Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05061986 - T.6 � 6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 6, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Schroder, Torlakson ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Task Force Report The Board on April 29 , 1986 held a workshop with members of the Hazardous Waste Task Force to discuss the recommendations contained in the Task Force Report. At that time the Board requested staff to provide clarification on several issues relating to the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report. This being the time fixed for hearing on the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report, Harvey Bragdon, Acting Director of Community Development, transmitted a report to the Board clarifying the speci- fic items requested on April 29 , 1986 (copy attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein) . Victor J. Westman, County Counsel , advised the Board that his office found nothing in the provisions of AB 2185, Chapter 6 .95 of the Health and Safety Code, that would limit the County' s authority to adopt reasonable land use regulations for the unincorporated areas of the County. He noted that in fact, Chapter 6.95 specifically declares that the Chapter is not intended to preempt any local regu- lations which impose additional requirements on businesses which handle hazardous materials. Paul De Falco, Jr. , Chairman of the Hazardous Waste Task Force, advised the Board of a correction and revision in the wording of Recommendation #569 to read as follows: "Require land use permits for industrial-zoned lands for new or substantially expanded develop- ment projects which could significantly and adversely affect public health or the environment, and which generate, store, transport , treat, or dispose of significant amounts of hazardous materials. This provision shall not prohibit or preempt compliance by an industry with Federal or State laws, regulations, rules, or orders, nor apply to projects for which a permit application has been sub- mitted to the appropriate regulatory agency prior to July 1 , 1986." Chairman Powers declared the public hearing open. The following persons spoke in favor of adoption of the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report in its entirety: Wayne Bennett, City of San Ramon and Vice Chairman of the Solid Waste Commission; Kathy Radke, 834 Carquinez Way, Martinez; Don Bradley, City of Pinole, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole; Avon Wilson, City of Lafayette; Almadia Thomas, 658 22nd St. , Richmond, representing the Citizens Action League; Kevin Shea, EBRPD, 11500 Skyline Blvd. , Oakland; Denny Larson, 2131 University, #421 , Berkeley, repre- senting Citizens for a Better Environment; Artis Senger, representing Gray Panthers, West Contra Costa County; Jean Siri , representing the League of Women Voters, Richmond; 1 Russ Greenlaw, 112 Blueridge .Drive, Martinez, representing United Professional Firefighters Local 1230; Phyllis Roff, 2893 San Carlos Drive, Walnut Creek; Susan Thollaug, 1410 Merced Street, Richmond, representing the Sierra Club; Susan Sherry, 2100 21st Street, Sacramento, environmental health director of Golden Empire Health Planning Center; Robert Judd, 1330 21st Street, Sacramento, representing the Sierra Club; Don Christen, Executive Vice President, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association; and Leslie Stewart, 3398 Wren Avenue, Concord, representing the Diablo Valley League of Women Voters. The following persons were generally in favor of Recommendations #1 through #55 of the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report, but spoke in opposition to Recommendation #56 : Bryant C. Fischback, 1324 E1 Curtola Blvd. , Lafayette; Mark Burkinshaw, 2925 Honeysuckle Ct. , Antioch; Mark Spaur, 2958 Honeysuckle Ct. , Antioch; Earl MacIntyre, P.O. Box 471 , Pittsburg, representing USS-POSCO Industries; Andrew Surges, 910 Main Street, Martinez, representing PG&E; Martha A. Warren, 1934 Heatherwood Drive, Pittsburg; Dennis McNamara, Box 310, Antioch, representing the DuPont Company; Reid H. Bowman, 15 Vista Lane, Walnut Creek; Paul Humphreys, 176 Woodview Terrace Drive, San Ramon; and Lee Crampton, 5771 Lewis Way, Concord. The following persons did not speak but left comments expressing opposition to Recommendation #56 : Morgan K. Buchanan, 737 Fountainhead Court, San Ramon, representing the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Northern California Section; C. Amy Ng, 2071 Danville Blvd. , Walnut Creek; Rod Meilicke, 3135 Persimmon, Antioch; Walt Sommer, 2905 El Dorado Way, Antioch; Tom Theis, 2920 E1 Dorado Way, Antioch; James Hummel, 1120 Brickyard Cove Road, Pt. Richmond; Jean S. Lindblom, 2880 Mi Elana Circle, Walnut Creek; and Chrislyn Carson, 2328 Cordoba Way, Antioch. The following persons expressed concerns about the recom- mendations contained in the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report, particularly in the establishment of another regulatory agency, the need for an educational process for the public and the need for a clearer distinction between hazardous materials and hazardous waste: Harold Downie, 131 Pebble Lane, Alamo, representing the Industrial Association, Inc. of Contra Costa County; Chris Blessing, 140 Santa Fe Avenue, Richmond; Jack Mortenson, 1371 Lydia Lane, Clayton, representing the Contra Costa Council; Harry Hall, 1170 Camino Solano, Concord, representing the California Manufacturers' Association; J. D. Turman, 27 Ramona Drive, Orinda; Joe Padrnos, 1311 Brookview Drive, Concord; Deborah Bolton, 55 Vandewater St. , #7 , San Francisco, representing 242 Chevron Chemical Company employees; Richard A. Eelman, 110 Alhambra Hills Drive, Martinez; Anita C. Dale, P.O. Box 1272, Richmond, representing Chevron USA Richmond Refinery; Herb Wisson, Richmond, representing the Council of Richmond Industries; and Jerry Zacharatos, 2336 Foothill Drive, Antioch. The following persons did not speak but left comments expressing concerns about the recommendations of the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report in general : 2 Richard J. Vargas, 1815 Noemi , Concord; William Cole, 940 Hensley, Richmond; Dennis Farinelli , 517 Lassen, Suisun; and Gregg Crocco, 837 Spruce Court, Rodeo. Supervisor Tom Torlakson stated that he would support the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report. He requested clarification of the wording of Recommendation #14 on page 19 of the report which refers to "production stream", and suggested that the Board approve the concept of a land use permit process. (Supervisor Torlakson left the meeting at this time because of a prior commitment. ) Supervisor Powers noted that prior to leaving for a Metropolitan Transportation Commission meeting Supervisor Robert Schroder had advised that he would support the concept of a land use permit process. Supervisor Tom Powers stated that he endorsed the Task Force Report, and emphasized that it was a set of principles rather than specific regulations that would be adopted at this time. He noted that the recommendations would be developed carefully, with consideration being given to both the public interest and the con- cerns of industry. He stated his belief that the final result would protect the public without unduly restricting industry. Supervisor Sunne McPeak recommended the following actions be taken by the Board this date: 1 ) Approve Recommendations #1 through #55 as submitted by the Hazardous Waste Task Force, amending wording of Recommendation #14 to include the words "through source reduction" ; 2) Refer Recommendations X1~1 through #55 to the County Administrator and appropriate departments to review fiscal and legal issues and to recommend to the Board a timetable and schedule to fully implement each Recommendation; and 3) Approve the concept of a land use review and permit process and refer Recommendation #56 to the Director of Community Development to outline the options available to the Board. Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the recommendations of Supervisor McPeak are APPROVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter be SCHEDULED on the Determination Calendar on June 13, 1986 for ratification by the full Board of the action taken this date. ec: County Administrator Community Development Director 1 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: �b4 /9 g/. PHIL BATCH OR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B , Deputy 3 A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: May 6, 1986 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, ting SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Task Director of Commun ve m Force Report On April 29, 1986, the Board of Supervisors asked our Department to prepare a report on three specific items all generally dealing with recommendation #56 of the Hazardous Waste Task Force Report. Each request is given and then responded to below: REQUEST #1 TO CLARIFY THE ISSUES AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION #56 OF THE REPORT RELATING TO LAND USE PERMITS FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONED LANDS AND THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS OF BAY AREA COUNTIES. RESPONSE Recommendation #56 reads: "Require land use permits for new or substantially expanded development projects which could significantly and adversely affect public health or the environment, and which generate, store, transport, treat, or dispose of significant amounts of hazardous materials. This provision shall not prohibit or preempt compliance by an industry with Federal or State laws, regulations, rules, or orders, nor apply to projects for which a permit application has been submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency prior to July 1, 1986." The issue of whether to require land use permits for new projects within industrially zoned lands has been raised by the public, County staff, and members of the Board in the past. There are two basic philosophical positions which are argued on this issue. One position is that government has the obligation ' to regulate all industrial facilities that may have an effect on the the public health, safety and welfare. Another position generally argues that the complexity of these types of applications are beyond the ability of governmental staff's technical expertise, may deal with proprietary information, do not provide freedom to respond to the market place, and that the hazardous aspects are already effectively controlled by State and Federal regulatory agencies.' Both are valid positions: Staff has urged, over time, that Board of Supervisors -2- May 6, 1986 provision of land use permits in industrial zones for new projects or substantial modifications are appropriate changes to the County Ordinance. Attachments A, B and C to this report are the ordinance code provisions for the County's Heavy Industrial (H-I) , Light Industrial (L-I) and Controlled Manufacturing (CM) zoning districts. A review of the H-I and L-I districts' intents and provisions makes it clear that they need to be brought up-to-date. It is our perception that the views of industry within this County vary as to the need for use permits. This has occurred with a changing regulatory process. It has become increasingly clear that new major industrial projects will be required to have Environmental Impact Reports prepared. Most industrial applicants faced with this prospect prefer a general-purpose local government to be the lead agency rather than a special-purpose state regulatory agency. Experience has shown that local government can respond more rapidly and that is better prepared to handle the range of issues that are addressed in an EIR than more specialized agencies and that we are more familiar with the territory. State regulatory agencies themselves prefer that a local government serve as lead agency. To be a lead agency, however, requires that a local government have discretionary permit authority over the project. Recent examples where this County has taken the lead on a major project with the concurrence of industry but with little actual authority are the $500 million Shell Oil modernization and the GW:F. .Power Systems, Inc. cogeneration proposals. From a citizen's perspective, it is expected that elected representatives will have the power to regulate the land uses and projects that go into an area and establish conditions of approval . There are, for example, numerous locations within the County where residential and industrial lands are adjacent to each other and where projects require sensitive "fitting" to be compatible. Discretionary approval on what is built in those areas is important to insure the public well being. In some cases, uses can be made acceptable by the mitigation of adverse impacts, but that can only occur where the County has the ability to regulate and condition uses. The permit requirements of other Bay Area counties and of cities which responded to our survey within this county are shown on Table 1. As can be seen by the table, the requirements vary substantially. One comment received by the Board on this subject stated that many other counties do not require land use permits, so why should this one? When the historical origins of this County and its industrial shoreline are examined and compared with to the development patterns of other Bay Area counties, it is clear that the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County contains substantially more industry and industrially planned lands than most other jurisdictions. For that reason we may have a greater need to regulate industrial projects. As noted, this county currently does not have this ability to regulate the appropriateness of proposals where industrially planned lands abut other . 2 - °f }!\{$ \ c \k ee 10 ca 7 I y 2 . o - - . - \ k{ a ( . 3 § � � F3 � / } i _ Board of Supervisors -3- May 6, 1986 land use designations such as residential . A recent example of this situation came before the Board last year dealing with the Crockett cogeneration facility. Since the County had no land use permit authority, all the county could do was to encourage the reconfiguration of the plant on the C & H property. In this case the applicant, Pacific Thermonetic, Inc. , concurred in that site change, but the County had no power to mandate the change. Another way of examining this issue is to consider the permitting authorities of regional , state and federal permitting agencies. Most of those agencies have specialized permit requirements based on individual environmental factors such as air or water quality. Many of their permits are based on the fulfillment of performance criteria. With this type of specialized review, there is no overview or consideration of cumulative impacts. The consideration of these concerns in a "total picture" is one of the normal planning responsibilities of a local government. Should the Board determine that land use permit requirements should be included in the ordinance code, the next important question is how should the ordinance be written to regulate these proposal without being overly restrictive? The proposed wording of recommendation #56 is sensitively written to suggest that only new or substantial modifications of use be covered by this requirement. Staff would concur that it would be inefficient and counter productive to require new permits or revisions to existing permits every time a process change i& .nee.ded for an existing industrial process. The intent of recommendation #56 is to separate out policy questions and localized off site impacts from on site plant modifications. Those will be controlled best by special purpose regulatory agencies, e.g. BAAQMD, CAL OSHA, etc. Another issue that has been raised, which requires further discussion, is that the need to receive a land use permit will add another element to the regulation of industry in the County. If the County did require 'land use permits on new or substantial modification of existing facilities, such a permit requirement would occur at the start of the permitting process. Land use permits establish general conditions for the construction and the utilization of the property. As long as those conditions are met, no further County action is required. County land use permits are not basically operational but give permission to utilize land for specified purposes. Operational regulations, e.g. , for air quality, hazardous waste, etc. will continue to be handled by agencies having that expertise in these fields. They provide the day-to-day controls. The land use permit process is generally a one time effect that runs with continued use of the land. Should the Board determine that use permits are to be required for all new or substantial modifications within our industrial zoning districts, it should direct the Community Development Department to prepare draft ordinance amendments to that effect. Those drafts should be referred to the County Counsel office for review and then scheduled for public hearings, before the County's Planning Commissions. Board of Supervisors -4- May 6, 1986 REQUEST #2 TO PROVIDE A LISTING OF ALL CURRENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NEW OR EXPANDED PROJECTS WHICH GENERATE, STORE, TRANSPORT OF DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. RESPONSE Given the current lack of permit authority in our industrial zoning districts there is no way to prepare a list of current permit applications for new or expanded project which handle hazardous wastes. Another of the Task Force recommendations would have the appropriate questions asked of new applications in the course of their environmental reviews. It further needs to be pointed out that building permits are not required of most industrial construction but only for buildings that house employees; therefore there is no way to work backwards from building permits to create such a list. In interpreting the question, we felt that the Board was not requesting a listing of operations that sold or handled small quantities of products that are considered as hazardous, e.g. , house paint. Given the absence of facts to respond to this request, we have provided a partial listing of some major facilities that have been discussed with our staff over the front counter in the last few years. The purpose of this listing is to point out the range of major projects that would be subject to land use permit requirements if our ordinance code was modified. The partial list includes: co-generation plants coke fired power plants hazardous waste burners liquid petroleum gas (lpg) terminals oil refineries oil terminals coal transfer stations waste to energy plants formaldehyde plants synthetic chemical plants marine terminals high technology plants If use permits were required in our industrially zoned lands for all new or significant modifications or expansions of such facilities, the County would have the power to approve or deny such uses and to adequately condition those permits to provide for the public health and safety as well as to mitigate potential environmental impacts. REQUEST #3 TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHEN STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON HAZARDOUS WASTE WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER COUNTY REGULATIONS. Board of Supervisors -5- May 6, 1986 RESPONSE Generally, state and federal law sets standards and minimum conditions within which local ordinances and regulations provide additional or more stringent requirements. At the moment, there is very little that can be identified in the County Code as specifically dealing with hazardous waste. For example, AB 2185 - Hazardous Materials: Release Response Plans and Inventory, states that . . ."it is not the intent of the Legislature to preempt or otherwise nullify any other statute or local ordinances containing the same or greater standards and protections." Because this area of concern is generally new, the body of legislation at the federal , state, and local level is still in the formative stages. It is clear that certain areas are yet to be identified and defined. AB 2185 is currently awaiting the State publication and adoption of regulations for minimum standards for business plans and area plans. In the meantime, Contra Costa County, under the supervision of the Health Department, is sponsoring seminars concerning hazardous matters and has organized committees preparing various elements of the area and business plans which cannot proceed to the final form until the State of California has issued its minimum standards. (It should be noted here that AB 2187 is being considered in the Legislature at this time. This bill is a clean-up bill to provide for clarification of some of the paragraphs originally adopted in AB 2185. ) General Finding and Recommendation #5 (page 17 of the Hazardous Waste Report) adequately defines the existing situation: "5. The respective jurisdictions of the federal , state, a local government can be divided as follows: "Federal government: has jurisdiction over resolving problems resulting from past hazardous waste management practices -- superfund cleanup. "State government: has jurisdiction over regulating current hazardous waste management practices to insure that more problems are not created. "Local government: has jurisdiction over current and future land uses in the county/city. Local government should put together a plan for the industrial and business future in the County. There needs to be a hazardous materials/waste element in the General Plan. Local governments may wish to limit the types and sizes of certain industries and businesses in some areas. These should be identified and labeled now." HEB:plp Attachment A H-I HEAVY INDUSTRIAL Lt::TRICT 84-60.602-84-62.<02 Article 84-62.2 General 84-62.202 General provisions. All Land within an H-1 heavy industrial district ma)' -e used for any of the following uses, under the following regulations set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 1569: prior code § 8164 (part): Ords. 1046, 382). Article 84-62.4 Uses 84-62.402 Uses — Permitted. He". y industrial manufacturing uses of all !rinds, including, but not limited to, the manufacturing or processing of petroleum, lumber, steel, chemicals, explosives, fertilizers, gas, rubbor, paper, cement, sugar, and all other industriai or manufacturing products shall be permitted in the H-I district. (Ord. 1459: prior code § 8164(b): Ord. 1046: Ord. 382). I 84-62.404 Uses — Requiring land use permit. Uses requiring land use permit in the H-I district shall be the same as the uses designated in Section 84'-58.404 for the L-I district. (Ord. 67-39 § 5, 1967: Ord. 1459: prior code § 8164(a): Ords. 1046, 382). Article 84-62.6 , Lot, Height, Yard Chapter 84-62 I 84-62.602 Lot, height, yard — Regulations. H-I HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT There are no lot area, height, or side y:,rd regulations or limitations in the H-I district. Article 84-62.2 General (!Ord. 1459: prior code § 8164(c): Ord. 1046: Sections: Ord. 382). 84-62.202 General provisions. Article 84-62.4 Uses ,Article 84-62.8 Sections: I Refuse Disposal Sites 84-62.402 Uses—Per,- 84-62.404 Uses—Requiring land use 84-62.802 Refuse disposal site — Permit permit. required. Refuse disposal sites are permittee! '111 Article 84-62.6 Lot, Height, Yard the 11-I district upon the issuance of a permit Sections: under the provisions of Chapter 418-4. (Ord. 84-62.602 Lot, height, yard— 1459: prior COLIC 8164011: Olss. 1046,382). Re('ulations. Article 84-62.3 Refuse Disposal Sites Sections: 84-62.802 Refuse disposal site— Permit required. 363 (Contra Costa County 9-IS49) Attachment B L-I LICIfI" INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 84-56.1402-84-573.4C Chapter 84-5$ use permit establishing conditions for the use to prevent the creation or maintenance of a L-I LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT nuisance; uses included within the meaning of Article 84-58.2 General this proviso include, but are not limited to, hot Sections- mix, asphalt plants, rendering plants, food . processing plants, tanneries, wineries, breweries, 84-58.202 General provisions. and other similar uses. (Prior code § 8163(b): Article 84-58.4 Uses Sections: Ord. 1046: Ord. 1006: Ord. 332). - � _ _ 8458.402 Uses—Permitted. 8458.404 Uses — Requiring land use 84-58.404 Uses—Requiring land use permit. All of the uses in the following districts permit, are permitted after the granting of land use Article 84-58.6 Lots Sections: permits: Sutgte family residential districts, 84-58.602 Lot—Area, multiple family residential districts, retail business districts, neighborhood business Article 84-58.8 Builclirtg Hei­hf Sections: districts, general commercial districts, agricultural districts and forestry recreation 84-58.802 Building 1166"Ott--Maximum• 'districts. (Ord. 67-39 § 4, 1967: prior code § ` Article 84-58.10 Yards Sections: 8163(a): Ord. 1046: Ord. 1006: Ord. 382). 84-58.1002 Yard—Side. Article: 84-58.6 84-58.1004 Yard—Setback. Lots Article 84-58.12 Land Use and Variance Permit Sections: 84-5Z.602 Lot — Area. All buildings or 84-58.1202 Land use and variance parts of buildings hereafter erected or altered in permit—Grsnting. the L-1 district shall be erected on a let at least seventy-ive hundred square feet in area. (Prior Article 84-53.2c ode § 8163(c): Ord. 1046: Ord. 1006: Ord. General 382). 84-58.202 General provisions. All land Article 84-58.8 . Within a L-1 light industrial district may be used Building Height for any of the following uses, under the following .regulations set forth in this chat)ter. 84-58.802 Building height — Maximum. No (Prior code § 8163 (part): Ord. 1046: Ord. building or structure or part of it shall be more 1006: Ord. 382). than three stories high above the highest point of ground elevation on the lot on which the Article 84-58.4 building is erected. (Prior code § 8163(d): Ord. Uses 1046: Ord. 1006: Ord. 382). I I 54-58.402 Uses — Permitted. Land in the 'Article S4-58.10 I L-I district may also be used for the following Yards Purposes: industrial uses which do not ' necessarily require or use steam generated on the 8458.1002 Yard — Side. All buildings premises as a prime power for the manufacturing ' erected on lots in the L-I district shall ]rave side process carried on, or extensive loading docks or yards at least ten feet Nide on each side of each similar facilities for the receiving or shipment of building. (Prior code §" 8163(e): Ord. 1046: Ord. My materials or semi-finished or tinislted 1006: Ord. 382). products. Uses which emit dust, smoke, fumes, noise, or brilliant light, or are otttenvise 84-58. 10(14• Yard Setback. Every offensive to the senses or are of a kind or qualit;� structure erected in the L-I district and every that their operation interferes with development structure accessory to it shall be located at least i or enjoyment of other prcperty in the vicinity, ten feet from the boundary line of any existing " may be established only after issuance of a land public road or hi;hway. (Prior code § 8163(f): Ord. 1046: Ord. 1006: Ord. 382). Attachment C Article 84-56.6 Lots Sections: 84-56.602 Lot—Area. 84-56.604 Lot—Coverage. Article 84-56.8 Building Height Sections: 84-56.802 Building height—Maximum. Article 84-56.10 Yards Sections: 84-56.1002 Yard—Side and rear. 84-56.1004 Yard—Setback. Article 84-56.12 Off-Street Parking Sections: 84-56.1202 Off-street parking—Space requirements. Article 84-56.14 Signs Sections: 84-56.1402 Sign—Restrictions. Article 84-56.16 Manufacturing and Storage Areas Sections: 84-56.1602 Manufacturing and storage area—Requirements. Article 84-56.18 Land Use and Variance Permits Sections: 84-56.1802 Land use and variance permit—Granting. Article 84-56.2 General 84-56.202 Purpose. All land witliin a C-M controlled manufacturing district may be used for any of the following uses, under the following regulations set forth in this chapter. The purpose of this cliapter is to set up certain restrictions and conditions compatible with adjacent residential areas, both as to appearance and type of industry. (Prior code § 8162 (part): Ord. 918). Chapter 84-56 Article 84-56.4 Uses C-M CONTROLLED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT 84-56.402 Uses — Permitted. Uses permitted in the C-M district shall be as follows: Article 84-56.2 General (l) Agricultural: crop and tree farming, truck Sections: fanning, horticulture, viticulture, and grazing; 84-56.202 Purpose. - (2) Administrative offices: Article 84-56.4 Uses (3) Medical and dental offices and clinics, Sections: and professional offices of architects, attorneys, 84-56.402 Uses—Permitted. and engineers; —Requiring land use (4) Tlie following and similar uses, which 84-56.404 Uses— ..;;, permit. (Contra Costa County 9-15-76) 360 C-M DISTRICT 84-56.404-84-56.1202 shall be planned, developed, conducted and Article 84-56.8 operated in such a manner that noise, smoke, Building Height dust, odors .and waste of any kind is confined and/or purified.so as to control pollution of air, 84-56.802 Building height — Maximum. soil or water to meet the standards or Buildings or structures in the C-M district shall requirements of the plashing commission, and in not exceed two stories nor be more than a manner to eliminate any detrimental effect to thirty-five feet high above the. highest point of the public health, safety and welfare and be in ground elevation on the lot on which the harmony with the objectives of the master plan: building is erected. (Prior code § 8162(d): Ord. (A) Research laboratories and uistitutes, 918). (B) Electronic products manufacturing, (C) Electrical products and instrument Article 84-56.10 manufacturing, Yards (D) Bookbinding, printing, and lithography, (E) Cartography, 84-56.1002 Yard — Side and rear. In the (F) Editorial and designing, C-M district there shall be minimum side yards (G) Photographic printing, finishing, and of twenty feet and minimum rear yards of processing, twenty feet. There shall be minimum side and (H) Household pottery, rear yards of fifty feet on all external boundaries (1) Plastic fabrication, of the C-M district that abut on residential and (J) Storage warehouses, excluding agricultural districts. (Prior code § 8162(e): Ord. inflammable fluids, explosives, and truck .918). termuials, (K) Finished paper products, 84-56.1004 Yard — Setback. In the C-M (L) Garment manufacturing, district there shall be minimum setback of fifty (M) Furniture upholstering, feet. (Prior code § 8162(f): Ord. 918). (N) Laundry and dry-cleaning plants. (Ord. 76-75 § 5: prior code § 8162(b): Ord. 918). Article 84-56.12 Off-Street Parking 84-56.404 Uses — Requiring land use permit. Individual residential buildings and 84-56.1202 Off-street parking — Space structures and buildings accessory to thein may requirements.- Off-street parking and loading be permitted on issuance of a land use permit provisions for the CSM district shall be as where the use is incidental to a permitted follows: agricultural or manufacturing operation. In no case shall a new subdivision for residential purposes or shall retail stores be permitted. V <' (Prior code § 8162(a): Ord. 918). Article 84-56.6 Lots 84-56.602 Lot — Area. Lots in the C-M district shall have a minimum width of one hundred twenty feet and a minimum area of forty thousand square feet. (Prior code § 8162(c): Ord. 918). 84-56.604 Lot — Coverage. No building or buildings shall cover more than thirty percent of the lot area. (Prior code § 8162(g): Ord. 918). 360-1 (Contra Costa County 3-15-77) I c I ••. I , I (1) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided on the premises for all vehicles of persons employed and of visitors and customers. (2) At Ieast two parking spaces shall be provided for every three employees on the shift having the largest numbccgf employec3. (3) All loading and unloading operations shall be provided for on the premises. (4) Off-street parking and loading facilities may be located within the required yard and setback areas, except a five-foot deep landscaping strip adjacent to side and rear property lines and a thirty-foot deep landscaping area adjacent to front property lines. (Prior code § 8162(h)(1): Ord. 918). Article 84-56.14 Signs a 84-56.1402 Sign — Restrictions. Signs g displayed on the premises of any permitted use shall pertain directly to the operation or service offered by the use. The aggregate area of these signs shall not exceed one square foot for each front foot of lot width. Signs shall be located on, or shall not extend more than three feet beyond, any wail of the main building, except that an identification sign, not exceeding twelve square feet in area, may be placed within the setback area. (Prior code § 8162(h)(2): Ord. 918). Article 84-56.16 Manufacturing and Storage Areas 8456.1602 Manufacturing and storage area — Requirements. Manufacturing and storage areas: All manufacturing and fabrication operations shall be conducted within buildings. t All equipment and material storage areas shall be screened by solid walls, fences, or by adequate plantings not less than six feet high. (Prior code § 8162(h)(3): Ord. 918). Article 84-56.18 Land Use and Variance Permits I 84-56.1802 Land use and variance permit Granting. Land use permits for special uses enumerated in Section 84-56.404 and variance permits to modify the provisions contained in Sections 84-56.602 — 84-56.1602 may , be granted after application in accordance witlh Chapter 82-6. (Prior code § 8162(i): Ord. 918).