HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 113-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
JANUARY 22, 2007 CMR: 113:07
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
DELETING CHAPTERS 18.28 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT GUIDELINES) AND 18.64 (ADDITIONAL SITE
DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS), AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER
18.23 (PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MULTI-FAMILY,
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS) OF TITLE 18
(ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE PAMC
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council adopt the attached ordinance to delete current Chapters 18.28 and 18.64 from the Zoning
Ordinance and to add new Chapter 18.23 to address performance criteria for multi-family,
commercial and industrial uses.
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several policies to address transitions in
scale, density and intensity between residential and non-residential areas and between residential
areas of different densities. Program L-5 specifically directs the City to:
"Establish new performance and architectural standards that minimize negative impacts
where land use transitions occur."
On October 16, 2006, the City Council adopted revisions to the City’s commercial zoning
districts. The revisions included context-based design criteria that address the architectural and
design relationships related to land use transitions. The purposes of the performance criteria are
to make new developments and land uses compatible with nearby residential and business areas,
and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and
for abutting neighbors and businesses.
CMR: 113:07 Page 1 of 6
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On November 1, 2006, the P&TC recommended (7-0) to the Council approval of the draft
ordinance (Attachment A) encompassing updated performance criteria. Staff initially presented a
draft of the performance standards to the P&TC on August 30, 2006 along with the commercial
zone updates and mixed use standards. Subsequent to that date, staff and the P&TC decided to
separate the commercial and mixed use development standards from the performance standards
to allow the Commission, public and business community furtheropportunity to review and
discuss the criteria. The Commission’s review focused on assuring that the criteria require
p~otection from nuisance or otherwise objectionable conditions for nearby residential areas, and
allow for similar protections adjacent to nonresidential uses where appropriate. The major issues
addressed by the Commission and the public centered on hazardous materials (use, storage and
handling) and noise.
DISCUSSION
Existing Zoning Ordinance Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family Residence District Guidelines) and
18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial
Districts) provide performance criteria (guidelines) for multiple family and
commercial/industrial development, respectively. These criteria address pri,cacy, trash disposal
areas, lighting, noise impacts, visual impacts, carports, underground garages, landscaping,
pedestrian protection, and access impacts. The revised performance criteria are proposed as a
new Chapter 18.23 and address all of those potential impacts, but consolidate them into a single
chapter, rearrange the criteria, and update them, to include the following:
Trash Disposal and Recycling
Lighting
Late Night Uses and Activities
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Noise and Vibration
Parking
Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
These revised performance criteria are intended to provide standards to be used in the design and
evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is
to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major
architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential areag, and to enhance the
desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting
neighbors and businesses. Some of the requirements (e.g., noise from mechanical equipment,
hazardous materials) would apply at the building permit stage even where no discretionary
permit is required. The requirements and guidelines would not be retroactive, but would apply
for permits to replace existing equipment.
As with the existing code, criteria are listed as either "requirements" or "guidelines."
Requirements are mandated and would require variances or exceptions for any proposed
deviations. Guidelines are recommended and will be encompassed in review by staff and ARB,
CMR: 113:07 Page 2 of 6
as applicable. They are assumed to apply unless the applicant demonstrates that they are not
appropriate or that other means are provided to address the same concerns.
Many of these criteria restate the current standards and guidelines in Chapters 18.28 and 18.64.
Attachment B is a redline version of the new chapter. Because the chapter consolidates and
rearranges existing code provisions, the redline is not a verbatim reflection of changes to the
code, but indicates new substantive language added to the existing provisions. The key issues for
each section are noted below.
Trash Disposal and Recycling - This section generally requires enclosure and screening of trash
and recycling areas, and adds requirements for designing such enclosures to be architecturally
compatible with the rest of the - project and reviewed by the ARB.
Lighting - This section includes current code language to allow for safe and secure lighting, but
to minimize its use and avoid offsite impacts. The amendments quantify maximum lighting
intensity (0.5 footcandle) as measured at the abutting residential property line, and provide
additional considerations to limit interior lighting and to reduce exterior lighting after operating
hours at a site.
Late Night Uses and Activities - This is a new section that includes general language about
restricting late night activities at retail or service commercial businesses abutting or within 50
feet of (either directly adjacent or across the street) residentially zoned properties. Additionally,
within the CN or CS zone, any such uses would require a conditional use permit for operations or
activities occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (also required by the recently amended CN
and CS zoning requirements).
Visual, Screening and Landscaping - This section encompasses extensive existing language
requiring landscape transitions and buffers adjacent to residential uses, and adds setbacks for
rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures (already included in the research/industrial
zoning districts). The amendments also suggest the use of textured or permeable paving materials
for visual and stormwater purposes, and specify that plantings should allow for a mature
appearance within 5 years.
Noise and Vibration - Existing standards require compliance with the City’s noise ordinance
(Title 9) and equipment location out of setbacks. Other noise sources are to be located away from
residential properties where feasible and/or must incorporate noise-reducing measures. The
proposed amendments add language that requires demonstration of compliance with both the
noise ordinance and Comprehensive Plan noise criteria through an acoustical analysis prior to
building permit issuance.
Parking - This section incorporates criteria from the existing code regarding underground
parking and compatibility of carports. Amendments include locating parking behind buildings,
breaking parking into smaller groupings of spaces, and assuring that underground garages
provide adequate perimeter area for transition landscaping.
Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Access - This section adds language to avoid access conflicts
with pedestrian walkways or bikeways, as well as including existing provisions to locate
CMR: 113:07 Page 3 of 6
shipping and receiving areas away from residences and to avoid use of residential streets for
employee or truck access.
Air Quality - This section adds new language generally requiring owners/applicants to address
cooking and other odors, smoke and dust that may affect adjacent residences.
Hazardous Materials - This is a new section requiring compliance with regulations and
providing notice to nearby residents when a business increases the quantities or changes the
types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled. Staff believes this language is appropriate
to allow for public "right to know" where such materials are being used. The provisions only
apply when a business proposes to use hazardous materials in excess of certain threshold limits
governed by Health and Safety Code 6.95, requiring permitting through the Fire Department.
Notice would be sent to all residential property owners within 150 feet of the building or area of
storage or use of the materials, not later than 10 days after permit approval, and would allow for
such residents to review the plans and applicable accidental release measures.
For projects with "extremely hazardous" materials governed by Title 19 of the California Code
of Regulations and requiring a Release Management Plan (RMP) to be filed with the County
Department of Health, the code would require the City to notify "affected residents" within a
geographic area identified in the RMP of a County 45-day period for public review and comment
on the RMP. A minimum 300-foot setback from residential properties would be required for
such materials, and increases in existing facilities already within the 300 foot limit would be
restricted to 25% of existing quantities. In addition, this section includes a prohibition of the use
or storage of BioSafety Level 4 etiological (biological) agents within the City of Palo Alto.
Some residents of the Barron Park area have recently expressed concern about the allowance for
a 25% increase in existing Title 19 quantities within 300 feet of residential properties, and
suggest a lesser or no increase be allowed (this provision is applicable only to the CPI facility).
Staff believes, however, that some increase to allow for future business needs is appropriate, that
25% is a reasonable limit, and that adequate protections exist through the public notice and
review provisions of this section and Fire Department and County Health review.
Community Outreach
Staff met on October 18, 2006, with neighborhood representatives and other residents and
provided a draft of the proposed code section to the attendees. Community input was also part of
the Commission’s study sessions and hearings. The proposal was added to the City’s Zoning
Ordinance Update website for public review as well. Staff met on October 17, 2006, with
business representatives from the Stanford Research Park who have properties that abut
residentially zoned properties to discuss these provisions. Staff believes that the vast majority of
public and business concerns were addressed in and subsequent to those meetings.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommendations in the proposed zoning revisions for performance criteria will have little,
if any, resource impact on the City of Palo Alto. The changes would not affect the allowable
uses on a site or the intensity of development permitted. The new measures appear to be
reasonable expectations of the community for protection of adjacent properties, and would not
involve substantial new costs to business.
CMR: 113:07 Page 4 of 6
Minor incremental staff costs will be incurred in the review, public notice and enforcement of
development proposals, particularly relative to potential noise and hazardous waste impacts.
These costs will generally be recovered in application permit fees, however.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with
the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Commission believe that the proposed
amendments reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to prepare performance
standards and to provide for appropriate transitions from high density residential and
nonresidential development to lower density residential uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would not affect the intensity of
development permitted, and would provide greater environmental protection regarding visual,
noise, air quality, hazardous materials and other potential impacts of development. The
amendments are consistent with the policies and programs outlined in the Comprehensive Plan
and with the Comprehensive Plan EIR.
PREPARED BY:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance
Attachment B: Redlined Version of Ordinance
Attachment C: November 1, 2006 P&TC Staff Report and Attachments
Attachment D: October 25, 2006 P&TC Staff Report and Attachments
Attachment E: November 1, 2006 P&TC Minutes
Attachment F: October 25, 2006 P&TC Minutes
Attachment G: Correspondence
CMR: 113:07 Page 5 of 6
COURTESY COPIES
Planning and Transportation Commission
Architectural Review Board
Dan Firth, Fire Marshal
Doug Moran, Barton Park Association
Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association
Chamber of Commerce
Ramsey Shuayto, Stanford Management Company
Art Liberman
Fred Balin
Joy Ogawa
CMR: 113:07 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
NOT YET APPROVED
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
DELETING CHAPTERS 18.28 (MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT GUIDELINES) AND 18.64 (ADDITIONAL SITE
DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REGULATIONS FOR
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS) AND ADDING
CHAPTER 23 (PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FORMULTIPLE
FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL ANDPLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICTS) TO TITLE 18 (ZONING) OFTHE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
(a) That in December 2000, the City Council approved a work plan for the Zoning
Ordinance Update involving the preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC), including the update of existing land use chapters and processes as
well ~as the preparation of chapters for new and revised land uses;
(b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and
policies to address transitions in scale, density, and intensity between residential and non-
residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. Program L-5 specifically
directs the City to establish performance and architectural standards that "minimize impacts
where land use transitions occur." The Zoning Ordinance Update was initiated in part to
accomplish these programs and policies.
(c) The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) initially discussed
performance criteria for multiple family, commercial, industrial, and planned community
districts in study sessions on August 30, 2006 and September 13, 2006. The P&TC conducted a
public hearing regarding the proposed deletion of current Chapters 18.28 and 18.64, and the
addition of new Chapter 18.23 to address performance criteria for multiple family, commercial,
industrial, and planned community districts. On November 1, 2006, the P&TC recommended to
the Council approval of an ordinance addressing performance criteria standards.
//
//
//
//
070116 syn 0130043
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.28 (Multi Family Resident District Guidelines) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3. Chapter 18.64 (Additional Site and Development Design Regulations for
Commercial and Industrial Districts ) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 4. Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial,
Industrial and Planned Community Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal
code is hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 18.23
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND. PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.23.010
18.23.020
18.23.030
18.23.040
18.23.050
18.23.060
18.23.070
18.23.080
18.23.090
18.23.100
Purpose and Applicability
Trash Disposal and Recycling
Lighting
Late Night Uses and Activities
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Noise and Vibration
Parking
Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability
(A)Purpose: These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be
used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and
industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with
the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The
criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects
compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability
of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting
neighbors and businesses.
070116 syn 0130043
NOT YET APPROVED
(B)Applicability of Regulations: Except where otherwise noted, the criteria established in
this chapter shall be applicable to all multiple family (RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40),
commercial (CN, CS, CC, CC(2), and CD), and industrial (OR, MOR, ROLM, RP, and
GM) zoning districts, and Planned Community (PC) districts that are located within one
hundred fifty feet of any R-E, R-l, R-2, RM or PC District permitting single family or
multi-family development within the City of Palo Alto, or of properties with existing
residential uses within nonresidential zones. The determination of final approval of the
architectural and design elements of any project remains with the Director of Planning
and Community Environment, after recommendation by the Architectural Review
Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Director and
the Architectural Review Board retain the authority to interpret criteria on a project-by-
project basis in order to most effectively fulfill the specific purposes listed in
subsection (A); provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of
architectural review pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
The requirements shall apply to new construction on such sites, or to modifications of
existing buildings or site improvements at the time of approval or building permit
issuance if no architectural approval is necessary. The criteria shall also be applied for
sites abutting nonresidential zones except where the Architectural Review Board
determines the provisions are not applicable or are adequately addressed through other
means.
Design element regulations that are identified as requirements shall be included in the
design of the project. The recommended guidelines should be included in the design of
the project. At the submittal of the project to the architectural review board or for a
building permit, if these guidelines are not included, it shall be necessary for the
applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the design objectives set forth in this
section.
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A)Purpose: Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or
exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate
containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting
residences as is reasonably possible.
(B) Requirements:
(i)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users
of the property.
(ii)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by
masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and
covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible.
Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged.
(iii)Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with
the design of the project.
070116 syn 0130043
2
NOT YET APPROVED
(iv)The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures
shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance
with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council
pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
18.23.030
(A)
Lighting
Purpose: To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential
sites and from adjacent roadways.
(B) Requirements:
(i)
(ii)
Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be
designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the
site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual
intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural
lighting that projects upward.
The use of high pressure sodium and metal halide are permitted light sources.
Low pressure sodium is not allowed.
(iii)Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in low activity or residential parking lots and 20 feet in
medium or high activity parking lots.
(iv)Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries, such
lighting shall not exceed 0.5 footcandle as measured at the abutting residential
property line.
(c)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from
and/or intruding into nearby properties and shall be shielded to eliminate glare
and light spillover beyond the perimeter property line of the development.
Light fixtures shall not be located next to driveways or intersections, which
obstruct clear sight distance triangles.
Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be
of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed
’to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light
fixture.
(viii)Pedestrian and security lighting fixtures should be directed downward.
Architectural lighting that projects upward from the ground as used in
landscaping, courtyards, or building accent should be directed so as not to affect
abutting land uses.
Guidelines:
(i)Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated signs or backlit
awnings, should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed,
should be limited to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding
background opaque. Illumination should be by low intensity lamps.
070116 syn 0130043
NOT YET APPROVED
Timing devices should be considered for exterior and interior lights in order to
minimize light glare at night without jeopardizing security of employees. At the
time of project approval the project applicant must demonstrate how interior and
exterior lighting sources will be reduced after operating hours or when the use
of the facility is reduced.
18.23.040 Late Night Use and Activities
(A)Purpose: The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting
(either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or
properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with
operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations
subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and
sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage
pick up.
(B) Requirements:
(i)
(ii)
Retail (including restaurants) or service commercial businesses abutting or
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones, that are open or with
operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be
operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise,
odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours.
Where planning or building permits are required or for a change in use that
results in any such commercial business in the CN or CS zone districts,
operating or with activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a
conditional use permit shall be obtained and conditions of approval shall be
applied as deemed necessary to ensure the operation is compatible with the
abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential property. Said use permit shall be
limited to operations or activities occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
18.23~050
(A)
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Purpose: Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should
be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service
areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the
surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties
where appropriate.
(B)Requirements:
(i)Walls facing residential properties shall incorporate architectural design features
and landscaping in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk.
070116 syn 0130043
4
NOT YET APPROVED
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Loading docks and exterior storage of materials or equipment shall be screened
from view from residential properties by fencing, walls or landscape buffers.
All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting residential properties shall be
planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a
height of fifteen (15) feet above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment
nearest residential property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building
edge closest to the residential property or a minimum of 100 feet from the
residential property line, whichever is closer. Roof vents, flues and other
protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from
public view by a roof screen or proper placement.
For sites abutting residential properties, a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8
feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the residential property
line where privacy or visual impacts are an issue.
A minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip shall be provided abutting a
low density residential district (R-l, R-2, or RMD).
All exterior mechanical and other types of equipment, whether installed on the
ground or attached to a building roof or walls, shall be screened from public
and, if visible and feasible, from overhead view.
(viii)
(ix)
For landscape buffers to provide a visual screen, trees and shrubs in the buffer
area shall be installed in a manner that provides maximum visual separation of
residential uses from the commercial or industrial use, taking into consideration
topography and sight lines from residences.
Size and density of plant materials shall be in proportion to the size of planting
areas and the mass of the structure.
(x)
(xi)
Plant material selection shall take into consideration solar orientation, drought
tolerance, maintenance requirements and privacy screening.
Plant material species and container sizes shall allow for a mature appearance
within five (5) years.
(C)Guidelines:
(i)Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or
structure should be clustered where feasible and where visual impacts would
thereby be minimized.
(ii)Windows, balconies or similar openings above the first story should be offset so
as not to have a direct line-of-sight into the interior living areas of adjacent units
within the project or into units on abutting residential property.
(iii)Building elevations facing residential property should not have highly reflective
surfaces, such as reflective metal skin and highly reflective glazing. The paint
colors should be in subdued hues.
070116 syn 0130043
NOT YET APPROVED
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Increased setbacks or more restrictive daylight planes may be proposed by the
applicant, or recommended by the architectural review board, as mitigation for
the visual impacts of massive buildings.
Appropriate landscaping should be used to aid in privacy screening.
Planting strips and street trees should be included in the project.
Textured and permeable paving materials should be used, where feasible, in
pedestrian, driveway and parking areas in order to visually reduce paved areas
and to allow for retention and/or infiltration of stormwater to reduce pollutants
in site runoff.
(viii)Landscaping material associated with screening should have adequate room to
grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
(ix)Where rooftops are visible from offsite, they should be treated to minimize
aesthetic impacts, including the use of rooftop gardens or other green spaces,
where feasible.
18,23.060 Noise and Vibration
(A)
(S)
Purpose: The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are
intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from
excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting
industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce
noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation,
air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New
equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a
building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these
requirements.
Requirements:
(i)All projects shall comply with Chapter 10 of Title 9 (Noise Ordinance) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(ii)Noise-producing equipment, including but not limited to generators, pumps, and
air conditioning compressors, shall be located out of setbacks where abutting or
within 50 feet of residential properties, and shall be screened from view from
the residential property.
(iii)At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation
of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment, the applicant shall
submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected
compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical
readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures,
such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient
degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be
exceeded.
070116 syn 0130043
6
NOT YET APPROVED
(c)
(iv)Upon completion of construction or installation, the City shall, where the
acoustical analysis projected noise levels at or within 5 dB less than the Noise
Ordinance limits, require demonstration of the installed equipment and
certification that it complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise
Ordinance prior to final building inspection approval.
Guidelines:
(i)
Oi)
Projects adjacent to major arterials, railroad tracks and more intensive land uses
should include, but not be limited to, the following: sound walls, solid board
fencing, and additional landscaping where appropriate to reduce noise impacts
on usable open space.
Parking areas, driveways, loading docks, mechanical equipment, trash
enclosures, on-site recreation areas and similar noise generating elements
should be sited as far away from residential property as is reasonably possible.
When conditions require noise generating elements to be sited within close
proximity to residential property, noise mitigation measures should be
implemented as deemed suitable by staff or the architectural review board.
These measures may include the following:
(a)Placement of building mass, and/or concrete or masonry walls at the
residential property line or around the noise generating element;
(b) Elimination of site access close to residential sites where other access
is available;
(iii)
(iv)
(c)Installation of an earth berm and landscape buffers where appropriate;
(d)Discouragement of the use of open air loudspeakers and compliance
with the city’s loudspeakers ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
Auxiliary power sources should be included and used at loading docks so that
there is no needless engine idling of delivery trucks with refrigerator or other
engine-powered equipment. These sources should be shown on drawings
submitted for building permits.
All uses within 150 feet of a residential property should be operated as not to
generate vibration discernible without instruments at or beyond the lot line upon
which the source is located or within adjoining enclosed space if more than one
establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains,
and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted from this standard.
18.23.070 Parking
(A) Purpose: The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially
zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within
nonresidential zones.
(B) Requirements:
070116 syn 0130043
NOT YET APPROVED
(c)
18.23.080
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Surface parking areas shall be located so that garages or carports are not
predominantly facing the street, and parking locations behind the building(s) are
preferable.
Carport structures shall be architecturally compatible with the main structures in
the project and should utilize substantial support posts. Landscaping material
associated with the carport shall have adequate room to grow and be protected
from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
Required residential parking spaces in the RM-40 zoning district shall be
underground, semi-depressed, enclosed or concealed for projects of six units or
more, and encouraged for projects of fewer than six units.
Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
Where feasible, parking shall be broken into smaller groupings of spaces to
avoid large expanses of parking and to provide for more opportunities to
intercept and filter drainage from the parking areas.
Proximity of underground parking garages to residentially zoned properties
should take into consideration the need for landscaping along the perimeter of
the site. In instances where substantial planting is necessary, the placement of
parking garages should be adequately setback from the property line to provide
for the landscaping.
(A)
Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
Purpose: The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize
conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive
traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts.
(B)Requirements:
(i)Truck deliveries shall not occur before 6:00 AM or after 10:00 PM, except
pursuant to the provisions of a conditional use permit.
(C)Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
The location of driveways, shipping and receiving areas, and loading docks
should be sited as far away from residentially zoned properties or properties
with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones as is
reasonably feasible while recognizing site constraints and traffic safety issues.
Employee ’ingress and egress to a site should be located to avoid the use of
residential streets wherever feasible.
(iii)
(iv)
Late hour and early morning truck traffic to a site located in or near a residential
area should be discouraged.
Vehicular access points should not conflict with pedestrian and bicycle
walkways and facilities.
070116 syn 0130043
NOT YET APPROVED
18.23.090 Air Quality
(A)Purpose: The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from
potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants.
(B)Requirements:
Cooking odors, smoke and other similar air contaminants shall be controlled
and prevented from leaving the property or becoming a nuisance to neighboring
properties.
(ii)For all commercial and industrial uses that may be objectionable by reason of
the production of emissions of odor, smoke, dust, or other similar air
contaminants, the applicant shall provide information showing proposed
methods to minimize those contaminants. Such provisions may include such
means as regular watering to minimize dust or air scrubbers to minimize smoke.
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
Purpose: In accordance with Chapter 15 and Chapter 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail
the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site
in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code 6.95 and Title
15 of the Municipal Code.
(B) Requirements:
(i)The project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes
for the storage, use and handling of the hazardous materials involved.
(ii)Any new structure that is designated an "H" occupancy (storage, use and
handling of specified types and quantities of hazardous materials), or any
existing structure that is converted to an "H" occupancy, as specified by the
California Building Code, shall be designed in accordance with the currently
adopted California Building Code and Fire Code.
(iii)Where a building or area used for such storage, use and/or handling is located
within 150 feet of a residential zoning district or of properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties), the
business owner shall provide a report to the Fire Department addressing the
adequacy of the emergency contingency plan, which addresses safety of the
nearby residential area, including but not limited to, procedures for accidental
releases or other emergencies, and other protective measures as required by
Health and Safety Code 6.95, upon:
a)A change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on
the site in quantities above the reporting threshold established in the
California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95; and/or
070116 syn 0130043
NOT YET APPROVED
(iv)
(v)
b)A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed
hazardous material stored, used or handled on the site above the
reporting threshold established in the California Health and Safety Code,
Chapter 6.95; and/or
c) Release/threatened release incidents.
For any such facility outlined in (iii) above, upon application for any building
permit for improvements that would result in a change in the types of hazardous
materials stored, used or handled on the site or an increase in the quantities of
hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site, the City shall provide
written notice to the owners and residents of all residential property within 150
feet from the property line, not later than ten (10) days after issuance of the
building permit. The notice shall inform the property owners that an application
has been received, the nature of the request (such as the type of materials), that
the Fire Department and Building Department have determined the project to be
in compliance with relevant hazardous materials regulations, and that the
application and details are on file with the Fire Department and/or Building
Department
If an applicant proposes a new structure or a modification of an existing
structure on a development site that will entail hazardous materials stored, used
or handled in excess of the threshold limits of regulated substances listed in
Tables 1-3 § 2770.5 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations - Chapter
4.5 Public Safety, or proposes to increase the amounts of hazardous materials
on-site above Title 19 threshold limits (including hazardous wastes),
notification shall be provided to "affected residents" (and property owners)
advising them that the proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) is available for
public review with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health. Notification from the City shall be mailed not later than 10 days after
receipt of the information by the Fire Department (the County allows for a
comment period of at least 45 days.) Comments may be submitted to the
SCCDEH, which shall review the RMP and any comments received.
Any user or operator of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits in
Palo Alto shall submit a copy to the Palo Alto Fire Department of the RMP they
are required to prepare under Title 19 and file with the Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). No building or Fire
Department permit shall be issued prior to the submittal of the RMP to the
SCCDEH and the Fire Department and the completion of the required public
review period. The applicant is required to identify in the RMP the zone where
potential serious offsite consequences would occur from an accidental release of
the largest quantity of a regulated substance. This zone extends from the
proposed place of usage or storage to a distance where a toxic vapor cloud, heat
from a fire~ or blast waves from an explosion resulting from an accident at the
usage or storage point would travel before dissipating to the level at which
070116 syn 0130043
10
NOT YET APPROVED
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
serious injuries from short-term exposures will no longer occur. "Affected
residents" are those who reside or own residential property within this zone.
Notwithstanding the provisions above, no new "H" Occupancy portion of a
facility (building or area) and no conversion or reconstruction of an existing
facility designated for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials above
Title 19 threshold limits shall be located closer than 300 feet to a residentially
zoned property or a property with existing residential uses in a nonresidential
zone. The Fire Marshal may increase the separation to a distance greater than
300 feet if deemed feasible and necessary to assure protection of residential
properties. These provisions shall also apply to facilities that propose a) to
increase the quantity of allowable hazardous materials that previously were
below Title 19 threshold limits to levels that exceed Title 19 threshold limits, or
b) to increase the quantity of hazardous materials that already exceed Title 19
threshold limits to a quantity in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) above
amounts allowed by an RMP in effect as of November 1, 2006.
Any facility that is no longer subject to the applicability requirements of Title
19 as described above and for which de-registration of the RMP is submitted by
the owner or operator shall not re-establish the use, storage, or handling of
hazardous materials in excess of Title 19 threshold limits, except in compliance
with the notice and setback requirements outlined above.
No facility proposing the use of BioSafety Level 4 etiological agents shall be
permitted in the City of Palo Alto.
070116 syn 0130043
11
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective ori the 31st day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
070116 syn 0130043
18.23.010
ATTACHMENT B
Purpose and Appllcammy
Chapter 18.23
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.23.010
18.23.020
18.23.030
18.23.040
18.23.050
18.23.060
18.23.070
18.23.080
18.23.090
18.23.100
Purpose and Applicability
Trash Disposal and Recycling
Lighting
Late Night Uses and Activities
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Noise and Vibration
Parking
Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability
(A)Purpose: These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be
used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and
industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with
the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The
criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects
compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability
of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting
neighbors and businesses.
(B)Applicability of Regulations: Except where otherwise noted, the criteria of this chapter
shall be applicable to all multiple family (RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40), commercial
(CN, CS, CC, CC(2), and CD), and industrial (OR, MOR, ROLM, RP, and GM) zoning
districts, and Planned Community (PC) districts that are located within one hundred
fifty feet of any R-E, R-l, R-2, RM or PC District permitting single family or multi-
family development within the City of Palo Alto, or of properties with existing
residential uses within nonresidential zones. The determination of final approval of the
architectural and design elements of any project remains with the Director of Planning
and Community Environment, after recommendation by the Architectural Review
Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Director and
the Architectural Review Board retain the authority to interpret criteria on a project-by-
project basis in order to most effectively fulfill the specific purposes listed in
subsection (A); provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of
architectural review pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
The requirements shall apply to new construction on such sites, or to modifications of
existing buildings or site improvements at the time of approval or building permit
Performance Criteria Redlined 1-22-2007 1
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
issuance if no architectural approval is necessary. The criteria shall also be applied for
sites abutting nonresidential zones where determined to be appropriate except where
the Architectural Review Board determines the provisions are not applicable or are
adequately addressed through other means.
Design element regulations that are identified as requirements shall be included in the
design of the project. The recommended guidelines should be included in the design of
the project. At the submittal of the project to the architectural review board or for a
building permit, if these guidelines are not included, it shall be necessary for the
applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the design objectives set forth in this
section.
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A)Purpose: Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or
exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate
containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting
residences as is reasonably possible.
(B) Requirements:
(i)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users
of the property.
(ii)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by
masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and
covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible.
Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged.
(iii)Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with
the design of the proiect..
(iv)The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures
shall be subiect to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance
with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council
pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
18.23.030 Lighting
(A) Purpose: To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential
sites and from adjacent roadways.
(B) Requirements:
(i)
(ii)
Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be
designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the
site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual
intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural
lighting that proj ects upward.
The use of high pressure sodium and metal halide are permitted light sources.
Low pressure sodium is not allowed.
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 2
18.23.040 Late Night Use and Activities
(iii)
(iv)
Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in low activity or residential parking lots and 20 feet in
medium or high activity parking lots.
Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries, such
lighting shall not exceed 0.5 footcandle as measured at the abutting residential
property line.
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from
and/or intruding into nearby properties and shall be shielded to eliminate glare
and light spillover beyond the perimeter property line of the development.
Light fixtures shall not be located next to driveways or intersections, which
obstruct clear sight distance triangles. ’
Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways shall be of
the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to
focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light
fixture.
(viii)Pedestrian and security lighting fixtures shall be directed downward.
Architectural lighting that proiects upward from the ground as used in
landscaping, courtyards, or building accent should be directed so as not to affect
abutting land uses.
(C) Guidelines:
(i)Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated signs or backlit
awnings, should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed,
should be limited to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding
background opaque. Illumination should be by low intensity lamps.
(ii)Timing devices should be considered for exterior and interior lights in order to
minimize light glare at night without jeopardizing security of employees. At the
time of project approval the project applicant must demonstrate how interior and
exterior lighting sources will be reduced after operating hours or when the use
of the facility is reduced.
18.23.040 Late Night Use and Activities
(A)Purpose: The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting
(either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or
properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with
operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations
subiect to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parldng lot and
sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage
pick up.
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 3
18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping
(B)Requirements:
(i)
(ii)
Retail (including restaurants) or service commercial businesses abutting or
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones, that are open or with
operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be
operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise,
odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours.
Where planning or building permits are required or for a change in use that
results in any such commercial business in the CN or CS zone districts,
operating or with activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a
conditional use permit shall be obtained and conditions of approval shall be
applied as deemed necessary to ensure the operation is compatible with the
abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential property. Said use permit shall be
limited to operations or activities occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
18.23.050
(A)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Purpose: Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should
be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service
areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the
surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties
where appropriate.
Requirements:
B!ar2c wWalls facing residential properties_shall incorporate architectural design
features and landscaping in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk.
Loading docks and exterior storage of materialsor equipment shall be screened
from view from residential properties by fencing, walls or landscape buffers.
All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting residential properties shall be
planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a
height of fifteen (15) feet above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment
nearest residential property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building
edge closest to the residential property or a minimum of 100 feet from the
residential property line, whichever is closer. Roof vents, flues and other
protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from
public view by a roof screen or proper placement.
For sites abutting residential properties, a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8
feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the residential property
line where privacy or visual impacts are an issue.
A minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip shall be provided abutting a
low density residential district (R-l, R-2, or RMD).
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 4
18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping
(c)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
All exterior mechanical and other types of equipment, whether installed on the
ground or attached to a building roof or walls, shall be screened from public
and, if visible and feasible, from overhead view.
For landscape buffers to provide a visual screen, trees and shrubs in the buffer
area shall be installed in a manner that provides maximum visual separation of
residential uses from the commercial or industrial use, taking into consideration
topography and sight lines from residences.
Size and density of plant materials shall be in proportion to the size of planting
areas and the mass of the structure.
(x)
(xi)
Plant material selection shall take into consideration solar orientation, drought
tolerance, maintenance requirements and privacy screening.
Plant material species and container sizes shall allow for a mature appearance
within five (5) years.
Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or
structure should be clustered where feasible and where visual impacts would
thereby be minimized.
Windows, balconies or similar openings above the first story should be offset so
as not to have a direct line-of-sighi into the interior living areas of adjacent units
within the project or into units on abutting residentially zenM property.
Building elevations facing residential property should not have highly reflective
surfaces, such as reflective metal skin and highly reflective glazing. The paint
colors should be in subdued hues.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Increased setbacks or more restrictive daylight planes may be proposed by the
applicant, or recommended by the architectural review board, as mitigation for
the visual impacts of massive buildings.
Appropriate landscaping should be used to aid in privacy screening.
Planting strips and street trees should be included in the project.
Textured and permeable paving materials should be used, where feasible, in
pedestrian, driveway and parking areas in order to visually reduce paved areas
and to allow for retention and/or infiltration of stormwater to reduce pollutants
in site runoff.
(viii)
(ix)
Landscaping material associated with screening should have adequate room to
grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
Where rooftops are visible from offsite, they should be treated to minilnize
aesthetic impacts, including the use of rooftop gardens or other green spaces,
where feasible.
Performance CriteriaRedlined 11-7-2006 5
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
(A)
(B)
Purpose: The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are
intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from
excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting
industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce
noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation,
air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residentially zoned
properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or
located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be
subi ect to these requirements.
Requirements:
(i)All proj ects shall comply with Chapter 10 of Title 9 (Noise Ordinance) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(ii)Noise-producing equipment, including but not limited to generators, pumps, and
air conditioning compressors, shall be located out of setbacks where abutting o__yr
within 50 feet ofresidentia roperties or ........ ~ ............. .~ ....
sites, and shall be screened from view from the residentially zoned property_.
(iii)At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation
of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment, the applicant shall
submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating prqiected
compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical
readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures,
such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient
degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be
exceeded.
(c)
(iv)Upon completion of construction or installation, the City shall, where the
acoustical analysis proiected noise levels at or within 5 dB less than the Noise
Ordinance limits, require demonstration of the installed equipment and
certification that it complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise
Ordinance prior to final building inspection approval.
Guidelines:
(i)Projects adjacent to major arterials, railroad tracks and more intensive land uses
should include, but not be limited to, the following: sound walls, solid board
fencing, and additional landscaping where appropriate to reduce noise impacts
on usable open space.
(ii)Parking areas, driveways, loading docks, mechanical equipment, trash
enclosures, on-site recreation areas and similar noise generating elements
should be sited as far away from residential property as is reasonably possible.
When conditions require noise generating elements to be sited within close
proximity to residential property, noise mitigation measures should be
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 6
18.23.070 Parking
(iii)
(iv)
implemented as deemed suitable by staff or the architectural review board.
These measures may include the following:
(a)Placement of building mass, and/or concrete or masonry walls at the
residential property line or around the noise generating element;
(b)Elimination of site access close to residential sites where other access
is available;
(c)
(d)
Installation of an earth berm and landscape buffers where appropriate;
Discouragement of the use of open air loudspeakers and compliance
with the city’s loudspeakers ordinance (Chapter 9~ 12 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
Auxiliary power sources should be included and used at loading docks so that
there is no needless engine idling of delivery trucks with refrigerator or other
engine-powered equipment. These sources should be shown on drawings
submitted for building permits.
All uses within 150 feet of a residential property should be operated as not to
generate vibration discernible without instruments at or beyond the lot line upon
which the source is located or within adjoining enclosed space if more than one
establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains,
and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted from this standard.
18.23.070 Parking
Purpose: The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially
zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within
nonresidential zones.
(B)Requirements:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(c)
Surface parking areas shall be located so that garages or carports are not
predominantly facing the street, and parking locations behind the building(s) are
preferable.
Carport structures shall be architecturally compatible with the main structures in
the project and should utilize substantial support posts. Landscaping material
associated with the carport shall have adequate room to grow and be protected
from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
Required residential parking spaces in the RM-40 zoning district shall be
underground, semi-depressed, enclosed or concealed for projects of six units or
more, and encouraged for projects of fewer than six units.
Guidelines:
(i)Where feasible, parldng shall be broken into smaller groupings of spaces to
avoid large expanses of parking and to provide for more opportunities to
intercept and filter drainage from the parking areas.
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 7
18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
(ii)Proximity of underground parking garages to residentially zoned properties
should take into consideration the need for landscaping along the perimeter of
the site. In instances where substantial planting is necessary, the placement of
parking garages should be adequately setback from the property line to provide
for the landscaping.
18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
(A) Purpose: The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize
conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive
traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts.
(B) Requirements:
(i)Truck deliveries shall not occur before 6:00 AM or after 10:00 PM, except
pursuant to the provisions of a conditional use permit.
C_(_C_)__Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
The location of driveways, shipping and receiving areas, and loading docks
should be sited as far away from residentially zoned properties or properties
with existin~ residential uses located within nonresidential zones as is
reasonably feasible while recognizing site constraints and traffic safety issues.
Employee ingress and egress to a site should be located to avoid the use of
residential streets wherever feasible.
(iii)
(iv)
Late hour and early morning truck traffic to a site located in or near a residential
area should be discouraged.
Vehicular access points should not conflict with pedestrian and bicycle
walkways and facilities.
18.23.090 Air Quality
(A)Purpose: The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from
potential sources of odor and!or toxic air contaminants.
(B)Requirements:
Cooking odors, smoke and other similar air contaminants shall be controlled
and prevented from leaving the property or becoming a nuisance to neighboring
properties.
(ii)For all commercial and industrial uses that may be objectionable by reason of
the production of emissions of odor, smoke, dust, or other si~nilar air
contaminants, the applicant shall provide information showing proposed
methods to minimize those contaminants. Such provisions may include such
means as regular watering to minimize dust or air scrubbers to minimize smoke.
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 8
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
(A)Purpose: ha accordance with Chapter 15 and Chapter 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail
the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site
in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code 6.95 and Title
15 of the Municipal Code.
(B) Requirements:
(i)The proiect shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes
for the storage, use and handling of the hazardous materials involved.
(ii)Any new structure that is designated an "H" occupancy (storage, use and
handling of specified types and quantities of hazardous materials), or any
existing structure that is converted to an "H" occupancy, as specified by the
California Building Code, shall be designed in accordance with the currently
adopted California Building Code and Fire Code.
(iii)Where a building or area used for such storage, use and/or handling is located
within 150 feet of a residential zoning district or of properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties), the
business owner shall provide a report to the Fire Department addressing the
adequacy of the emergency contingency plan, which addresses safety of the
nearby residential area, including but not limited to, procedures for accidental
releases or other-emergencies, and other protective measures as required by
Health and Safety Code 6.95, upon:
A change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on
the site in quantities above the reporting threshold established in the
California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95; and/or
b)A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed
hazardous material stored, used or handled on the site above the
reporting threshold established in the California Health and Safety Code,
Chapter 6.95; and/or
c) Release/threatened release incidents.
(iv)For any such facility outlined in (iii) above, upon application for any building
permit for’improvements that would result in a change in the types of hazardous
materials stored, used or handled on the site or an increase in the quantities of
hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site, the City shall provide
written notice to the owners and residents of all residential property within 150
feet from the property line, not later than ten (10) days after issuance of the
building permit. The notice shall inform the property owners that an application
has been received, the nature of the request (such as the type of materials), that
the Fire Department and Building Department have determined the project to be
in compliance with relevant hazardous materials regulations, and that the
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 9
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
application and details are on file with the Fire Department and/or Building
Department
(v)If an applicant proposes a new structure or a modification of an existing
structure on a development site that will entail hazardous materials stored, used
or handled in excess of the threshold limits of regulated substances listed in
Tables 1-3 § 2770.5 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations Chapter
4.5 Public Safety, or proposes to increase the amounts of hazardous materials
on-site above Title 19 threshold limits (including hazardous wastes),
notification shall be provided to "affected residents" (and property owners)
advising them that the proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) is available for
public review with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health. Notification from the City shall be mailed not later than 10 days after
receipt of the information by the Fire Department (the County allows for a
comment period of at least 45 days.) Comments may be submitted to the
SCCDEH, which shall review the RMP and any comments received.
Any user or operator of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits in
Palo Alto shall submit a copy to the Palo Alto Fire Department of the RMP they
are required to prepare under Title 19 and file with the Santa Clara County
Department of Enviromnental Health (SCCDEH). No building or Fire
Department permit shall be issued prior to the submittal of the RMP to the
SCCDEH and the Fire Department and the completion of the required public
review period. The applicant is required to identify in the RMP the zone where
potential serious offsite consequences would occur from’ an accidental release of
the largest quantity of a regulated substance. This zone extends from the
proposed place of usage or storage to a distance where a toxic vapor cloud, heat
from a fire, or blast waves from an explosion resulting fi’om an accident at the
usage or storage point would travel before dissipating to the level at which
serious injuries from short-term exposures will no longer occur. "Affected
residents" are those who reside or own residential property within this zone.
(vi)Notwithstanding the provisions above, no new "H" Occupancy portion of a
facility (building or area) and no conversion or reconstruction of an existing
facility designated for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials above
Title 19 threshold limits shall be located closer than 300 feet to a residentially
zoned property or a property with existing residential uses in a nonresidential
zone. The Fire Marshal may increase the separation to a distance greater than
300 feet if deemed feasible and necessary to assure protection of residential
properties. These provisions shall also apply to facilities that propose a) to
increase the quantity of allowable hazardous materials that previously were
below Title 19 threshold limits to levels that exceed Title 19 threshold limits, or
b) to increase the quantity of hazardous materials that already exceed Title 19
threshold limits to a quantity in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) above
amounts allowed by an RMP in effect as of November 1, 2006.
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 10
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
(vii)Any facility that is no longer subject to the applicability requirements of Title
19 as described above and for which de-registration of the RMP is submitted by
the owner or operator shall not re-establish the use, storage, or handling of
hazardous materials in excess of Title 19 threshold limits, except in compliance
with the notice and setback requirements outlined above.
(viii)No facility proposing the use of BioSafety Level 4 etiological agents shall be
permitted in the City of Palo Alto.
Performance Criteria Redlined 11-7-2006 11
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Curtis Williams, Chief Planning and
Transportation Official
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
DATE:November !, 2006
SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance
Amending Title 18 (Zoning) to Delete Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family
Residence District Guidelines) and 18.64 (Additional Site Development and
Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts) and to Adopt a
New Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multi-Family, Commercial, and
Industrial Districts); Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend adoption
of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) to the City Council.
This recommendation includes added language to Section 18.16.1 O0 to require that 1) no new
"H" occupancy portion of a facility storing or using hazardous materials in excess of Title 19
thresholds (or increasing existing levels more than 25% above existing allowances) shall be
located closer than 300 feet to a residential zone district, and that 2) no facility storing or using
BioSafety Level 4 etiological agents is permitted in Palo Alto.
BACKGROUND
Staff presented a draft of the performance criteria to the P&TC on October 25, 2006. The
Commission heard public testimony (and closed the public hearing), asked questions of staff,
offered some suggestions for evaluation, and continued the item to November 1, 2006.
DISCUSSION
At the conclusion of the October 25th meeting, the Commission asked several questions and
offered comments about the proposed regulations. Questions recorded by staff, and responses to
those questions, are listed below.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Why is 150feet used as the applicable affected area when some impacts extend beyond that
distance?
The Zoning Ordinance has established 150 feet as a protected zone for many criteria (height,
daylight planes, performance criteria) to address transitions from nonresidential or higher
density residential uses to lower density residential. While some types of impacts (e..g, noise,
dust) may extend beyond 150 feet, most impacts are limited to immediate neighbors, and the
performance criteria or other city standards (noise ordinance, dust control, etc.) control
impacts at the property line so that impacts 150 feetaway should be negligible.
Some of the guidelines should be requirements.
Staff concurs that some of the proposed guidelines could be presented as requirements. In
particular, staff suggests that the following guidelines be relocated in the requirements
sections: Sections 18.23.050(C)(ii), (vii)-(x), and 18.23.080(C)(iii). For all of the other
guidelines, staff believes that specifying them as requirements would create practical
¯ difficulties in some circumstances and that discretion for staffor the ARB is necessary to
define whether they or not they should be applied.
Can we provide discretion to staff(Fire, Planning) to require facilities using hazardous
materials in excess of Title 19 amounts to be located farther from residential areas?
The City could legally provide either discretionary language to allow for increased setbacks
(e.g., "The Fire Marshal, with input from the Planning Director, may require setbacks greater
than those prescribed by the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance for facilities or areas
housing hazardous materials that are subject to Title 19 Cal-ARP review, in order to provide
more extensive buffers from residential uses")or could require a minimum setback for such
uses. Staff recommends adding a requirement that new Title 19 facilities (the H occupancy
portion used for storage, use, or handling of such materials) be located a minimum of 300
feet from any residential property, along with the notice of the RMP for review by the public.
Could we require facilities using BioSafety Level 4 biological agents to be located away from
residential areas? Should we require more than a ministerial process for those facilities?
Again, specifying greater setbacks than are required by building codes is an option, or
perhaps even prohibiting such facilities, but staff believes that a discretionary process, like a
conditional use permit or other potential public hearing process, is not appropriate because
there is Planning staff, the ARB, P&TC and City Council are not qualified to determine
whether appropriate protective measures are adequate to protect public health. Staff does,
however, believe that BioSafety Level 4 biological agents are very unlikely and has included
language to prohibit those facilities in the City of Palo Alto.
We should limit lighting at night to that necessary given the lower level of use - lesser area
of lighting and/or timers, etc.
The proposed criteria already address these issues. Section 18.23.030(C)(iv) indicates that
timing devices should be considered for exterior and interior lights and that the applicant
must demonstrate how interior and exterior lighting sources will be reduced after operating
hours or when the use of the facility is reduced.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Maybe we should prohibit internal illumination of signs, since the ARB rarely approves such
signs.
The proposed criteria discourage internal illumination of signs, but they are occasionally
approved by ARB and are appropriate in some locations, so staffbelieves it is not appropriate
to prohibit them altogether.
7.Why don "t the provisions apply where a project is adjacent to nonresidential uses?
Many of the provisions will be applied by ARB review where adjacent to nonresidential uses,
and the applicability criteria specifically authorize consideration for sites abutting
nonresidential uses. However, there are many instances where it is not necessary to apply the
same level of restrictions near nonresidential uses, and the ARB should retain discretion to
define where these measures are appropriate.
Is there any requirement for covering and/or locking trash enclosures ?
Section 18~23.020(B)(ii) has been revised to require covering trash enclosures wherever
feasible, as well as to require gates or other controlled access. Locking trash enclosures is not
required, however.
We should include something to prevent blank walls.
Section 18.23.050(B)(i) requires that blank Walls shall incorporate architectural design
features and landscaping to reduce apparent mass and bulk.
Revised Draft Ordinance
A revised version of the Performance Criteria Chapter 18.23 is attached. The revisions include:
1) cleanup for format and consistency (e.g., "150 feet from a residential zone district 0r from a
property with existing residential use in a nonresidential zone"), and 2) a few substantive
revisions, most notably the increased setbacks for Titie i 9 hazardous materials and prohibition of
the storage or use of BioSafety Level 4 etiological agents.
The attached ordinance is redlined to reflect the changes from the October 25th version.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes the changes recommended are adequate and reasonable to address concerns that
have been expressed by the Cormnission and the public, and that the ordinance provides
substantially more protection for residential neighbors of commercial and industrial zoning
districts than exists today.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Revised Draft Chapter 18.23
COURTESY COPIES
City Council
Architectural Review Board
Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Dan Firth, Fire Marshal
City of Palo Alto Page 3
PREPARED BY: Whitney McNair, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Curtis Williams
ChiefPlarming and Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 4
18,23.010 Pro-pose and Applicability
Chapter 18.23
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY,
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.23.010
18.23.020
18.23.030
18.23.040
18.23.050
18.23.060
18.23.070
18.23.080
18.23.090
18.23.100
Purpose and Applicability
Trash Disposal and Recycling
Lighting
Late Night Uses and Activities
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Noise and Vibration
Parking
Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability
Purpose: These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be
used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and
industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with
the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. The criteria are intended
to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with
nearby residential areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments
¯for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses.
(t3)Applicability of Regulations: Except where otherwise noted, the criteria of this chapter
shall be applicable to all multiple family (RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40), commercial
(CN, CS, CC, CC(2), and CD), and industrial (OR, MOR,ROLM, RP, and GM) zoning
districts, and Planned Community (PC) districts that are located within one hundred
fifty feet of any R-E, R-l, R-2, RM or PC District permittifig single family or multi-
family development within the City of Palo Alto, or of properties with existing
residential uses within those-nom’esidential zones. The determination of final approval
of the architectural and design elements of any project remains with the Director of
Planning and Community Environment, after recommendation by the Architectural
Review Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The
Director and the Architectural Review Board retain the authority to interpret criteria on
a project-by-project basis in order to most effectively fulfill the specific purposes listed
in subsection (A); provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part
of architectural review pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
The requirements shall apply to new construction on such sites, or to modifications of
existing buildings or site improvements at the time of approval or building permit
issuance if no architectural approval is necessary. The criteria may also be considered
Performance Criteria 11-01-2006 1
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling ! 8.22. ! 00 Ha~
for sites abutting nonresidential zones where determined to be appropriate by the
Architectural Review Board.
Design element regulations that are identified as requirements shall be included in the
design of the project.. The recommended guidelines should be included in the design of
the project. At the submittal of the project to the architectural review board or for a
building permit, if these guidelines are not included, it shall be necessary for the
applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the design objectives set forth in this
section.
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
Purpose: Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or
exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate
containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting
residences as is reasonably possible.
(B)Requirements:
(i)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users
of the property.
(ii)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by
masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and
covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible.
Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged.
(iii)
(iv)
Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with
the design of the project.
The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures
shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance
with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council
pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
18.23.030 Lighting
(A) Purpose: To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential
sites and from adjacent roadways.
(B) Requirements: ........
(i)Exterior lighting in parldng areas, pathways and common open space shall be
designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the
site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual
intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural
lighting that projects upward.
(ii)The use of high pressure sodium and metal halide are permitted light sources.
Low pressure sodium is not allowed.
Performance Criteria 11-1-2006 2
18.23.040 Late Night Use and Activities18.23. !00 ’Ha.~
(iii)Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in low activity or residential parking lots and 20 feet in
medium or high activity parking lots.
(iv)Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries, Such
lighting shall not exceed 0.5 footcandle as measured at the abutting residential
property line.
(c)
(v)
(vi)
Interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from
and/or intruding into nearby properties and shall be shielded to eliminate glare
and light spillover beyond the perimeter property line of the development.
Light fixtures shall not be located next to driveways or intersections, which
obstruct clear sight distance triangles.
Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be
of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed
to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light
fixture.
Pedestrian and security fighting fixtures should be directed downward.
Architectural lighting that projects upward from the ground as used in
landscaping, courtyards, or building accent should be directed so as not to affect
abutting land uses.
(iii)
(iv)
18.23,040
Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminatedsigns or backlit
.awnings, should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed,
should be limited to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding
background opaque. Illumination should be by low intensity lamps.
Timing devices should be considered for exterior and interior lights in order to
minimize light glare at night without jeopardizing security of. employees. At the
time of project approval the project applicant must demonstrate how interior and
exterior lighting sources will be reduced after operating hours or when the use
of the facility is reduced.
Late Night Use and Activities
(A)Purpose: The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting
(either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or
properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with
operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations
subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parldng lot and
sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage
pick up.
(B) Requirements:
Performance Criteria 1121-2006 3
18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscapingl 8,23.!09 Haz
(i)
(ii)
18.23.050
(A)
03)
Retail (including restaurants) or service commercial businesses abutting or
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones, that are open or With
operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be
operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise,
odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours.
Where planning or building permits are required or for a change in use that
results in any such commercial business in the CN or CS zone districts,
operating or with activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a
conditional use permit shall be obtained and conditions of approval shall be
applied as deemed necessary to ensure the operation is compatible with the
abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential~ property. Said use permit shall
be limited to operations or activities occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.mo
(i)
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Purpose: Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within noltresidential zones (residential properties) should
be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service
areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the
surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties
where appropriate.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(V)
(vi)
Requirements:
Blank walls facing residentially ...... properhes_shall incorporate architectural
design features and landscaping in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk.
Loading docks and exterior storage of materials or equipment shall be screened
from view from residentially ze, neg properties by fencing, walls or landscape
buffers.
All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting residentially zc, neg properties
shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
Rooftop equipment or rooftop .equipment enclosures shall not extend above a
height of fifteen (15) feet above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment
nearest residentially zc, ne~ property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the
building edge closest to the residentially zenec! property or a minimum of 100
feet from the residential property line, whichever is closer.
For sites abutting residential~ properties, a solid wall or fence between 5
and 8 ft in height shall be constructed and maintained along the residentially
~meg property line where privacy or visual impacts are an issue.
A minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip shall be provided abutting a
low density residential district (R-l, R-2, or RMD).
(C)Guidelines:
Performance Criteria 11-1-2006 4
Vibration .........Ha218.23.060 Noise and ’ ’ 1Q o~ 1ha
(i)Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or
structure should be clustered and obscured from public view by a roof screen or
proper placement.
(ii)All exterior mechanical and other types of equipment, whether installed on the
ground or attached to a building roof or walls, Should be screened from public
and, if visible and feasible, from overhead view.
(i!i)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Windows, balconies or similar openings above th~ first story should be offset so
as not to have a direct line-of-sight into the interior living areas of adjacent units
within the project or into units on abutting residentially zenea~ property.
Building elevations facing residentially ze, neg property should not have highly
reflective surfaces, such as reflective metal skin and highly reflective glazing.
The paint colors should be in subdued hues.
Increased setbacks or more restrictive daylight planes may be proposedby the
applicant, or recommended by the architectural review board, as mitigation for
the visual impacts of massive buildings.
Appropriate landscaping should be used to aid in privacy screening..
For landscape buffers to provide a visual screen, trees and shrubs in the buffer
area should be installed in a manner that provides maximum visual separation of
residential uses from the commercial or industrial use, taking into consideration
topography and site-~lines from residences.
Size and density of plant materials should be in proportion to the size of
planting areas and the mass of the structure.
(ix)Plant material selection should take into consideration solar orientation, drought
tolerance, maintenance requirements and privacy screening.
(x)Plant material species and container sizes should allow for a mature appearance
within five (5) years.
(xi)
(xii)
Planting strips and street trees should be included in the project.
Textured and permeable paving materials should be used, where feasible, in
pedestrian, driveway and parking areas in order to visually reduce paved areas
and to allow for retention and/or infiltration of stormwater to reduce pollutants
in site runoff.
(xiii)Landscaping material associated with screening should have adequate room to
grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
(A) Purpose: The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are
intended to protect residentially zoned properties or woperties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from
excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting
industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce
noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation,
Performance Criteria 11-1-2006 5
[ 18.23.060~Noise and VibrationI 8.22.190 Haz
I
I
(B)
(c)
air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential~
properties, New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or
located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be
subject to these requirements.
Requirements:
(i)All projects shall comply with Chapter 10 of Title 9 (Noise Ordinance) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(ii)
(iii)
Noise-producing equipment, including but not limited to generators, pumps, and
air conditioning compressors, shall be located out of setbacks where abutting o1"
within 50 feet ofresidential!y
sites, and shall be screened fromview from the residentially zened property_.
At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation
of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment, the applicant shall
submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected
compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical
readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures,
such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient
degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be
exceeded.
Upon completion of construction or installation, the City shall, where the
acoustical analysis projected noise levels at or within 5 dB of-less than the
Noise Ordinance limits, require demonstration of the installed equipment and
certification that it complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise
Ordinance prior to final building inspection approval.
Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
Projects adjacentto major arterials, railroad tracks and more intensive land uses
should include, but not be limited to, the following: sound walls, solid board
fencing, and additional landscaping where appropriate to reduce noise impacts
on usable open space.
Parking areas, driveways, loading docks, mechanical equipment, trash
enclosures, on-site recreation areas and similar noise generating elements
should be sited as far away from residentially ze.ned property as is reasonably
possible. When conditions require noise generating elements to be sited within
close proximity to residentially zene~ property, noise mitigation measures
should be implemented as deemed suitable by staff or the architectural review
board. These measures may include the following:
(a) Placement of building mass, and/or concrete or masonry walls at the
residential property line or around the noise generating element;
(b) Elimination of site access close to residential sites where other access
is available;
(c) Installation of an earth berm and landscape buffers where appropriate;
Performance Criteria 11-1-2006 6
1.8.23.070 ¯Parkang
(iii)
Or)
(d)Discouragement of the use of open air loudspeakers and compliance
with the city’s loudspeakers ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
Auxiliary power sources should be included and used at loading docks so that
there is no needless engine idling of delivery trucks with refrigerator or other
engine-powered equipment. These sources should be shown on drawings
submitted for building permits.
All uses within 150 feet of a residentially-zoned property should be operated as
not to generate vibration discernible without instruments at or beyond the lot
line upon which the source is located or within adjoining enclosed space if more
than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor
vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted
from this standard.
18.23.070 Parking
(A) Purpose: The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially
zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within
nonresidential zones.
(B) Requirements:
(i)Surface parking areas shall be located so that garages or carports are not
predominantly facing the street, and parking locations behind the building(s) are
preferable.
(ii)Carport structures shall be architecturally compatible with the main structures in
the project and should utilize substantial support posts. Landscaping material
associated with the carport shall have adequate room to grow and be protected
from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
(iii)Required residential parking spaces in the RM-40 zoning district shall be
underground, semi-depressed, enclosed or concealed for projects of six units or
more, and encouraged for projects of fewer than six units.
Guidelines:
(i)Where feasible, parking shall be broken into smaller groupings of spaces to
avoid large expanses of parking and to provide for more opportunities to
intercept and filter drainage from the parking areas.
(ii)Proximity of underground parking garages to residentially zoned properties
should take into consideration the need for landscaping along the perimeter of
the site. In instances where substantial planting is necessary, the placement of
parking garages should be adequately setback from the property line to provide
for the landscaping.
Performance Criteria 11-1-2006
1.8.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site AccesslS.22.100 Ha~ ~
18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
(A) Purpose: The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize
conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive
traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts.
03) Guidelines:
0)¯ The location of driveways, shipping and receivi"ng areas, and loading docks
should be sited as far away from residentially zoned properties, or properties
with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones as is
reasonably feasible while recognizing site constraints and traffic safety issues.
(ii)Employee ingress and egress to a site should be located to avoid the use of
residential streets wherever feasible.
(iii)Late hour and early morning truck traffic to a site located in or near a residential
area should be discouraged. Truck deliveries shall not be before 6:00 AM or
after 10:00 PM.
(iv)Vehicular access points should not conflict with pedestrian and bicycle
walkways and facilities.
18.23.090 Air Quality
(A)Purpose: The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from
potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants.
03)Requirements: :
a. Cooking odors, smoke and other similar air contaminants shall be controlled and
prevented.from leaving the property or becoming a nuisance to neighboring.
properties.
bo For all commercial and industrial uses that may be objectionable by reason of the
production of emissions of odor, smoke, dust, or other similar air contaminants,
the applicant shall, provide information showing proposed methods to minimize
those contaminants. Such provisions may include such means as regular watering
to minimize dust or air scrubbers to minimize smoke.
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
Purpose: In accordance with Chapter 15 and Chapter 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail
the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site
in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code 6.95 and Title
15 of the Municipal Code.
03) Requirements:
Performance Criteria 11 - 1-2006 8
Matermls ..........Ha218.23.100 Hazardous o " 1~,~ lnn
(ii)
(iii)
(v)
The project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes
for the storage, .use and handling of the hazardous materials involved.
Any new structure that is designated an "H" occupancy (storage, use and
handling of specified types and quantities of hazardous materials), or any
existing structure that is converted to an "H" occupancy, as specified by the
California Building Code, shall be designed in accordance with the currently
adopted California Building Code and Fire Code.
Where a building or area used for such storage, use and/or handling is located.
within 150 feet of a residential zoning district or of properties with existin~
residential uses located within nonresidential zones, the business owner shall
provide a report to the Fire Department addressing the adequacy of the
emergency contingency plan, which addresses safety of the nearby residential
area, including but not limited to, procedures for accidental releases or other
emergencies, and other protective measures as required by Health and Safety
Code 6.95, upon:
a) A change in the types of hazardous materials stored,, used or handled on
the site in quantifies above the reporting threshold established in the
California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95; and/or
b)A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed
hazardous material stored, used or handled on the site above the
reporting threshold established in the California Health and Safety Code,
Chapter 6.95; and/or
c) Release/threatened release incidents.
For any such facility outlined in (iii) above, upon application for any building
permit for improvements that would result in a chmage in the types of hazardous
materials stored, used or handled on the site or an increase in the quantities of
hazardous materials stored, usedor handled on the site, the City shall provide
written notice to the owners of all residentially zoned property within 150 feet
from the property line, not later than five (5) days after issuance of the building
permit. The notice shall inform the property owners that an application has been
received, the nature of the request (such as the type of materials), that the Fire
Department and Building Department have determined the project to be in
compliance with relevant hazardous materials regulations, and that the
application and details are on file with the Fire Department and/or Building
Department
If an applicant proposes a new structure or a modification of an existing
structure.on a development site that will entail hazardous materials stored, used
or handled in excess of the threshold limits of regulated substances listed in
Tables 1-3 § 2770.5 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations - Chapter
4.5 Public Safety, or proposes to increase the amounts of hazardous materials
on-site above Title 19 threshold limits (including hazardous wastes),
notification shall be provided to "affected residents" (and property owners)
Performance Criteria 11-1-2006 9
I 1.8.23~1.00 Hazardous MaterialslS,22.!O0 Ha~
(vi)
(vii)
advising them that the proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) is available for
public review with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health. Notification from the City shall be mailed not later than 10 days after
receipt of the information by the Fire Department (the County allows for a
comment period of at least 45 days.) Comments may be submitted to the
SCCDEH, which shall review the RMP and any comments received.
Any user or operator of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits in
Palo Alto shal! submit a copy to the Palo Alto Fire Department of the RMP they
are required to prepare under Title 19 and file with the Santa Clara County
Department of Enviromnental Health (SCCDEH), No building or Fire
Department permit shall be issued prior to the submittal of the RMP to the
SCCDEI-I and the Fire Department and the completion of the required public
review period. The applicant is required to identify in the RMP the zone where
potential serious offsite consequences would occur from an accidental release of
the largest quantity of a regulated substance. This zone extends from the
proposed place of usage or storage to a distance where a toxic vapor cloud, heat
from a fire, or blast waves from an explosion resulting from an accident at the
usage or storage point would travel before dissipating to the level at which
serious injuries from short-term exposures will no longer occur. "Affected
residents" are those who reside within this zone.
Notwithstanding the provisions above, no new "H" Occupancy portion of a
facility (building or area) _de__2sjgnated for storag_e_d!u.se or.!a_O~ of hazardous
materials aboveTitle 1.9 threshold limits shall be located closer than 300 feet to
a residentially zdned property or a property with existing residential uses in a
nonresidential zone. The Fire Marshal may increase the separation to a distance
greater than 300 feet if deemed feasible and necessary to assure protection of
residential areas. These provisions shall also apply to facilities that propose to
increase the quantity of allowable hazardous materials to exceed Title 19 levels,
Ol-to increase existing Title 19 quantities in excess of twenty-five percent (25%)
above allowable RMP limitations.
No facilities proposing the use of BioSafet¥ Level 4 etiological agents shall be
permitted in the City of Palo Alto.
Performance Criteria 11 - 1-2006 10
PLANNING &
ATTACHMENT D
TRANSP OR TA TION
DIVISION
3
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Whitney McNair, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
DATE:October 25, 2006
SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance
Amending Title 18 (Zoning) to Delete Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family
Residence District Guidelines) and 18.64 (Additional Site Development and
Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts) and to Adopt a
New Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multi-Family, Commercial, and
Industrial Districts); Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend adoption
of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) to the City Council.
BACKGROUND.
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several policies to address transitions in
scale and density and intensity between residential and non,residential areas and between
residential areas of different densities. Program L-5 specifically directs the City to:
"Establish new performance and architectural standards that minimize negative impacts
where land use transitions occur."
On October 16, 2006, the City Council adopted revisions to the City’s commercial zoning
districts. The revisions included context-based design criteria that address the architectural and
design relationships related to land use transitions.
Prior ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission Review
Staff presented a draft of the performance standards to the P&TC on August 30, 2006 along with
the commercial zone updates and mixed use standards. Subsequent to that date, staff and the
P&TC decided to separate the commercial and mixed use development standards from the
City of Palo Alto Page I
performance standards to allow the Commission, public and business community further
opportunity to-review and discuss the criteria.
DISCUSSION
Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family Residence District Guidelines) and 18.64 (Additional Site
Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts) of the Zoning
Ordinance currently provide performance criteria (guidelines) for multiple family and
commercial/industrial development, respectively. These criteria address privacy, trash disposal
areas, lighting, noise impacts, visual impacts, carports, underground garages, landscaping,
pedestrian protection, and access impacts. The draft performance criteria are proposed as a new
Chapter 18.23 (Attachment A) and address all of those potential impacts, but consolidate them
into a single chapter, rearrange the criteria, and update them, to include the following:
Trash Disposal and Recycling
Lighting
Late Night Uses and Activities
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Noise and Vibration
Parking
Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
These performance criteria are intended to provide standards to be used in the design and
evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is
to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major
architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential areas, and to enhance the
desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting
neighbors and businesses. Some of the requirements would apply at the building permit stage as
well. The requirements and guidelines would not be retroactive, but would apply for permits to
replace equipment.
As with the existing code, criteria are listed as either "requirements" or "guidelines."
Requirements are mandated and would require variances or exceptions for any proposed
deviations. Guidelines are recommended and will be encompassed in review by staff and ARB,
as applicable, and are assumed to apply unless the applicant demonstrates that they are not
appropriate or that other means are provided to address the same concerns.
Many of these criteria restate the current standards and guidelines in Chapters 18.28 and 18.64.
Attachment B is a redline version of the new Chapter. Because the Chapter consolidates and
rearranges existing code provisions, the redline is not a verbatim reflection of changes to the
code, but indicates new substantive language added to the existing provisions. The key issues for
each section are noted below.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Trash Disposal and Recycling- This section generally requires enclosure and screening of trash
and recycling areas, and adds requirements for designing such enclosures to be architecturally
compatible with the rest of the project and to be reviewed by the ARB.
Lighting - This section includes current code language to allow for safe and secure lighting, but
to minimize its use and avoid offsite impacts. The amendments quantify maximum lighting
intensity (0.5 footcandle) as measured at the abutting residential property line, and provide
additional considerations to limit interior lighting and to reduce exterior lighting after operating
hours at a site.
Late Night Uses and Activities - This is a new section that includes general language about
restricting retail or service commercial businesses abutting or within 50 feet of (either directly or
across the street) residentially zoned properties. Additionally, within the CN or CS zone, any
such uses would require a conditional use permit for operations or activities occurring between
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Visual, Screening and Landscaping - This section encompasses extensive existing language
requiring landscape transitions and buffers adjacent to residential uses, and adds setbacks for
rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures (already included in the research/industrial
zoning districts). The amendments also suggest the use of textured or permeable paving materials
for visual and stormwater purposes, and specify that plantings should allow for a mature
appearance within 5 years.
Noise and Vibration - Existing standards require compliance with the City’s noise ordinance
(Title 9) and equipment location out of setbacks. Other noise sources are to be located away from
residential properties where feasible and/or must incorporate noise-reducing measures. The
proposed amendments add language that requires demonstration of compliance with both the
noise ordinance and Comprehensive Plan noise criteria through an acoustical analysis prior to
building permit issuance. That section also identifies the Comprehensive Plan noise thresholds
for environmental review.
Parking - This section incorporates criteria from the existing code regarding underground
parking and compatibility of carports. Amendments include located parking behind buildings,
breaking parking into smaller groupings of spaces, and assuring that underground garages
provide adequate perimeter area for transition landscaping.
Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Access - This section adds language to avoid access conflicts
with pedestrian walkways or bikeways, as well as including existing provisions to locate
shipping and receiving areas away from residences and to avoid use of residential streets for
employee or truck access.
Air Quality - This section adds new language generally requiring owners/applicants to address
cooking and other odors, smoke and dust that may affect adjacent residences.
Hazardous Materials - This is a new section requiting compliance with regulations and
providing notice to nearby residents when a business increases the quantities or changes the
types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled. Staff believes this language is appropriate
City of Palo Alto Page 3
to allow for public "right to know" where such materials are being used. The provisions only
apply when a business proposes to use hazardous materials in excess of certain threshold limits
governed by Health and Safety Code 6.95, requiring permitting through the Fire Department.
The notice would be sent to all residential property owners within 150 feet of the building or area
of storage or use of the materials, not later than 5 days after permit approval, and would allow for
such residents to review the plans and applicable accidental release measures.
For projects with "extremely hazardous" materials govemed by Title 19 of the California Code
of Regulations and requiring a Release Management Plan (RMP) to be filed with the County
Department of Health, the code would require the City to notify "affected residents" identified in
the RMP of the County’s 45-day public review and comment period. The County ultimately has
approval authority over these sites (which are very rare in Palo Alto), but is required to notify the
Fire Department of such plans.
Community Outreach
Staff met on October 18th with neighborhood representatives and other residents and provided a
draft of the proposed code section to the attendees. Staffwill report to the Commission regarding
that meeting discussion. Community input Was also part of the Commission’s previous study
session. The proposal has been added to the City’s Zoning Ordinance Update website for public
review as well.
Staff also met on October 17th with business representatives from the Stanford Research Park
who have properties that abut residentially zoned properties, to discuss these provisions. There
was a general understanding for the need to inform the public about available information related
to hazardous materials stored, used or handled with a specified distance from a r.esidentially
zoned property. There were other questions regarding air quality, noise and hazardous materials.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would have little impact on the amount of
development permitted in multi-family, commercial and industrial zones. Most of the draft
amendments provide added protections in transitions from uses abutting low density to
residential zones. The amendments are consistent with the policies and programs outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan and with the Comprehensive Plan EIR.
NEXT STEPS
Upon recommendation by the Commission, the draft ordinance amendments will be presented to
the City Council for review and approval. The Council is tentatively scheduled to hear this item
in December, 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft New Chapter 18.23
B. Draft Chapter 18.23 Redlined Version
COURTESY COPIES
City Cotmcil
Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Melissa Tronquet; Deputy City Attorney
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Dan Firth, Fire Marshall
Architectural Review Board
Doug Moran, Barron Park Association
Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association
Chamber of Commerce
Elaine Johnson
JoyOgawa
Ramsey Sliuayto, Stanford Management Company
Ken Komberg, Komberg Associates
PREPARED BY: Whitney McNair, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Curtis Williams
ChiefPlarming and Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page
18.23.010
Chapter 18.23
Purpose and Applicability
ATTACHMENT A
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY,
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.23.010
"18.23.020
18.23.030
18.23.040
18.23.050
18.23.060
18.23.070
18.23.080
18.23.090
18.23.100
Purpose and Applicability
Trash Disposal and Recycling
Lighting
Late Night Uses and Activities
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Noise and Vibration
Parking
Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability
Purpose: These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be
used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and
industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with
the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. Tge criteria are intended
to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with
nearby residential areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments
for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses.
(B)Applicability of Regulations: Except where otherwise noted, the criteria of this chapter
shall be appl.icable to all multiple family (RM-15, RM-30, and RM:40), commercial
(CN, CS, CC, CC(2), and CD), and industrial (OR, MOR, ROLM, RP, and GM) zoning
districts, and Planned Community (PC) districts that are located within one hundred
fifty feet of any R-E, R-l, R-2, RM or PC District permitting single family or multi-
family development within the City of Palo Alto, or of existing residential uses within
those zones. The determination of final approval of the architectural and design i
elements of any project remains with the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, after recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, pursuant to
Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Director and the Architectural
Review Board retain the authority.to interpret criteria on a project-by-project basis in
order to most effectively fulfill the specific purposes listed in subsection (A); provided,
that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review
pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
The requirements shall apply to new construction on such sites, or to modifications of
existing buildings or site improvements at the time of approval or building permit
issuance if no architectural approval is necessary. The criteria may also be considered
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 1
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
for sites abutting non-residential zones where determined to be appropriate by the
Architectural Review Board.
Design element regulations that are identified as requirements shall be included in the
¯ design of the project. The recommended guidelines should be included in the design of
the project. At the submittal of the project to the architectural review board or for a
building permit, if these guidelines are not included, it shall be necessary for the
applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the design objectives set forth in this
section.
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
Purpose: Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or
exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate
containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting
residences as is reasonably possible.
(B)Requirements:
(i)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users
of.the property.
(ii) Trash disposal and recyciable areas shall be screened from public view by
masonry or other opaque and durable material. Chain link enclosures are
strongly discouraged.
(iii)Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with
the design of the project.
(iv)The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures
shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance
with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council
pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
18.23.030 Lighting
(A) Purpose: To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting residential sites and
from adjacent roadways.
(B) Requirements: .......
(i)Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be
designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the
site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual
intrusions on abutting properties from spillover and architectural lighting that
projects upward,
(ii)The use of high pressure sodium and metal halide are permitted light sources.
Low pressure sodium is not allowed.
(iii)Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in low activity or residential parking lots and 20 feet in
medium or high activity parking lots.
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 .2
18.23.040 Late Night Use and Activities
(c)
(iv)Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries, such
lighting shall not exceed 0.5 footcandle as measured at the abutting residential
property line.
Interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from
and/or intruding into nearby properties and shall be shielded to eliminate glare
and light spillover beyond the perimeter property line of the development.
Light fixtures shall not be located next to driveways or intersections, which
obstruct clear sight distance triangles.
Guidelines:
(i)Lighting Of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be
of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed
to focus illulnination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light
fixture.
(ii)Pedestrian and security lighting fixtures should be directed downward.
Architectural lighting that projects upward from the ground as used in
landscaping, courtyards, or building accent should be directed so as not to affect
abutting land uses.
(iii)
(iv).
Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated signs or backlit
awnings, should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed,
should be limited to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding
background opaque. Illumination should be by low intensity lamps.
Timing devices should be considered for exterior and interior lights in order to
minimize light glare at night without jeopardizing security of employees. At the
time of project approval the project applicant must demonstrate how exterior
lighting sources will be reduced after operating hours or when the use 0fthe
facility is reduced.
18.23.040 Late Night Use and Activities ¯
Purpose: The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting
(either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties
with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations
subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and
sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage
pick up.
(B) Requirements:
O)Retail (including restaurants) or service commercial businesses abutting or
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties that are open or with operations
or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be operated in
a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting
or other nuisances from any sources during those hours.
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 3
18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping
18.23.050
(A)
(c)
(ii)Where planning or building permits are required or for a change inuse that
resuRs in any such commercial business in the CN or CS zone districts,
operating or with activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a
conditional use permit shall be obtained and conditions of approval shall be
applied as deemed necessary to ensure the operation is compatible with the
abutting (or within 50 feet of) residentially zoned property. Said use permit shall
be limited to operations or activities occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
aomo
(i)
(ii)
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Purpose: Privacy of abutting residential properties should be protected by
screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas.
Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding
neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where
appropriate.
Requirements:
Blank walls facing residentially zoned properties shall incorporate architectural
design features and landscaping in order to reduce app.arent mass and bulk.
Loading docks and exterior storage of materials or equipment shall be screened
from view from residentially zoned properties by fencing, wails or landscape
buffers.
(iii)All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting residentially zoned properties
shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a
height of fifteen (15) feet above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment
nearest residentially zoned property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the
building edge closest to the residentially zoned property or a minimum of 100
feet from the residential property line, whichever is closer.
(v)For sites abutting residentially zoned properties, a solid wall or fence between 5
and 8 ft in height shall be constructed and maintained along the residentially
zoned property line where privacy or visual impacts are an issue.
(vi)A minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip shall be provided abutting a
low density residential district (R-l, R-2, or RMD).
Guidelines:
(i)Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any buiIding or
structure should be clustered and obscured from public view by a roof screen or
proper placement. ’
(ii)All exterior mechanical and other types of equipment, whether installed on the
ground or attached to a building roof or walls, should be screened from public
and overhead view.
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 4
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
(iii)
Or)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
Windows, balconies or similar openings above the first story should be offset so
as not to have a direct line-of-sight into the interior living areas of adjacent units
within the project or into units on abutting residentially zoned property.
Building elevations facing residentially zoned property should not have highly
reflective surfaces, such as reflective metal skin and highly reflective glazing.
The paint colors should be in subdued hues.
Increased setbacks or more restrictive daylight planes may be proposed by the
applicant, or recommended by the architectural review board, as mitigation for
the visual impacts of massive buildings.
Appropriate landscaping should be used to aid in privacy screening.
For landscape buffers to provide a visual screen, trees and shrubs in the buffer
area should be installed in a manner that provides maximum visual separation of
residential uses from the commercial or industrial use, taking into consideration
topography and site lines from residences.
Size and density of plant materials should be in proportion to the size of
planting areas and the mass of the structure.
Plant material selection should take into consideration solar orientation, drought
tolerance, maintenance requirements and privacy screening.
Plant material species and container sizes should allow for a mature appearance
within five (5) years.
Planting strips and street trees should be included in the project.
Textured and permeable paving materials should be used, where feasible, in
pedestrian, driveway and parking areas in order to visually reduce paved areas
and to allow for retention and/or infiltration of stormwater to reduce pollutants
in site runoff.
Landscaping material associated with screening should have adequate room to
grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
Purpose: The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are
intended to protect residentially zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary
noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially
zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading,
and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and
other machinery on nearby residentially zoned properties. New equipment, whether
mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which
requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements.
(B)Requirements:
(i)All projects shall comply with Chapter 10 of Title 9 (Noise Ordinance) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 5
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
(c)
O)Noise-producing equipment, including but not limited to generators, pumps, and
air conditioning compressors, shall be located out of setbacks where abutting
residentially zoned properties or existing residentially used sites, and shall be
screened from view from the residentially zoned property
At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation
of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment, the applicant shall
submit.an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating
compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical
readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures,
such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient
degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be
exceeded.
(iii)Upon completion of construction or installation, the City shall, where the
acoustical analysis projected noise levels at or within 5 dB of the Noise
Ordinance limits, require demonstration of the installed equipment and
certification that it complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise
Ordinance prior to final building inspection approval.
Guidelines:
0)
(ii)
(iii)
Projects adjacent to major arterials, railroad tracks and more intensive land uses
should include, but not be limited to, the following: sound walls, solid board
fencing, and additional landscaping where appropriate to reduce noise impacts
on usable open space.
Parking areas, driveways, loading docks, mechanical equipment, trash
enclosures, on-site recreation areas and similar noise generating elements
should be sited as far away from residentially zoned property as is reasonably
possible. When conditions require noise generating elements to be sited within
close proximity to residentially zoned property, noise mitigation measures
should be implemented as deemed suitableby staff or the architectural review
board. These measures may include the following:
(a) Placement of building mass, and/or concrete or masonry walls at the
residential property line or around the noise generating element;
(b)
(c):
(d)
Elimination of site access close to residential sites where other access
is available;
Installation of an earth berm and landscape buffers where appropriate;
Discouragement of the use of open air loudspeakers and compliance
with the city’s loudspeakers ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
Auxiliarypower sources should be included and used at loading docks so that
there is no needless engine idling of delivery trucks with refrigerator or other
engine-powered equipment. These sources should be shown on drawings
submitted for building permits.
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 6
18.23.070 Parking
All uses within 150 feet of a residentially zoned property should be operated as
not to generate vibration discernible without instruments at or beyond the lot
line upon which the source is located or within adjoining enclosed space if more
than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor
vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or, demolition work is exempted
from this standard.
18.23.070 Parking
(A) Purpose: The visual impact of parkingshall be minimized on adjacent residentially
zoned properties.
(B) Requirements:
(ii)
(iii)
Surface parking areas shall be located so that garages or carports are not
predominantly facing the street, and parking locations behind the building(s) are
preferable.
Carport structures shall be architecturally compatible with the main structures in
the project and should utilize substantial support posts. Landscaping material
associated with the carport shall have adequate room to grow and be protected
from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
Required residential parking spaces in the RM-40 zoning district shall be
underground, semi-depressed, enclosed or concealed for projects of six units or
more, and encouraged for projects of fewer than six units.
(C) Guidelines:
(i)Where feasible, parking shall be broken into smaller groupings of spaces to
avoid large expanses of parking and to provide for more opportunities to
intercept and filter drainage from the parking areas.
(ii)Proximity of underground parking garages to residentially zoned properties.
should take into consideration the need for landscaping along the perimeter of
the site. In instances where substantial planting is necessary, the placement of
parking garages should be adequately setback from the property line to provide
for the landscaping.
18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
Purpose: The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize
conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive
traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts.
Guidelines:
(i) The location of driveways, shipping and receiving areas, and loadingdocks
should be sited as far away from residentially zoned properties as is reasonably
feasible wlfile recognizing site constraints and traffic safety issues.
(ii)Employee ingress and egress to a site should be located to avoid the use of
residential streets wherever feasible.
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 7
18.23.090 Air Quality
(iii)
(iv)
Late hour and early morning truck traffic to a site located in or near a residential
area should be discouraged. Truck deliveries shall not be before 6:00 AM or
after 10:00 PM.
Vehicular access points should not conflict with pedestrian and bicycle
walk-ways and facilities.
18.23.090 Air Quality
(A)Purpose: The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from
potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants.
Requirements:
(i)Cooking odors, smoke and other similar air contaminants shall be controlled
and prevented from leaving the property or becoming a nuisance to
neighboring properties.
(ii)For all commercial and industrial uses that may be objectionable by reason of
the production of emissions of odor, smoke, dust, or other similar air
contaminants, the applicant shall provide information showing proposed
methods to minimize those contaminants. Such provisions may include such
means as regular watering to minimize dust or air scrubbers to minimize
smoke.
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
Purpose: In accordance with Chapter 15 and Chapter 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail
the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) 0n-site
in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code 6.95 and Title
15 of the Municipal Code.
(B) Requirements:
O)The project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building
codes for the storage, use and handling of the hazardous materials involved.
(ii)Any new structure that is designated an "H" occupancy (storage, use and
handling of specified types and quantities of hazardous materials), or any
existing structure that is converted to an "H" occupancy, as specified by the
California Building Code, shall be designed in accordance with the currently
adopted California Building Code and Fire Code.
(iii)Where a building or area used for such storage, use and/or handling is located
within 150 feet of a residential zoning district, the business owner shall
provide a report to the Fire Department addressing the adequacy of the
emergency contingency plan, which addresses safety of the nearby residential
area, including but not limited to, procedures for accidental releases or other
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 8
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
emergencies, and other protective measures as required by Health and Safety
Code 6.95, upon:
a) A change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on
the site" in quantities above the reporting threshold established in the
California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95; and/or
b)A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed
hazardous material stored, used or handled on the site above the
reporting threshold established in the California Health and Safety Code,
Chapter 6.95; and/or
c) Release/threatened release incidents.
For any such facility outlined in (iii) above, upon application for any building
permit for improvements that would result in a change in the types of
hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site or an increase in the
quantities of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the .site, the City
shall provide written notice to the owners of all residentially-zoned property
within 150 feet from the property line, not later than five (5) days after
issuance of the building permit. The notice shall inform the property owners
that an application has been received, the nature of the request (such as the
type of materials), that the Fire Department and Building Department have
determined the project to be in compliance with relevant hazardous materials
regulations, and that the application and details are on file with the Fire
Department and/or Building Department
If an applicant proposes a new structure or a modification of an existing
structure on a development site that will entail hazardous materials stored, used
or handled in excess of the threshold limits of regulated substances listed in
Tables 1-3 § 2770.5 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations -Chapter
4.5 Public Safety, or proposes to increase the amounts of hazardous materials
on-site above Title 19 threshold limits (including hazardous wastes),
notification shall be provided to "affected residents" (and property owners)
advising them that the proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) is available for
public review with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health. Notification from the City shall be mailed not later than 10 days after .
receipt of the information by the Fire Department (the County allows for a
comment period of at least 45 days.) Comments may be submitted to the
SCCDEH, which shall review the RMP and any comments received.
Any user or operator of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits in
Palo Alto shall submit a copy to the Palo Alto Fire Department of the RMP they
are required to prepare under Title 19 and file with the Santa Clara County
Department of Health (SCDEH). No building or Fire Department permit shall
be issued prior to the submittal of the RMP to the SCCDEH and the Fire
Department. The applicant is required to identify in the RMP the zone where
potential serious offsite consequences would occur from an accidental release of
the largest quantity of a regulated substance. This zone extends from the
Performance Clean 10-25-2006
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
proposed place of usage or storage to a distance where a toxic vapor cloud, heat
from a fire, or blast waves from an explosion resulting from an accident at the
usage or storage point would travel before dissipating to the level at which
serious injuries from short-term exposures will no longer occur. "Affected
residents" are those who reside within this zone.
Performance Clean 10-25-2006 10
18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability
ATTACHMENT B
Chapter 18.23
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY,
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.23.010
18.23.020
18.23.030
18.23.040
18.23.050
18.23.060
18.23.070
18.23.080
18.23.090
18.23.100
Purpose and Applicability
Trash Disposal and Recycling
Lighting
Late Night Uses and Activities
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Noise and Vibration
Parking
Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability
Purpose: These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be
used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and
industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with
the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. The criteria are intended
to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with
nearby residential~eas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments
for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses.
(B)Applicability of Regulations: Except where otherwise noted, the criteria of this chapter
shall beapplicable to all multiple family (RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40), commercial
(CN, CS, CC, CC(2), and CD), and industrial (OR, MOR, ROLM, RP, and GM) zoning
districts, and Planned Community (PC) districts that are located within one hundred
fifty feet of any R-E, R-l, R-2, RM or PC District permitting single family or multi-
family development within the City of Palo Alto, or of existing residential uses within
those zones. The determination of final approval of the architectural and design
elements of any project remains with the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, after recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, pursuant to
Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Director and the Architectural
Review Board retain the authority to interpret criteria on a project-by-project basis in
order to most effectively fulfill the specific purposes listed in subsection (A); provided,
that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review
pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
The requirements shall apply to new construction on such sites, or to modifications of
existing buildings or site improvements at the time of approval or building permit
issuance if no architectural approval is necessary. The criteria may also be considered
Performance Redline 10-25-2006
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
for sites abutting non-residential zones where determined to be appropriate by the
Architectural.Review Board.
Drsign element regulations that are identified as requirements shall be included in the
design of the project. The recommended guidelines should be included in the design of
the project. At the submittal of the project to the architectural review board or for a
building permit, if these guidelines are not included, it shall be necessary for the
applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the design objectives set forth in this
section,
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
Purpose: Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or
exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate
containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting
residences as is reasonably possible.
Requirements:
(i)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users
of the property.
(ii)Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by
masonry or other opaque and durable material. Chain link enclostires are
strongly discouraged.
(iii)Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with
the design of the proiect.
The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures
shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance
with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council
pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
18.23.030
(A).
(B)
Lighting
Purpose: To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting residential sites and
from adjacent roadways.
Requirements:
(i)Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be
designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the
site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual
intrusions on abutting properties from spillover and architectural lighting that
projects upward.
(ii) The use of high pressure sodium and metal halide are permitted light sources.
Low pressure sodium is not allowed.
(iii)Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in low activity or residential parking lots and 20 feet in
medium or high activity parking lots.
Performance Redline 10-25-2006 2
18.23.040 Late Night Use and Activities
(c)
(iv)Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries, such
lighting shall not exceed 0.5 footcandle as measured at the abutting residential
property line.
(v)Interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from
and/or intruding into nearby properties and shall be shielded to eliminate glare
and light spillover beyond the perimeter property line of the development.
(vi)Light fixtures shall not be located next to driveways or intersections, which
obstruct clear sight distance triangles.
Guidelines:
(i)Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be
of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed
to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light
fixture.
(ii)Pedestrian and Security lighting fixtures should be directed downward.
Architectural lighting that proiects upward fromthe ground as used in
landscaping, courtyards, or building accent should be directed so as not to affect
abutting land uses.
(iii)
(iv)
Unnecessary continued illumi~aation, such as illuminated signs or backlit
awnings, should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed,
should be limited to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding
background opaque. Illumination should be by low intensity lamps.
Timing devices should be considered for exterior and interior lights in order to
minimize light glare at night without jeopardizing security of employees. At the
time of project approval the project applicant must demonstrate how exterior
lighting sources will be reduced after operating hours or when the use 0fthe
facility is reduced.
18.23.040 Late NiRht Use and Activities
Purpose: The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting
(either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties
with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations
subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and
sidewalk cleaning, and/or cleanup or set up operations, but does not include garbage
pick up.
(B) Requirements:
(i)Retail (including restaurants) or service commercial businesses abutting or
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties that are open or with operations
or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be operated in
a manner to protect residential properties fi’om ~xcessive noise, odors, lighting
or other nuisances from any sources during those hours.
Performance Redline 10-25-2006
18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping
18.23.050
(c)
(ii)Where planning or building permits are required or for a change in use that
results in any such commercial business in the CN or CS zone districts,
operating or with activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a
conditional use permit shall be obtained and conditions of approval shall be
applied as deemed necessary to ensure the Operation is compatible with the
abutting (or within 50 feet of) residentially zoned property. Said use permit shall
be limited to operations or activities occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m.
(i)
(ii)
Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Purpose: Privacy of abutting residential properties should be protected by
screening from punic view all mechanical equipment and service areas.
Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding
neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where
appropriate.
Requirements:
Blank walls facing residentially zoned properties shall incorporate architectural
design features and landscaping in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk.
Loading docks and exterior sto)age of materials or equipment shall be screened
from view from residentially zoned properties by fencing, walls or landscape
buffers.
(iii)
(vi)
All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting residentially zoned properties
shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a
height of fifteen (15) feet above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment
nearest residentially zoned property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the
building edge closest to the residentially zoned property or a minimum of 100
feet from the residentialproperty line, whichever is closer.
For sites abutting residentially zoned properties, a solid wall or fence between 5
and 8 ft in height shall be constructed and maintained along the residentially
zoned property line where privacy or visual impacts are an issue.
A minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip shall be provided abutting a
low density residential district (R-l, R-2, or RMD).
Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or
structure should be clustered and obscured from public view by a roof screen or
proper placement.
All exterior mechanical and other types of equipment, whether installed on the
ground or attached to a building roof or walls, should be screened from public
and overhead view.
Performance Redline 10-25-2006 4
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
Windows, balconies or similar openings above the first story should be offset so
as not to have a direct line-of-sight into the interior living areas of adjacent units
within the project or into units on abutting residentially zoned property.
Building elevations facing residentially zoned property should not have highly
reflective surfaces, such as reflective metal skin and highly reflective glazing.
The paint colors should be in subdued hues.
Increased setbacks or more restrictive daylight planes may be proposed by the
applicant, or recommended by the architectural review board, as mitigation for
the visual impacts of massive buildings.
Appropriate landscaping should be used to aid in privacy screening.
For landscape buffers to provide a visual screen, trees and shrubs in the buffer
area should be installed in a manner that provides maximum visual separation of
residential uses from the commercial or industrial use, taking into consideration
topography and site lines from residences.
Size and density of plant materials should be in proportion to the size of
planting areas and the mass of the structure.
Plant material selection should take into consideration solar orientation, drought
tolerance, maintenance requirements and privacy screening.
Plant material species and container sizes should allow for a mature appearance
within five (5) years.
Planting strips and street trees should be included in the project.
Textured and pemaeable paving materials should be used, where feasible, in
pedestrian, driveway and parking areas in order to visually reduce paved areas
and to allow for retention and/or infiltration of stormwater to reduce pollutants
in site runoff.
(xiii)Landscaping material associated with screening should have adequate room to
grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
(B)
Purpose: The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are
intended to protect residentially zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary
noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially
zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise fi:om parking, loading,
and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and
other machinery on nearby residentially zoned properties. New equipment, whether
mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which
requires only a building permit, shall also be subiect to these requirements.
Requirements:
(i)All projects shall comply with Chapter 10 of Title 9 (Noise Ordinance) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Performance Redline 10-25-2006
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
(c)
~_(j)_Noise-producing equipment, including but not limited to generators, pumps, and
air conditioning compressors, shall be located out of setbacks where abutting
residentially zoned properties or existing residentially used sites, and shall be
screened from view from the residentially zbned property
(ii)At the time of building permit issuance for new constnlction or for installation
of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment, the applicant shall
submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating
compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical
readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures,
such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient
degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be
exceeded.
(iii)Upon completion of construction or installation, the City shall, where the
acoustical analysis proiected noise levels at or within 5 dB of the Noise
Ordinance limits, require demonstration of the installed equipment and
certification that it complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise
Ordinance prior to final building inspection approval.
Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Projects adjacent to major arterials, railroad tracks and more intensive land uses
should include, but not be limited to, the following: sound walls, solid board
fencing, and additional landscaping where appropriate to reduce noise impacts
on usable open space.
Parking areas, driveways, loading docks, mechanical equipment, trash
enclosures, on-site recreation areas and similar noise generating elements
should be sited as far away from residentially zoned property as is reasonably
possible. When conditions require noise generating elements to be sited within
close proximity to residentially zoned property, noise mitigation measures
should be implemented as deemed suitable by staff or the architectural review
board. These measures may include the following:
(a)Placement of building mass, and/or concrete or masonry walls at the
residential property line or around the noise generating element;
(b)Elimination of site access close to residential sites where other access
is available;
(c) Installation of an earth berm and landscape buffers where appropriate;
(d)Discouragement oft he use of opeia air loudspeakers and compliance
with the city’s loudspeakers ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
Auxiliary power sources should be included and used at loading docks so that
there is no needless engine idling of delivery trucks with refrigerator or other
engine-powered equipment, These sources should be shown on drawings
submitted for building permits.
Performance Redline 10-25-2006 6
18.23.070 Parking
(iv)All uses within 150 feet of a residentially zoned property should be operated as
not to generate vibration discernible without instruments at or beyond the lot
line upon which the source is located or within adjoining enclosed space if more
than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor
vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted
fi:om this standard.
18.23.070 Parking
(A)Purpose: The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially
zoned properties.
(B) Requirements:
(i) Surface parking areas shall be located so that garages or carports are not
predominantly facing the street, and parking locations behind the building(s) are
preferable.
(ii)Carport structures shall be architecturally compatible with the main structures in
the project and should utilize substantial support posts. Landscaping material
associated with the carport shall have adequate room to grow and be protected
from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic.
(iii)Required residential parking spaces in the RM-40 zoning district shall be
underground, semi-depressed, enclosed or concealed for projects of six units or
more, and encouraged for projects of fewer than six units.
(C) Guidelines:
(j)__ Where feasible, parking shall be broken into smaller groupings of spaces to
avoid large expanses of parking and to provide for more opporttmities to
intercept and filter drainage from the parking areas.
(ii)Proximity oftmderground parking garages to residentially zoned properties
should take into consideration the need for landscaping along the perimeter of
the site. In instances where substantial planting is necessary, the placement of
parking garages should be adequately setback fi:om the property, line to provide
for the landscaping.
18.23.080.Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
(A) Purpose: The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize
conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive
traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts.
(B) Guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
The location of driveways, shipping and receiving areas, and loading docks
should be sited as far away from residentially zoned properties as is reasonably
feasible while recognizing site constraints and traffic safety issues.
Employee ingress and egress to a site should be located to avoid the use of
residential streets wherever feasible.
Performance Redline 10-25-2006
18.23.090 Air Quality
(iii)Late hour and early morning truck traffic to a site located in or near a residential
area should be discouraged. Truck deliveries shall not be before 6:00 AM or
after 10:00 PM.
Vehicular access points should not conflict with pedestrian and bicycle
walkways and facilities.
18.23.090 Air Quality
(A)Purpose: The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from
potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants.
03) Requirements:
a. Cooking odors, smoke and other similar air contaminants shall be controlled and
prevented from leaving the property or becoming a nuisance to neighboring
properties.
b.. For all commercial and industrial uses that may be objectionable by reason of the
production of emissions of odor, smoke, dust, or other similar air contaminants,
the applicant shall provide information showing proposed methods to minimize
those contaminants. Such provisions may include such means as regular watering
to minimize dust or air scrubbers to minimize smoke.
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
Purpose: In accordance with Chapter 15 and Chapter 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail
the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site
in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code 6.95 and Title
15 of the Municipal Code.
03) Requirements:
(i)The project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes
for the storage, use and handling of the hazardous materials involved.
Any new structure that is designated an "H" occupancy (storage, use and
handling of specified types and quantities of hazardous materials), or any
existing structure that is converted to an "H" occupancy, as specified by the
CaliforniaBuilding Code, shall be designed in accordance with the cun’ently
adopted California Building Code and Fire Code.
(iii)Where a building or area used for such storage, use and/or handling is located
within 150 feet of a residential zoning district, the business owner shall provide
a report to the Fire Department addressing the adequacy of the emergency
contingency plan, which addresses safety of the nearby residential area,
including but not limited to, procedures for accidental releases or other
Performance Redline 10-25-2006 8
¯ 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
(iv)
emergencies, and other protective measures as required by Health and Safety
Code 6.95, upon:
a) A change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on
the site in quantities above the reporting threshold established in the
California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95; and/or
b)A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed
hazardous material stored, used or handled on the site above the reporting
threshold established in the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter
6.95; and/or
c) Release/threatened release incidents.
For any such facility outlined in (iii) above, upon application for any building
permit for improvements that would result in a change in the types of
hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site or an increase in the
quantities of hazardous materials¯ stored, used or handled on the site, the City
shall provide written notice to the owners of all residentially-zoned property
within 150 feet from the property line, not later than five (5) days after
issuance of the building permit. The notice shall inform the property owners
that an application has been received, the nature of the request (such as the
type of materials), that the Fire Department and Building Department have
determined the project to be,in compliance with relevant hazardous materials
regulations, and that the application and details are on file with the Fire
Department and/or Building Department.
If an applicant proposes a new structure or a modification of an existing
structure on a development site that will entail hazardous materials stored, used
or handled in excess of the threshold limits of regulated substances listed in
Tables 1-3 § 2770.5 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations Chapter
4.5 Public Safety, or proposes to increase the amounts of hazardous materials
on-site above Title 19 threshold limits (including hazardous wastes),
notification shall be provided to "affected residents" (and properly owners)
advising them that the proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) is available for
public review with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health. Notification from the City shall be mailed not later than 10 days after
receipt of the information by the Fire Department (the County allows for a
comment period of at least 45 days.) Comments may be submitted to the
SCCDEH, which shall review the RMP and any comments received.
Any user or operator of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits in
Palo Alto shall submit a copy to the Palo Alto Fire Department of the RMP they
are required to prepare under Title 19 and file with the Santa Clara County
Department of Health (SCDEH). No building or Fire Department permit shall
be issued prior to the submittal of the RMP to the SCCDEH and the Fire
Department. The applicant is required to identify in the RMP the zone where
potential serious offsite consequences would occur from an accidental release of
the largest quantity of a regulated substance. This zone extends from the
Performance Redline 10-25-2006
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
¯proposed place of usage or storage to a distance where a toxic ~¢apor cloud, heat
from a fire, or blast waves from an explosion resulting from an accident at the
usage or storage point would travel before dissipating to the level at which
serious injuries from short-term exposures Will no longer occur. "Affected
residents" are those who reside within this zone.
Performance Redline 10-25-2006 10
ATTACHMENT E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26:
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
Special Meeting, 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 6:05 PM
Commissioners:
Karen Holman - Chair
Lee I. Lippert- V-Chair
Patrick Burt
Paula Sandas
Arthur Keller
Daniel Garber
Samir Tuma
Staff:
¯ Curtis Williams, ChiefPlan./Transp. Official
Donald Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Amy Bartell, Mgmt. Specialist Attorney’s Ofc.
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Clare Campbell, Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Joe Teresi Public Works Engineer
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Zoning Ordinance Update: Chapter 18.88 to address landscaping standards, requirements
for wireless communications facilities and water resources protections.
Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance Amending
Title 18 (Zoning) to Delete Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family Residence District Guidelines)
and 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and
Industrial Districts) and to Adopt a new Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multi-
Family, Commercial, and Industrial Districts).
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: September 27 and October 4 Regular Meetings.
Chair Holman: I would like to call the Special Meeting of Wednesday, November 1 to order.
Would the Secretary call the roll, please? Thank you.
This is the time when any member of the public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item.not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
City of Palo Alto November 1, 2006 Page 1 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Holman: We have a speaker.
Ms. Denny Petrosian, Palo Alto: Just really quickly I wanted to thank the Planning Commission
for at least talking about the issues involved in the Fry’s site. Several of you made very
thoughtful comments at that meeting and addressed the issues that the public was concerned
about. Thank you for that. Thank you for doing your job and talking about the issues. I am not
real pleased with how the Council is deliberating these things. Thank you very much.
Chair Holman: Thank you Ms. Petrosian.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Holman: We will go now to item number one, which is a study session to discuss changes
to Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance to address requirements for wireless communication
facilities and water resource protection.
We need to divide this into two sections the wireless. We have a conflict of interest on the
Commission so if the City Attorney could speak to this.
Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Depu .tyCi _ty Attorney: We were unable to segment the item for
tonight’s discussion. We will segment it when it comes back for recommendation on the
ordinance. Unfortunately the message didn’t get to Commissioner Keller in time so he is here to
announce his conflict.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller would you care to state your conflict.
Commissioner Keller: I will not participate in the study session because my house where I live
abuts Adobe Creek and as a result of that my house would be covered by the ordinance being
discussed today. So I will leave from this point until we convene for the regular session.
Chair Holman: Thank you Commissioner Keller. Would Staff care to make a presentation on
the study session?
STUD Y SESSION:
Zoning Ordinance Update: Study session to discuss changes to Chapter 18.88 of the
Zoning Ordinance to address landscaping standards, requirements for wireless
communications facilities and water resources protections.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I would like to introduce Clare Campbell and we also have Joe Teresi and
Julie Caporgno here. At your pleasure we can talk about the wireless section first and have
City of Palo Alto November 1, 2006 Page 2 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
z~4
45
46
questions or do the whole presentation together. 1 don’t know if Clare and Joe have it worked
out that way and then come back to each individual issue.
Chair Holman: Would the Commission be just as happy to do the wireless first and then the
creek? Yes, I think that is the wish of the Commission.
Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good evening. Tonight we are presenting some new sections for
Chapter 18.88. As you probably are aware this section is our catchall section of our zoning code.
There are a variety of different uses and development standards that are listed within this chapter.
It seems like the most appropriate location to add these additional sections that we are working
on right now. As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update we are planning to reorganize this
chaPter and get it in a more user-friendly standard. We are going to reorganize and renumber
and probably re-title the chapter.
So the proposed sections for Chapter 18.88 cover the wireless communication facilities and the
water resources protection. For the water resources protection there are going to be two sections
for that the streamside development standards and the storm water quality protection standards as
well.
The wireless communication facilities we have had lots of projects come forward and the City
has considered developing an ordinance for the telecommunications for quite some time. Prior
to 2002 1 believe the City Attorney’s Office was working on a draft ordinance but priorities
changed and that was never worked on since that time.
The recommended changes that Staff is presenting tonight are basically trying to streamline the
review process and to provide some development standards that are typically used throughout
this industry. The current review process that wireless facilities currently fall under a Utility
Facility and right now all of the zoning districts allow Utility Facilities with a conditional use
permit. So it always requires a use permit and then we also require architectural review.
Typically we do a Staff level review for these projects unless it is appealed to the Board for some
reason.
Then for Planned Communities we have, unless it is written into the original uses that are
permitted or conditional, we would need to do an amendment for each time a project would
come forward. We did that recently with 850 Webster.
The proposed review process, what we are trying to do is for the more sensitive projects, and
typically the ones that I have listed here are ones that would be on residentially zoned parcels,
sites that have a residential type use, or standalone facilities like the poles that we see, the tree
poles and there is a light standard being proposed right now up at Foothill. These projects that
may be potentially more sensitive we would want to recommend that there still be a use permit in
place and do an architectural review for these projects. For projects that seem to be less
controversial because they are attached to an existing building or an existing facility we are
proposing just the architectural review for those projects. So a building mounted facility, a
building mounted facility on a PC site which is currently not the way that it works right now, and
this is something that we can discuss a little bit more, instead of doing an actual PC Amendment
City of Palo Alto November 1, 2006 Page 3 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
to allow that to happen, and a co-location project. Co-location is just adding a new carrier to a
site that has an existing facility on that location. So these we are thinking have less impact and
architectural review would be an inappropriate review process for these types of projects.
One of the possible concerns raised by eliminating the use permit process I think it comes up
with a lot of the neighbors is the noticing. They want to be aware of the project. So one of the
methods of maybe trying to approach this concern is addressing it in the submittal checklist. We
have a wireless facilities checklist that I think was attached to your Staff Report. We can add
another item to that checklist stating that you would need to do a limited notification to the more
immediate neighbors and I was recommending 150 feet for this requirement. This would let the
immediate neighbors know what is being proposed so that way they would not feel that they
were left out. Currently the Staff level architectural review does not require noticing for this
type of project.
For the development requirements we are proposing that the project shall meet all of the standard
zoning that they would need to comply with in each zoning district with the following
exceptions. The way that it is worded is with the use permit and with the architectural review
either both or one or the review process we can take a look at allowing these exceptions for these
projects. One would be if it were a building mounted facility we can allow an additional 15 feet
in height. Currently we actually do this as part of the height exceptions that we have written into
18.88 already. Standalone facilities can be up to 65 feet in height which kind of goes along with
the 50 foot height limits that we have in place plus the additional 15 gives them the 65.
Standalone facilities may encroach into the interior or street side setback or the rear setback. An
example of this one where we had to do a DEE was on Los Robles in front of Blockbuster, El
Camino and Los Robles, the tree that we did pretty recently about a year ago I think where we
had to do a Design Enhancement Exception.
Some of the other development requirements that we want to get down on paper so this way we
can really try to enforce it strongly is the equipment cabinets and enclosure shell utilize the
smallest footprints, the equipments cabinets and enclosures should be designed so they are the
most minimal height needed to accomplish their goals, the cabinets and all the equipment need to
be screened from public view, the equipment enclosures have to be architecturally compatible
with the existing site, building mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the
existing building, and all antennas shall have stealth design. The last one, it may sound like it is
a lot to ask but typically with a lot of the technology today - and what that basically means is we
don’t want the ugly panels sitting out on its own without some kind of enclosure because they
have the ray dome or they have these sheet coverings that you can put over that so that way it is
not as obvious what it is. That kind of runs through what we are proposing for the development
standards.
Just to give you some other background, we did some research with some of the local Bay Area
cities that have regulations in place. San Jose was the most common or basically is following the
same type of thing where if it is a building mounted facility it was a permitted use and you just
had to go through a design review whereas if it was in certain residential zones or more sensitive
areas then you had to do the use permit to get the project in place. So do you have any
questions?
City of Palo Alto November 1, 2006 Page 4 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Clarifying questions? I think we have one member of the public. Commissioner
Garber, I saw your hand first.
Commissioner Garber: In your first set of definitions about what would require review is
essentially any site that was in a residential area as opposed to abutting?
Ms. Campbell: Correct.
Commissioner Garber: Would that include then for instance a church that was surrounded by all
residential uses?
Ms. Campbell: The ones that we have seen or actually those churches have actually been in the
R-1 zone so those would need the use permit.
Commissioner Garber: Okay.
Ms. Campbell: If it were the other way around depending upon the type of project they are
proposing it would either be a use permit or just the architectural review.
Commissioner Garber: Then the word ’stealth’ is that an industry-known name?
Ms. Campbell: Yes it is.
Commissioner Garber: It if foreign to me. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I just had one question too about the stealth antenna in the residential
area. How many are there in Palo Alto residential zones right now?
Ms. Campbell: I would have to do a little bit more research to find out exactly how many we
have. ! know in recent years we have probably looked at least three or four. The church on
Louis and Embarcadero there is an existing cell site within the cross there and there is a
collocation proposal right now that is adding another facility for a different carrier in the same
spot. So that is another one. The Manuela Drive that we just did six months ago or so that is
another on in the R- 1. There is a school that we did on Middlefield that is an R- 1. Those are the
most recent ones I can think of.
Mr. Larkin: This is a good opportunity, Clare mentioned the proposed collocation facility on
Louis Road and I wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention that there is new legislation that
will be effective January 1 of next year that will change how we are able to regulate collocation
facilities. I will introduce Amy Bartell who is a law clerk in our office, a recent graduate from
Santa Clara Law School, has been helping us research that. She is here tonight to answer
questions if Commissioners have those but also to listen to see what Commissioners’ feedback is
so that when we go to draft the language for the ordinance that we can make sure that we
CiO~ of Palo Alto November 1, 2006 Page 5 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
incorporate your comments as best we can while still complying with the new law that will be
going into effect:
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Approximately how many applications do we get a year say over the
course of the last five years?
Ms. Campbell: We get approximately four to five probably a year. It seems like the number is
increasing.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay, and how do those breakdown? You have the sort of categorized as
two different things, one would get a higher level of scrutiny and one would get a lower level of
scrutiny. How do those breakdown between those two?
Ms. Campbell: I would say it is probably about half and half.
Commissioner Tuma: About half and half, okay, thanks.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I was going to ask a question regarding collocation. The ideal is to
have a few cell sites as possible so collocation is something that is very desirable in this
community. Can we make as part of condition of approval the fact that they have to allow for
collocation?
Mr. Larkin: I think that is something that we could do. It is not directly addressed by the new
statute I am told but that is probably something that we could encourage and require. !t will be
encouraged because one of the things that the new law does is restrict our ability to limit
additions of new cell sites on collocation facilities. So once a collocation facility has been
established our ability to restrict new antennas on that facility is severely limited. So it will
encourage applicants to seek out collocation facilities I would imagine.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That was going to be my follow up to that which is if we were to actually
make a condition of approval that you had to allow other wireless carriers to use your antenna
site, collocation, can we then say we are going to restrict by radius so many feet having another
cell site in proximity to that?
Mr. Larkin: As long as we meet the criteria in the federal code because the Telecommunications
Act makes difficult for us to restrict unless we can show that there is no gap in service that would
be created. I think it is something we could do it would take some tweaking with the language
but we could probably do something like that.
Ms. Campbell: IfI could add to that too, a lot of times the carriers have their own specific
requirements for their technology so it requires a certain amount of separation. So sometimes
even if a pole may have the appropriate height that could allow maybe more than carrier and up
City of Palo Alto November 1, 2006 Page 6 of 47
ATTACHMENT F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
October 25, 2006
EXCERPT
Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance Amending Title 18
(Zoning) to Delete Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family Residence District Guidelines) and 18.64
(Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts)
and to Adopt a new Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multi-Family, Commercial, and
Industrial Districts); Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact
Report.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, thank you Commissioners. We are here tonight with the draft chapter on
Performance Criteria to address potential impacts from Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial
Districts particularly when they are located adjacent to residential uses. The existing code has
two chapters that currently go part of the way towards doing this one is 18.28 which deals with
Multi-Family zoning and the other is 18.64 which deals with Commercial and Industrial Districts
and provide some of these Visual, Lighting, Landscaping criteria adj acent to residential uses.
Our feeling was that there was some improvement that we could make in these and that generally
there was enough of an overlap that we ought to just combine it in one chapter and they would
apply as they are pertinent to the specific use be it Multi-Family, Commercial or Industrial.
The ordinance generally applies to all of those zoning districts and also to Planned Community
Districts as well if they would have a particular impact. As the existing ordinances state they
generally state that these criteria apply when you are located within 150 feet of a residential zone
or a residential PC and we have maintained that same criteria here of 150 feet generally in this
document.
Attachment B is the redlined version of the ordinance and I just want to point out that that’s not a
sort of verbatim redline version in that we have consolidated and combined so many different
parts of those other ordinances that it would be unreadable if we tried to actually scratch out
every word we changed and every addition we made. It does show substantively the new
sections that we have added. We haven’t really deleted anything that exists now we have just
generally either added to it or upgraded it in some way.
So I am very briefly going to go through the major changes that we have made, the most
significant changes and then what I would like to do because we know that hazardous materials
is an issue that the public has weighed in on, Dan Firth, Fire Chief is here in the audience and is
responsible for the City’s Hazardous Materials Programs. He will make a brief presentation to
you to outline some of the basics of what the existing processes are for reviewing applications
and what some of the issues are that they face.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
So we have addressed about nine different subjects. Trash Disposal and Recycling the existing
code already addresses to some detail. We have added some requirements from a visual
standpoint to specify ARB review and architectural compatibility.
Lighting is also addressed in some of the existing language. We have tried to provide a little
more specificity in terms of measuring at the abutting property line as well as some requirements
for addressing interior lighting and demonstrating how an applicant intends to have timing
devices or other controls to address after hours when there isn’t anybody left at the building or
low occupancy as well as those interior lighting impacts.
The Late Night Use and activities is a completely new section. It mirrors what you saw in the
Commercial zoning districts where we had this kind of language that we have also talked about
abutting or within 50 feet. You will see that same language here on those provisions and noting
that a conditional use permit is required for these types of service and retail uses that operate
between 10:00 PM and six o’clock in the morning.
The Visual Screening and Landscaping is a compilation of quite a number of existing criteria in
those two existing chapters. We have made a few changes to specify that plant species should
allow for mature appearance within five years. It just says some general language about over a
period of time or something but it wasn’t specific to the time period. Also the preference for
textured and permeable paving materials to be used in pedestrian driveways and parking areas.
Noise and Vibration again there are some existing code standards. The Noise Ordinance is not in
the Zoning Ordinance I should point out it is in another part of the Municipal Code. We do have
additional requirements here that rather than waiting until potential problems arise and then
getting out there and trying to measure noise that at the time of building permit issuance for new
construction or modifications that the applicant provide a study by an acoustical engineer
indicating that they have done noise readings as well as estimates based on the specifications of
the equipment and any mitigating measures that they may use and what that noise level at the
adjacent property line will be. Then following that up that if that is anywhere close to what the
limits of the Noise Ordinance would allow, it would have to be below it but if it is getting close
to it, then we would require them to demonstrate prior to final inspection that that equipment
does in fact meet those requirements so that we have some knowledge going in there before we
have issued final inspection on a building that the Noise Ordinance is complied with regarding
the mechanical equipment.
We have not suggested changing the Noise Ordinance here. I know that is an issue of some in
the community and some Commissioners. We don’t have that scheduled. Council hasn’t
directed us to do that right now. There is a policy in the Comp Plan that says that we should do
that but it also is technically a police issue not our purview. If the Council directs us to do that
and if you are interested in that it may be appropriate for you to make that suggestion to the
Council that that be a priority and that we move in that direction.
We have added some criteria, the existing code provides some criteria as far as carport structures
and their compatibility and underground parking, we have added some language to encourage
parking behind buildings away from the street as our context based design criteria tend to do
Page 2
1 anyway, more feasible breaking parking into smaller groupings, and being sure that with
2 underground parking garages that we are not getting so close to property lines that we are
3 precluding effective screening because of the grading that occurs beneath where the landscaping
4 would be.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Access there is some language currently related to that. We
have added some language about truck deliveries not being prior to six o’clock in the morning or
after ten o’clock at night and about avoiding conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle walkways and
facilities. The other criteria deal with primarily location of driveway shipping areas, receiving
areas, and loading docks and trying to maintain those away from the residential uses adjacent.
Air Quality is a new section and has some pretty general language which specifically tries to deal
with the cooking odors, smoke, and other similar air contaminants be addressed and if necessary
that the applicant provide the specifics of the mechanisms for doing that. We have pretty
standard requirements for during construction dust control and that kind of thing. This is more
the longer-term types of impacts.
Then the last section is Hazardous Materials. Currently hazardous materials are not in the
Zoning Ordinance anywhere and they are not in very many zoning ordinances anywhere. They
are regulated through a combination of local, state, and federal requirements. In our city the Fire
21 Department is the principle agency involved with the regulation and review of those facilities.
22 We have tried to do two things in response to concerns that we know exist in the community.
23 Actually it is trying to do one thing in two ways. The one thing is to provide right to know, what
24 we consider to be right to know, to the residents that are in some proximity to these kinds of
25 facilities. Currently you may visit the Fire Department and find out who has these and what
26 types of materials and quantities they have, that kind of thing, but you have to know to do that.
27 You don’t regularly know that something is happening to change that. So we have suggested
28 first of all that most hazardous material uses are governed by the Health and Safety Code 6.95
29 and Title 15 of our Municipal Code. There are certain thresholds above which you are required
30 to get a permit and develop certain plans that the Fire Department reviews. For all of those cases
31 there are pretty standard review processes. We have suggested that after the Fire Department has
32 looked at something and approved it that we would send notice within five days of that to let
33 adjacent or nearby, within 150 feet, property owners know that that type of facility has increased
34 the amount of hazardous materials or is starting to use different materials or it is a new facility
35 that is using these materials that are above this threshold. So the focus again is primarily on
36 allowing the public to know that these facilities exist and that they are in proximity: If they
37 choose to they certainly can look at the details at the Fire Department.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The second level of hazardous material is governed by Title 19 of the California Code of
Regulations. These depend on quantities and types of materials and are much less frequently
found but are much more serious in terms of their potential damage. So there is a requirement
through the county that an Accidental Release Plan be developed. A Risk Management Plan is
developed and sent to the Fire Department here and is available for public review for a period of
45 days. What we have suggested with these types of facilities is that when the Fire Department
receives notice that we would notify any property owner that is within what is called ’the
affected area’ that is defined by that Risk Management Plan. It maybe 150 feet or it may be
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
three miles. So however that area is defined we would notify everyone within that area that such
a plan has been developed and is on file and can be reviewed and commented at the county. We
have also added a provision that our Fire Department would not issue any permit for that facility
until that 45-day review period has mn and they have seen the comments on that. So it does
provide the public some opportunity for input to that process. It still leaves the actual approval
ultimately to the county and to the Fire Department to do those. Dan Firth can fill you in a little
bit more on that process and correct anything that I have misstated here. I think I will just turn it
over to him to do that.
Commissioner Keller did have a few questions that I will respond to after Chief Firth makes his
comments.
Chair Holman: Thank you and welcome Chief Firth.
Dan Firth, Fire Marshall: Good evening and thank you for the invitation to come here this
evening. Thanks to Curtis for the promotion, I am Fire Marshall not Fire Chief.
So I thought what I would do ifI could take about ten minutes is give you a brief overview of
some of the regulations and quickly how our Hazardous Materials Program works within the Fire
Department. Then I can answer any questions that you might have.
The regulations are complex. Hazardous materials are regulated at the local level, the county
level, the state level, and the federal level. There are probably three programs that most directly
affect what we are working with here and at the federal level that is Emergency Planning
Preparedness Act, EPPA. At the federal level you also have the Risk Management Plan it is
called the Chemical Accident Prevention Rule and they have set federal requirements for an
accidental release program. Federally they also regulate hazardous wastes and EPA also passed
the Clean Air Act, which has an impact or directs the regulations .implemented by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District. The EPPA program, the RMP program and the Hazardous
Waste Program, the federal programs have all been delegated to California. California
Environmental Protection Agency, the Cal EPA, has been given the authority to implement those
programs in California in conjunction with the Governor’s Office for Emergency Services for the
Hazardous Materials Business Plan and the Risk Management Plan. Then for hazardous waste is
Cal EPA in conjunction with the Department of Toxic Substances Control,
In 1994 the state legislature consolidated six major environmental programs including these into
one unified program with the idea of consolidating the regulations across the state and improving
the consistency of the implementation of those regulations across the state. Prior to the passage
of that law in 1994 there were over 1,100 local agencies implementing regulatory programs in
these areas, hazardous waste, and hazardous materials business plans. So the idea was let’s make
it more of a level playing field across the state. When they passed that law they created local
agencies called Certified Unified Program Agencies, CUPAs. It is a terrible acronym but we live
with it. The CUPAs in general, there are 85 of them in the state and they are generally county
agencies, county health departments or environmental health departments, maybe a little less
than half are local fire departments. There are an additional 35 agencies called Participating
Agencies that are subordinate to the CUPA that manage some of these six major programs.
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Palo Alto is a Participating Agency. The Santa Clara County Health Department or Department
of Environmental Health, excuse me, is the CUPA for our area. We entered into a contract with
them in 1997 to administer the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, the Fire Code
Equivalent Program, the Underground Tank Program and the Above Ground Tank Program.
The county retained responsibility for administering the Hazardous Waste Program and the Cal
ARP program, which is the Risk Management Plan.
We have had a very close working relationship with Santa Clara County Environmental Health
since 1983. All of the fire departments and the county and a number of other environmental
agencies in the Santa Clara County formed a task force and wrote a model Hazardous Materials
Storage Ordinance in 1982. In 1983 all the agencies in the county including the county adopted
that as regulation and we have been implementing that ever since. That is our Palo Alto
Municipal Code Title 17. In 1988 most of those requirements were incorporated into the
California Fire Code that is part of the Uniform Fire Code, which is used by 11 western states.
So the requirements that we drafted here that we implemented here were spread to the 11 western
states that use the Uniform Fire Code. As I said we have had a very close working relationship
with the county. We deal with them on a frequent basis. Annually both we and they submit
reports to the state on the status of our implementation of those programs.
The Fire Department, the Hazardous Materials Program, we administer the California Fire Code
and for the HAZMAT program specifically those provisions of the code that deal with hazardous
materials. We implement Titles 15 and 17 of the Municipal code. Title 15 contains the Toxic
Gas Ordinance and the Fire Code adoption and Title 17 is the Hazardous Materials Program. We
also implement the Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95, the Hazardous Materials Business Plan
portion of it, and Chapter 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code, which is the Underground Tank
Program. Our role is to ensure compliance with these regulations. I have a staff of inspectors
who perform annual or routine compliance inspections at all businesses that have hazardous
materials in the city. We permit them to stbre those hazardous materials. There are about 500
facilities of that nature and about half of those exceed the state’s reporting threshold that triggers
the state’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The other half have hazardous materials but they
are very small quantities and we have an abbreviated permitting and less of a permit fee for those
facilities, although, all of them have to comply with the performance standards that we have in
our ordinance and in the Fire Code.
That is one of the big differences between the federal law and the state law and our local
ordinance. Both federal law and state law are primarily reporting requirements. You have to file
a business plan and tell the world what you do, what you have, and where you store it. Our local
ordinance and the Fire Code have performance standards that say you shall have containment,
you shall monitor, you shall separate, and you shall do a number of things. My staff conducts
inspections to ensure compliance with those requirements, we review plans for new construction
and tenant improvements that relate to the use and storage and handling of hazardous materials,
we conduct enforcement when we have to and I think that’s it.
I don’t know much about the Air Boards, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts
program on the Toxic Air Contaminants Program. I think it is Rule 2, Regulation 5. They have
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
a requirement that either new or existing facilities that want to increase their production or bring
in materials have to go through a review and approval process if they use certain toxic materials
and if those materials would be released to the environment in any way. So there are some
control requirements that apply. To my knowledge there is no public hearing process in that
program. There is no public hearing process in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program.
There is in the Risk Management Program as Curtis indicated. If a business exceeds the
California Title 19 thresholds they are required to file a Risk Management Plan with the county,
the county is required to publish a notice and make the Risk Management Plan available for
public review in a reading room for a period of not less than 45 days. They are required to
review that Risk Management Plan and review any public comments that are received. As Curtis
indicated we have two facilities in Palo Alto currently that have a Risk Management Plan out of
the 500 businesses that we permit.
Chair Holman: I see Commissioner Garber has a question for you.
Commissioner Garber: Two ~questions. The first one is just so I get it straight in my own head.
The level two hazardous materials that Curtis had described the responsibility for those are at the
county level as opposed to the city level, is that correct?
Mr. Firth: Only the requirement to file a Risk Management Plan. Any quantity of hazardous
materials is subject to our performance standards. So if you have five gallons, 50 gallons, or
5,000 gallons of a material you are subject to the controls that exist in the Fire Code or Title 15
or 17.
Commissioner Garber: Does the county have its own set of inspectors that does its own work?
Mr. Firth: Yes it does.
Commissioner Garber: It is in addition to your auspice or is there an overlap there?
Mr. Firth: There is an overlap. As I said they manage the Hazardous Waste Program. So most
of the businesses, probably half of the businesses in the city that we permit also generate
hazardous waste and they are subject to inspection by the county. Any of the large users would
very likely be inspected by both us and the county.
Commissioner Garber: So at the moment the City is interested in storage and the county is
interceded in waste.
Mr. Firth: Correct. And hazardous waste is a hazardous material by definition. So we inspect
the same material. We are looking for containment, monitoring, those performance standards
and they are looking for compliance with state hazardous waste laws.
Commissioner Garber: Putting it differently the City is concerned about what stays on the site
and the county is concerned about what leaves it.
Mr. Firth: Very good, yes.
Page 6
1
2 Commissioner Garber: Okay, the second question. Could you just walk us through briefly the
3 permit procedure for both a business that wants to introduce a new substance and then secondly a
4 business that wants to change the amount or the type or the quantity, etc. of the substance they
5 already have?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Firth: If the change is not significant it is merely a requirement that they provide notification
to us. So if they are increasing a quantity of a previously disclosed material and they are not
increasing it a significant amount, I think the state has defined significant as an increase of 100
percent, so if they are not increasing it a significant amount they merely need to notify us within
30 days of when they have made that change. If we feel that there is a problem we can take
action at that point. We can certainly require them to reduce their quantities if we find
deficiencies. If they are adding a new hazardous material that presents a new hazard like
bringing in a toxic gas where they didn’t have one before or they are significantly increasing
their quantities Title 17 requires that they obtain an additional approval before they bring that
material onsite. So they would make an application, they would advise us of what they are
planning to do, and we would review that application, determine compliance with our
requirements and either approve it, approve it with conditions, or reject it.
Commissioner Garber: So right at the moment in both those conditions as you had mentioned
there is no public hearing however there is a 45-day public comment period?
Mr. Firth: Not unless they exceed the state’s reporting threshold that Title 19 threshold. We
have several thresholds here. The business plan threshold with a few exceptions is basically 55
gallons, 500 pounds, or 500 cubic feet of a hazardous material, any single hazardous material.
So if you have a drum you are subject generally to filing under the state’s Hazardous Materials
Business Plan requirements and you would be in Palo Alto as well. If you have less than that
amount you would file what we call a registration form which is a two-page form that gives us
some basic information about what you have and where it is.
The Title 19 thresholds are- generally much higher than that, there are some exceptions but
generally they are much higher than that. They deal with extremely hazardous substances. The
same hazard category information that we do but at a higher threshold. If you exceed that or if a
business exceeds that amount they would need to file a Risk Management Plan with the county.
I am not sure if I answered that question for you.
Commissioner Garber: I am getting the gist of it. One quick clarifying question to Curtis. The
recommendations that you are making in the Zoning Ordinance are that you create a 45-day
public comment period?
Mr. C. Williams: No, just that on those facilities that are exceeding the Title 19 limitation that
we dovetail with that existing 45-day review. I think the only notice that goes with that is
something in the newspaper so individual neighbors don’t get notice of that. What we are
suggesting is that we would follow up on that as the City sends out that notice to the individual
neighbors who would then have a chance to look at that RMP.
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Garber: I have more but I will wait.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I will follow up on Commissioner Garber’s questions. With regard to the
Title 19 threshold or even any of the other thresholds do we have the ability within our ordinance
to require a conditional use permit?
Mr. C. Williams: We have the ability it wouldn’t be in this section it would be within whatever
the zoning district was. If it were in the GM zone and you wanted a conditional use permit for
any facility that required certain levels or used certain levels of hazardous materials we could do
that. I think we have talked about some facilities like daycare or something like that that might
be close to these areas them having conditional use permits to evaluate whether that is an
appropriate location. To go the other way I think our concern about a conditional use permit is
what would the basis of the review be from a planning standpoint? There are technical
requirements for containment that supposedly make it safe and that is the Fire Department’s
bailiwick and so we wouldn’t know what our role would be in reviewing a use permit under that
scenario.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Let me just follow up on that really quick. In the last go around where we
reviewed the Zoning Ordinance for the LM and GM districts we put a conditional use on the LM
district for housing. Potentially you would have housing going into a district that might be
nearby the GM or LM zone in which case you would have residences moving adjacent to where
there might be hazardous materials. So why not the reverse of that which is that you have an
increase of hazardous material why not have a conditional use permit for that?
Mr. C. Williams: Because that is part of that district. That is part of the use of that district.
Hazardous materials go hand-in-hand with an industrial zone, Whereas the residential is
introducing - the primary purpose of that zone is not residential although it may be permitted.
So that is introducing a potential conflict and there is a need to look at that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: But my point is that here we allow for housing to go into a zone with a
conditional use permit but then there might be an increase of hazardous material adj acent to
where we have already provided for a conditional use permit.
Mr. C. Williams: I understand.
Chair Holman: I think we are getting beyond clarifying questions. I know two other
Commissioners have questions so if they are clarifying then go ahead, Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: I have a question for the Fire Marshall. Just so I am clear on this if you
have a situation where you have a Title 19 threshold that is already been exceeded but that same
facility wants to bring additional quantities of the same materials that are already onsite does that
also trigger the RMP requirement?
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Firth: It would trigger a revision to the RMP because part of the Risk Management Plan is
to not only tell you what they have but also to tell you what their contingency plan is, what their
containment is, all the things associated with if there were a release what is the worst case
scenario. So if they had a significant increase in that particular material they would have to
revise that RMP to alert the community as to the additional risks that were being presented by
increasing the quantity.
Commissioner Tuma: And there would be again the 45-day cycle for a revised RMP?
Mr. Firth: That is my understanding. I don’t implement that program so I don’t know it as well
as mine but my understanding is yes if you were amending the Risk Management Plan then it
would go back out for public comment.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay, and one other thing to clarify what you just said about if there was
a significant increase, is that significant increase again the statutorily defined 100 percent or is
there some other threshold for the increase that triggers a revised RMP?
Mr. Firth: I can’t recall the exact requirement in the Cal ARP regulations. So I can’t give you an
answer if it is 100 percent or not.
Commissioner Tuma: Does anybody on Staffhappen to know? Okay.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, clarifying questions.
Commissioner Keller: I will leave it to the Staff to determine when is the best time to answer the
written questions I have submitted. The question that I would like to ask is to what extent do the
regulations in your office or the SCCDEH have to deal with storage versus use? Are both of
them regulated, to what extent does your purview refer to each of them?
Mr. Firth: The Hazardous Material Storage Ordinance, which is what the county has, is a storage
ordinance. Title 17 primarily deals with storage. The California Fire Code deals with all three
storage, handling, and use. So there are specific provisions in the Fire Code for example how
you can dispense flammable liquids. A similar requirement doesn’t exist in the storage
ordinance it only controls how and where you store the materials and how you ensure they don’t
get released.
Commissioner Keller: So do you inspect both the storage and handling and use or only the
storage?
Mr. Firth: Because we administer the Fire Code we inspect both.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Dan, the community has grown in its awareness of hazardous materials
issues. I wondered if you might share with us your sense of the trend that has occurred in
facilities that would today qualify under Cal ARP, I appreciate that you can’t go back in time
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
because Cal ARP didn’t exist ten or 20 years ago, but my understanding is we had many more
hazardous materials facilities in the Research Park one or two decades ago than we do today.
We have this trend of declining hazardous materials facilities. Is that correct?
Mr. Firth: I don’t know the numbers of facilities in Palo Alto in the 1980’s or even the early
1990’s. I know since I have been here the number of permitted facilities has remained relatively
flat between 480 and 510 over the last eight years or so. I have been involved in this business in
Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Palo Alto since the early 1980’s and I know that this valley has
transitioned from semiconductor manufacturing which were heavy users of toxic gases and toxic
materials and we are evolving much more into R&D where the quantities of materials are much
smaller. Also I was just talking earlier that the people who are responsible for hazardous
materials control at the facilities when we started this whole thing back in the 1980’s were often
times facility managers who obviously had competing interests internally within their company.
We find now most companies of any size have dedicated environmental specialists that have
degrees and often time way more experience and knowledge than I have. So that is a very
distinct trend.
Commissioner Burt: I think in the Research Park 20 to 25 years ago I believe there were six
plating facilities and I think we have one now.
Another question is in our proposed regulations the threshold for notification, the distance
threshold for notification, is 150 feet from the property line. As I was thinking about it it seems
that what matters, whether it is 150 feet or some other distance, is the distance from the area
where the hazardous materials are either stored or used. Have you had any thought about that
and would it be more appropriate to regulate the distance from the H-occupancy portion of the
facility and maybe it has be more than the 150 feet but either way to. focus on where the
hazardous materials are stored and used rather than the property line itself?. Curtis, did you want
to add something to that?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I wanted to take a first shot at that. Actually, that is what we are doing
but it is confusing and may need some rewording. Under item B for the requirements, item sub-
3 it says, "where a building or area used for storage, use, and handling is located within 150 feet
of a residential zoning district the business owner shall provide." So the first hurdle you cross
here is that you have a building or area, not the site, a building or area that is within 150 feet of a
residential zoning district. If you have that then we issue notice under item four on the next page
to all properties that are 150 feet from that property line. So we go a little broader than that on
the notice.
Commissioner Burt: Great. That addresses exactly what I thought was appropriate and I didn’t
appreciate that clarification. I think that covers my questions for now. Thanks.
Chair Holman: I have but one at this moment, which is, if a facility is going to use hazardous
materials to whatever level they do, I presume it is part of the conditions of approval that the Fire
Department approves?
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Firth: Yes, they have to have approval from us to use hazardous materials. They need a
permit to store hazardous materials.
Chair Holman: So my question is what is the monitoring of that? In other words, if a facility
can significantly increase the amount of materials that they have on site what is the monitoring of
that condition of approval?
Mr. Firth: We conduct routine compliance inspections. I have a staff of three inspectors
dedicated to doing hazardous materials inspections plus we have our Hazardous Materials
Response Unit. They are responsible for inspecting an additional 135 or so of the smaller
businesses.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much and if you will stick around we might have more
questions that come up. At this time I would like to go to the public and currently we have, I’m
sorry, Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Sorry, before we do that if I may, in the Staff Report Curtis had indicated
that Staff was going to report on a meeting that they had on October 18 with the residents. I
think it would be interesting to hear a report as to what happened at that meeting as well as the
October 17 meeting, which took place with businesses in the same area. I think it would be
constructive to hear that before we go to public comment if I could be indulged.
Chair Holman: That is very good, thank you.
Mr. C. Williams: Thank you for reminding me of that. I don’t have my notes from those
meetings but I think I can pretty succinctly summarize. At the meeting with the residents there
were I think ten people there. The bulk of the conversation is what you are hearing tonight and
have seen in letters regarding hazardous materials issues. Whether to entertain some kind of
potential for some kind of public review process, when residents are notified, whether there
should be a hearing process associated with particularly these higher more hazardous materials in
particular.
There was also a fairly extensive discussion of noise in terms of to some extent the insufficiency
of the existing Noise Ordinance. Some of our language that we presented to the folks talked
about or actually lifted some of the wording from the Noise Ordinance and some wording from
the Comprehensive Plan and those two didn’t exactly dovetail. It was confusing. We made a
change in what you see tonight. It just says compliance shall demonstrate through this testing
and studies and such, compliance with the Noise Ordinance. So we have taken that and sort of
jumbled the wording out of there.
I think you will hear some about the etiological agent from one of the speakers and it is in one of
your letters too about the biological materials.
Also on the noise I think there were issues as far as monitoring that and the difficulty of
monitoring noise levels and that is one of the reasons why we have suggested this pre-study and
testing before final permit approval.
Page 11
1
2
3
,4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
The other couple of comments were more ,towards the applicability of the regulations. There
were issues about it says that it applies within 150 feet of a residentially zoned property. Well,
there are some properties that are residentially used but they are not on residentially zoned
properties. They are residences that might be on a commercially zoned property. We have also
have mixed use projects which are on commercially zoned properties. We have added language
in here, although as Mr. Keller has aptly pointed out, not always consistently that adds that and
makes it apply within 150 feet of any site with residential use as well as any residentially zoned
property.
I think there was one other sort of applicability issue. I am not sure I remember what that was.
At any rate, I think it might have had to do with the 150 feet and whether that is an appropriate
distance or not that some of these issues extend beyond 150 feet, noise in particular and
hazardous materials potentially as well.
The meeting that we had was with five or six Research Park businesses represented. Their
concern was some of the vagueness of language like related to air quality. We have used the .
word contaminants instead of air pollution, which we had in there when we met with them. They
had obviously, as you might expect, concerns about the potential to politicize through hearings or
such the hazardous materials issue. While it wasn’t proposed to have a hearing they were vocal
about making sure that we understood that that was something they would have concerns with.
Otherwise I think they generally felt like this was reasonable, that the right-to-know issues were
probably appropriate to incorporate into an ordinance like this. Did you have anything else?
They also identified the sort of conflict in our noise language that we had then which we have
tried to just refer to the Noise Ordinance and not get into the specific numbers in the paragraphs
here.
Chair Holman: Thank you Commissioner Tuma, you are two for two. I would like to go to the
public now. I have four cards and you will have five minutes and if you can make it briefer that
is appreciated, not to curtail your comments at all just as a matter of efficiency. Art Liberman is
the first speaker to be followed by Mark Georgia.
Mr. Art Liberman, Palo Alto: Thank you. I want to speak to you about the hazardous materials
section. I am one of several residents who have been leading an effort in our neighborhood in
conjunction with the Barron Park Association to promote hazardous material zoning protection
for residents who live near sites using hazardous materials. I want to thank the Staff or listening
to us, for adding a hazardous materials section to the Zoning Ordinance Update. We appreciate
their including a notification to nearby residents when projects that would significantly increase
the amounts of Class H hazardous materials. But we are very unhappy with the Staff proposal
regarding projects using or storing Title 19 quantities of hazardous materials, the last section of
the proposal.
Title 19 quantities as Fire Marshall Firth has mentioned are materials which are so dangerous
that there are only two sites in Palo Alto currently subject to these regulations the Palo Alto
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Waste Water Treatment Facility down on the Embarcadero and CPI on Hanson Way: There are
none in Mountain View and there are only about 20 in the county.
These sites submit the Risk Management Plan and what is very important about that is that they
specify the offsite consequences of an accident at their site. So first let’s look at what the Staff
proposes because we think it is both inadequate and impractical. First it says nothing about
issuing building permits to projects using Title 19 quantities of hazardous materials near
residential zones. It continues the current policy of completely disregarding the risks to nearby
residents. The City Staff will agree with my comments and the Fire Marshall I am sure also that
they feel they have a ministerial responsibility to issue permits, if something happens in that zone
regardless of the consequences to nearby people, nearby residences, regardless of the hazards. In
fact the very first Section A of the hazardous materials part that you see before you says.
’Purpose,’ "Minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site." In other words,
forget about the potential hazards for those living next door. That is why it is inadequate.
Now here is why it is impractical and I think Commissioner Tuma raised this issue, which is that
the Staffproposes that the City notify affected residents if a new project application would
involve Title 19 quantities of hazardous materials and ifa new RMP is required. In fact a
company can already have a RMP enforce, as did CPI when they proposed their modifications to
existing buildings and then issue a new RMP after construction is completed as CPI did in 2006.
This is completely in accordance with Title 19 filing and reporting requirements. So if the Staff
proposal had been in effect there would have been no notification to affected residents by the
City before, during or after the project had been completed.
So we feel strongly that you need to add some real protection for residents from projects nearby
residences using Title 19 quantities of hazardous materials. At the study session I suggested and
I also mentioned at our meeting on the 18th that a preliminary design review be held by this
Commission before issuing building permits. What would you consider? I think first you would
consider first the risks to the community by the project judged bythe number of residents who
would be affected offsite by the accident as described in the applicant’s Risk Management Plan.
I think you would also look at the past performance of the applicant that is to say their history of
accidents and releases of toxic materials.
Let me suggest an alternate proposal. It may actually be a better one for you to consider. This
would be a new role that would only allow Title 19 levels of extremely hazardous materials to be
stored or used in new or modified buildings far from the property line of a residential zone. The
same should hold for Class 4 biological agents as Mr. Balin is going to talk to you about.
Otherwise the risk from the effects of an accident on these sites is too great to too many
residents. How far away is far? Well, that would depend upon the offsite risk posed by the
hazardous materials. In some cases 150 feet, in some cases 500 feet, and in some cases more. It
should be related to the size of the affected region that is in the applicant’s Risk Management
Plan.
In summary, if you approve the Staff proposal then you are telling applicants it is okay to submit
projects that disregard any risks to nearby residents of an accident with Title 19 quantities of
hazardous materials. Their projects will be approved anyway. If they fill out the right
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
paperwork, demonstrate that they are handling the material safely, they can forget about the
residents. On the other hand if you require a preliminary design review applicants knowing what
you will consider beforehand will present project plans that will already have mitigated the risks
or they will eliminate the design review all together. Best of all if you have projects at a safe
distance from residential zones then you will ensure the risk will always be low. Just remember
that the first part of the zoning code, purposes of the zoning code, the purposes of this Title I
don’t think I have to remind you, the purposes of this Title 18.01.02, the purposes of this title
shall be to promote and protect the public health. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Liberman. The next speaker is Mark Georgia to be followed by
Fred Balin.
Mr. Mark Georgia, Palo Alto: I am here as a neighbor, someone who kind of literally lives under
the clouds created by CPI and before Varian. It just strikes me that under this new Risk
Management Plan if we only have the ability to find out what has been allowed it leaves us
completely vulnerable. I walk outside my home after hearing some loud noises across the street
to see clouds of hydrogen going off. The whole summer has been like that. We had clouds of
hydrogen going off every 20 minutes on some days. Other days it was every hour and other days
maybe only once or twice we saw these beautiful white clouds and they are hydrogen.
When we first moved in in the 1980’s there was an emergency plan that was being executed with
neighborhood involvement because there were a couple of releases back then. One of them was
acid from the plating plants that damaged neighborhood cars. I feel completely vulnerable. I am
right across the street but I think of the recent problem on the East Coast I think it was in South
Carolina where a whole city was asked to leave the city because of one plant. That could happen
here. So if our role is only be informed after all the decisions have been made to me there is
something very, very wrong that the citizens who pay the City Staff for their responsibility to
protect the citizens it just strikes me as being very wrong. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Our next speaker is Fred Balin to be followed by Lynn Chiapella
who is our last speaker.
Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Good evening. I refer to three emails that I submitted on noise,
hazardous materials and biohazards. In recent years two Research Park sites abutting residential
neighborhoods received permits for major modifications. In each case there was no public notice
or public heating. In each case environmental impacts proved to be significant.
At 1501 California Avenue, Alza Pharmaceuticals installed a clean room in 1996. The next year
or so seated rooftop air conditioning and ever since the facility has been out of compliance with
the Noise Ordinance 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The new noise and vibration section can help prevent future problems. A key area to confirm is
that verification of the applicant’s acoustical analysis be handled in the same manner as all other
aspects of a building project filing from a qualified person, technical analysis by the City before
work begins, inspection at proper intervals before work is completed. Chief Official Williams
noted that although it is referenced the Noise Ordinance itself is not before us tonight although
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
its high minimum ambient of 40 decibels is highly prejudicial to quiet areas that suddenly meet
un-attenuated 24/7 noise generating equipment.
The second site, CPI on Hanson Way, recently upgraded its plating facility. Noise level also
increased dramatically. It is only now that residents are learning other important facts thanks to
work of Art Liberman. CPI is a special extended threshold hazardous materials site under a
Santa Clara County supervised program known as Title 19 which applies to only about 20
companies in the county. CPI recently requested and received permission to increase the
quantities of their two Title 19 toxics by amounts of 22 and 36 percent. The county is required to
publish notification of such requests but it is doubtful anyone in Palo Alto saw them when they
appeared in the Mercury News. If someone did they could have gone down to the county offices
and responded during the 45-day comment period.
Staff’s proposal is to notify residents of the Final Risk Management Plan but they feel no need to
go further. They reason that the Council has already approved the use oftoxics above more than
usual quantities in certain areas. So the City’s job now is the matters of notification and the
technical issues of inspection by the Fire Department. What has now become clear is that this is
not sufficient. It may not happen here tonight and won’t happen here tonight but as part of the
solution to the potential risks from hazardous materials in our city the City Council must
mandate that there are no more Title 19 threshold facilities near residential areas and for any
facility that wants to reach that threshold in other parts of city the applicant must show sufficient
justification for the Council to approve it. That was the three-minute.
Let me quickly make a comment here. Before the Research Office and Manufacturing District
zoning reached the Council it came before this committee twice. There were revised definitions
in terms of exempt quantities of hazardous materials and also definitions with regard to bio-
safety level agents going up to Level 4. It was never brought up by Staff, it was never discussed
by the Commission, it was tucked away in a separate section on definitions, and has now been
incorporated into the code. I noticed it just before it went to the Council. Had we discussed it
we might have been able to get into some issues like Title 19 and other issues at an earlier time.
I want to mention biohazards. You and the Council have allowed there to be several Level 4
facilities, the highest that there are, there are only about six in the whole United States, none in
the western states, separate containers within containers, full body suits, Ebola, other high level
viruses, that can be allowed without Council approval if the applicant asks for it and the Fire
Marshall, City Manager and Police Chief says it is okay. I think it is an abdication by the
Council, I am speaking past you to them at this point, I think we also need much more
information about bio-safety levels one to three materials. I refer to my email on that. Thank
you very much.
Chair Holman: Thank you. The last card we have is from Lyrm Chiapella.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, Palo Alto: I am glad I don’t live over there. I have some questions on page
two of the report mentions the guidelines and the requirements. I have a question on the
guidelines. What will ensure that both Staff and the ARB apply those guidelines to any given
project? Is it going to be just at the whim, as it seems to be now, of the applicant to apply those
or is there going to be something required so that he has to state why he doesn’t want to follow
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
the guidelines? An example I will give you is the lights that we see from the green building, the
green glow. The ARB has approved that and at least three or four proj ects in Midtown the last
couple of years, Long’s, Walgreen’s, the video store where bare-bulb light bulbs just hang and
you can see them for miles just driving down the street. You can see them from your house.
Those were all approved and then they said oh, we didn’t know that wouldn’t be covered. Well,
when they are 20 feet high and the houses are ten feet high or you are looking out your living
room window or whatever all of these things have an impact. So the guidelines would have said
you couldn’t really do these things. So what will make sure that the guidelines are actually
followed and they are just not niceties on a piece of paper that don’t really apply to anybody
unless they just happen to be a nice guy and do it? So that would be my first question on the
guidelines.
This report and this section is actually a really big step forward I think and I wanted to commend
Curtis and his Staff. It was a very big step forward to put these together. My next area would be
on the lighting, the lighting could be 15 or 20 feet high next to your house. Is a shield required
that cuts in so that light can’t go as it does now, though it said it would be shielded if you go to
Safeway you will see that the house in back is completely unusable it is bathed in light 24 hours
a day. Right behind the Safeway if you go down there at night you just simply can’t miss the
situation. Those were required to be shielded but its shield was just a box with no drop down,
with no cut in. That doesn’t prevent light from going to the little house in back when you have a
20-foot light. So these are things that need to be looked at in reality and what does this mean?
So that would be number three.
The next one would be on late night activities which is 23.040 and that is that no late night
activities between ten and six in the morning. I don’t know what neighborhood operations
actually are working from six to ten at night except maybe a restaurant. My concern with those
hours, I do think it should have been seven because that seems more reasonable and friendly to
the people next door. Usually in the Midtown area the properties, the parking lots, the deliveries,
all of that occurs next to the residential property and if this specifically allows truck deliveries
what prevents the backups? Almost all of them have beepers, backups, refrigerated trucks
particularly restaurants. So my feeling is that this actually is going to worsen the situation,
which we have been worldng very deciduously to stop those overnight trucks that come in really
early in the morning. I don’t see how this is going to work. I also don’t see whether that means
the restaurant will serve someone who comes in at 9:30 and therefore they could possibly be ’
cleaned up until 11:00 or 12:00 at night dumping garbage. So I am unclear on how that is going
to work.
Then the noise section is 23.060 and I have two areas. One is that the DB on page six says noise
levels at or within 5DB. This 5DB is a 50 percent increase in the noise level. So if you are
going to allow 5DB more than whatever that noise level is this may not be a problem during the
day but your guys probably aren’t going to come out and measure it at two in the morning. That
noise level at two in the morning is where you are going to hear that 5DB or be bothered by the
noises. So I don’t know how that is going to work unless you have defined noise levels of some
kind. The second thing is the discouragement of open-air loud speakers. I didn’t know that you
could just use them randomly as you chose. I thought you had to have a permit currently to have
an open-air loud speaker. In fact in Midtown when they have used them we have called the
Page 16
1 police when they have used them all day long and you can hear them from at least 500 feet away.
2 They said they would stop it because they had no permits. This seems to be going around the
3 permit process. Thank you.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Thank you. Ms. Chiapella there is a question for you.
Commissioner Burt: Lynn, when you mention the 5DB noise level threshold did you say 50
percent?
Ms. Chiapella: I believe every 10 decibels is perceived as a doubling of the noise. I could be
wrong on that my physics is really shaky but when I did read the material that was what I
understood it to say. So a 5DB increase at two in the morning and an air conditioner is a perfect
example which the gentleman before me said, you can hear that three buildings away I can hear
the air conditioning on the building in the early morning hours because it would penetrate
whereas I didn’t hear it during the day and it was measured during the day. This is really a
problem.
Commissioner Burt: Are you looking at this is Section B-3 that you are referring to?
Ms. Chiapella: Yes, page six.
Commissioner Burt: Well, we can have Staff clarify.
Ms. Chiapella: Right, when it is going to be measured.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, great.
Chair Holman: Okay, I think what would probably be wise to do would be to approach each one
of these sections separately I think would be an efficient way to get through this. IfI could I
would like to put a couple of questions out there for Staff to maybe have considered ahead of
time and also maybe to get Commissioners to comment as they are raising their questions or
making their comments.
When I went through this I was wondering why these performance criteria are being applied to
sites that are within 150 feet basically of residential or residential PCs. So one thought I had was
why wouldn’t we apply these to maybe not every site because there are some commercial zones
where maybe we wouldn’t but why wouldn’t we apply these performance criteria to all. Just a
quick groundwork for that is for instance with noise if you are working in a building and your
neighboring building is having impacts that would affect a residential, multiple family
residential, building why wouldn’t it also affect your work quality? Staff mentioned earlier also
mixed use projects, which are really specifically mentioned here.
Then the other is many of the guidelines, not all but many of the guidelines, I found in going
through this I was wondering why they actually weren’t requirements. There are some that seem
like guidelines would be fine but there are some things also that seem like if that is our intention
it seems like it would be just as easy to make them requirements. So with those kind of laid out
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
there we will go to questions. Who would like to go first unless Staffwould like to respond to
that beforehand?
Mr. C. Williams: I would and I also had indicated I would respond to Commissioner Keller’s
questions.
Chair Holman: Yes, thank you.
Mr. C. Williams: Many of these are language suggestions and many of those language
suggestions I agree with but maybe if you have your list there I can just sort of tell you those and
we don’t need to read through them. Well, let just go through them quickly. First one is that we
talk about the application being within 150 feet of residential zones or residential uses in those
zones and the word ’those’ is such that it is ambiguous and it is intended to be within commercial
or industrial zones. So it is residential zones plus and this gets to the issue of mixed use too that
if it is a mixed use project it would be covered as well because it is a residential use in a
commercial or industrial zone or it could even say residential uses. We should say a site with
residential uses on it.
Chair Holman: So going forward you would say that throughout Staff would be agreeing to
make that change?
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Chair Holman: So we don’t need to discuss that one anymore.
Mr. C. Williams: Correct.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you.
Mr. C. Williams: Then on the top of page two, 150 feet of residential - this is referring to the
redline version. So it says again the applicability that the criteria and this gets to another one of
Chair Holman’s issues I think. This says the criteria may also be considered for sites abutting
nonresidential zones where determined to be appropriate by the Architectural Review Board. So
that language was specifically put in there. Sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not
appropriate with nonresidential uses. That would allow for that provision and I think
Commissioner Keller’s question was was that intended to be residential but no it isn’t it is
intended to be nonresidential and allow for that where the use where appropriate adjacent to
other commercial or industrial properties.
Should the references to residentially zoned properties be...this is the same thing with properties
with existing residential uses located within commercial or industrial zones. Yes, we do that.
We have labeled two paragraphs ’paragraph 1’ in a section and we will correct that. I have been
having a heck of a time getting that to format fight. It keeps looking right on the screen and
doesn’t print out that way.
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The second paragraph one, read properties with existing residential uses located within
commercial or industrial zones? Yes, same thing.
This also has to do with the abutting or within 50 feet of- language that we used previously
under the noise section B-2. Okay, so it says noise-producing equipment shall be located out of
setbacks abutting residentially zoned properties or existing residential use sites. And again,
abutting or within 50 feet is fine to use there to be consistent with what we did before.
Then a question on these noise analyses and should there be a requirement for a before analysis
prior to issuance of building permit, a prediction of the after readings and then after readings
submitted following the completion of construction during test operation of the equipment prior
to final inspection? That is exactly what we have in here. It requires that prior to a building
permit being issued that that analysis be conducted, the before analysis and predict as part of that
the after readings and then upon completion of the construction but before final inspection to
require the demonstration that in fact those readings are met and that the ordinance is complied
with.
Commissioner Keller: So that is what ’three certification’ is referring to?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Mr. C. Williams: Then should there be different rules for testing or daytime weekday, weekend
daytime? I think that is an issue that is a Noise Ordinance issue and I suggest that that be
addressed there. I don’t think we can do that here.
On 23.080 which is the vehicular access there is a question about a requirement for documenting
delivery routes for trucks dropping off or picking up items from the properties as part of plan
submittal or PTC or ARB review. We are asking them to show where they are locating these
facilities and I think that would be part of it. I don’t know if we need to necessarily say that or
not. If you are more comfortable adding something like that we probably could do that.
Under the hazardous materials section the same language about properties with existing
residential uses locating within commercial or industrial zones.
Then should finalization of the building permit and/or certificate of occupancy be conditioned on
the acceptance of the RMP by the Health Department? What we have suggested and what we
think is adequate because the Health Department is not doing our approval per se is that we have
suggested that we would notify when the RMP is available we will notify residents that we
would not issue any building permit, and this goes a little bit to Mr. Liberman’s point because I
am not sure that he understood this part. The Fire Department would not issue a building permit
until the review period for the comments has run on that RMP and the Fire Department would
then have in hand resident comments on the RMP before they would make a decision on a
project.
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: Just a moment of clarification there. You are saying the City would not
issue the building permit until it receives the permit from the county.
Mr. C. Williams: No, not receives the permit receives the RMP and it has run its course as far as
the review process.
Commissioner Garber: So if the county ends up appeal or re-hearing, etc. the City would wait
until that comes to its conclusion one way or the other.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Keller: Could you show me where that is because I had trouble understanding
that in the code?
Mr. C. Williams: This is subsection five the second paragraph of that. The first paragraph talks
about the comments being submitted during the 45-day review period. The second paragraph,
the second sentence of it. The first sentence says any user or operator above Title 19 threshold
limits shall submit a copy in addition to the county to the Palo Alto Fire Department of the RMP.
Then it says that no building or Fire Department permit shall be issued prior to the submittal of
the RMP to the Health Department and the Fire Department. It doesn’t say in there what I
thought it should say which should be prior to the submittal and subsequent to the public review
of the RMP. So I would add that language..
Commissioner Keller: Do you want to say prior to approval?
Mr. C. Williams: I don’t want to say prior to approval. That is a separate process with the
county and I think Fire Marshall Firth can respond to how those can be different processes.
Their permit process may or may not track the county’s approval .but they are not going to get to
operate until the county has accepted their RMP. So I would prefer to refer that to him when we
get through these other questions.
Chair Holman: Curtis, if you could I think Commissioner Tuma and Commissioner Garber both
have clarifying questions for you at that point.
Commissioner Tuma: I am trying to understand how 100B-4 sits with 100-B-5. Four meaning
under certain circumstances when they have applied for a building permit. Are there
circumstances where it doesn’t meet the Title 19 threshold?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Tuma: So just to be clear, where it meets or exceeds the Title 19 threshold an
RMP is triggered and there is the notice, you are proposing a ten day notice that within ten days
the City would give notice and then people would have an opportunity within the next 35 days to
comment to the county on the RMP.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Tuma: But under subparagraph four where it doesn’t necessarily trigger the Title
19 limits what you are proposing is that residents only be notified after the permit has been
issued.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, did you have a question about that too?
Commissioner Garber: I think it has been clarified in the previous question. Thanks.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, did you have question about that or has it been
answered? Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I have a question related to the Title 19 Cal ARP permitting. If we should
have a new facility that is sought to be permitted that has materials above the Cal ARP
thresholds what mechanisms do we have to try to have that H occupancy zone as far away from
residential areas as possible or practicable? Do we have things that can really try to minimize
the risk to residential areas?
Mr. C. Williams: I will let Fire Marshall Firth answer what they look at and how they respond. I
know there are building code requirements for hazardous materials and setbacks which are
considerably more than for instance CPI is right now. If they came today it could not be built
that close under building code requirements. So there are setbacks and they are greater
depending on the materials and the quantities of materials. So there are some under the building
code it is not in our zoning requirements. Otherwise I think we would have the authority if we
wanted to in the zoning code to say you can’t locate such a facility within such and such a
distance of a residential use or zone or however you wanted to phrase that. That doesn’t exist
right now. Right now it is the building code and then whatever review the Fire Department does
and determines that it is adequate and safe in that location or it doesn’t need to be moved.
Commissioner Burt: So I guess ~another way o putting my question to Dan is that if you were to
have a request for an H-occupancy siting that requires Cal ARP Risk Management Plan do you
have tools at your disposal to require that that room or that occupancy area to be pushed away
from residents as far as is feasible on that site?
Mr. Firth: There are specific setback requirements from the property line for an H-occupancy. I
believe it is 60 feet as Opposed to an ordinary building, which would have a shorter distance.
Not that I know of there isn’t any specific requirement at my disposal to require the positioning
with respect to residences or any other property use.
What we do have are controls. We can require controls to improve the safety or reduce the risk
of a release. For example if someone wanted to bring in a toxic gas some of the requirements
that would apply they have to have a treatment system that treats any release to one-half the
immediately dangerous to life and health threshold at the point of discharge. So when it leaves
the stack it would have to be at half 1DLH so it couldn’t pose a risk to someone on the other side
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
of the property line no matter how far away it was. There are a number of other controls that we
can apply and we can also take advantage of a provision in the Fire Code where we require the
applicant to provide further technical expertise to hire someone, a qualified expert, to propose
additional safeguards or to justify the proposal that they have is in fact the most practical thing
that can be done to reduce the safety and best available technology.
Commissioner Burr: Those are very important controls and I appreciate that those are tools at
your disposal that do help address this. A lot of the sites in the Research Park are large acreages
and we are going to have very few sites that will be past the Title 19 threshold. Would it be
beneficial to you if you had greater discretionary authority or if the Planning Department had
discretionary authority that would be acting under the Fire Department’s recommendations to
push the location of that use as far away from residential as is practically feasible? It doesn’t
mean they could practically put it at the far edge of their property but also there are mistakes that
are made because including these manufacturers don’t necessarily recognize that by putting a
facility right perhaps up to the allowable distance that they are increasing their long term
liabilities as well as from the standpoint of the residents. It just is a better practical thing to do to
move it away as far as is feasible. I am struggling with how the language would be written
because it has to be discretionary. You would be looking at it with the Planning Department and
saying okay, on this site we can’t move it up to the front of the street as far away from the
residents as possible but it is far better that it be in the front half of the parcel rather than the rear
half that might be abutting residences. Would that kind of discretionary authority be welcomed
by both the Fire and the Planning Department?
Mr. Firth: I wouldn’t object to that. My role is to provide as much protection to the community
as possible within the guidelines that I have to work with. So when there are zones within the
city that allow the placement of the business that uses hazardous materials I apply the controls on
that facility to make it as safe as possible. If there were a concern and a desire to put further
controls on that property I wouldn’t object to it. I think that is the decision that is before you
tonight and before the Council.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Curtis, any thoughts on that concept?
Ms. McNair: I think it is easier to include something iike that in new construction because then
you can take that into account when designing the facility.
Commissioner Burt: It is new construction that I am referring to. If someone came in and does
not currently have this H-occupancy requirement and wanted to be permitted for a Title 19
facility that is the occasion that I am wanting to know whether that sort of discretionary control,
not necessarily to prohibit them but to have them located in a more desirable portion of their
facility than butted up as close to the residential as they might legally be allowed. That is the
time that you can look at a design standpoint.
Right now it sounds to me like Fire and Planning Departments really don’t have a tool to say to
an applicant you are technically outside of the distance that is the minimum distance. You are
compliant in the technical basis but this is a better half of your facility to locate this in. It will
reduce the liability to you, it will reduce the risk to the neighbors because you have a big facility
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11~
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
and you can put this thing further away from the residents and the design phase is the right time
to think that through and impose that. So that is what I am asking and why.
Chair Holman: I think Commissioner Lippert has a follow on to that and then I would like for
Curtis to be able to answer the rest of the questions and then I think we need to do some
evaluating.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Coming back to my previous question earlier about the conditional use
permit. Could something like that be handled in a conditional use permit process and fit within
the 45-day period that the county has to act on a Title 19?
Mr. C, Williams: It would be very difficult for it to fit within the 45-day period the county has to
act on Title 19 or not to act on it but to receive comments for it. I think our main problem still is
what do we review under a conditional use permit? We can review that distance but the
conditional use permit findings are very broad, they allow appeal, it becomes a politicized
process potentially and I wouldn’t blame any resident that says I don’t want it there. That isnot
where we want to be with these types of technical issues. So I think that really the concern is a
process that is not tied to - we would much prefer to have language that allows some discretion
that says such facilities be located as far from the residential uses as the Fire Department deems
to be feasible or something like that and allow them to look at it on a case-by-case basis.
Chair Holman: Curtis, do you want to answer the rest of the questions?
Mr. C. Williams: Actually, Commissioner Keller’s last question was about whether we could
prohibit the location of Title 19 facilities within 150 feet of the residential uses. So I think that
was just covered in some length.
Then if I could briefly respond to Lynn Chiapella’s points then yours. One point was guidelines
and what would require these to be used. Again, for the most part we are probably talking about
ARB review but in some cases we are talking about Staff review as well. We do have language
in here that indicates that the requirements shall be included in the design of the project. The
guidelines should be included and at the submittal point if one of those is not met then there
needs to be a justification from the applicant to demonstrate how the project meets those design
objectives without using that guideline.
Now, to your point also if there are some of those guidelines that seem that they should be
requirements we are certainly willing to discuss that and see if there are some. No doubt that
there may be some that can move from one category to another. I think that is probably likely
that there are some like that.
The lighting I think we have several criteria in the lighting section that talk about needing to
direct light away from the residential properties and to shield lighting. So I do think we have
language in here to cover that. That is really the number one goal of this lighting section to keep
the lighting on the site and not go offsite onto other properties residential or otherwise.
Page 23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 The late night issue, we think six in the morning and ten at night are adequate. This is intended
2 to include activities that are under the auspices of the property owner so if their activities include
3 deliveries and their activities include cleaning up afterwards and those kinds of things and it is
4 after ten o’clock it goes to 10:30 it is not saying they can’t do it it is just saying we have to use
5 permit process. That gives us an opportunity to let the neighbors have input to that particular
business requirement and for us to structure a set of conditions that define how late are you going
to be there to cleanup, what measures are you going to take to be quiet, etc., etc. So it is an
additional enforcement mechanism for us at that point to have a use permit requirement in place.
As far as the 5DB issue goes, and maybe this isn’t written clearly enough, it was one of the
questions I think Mr. Balin might have brought this up as well in his letter. The intent here is
that we have someone who goes out and does a study and says the existing ambient noise level is
50 and the Noise Ordinance says therefore you can’t exceed 56 at the property line. What we are
saying here is if their predictions are that they are going to be either at 56 or anywhere between
51 and 56 if they are within five decibels of that limit then we are going to require this additional
step of demonstrating, turn the equipment on, measure, and check it out. It is not implying that
we are going to allow them an extra 5DB above what the Noise Ordinance otherwise allows. So
that is the intent of that.
The open-air loud speakers are drawn from the existing regulations. The Noise Ordinance
covers if you are using a loud speaker and it is creating noise above certain levels at the property
line then you can try to address that through code enforcement and police. There is language in
here as far as when those can be used and such as well. That refers back to the Noise Ordinance
and there are specifications about the use of loud speakers.
Mr. Larkin: I would just add on the loudspeaker issue we regulate the time in which loud
speakers can be used outside of our standard Noise Ordinance but we are limited in our ability to
regulate the use of loud speakers for constitutionally protected speech. So discouraging use of
loud speakers is something we can do. Prohibiting the use of loud speakers is something we
can’t do except between certain hours, which is what we do in our ordinance.
Mr. C. Williams: Then I think the one I haven’t covered is your question about 150 feet and I
assume the question is why 150 feet as opposed to just no limit or whatever. I think these
impacts generally while yes, maybe noise you can hear 150 feet away, there are noise
requirements that limit the noise level at the property line. If it is limiting it at the property line
then we are making some assumption that 150 feet away from there that it is going to be less
than that at that point. It also draws from the existing ordinances. That is what all our code uses
and we are trying to be consistent. Those are the provisions we have for performance criteria
right now. Those are also the provisions we have for height limitations and daylight planes and
such in some of our other code sections. We have sort of defined 150 feet as being the
immediate area of needing to provide for some additional transition criteria so that is why we
have used 150 feet. It is not necessarily magic but we would like to be consistent.
Chair Holman: Okay. I would say two things here. On the calendar we have been getting
through items very quickly on the clock we have been running meetings very late. So there is an
upside and a downside to both ways of doing this. It is 9:30 and we have essentially ten sections
Page 24
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 to go through if we look at the purpose section as well. So I guess I would like a sense of the
2 Commission about how late, if we want to set a time tonight and then our next meeting on
3 November 1 starts at six o’clock with a study session and then we have no other item that night.
4 So it might be most efficient for us and we might get. a better product if we set a time to go to
5 tonight and then continue this. So I would like a comment back from Staff and then a sense of
the Commission.
Mr. C. Williams: I think that is fine with us to do that. We do have what we consider to be not a
heavy agenda next week. It is one study session item on the wireless communications and some
of the creek setback and those kinds of things. Julie, does that sound okay? I know you have
been overseeing that.
Ms. Caporgno: I think we could probably even plan the study session to end about 7:30 or 8:00
and then you could go back into this.
Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I have a question for the City Attorney. Would the passage of Prop 90
potentially affect our ability to implement these performance standards?
Mr. Larkin: It is could. It is hard to predict but it certainly could. I think we are recommending
proceeding anyway because it is obvious we are not going to have these adopted and
implemented prior to November 7 and we would have to address that if and when Prop 90 passes
and look at how that plays out in terms of it is ultimately going to be decided in the courts.
Commissioner Burt: So it flat out isn’t feasible for these to get adopted before then. Okay.
Chair Holman: Thank you for the question and the response. So one question when we go to the
purpose section. If you all want to be recognized or if you want to go down the line we can
address first the Purpose and Applicability section of the ordinance. Commissioner Tuma you
look like you are ready to go.
Commissioner Tuma: It doesn’t have anything to do with that section but it is something that I
failed to talk about at the beginning of the discussion on item number three. Before we go any
further I just wanted to do that. I think most of the Commissioners are aware and I want to make
it a matter of public record that I currently reside at 827 [Chimals] Drive. Some people had
raised a question as to whether that presented a conflict for me in the discussions tonight
particularly related to the hazardous materials section. I did have the discussion with the City
Attorney who apparently also already discussed that internally and together we determined that
there was not a conflict that in some way prohibited me from participating in these discussions. I
just wanted to make sure that it was a matter of public record and that people understood. I
apologize for not bringing it up earlier but before we went any further I just did want to mention
that.
Chair Holman: Thank you Commissioner Tuma. So should we try to stop around 10:30 or a
quarter to 11:00 tonight? Commissioner Burt.
Page 25
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2 Commissioner Burt: Two things. If we are going to roll this over and we think we are going to
3 have plenty of time maybe we don’t even need to go that long but the other question is if we are
4 potentially going to roll it over should we proceed sequentially through here or should we try to
5 get out on the table all of our b.iggest concerns so that Staff has an opportunity to respond to
them prior to our next meeting?
Chair Holman: That’s fine if Commissioners don’t feel like all of their concerns have been put
out there. Are there other issues? It looks like Vice-Chair Lippert does. Are there other
concerns that need to be put out on the table? It looks like so. We will go there then.
Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I was going to say the same thing.. I think it would be great to get all of our
issues and concerns out on the table and then that way next time we meet we can just go through
these sequentially and hit them.
Chair Holman: I would absolutely agree I just wasn’t aware that there were issues still
remaining.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question. With regard to noise and light issues especially abutting
residential properties is it possible to do something very similar to what we do with regard to
setbacks and actually create what we would call a noise setback? For delivery zones for instance
where you have trucks backing up and you have HID light that those are only allowed to operate
within 50 feet of a residential property line during daylight hours.
Mr. C. Williams: I guess my sense is that would be very difficult to do for a couple of reasons.
One is every site is going to be different and there very well may be sites that that’s just not
possible to do that on. I think the other thing is just trying to enforce that. You would start
getting into a whole different set of issues and we have definitions of noise, we have some
criteria here to try to do the best we can with each of these sites. That is why I think it works
better being a set of requirements and guidelines and not trying to be so fixed on something like
that. While I appreciate that that is simple in terms of saying that I think there are a lot of times
that is not going to work. We are going to have to look at doing the best we can on the site that
we are dealing with and that’s why this is in some areas so flexible and then for nighttime uses it
requires a use permit.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Just as a follow up on that with regard to interior lighting of buildings it is
very hard for us to get our hands around that from a planning point of view but could that be
handled through current regulations in the state Energy Code of Title 24 which now require that
any new lighting be on motion sensors so that at night when there is nobody in the office the
lights actually have to go off and it could be enforced by Building Inspection?
Mr. C. Williams: Building Inspection enforces itup to the point generally that it is occupied and
after that it is pretty much up to us to enforce things like that but I think we have language in
here that does suggest using motion sensors and other type mechanisms to dim lighting or tum
off lighting other than what is absolutely necessary for safety purposes when it is not in use. So
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
we have some criteria here and I don,t think it would help to do it through Building because
again I don’t think Building is going to be the one enforcing those requirements.
Chair Holman: So are there any other questions for Staff or cormnents that might help inform
them for when we take this up again? Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Yes. Going back to a point was raised I think by one of the speakers
relating to notice and you have alluded to this a little bit and perhaps this is better for the Fire
Marshall to address. It seems you are pretty clear that you don’t think that it is appropriate to
provide notice prior to an application under non-Title 19 thresholds being exceeded. I think it
would probably be good certainly for me to understand and for the public to understand why that
is the City’s position and maybe just flesh that out a little bit. It does seem a little strange on its
face without more. explanation why we would have that situation. So I think maybe an
explanation of that would be helpful.
Mr. C. Williams: Sure. A couple of things come to mind immediately. One is again getting into
more ofa politicization of that review process if notice is provided ahead of time and a neighbor
doesn’t like a particular site and it might not even be for the reason of the hazardous materials
that are being used on it but they come and talk to the Fire Department and try to hold up the
process for some reason. It opens it up to that for what is really a highly technical review
process by the Fire Department. The other part of it is that we try to within reason accommodate
business and there is already some time associated with the Fire Department and Building
reviewing these types of plans for hazardous materials. To open it up to any kind of public input
and review prior to a decision being made is lengthening that process and we don’t feel like that
is appropriate because again the issues that they are reviewing under are not the visual, traffic,
those kind of things that the Zoning Ordinance regulates. So we just feel those issues are outside
of the Zoning purview and belong with the specialists that the Fire Department and Building
Department have.
Mr. Larkin: Just to add to what Curtis said this permitting is not a discretionary process. It is
likely that we would be preempted under state law from making it a discretionary process so the
additional comment or the additional notice would not be particularly meaningful because there
wouldn’t be any impact on the permitting process.
Commissioner Tuma: So is that different under a situation where Title 19 thresholds are
exceeded? Is there then some discretion there because there is an opportunity to comment to the
county on the plans? Is that different?
Mr. Larkin: There is actually a Risk Management Plan to comment on whereas the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan that would otherwise be required and something that exceeds a certain
threshold but not the Title 19 threshold there is a public access but not a public review and
comment. Dan can correct me if needed.
Mr. Turner: I can tell you that for Title 19 there is a state law that requires a public comment.
So if you exceed the Title 19 threshold and are required to file a Risk Management Plan the
county is required by state law to make that available for public comment for 45 days. One other.
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
comment to add to Curtis’ about the review process for a permit is we get applications all the
time and they will go through iterations. A lot of times they will be discontinued or dropped but
certainly it is very, very common that the application and what they want to do in the beginning
is not what they wind up with at the end. So to involve the community before we have actually
issued a permit we would be informing them of something we really don’t know what the
outcome is. I don’t know if that makes any sense or not.
Commissioner Tuma: I hear what you are saying but we do that all the time. We involve the
community. IfI want to put a second story on my house the immediate surrounding community
has an opportunity well before any kind of decision has been made.
Mr. Turner: In our case someone would come in and want to install a new tool that used
hazardous materials inside their building. We have about a 28-day turnaround time on a plan
review for that. I don’t know what input the community would have that could benefit us in
reviewing that type of permit application. The controls are very specific in the Fire Code, the
Building Code, the Electrical Code, and the Plumbing Code. If the business meets those
requirements, they are in a facility that is already permitted for those hazardous materials, they
are in a zone that is already permitted for those hazardous materials, they have been permitted
for those hazardous materials, they are simply saying they want to do something different, they
want to make a nominal change, it is something that triggers a permit because we want to make
sure that what they are putting in is the proper material, is consistent with the materials they are
using, maybe we want to make sure it is listed, but I am not seeing any benefit to having the
community involved in that kind of process. Where I can see a value in having the community
involved and providing comment on a Risk Management Plan because there are significant
offsite consequences that the business is specifically trying to tell the public we are addressing.
Mr. Larkin: When I say it is not discretionary if it meets code they get a permit if it doesn’t meet
code they don’t get a permit. So it is not like the community getting notice and be able to say no,
we don’t want that in our neighborhood. If it meets code they get it.
Chair Holman: Is it follow up?
Commissioner Burt: Don, correct me if this is not the right way to characterize it. Provided that
they meet all of the appropriate requirements it is in essence an entitlement and that I think is the
difference.
Mr. Larkin: That is even more succinct than I was.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber then Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Garber: Small one but a big one. I have seen in other codes where the language
has been fairly explicit about having exposed sources of light being seen from offsite where
those codes have talked specifically about blocking the filament or blocking the illuminated
matter itself. Is that something that has ever been considered as part of the code here? Is that
considered too restrictive? Or has that language ever been imagined? You taik about having a
lower light level obviously.
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: Let’s see if we get anywhere close. The actual seeing the source of the light.
It is possible to do that. I guess I can tell you from experience having been Planning Director in
a town that had a regulation that said that it is pretty darn hard to enforce. It is not too bad when
it is so bright that it is bothering somebody offsite but to be able to see the bulb in there when it
is not bothering anyone but somebody complains just because you can see the light bulb.
Commissioner Garber: As I am recalling it it is occurring to me that that regulation was actually
in an area that is less urban that Palo Alto at the moment, So it probably doesn’t apply.
My second discussion concern is relative to conversation that will occur next week comes back
to the hazardous materials question. I have to tell you I don’t think there is anything more of
interest or concern to me than this particular topic and the impact that it potentially has on the
people of Palo Alto. Not only that but both Commissioner Lippert and I actually have
professional licenses that make us responsible, not in this context but in other context, where that
is pretty much the basis of a lot of our decision-making ultimately. That is only by way of telling
you how important I think this issue is to be addressed.
That said, relative to the potential impacts to the community these have it seems to me that the
Zoning Ordinance is a relatively blunt instrument to try and tackle all of the issues that need to
be addressed here. As I think both you began to address and Commissioner Burt was alluding to
as well the opportunities that the Zoning Ordinance has to affect some of these issues really
revolve around some long term advance planning which clearly is a problem for this community
because we have ended up with these dissimilar uses adjacent to each other which frankly should
not have happened but here we are, we have them. The other ways that the zoning is going to
impact these things is through the planning of new facilities where the changes of use on those
that the new facilities will have. The reality is that hazardous materials are going to be there
every day, they are going to be used, etc. and even in the performance criteria that might be setup
again are not going to get to the issues that the other agencies have day-to-day responsibilities to
have and have a much more active use. So my concern relative to the writing of this is obviously
the obvious stuff, not that we reproduce what the other agencies either county, state or federal are
trying to do which I don’t think you have done here. But I do think the language has to be really
careful because we don’t want to have to burden inappropriately the City with additional
policing, additional expertise that is not inside the zoning staff. The Fire Department has that the
Planning Staff does not unless it is really the right thing to do at which point I think we should be
doing it. That really needs to be understood. I agree with you entirely that it is highly technical.
There is a tremendous amount of regulation around this. I think it is really to the credit of Mr.
Liberman and Mr. Balin that there are probably some gaps in the process here, which should be
solved. The degree that the City can facilitate closing some of those things we should do it. If it
is bringing the public in, if it is essentially facilitating a county process that they should be doing
but is a gap in our community and we need to fill it we should be doing that. So I am not talking
specifically about your language but these are just the general issues that are going through my
head as I am thinking about these topics. Thanks.
Chair Holman: I think you just basically pointed to something that I have as one of my notes on
this report which is that the community would be much enriched if we had an environmental
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
commission where some of these matters could be fleshed out in a different environment and
then brought to us a package. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I will first mention a follow up to Chair Holman’s comment. My father-
in-law in Berkeley was on the Environmental Commission and I hope that whoever is on it in
Palo Alto will be dealing with much more reasonable residents than he has dealt with in Berkeley
where there was screaming and yelling. On the other hand they have to deal with Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory which is a much more serious issue than we have in Palo Alto. I appreciate
the reasonableness of and thoughtfulness of the comments from the citizenry here.
With respect to some comments made by among others Commissioner Lippert. I am wondering
that since residential within a ROLM zone is a conditional use permit rather as part of the
package that brings forward the conditional use permit approval includes information about the
existence of H-uses within 150 feet of the proposed housing. I think that is in some sense the
housing is sort of the sore thumb that is trying to be put into or hone in a commercial zone. So
that should be part of what the Council and Planning Commission consider in terms of the
conditional use permit is whether they are nearby hazardous uses.
The next thing is in term of Title 19 HazMat it seems to me that this is a fairly rare thing. I think
everybody has talked about that as being a fairly rare thing. Therefore, in an ideal world it seems
to me that the zone an RMP affects, that zone of coverage, should in fact not include any
residential area but we are not in an ideal world. So the question is how we deal with that
interface. My preference is in fact any new uses that are Title 19 would be outside of residential
areas and if the zone includes residential areas that we have some distance or CUP or something
like that so that we have some control over where these new Title 19s go into.
It was mentioned about bio-safety level 4 and I didn’t hear any follow up to that discussion so I
am sort of wondering, it was mentioned among other things by the letters received, I.am
wondering what we should with that and whether that similarly should have some distance
requirement or a CUP or something like that. I would like to hear what Staff has to say about
these items.
Chair Holman: Would Staff like to do that now or next week?
Mr. C. Williams: That is what I was going to ask you. Do you want to get through these
comments and then call it a night?
Chair Holman: Yes, yes I would.
Mr. C. Williams: So we will take that down and respond. We will give you responses to some
of these questions next week.
Chair Holman: Good. Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: The biohazard 4 was one of my questions as well and it basically comes
down to why is it that, and I am not looking for an answer tonight, the Staff would like to have a
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
very stringent ministerial approval process that it requires the City Manager, Fire Chief and
Police Chiet’? Is Staff envisioning occasions where they would actually think that we would
want biohazard 4 to be allowed in certain circumstances? It sounds to me that it is the highest-
level ministerial review.
Then really in response to Commissioner Garber’s concerns, I think that one of the things that
maybe we all need to realize is that in addition to what we are discussing tonight we have had
some good movements in these directions. I think that the one that still remains is this question
of whether we should have an additional ministerial discretionary process for Title 19 segments
of a facility and whether the Fire Department and the Planning Department think that would be
an appropriate thing to do. I agree with Staff’s comments that the CUP just is problematic for
going through that process. It is a very technical one but perhaps we can provide something that
would give greater discretionary power to do the right thing.
Just so other Commissioners know because four of the Commissioners including Commissioner
Sandas weren’t on the Commission when we did this two years ago but to show how far we have
come when we were doing GM zones we had a big discussion and we had a majority of the
Commission who did not support restrictions of housing and schools in GM zones, not LM
zones. These were permitted uses next to hazardous materials facilities, plating shops and
whatever. I about went nuts when I couldn’t carry a majority of the Commission on that issue at
the time. We now have conditional use permit for schools and my understanding is despite
having had one nursery school/day care center having been installed yards away from a plating
facility in the GM zone we now have had another that because of the CUP didn’t go in. Then the
Council for other reasons, for really looking at restricting the housing growth rather than because
of incompatible uses we now have conditional uses on this zone and elimination of housing in
GM. So we have moved away from a number of those incompatible uses in the last couple of
years. Staff now also has this additional notification requirement that goes beyond the Cooper
Requirements and any state regulation that is already in here. Then maybe we are going to have
one more restriction that comes or discretionary power I should say that might come before us if
Staff thinks that’s a good one. So as a group of movements in this direction I think we are
getting pretty close to achieving the right balance. It is hard to correct those things where a
facility has been there for 50 years but at least going forward we can move in the right direction.
Then we do have an evolution as Dan had mentioned. We have more software and less
manufacturing in this community. I don’t expect that to change. The biohazard issue is one that
is an issue going forward because that is likely to be a use that we could see more of. So those
are just my comments for consideration on kind of the general aspects of it.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I just wanted to make a comment with regard to Section 18.23.030 Lighting,
under B, lower case Roman numeral two. The use of high-pressure sodium and metal halide are
permitted light sources and then low-pressure sodium is not allowed. One of the issues that I
think is an issue of concern is lighting that stays on all night particularly in the Research Park
where a facility might be used actually 24 hours a day. Somebody might be working late at night
there. Is it really necessary to have all the lighting on in a parking lot? Is it appropriate to say
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
that 50 to 100 feet from a residential zone that maybe those lights go off and people can move
their cars closer to the building if they are working all night there. That is just something to look
at.
Also, there is an incompatibility with lighting being on at night and the health and welfare of
trees. If we are trying to get our trees actually develop better canopies there are lighting studies
in which those kinds of lights that are left on at night actually stunt the growth or development of
those trees. So that is just something to look at.
Then one other item under the same chapter and section, C, Guidelines, Roman numeral three,
maybe this is the time to begin to look at internally illuminated signs. I know that the ARB has
their standard. We don’t really allow them. Very, very rarely does ARB ever approve an
internally illuminated sign. Why not just completely eliminate that except for those that already
exist as internally illuminated signs? Any new signage really needs to either be externally
illuminated or halo lit. Only because it is in the guidelines now that would be an appropriate
time to now address that and deal with it.
Chair Holman: Okay, I will follow up on one comment that Commissioner Lippert just made
about trees. It also is true with wildlife. The exterior lighting also disturbs wildlife when it is
kept on.
Curtis you sort of answered my question and sort of didn’t earlier when I posed the question that
in most instances why would we not apply these criteria to all development. I do have
highlighted on my ordinance the bottom of page one where it says that criteria may also be
considered for sites abutting nonresidential zones where determined appropriate by the ARB. I
can think of instances where it might not be necessarily the most appropriate to do that and leave
that to the discretion of the ARB but if you look at the purpose section it also talks about the
purpose is the criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review
projects compatible with nearby residential areas and to enhance the desirability of the proposed
developments for the site residents and users and for the abutting neighbors and businesses. So it
would seem to me that application of these standards more broadly would actually make for a
better community and better commercial districts as well. So if Staff would take that and
consider that it would be great.
Lighting, I have some of the same issues that have already been mentioned. Certainly with the
hazardous materials and noise. I don’t know how best we can address this but I think there are
some Commissioners at least who think that Noise Ordinance does need to be addressed. Maybe
we can talk about this at the Retreat, how best to forward that desire if it happens to be a
unanimous desire of the Commission to the Council.
A couple of questions and maybe suggestions if I could. There are a number of clarifications or
consistency issues Curtis that you went through. I am wondering for clarity’s sake because the
ordinance is only five pages so it is not much paper, by email would be fine but I think by paper
it might be easier if Staff would make those corrections so that we can make sure that we are all
on the same page, if you will. So those clarifications then if Staff wanted to take a crack at or
leave it to us, either way, those guidelines that you said should be actually requirements. So I
Page 32
1
3
~4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
don’t know if you want to leave that to us that’s fine but with the clarifications I think if we all
have that that way when we make our motions we will all know we are talking about the same
thing and know that those changes have been made just for clarity purposes.
One that nobody else has hit on is trash disposal and recycling. We have encountered this at the
Commission before, it doesn’t mention about enclosures being covered or locked where feasible.
There also is some language that I can email you about having to do with blank walls and walls
that abut or face residential properties. I think some landscaping language might help that to
have clarity as opposed to having it just be reliant on the ARB not that they don’t do their job
with that but I think it might provide some clarity up front.
I think I can leave it there for now. So would Staff be agreeable to providing a fresh ordinance
so that we all make sure we are all on the same page with what Staff is agreeable to changing?
Mr. C. Williams: It is not going to go out with your packet this week. It will be to you at the
latest the day before the meeting if that is okay.
Chair Holman: That’s fine. Even if Staff wanted to email it I just think it is just a clarifying
mechanism.
Mr. C. Williams: We’ll be sure you have at least a day to look at it.
Chair Holman: That would be great. Vice-Chair Lippert just asked do we need a motion to
continue this to the date certain, November 1 ?
Mr. Larkin: Yes.
Chair Holman: Could I have a motion?
MOTION
Vice-Chair Lippert: I will move that this be continued to November 1.
SECOND
Commissioner Garber: Second.
Chair Holman: Motion made by Commissioner Lippert and seconded by Commissioner Garber.
Mr. C. Williams: We should clarify that. Julie was just asking we want to be sure that our study
session isn’t cut short at seven because we have something else. Do we need to do anything to
make sure that happens? Okay. Don is saying that since it is not continued to a specific time
then we can go however long we need for the study session and then move into this item.
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Chair Holman: That was part of my note here if we just have two items on the agenda and we
are starting the meeting at six is essentially how it will function.
Okay, the question about should we close public comment or leave it open. I did not close it. Is
there a recommendation? We could go either way.
Mr. C. Williams: Close it but that is up to you guys. There are not going to be substantive
changes brought back to you just organizational changes.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Sandas absent)
Chair Holman: Okay, we will close the public hearing then. I believe that’s it. We have a
motion on the floor to continue this item as the second agenda item on November 1. All those in
favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Sandas absent.
Page 34