Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07161996 - D4 f 4 r ( DA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 16, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: (See below for vote) ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation And Property Valuation The Board considered the recommendations presented by Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, and Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, regarding the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees and property valuation as set forth in the report to the Board, copy attached and included as a part of this document. The following persons spoke: Nancy Parent, 64 EAth Street, Pittsburg; Butch Hansen, member, Chamber of Commerce, 298 Heron Drive, Pittsburg; Renee' Goldstein, representing Gary Yancey, Contra Costa County District Attorney's office; Ben Johnson, American Legion, 1120 Laurel, Pittsburg; Kathy Smith, General Services and John Cullen, Social Services; Frank Aiello, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg; Mary Erbez, 163 Redondo Drive, Pittsburg; George Delacruz, member, Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council, 3569 Sharon Court, Bay Point; A.B. McNabney, Delta Environment Science Center and Mt. Diablo Audubon Society, 1161 Leisure Town #7, Walnut Creek; Janess Hanson, Sierra Club member, 431 Levee Road, Bay Point; Cyndee Nieves, Family Stress Center, 2086 Commerce Avenue, Concord; Stephen Barbata, Delta Environment Science Center, 86 Orchard Estates Drive, Walnut Creek; Patti Lambert, Ambrose Recreation and Park District, 3105 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point; Lance Dow, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg; Joe Canciamilla, Mayor, City of Pittsburg, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg; Ted Radke, East Bay Regional Park District, 834 Carquinez, Martinez•, 1 t t -D-q Rosemary Cameron, East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland; Jeff Kolin, City Manager, City of Pittsburg, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg; Michael Woods, City Attorney, City of Pittsburg, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg; Henry Clark, General Manager, Local #1, 5034 Blum Road, Martinez. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board took the following actions: 1. RESOLVED to committ $1.25 per ton for the City of Pittsburg's Host Mitigation Fees relative to the Keller Canyon Landfill beginning January 1,1997; 2. DIRECTED that the Reserve Funds be used for the City of Pittsburg's Mitigation Fees from January 1, 1997 to July 1, 1997; 3. DIRECTED that to comply with the Countywide Solid Waste Plan, the City of Pittsburg's permit portion of the transfer station be completed within 35 days; 4. DIRECTED that within 35 days negotiations begin for a good neighbor agreement between the County, Browning Ferris Industries and the City of Pittsburg to include resolving issues dealing with air quality, the limitation and types of waste acceptable at the Keller Canyon Landfill, and the valuation issue, and that the subject be revisited in November 1996; 5. DIRECTED the funds (in Item 15 of Exhibit A) in the County Mitigation Program be utilized as Bay Point's Host Mitigation Fees; 6. DIRECTED that the Finance Committee and the East Bay Regional Park District Liaison jointly review future programs and areas of service delivery utilization, with a report to the Board of Supervisors on August 13, 1996. PASSED by the Board on July 16, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: Supervisor Bishop ABSENTJABSTAIN: None THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERED that the Finance Committee and Supervisor Torlakson meet with the City of Pittsburg and Browning Ferris Industries for further discussion; and continued to September 1996 the valuation issues, with a possible report to the Board on August 13, 1996. PASSED by the Board on July 16, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: None ABSENTIABSTAIN: None I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: T u 1 y 16 , 1 9()6 PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Superviso id County Administrator L, A By Barbara S. ant uty Clerk c.c.Supervisors County Administrator Director,GMEDA County Counsel Community Development City of Pittsburg 2 J VI Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . -- Costa FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson County DATE: July 16, 1996 SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO RESOLVE THE MATTER OF THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL MITIGATION FUNDS AND THE PROPERTY VALUE COMPENSATION PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: I offer for consideration the following recommendations which were part of the recommendations of my June 4, 1996, report to the Board and the Finance Committee report of June 25, 1996: (1) Commit $1.25 of Mitigation Fees/Revenues to the City of Pittsburg starting in FY 1997-1998. This share will come from the current$3 per ton set aside for Keller Canyon Landfill mitigation programs. (2) Commit an additional $.50 for three years to make up for revenue the City of Pittsburg had anticipated from negotiations in the upcoming Fiscal Year 1996-1997. Start the first$.50 payment in this coming Fiscal Year 1996-1997. (3) Based on Sonoma State University Study unanimously agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors in March 1992 and unanimously accepted by the Board of Supervisors in October 1995, the Board of Supervisors makes a finding that a Compensation Program is NECESSARY AND JUSTIFIED. This finding should be made in context of Land Use Permit Condition 35.3, which directs the Board to conduct a study and then consider adoption of a compensation program. (4) Further, the Board of Supervisors establishes the method of payment to be made directly by BFI/ Keller Landfill (see #4, Page 2 of the June 25th Finance Committee Report). This direction is also made in the context of Condition 35.3 which directs the Board as follows: "The Landfill developer shall fund it(the study results identifying losses and reductions) in the manner specified by the Board" (5) Direct the Community Development Department, County Counsel, and the County Administrator's Office to finalize details of the Compensation Program and return to the Board on August 6th for final adoption of a payout plan -- again consistent with the direction in Condition 35.3. (See #3 of June 25th Finance Committee Report, Page 2, last paragraph.) The property owners, the City of Pittsburg and BFI are all to be thoroughly involved in the discussion leading to the staff report detailing the Compensation Program. A major goal of this direction is to implement the payout plan as soon as possible, and no later than September 1996. (See Page 2, last paragraph of June 25th Finance Committee Report.) An option should be considered of having this Compensation Program also in the context of a Good Neighbor Agreement. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT- X ES SIGNATURE: lox. / RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED: OTHER: VOTE OF SUPERV S. UNANIMOUS(ABSENT, ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT:- ABSTAIN• HEREBY CERTI AT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY NAC TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE _ D OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR,6 ERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND C ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY a Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation and Property Compensation Program July 16, 1996 Page TWO (6) Take other actions as appropriate or as recommended by County Counsel on how to implement the intentions spelled out in LUP Condition 35.3 and in the quickest way possible to implement the payment program for compensation. (7) I agree with the Board of Supervisors that it is important to notify current and potential recipients of funds about the possible reduction in the Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Program as currently administered by the county. The following recommendations are my priorities for reductions that would occur in Fiscal Year 1997-98. I am prepared to identify the reductions at this time if that is the desire of the majority of the Board, however, I also believe that the new Board may want to hold a hearing in six months or a year from now and make these decisions based on available information and resources in different funding areas at that time. Nonetheless, the following is my recommendation for reductions in the Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Program: Mitigation Department Program Amount of Catego!y* Reduction 2. Open Space Community Development Wetlands Mitigation $ 15,000 5. Open Space Community Development Biodiversity 20,000 6. Open Space Agriculture Rodent Thistle 60,000 7. Open Space General Services Route Planting 100,000 8. Transportation General Services Roadside Litter 140,000 Clean-up 10. Transportation County Administration/Board Roadside Hazardous Clean-up 12,000 11. Transportation County Administration/Board Roadside Litter Clean-up(Fees) 22,000 12. Community General Services Property Clean-up 25,000 16. Community Library Pittsburg Library 32,000 TOTAL REDUCTIONS $ 426,000 *Numbering of category items corresponds with chart entitled,"Program Reduction Plan by Per Ton Charge Increments"attached to July 9, 1996 Board Order (8) While the Board of Supervisors did away with the three original categories for mitigation and converted these to a general mitigation account reserves of $347,075 (unallocated) in the former "Open Space" category and possibly as much as $200,000 (unallocated) in the former "Transportation" category, I recommend no decision be made in allocating these funds until the exact method is determined for payment to property owners for property value losses or compensation. These funds could possibly be utilized in some way to help secure the "Good Neighbor Agreement" or in some way to resolve outstanding issues between the City of Pittsburg,BFI and Contra Costa County. TT:gro SHORT DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION PROGRAMS I East Bay Regional Park District receives a County work crew to provide trail clean up in the East County area. (Contact: Martin Vitz) 2. The Conservation Division in Community Development is continuing its program of wetlands mitigation banking in East County. (Contact: Roberta Goulart) 3. This item provides ftinding as a match with several other agencies to develop and operate the Delta Enviroriniental Center to monitor effects and impacts on Delta habitat. (Contact: Steering Committee) 4. This item IS III Conjunction With the Delta Environmental Center to monitor the health and viability of Delta birds. (Contact: Al McNabney) 5. The Conservation Division is conducting studies and plans to coordinate mitigation of habitat in the Bailey-Kirker-Black Diamond-Mt. Diablo corridor area. (Contact: Steering Committee) 6. The Department of Agriculture receives $60,000 for rodent/thistle control which is the top agriculture priority for maintenance of open space. (Contact: Ag Commissioner) 7. General Services has a crew and provides tree planting along haul routes within District 5. (Contact: Bay Point MAC) 8. General Services operates two crews to clean up road side dumping and litter-. (Contact: Bay Point MAC) 9. Sheriff provides increased enforcement of routes in the Bay Point area to prevent illegal durriping. (Contact: Sheriff Rupf) 10. County clean up activities for hazardous materials are coordinated with, this fee. (Contact: Envirom-nental Health) 11. Roadside litter clean up is coordinated with this fee. (Contact: John Gregory) 121. Private properties in the Bay Point area are cleaned tip and owners are billed, though recovery has been low. (Contact: Environmental Health) 13. Bay Point receives resident Deputy services with this fee. (Contact: Sheriff Rupf) 14. Code enforcement is coordinated through the County Administrator's office with this fee. (Contact: John Gregory) 15. A series of non-profit groups receives ftinding with this fee. (See attached list.) 16. Pittsburg Library receives support with this fee which enables it to extend hours of operation. (Contact: Anile Marie Gold) VA:dg kclficesA7 (7/16/96) Or_aanization• Amount: For: 1. Lions Blind Center $51000* Culinary rehabilitation. 2. Pitts. Nat. Little League $2, 000 Youth baseball equipment & field repairs. 3. Family & Community Svcs. $10, 000 Meals for the elderly. 4. Soroptimist Int. , Pitts. $5, 000 Childrens' Party Castle construction expenses. 5. AIDS Proj : Of Contra Costa $5, 000 Case management services. 6. Family Stress Center $5, 000 Human svcs. to Latino families.! 7. Battered Womens' Alternatives $5, 000 Youth abuse prevntn. counseling. 8. CCC Comm. Svcs. Dept. (5Cs) $13, 000* Volunteer work program. 9. Center for Human Development $2, 000 Teen/Parent counseling. 10. Ambrose Rec. & Park District $8, 000* Electronic message display syst. 11. Bay Point Municipal Adv. Counc. $6,700* Administrative expenses. 12. Conflict Resolution Panels #2, 000 Community volunteers mediation training. 13. West Pitts. Youth Football $7,500* Youth football equip. & exps. 14. East Co. Boys' & Girls' Club $3, 000* Staff salaries. 15. American Legion Post #151 $35, 000 Facility renovations. 16. St. Vincent DePaul $7, 500 Youth employment trng. program. 17. CCC District Attorney' s Ofc. $25, 000 East Co. domestic violence prosecution. 18. Crisis & Suicide, Intervention $4, 800 Homeless emerg. shelter vouchers. 19. Contra Costa Food Bank $10, 000 Food for needy families/indvs.,:' 20. Pitts. High Sch. Marching Band $5, 000 Operating expenses. 21. Delta 2000 $7, 500 At-risk youth educ. workshops. 22. Loaves & Fishes of Contra Costa $5, 000 Dining room operating expenses. $180, 000 * Zhis recommendation authorizes the execution of contracts in order to implement each of the funded projects/programs. 'r. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR-GMEDA DATE: JULY 9, 1996 SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL MITIGATION AND PROPERTY VALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Acknowledge programs currently authorized by the Board of Supervisors for funding from Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees. (See Exhibit A) 2. Identify possible diversion of Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees to the City of Pittsburg. Consider a cap on the amount of mitigation fees to Pittsburg with payments to begin July 1, 1997. 3. Identify programs that will no longer receive finding in the future and direct staff to give adequate notice of program termination. (See Fiscal Impact) 4. Identify amount of property valuation that could be available for property owners in the vicinity of the Keller Canyon Landfill. Consider a cap of$1.5 million. 5. Identify sources of funding,including mitigation funds that could be available,to assist with payment of property valuation payments to residents surrounding the Keller Canyon Landfill. Designate County to pay 1/3,BFI to pay 1/3,and Pittsburg to pay 1/3 from mitigation fees. 6. Consider share allocations following completion of study currently underway to determine specific affect on properties. 7. Request BFI establish a trust fund to expedite payment. 8. Direct staff to utilize Agricultural Trust Fund and unexpended mitigation appropriations to satisfy the County's share of property valuation contributions. 9. Develop two-tier approach to claim request: short form and extended justified damage. 10. Determine whether non-mandated air quality monitoring will be conducted at landfill with cost to be underwritten by Pittsburg and BFI. 11. Request BFI to enter into a good neighbor agreement to prevent disposal of items undesirable to Pittsburg to be placed in the landfill. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE: �J _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE _OTHER SI{:NATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTIIL'R VOTE OF SUPERVISORS \� ` I IIERL13Y CERTIFY THAT'T IS A TRUE AND C'OKKEC"T COPY OF AN ACTIjK'KEN AND ENTERED ON 'THE _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) MINUTES OF TIkE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON T111? �.` DATE SILO AYES: NOES: .� ESTF.D ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VA:dg 1 PIIIL>BATCIIELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF ke117-9.bo SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contact: Vail Alexceff(646-1620) c: County Administrator BY I)EI'll'1'1' County Counsel Conmaunity Develo t Keller Canyon Landfill July 9, 1996 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: When Keller Canyon Landfill was approved, the State Solid Waste Management Board had promulgated a system of exclusive monopolistic opportunities for landfills. Court decisions and subsequent legislation have changed the monopoly and related economics. Conditions placed on BFI become conditions self-imposed upon the County. The original franchise and mitigation fees of$10 per ton are now $6 per ton and may fall to $5 per ton. Programs put into place ul 1992 will be eliminated. Reserves will be spent and new expenditures may be created for the LEA. Mitigation Fees: Exhibit A provides the listing of mitigation expenditures. They have been placed in order (one that can be altered, though it is important to have a starting point). To provide $1.00 per ton, items 1 through 7 will be eliminated for fiscal 97-98. They include Trail Maintenance, Wetland Mitigation, Delta Enviromnental Center, Audobon, Biodiversity, Rodent Thistle Control, and Route Planting. To provide an additional $.25, Roadside Litter Cleanup will.be cut and half of Route Enforcement by the Sheriff's office will be cut. It is possible to provide a different list, but the decision of who to cut should occur with the transfer of fiends. Tine long-- term estimate of transfer of fiords (50 years) will be $26 million at $1 .00 per ton and, $37 million at $1.25 per ton, assuming a 3% growth rate. Property Valuation: The source of funds for property valuation initially proposed to be pass through. Since all jurisdictions and BFI will oppose pass through, the likelihood of pass through is not certain. Changes in the franchise agreement may have arguably altered the condition placed on BFI. Challenges to the property valuation study may affect the ability to collect from BFI. Therefore, if a compensation is to be announced, the County must put up a large share of the fiords and hopefully, gain the willing cooperation of BFI for the remainder. Sources available include providing tine agriculture trust fund and unexpended prior allocations amounting to $500,000. With the loss iii mitigation revenue, it is unlikely that these fields will be replaced internally and it cannot be assumed that additional revenue will be forthcoming either through pass through or additional revenue from BFI. Air Quality Monitoring: There is no use pen-nit condition for air quality monitoring equipment and Keller. Canyon Landfill has not prompted justification through the BAAQMD or the LEA. This is entirely based on a request from Pittsburg. ` The cost to establish air quality monitoring is estimated at $250,000. With no other proposal, it is assumed that the LEA may be required to construct the equipment and maintain it. 41 1 - ± DO Keller Canyon Landfill July 9, 1996 Page 3 .� BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The issues of share of mitigation revenue with the City of Pittsburg and disposition of property valuation have received increasing attention since the opening of the Keller Canyon Landfill. The questions of who should pay and how much, are a regular source of contention, as are the conditions under which the fiords should be provided and the effect of changes it landfill economics. Previous expectation of pass through has been greatly diminished. Most of the recommendations must be fiinded by the County. The following issues have been under negotiation between BFI and Pittsburg: 1. Amount and extent of property valuation. 2. Good neighbor agreement to prevent items objected to by Pittsburg from being placed in the landfill. 3. Establislunent of air quality monitoring equipment and program operation. These negotiations have stalled in anticipation of whether Pittsburg Transfer Station disposal would use Keller or be transported to Solano County. BFI has tentatively agreed with these items pending increased cooperation with Pittsburg. Impatient with this process, the County is seeking to place the negotiation items within the County's discretion. The County cannot force BFI to enter into.a good neighbor agreement or to install unconditioned air quality monitoring equipment. Without BFI's cooperation, the cost of equipment installation and maintenance would become the responsibility of the County LEA, with no source of reimbursement. JUL-16-1996 11:56 5104278142 P.01/07 ,'---T-- om Torlakson 300 East Leland Road supervisor, District Five Suite 100 Contra Costa County s Pittsburg,California 94565-4961 Board of Supervisors (510)427-8138 .......... RECEIVED July 16, 1996 SAME KELLER CANYON'S OBLIGATION TO FUND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY INTRODUCTION Keifer Canyon Landfill must pay the full cost of the required Property Value Compensation Program for the benefit of Pittsburg residents who suffered losses from the development and operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill. Keller Canyon has apparently argued that Keller Canyon's duty to fund and implement the program is limited to its obligation to collect a 25% Surcharge on its base rate. In fact, the duty of Keller Canyon to pay homeowners is in addition to its obligation to collect the 25% Surcharge, Keller Canyon is obligated to implement, at its own cost, a Property Value Compensation Program approved by the County. The Franchise Agreement between Keller Canyon and the County does not and cannot legally limit the duties of Keller Canyon under its LUP, including the duty to fund the implementation of the program, The County is entitled both to receive the 25% Surcharge from Keller Canyon and require Keller Canyon to fund the Property Value Compensation Program from Keller Canyon's resources without impacting the County's fees. JUL-16-1996 11:59 5104278142 P.02/07 The Ob&ation See Section 35.3 of Land Use Permit 2020-89, Conditions of Approval, Keller Canyon Landfill. The language of the Land Use Permit (LUP) is clear in establishing the financial obligation of the Landfill operator for paying homeowners for the adverse impacts of the Landfill on their property. Keller Canyon, in executing the LUP, has granted to Pittsburg residents this important right. The Board of Supervisors need only establish a mechanism for establishing losses and then direct Keller Canyon to pay. If Keller Canyon fails to pay as directed, then Keller Canyon risks the loss of its LUP. See the "Generic Conditions" for landfills which I wrote in March 1990. This Board adopted document clearly shows the genesis of the separate programs -- the mitigation programs for the community and environment are separate from the Property Valuation and Compensation Programs. Transcripts of Board discussions and motions during 1994 demonstrate that the Board intended to keep the programs separate and no actions were taken to relieve Keller Canyon of its obligation to fund the compensation program. The Alleged LQoj2hole Keller Canyon is apparently trying to use an argument that its obligation under LUP Section 35.3 is really an illusion and involves no real financial responsibility on the part of Keller Canyon. Their argument is that the amended Franchise Agreement between the County and Keller Canyon contains a limitation on Keller Canyon's liability for implementation of Section 35.3 and all of the other provisions of the LUP. 5104278142 P-03/0- Keller Canyon points to Section 6.4.a. of the amended Franchise Agreement which provides: Funding of Programs from Surcharge. During the period covered by the above initial Surcharge, costs of County programs (required or authorized by the Use Permit or this Agreement) shall be funded from said combined 25% Transfer Station and Landfill Surcharge. In addition, any household hazardous waste fee imposed by the Board pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 43213 shall be collected (deducted) from said combined Surcharge amount. The County Never Aareed to Let Keller Canyon Off the Hook Keller Canyon might argue that the Property Value Compensation Program is a "County program" so its obligation to fund the program is limited and is covered by the 25% Surcharge. Such a claim by Keller Canyon that Section 6.4.a. of the Franchise Agreement has gotten it off the hook from its LUP obligation to pay Pittsburg residents for the losses they suffered with the development of the landfill is false. If that were true, by Keller Canyon's logic, Keller Canyon would be relieved from virtually all of the safety, environmental and mitigation obligations of the LUP by virtue of Section 6.4.a. Keller Canyon's argument is factually, legally and ethically flawed. J VL 1V 1JJV iL'VV V-V---V+-.- •V,• v 4 6.4.a. is-Lim fted to Pro-grams Operated-by the-Coun The purpose of Section 6.4.a. was to limit the amount that the County would charge Keller Canyon for the County's own programs such as the Agricultural Trust Fund, Open Space and Transportation mitigation, and the funding of Community and traditional mitigation payments which are paid with funds received by the County from the Surcharge. The Property Value Compensation Program will not involve payments to or by "the County." Rather Keller Canyon will be obligated to pay impacted homeowners directly for their losses as established by the study to'be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The expense of implementation of the Property Value Study will be just like Keller Canyon's expenses in funding its other landfill operations, many of which are mandated "programs" under the LUP. If the County had agreed to let Keller Canyon off the hook on its LUP program obligations, the Franchise Agreement would be void as an end run around the CEQA process used in permitting Keller Canyon in the first place. The numerous and extensive public hearings provided testimony and critically important information that led to the adoption of the "Generic Landfill conditions" and the specific conditions of the Land Use Permit for each approved site. If we are to believe that language written by BFI and inserted in the revised Franchise Agreement was to be applicable to all "programs" associated with Keller Canyon Landfill, we would have to be prepared for not only the Value Loss Compensation Program coming under the 25%, but also numerous LUP required programs which cost additional millions of dollars. There are over 35 references to "programs" on the LUP which must be operated by Keller Canyon Landfill in order for it to maintain its permit. These include recycling programs JUL716-1996 12 00 5104278142 P.05i07 ti -P,q (Sec. 5.5), load inspection programs (Sec. 7.1), a mitigation monitoring program (Sec. 19.6), a slope monitoring program (Sec. 16.6), a ground water monitoring program (Sec. 17.5), a leachate management program (Sec. 17.10, a household hazardous waste program (Sec. 19.3), a. noise monitoring program (Sec. 21.2), a landscape maintenance program (Sec. 22.2), an employee training program (Sec. 26.4), an equipment maintenance program (Sec. 26.8), a gas migration monitoring program (Sec. 26.9), a fire protection program (30.6), a resource recovery program (Sec. 31.2), a material recovery program (Sec. 31.4), a composting program (Sec. 31.5), a wood chipping program (Sec. 31.6), and many other programs. Are these "county programs" to be funded from the 25% Surcharges' Of course not! If this logic were pursued, the 25% would be quickly taken up fulfilling just a few of these programs — leaving nothing for the $3 set aside fund for Keller Canyon mitigation programs. (now approximately $1 million per year) or for the County General Fund (approximately another$1 million per year). Keller Canyon's apparent position on the meaning of Section 6.4.a. of the Franchise Agreement would give Keller Canyon the right to discontinue almost all of the above programs since the 25% Surcharge is not sufficient to meet their costs. Ultimately, therefore, if Keller Canyon succeeds in its argument on the Property Value Compensation Program, it will be positioned to demand relief from all of its operational, mitigation, environmental and safety program financial obligations under the SUP. Keller Canyon's argument appears to be that by agreeing to charge its customers a fee equal to 25% of its Base Rate and pay that fee over to the County, it has no additional financial obligations for any County required programs. JUL-16-1996 12:01 5104278142 P.06i07 6 Il.q The combined cost of operating all of the "programs" required under the LUP exceeds the 25% Surcharge even before the deduction of mitigation funds for Host Community Open Space and Transportation purposes. This, again, is an illogical and illegal self-serving interpretation. Summary The county and the Board of Supervisors has a duty to fulfill our commitments to the public in the policies and requirements we adopted during the long public process of siting and implementing new landfills. We must stand firm behind our "word" and keep our commitments to the public and to Keller Canyon neighbors. Keller Canyon cannot argue that the Franchise Agreement is an enforceable limitation on its obligation to meet its requirement under the LUP since the obligations of Keller Canyon under the LUP are, by and large, mitigation of environmental impacts addressed in the EIR and required as part of the CEQA process of permitting the facility. Section 6.4.a. of the Franchise Agreement does not limit the obligation of Keller Canyon to pay the cost of meeting the responsibilities that it voluntarily accepted when the landfill was permitted. Keller Canyon knew the risks of siting next to homes and in the backyard of a city— and it accepted these risks. From the origins of the policy and conditions adopted by the Board of Supervisors in the Generic Conditions to the existing Land Use Permit language, Contra Costa County has been consistent and clear in requiring Keller Canyon to pay out a separate Compensation for value loss once a study and its findings are adopted by the Board of Supervisors. JUL'16-1556 32 02 5104278142 P.07r07 ,1 7 /q This compensation program and its funding has always been separate from the other mitigation and from the Surcharge that was adopted as a substitute for some of the mitigation programs. The Board of Supervisors cannot allow Keller Canyon to ignore its obligations. Keller Canyon must deliver on the clear and right commitment to compensate for Property Value Loss that these residents have suffered. We should not delay further. It Is time for the Board of Supervisors to act! TOTAL P.07 RECEIVED F JUL 2 21996 City ®f Pittsburg CLERK BOARD OF SUPERNSAM Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 1 CONTRACOSTA22 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR July 18, 1996 The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94565 Dear Supervisor Smith and Members of the Board: On behalf of the City Council, and the entire community, I want to acknowledge our appreciation for your actions Tuesday relative to initiating compensation to the City of Pittsburg for impacts associated with Keller Canyon Landfill. The funds which you have allocated to the City will make a significant difference in our ability to fund projects for the betterment of the community. The Board's recognition that the Landfill has resulted in negative economic consequences for the City, and its willingness to take steps to mitigate this situation represents an extremely positive step toward normalizing relations between our agencies in matters pertaining to solid waste. The City of Pittsburg looks forward to building on this foundation in working to address other issues which may exist now, or in the future, related to solid waste management. Toward this end, we look forward to the County's involvement, as may be appropriate, in the development and implementation of a Good Neighbor Agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries. Likewise, we look forward to working with the Board in facilitating an equitable resolution to the issue of compensating property owners near Keller who have been adversely affected by the Landfill. ` Again, thank you very much for your favorable consideration. Si rely, Jsep anciamilla ayor cc: City Council Jeffrey C. Kohn, City California Healthy Cities Project National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award- 1993 ' ,L Q, City of New Horizons el 9 City of ttsbulr P Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 July 16, 1996 E=1 (�•The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisor Smith and Members of the Board: As you might I expect, I have very strong feelings related to Keller Canyon Landfill and the issue of compensating the City of Pittsburg for its negative impacts and associated economic losses. Although I am not able to appear before you in person this afternoon to present my testimony, I do appreciate the opportunity to put some of my thoughts in writing for your consideration. I will not dwell on the facts that: • Keller Canyon Landfill was located on our border over the City's strenuous objections; • At the time, both the County and the all of cities agreed that the City, and residents living in the vicinity of the dump, would be compensated for its negative impacts; • Pittsburg is undoubtedly the Landfill's "Host Community," and bears the brunt of its impacts; or, • To date, neither the City nor residents of the Hillsdale neighborhood have received so much as one cent from the millions of dollars that have been generated from Landfill Mitigation Fees. I believe that these issues and others have been well documented, and will undoubtedly be brought to your attention again today. Furthermore, I believe that dus Board has already acknowledged that the City has been economically damaged by the Landfill and deserves to be compensated for this damage as promised. However, I am concerned by comments made at your last meeting that would suggest that Pittsburg's receipt of the $1.25 per ton be tied to specific conditions regarding its use. This is particularly disturbing given that the City is not seeking the entire $3 per ton currently collected as Landfill Mitigation Fees, nor our we seeking the $2 per ton originally assigned for Host Community Mitigation. Furthermore, it would appear conditions such as those being discussed run contrary to the County's own use of fees from Keller Canyon Landfill. To the extent that the County fulfills its promises to the City and its residents, and provides the compensation which was promised at the time the Landfill was sited, we are largely unconcerned with how the County spends the rest of the fees it collects from the dump. However, California Healthy Cities Project National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993 City of New Horizons . Super�A;or'Jeff Smith July 16, 1996 Page Two to the extent that the County insists on conditioning Pittsburg's receipt and use of Host Community compensation we feel compelled to point out that: • Two dollars of the current $5 per ton Surcharge goes directly into the County's General Fund as a Franchise Fee. County staff does not even recognize this as Landfill revenue for the purposes of considering issues.like Host Community Mitigation, and the County's use of these funds has never been questioned. • Over $800,000 of the revenue collected from the current $3 per ton Landfill Mitigation Fee is distributed to County Departments to fund programs which, regardless of their worthiness, would otherwise have to rely on General Fund monies for their'support. Outside of occasionally questioning "the nexus to fuiiuing activities like expansion of the Byron airport, the County's use of these fees remains unchallenged; except to the extent that these are the same monies supposedly earmarked for Host Community Mitigation. To the extent that the City only.seeks $1.25 per ton from these fees, the County will retain $1.75 per ton to spend however it-sees fit. • The County collects a $1 per tone LEA Fee on solid waste disposed of at Keller. Yet, the correlation between this fee and the provision of County LEA services in those areas under its jurisdiction has not been examined in any meaningful way since the fee was established. Furthermore, to the extent that the County LEA relies on Keller almost exclusively for its funding, the LEA's response to concerns and issues raised by the City and residents living in shadow of Keller Canyon remains sluggish at best. As I said, the manner in which the County expends its share of Landfill fees is not an issue we want to raise except to the extent that County staff seems all too willing to impose conditions on money that the City has yet to receive but unquestionably entitled to. I urge you to unconditionally-support Supervisor Torlakson's recommendation for compensating the City. Doing so will allow us all to close this unnecessarily strained chapter in the history of relations between our agencies. Sincerely, Lori Anzini Councilmember cc: Mayor and City Council Board of Supervisors Jeffrey C. Kolin, City Manager Michael R. Woods, City Attorney `� ,-Nt }`RECEIVED yPoin1.1 unicipalAdv soryCoun:cil r E w JUL 11 1 .96 3105, Wrllow-hssRoad CLERK BOARD OF SUMBayPotnt CA 94565 ella.�onimuni� rY From the:(Office of ' George DelaCMz Councilman Res:'45d'3373 z Members, Contra!, Costa County Board of Supervisors' , July A,6' -1996 w I -must- address':the -Xel.' Canyon Host Mi-ti.gation:Fees' and;, their., impact on: Bay;.Point Wand Pittsburg The portion, of, these` : . fees that• have' -accrued;to. Bay. Point- have .provided' much needed police':aervices trail: maintenance and road cleanup, ,.in addition ` to" tree planting on. our roadways :and furiding; for `our MAC have'appreciated :what 'we have- r=ece ,ved .arid have uti lized jthes'e ".grants•-very: effectively: But we understand that ;the Cty..of Pit tsbur has not- received any mitigation up to this timeIri g all fairne's`s, °Pittsburg., must' now 'receive- its: port'ion',of these.A ' fees We' ali`: know,;thereason Pittsburg: has refused tYese `fees'+ up , to now . the :;lawsuits `•being, pursued�,,aga: nst -BFI But,,` now is the time to put these ,l'itigat'ions .as.ide ,and get on with business y'. The 'City:of •P-ittsburg Is', of course; tYie' most impacted by:' this landfill, >.Yiowever,- -Bay ;Point is'';also affected to .a large degree. I ,.believe `the recommendations g put forth b Supervisor,, Y Torlakson.are immnent'ay fair and 'spread the ` reductions in a way we"',can.'live with if"accepted;:,as °submitted However, I:.would request, grant, applicants; must be; community based-groups; :and to from Pittsburg; T4,lBay; Point only BFI has enjoyed the fruits".of this landfill -and (must :, continue mitigating.. atleast: the 2 Bost .communities (Bay Point and P-i.ttsburg) n :perpetui,ty. It is; apparent. that BFI will cry poor ,moutli:;and claim you, must do-'away`with these 'fees,.,but `:please don' t ,be ,fooled.-by,'aheir. ;fallacious .arguments. BFI has . reque`sted al-i" manner -of rates for:-,d ' ing'.from.,'$2A :,,to $90 -per,- on I T: submit., they:, are making money with the rate ,they 'now charge.. Now, I, must address, a very --important- portion 'of ' Supervisor' r Torla,sons, recommendat on, The. mi_tigation for the :homeowriers. n the .immed' ate area of the :iandfi,11- must=be' separated from,-the.-' " host mitigation: This `mitigation. is :certa nly. going to end. up,'in ene.: ess. ,litigation It =miti;gati_on :for.Pittsburg and `Bay Point is attached to` recompense 'for: theses homeowners, `it i`s conceivable-' there;.would b-6 no:monies forthcoming until thin lawsu t'has run it' s course:: That would be `ektremely .unfair .to commun ay entities that .rely on these .funds Please keep` these`items `,separate.: Phone(S.1'D)458=1601 Fax(51 458-1672 , r R� ,Y t. gvPef- vlso�s V'ed a o rd o recel, ,cs 'Boa daY: Z . our c°�`fees embe 1�►. 3P a1gYe'' 199i 1= `ItY'em feeyssi' s a1oririjouetts tyo t, atesi.,snd90 att 1dv oesl n?� ea mln e�e tqaStoi tr cov, der o Onmus iP otemAdmino at3.9 smhe�coe`,COX! bY Ple e : f t:.. acte these' enact lett be 1mP f, all. s . ecocc` on could atl0n °ricks°21elY .. p min Sox �° rilt1es lon Sv was ou� ou coSlaez at fu hoz Yov �ynerelYr e td 0 r e • , , , , f_ x , Jul -16-96 10 :44A `���/ .O 1 Lions Blind Center of Diablo Valley 175 Alvarado Avenue.Pittsburg,CA 94.565-(5IQ)432-3013.Toll Free 1-800-750-3937-Fax:(510)432-7014 Officers William A.Willcutts,NI.S.W. President July 16, 1996 RECEIVE® Marjorie R,Johnson Mr. Randy Slusher 1st Vice President Administrative Services Assistant Il it Community Development Department 2nddVSheilaicce President Pr651 Pine Street President a'h Floor, North Wing CLERK ONARD RA COSTA Co SUPERVISORS William Francis Martinez, CA 94553 3rd Vice President Dear Randy' Roy R.Stoermer.PDO imm.Past President This letter is in response to your letter, which we received today, regarding Keller Canyon funding that our agency receives. I am writing this letter because Secret ConverseConverseI will not be able to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting this afternoon Secretary because of a previous commitment that I was unable to cancel_ I would Dave Trawn appreciate it if you would see that the Board of Supervisors gets a copy of this Treasurer letter for the meeting today. Executive Director We are receiving $5000.00 this year(1990) and we are suppose to receive Denise.Cintron-Perales $5000.00 in 1997 from Keller Canyon funds. Three Year Directors The funding our agency receives from Keller Canyon funds is used for culinary Barbara C'Itan,hers rehabilitation Gasses. We have been able to provide blind and newly blind Marvin Cozby residents of Pittsburg assistance in learning how.to prepare there meals safely. Linda P.Wagner Most of our clients have just recently lost their vision. 'N,o Year Directors Jack E.Adams The following is just one story that shows the impact of the service we provide. Rav Mane„n We have a client who woke up one day unable to see. Before our culinary class Kirk J.Norberg she was actually near starvation because of fear of cooking for herself. She Ken Metz was burning herself when she would try to cook, so she stopped cooking. Since she has been coming to our classes, she feels that a new door has been One Year Directors opened for her and she is now more independent in the area of preparing meals Jack Moore for herself again. Phyllis Neitling Dorothy A.Troia William 1..Arnold,Jr. The loss or decrease in this funding would impair our agency'S ability to provide this type of service to visually impaired individuals in the Pittsburg community. i,iun District(.overnor Thomas(Tom)Lcmasney On behalf of the Lions Blind Center of Diablo Valley, I hope that the Board of Supervisors will not choose to decrease or eliminate the Keller Canyon funding Lioness of 4-C3 President that our agency receives. We are a small agency and any loss in funding Sheila L.Otto greatly impacts services that we provide. Legal council Sincerely, William A.Johnson Honorary Members Mrs,Woodhurn K.Lumb Craig Leong.M.D. Denise Cintron-Perales Executive Director ee v w� c 7/,6Jy RECEIVED JUL 1 51996 Contra Costa County Mayors' CO SUPERVISORS _;ITRA COSTA CO. REPRESENTING Peg Kovar,Executive Secretary THE MAYORS 1078 Hacienda Drive OF: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Fax (510) 934-3963 ANTIOCH Phone (510) 937-2951 BRENTWOOD CLAYTON July 12, 1996 CONCORD The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chair DANVILLE Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street ELCERRPTO Martinez, CA 94553 HERCULES LAFAYETM MARTINEZ Dear Supervisor Smith: MORAGA At last night's meeting in Antioch, the members of the Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference, by majority vote, reaffirmed ORINDA their previous position on the use of landfill tipping fees. The vote was Yes: 15, No: 1, and Abstain: 2. Use of landfill tipping PINOLE fees should be limited to items directly related to solid waste. PITTSBURG I am enclosing a copy of the previous resolution, dated December PLEASANT HILL 3, 1992. RICHMOND SAN PABLO Very sincerely yours, SAN RAMON WALNUT CREEK Peg 'Rovar Executive Secretary cc: Mayor Gwen Regalia Cities G/� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAYORS' CONFERENCE Resolution of the Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference Requesting that Landfill Tipping Fees be Limited to Items Directly Related to Solid Waste. WHEREAS, the tipping fees collected at landfills in Contra Costa County are among the highest, if not the highest, charged in the State of California; and WHEREAS, the tipping fees collected at landfills are passed through to cu:3tomers in their garbage collection bi_!_FIs: and WHEREAS, officials of Contra Costa County, elected and staff, have made proposals to increase tipping fees in order to fund various governmental and social programs that have no relationship to garbage or landfill operations; NOW, `HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference that the Conference urges the Board of Supervisors to adopt a policy that programs that have no relationship to solid waste not be funded by increases to landfill tipping fees. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Contra Costa .County Mayors' Conference at a regular meeting thereof, held on December 3, 3992, by the following vote: AYES: 18 NOES: VYde ABSENT: None Conference Executive Secretary RECEIVED City Of Pittsburg .. Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California 94565 CUMBOARD Of: Pr; OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL July 12, 1996 The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF KELLER CANYON LANDFILL HOST COMMUNITY MITIGATION FEE DISTRIBUTION Dear Supervisor Smith: We urge you and the Board of Supervisors to unconditionally commit Keller Canyon Landfill Host Community Mitigation funds to the City of Pittsburg, as recommended in the Board Order prepared by Supervisor Torlakson for your July 16th meeting. There is no question that Pittsburg is the community most impacted by the siting and operation of Keller Canyon Landfill. Similarly, there can be little debate over the intended use the Host Community Mitigation fee. County staff has acknowledged that the Board of Supervisors approved the $2 per ton Host Community Mitigation Fee in 1990 after a unanimous vote of the County Solid Waste Commission, comprised of City Council representatives, to compensate communities for the impacts of new landfills. Concerns that the County was misusing the Host Community Mitigation fee, and other Landfill fees, were expressed as early as December 1992 when the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference unanimously voted that programs which have no relationship to solid waste should not be funded by landfill tipping fees. By its very definition, the Landfill's Host Community Mitigation Fee is directly related to solid waste. This concept was reaffirmed by the Mayors' Conference last Thursday. Yet, to date, the County has refused to use the Host Community Mitigation fee to compensate Pittsburg for its economic losses related to hosting the solid waste facility. California Healthy Cities Project ^1A, National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993 City of New Horizons Supervisor Jeff Smith July 12, 1996 Page Two Pittsburg is willing to accept as little as $1.25 per ton of the minimum $3 per ton Mitigation Fee currently designated for Landfill mitigation programs, assuming there are no additional conditions. This means that the County will retain $1.75 per ton to continue funding programs of its choice (often administered by County agencies) that would otherwise have to revert to relying on support from the County's General Fund. We will continue to leave it to staff's discretion to determine whether these programs are indeed related to solid waste. For this reason, the City should not, and will not be required to assume the County's administration and funding of existing programs as a condition of receiving mitigation monies to which it is entitled. Based on the projections of County staff, the remaining $1.75 per ton will generate over $590,000 per year to continue funding programs the County has supported with these monies in the past. To the extent that Keller Canyon Landfill has operated for over four years with Pittsburg receiving none of the Host Community Mitigation.funds to which it is entitled, Supervisor Torlakson's recommendation that the City receive an additional $0.50 per ton for three years beginning in Fiscal Year 1996-97 seems entirely appropriate. We recognize that mitigation dollars are not tied to a specific destination point for waste from the transfer station (RCTS), which is only right. If the RCTS waste stream does in fact go to Keller Canyon Landfill, with the County's receipt of additional revenues, we will propose a higher mitigation amount to compensate us for the additional impacts. It is inappropriate to expect the City to fund a portion of the Landfill Property Value Compensation Program from these funds as has been suggested by staff. Unlike the County or BFI,-' the City of Pittsburg opposed siting Keller Canyon Landfill due to its inherent impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the Landfill's Use Permit clearly requires the Landfill operator to fund the Property Value Compensation Program in the manner specified by the Board. The Board has obvious remedies if the Landfill operator refuses to comply with a condition of its Land Use Permit. Thank you in advance for your time and anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Ir J ep anciamilla ay cc: City Council Board of Supervisors Jeffrey C. Kolin, City Manager Michael Woods, City Attorney f - , D ! County AdministratorCOntra Board of Supervisors Jim Rogers County Administration Building Costa 1st District 651 Pine Street, 11 th Floor V�7 Jeff Smith Martinez,California 94553-1229 2nd District (510)646-4080 County Gayle Bishop FAX: (510)646-4098 3rd District Phil Batchelor r Mark DeSaulnier County Administrator 4th district Tom Torlakson 5th District July 10, 1996 BOARD OF SDp�RVI`,:::}¢-i s CLERKCONTRA COS-V .� Dear Recipient of Keller Canyon Landfill Revenues The Board of Supervisors will be considering whether a portion of the Keller Canyon Landfill revenue, approximately 40% or$426,000, should be permanently allocated to the City of Pittsburg beginning next fiscal year or July 1, 1997. Your agency has been allocated monies this fiscal year in the amount and for the purposes listed in the attachment. The rank order of programs on the attachment was prepared by staff and was presented as a point of departure in discussing this issue. Since this change in policy may impact the future funding of your program, the Board is inviting a representative from your agency to testify on the activities and effectiveness of your program. The Board is particularly interested in what negative service impacts would occur if your program was reduced by 40% or eliminated altogether. The Board is scheduled to hear this item at 1:30 p.m., on July 16 in the Board chambers, Room 107, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Please call Tony Enea at 646- 4094 if further information is desired. Sincerely, Anthony R. Enea Senior Deputy County Administrator Attachment Keller Canyon Landfill Board Order - 7/9/96 EXHIBIT A w 4 ZwZ (0 - 0 M 0 (00 P- � O MOO 1- 090 NmU? UnLOr� 9 V: Ung7 U0 0a 0 0 0 0 0 r N N N m m ¢ 6m 69 6% EA 69 69 6.13, 6% 6c). 64 69 fA 69 69 64 6F? Z U > Z Q1- 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LO O O O O O O O Nr lo- I'* 1%tN � O O I` co O (0 (0 O t` co O 0) M O O O N N M 1.(1 O O co co co co uj 6% 69 69 61> 69 6A 61> 69 613 61} 69 6% 6/} . U z O_ ti Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 �+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z � 0. ouiui000C, OONN o0o0C H 0 0 — (Oc\1 (0C) vre- N OMOM 64 6f} 6- tri 64 CA* � 6f} 69 69 69 6A (a a a a- (D a cu L m r,. aD a a � � cu c U c cu 0 a) o a) a c a cU m m _ cu v Q N c J 0 2 J U p 0CU E J 0 Ca C w O a) ~ a N Q 0 c W O H cu (y � N (D Np L a) -0 a) U 0 O a) = .- O O O c O O CL 2 N O O +"- a a � � 0 m w w E w w w aw0 = a a� 0 0 0 Q. -a 72 �v co W+ 0 0 a) 0 rn (n 0 o cn o (D a F- a>i a>i a>i a>> 0 L)m m m > a) a) a) E E a) E F- c c c c (A U Q Q U Q c Q dEEEECc Ca w 'tt .. EL' U a) a) L c c a) '� c CL E E E E L c c a) c c ( Ec-" w m 0 0 0 0 p) () 0 = O O a) = 0 0 = t] wUUUUQU' (9U) 00 0wuu _I c c c c O O O O 0 w U U U U U U U :.-.� .2 . , .0 (II a s C4 N CII (0 C 7 7 7 7 7 0 r1 Q Q d a Q d Q0 UUUUUUU 0000 0 E E E E E C9 w c c c c c c c H d Q Q Q 0 0 a 0 c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 co 0) � U 0000000 (L° UUUUU M H H H Q r- N M � O W r co O O N M v O O rn co JUL-16-1996 12:03 5104276142 P.01i05 - Tom fiorlakson 300 East Leland Road -Supervisor,District Five .;,. f Suite 100 Contra Costa County - �r�l Pittsburg,California 94565-4961 Board of Supervisors " ( ) 510 427-8138 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 1996 , 1'VED TO: Supervisor Jeff Smith, District Il, Chair Cl Supervisor Jim Rogers, District I .� ' Supervisor Gayle Bishop, District III ORS Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, District IV Phil Batchelor, County Administrator - Val Alexeeff, Director, GMEDA FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson, District V SUBJ: GENERIC CONDITIONS FOR LANDFILLS MITIGATION The bit of history attached is an extremely important document as it relates to the Keller Canyon Landfill. In March of 1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to support my recommendation to adopt this generic set of conditions for landfills. This document became the basis for the conditions which were included in the approval of the Keller Canyon Landfill. This document is the origin of the millions of dollars of mitigation already generated by the Keller Canyon Landfill and the tens of millions of additional mitigation dollars in the future. The importance of this proposal and its adoption by the Board of Supervisors in relation to issues coming before us on Tuesday, July 9, is that it clearly shows that the "mitigation fees" for the community and the compensation program for property owners were intended to be separate programs. This again, shows the origins of the Board of Supervisors' intent and the reason why community mitigation funds should not be included in any solution to the property valuation programa TT:gro Attachment ,AUL-16-1996 12:04 .51042?5142 P-03/05 Gl3R4WL LANDFILL MITIGATION LIST (To be applied to any landfill) A. Renis that should be inc uded„„ilk LWW OX PS'Rs XQUE D&SQZ1.PTJN TIX.ESN 1. $2.00/'.t'ON Mitigation for road 30 years impacts 2. $2-OO/TON Open Space/Parke/Trail,e/Ag Life of Lands Preservation Fund Site (To be .supervised/managed by the Beard of Supervisors and to be utilized for both acquisition and maintenance/ operation) Votev All $/TON figures to be updated annually with built-in CPI adjustments. 3. Development of a value-loss compensation program for surrounding residences and/or businesses that are impacted by the landfill (i.e. truck traffic, noise, etc. ) due to proximity to the landfill. Development: of a direct acquisition program with inclusion of moving costs for any residences or business which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be visually impacted. Both programs to be reviewed and approved of by the Board of Supervisors . 4 . $200,000 per year for recycling programs until the site opens for operation (at which time a higher- scale inure permanent financing program would become effective through the franchising fee) . The first payment would be made by April 15, 2990. If two permute are approved before April 15, the cost of the program would be shared equally. 5104278142 P.04/05 JUL-16-1996 12104 Generic Landfill Mitigation ?gist Page TWO 5. Strict controls on designated landfill access routes -- enforcement. Landfill operator shall be responsible for the payment of a $20,000 fine for each verified incident of deviation of designated routes. This money will be contributed to the road repair fund or host community mitigation fund. The operator shall be responsible for coordinating with Public Works the cost and placement of appropriate signage indicating the designated routes and forbidden access points to the landfill. The landfill operator shall install, at some point close to the entrance of the landfill, a video recorder Capable of recording on a 24-hour basis any truck coming from the wrong direction to the site. . The operator shall cooperate fully in the 'investigation' of any complaint, and will pay all costs incurred as a result of such investigation. B. Conditions to be included in the ERA-A!=AE GR�IM: $2.00/TON Rost Community Mitigation - 30 Years ($i.UOlton from year 31 to life of site) (TTsgrol3-13-90 ) 5104278142 P.05/05 JUL-16-1996 12:05 • 4 Land Use Permit 2020-89 Condition of Approval 35.3 states: The Landfill operator shall provide funding for the preparation of a property value compensation program study when requested by the County of Contra Costak. The study will address th m ns f 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 sal coons. When a compensation prograrn--4"$ y the Board of Supery , the [.andfill-d shall fund it int a manner s ' ' the Board. If the Board of Supervisors determines that progress on t e mplemre�!o.n .. of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the Board may require the use of cilit-ator a dlor an arbito trar. The fee shall be considered to be ass-through business c for the purposes of rate setting. _ f Y JUN ? 14 LL ' 14 4--- v Supervisor,District Five { Contra Costa County - Board of Supervisors DATE: 28 June 1996 TO; Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Jim Rogers Supervisor Jeff Smith County Administrator Phil Batchelor Val Alexeeff- Director, GMEDA FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL MITIGATION AND VALUATION STUDY A number of outstanding issues remain to be settled regarding Keller Canyon Landfill. In this memo I will recap the motions I made last Tuesday, and the steps I recommend taking to resolve these issues. During our discussion, I spelled out at length my thoughts regarding the reasons we should take each of these steps so I will not take up space here reiterating the background. Note that much of the background is summarized in my June 4th Recommended Actions report which the Board of Supervisors voted on, and in the Finance Committee Report of June 25th- Overriding all other background information is the fact that these issues have taken far, far too long to resolve. I have asked staff to chronicle the terribly long history of these outstanding items (see attached memo). Recap of Recommended Actions_ 1. Commit$1.25 of Mitigation Fees/Revenues to the City of Pittsburg starting in FY 1997- 1998.This share will came from the current$3 per ton set aside for Keller Canyon Mitigation programs. (See#1 in Finance Committee Report of June 25th.) 2. Commit an additional $.50 for three years to make up for revenue the City of Pittsburg had anticipated from negotiations in the upcoming Fiscal Year 1996-1997. Start the first $.50 payment in this coming Fiscal Year 1996-1997- Loan this amount (0$170,000 from the Agricultural Land Trust Funds set up with Keller Canyon mitigation funds. The Board of Supervisors commits to paying back this loan over the next two Fiscal Years (1997-1998 and 1998-1999)so that the work program of the Ag Trust fund can be carried out without delay. This loan repayment will come out of new, unallocated Keller Canyon Revenues from the remainder of what is today the$3 per tan set aside for Keller Canyon Mitigation programs. JLV`tGIUI`iG r.u—)/-Lr r a Keller Canyon Landfill June 28, 1996 Page Two The net effect of the actions of #1 and#2 is$.50 in 96-97; $1.75 in 97-98; $1.75 in 98-99; and $1.25 thereafter. Since the revenue for FY 96-97 is estimated at$1 million, the Keller Mitigation funds available for FY 97-98 and FY 98-99 for program allocation will be over$400,000 each year. (Note: if the Board Chooses to fund Sherff Department programs as a trr'st priority which i personally support—that will utilize 0$210,000 of the funds available.) The net effect from FY 99-2000 forward is$1.25 per ton --leaving approximately$575,000 for the County Keller Canyon Mitigation programs for the future. This all assumes a constant tonnage of 341,000 tons per year. It is likely, in my opinion, that this tonnage amount will go up—expanding the opportunities for County Keller Mitigation programs over time. 3. Support and encourage legislation that would forbid landfills approved by voters from accepting additional types of materials formerly classified as hazardous materials that now or soon may be made eligible for Class Il site disposal. (See#1 of my June 4th Board Order.) Alternatively, per June 4th Board of Supervisors direction, if BFI agrees to bind Keller Landfill forever to the original approved list of materials eligible for disposal, then drop oonsideration of legislation. This could be part of the proposed Good Neighbor Agreement between the City of Pittsburg and Keller Landfill; and should be farther reinforced by changes reflecting the commitment in the Land: Use Permit and the Franchise Agreement. 4_ Based on Sonoma State University Study unanimously agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors in March 1992 and unanimously accepted by the Board of Supervisors in October 1995, the Board of Supervisors makes a finding today that a Compensation Program is NECESSARY AND JUSTIFIED. This finding should be made in context of Land Use Permit Condition 35.3. which directs the Board to conduct a study and then consider adoption of a compensation program. 5. Further, the Board of Supervisors finds that the method of payment shall be made directly by BFII Keller Landfill(see#4 page 2 of the June,25th Finance Committee Report)_ This direction is also made in the context of Condition 35.3 which directs the Board as follows: "The Landfill developer shall fund it (the study results identifying losses and reductions) in the manner specified by the Board." 6. Direct staff(CDD, County Counsel, CAG) to finalize details of the Compensation Program and return to the Board on August 6th for final adoption of a payout plan -- again consistent with the direction in Condition 35.3. (See#3 of Jure 25th Finance Committee Report, Page 2, last paragraph.) The property owners, the City of Pittsburg JUN-2U-IyM 5104278142 P.04l17 Keller Canyon Landfill June 28, 1996 Page Two and BFI are all to be thoroughly involved in the discussion leading to the staff report detailing the Compensation Program_ A major goal of this direction is to implement the payout plan as soon as possible, and no later than September 1996. (See Page 2, last paragraph of June 25th Pittance Committee Repoit_) An option should be considered of having this Compensation Program also in the context of a Good Neighbor Agreement. 7. [direct staff and BFI to implement an air monitoring program as soon as possible. After reviewing the staff report an this matter, specify the financing method and precise implementation deadline for this program. Encourage BFI and the City to reach agreement as to the specified length of time for this monitoring to be done. Again,_also encourage consideration of this item in the context of a Good Neighbor Agreement_ Please mote the attached chronology. No further delays should be tolerated in moving forward and making decisions on these important matters_ Thank you for your consideration and help in moving forward to act on these items. TT:kmg Attachments cc: Deidra Dingman- CDD �1042YI:1142 P.05/17 MW-W-1996 14;10 5104M42 P,01 Contra sta BOARD OF OUPERVISORS Co FROM: Supervisor Tom Toriakson County DAM, ,trine 4, 18g6c SUBJw. C"OF PiTTSOURG AND THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL WFCM AND JUSTMCATIOM 1. Support and armounogii legistdon wMh world fwW l3nM ippmed bV the alee+Sorate from AmOting &ddWonvltjpw of matedakt ftn"rly dapfied as hazardous rmitedals M are ww potonfaltv someptable in Class 11 InridlIffs under ft broodeaed d"on recently adopted by the Department&To*Substance Controi. z nbedthe 6ouW Loal Enbw- .mnt Agam7 to work wth the City of Plftburq In an effloft t5 astabnikh an air qwft mnkoftg pmgmm at ft Xallmr Campti W011, 3, Reaftm fim covWs poW and condition of approval that Corft Loft County Is wHirrift-A to rosoW the pvp"vdvM!Ion Muss wilh neighbom to ts I(tfler Canyon LandN end comeMM a pftdte limetobts for public hoofing arid mj�biMns of pzp*&j=nw mlligaftn Issum 4. Cmider hast POWIm fees. tht Cly of PlItsbuig,and a g6od neighbor agmement betwitri Vi and tree city Of PmbufgL BARf4�D Tice ft of Pittsburg,volt be addreming oA June 3.9998.lasuss atftlrco=U moft relative to mstleT& wncemkv the Kolar Canyon LaNdli, Tho C*of PftWM would Mm the Board of Superviatim b moftm and vivo amursame an rmftrs that mlola to tho land il that?f has addrimbo in em pstL .the Keller CoMmn Lemelftil Land Use Pimd and the War Canyon Property Valuabon ftdy- Othws have been abalmsad by the DoeM and are In repoft from aunty staff(Oppston to Koller Car"n Lftdfg toRing now eatogot!03 ofwsme and Vft h1V4 attempted b meaVe elftmes between the RoW and Me CRY of PibWm ever"Keifer Chryon LznW. Endorsing ft above trpr re=mmmdatlons will go a bV way Itward sealing those Oftrenees mm4 IMproving eA ttigiloaship between the hoard at S!jper*om and the ft of Plimbuyll, 40AAD 040101irmt APPIRM2 AGrION Of MOAM ON APPROMM NECOMMMEY OTMR1 VM Of SLOWWW". Q"wm*"tAB&EKT- AM, AWW:.-A133TAIN- NEXEDY COMFY TMT Trrrb A A TftVV AND C*XRLwr-'r COP,( OF AN ACMN TAM ARD&M#M ON THE MIRVMZ OF Tmei a or suprRv*oRS ON Ime;ATr swwK AMSTED PHIL BATMON CLAW OF M COAAD OF 2UPfR=OF1Z AND COUN"AMMMSTR00A J UIV—�G-1770 1G•11 5104278142 P.06/17 Y Contra :tea TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS — cour�y FROM: Finance Committee DATE: .lune 25,1996 SUBJECT: Use of Keller Canyon Mitigation Revenues and Review of Koller Valuation Study SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND.JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENPATIONtS): 1. COMMIT$1.25 or the$3_i)0 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fee to the City of Pittsburg to finance mitigation programs in fiscal year 1997-98 and thereafter. 2. REQUIRE an additional$.25 to the$1.25 commitment for fiscal years 1997-98,1998-0 and 1999-20©0 for a total of$1.50 of the$3.00 in Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees. Offer this amount to the City of Pittsburg to make up for the revenue they had planned on ars'budgeted for this coming fiscal year, 1995-97. 3. REQUEST that the City, County and BFI continue to examine the valuation study and formulate a fair method to compensate citizens in the target area. SET June 25, 1996 for a full discuseion to consider a status report on the valuation study and the options and precise time table to resolve the valuation study and complete a compensation program. SET August 6. 1996,as the date for presentation and decision on the final details of the Compensation plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _VF3 3113NATURE' ---.AECOMMENDASION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—EMCOMMFNDAY70N OF BOARD CONAAnTEE _APPROVE _OTHER $tGNA'YIJRE(Sl: ACTION OF 130ARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ETHER YDTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERMY CERTIFY THAT THIS 13 A UkAt4?A0US tABSW t TRU!AND MftRECT COPY OF AN AYES; _ NOW:_ AP ION TAKEN AND GNTERED AB3ENT, AWTA-M: _ ON MINUTES OF 724E94ARD OF SUPOMISOR3 ON THE GATE SROWH. Contact:Tony Enak FA&A H14 AT=FSTEO PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THESOARV OF SUPERVISORS Cc' city of Pindwy AND COUNTY ADMN[STRATOR GMEDA CdhAty counsel CAO By .DEPUTY JUI4-Co-1770 Its-11 :A042'7ti14 �SCA��P/ACT . Without any additional sources of revenue included in this proposal, the future funding of mitigation projects will be reduced by$426,000 to 5520,000. BACKGRODUtIUIREASON(S)FOR RECOMMgNDATION(Slt On June 4, 1996,the Board of Supervisors referred to the Finance Committee,the issue of Host Community Mitigation to the City of Pittsburg and the Issue of financing the results of a Property Valuation study involving property owners in close proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill site in Pittsburg (see attached board order). On June 17, 1996,the Finance Committee discussed the issue With representatives from the Administrative Office,Growth Management Agency,County Counsel and the City of Pittsburg. SupeNlsor Torlakson noted the long history of attempting to resolve a flair share of mi4igat'son funds for the City of Pittsburg to directly administer. He suggested that the County offer Pittsburg$1.25 per ton as a"base"fair share and that a surcharge of$.25 for 3 years be added to compensate for revenues Pittsburg had anticipated this fiscal year, The City of Pittsburg was not aware that the mitigation fund had been allocated and budgeted through fiscal year W97. As it relates to the valuation study,possible options to finance property owner mitigation discussed were: t. Raising County fees at Keller above the current rate of 25%of the total per ton charges: 2. Earmarking incremental revenues from increases in refuse tonnage in future years; 3_ Recliresrting a portion of current revenues allocated for community,tMnsportatbn and open space mitigation;and 4. BFI itself to pay for the compensation program. The Board of Supervisors should receive public comment and review these options on June 25 and make-a decision on which way to proceed. This issue has not been resolved since the landfill opened four years ago. Therefore,the Board of Supervisors should set the first meeting of August as the deadline for presentation of the final details of the compensation plan and push for actual implementation this surnmerlfail_. s JUN-ed-1y7b 1b;12 5104278142 P.08/17 Supervisor Torlaksm- • A.couple of key dates which come to mind for the chronology you expressed an inmest in. Below I have noted these dates: July l 990 Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit approved-by the County Board of Supervisors including the Condition 35.3 #or the "Property Value Compmmuon program" March 1992 Entered into a contract with Sonoma State University (SS" to complete a methodology for the property Valuation Study October 1992 Board approved a contract with SSU to prepare the Property Valuation Study (Board Order endwed) November 1994 SSU completed the Study and presented.Study conclusions to the Board's Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee October 1995 Board aocepted the SSU Study as complete (Board Order enclosed) March 1996 Real Estate/Appraisai consultant,ANDERSON &.BRA ANT, began Phase I of his work on the property Valuation project- he presented his conclusions and recommendations for Phase II and IIT in.April. June 1996 Board approved a contrart amendment with ANDERSON &. 19RABANT Inc- For Phase II and Ili of his work-to develop recommendations on compensation amounts and distribution methodology (Board Order and DRAFT contract amendment - enclosed) The following information regarding the Keller Canyon LandfM property Valuation Study its provided pursuant to your request of June 28, 1996: 1. Recommendations section of the Sonoma State University/1CPA study (11/30194)which includes the potentially impacted neighborhoods (.A and E) - -and- map and table which identify boundaries of neighborhoods identified in the study; 5 PAGES 2. Board Order dated September 24, 1992 which approved the contract with SSU to conduct the Study-, 2 PAGES JUN-dpi-1y'Jb 18=12 5104278142 P.09/17 3. Board Order dated June 6, 1995 which requested Board direction regarding ,.y various issues; 3 PAGES 4, Board Summary for June 6, 1995; 2 PAGES 5. Board Carder dated October 17, 1995 regarding accepting the SSU Study; 2 PAGES 6. Board Summary for October 17, 1995; 2 PAGES 7. Board Order dated December 12, 1995 regarding challenges and next steps; 5 PAGES 8. Board Su mmmy dated December 12, 1995; 1 PAGE 9. Memorandum from Charles Zahn dated-November 30, 1994 regarding background of the Property'V'aluation Swdy; 3 PACES 10. Board Order dated May 28, 1996 (approved by Board on June 4, 1996) for contract amendment with Anderson &Brabant; 2 PAGES 11. DRA,Tr 1' Contract Amendment with Anderson &L Brabant, real estate/appraisal consultant, for Phase 11 and Phase III of his wort - 7 PAGES I ope this information meets your needs, Deidra Dingman . County CDD. 335-1224 JUhd-28-1yyb 18:12 5104278142 P.10/17 Chapter 9: Recommendations D4 As shown in the previous chapter,the fmdiags of the IMonic 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 inftuenca on property values.Where results ofthe 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 oftho model and support surveys have been found.There is a genmlly widespread feeling in all of the primary neighborhoods that the landfill has agected resideats and their property values. Yet,in two of the neWboyhoods,Oak Hills(N$) and'Waodside(NC),this fading is not validated by any of the findings ofthe computer price model and support surveys. A loss of pmWum has been fmmd in the EMU**neighborhood (NA),yet the maotude of the loss is much less than the residents have claimed.The generally law level of hnd511 impacts recorded by ICPA staff in the field survgs 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 Modes are average values for specific neighborhoods. The actual volae ofa particular horse in it neighborhood at any ` point in time is dependent on many factors.An appraisal would be needed to establish the price of any pa IkWar parcel The recommendadons of the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study for each of-the primary ncaghbnrhoods are as follows: NeighborhrW NA tHrllsdale) There have been premiums (higher prices paid than for similar properties in comparable rutighhc�rfinods)averaging SS,7lf(J experienced in this neighborhood extend+ag over rsrany years. B 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 compensanon or ntitigation program may be warranted for propertees in this neWlborhood. An appraisal of each particular property is needed.The sales history of each property most be documented. It is necessary to know when the parcel was purchased a►Wor when it was solo and who turas involved in the transactions. C a"nsatioa would we necessarily go to the curter OwIter.Alternative compensation approachness should be investigated. Neighborhood NB (Oak Bills) There have been significant pnenaitYms in this neighborhood over all years relative to comparable neighborhoods. 'There rias been no loss of premiums in tbr,,time between the de cWon to locate the kndfill in Keller Canyon and its operational status in May I994, No compftna►tion prognu n is indicated far this neighborhood. 12 JUN-2a-It"t lb;IJ 5104278142 P.11>17 NeighborhoodNC(Woodside) Except for an unusual premium in 1999,no premiums historically have existed in this neighborhood relative to comparable neighborhoods. Sales prices"have been higher close to the I landfill and lower farther away. No compensation program is indicated for this Neighborhood. 1 Neighborhood NLS(Wle3'AwO As noted in the previous chapter,there is great variation in the characteristics of the properties i along Bailey Road. Mistoricat sales data for this aarea are not plentiful, A large number of homes in this area reoeratly were demolished for the BART packing lot.The panels along Bailey Road are greatly impacted by traffic on ttds 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 fi um time vehicles,and a few also are affected by views of the landfill service road. 1 Under this complex set of circumstances, and lacking sufficient historical sales data, it is difficult to provide any definitive recommendations for this area.Because parcels along Bailey Road are heavily impacted by landfill traffic ac4vities,more so than parcels in the primary neighborhoods,a compenseton or mitigation program may be warranted. Bemse of the existing traffic acrd other activities appraisals of Mividual parcels will be needed. canc uston of the Study In approaching the Keller Canyon Property Valuation Study from so many different perspec five s� a comprehensive picture of the acts of this regionally needed but locally unwanted W iiity on nearby neighborhoods has emerged.The Keller Canyon Landfill has been found to be a elu* example of a "Iocally unwanted land use(LULU). A toss in property values has been documented for one neighborhood near the Iandfill but not for two Others. One conclusion has emerged from this study.The case and efto relationship of the introduction of it landfill into the landscape near established neighborhoods,and the resultant adjustment in lousing prices, can be march more complex than initially it might appear. The distance from the laardfill alone may not be enough to explain the valve prospective buyers place cm 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 corianbute to the"image"of the. ___neighbourhood held by its existing residents,local reactors,and prosp wtive buyers.This may uvaslate into a greater eagerness to sell on the part ofhomeowners.The attitudes of,and negative publicity generated by,neighborhood residents may damage the image ofneighborhood. This is what Alan K.Reichert in bis 1991 study of the impact of landfills on property values terms a "self-fulfilling prophesy.* It is difficult toint what or who actually may have caused a loss of pr values in of pmPa ��'ty one three neigbborhoods near the Keller Canyon Landfill,What can be said with certainty is that the growth of eastern Comte Costa County has resulted in s need for an additional solid waste disposal fi6lity.Keller Canyon was selected as the site for a state-of-the-art sanitary landfill. The landfill was consixuded and has been operating for aver two yeah.It has been a locally unwanted land use.Many Nearby Pittsburg residents and city Officials have vigorously apposed it over 4 period of sevaW years. This opposition has been well documented in the media. 7be construction 13 J UN--'ti-1 t"t.� 1b;1 5 5104278142 P.12r17 and operation of the tudfill I=had some impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods.l irw one n borltood has a � 7 ► fenced a loss of pt�riurn since the decision to locate the lar�dfitl ' wa 14 TOTAL P.00? JUN-28-1'3'36 18:14 5104278142 P.13/17 •� ,; ; Contra. To: BOM or SUB'EIt SORS Cc6ta County P'K t MRVEY R. SPAGDON DIRZt, .It OF CC1MIJ1dI'TY I}EVMPKMI' 1 TZ: September 24, 1992 8U'B.TECTt COAPBMT" COWMM FM 7CEl'.LPBt CAlMYOb1 7i71Rx1PILL PROPERTY VAI.IMTZQN 070= S cIM REQUE01791 OR REC0MMMI A ON(s) # LtACR�ilb4bID A 3 ,avBTZSICATI $'�CONPCEi�DA�IOHe Authorize the Director of Community Development to execute a contract. with The Institute for Community Planning Ausiatance at Sonoma State University to conduct a Property Valuation Study to evalubte any imgaeu on nearby properties cute to (operation of) the Rel.1wr Canycol Landfill. The am*=t* of this contract shall not excaed $139,633. FISCAL InACT Nene. The Operator of the Landfill is required to provide f=ling for this Study_ Land Use Permit 20*0-89 Condition of Xpproval $35.3 xequires a Property Value cumypensation Program Study to address the weans of detemini.nci the extent of property value losses or reduction attributable to LatAfill impacts: such an ae.stheti , n018e, traffic, or pollution. CCD#TINLtLD ON iITTAIB�i°P: w TES 82 RECOMMEMATICN OF C QWTY AMNIBTRAT-OUREC 0M 7'TER "PROVE 0TJMU S=fa#aik"f1�Stara)x ORION Or DOARD OAi "PIkQVZt AS ocikli I WMMM C ERTYS�''!�' TRAT T�irs la A IMUZ AM �Cf' COPS 07 AN Novas AC`1T10W TARPt�d AIM Z3ERED CM THE TZ8 of � I 01F SUMVTOMB am TUB VATN Am".(510)046-4294 Putt SATCZSI.OR, CLEXX 07 TM BOA" Or RUPERVIBCRS DY ��� DE UTY Ju114-c0-1»0 10-14 51042YU142 F.14/1'( The Institute for Community FlAnning Assistance van retained for phase 1 which encompassed designing and developing the methodology for the Study. Working with staff, the yeller Canyon Local Advisory committee and interested sure of the Public, the mathodolo" has been finalized. The Pupone v= the 7recommnded pethodology is to measure the actual affects on property values attributabis to the yeller Carryon Landfill and to identify the Market histarion and trends of residential property values in the vicinity of the Landfill. To reach thin and, the three objectives of the methodologies are to. I. Gather and compile agate factual information about property values within a given radius of the waste placement arae of the Landfill; Z. Sapaxate out any property value looses or gains which, may be attributable to independent events (i.e., recassloA, the URT station) from those gains or losses which may be attributable to the landfill; and 3. Exp7.ore the underlying a0g=ptions and informition or misinformation which are bold by or have been communicated to the public regarding the Undf ill and any resulting gains or l.osscs of property value and to deterairie tim areas in which impacta may be found. phase 2 will OnOMPPROS conducting the Study, proposed to be completed over the next two years. The prpppaQd Study includes an analysis of the results of the modeling effort And suxvayu and a detatled report. The report will include recommendations and a determination of the property value diml=tion, if any, Lor affeatOd pxopertles in the study area. JUI2ki-1'Jyb 1614 5104278142 P.15/17 TO: BOARD'OF SUPERVISORS \ a C ltr C,.,bst� FROM: HARVEY E_ BRAGDON a DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE; June 5, 1995 SUBJECT: KELLIM CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY RIEPORT SPECIFIC REQUESTISI OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &SACKGROUNn AND JUSTFCATION COMMENRALTIONS 1. Determine whether an impact has taken place on property values. 2. Direct staff to determine method of evaluating impact on 51)0061; values, if determined there has been a negative impact. 3. Establish procedure to determine the extent of the landfill operator's {BFI) fesponsibility. 4. Direct staff to pursue recommendations for methods of payment H any. FISCAL IMPACT No identified Impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMEND TA0s • The Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation 'Study ("Study") was required by a Condition of Approval(35.3)in the Land Use Parmit(2020-89). The purpose of the Study is to"address the means of determining the extent of property value losses or reductions atttibutable to Landfill impacts, such as aesthaties, noise, traffic, or pollution, and the means of Compensating property owners for said I 9s or reductions". CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YES SIGNATU ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMl% a _ TNAV_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UA NIMOUS IABSENT. AND CORRECT COPY OP AN AC?1ON TAKER! AM;—. NOES, ANDENTEREDONTHEibt1NUTES OF THEBOAFO ABSENT: ABSTAIN; OF SUPEWI5ORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Charles Zahn 15101646-20981 ATTESTED cc: Community osveiepment Dapnnm9rrt TCDD) PHIL,BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE GMFDA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ANI) !Geller Canyon Landfill Company COUNTY AOMINISTRATOR Irby of Pittsburg Citizens United Dov Point Municipal Advisory Council BY DEPUTY 60eiPfWh.vRc.ec TOTAL P.W4 JUIV-GG-177G 1Gi�1� - 51b4�'rti14� h'.16/17 Keller Canyon Landfill Property Vaiuertion Study ttepon- + June 6, 1995 !//) Cvrainued-Page Two • BACK6110UNIDIREASONSNpATIONS tc_ontingedl Yne Land Vse Permit 202"9 Condition of Approval 95.3 "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 oompensation program is adopted by the Board at 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 u$e of a facilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate sbuing. InMarch 1992 the Contra Costa County Community Development Depamnant 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 slues(loss of premiums) in the Hillsdale neighborhood QNeighborhood A)since I990which 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, 1934 the County Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee heard the first presentation of the Study by the institute, The Ad H= Solid Waste Committee forwarded the matter to the Keller Canyon Landfill Local Advisory Committee and directed the mortar 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 Bl. 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 JUI 4'GV-1-77p 10.1J Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Report ,lune 6, 1995 Continued- Page Three �CXQR0 lNDJAE"_QNS F(�R FiE MM7*MDq,T1L}NS ft Orttinrredl T to be brought before the full Board of Supervisors on June S. 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 iAttachment 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 8AAQMD 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 1983 and.011 were dust complaints. The January 1892 -January 1983 time period included construction adtivitles 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. }30th 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 Q. Also at the May 4, 1995 meting,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 treprosenting BFI). The Committee further asked that the matter be brought to the fall Board Of Supervisors on dune S. 1995 veitb 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 trot»James Chalmers, Coopers&Lybrand(representing 9FI) and a letter from Claude Gruen,Gruen&Gruen(representing the City of Pittsburg). These documents are attached SAttachments G & H respectivetyl Atterdymer,ts• A Frooerty Valuation Study Executive Summary a LAC Minutes of FebrLorry 8,1995 C Smmmary or vublir:comment reeuived at She Ad Hae SM Waste Committee 16/4Mtil D BMCIMO Complaim inhwinaftri is LEA Compliant irtformation F iCPA ReS onse darted 6/30/95 6 James Chalmers trepraganting.'BFI} Commmtory i9 Claude Gruen(repri6eaft CKY of PiMbwV)LAtmrr tH1M�i1d0.YAL.eD TOTAL P.17 .j 'M nest to 5 eak dorm - THREE (3)MINUTE �UM1T) lite,this-form-and -B in Over box near the '. Ctrrnp. spiakers. Ytpoenn f .QD before addressing the Board. Name: Y7�T SA� �AAY�7 gaga , 0.vv)0 V.� 3sc � 1 am speaking for nt lf�or urger tiom All - r't wc,e Owft of sops satioN CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Rom #_..mate: My coimmarts will be: pnwW joir„ nsL._,,,.._._... 1 wish to speak on the u bjed of X,., 1 +do not wishspeak llem Owe c�ornn�ents for the gee �� ravb �. case, rn Q ro� to ¢,o \¢.•. 1 Y1, C' o �.` a�' ovv� G�JQ JW e +� rrvpn.... s -� `� �c �p5. e-^c J . ,r-�s e`� e �- �•te.�4��c�t ''� ut' c ��_ +� C�v C�i QY1, • a� �• r