated by members of the Solid Waste Unit of the Environmental 8 Health Division. The majority were investigated by myself and Charles Nicholson. All of 9 the complaints were found to be unsubstantiated except two. Those were one complaint 10 regarding dust and one complaint regarding noise involving a piece of earthmoving 11 equipment. Both occurred before May 1992, during the construction of the landfill and were 12 immediately corrected by the landfill operators upon verbal notification. I am unaware of 13 any injuries or damage resulting from those two incidents. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and 15 was executed this 21st day of December, 1994, in M * z, California. 16 17 Reb g 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF REBECCA NG - 4 i I JOHN E. CARLSON (Ca. Bar #93601) MICHAEL E. MOLLAND (Ca. Bar #111830) 2 HOWARD HOLDERNESS III (Ca. Bar #169814) BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON 3 One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105 4 Telephone: (415) 442-0900 5 THOMAS M. BRUEN (Ca. Bar #93324) SCOTT W. GORDON (Ca. Bar #99716) 6 BRUEN & GORDON 1990 N. California Blvd. , Suite 608 7 Walnut Creek, California 94596 8 Attorneys for Defendants Browning-Ferris, Inc. , Browning- 9 Ferris Industries of California, Inc. and Keller Canyon Landfill Co. Inc. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 13 14 BARBARA AIELLO, BARBARA AIELLO as ) Case No. C 93-05477 guardian ad litem for ANTHONY ) 15 AIELLO, a minor, KRISTIN AIELLO, a ) minor, JONATHAN AIELLO, a minor; ) 16 ROBERT MAES; CINDY MAES; CINDY MASS) as guardian ad litem for ALYSE ) DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. 17 MAES, a minor; FAY WILLIAMS; C.J. ) COX IN SUPPORT OF WILLIAMS; JOHN HOPKINS; ROSE ) DEFENDANTS BROWNING-FERRIS, 18 HOPKINS; ROSE HOPKINS as guardian ) IN BROWNING-FERRIS ad litem for JOHN HOPKINS, JR. , a ) INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, 19 minor; CHRISTOPHER DRUMMOND; JULIA ) INC. 'S AND KELLER CANYON DRUMMOND; JULIA DRUMMOND as ) LANDFILL CO. INC. 'S MOTION 20 guardian ad litem for JASON ) FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF DRUMMOND, a minor; and DAVID ) ISSUES 21 DRUMMOND, a minor; and JOE BRAZ, ) 22 Plaintiffs, ) Date: 1994 Time: 23 vs. ) Place: Dept. ' 5 24 BROWNING-FERRIS, INC. , a Delaware ) corporation, BROWNING FERRIS ) 25 INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. , a ) California corporation, and KELLER ) 26 CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY ) INCORPORATED, a California ) 27 corporation, ) Defendants. ) 28 ) SF1\HH\0110692.WP 10/20/94 1 I, TIMOTHY J. COX, DECLARE THAT: 2 1. I am the Site Manager of the Keller Canyon 3 Landfill site, a solid waste disposal site privately owned and 4 operated by Keller Canyon Landfill Co. , a subsidiary of Browning- 5 Ferris Industries of California, Inc. I have been employed as 6 the manager of the Keller Canyon Landfill since June, 1991, and I 7 am a Vice President of Keller Canyon Landfill Co. In my capacity 8 as Site Manager, I was responsible for, and directly involved in 9 the process of, obtaining the required permits and approvals for 10 construction and operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill. I am 11 now responsible for the - day-to-day operation of the landfill, and 12 in this capacity, I supervise all persons employed at Keller 13 Canyon Landfill. 14 2. The site for the Keller Canyon Landfill was 15 selected by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 16 following more than a decade of site selection processes and 17 extensive public hearings. In October, 1989, the Keller Canyon 18 site received a General Plan Amendment from the County Board of 19 Supervisors authorizing the site to be used for solid waste 20 landfilling purposes. The site was approved by the County Board 21 of Supervisors along with four other potential landfill sites for 22 inclusion in the County's General Plan. In June of 1990, the 23 General Plan Amendment for the Keller Canyon Landfill was 24 approved by the voters of Contra Costa County in a county-wide 25 referendum. 26 3. The Keller Canyon Landfill was constructed and now 27 operates pursuant to several permits issued by county, state and 28 2. - SF1\HH\0110692.WP DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. COX 10/20/94 1 federal agencies. These permits include Land Use Permit No. 2 2020-89, approved in July, 1990 by the Contra Costa County Board 3 of Supervisors; A Waste Discharge Requirements permit from the 4 Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 5 Order 91-052 issued March, 1991; Solid Waste Facilities Permit 6 No. 07-44-0032, issued in May, 1992 by the Local Enforcement 7 Agency (LEA) of the California Integrated Waste Management Board 8 (CIWMB) and approved by the CIWMB; an Authority to Construct and 9 a Permit To Operate from the Bay Area Air Quality Management 10 District issued May, 1991; a Clean Water Act section 404 Wetland 11 Modification Permit issued in June, 1991 by the U.S. Army Corps 12 of Engineers; a Clean Water Act section 401 Certification issued 13 in October, 1991 by the State Water Resources Control Board; and 14 a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department 15 of Fish and Game, issued October, 1991. 16 4. The permits and approvals issued by the regulatory 17 agencies set forth in paragraph three (3) above represent 18 enforcement of a comprehensive solid waste management program by 19 all involved agencies. The permits and approvals .implement the 20 federal Subtitle "D" regulations promulgated under the Resource 21 Conservation And Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 40 CFR Part 22 258 et seq; the State promulgated operating standards found at a 23 Title 14, California Code Regulations; the regulations of the 24 State Water Resources Control Board for protection of ground and 25 surface waters of the State found at Title 23, California Code of 26 Regulations, Chapter 15; and the rules and regulations of the Bay 27 Area Air Quality Management District, set forth in the BAAQMD's 28 3. SF1\HH\0110692.WP DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY,J. COX 10/20/94 1 Rules and Regulations promulgated from time-to-time. The permits 2 and approvals referenced in paragraph three (3) above administer 3 and enforce this comprehensive body of regulations applicable to 4 the site's operations. 5 5. The Keller Canyon Landfill operates in 6 substantial, if not actual, compliance with all of its permits 7 and approvals. In fact, since the site's opening, we have 8 maintained a near perfect record of compliance with all permits . 9 and approvals. Over the course of the -last two and a half years 10 of the landfill's operation, there have been only a few occasions 11 where regulatory agencies have issued a notice that landfill was 12 in technical violation of its permits. Those instances are as 13 follows: 14 a. In August, 1993, an inspector from the Bay 15 Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)' issued a Notice of 16 Violation to the site, alleging that a portion of the landfill's 17 access road into the active landfill area was not "paved" as 18 required by the permit. My staff and I immediately responded to 19 the NOV, advising the BAAQMD staff that the portion of the 20 landfill access road at issue was in fact paved with aggregate 21 base material pursuant to Cal Trans State Highway Manual 22 Standards, and that the NOV should not have been issued. In 23 addition, I instructed our legal counsel to seek a variance 24 pursuant to the BAAQMD regulations from the condition in the 25 Permit to Operate requiring that landfill roads be "paved" if 26 that term was being construed by BAAQMD staff to exclude 27 aggregate base paving material. In the Matter of the Application 28 4. SP1\HH\0110692.WP DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. COX 10/20/94 1 of the Keller Canyon Landfill, before the Hearing Board of the 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Docket No. 2814, the 3 Hearing Board granted the requested variance based on the Notice 4 of Violation issued by the Air Board staff. In conjunction with 5 seeking and obtaining a variance, the BAAQMD staff suggested that 6 we process both the variance application and a permit 7 modification to permanently authorize the use of aggregate base 8paving material. The BAAQMD staff did not contest the BAAQMD 9 Hearing Board's issuance of a variance, and testified that a 10 variance from the permit condition was needed because staff did 11 not construe an aggregate road as constituting a paved road. The 12 Hearing Board granted the variance following a public hearing on 13 November 9, 1993 . The BAAQMD Permit Services Division issued a 14 permit modification to authorize the use of the aggregate base 15 material in January, 1994. 16 b. In addition to the foregoing, the site has 17 received two notices of violation of its Solid Waste Facilities 18 Permit (SWFP) from The Local Enforcement Agency ("LEA") based on 19 the LEA's periodic inspection .of the landfill. One instance 20 concerned the need to complete the exterior security fence along 21 the northern border of the site property, and the other instance 22 concerned a small area near the landfill's active disposal cell 23 (the so-called "working face" of the landfill) where a small 24 amount of paper was observed to be protruding from a previously 25 covered disposal area. Neither of these instances was or is 26 considered to be a serious allegation of violation, and both 27 matters were quickly addressed and resolved. The process for the 28 5. SF1\HH\0110692.ua DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. COX 10/20/94 1 LEA's issuance of a notice of violation is as follows. 2 Following an inspection, the LEA issues an inspection report 3 which may note areas where the LEA believes a violation of Land 4 Use Permit No. 2020-89 has occurred. There is no administrative 5 hearing or procedure involved in such notifications, which have 6 not resulted in any fines or disciplinary action. The purpose of 7 the notice of violation is for the LEA to apprise us of those 8 instances in which they feel a violation of State Minimum 9 Standards has occurred, in order to obtain a timely correction of 10 the problem. 11 6. I do not know of any injuries or damages arising 12 specifically from these violations. 13 7 . In constructing and operating the Keller Canyon 14 Landfill, no manager, employee, or agent has ever intended to 15 injure any person, including the Plaintiffs, in any way. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of 17 the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct 18 and that this declaration was executed on October 1994, in 19 San Francisco, California. 20 21 TIMOTHY COX 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. SF1\HH\0110692.WP DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. COX 10/20/94 1 JOHN E. CARLSON (Ca. Bar #93601) MICHAEL E. MOL LAND (Ca.Bar #111830) 2 HOWARD HOLDERNESS III (Ca. Bar #169814) BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON 3 One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105 4 Telephone: (415) 442-0900 5 THOMAS BRUEN Ca. Bar #93324 SCOTT GORDON (Ca. Bar #99716 6 BRUEN & GORDON 1}90 N. California Blvd., Suite 608 7 Walnut Greek, California 94596 8 Attorneys for Defendants Browning-Ferns, Inc., Browning- 9 Ferns industries of California,Inc. and Keller Canyon Landfill Company 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 13 14 BARBARA AIELLO, BARBARA AIELLO as Case No. C 93-05477 guardian Ad litem for ANTHONY AIELLO, a15 minor, KRISTIN AIEI1�0, a minor, JONATHAN AIELLO a minor; ROBERT 16 MASS; CINDY MAES; CINDY MAES as 1uardian ad l; n for ALYSE MAES, a minor; SUPPLEMF.NX'AL 17 FAY WIM AMS- C.J. W11.i�AMS; JOHN " DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. HOPKINS; ROSK IIOPKINS; ROSE COX IN SUPPORT OF 18 HOPKINS as guardian ad litem for JOHN DEFENDANTS BROWNING- HOPKINS, JR., a minor; allUMPl iER FERRIS, INC.S, BROWNING- . 19 DRUMMOND; JULIA DRUMMOND; JUI JA FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF DRUMMOND asgguuaarrdian ad litem for CALIFORNIA, AND 20 JASON bRUMMOND, a minor; and DAVID M I R ON LANDFILL DRUMMOND, a minor, and JOE BRAZ, CO. INC'S MO'T'ION FOR 21 SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN Plaintiffs,. THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY 22 ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES VS. 23 BROWNING-FERRIS INC, a Delaware Date: February 7, 1995 24 corporation, BROWNING FERRIS Time: 8:30 a.= INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Place: Dept. 6 25 California corporation, and KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY, a 26 California corporation, 27 Defendants. 28 if1XKK\0122WZ.YP ~ +1/20/95 SB/OZ/TO Zoom SMS�32I RISZ }la�fi0?IS OOVT ZVV S $ MST ST I I, TIMOTHY J.'COX, DECLARE THAT. 2 1. I have recently reviewed all retained inspection reports sent to the 3 Keller Canyon Landfill by the Local Enforcement Agency (TEA") which acts pursuant 4 to Solid Waste Facilities Permit No. 07-444032 ("SWFP"). .These reports include both 5 monthly reports and reports-of our 20 investigations conducted pursuant to complaints. I 6 understand reports prior to February 10, 1994, which were retained by the Keller Carryon 7 Laadfill,were produced to plaintiffs on February 25, 1994. True and correct copies of 8 each of these reports are attacbed hereto as Exhibit A and are identified by Bates 9 numbers beginning with BFL _ 10 2. The LEA has sent additional inspection reports. True and correct 11 copies of the reports are attached hereto as Exhibit B. . 12 3. My recent review of all of these inspection reports indicate that the . 13 LEA has noted tedinical violations of the SWFP on seven, rather than three,occasions. 14 The dates of these seven reports are May 13, 1992, (the date the landfill first opened for 15 business), June 22, 1992, August 11, 1992, October 8, 2992, October 26, 1992, February 1, 16 1993, and December 6, 1994. As noted in my previous declarations filed on December 17 21, 1994, and January 18, 1995, these reports note technical violations involving the 18 completion of the landfill's security fence, stains around the portable toilet located. on 19 the working fam the drainage near the landfill's water tank, safety issues involving 20 landfill employees' inhalation of dust, mud being tracked onto Bailey Road, and small 21 amounts of paper protruding from a previously covered disposal area_ Additional 22 technical violations relate to a dust violation on or about the day the landfill opened, the 23 absence of certain posted signs, the grading of the landfill cover being too level to 24 promote proper runoff, and the landWs refusal to except hazardous waste prior to the 25 installation of an effective hazardous material management program.. 26 27 28 Illll TIVIN\0122802.uP 2. 11/20/95 CnOFdi __._ �3N �1SZ H�3HOiifi OOVT Zrt STV$ ZO*,ST fie/OZ/TO 1 4. I do not believe that the LEA considered any of these violations to 2 be serious, and each matter was addressed and resolved. Moreover, I do not know of 3 any injuries or damages arising specifically from these violations. 4 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 6 that,the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 7 , 1995, in Pittsbur& California 8 ,� 9 TIMO OX 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .f1\HH\0122802.4P 3. 17/20/95 VnOp� Dau GOVT ZVV STV. COST S6/OZ/TO 1u TEf �)l 1 JOHN E. CARLSON (Ca. Bar #93601) MICHAEL E. MOLLAND (Ca. Bar #111830) ,)A_IN 1 � 1 2 HOWARD HOLDERNESS III (Ca_ Bar #169814) ca.�✓ BROBECK, P=GER & HARRISON --------------- 3 One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105 4 Telephone: (415) 442-0900 5 THOMAS BRUEN (Ca. Bar #93324) SCOTT GORDON (Ca. Bar #99716) 6 BRUEN & GORDON 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 608 7 Walnut Creek, California 94596 8 Attorneys for Defendants Browning-Ferris, Inc., Browning- 9 Ferris Industries of California, Inc. 10 and Keller Canyon Landfill Company 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 13 14 BARBARA AIELLO, BARBARA AIELLO as . Case No. C 93-05477 guardian ad litem for ANTHONY AIELLO, a 15 minor, KRISTIN AIELLO, a minor, JONATHAN AIELLO, a minor; ROBERT 16 MAES; CINDY MASS; CINDY MAES as guardian ad litem for ALYSE-N AES, a minor; SUPPLEMENTAL 17 FAY WILLIAMS; CJ. WILLIAMS; JOHN DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. HOPKINS; ROSE HOPKINS; ROSE COX IN SUPPORT OF 18 HOPKINS as guardian ad litem for JOHN DEFENDANTS BROWNING- HOPKINS, JR., a minor; CHRISTOPHER FERRIS, INC.'S, BROWNING- 19 DRUMMOND; JULIA DRUMMOND; JULIA FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF DRUMMOND as guardian ad litem for CALIFORNIA, INC.'S AND 20 JASON DRUMMOND, a minor; and DAVID KELLER CANYON LANDFILL DRUMMOND, a minor; and JOE BRAZ, CO. INC.'S MOTION FOR 21 SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN Plaintiffs, THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY 22 ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES VS. 23 BROWNING-FERRIS, INC., a Delaware Date: February 7, 1995 24 corporation, BROWNING FERRIS Time: 8:30 a.m. INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA., INC., a Place: Dept. 6 25 California corporation, and KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY, a 26 California corporation, 27 Defendants. 28 SF1\HH\0122194.WP 01/16/95 1 I, TIMOTHY J. COX, DECLARE THAT: 2 1. I am the manager of the Keller Canyon Landfill site, which is 3 privately owned and operated by Keller Canyon Landfill Co., a subsidiary of Browning- 4 rowning4 Ferris Industries of California, Inc. I have been employed as the Manager of the Keller 5 Canyon Landfill since June, 1991, and am a Vice President of Keller Canyon Landfill 6 Co. In my capacity as Site Manager, I was responsible for, and directly involved in the 7 process of, obtaining the required permits and approvals construction and operation of 8 the Keller Canyon Landfill, and in this capacity, I supervise all persons employed at 9 Keller Canyon Landfill. 10 2. The Keller Canyon Landfill was constructed and now operates 11 pursuant to several permits issued by county, state and federal agencies. These permits 12 include Solid Waste Facilities Permit No. 07-44-0032 ("SWFP"), issued in May, 1992, by 13 the Local Enforcement Agency ("LEA') and approved by the California Integrated 14 Waste Management Board. 15 3.;, Pursuant to the Solid Waste Facilities Permit ("SWFP"), the LEA 16 performs periodic inspections of the landfill. In my declaration which was filed on 17 December 21, 1994, but executed sometime earlier, I noted two occasions on which I 18 recalled receiving notice of violations from the LEA. During December, 1994, our office 19 received one further notice of violation. 20 4. None of these notices of violations noted the migration of dust off- 21 site. In the first notice of violation, which was received in June, 1992, the LEA noted 22 technical violations involving the completion of the landfill's security fence, the portable 23 toilet located on the working face, the drainage near the landfill's water tank, and mud 24 being tracked onto Bailey Road. In the second notice of violation, stemming from an 25 inspection in July, 1992, the LEA noted a small amount of paper protruding from a 26 previously covered disposal area, a gap under the security fence, a safety issue involving 27 landfill employees' use of protective gear to prevent dust inhalation during the 28 operations of earthmovers, and stains around the portable toilet on the working face. 2. \0122194.WP SF1\HH F1\HH95 SUPPLEN ENTAL DECIAR nON OF TIMOTHY J. COX 1 The most recent notice of violation noted a small amount of paper protruding from a 2 covered area. I do not believe that the LEA considered any of these violations to be 3 serious, and each matter was quickly addressed and resolved. Moreover, I do not lmow 4 of any injuries or damages arising specifically from these violations. 5 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 7 that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 8 ( 7 , 1995, in San Francisco, California- 9 -rTmol i ' Ccy 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. SF11HN10122194.WP SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. COX 01/16/95 E 0 i 1 JOHN E. CARLSON (Ca. Bar #93601) MICHAEL E. MOLI.AND (Ca. Bar #111830) 2 HOWARD HOLDERNESS III (Ca. Bar #169814) BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON = 3 One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105 4 Telephone: (415) 442-0900 5 I THOMAS BRUEN (Ca. Bar #93324) SCOTT GORDON (Ca- Bar #99716) 6 BRUEN &: GORDON 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 608 7 Walnut Creek, California 94596 8 Attorneys for Defendants Browning-Ferris, Inc., Brovmmi 9 Ferris Industries of California,tc. 10 and Keller Canyon Landfill Company 11 ( SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR COUNTY OF CON7P A COSTA 13 14 BARBARA AIELLO, BARBARA AIELLO 2s Case No. C 93-05477 guardian.&d litem for ANTHONY AIELLO, a 15 I minor, KRISTIN AIELLO, a minor, } JONATHAN AIELLO, a minor.; ROBERT ) 16 MASS; CINDY MAES; CINDY MAES as guardian ad litem for AZ YSE MAES, a minor; DECLARATION OF GEORGE 17 FAY WIIri.I W-1S; CJ. WILLIAMS; JOHN TCHOBANOGLOUS, Ph.D., IN HOPKINS; ROSE HOPKINS; ROSE SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS 18 HOPKINS as guardian ad litem for JOHN BROWNING-FERRIS, INC.'S, HOPKINS, JR., a minor; CHRISTOPHER BROWNING-FERRIS 19 DRUMMOND; JULIA DRUMMOND; JULIA INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, I DRUMMOND asguardian ad litem for , INC.'S AND KELLER CANYON' f 20 JASON DRUMMOND, a minor; and DAVID LANDFILL COMPANY'S DRUMMOND, a minor; and JOE BRAZ, MOTION FOR SUMMARY 21 JUl7GEMENT, OR IN THE Plaintiffs, ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY 22 ADJUDICATION VS. - 23 BROWNING-FERRIS, INC., a Delaware Date: _an;;aY 24 corporation, BROWNING FERRIS Time: g 3 0 aO, INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Place: Dept. 6 25 California corporation, and KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY, a 26 California corporation, 27 Defendants. 28 SF1\HH\0118190.02f 12/20/94-1 _70 U qao% xDHOifi TT6"c 6'6 STrQ, 22:OT fi6•'0%•'-T 11, GEORGE TCHOBA.NOGLOUS, DECLARE THAT 2 1. 1 make this declaration in support of Defendants Browning-Ferris, Inc.'s, 3 Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc.'s and Keller Canyon Landfill Company's 4 Motion for Su-mar- Judgement, or in the Alter-riative Summary Adjudication. I have 5 personal knowledge of the,facts set forth herein, and if called upon to testffy, I could 6 competently testify to them. 7 2. 1 received a B.S. in Civil Engineering in 1958 from the University of the i 8 Pacific. I went on to obtain a M.S. in Sanitary Engineering from the Unversity of 9 California, Berkeley in 1960, and I completed my formal education when I received my 10 Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Stanford University in 1969. 1 am also a Registered 11 Civil Engineer in California. 12 3. 1 am a Professor of Environmental Engineering in the Department of Civil 13 Engineering at the University of California, Davis. I was hired by the University of 14 California, Davis, as an Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering in 1969 and 15 received tenure in 1976. 1 have taught undergraduate and graduate engineering.courses 16 since 1967, first at Stanford University and, since 1969, at the University California, 17 Davis. My areas of research have included solid waste management including landfill 18 operations, high-solids anaerobic composting, innovative water and wastewater treatment 19 systems, wastewater filtration, small wastewater treatment systems, on-site systems, and 20 aquatic treatment systems. I am the author or co-author of over 250 articles, books, and 21 reports, dealing with the subject areas of solid waste management, environmental 22 engineering and wastewater treatment My textbook, co-authored with H. Theisen and 23 S.A. Vigil, titled "Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and 24 Management Issues," published by McGraw-Hill in 1993 has become the standard tett 25 for courses in Solid Waste Management in most universities that offer such a course. 26 4. 1 have been or, the board of directors and have served as President of the 27 Association of Environmental Engineering Professors. I was a member of the California 28 Waste Management Board from 1988 to 1990. My duties as a member of the California SFI\HH\0118190.02 12/20/94-1 -)(1 fy� "f 1-4 U19Z H')9q0)49 TT67 819 CTNO TC:CT 6 l 1 Waste Management Board included, among other things, the review and approval of ? permits to operate solid waste management facilities (primarily landfills) and the conduct 3 of hearings related to permit �,-iolations for.operating facilities. The Keller Canyen i 4 Landfill was in the permitting process during my tenure on the board. 5 1 5. A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as 6 Exhibit A and is ir±corporated herein by reference. Exhibit A offers a detailed 7 description of my education, honors, employment record, and professional activities. 8 Also attached as part of Exhibit A is partial list of my publications. 9 6. In fornung my opiniors in this matter, I have reriewed the following 10 documents and materials: 11 1. a summary of compliance files from the Regional Water Quality 12 Control Board, San Francisco Region relative to Waste Discharge 13 Requirements Order 91-052, as amended; 14 i 2. the compliance file from the California Integrated Waste 15 Management Board relative to Solid Waste Facilities Permit No. 16 07AA-0032; 17 i 3. the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) i 18 compliance file relative to BAAQM Permit to Operate No. 4243; 19 4. Land Use Permit 2020-89, as amended; 20 5. BAAQMD Permit 4243, as modified; 2 I 6. Solid Waste Facilities Permit 07-AA-0032; 22 7. Waste Discharge Requirements Order 91-052, as amended by State 23 Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB) Order WQ92-06; 24 8. the. Second Amended Complaint filed in this action; 25 9. all Objections and Responses of Plaintiffs to Defendants' First and 26 Second Set of Interrogatories, as well as all Supplemental and. 27 Amended Answers to Interrogatories; 28 I 10. eight videotapes of the landfill (entitled "Keller Canyon Landfill SF1\HH\0118190.02 3. 12!20/94-1 i £pt) j Z3 g19Z uJ3302ifi TT6Z 6-'6 2UZ ZS :eT fib-CZ;ZT 1 i 8/19/92 - 5/31/94", "Frank Aiello's Video", " :eller Canyon Landfill Tape p /4 ,. 2 II Tae 1 and Keller Dump Site 3 18 93 and Of Politics and 3 Greed, Tapes A, B, C"; 4 i 11. 1993 Annual Report: Keller Canyon Landfill Self-Monitoring g 5 Report; 5 12. Findings of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in 7 I support of Keller Canyon Lar_dfiil Project, dated July 24, 1990; 8 13. Keller Canyon Landfill Draft Ewvironmental Impact Report, 9 I Volume 1, dated October, 1989; 10 14. KellIer Canyon Landfill C:ornprehensive Project Description, Sections 11 ( 1-9, dated Febraary, 1989; 12 I 15, feller Canyon Landfill Comprehensive Project Description, Sections 13 I 10-18 and Appendices, dated Febmary, 1989• 14 16. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Contra Costa County Solid 15 I Waste Management Plan/ County General Plan Amendments, dater'. 16 May, 1989; 17 j 17. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: Violations and "Dust" 18 i complaints log, including complaints about Keller Canyon; 19 7. On December 9, 1994, I inspected the Keller Can-von Landfill. I spent 20 I approximately three hours inspecting the landfill and the surrounding area. I inspected 21 the landfill access roads, the area where solid wastes axe currently being landfilled, the f 22 j method of landfilling, the extent of the landfill worldng face, the operation of the landfill 23 equipment, the equipment used for dust control, the facilities used for the control of 24 debris that may become windblown, the stormwater retention basin, the area in the 25 vicinity of the storm water diversion structure, the fire access road leading down to the 26 Hillsdale subdivision. I also drove through the Hillsdale subdivision to see for myself 27 I what effects if any, the landfill operations have on the Hilsdale subdivision. I mspec.ed 28 visually the front of each of the six homes of the plaintiffs that have allegedly been SMN0\0118190.02 4. 12/20/94-1 roo O� U lia9.> 1,G91ONG TT6� 646 2UZ VS :2T f6"oZ `ZT I damaged by those operations. Based on my visual observations, I could not detect any effects of the landfill operation on any of the homes. 3 8. Halving both been a member of the California Waste Management Board 4 1 and a professor in the field of solid waste management for over twenty-five years; 1 am an expert. in the operational standards in the landfill industry in California, the United 6 States, and internationally (Argentina. Brazil, Greece, Colombia, Malaysia, Venezuela). 7 The Kellel- Canyon Landfill is exemplary in its operation. Important operational fearlures 8 include proper record keeping, weighing of the large vehicles used to transport wastes to 9 the site, not allowing small waste collection vehicles used to transport wastes to the site, 10 not allowing small waste collection vehicles and small individual waste haulers to 11 discharge wastes at, the landfill, maintaining proper access roads, watering of the access 12 roads on a prescribed schedule, compacting the wastes to be landfilled against a sloped 13 surface to enhance the degree of compaction, limiting, the size of the working face so as 14 to minimize the opportunity for the release of dust and the blowing of debris, covering 15 the waste at the end of each days' operation to maintain sanitary conditions and to 16 eliminate odors and the harboring of vectors. 17 9. It is my opinion that the Keller Canyon Landfill was designed and 18 1 constructed and is now operated and maintained in a manner that meets or exceeds the 19 standard of care for landfills, with respect to traffic, noise, odor, dust, airborne debris, 20 visual impact, vector control, hazards to health, and property values. Defendants' design ii 21 and constructon and ongoing operation and maintenance of the Keller Canyon Landfill 22 can serve as a model for the solid waste management industry. 23 10. 1 found no evidence to support plaintiffs' allegation that the landfill is a 24 nuisance. The landfill is not designed, constructed, operated, or maintained in such a 25 way as to be injurious to health, or indecent or offensive, to the senses, or an obstruction 26 27 28 SFINHH\0118190.02 5. 12/20/94-1 qo()1Z 11 TT6Z 6-16 STrZ f- T F6;0 T � � f 1 to the free use of property so as to inter-fere vvith.. the comfortable enjoymiant of life or 2 the plaintiffs' property. 3 1 declare under penalty of pedLry under the lazes of the State of California that 4 � the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on, 5 �CC , 1994 at /./4VXr ©rnia. 6 .7 ORkjE TCHOB "0\G .9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SFJ\HH\0118140.02 6. 12/20/94.1 901i('z Zi €€6Z 616 STNS t2 '2€ r6,'Ct Z€ F `y BAY AREA AIR QAY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Policies & ENFORCEMENT DIVISION Procedures COMPLAINT GUIDELINES INDEX Page Section 1. Complaint Dispatch 1 A. Received during Normal Hours 1 B. Received by Answering Service 1 C. Received by the Inspector 2 D. Area Wide Complaint Episodes 2 E. ARB, EPA Referral 2 F. Cancellation 2 G. Complaints from Schools - SB 3205 3 H. Extended Coverage 3 - I. Gasoline Dispensing Facility Complaint 3 Section 2. . Field Investigation 4 A. General 4 B. Inspector Conduct 4 C. Complaint Interview 5 D. Inspection of the Alleged Source 5 E. Complaint Confirmation 6 F. Non-Specific Complaint 6 i Section 3. Violation Notice Criteria 7 A. General 7 B. Public Nuisance 7 C. Public Emergency 7 Section 4. Public Nuisance 8 A. Exceptions 8 1. Other 8 2. Agricultural Operations 8 B. Public Nuisance Criteria 8 1. Annoyance 8 2. Damage 8 C. Chronic, Ongoing Public Nuisance 9 D. Idling Bus Emissions 9 E. Civil Injunction, Abatement 9 F. Complainant Notification 9 Section 5. Odorous Emissions - Regulation 7 10 A. Standards 10 7-301 General Limit Odorous Substances 10 7-302 Limit at or beyond Property Line 10 ( 7-303 Specific Limit Odorous Substances 10 B. Facility Notification 11 C. Sampling Request 11 Complaint Index 7/14/90 C- 1 Section 6. Complaint Report 12 Section 7. Complaint Forms 13 A. Complaint Report 13 B. Complaint Report F-61 C 14 C. Complainant Report 14 List of Figures 15 Figure 1. Complaint Report 15 Figure 2. Complaint Report F-61 C 16 Figure 3. Complainant Report 17 Complaint Index 7/14/90 C- 2 4. PUBLIC NUISANCE Regulation 1 Section 301 California Health and Safety Code Section 41700 " No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. For the purposes of this section, three or more violation notices validly issued in a .30 day period to a facility for public nuisance shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the violations resulted from negligent conduct." A. Exceptions 1. Regulation 1 Section 301 does not apply to: - emissions from agricultural operations - open outdoor fires, recreational fires and outdoor cooking fires - fires used for residential heating or cooking - engines used to propel motor vehicles, as defined by the Vehicle Code - aircraft - refer to Regulation 1 Section 110 for other exclusions 2. Health and Safety Code 41700 does not apply to odors from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals (section 41705) B. Criteria The following criteria must be met in order to establish a public nuisance case: - . 1. "which affects a considerable number of persons or the public " a minimum of five (5) separate, confirmed complaints from five (5) different individuals for a single day of violation must be received and confirmed for the purpose of Regulation 1 Section 301 and Health and Safety Code Section 41700, one household represents one complaint 2. " which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or progeny " - requires receipt of one or more confirmed complaints that a source is discharging air contaminants which are causing injury or damage to a business or property } COmpint Guidlns 7/14/90 8 "damages" refers to quantifiable dollar losses. To prove a public nuisance based on damage to a business, the District requires documentation or proof of financial loss, such as receipts for the clean- up and/or repair costs associated with remedying the alleged nuisance or other documentation of loss of business or revenue C. Chronic, Ongoing Public Nuisances For those sources of odorous emissions which have been determined by the Director of Enforcement to be responsible for a chronic on-going nuisance situation in a given community, face-to-face confirmations of odor complaints will not be required in all cases. For such sources, in the absence of five(5) face-to-face confirmations, a complaint may be confirmed if all the following are satisfied:- 1. An Inspector detects the odors complained of within a reasonable distance of the complainants address within 60 minutes of the time of the complaint. 2. In the opinion of the Inspector, the given complainant has proven to be reliable. A reliable complainant is one where-the specific odor has previously been confirmed with the person on a face-to-face basis. 3. The inspector does confirm that the odors in the community on the day in question are attributable to the given source(s) operations, and l 4. On that day, the inspector does confirm at least two other complaints against a source on a face-to-face basis in the general vicinity of the given complainants address. D. Idling.Bus Emissions. V > Y Any diesel-powered bus while idling shall be•subject to the provisions of CH&SC section 41700,unless the operator can show that the harm caused by the emissions does'not exceed the benefit accrued to bus passengers as a result of idling. Refer CH&SC 42407. E. Civil Injunction, Abatement Order '_ - Persistent public nuisance cases will be initially handled through the office conference procedure and when appropriate also under CH&SC Section 42402. When the problem cannot be resolved at the office conference level, action will be recommended for an Abatement Order under CH&SC Section 42451, or a Civil Injunction under CH&SC Section 41513. Compint Guidit 7/14M 9 F. Complainant Notification In all actions brought before the Hearing Board for the abatement of a public nuisance, complainants involved in the nuisance must be notified of the Hearing by the following procedure: 1. The division Senior Secretary will be advised to prepare a"Notice of Hearing" to the complainants. The Notice of Hearing will contain the following information: a. Name of Respondent and docket number, b. Date and Time of public hearing, c. Location of public hearing, d. District contact in the event there are questions regarding the hearing, and - e. The notice will be reviewed and approved by the APCO/DAPCO prior to distribution to the public. 2. The division Senior Secretary will request a list of complainants from the Enforcement Specialist in charge of records. 3. The division Senior Secretary will be responsible for preparing labels and mailing the notice of hearing as expeditiously,as possible. 5. ODOROUS EMISSIONS Regulation 7 This regulation places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. A. Standards The standards of Regulation 7 are not applicable until the District receives odor complaints from ten or more individual complainants within a 90-day period, alleging that a person has caused odors perceived at or beyond the property line of such person and deemed to be objectionable by the complainants in the normal course of their work, travel or residence. The standards remain in effect for 12 months from the date of the most recent complaint. The limits of this Regulation shall become applicable again when the District receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90-day period. 7-301 General Limit on Odorous Substances - non-specific, any odor - sample diluted with odor-free air (refer Table I, Regulation 7 for dilution rates). Compint Guidins 7/14/90 10 PpY-19-1993 15:12 � BROOM ENFORCEMNT 0 P-01 C2.; «� A4ANAGEMENT DISTRICT May 19. 1995 A=Oan�pb�d spa Cti Tarver ' cowrtA eoam comes Honorable Gayle Bishop . C.:otme Costa County Third District 18 Crow Canyon Court,Suite 120 MAMN COMM Hamm C.C.SMWM6 Jr. San Raman,CA 94583 ftd IBM"w�+►tor�v ,a Dear Supervisor Bishop: ta1tM� _ T The Air Pollution Ccmbrol Officer has asked me to provide you with complaint infomsation regarding the Kollar Canyon landfill Company site at 941 Bailey SAN MAT'O COUNTY Road,Pittsburg,. The anclosW printout lists all complaints(a total of six)received t�t MOW by the Disci betwcen January 1, 1994 and May 17, 1995. Only one of these J complaints was made by the individual of whom you inquired. (4?2&�o You will notice that these complaints arespread over a wide period of time and are relatively small in number. As compared with other landfills in the District, WWWn caffa this volume is extremely low,and would not be indicative of any on going odor or SOM MA courrrY dust condition which would be ofconcern to the District, AM umbomm Panus tsigns If I can be of further service,please do not hesitate to contact mo at(415)749- 4787. Sincerely yours, azmes R.Guthrie Director of Enforcement Awid Enclosure cc:Air Pollution Control Officer 939 ELLIS STREET" SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94109 (40) 771-WW f 'FAX (415)926-9560 MAY-19-19 a 15 13 1D EWORCEMENT Bay Area Ai.rP.02 Quality Management District v;af10 For period (OIJan94 - 17May9S) Pae 1 » COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST << '� Plant Raiier Canyon Landfill Company # 4618 901 Dailey road PittSbUrq. CA 94565 Complainant 28679 Odor "RAN SEWAGE,, Uncnf Rec 07Apr94 (15:06) Contct 07Apr94 IN 19109 Ovod 07Apr94 (14:30) Rapart 08Apr94 Dspd 07Apr94 (15:33) Update 12Apr94. Contact In Person 1552 (16:30) 28680 Odor "rA z)Wzti Uncnf ReO 07Apr94 (15:15) Contct 07Apr94 ID# 19110 acod 07Apr94 ( 910a) Report oeApr94 Depd 07Apr94 (15:34) Update: 12Apr94 Contact In Person 1552 (16:40) 28739 Odor "STI2r tM" Uncnf Rec 11Apr94 (21:29) canto 11Apr94 ID# 19172 occd 12Apr94 (21:29) Report IlApr94 bapd 12Apr94 (22:29) Update 10M8y94 Contact Phone 1563 (22:30) 29369 Duet "EXCESSIVE" Uncnf Rec 27May94 (13:26) Contct 27May94 ID# 19747 Ocod 27Hay94 (12:30) Report 27May94 Dspd 27May94 (14:11) Update 01.Aug94 Contact Phone 1550 (14:29) '2546 Odor '"TERRIBLE', Uncnf Re* 03Apr95 (19:46) Contct b4Apr95 ID# 2396 t]cad 03Apr95 (17:00) Report 04Apr95 Dspd 04AVr95 ( 8:49) Update; Mpr9$ Contact Phone 1552 (15:42) 3003 Odor "PAPLRMILL" Uncnf Rec 02May95 (17:53) Contct 03May95 TD# .2817 Occd 02May95 (12:00) Report 04May95 Dspd 03May95 ( 8:48) Update 16May95 Contact Phone 1552 { 9:25) t4AY-19-1996 15=13 W�IGIhiD ENFORCEMENT P-03 ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District 05/17/95 For period (QjJan94 - 17May95) Page 2 ># COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINOT <K Plant Keller Canyon Landfill Company 4618 901 Bailey Load Pittsburg, CA 94565 Complainant ---------------- ---------------------------------___---___- CCi3np].aints confirmed. . . . . . .0 Unoonfirmed. . . . .6 Pendinq. . . . . . . . .0 Total. . . . . . . . . . .6 Violation Notices Total. . . . . . . . . . .0 Send Output to Screen ($)<default>, or system Printer (P) , or Exit(E) ? TOTAL P.03 0 06/05/95 10:57 12415 442 1010 BROBECK 29TH 11002 ll � 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF TEM STATF OF CAX,I ORNI'AUN 199 STEMEN lou WMR.mu K 3 FOR THE COUN'i Y OF CONTRA COST C(7tt tRA Cd_�74 i.i:� IZ J.a3admumi.Depurr 4 5 BARBARA AM r O; BARBARA AEE LO as Case No. C 93-05477 gaardiaa ad litm for ANTHONY AIELLLO, a 6 minor, KTS'I'Il+j AIFZLO, a minor, JONATHAN AIEL O, a minor; ROBERT JUDGM]F T ON JURY VERDICT 7 MAES; CINDY MAES; CWDY MAES as guardian Ad I=for ALYSE MAPS, a minor, 8 FAY WHII"4S, CJ. WH IdAMS;JOHN HOPENS;ROSE HOPE3NS; ROSE 9 H0PE3NS as guardian-W Iitem for JOHN HOPE NS,JR, a=nor, CMUSTOPHER 10 DRUMMOND;JULIA DRUMMOND; YLTLIA DRUMMOND asad li for 11 JASON DRUMM6ND, anmmor, and DAVID DRU QAOND, a armor, and JOE BRAZ, 12 Plaintii�, 13 VS. 14 BROWNING-FERRM INC., a Delaware 15 corporation; BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA,INC, a 16 California corporation; and KELLER CANYON LANDF11L COMPANY, a 17 California corporation, 18 Defendants. 19 . 20 This action came on regularly for trial on May 2, 1995, in Department 6 of 21 the Superior Court, the Honorable Igawio J Ruvol% Judge preddmr,, the plaintiffs 22 appearing by attorneys Robert J. Nelson and Kimberly W. Pate of IIeft Cabraser & 23 Heimann and the defendants appearing by attorneys Michael E. Arolland and John A. 24 Burke of Brobeck, PWcger & Harrison. 25 A jury of twelve persons, with three alternates, was regularly impaneled 26 and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearmg the evidence and 27 arguments of counsel, the jury was duly insMuxed by the Court and the cause was 28 submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special. issues_ The jury r&1kRNk0142455.W QS/30/45 06/05/95 10:57 V4151442 1010 BROBECK 29111 1M 003 M 1 dehberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict as follows: 2 The jury responded is the negative to the ques#iou, `Does the conduct of 3 the Seller Canyon Landfill constitute a public nuisance?" 4 The jury also responded in the negative to the quesfum `Does the conduct 5 of the Keller Canyon Iandfill cowdtmte a private nuisance to any plaintiff'?" 6 Finally, the kuy responded in the negative to the gwWan, 'Does the 7 conduct of the Keller Canyon LandfLU camstitute a legal trespass as to any plaintiff?" 8 It appearing by reason of said verdict that: defendants are entitled to 9 judgment against the plaices. Plaintiffs shall pay defendan' costs in the amount of 10 $ 11 NOW, 'IFS ZEFORE, ff IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 12 that said plaintiffs take nothing from said defendants_ 13 14 DATED: JUN 15 16 IGNAZIO J.RUVOLO 17 Judge of Ee- or IS . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sf 1\HH\014z455.wP 2. 05/30/95 D5 City ®f Pittsburg Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED June 5, 1995 1 6 1995 The Honorable Gayle Bishop, Chair CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA CO. 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisor Bishop: As a Pittsburg City Council Member and as a member of the Keller Canyon Local Advisory Committee I would like to offer a few comments regarding the Sonoma State University ICPA "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study." I want to preface my remarks by stating that those of us in Pittsburg who have watched Keller's siting and operation unfold, know that this facility has negatively impacted our community. Keller's severest impacts have been, and continue to be, on those in the Hillsdale subdivision and the residents who live along Bailey Road. The City contends that the negative impact of Keller on Pittsburg extends beyond those areas detailed in the study and will offer analysis by Dr. Claude Gruen to support this claim. I want to take a moment to consider the obvious, that a landfill in your backyard is an unwanted neighbor. When you combine special environmental conditions such as world-class winds which pass over a facility that receives contaminated soils, ash, and sludge the negative impact of Keller is clear. I ask you to consider whether Keller would have received much support from Contra Costa voters if they where told that contaminated materials where going to be placed in this wind tunnel so near homes in our community (over 1,300 parcels within 1 1/4 miles of primary waste placement). Some supporters of Keller have stated that any negative effect of the landfill on our community has been caused by our own "bad breath" which has come from the active opposition of resident groups and the City. The strategy of blaming the victim has always been popular as both a legal and political defense of responsibility. I would hope that this Board would not support such a tactic in terms of Keller's impacts on Pittsburg. California Healthy Cities Project National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993 City of New Horizons . Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors June 6, 1995 Page Two By passing Ordinance No. 89-81, which established a mechanism for jurisdictions impacted by a waste disposal facility to request compensation, and by establishing a land use permit condition for Keller to ascertain property valuation impacts the County has shown that it understands that the siting and operation of a landfill is apt to cause negative impacts. It is our impression that the County has been "made whole" for its cost related to the siting of Keller. It is now time to constructively deal with the impacts of this facility on the host community of Pittsburg. Sincerely, Mary rbez Counci ers cc: Members, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Members, Pittsburg City Council Michael Woods, Interim City Manager and City Attorney DATE: REQUEST To SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAIME: ��C'Gt, "��� PHONE: -A6 9-105 AA1 ADDRESS: \ ems' Crry: '1? I am speaking formyself OR organization: Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of V0\4 ion 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: 'a-(-a- (j, � REQUEST TO SPEAK '' ORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. t- PHONE: ADDRESS: ps' D1 01CAU F. 0>I-\)- CITY: C^ I am speaking formyself OR organization: 1�;, Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZkTION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # S . My comments will be: general-,- for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. LJ111 G. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (0 (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Boar/d. NAME: a d, ! L -:Sm PHONE: � /S'd� '%r6- � ADDRESS: J� ! V' 1 ,a✓ CrIY: I am speaking formyself AOR organization: Check one: (NAME OF ORQANILNTION) 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # S� / My comments will be: general for against y I wish to speak on the subj ect of '; I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. _ NkmE:_�4)�, AW-.4,n PHONE: ADDRESS: 02P I:�W CTIY: I am speaking for elf OR organization: Cd 3� 007P: Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION) V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # h� My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. iJt11 L. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. p NAME: Cl- A PHONE: LJ/.S ADDRESS: 1 Z N G V�`4'0 CITY: .SA 1y F4,4 A), C,4 I am speaking formyself OR organization: '7 V Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION . I wish to speak on Agenda Item # _. My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. I