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