Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03211995 - 2.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE:, MARCH 21, 1995 SUBJECT: DEVELOP INTERFACE POLICY FOR USES ADJACENT TO INDUSTRY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: AUTHORIZE GMEDA and Health Services Department staff to proceed with developing an interface policy for uses adjacent to industry in Contra Costa County, based on background and attached report. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff estimates the total cost for time and materials spent by both departments to be•$25,000. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On February 28, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to return on March 21, 1995 with recommendations for a work plan to address the issue of separation between industry and residences or similar receptors. The work plan may include a general plan text amendment, ordinance changes, and other actions. (see page 2 for additional background) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:�G RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION. . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED �NANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTEDi ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VA:dg BY ,DEPUTY bufTer.bo 47 Contact: Val Alexeefr(646-1620) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments Hazardous Materials Commission Planning Commission Public&Environmental Health Advisory Board r Interface Policy for Uses Adjacent to Industry March 21, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (continued) Development of the interface policy will follow this process: ► Staff will prepare exhibits and information. ► Form Ad Hoc Committee; two each from Planning Commission, Hazardous Materials Commission, and Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board;to serve as liaisons with the Commissions/Advisory Board and public to help design workshops and develop policy options. ► Hold public workshops for input; one each in East, West, and Central County. ► Based on input, staff will prepare draft policy and circulate it to previous participants. ► Present options to Planning Commission , Hazardous Materials Commission, and Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board for comment and recommendation.to the Board of Supervisors. ► Review recommendations before the Board of Supervisors. ADDENDUM TO: ITEM 2.4 March 21, 1995 Following the presentation of V. Alexeeff, Director of the Growth Management and Development Agency, the following persons spoke: Dan Hall, Wickland Oil Company, 921 Somersby Way, Sacramento 95864; and Mark Armstrong, 279 Front Street, P. O. Box 218, Danville. All persons desiring to speak having been heard,the Board discussed the recommendation of Mr. Alexeeff relative to the development of an interface policy for uses adjacent to industry in the County. There was consensus among Board members on the need for a Committee to assist with the process with the composition of the Committee to include representation from industry, developers, and the County. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board took the following actions: 1. AUTHORIZED GMEDA and Health Services Department staff to proceed with developing an interface policy for uses adjacent to industry in Contra Costa County; 2. REQUESTED that there be regular reports to the Board of Supervisors on the progress of the Ad Hoc Committee; 3. DETERMINED that Wickland Oil will pay the $25,000 cost subject to a proposed reimbursement mechanism for half of the amount from other applicants subject to the policy and procedure that is ultimately adopted or the identification of other possible funding sources, such as grants; 4. DIRECTED that the Ad Hoc Committee include a representative from Heavy Industry and a representative of the developers; and 5. REQUESTED that the Bay Area Air Quality Management Control Board be formally invited to the Ad Hoc Committee meetings. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: March 15, 1995 TO: Members-Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director GMEDA Elinor Blake, Hazardous Materials Commission SUBJECT: Residential Industrial Buffer It has been proposed that the County establish buffer substantial separation between hazardous industrial uses and other land uses. To help frame this proposal, staff has prepared this initial briefing paper. This paper was originally prepared by Harvey Bragdon and Jim Cutler in 1987. It has been updated to meet the current situation. After reviewing this matter, the Board may wish to provide more specific guidance regarding what they feel needs to be accomplished. I. Historical Perspective As we are all well aware, Contra Costa County developed with a strong, heavy industrial base which was primarily located along the Contra Costa shoreline. For much of the 1950's and 1960's, the County and City General Plans designated most of the shoreline for industrial uses. Residential uses were commonly allowed immediately adjacent to industrial facilities, as is apparent in communities like Rodeo, Crockett, Martinez, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. It wasn't until the 1970's that a major shift in policy began to occur and the adjacent areas began to reflect other uses. There were several significant events and trends which occurred within this period VA:dg buffer.0 1 (3/15/95) Kill which affected the distribution of industrial lands. One was the creation of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) which regulates land uses along the Bay to Stake Point at Bay Point. More important was the shift in the economy to a service orientation and away from traditional, heavy industries. During the 1980's, substantial acreage of land reserved for industrial use were allowed to convert to other uses (including residential) as the demand for industrial land dropped substantially. This trend is still operational today. For example, ABAG has adopted policies calling for this conversion to continue to provide for needed new housing. These trends do not mean that remaining industry is phasing out. The Petroleum and chemical industry is still strong in Contra Costa County and needs opportunity to expand, modify or reorganize facilities. In the past two years, over two billion dollars has been spent on capital investment in clean fuels and related projects indicating that the future of industry in the County is strong. As a generalization, what has resulted from this evolution of development is a patchwork of land uses in numerous locations where industrial lands are located in close proximity to residential and open space lands. II. Differing Land Use Policies These land use patterns have been further compounded by differing land use policies between the County and the cities. There are examples where properties adjacent to industrial lands have been annexed to cities. In some cases, these developments have brought residential and industrial uses into closer proximity. The County has also modified its General Plan to open more lands for residential development creating a bigger interface area. To be successful, any program which calls for hazardous waste buffer zones will require close cooperation with the cities. VA:dg buffer.6 2 (3/15/95) III. Compact Development Industrial development, especially heavy industrial uses formerly spread along the County's shoreline due to the need for water and railroad access. Since that time, newer developments have tended to surround these industrial areas as adjacent areas grew. These tendencies have been encouraged by provisions of State law and LAFCO policies which mandate the limitation of sprawl and encourage infill development. An example of this is found in the controversial 1970's DOW expansion proposal in Contra Costa and Solano Counties. The project was relatively free of controversy in the portion proposed in Contra Costa County, but was exceptionally controversial in Solano County because it would open new areas for development. Pressures to limit sprawl and ensure compact development patterns may conflict with the concept of requiring industrial buffer zones. This issue requires more discussion in the future. IV. Relationship to the Existing County General Plan and Zoning The existing County General Plan, through its Safety Element, deals directly with the issue of hazardous land uses. That element, adopted in 1991, includes ten pages addressing certain hazardous materials uses, in particular, industrial uses, transportation, and navigation, and hazardous waste; it also notes emergency plans. Only two paragraphs, however, speak directly to the protection of residential populations from accidents at industrial facilities; these focus on industrial safety requirements and industrial buffer zones to reduce risk. Policies related to the subject are as follows: 10-61 Hazardous waste releases from both private companies and from public agencies shall be identified and eliminated. 10-62 Storage of hazardous materials and wastes shall be strictly regulated. 10-63 Secondary containment and periodic examination shall be required for all storage of toxic materials. VA:dg buffer.0 3 (3/15/95) 10-64 Industrial facilities shall be constructed and operated in accordance with up-to-date safety and environmental protection standards. 10-65 Industries which store and process hazardous materials shall provide a buffer zone between the installation and the property boundaries sufficient to protect public safety. The adequacy of the buffer zone shall be determined by the County Planning Agency. This policy has been reflected in subsequent County plans and industrial development approvals. It needs to be emphasized that the County and cities already have the authority and precedent to require buffers within industrial sites. Staff does review new applications for onsite buffers where appropriate. The Vine Hill - Pacheco Area General Plan, for example, made specific provision for a buffer zone between the Shell Oil refinery and the adjacent residential lands. The zoning district W-3, Controlled Heavy Industrial District,was adopted to implement that plan and requires, "land within the W-3 district which is also within two hundred fifty feet, exclusive of public right-of-way area, of any other land use district boundary, other than an H-I or U district, shall be subject to review and approval, only as to that portion of the parcel within the two hundred fifty feet,by the Planning Commission as to the location of land uses and site development for any authorized use so as to provide protection for and development compatible to adjacent land use district." The opportunity exists to modify the existing General Plan and Zoning to provide greater clarity on the issue of buffers. V. Different Nature Among Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Material Handlers Users of hazardous materials vary greatly in the toxicity and in the amounts of material handled. The spectrum runs from users of small amounts of VA:dg bufler.0 4 (3/15/95) hazardous materials to large chemical plants and refineries to hazardous waste processing facilities. Development of a buffer zone policy will need to consider the range of sites potentially affected by the policy. VI. Who Pays - Who Benefits One of the major questions which require resolution in considering a buffer zone proposal is to determine the mechanisms for providing the buffer zone and deciding whose responsibility it is to pay the costs for establishing it. In the case of a new industrial facility, the issue may be fairly clear, but for historic uses of the land, that answer may be less easy to determine. Where cities and the County have approved land use designations or allowed developments nearby to an industry which uses hazardous materials, the responsibility may be shared and the financial responsibility to provide buffer zones is not clear. It further needs to be pointed out that the immediate neighbors of a hazardous, industrial facility not only share the safety risk of a malfunction at the plant, but would be the most affected financially by the designation of their property as a buffer zone. Such a designation could certainly negatively affect their property value. Many major industrial sites already have residences near their fencelines. It is also important to contemplate what mechanisms are available to require provision of a buffer. The program must be implementable and since most industries are already in existence or located within industrial zones, they may not need new discretionary permits from the County or the cities. The question of responsibility for the provision of buffer lands requires careful review. VII. Issue of Prohibiting Residences to Promote Buffer Residences have been moving closer to industry for four reasons. A. Property owners have sought to capitalize on land values. B. Support for re-using urban land and avoiding sprawl has added support to mixed-use development. VA:dg buffer.0 5 (3/15/95) C. Unused capacity of existing infrastructure has made urban development more attractive. D. Demand for housing that is affordable remains strong. There are three situations that exist with regard to residential development. A. Existing residences. B. Land currently planned, zoned, and/or lotted for residential development though not yet built. C. Application for General Plan change from some other designation (Industrial, Commercial, Agriculture) to residential. The three circumstances must be treated differently because the law afford different status to each category. The easiest situation to consider for buffer is the third situation where residential vesting cannot be argued. If buffer policies be established for land surrounding industry, those policies should begin with vacant land that is not designated residential. VIII. Nature of Buffer Zones for Industrial Lands Before buffer zones are considered for implementation, it is important to determine what uses might be allowed within them. Will they be allowed to be utilized for low intensity industrial uses that don't use hazardous materials, or for recreational purposes, or will they be required to be kept in an undeveloped state? To ensure buffer zones don't become eyesores or places for the illegal dumping of refuse or become law enforcement problems, specific appropriate uses need to be determined. The concept of compatible uses and what is to be allowed within established buffer zones requires substantial thought. VA:dg buffer.0 6 (3/15/95) IX. Other Issues for Consideration Below are some of the issues for consideration in developing a buffer policy: A. Potential routes of exposure (air, water, land). B. Which hazard indeces to use (e.g., certain health hazards; odor complaints; safety record of industry, et al.) . C. Probability of an accident and its severity. D. "Acceptable" risk levels. E. Topographical considerations. X. Recent Chemical Releases Since December 1991, there have been at least nine chemical accidents in the County with significant off-site consequences; some of these have caused serious injury and community disruption (e.g., General Chemical oleum release; Unocal Catacarb release; Rhone-Poulenc fire). These have sharpened the focus on the need for separating industry from residences. XI. Requirements of State and Federal Laws A. Hazardous waste disposal land use (25220 of the Health & Safety Code) In those circumstances where a hazardous waste disposal land use site is identified, a specific process has been devised by this law to establish a hazardous waste property or border zone. These provisions of law will need to be implemented in any case. These provisions are far more specific than the general designation of buffer zones around industrial lands or hazardous material users. B. AB 2185 In order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the State of California established laws relating to the handling and VA:dg buffer.0 7 (3/15/95) release, or threatened release, of hazardous materials. Basic information on the location, the, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of, which could be accidentally released into the environment, must be available to firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers, regulatory agencies, and other interested persons. In response to the passage of AB 2185, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors designated the County Health Department as the Administering Agency for AB 2185 and established an Implementation Task Force. The Task Force designated committees to develop the Area, Business, Inspection, Implementation and Data Management Plans fee ordinance and resolutions. Through the recommendations of these committees, the Administering Agency established a Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program for the ongoing management of hazardous materials within Contra Costa County. Information was requested from all businesses in Contra Costa County with the suspected Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. Business plans have now been filed for over 1000 new handlers of hazardous materials. C. AB 3777 This legislation calls for analysis of 360 chemicals which are Acutely Hazardous Materials (AHMs) based on a USEPA designation. The legislation requires industries using those chemicals to prepare a Risk Management and Prevention Plan (RMPP), to help prevent accidents and to communicate risk that may be present to the community. The Plan helps to reduce both the likelihood and the impact of an accident. An RMPP includes an "off-site consequence analysis." Using air dispersion models, the areas potentially affected by a chemical release can be predicted under a variety of wind speed conditions. Health effects within those areas can also be predicted. VA:dg buffer.0 8 (3/15/95) Some completed RMPPs have become available rather recently. The off-site consequence analyses provide an additional source of information, though the manner of its application to the land use planning process is under debate. D. Nuclear Power Plant Buffer Zones. Federal Law NRC, Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations E. Air Toxic "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 This California act requires an inventory of toxic chemical emissions from facilities and set forth requirements for the assessment of their potential health risk. Both acutely (short-term) and chronically (long-term, such as cancer) toxic chemicals are included. Facilities whose emissions present a risk above a specified level must notify the surrounding community. F. Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 1. The Act creates a Risk Management Program very similar to California's noted above. The regulations are still under development, but two important differences are already apparent. The federal program looks at "worst case accident" scenarios, whereas the County's looks at "worst credible accident" scenarios. The federal regulations will pre-empt ours. Off-site consequence analyses of worst case accidents may for some facilities show greater effects over a greater area than do analyses of worst credible case accidents. Additionally, the federal Act includes more chemicals (flammables and explosives) than does the state law. 2. Title V will require facilities to have a permit to continute operations; the permits will require the facility to complete an Risk Management Plan. VA:dg buffer.0 9 (3/15/95) XII. Hazardous Materials Commission Actions The Hazardous Materials Task Force prepared an ordinance which was adopted as 86-100 by the Board of Supervisors. Formation of the Hazardous Materials Commission was a followup action to adoption of the ordinance. The Hazardous Materials Commission is currently finalizing amendments to the ordinance that incorporates transportation, proximity, volume, and toxicity issues into the prior ordinance using a formula establishing a threshold for further review. XIII. Alternatives There appears to be a range of alternative approaches for the establishment of buffer zones adjacent to hazardous material users. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. The following is a partial and generalized listing and review of those approaches. A. Dimensional Buffer Zones One obvious approach is to designate dimensional buffer zones along a hazardous material users site. This approach has been suggested since it could parallel guidelines on hazardous waste disposal sites. It would have to be determined if such a linear measure of, for example, 1000 feet or 2000 feet would be measured from the property line, the general plan boundary, the zoning boundary, or from the location where the actual hazardous material is used. Such decisions are critical to determining the actual impact of pursuing such a concept. If the concept extends from a property line, more offsite property will be included. The creation of this type of buffer zone could negatively impact the adjacent landowners twice, once by proximity and secondarily by impact on their property value. It needs to be kept in mind that different definitions of hazardous facilities will greatly affect the territory to be included within buffer zones. The greatest impact could include some, or all, of the industrially VA:dg buffer.0 10 (3/15/95) planned areas, e.g., Industry (heavy industrial), Light Industrial, Controlled Manufacturing, and other designations which use hazardous materials. Or it could be limited to industries which are known to use "acutely hazardous materials" (as per AB 3777). B. Site Specific Analysis As noted above, implementation of AB 3777 has allowed access (through the Health Services Department) to information on facilities that handle acutely hazardous materials, and on the nature of the potential community impact in the event of an accident. The Air District has data on violations of regulations and on odor complaints around specific facilities; other environmental agencies, including Health services, also have inventory, inspection and violation data that may be useful. Topographical information may be useful, as well as information about the surrounding population and structures. C. Utilize 1000 and 2000 feet Thresholds for Analysis of New Industrial Proposals One way to handle review of new applications for hazardous materials and new industrial users would be to require the submittal of information from project applicants on the potential impact of their project in a worst-case threat analysis for lands within 1000 feet. If that analysis showed a potential impact beyond 1000 feet, the impact analysis area could then be expanded to 2000 feet. This type of approach deals with new applications and could provide additional information on the appropriateness of new approvals. To make this approach useful, specific guidelines would need to be jointly developed by the Community Development and health Departments. They could easily be distributed at the Application and Permit Center's front counter with other development application materials. VA:dg buffer.0 11 (3/15/95) D. Modify the General Plan and Zoning Text could be added to the General Plan which provides more specific guidance on the nature and extent of problems between hazardous materials/waste handlers and land uses along their interface. Such a modification would provide general guidance, but would not necessarily place unnecessary burdens on small hazardous material handlers. The disadvantage of this is that there is a potential for some small handlers to slip through the system in the project review process. The existing industrial zoning district could be further review to determine a method of dealing with buffer zones where land use categories abut. Such an approach would allow for more flexibility than utilization of arbitrary concepts such as dimensional offsite buffer zones, for example. An additional advantage with this approach is that it could accommodate a range of concerns beyond simple proximity to hazardous materials, i.e., aesthetics, noise, etc. Additional thought needs to be given to merging the H-I zoning district with the W-3 district to provide for use permits for all industrial uses within 250 feet of other adjacent zones. XIV. Recommendations and Conclusions The issue of creating buffers by restricting or altering residential land use is complex and has major financial implications. VA:dg butler.0 12 (3/15/95) .�. RECEIVED Y � W 211995 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OwlCONTRA COSTA CO. WICKLAND OIL COMPANY Via Fax: (510) 646-1396 Original by hand delivery to Clerk of The Board of Supervisors March 20, 1995 Jeff Smith Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors District Two 651 Pine Street, Room 108-A Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Board Request for Initiation of General Plan and Ordinance Study Regarding Interface between Industrial Uses and Residential and Other Uses. Agenda Item for March 21, 1995. As you know, the County Board of Supervisors, at its public hearing on February 28, 1995, approved the Pointe Crockett project proposed by Wickland Properties. Separate from the motion approving that project, the Board requested staff to include on a future agenda the initiation of a General Plan and ordinance study process. The purpose of such study is to further address issues of interface between industrial land uses and residential and other land uses in the County. Further, as part of that agenda request, the Board asked that Wickland pay a "reasonable share" of such effort. We understand that the matter has been scheduled for Board consideration at its March 21, 1995 meeting. We reviewed the staff recommendation that the Board authorize the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) and Health Services Department (HSD) to proceed with developing policies in accordance with the above. These departments have estimated the total costs for staff time and materials to be $25,000. This letter confirms that Wickland Oil will pay its reasonable share toward the stated total cost of $25,000. We believe that $12,500 is a reasonable share. Note that most of the identified County costs reflect time to be spent by current County employees. We understand the estimated hard costs for materials represent approximately twenty percent of the $25, 000 total amount. PO Box 13648•Sacramento CA 95853 Tel 916-978-2500•Fax 916-978-2408 3640 American River Drive o Sacramento CA 95864 Re: Board Request for Initiation of General Plan and Ordinance Study Regarding Interface between Industrial Uses and Residential and Other Uses. Agenda Item for March 21, 1995. March 20, 1995 Page 2 This letter constitutes an irreversible commitment by Wickland Oil Company to pay its reasonable share within 20 days after written request for the money from the Community Development Department. I would appreciate very much the opportunity to participate in this process on a committee or group from the private sector. With my residential and industry perspective, I believe I could make a valuable contribution to the process. If you or any of the individuals copied on this letter have any questions regarding this commitment or any related matter, please contact me. I will be happy to respond to any questions at the Board meeting on Tuesday when this item is considered. Very truly yours, Daniel E. Hall Vice President DEH:ew cc: (By hand-delivery) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (By .Fax) James Rogers District One, Fax 510-444-4460 Gayle Bishop District Three, Fax 510-820-6627 Mark DeSaulnier District Four, Fax 510-646-5767 Tom Torlakson District Five, Fax 510-427-8142 Community Development Department Attn: Val Alexeef, Fax 510-646-1599 Dennis Barry, Fax 510-646-1309 Health Services Department Attn: Dr. William Walker Elinor Blake Fax: 510-370-5098