HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6484
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6484)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/29/2016
Summary Title: Hazardous Materials Ordinance Amendment
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Two Ordinances: 1) Ordinance
Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulations Related to Hazardous
Materials use, Storage and Handling in the Office, Research and
Manufacturing Zoning Districts and Nonconforming Uses and Facilities; and
2) Ordinance Regarding Amortization of Nonconforming Uses at
Communications & Power Industries LLC (CPI) Located at 607-811 Hansen
Way. Amendments to the Municipal Code Affect the Following Sections and
can be Reviewed at the Planning Department’s Offices During Regular
Business Hours at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, 5th Floor: a. Chapter
18.04 (Definitions) Section 18.04.030 (66) (A) and (B) and (127.7); b. Chapter
18.20 Office, Research, and Manufacturing [MOR, ROLM, RP and GM] Section
18.20.030 (Land Uses) Table 1 (Industrial/Manufacturing District Land Uses);
Section 18.20.040 sub sections (b) and (c); and Section 18.20.050
(Performance Criteria) c. Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multiple
Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts)
Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) Subsection (B) d. Chapter 18.70
(Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) Sections 18.70.020
through 18.70.100, Including Section 18.70.070 (Nonconforming Use -
Required Termination) e. Chapter 17.16 (Hazardous Materials Management
Plan) Sections 17.16.010 (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) and
17.16.025 (Supplemental requirements for emergency response plans) and f.
Chapter 17.20 (Hazardous Materials Inventory) Section 17.20.020
(Information required). Environmental Assessment: As a Regulatory Action
That Would Modify the List of Permitted Uses in Industrial Zones to Protect
the Health and Life Safety of Palo Alto Residents, the Proposed Ordinances Is
Categorically Exempt From Review Under Section 15308 (Class 8, Actions for
Protection of the Environment) of the State Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act
From: City Manager
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
a) adopt the hazardous materials ordinance included in Attachment A;
b) adopt the amortization ordinance included in Attachment B (recommended by the PTC,
with the encouragement to continue efforts to negotiate an alternative), or the
alternative ordinance included as Attachment C, including the added text referencing a
possible agreement between the City and CPI; and
c) authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with terms substantially similar to
those in Attachment D.
Note: Staff is continuing to confer with CPI and neighborhood stakeholders regarding
potential language for an alternate ordinance (Attachment C) and terms of an agreement
(Attachment D) between the City and CPI to implement that ordinance. If the parties reach
agreement on substantive terms for recommendation to Council, staff will provide these
materials in the Council’s February 25, 2016 and make them publically available. If there is
no such agreement, staff may recommend Council action on items (a) and (b) above (with
the ordinance recommended by the PTC), and not (c).
Executive Summary
The proposed draft hazardous materials ordinance at Attachment A would amend provisions in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) related to industrial zoning districts in four principal ways:
It would define three categories or “tiers” of hazardous materials uses, including two
that are already addressed in the code (Tier 1 and Tier 3), and one that is not (Tier 2);
It would define “sensitive receptors” that could potentially be affected if there is an
accidental release of hazardous materials from hazardous materials uses and the
hazardous materials travel off site;
It would establish a minimum distance between Hazardous Materials Tier 2 uses and
sensitive receptors; and
It would prohibit Hazardous Materials Tier 3 uses in the City.
The ordinance would also make adjustments to provisions in the code governing non-
conforming uses.
The proposed draft amortization ordinance at Attachment B proposes termination dates for the
three facilities at Communication & Power Industries, LLC (CPI) that would become legal and
non-conforming following the effective date of the ordinance in Attachment A. The plating
shop facility at CPI would be required to terminate or move more than 300’ away from the
neighbors in 2026 and the other CPI facilities would be required to terminate or move more
than 300’ away from sensitive receptors by 2052.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
was released to Matadero Creek as the result of improper weekend shutdown of process
equipment and improper opening of a containment valve that discharges to the creek.
Current Hazardous Materials Regulations and Implementation
In 2007 the City Council enacted zoning code amendments to address hazardous materials.
Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) of the Municipal Code was intended to prevent new
hazardous materials uses or intensification of uses above the CalARP thresholds, and to provide
more notification for residents throughout the city when adjacent facilities increased or
modified hazardous materal use and storage.
Specifically, the City Council added provisions to the Zoning Ordinance to require uses such as
CPI to comply with the California Accidential Release Prevention Program (CalARP) regulations
and provide regularly prepared Risk Management Plans (RMP) for local review. In addition, the
zoning required a conditional use permit for any new facility and for conversion or
reconstruction of any existing facilities subject to CalARP regulations. New and reconstructed
CalARP facilities with RMPs (now proposed to be defined as “Hazardous Materials Tier 3” uses)
were prohibited within 300 feet of a residential zone or existing residential uses. (For more
information regarding existing requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, please see the
first few sections of !EOM’s technical memorandum in Attachment E.)
In March 2012, CPI reduced the amount of Potasssium Cyanide and Nitric Acid on site below
the CalARP threshold quantities and was no longer required to comply with the CalARP
regulations. Under the proposed ordinance, CPI has three facilities that would qualify as
Hazardous Materials Tier 2 use. Under the proposed protective distance requirements, those
facilities would become nonconforming.
Study of Current Risk at CPI and Findings
The ity hired !EOM to conduct a Risk !ssessment of PI’s operations. !EOM reviewed
documents, conducted a site visit to the plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area, and
reviewed PI’s hemical Management Program, which is required by both the U.S. EP! (for
compliance with the Clean Air Act) and Cal-OSHA (administering California requirements that
employers implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Program). AECOM also undertook
validation of prior CPI air dispersion modeling (from the 2008 RMP), identified five potential
‘extreme events,’ and performed air dispersion modeling to estimate potential off-site health
effects from the two extreme events determined to be ‘most likely’ to occur. (See MR#4622
from October 6, 2014 for more details,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44095) AECOM issued its report in
January 2014.
!EOM’s air dispersion modeling demonstrated that a hypothetical nitric acid release event
could result in health effects up to 92 feet from the assumed release, or to the first row of
residences in the Barron Park neighborhood, south from Building 2. Air dispersion modeling of
the cryogenic hydrogen release event showed that the toxic end point would terminate within
City of Palo Alto Page 5
PI’s property boundaries and would not reach the adjacent residences.
Public and Council Review of CPI Risk Assessment
On February 20, 2014, the City held a community meeting where neighbors expressed the
concern that the ‘extreme events’ modelled in the Risk !ssessment did not address a major
earthquake, which might affect the wider community and cause a delay in public safety
response. To address the neighbors’ concern, !EOM developed another air dispersion model
to examine the impact if a major earthquake compromised the containment of chemicals in the
plating shop and the building housing it. The supplemental evaluation examined a hypothetical
scenario based on assumptions about the nature of the earthquake damage to the building and
the resulting mixing of chemicals that AECOM described as “highly unrealistic.” Based on these
assumptions, AECOM concluded that the hypothetical scenario could result in a release with
the potential to affect residential uses up to a distance of 616 feet from the plating shop. (See
CMR #4622,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44095).
Representatives of CPI commented that this scenario, which assumes substantial building
damage from a major earthquake, should be evaluated in the context of the building’s seismic
strengthening and the likelihood of an earthquake occurring that would cause damage
sufficient to result in the mixing of chemicals in the plating shop. CPI retained a consultant
(Albus-Keefe & Associates) (AKA) to conduct a probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of
ground shaking sufficient to cause structural failure of the second floor. AKA concluded that
the probability of this level of ground shaking would be 0.75% over 50 years, or less than the
current uilding ode requirements. The ity’s consultants at AECOM subsequently reviewed
this report and concluded that !K!’s results were reasonable, with several limitations. !EOM
also noted several additional items that would be helpful to understand in order to evaluate the
probability of ground motion seriously affecting Building 2 and observed that the AKA review
did not constitute a comprehensive seismic risk evaluation.
At the October 6, 2014 City Council meeting, PI’s consultant ENVIRON submitted a declaration
further commenting on the supplemental evaluation. That declaration, along with !EOM’s
response and other documents, is available on the ity’s website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/new projects/cpi.asp. Following public
testimony, the City Council directed staff to develop a zoning ordinance to regulate plating
shops and similar facilities with similar hazards, identify incompatible adjacent uses, identify
appropriate volumes of hazardous materials for regulation, possibly establishing tiers in the
ordinance for facilities covered, and incorporate an amortization schedule for any non-
conforming facilities. (See City Council Minutes October 6, 2014,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44878.)
On November 16, 2015, staff presented drafts of the attached ordinances to the City Council for
review and discussion. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to revise the first ordinances
in several ways, and take both ordinances to the Planning & Transportation Commission for
City of Palo Alto Page 6
review and recommendations. (The ouncil’s action minutes are included as Attachment G.)
The City Council also asked staff to explore with CPI and its neighbors the potential for an
agreement that could add an option to eliminate the plating shop from the site entirely (rather
than moving it to be 300’ away from the neighbors).
On January 27, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the draft
ordinances and recommended them to the City Council for adoption. (Verbatim minutes are
included as Attachment H.) Although the version of the amortization ordinance reviewed by
the Commission did not include an incentive to move the plating shop offsite, the Commission
discussed ongoing negotiations and supported reaching an agreement between the parties. No
additional review by the Commission is necessary.
Discussion
Regulatory changes in the attached draft hazardous materials ordinance (Attachment A)
address definitions, restrictions (including minimum distances), and the amortization of non-
conforming facilities. These issues are discussed below.
Definitions
The proposed ordinance would define three “tiers” of hazardous materials users where there
are currently two, and would define as “sensitive receptors” those uses that may include
individuals who are more susceptible than others to adverse effects from exposure to toxic
chemicals and other pollutants.
Section 18.23.100()(i) through (iv) of the ity’s Municipal ode currently regulates uses of
hazardous materials in excess of the “UP!” thresholds (quantities) defined by the State Health
and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95. These uses would now be defined as “Hazardous
Materials Tier 1” uses as long as they did not involve Toxic or Highly Toxic Substances. (Also see
discussion of Tier 2, below.) The CUPA program requires facilities which store, use or handle
more than 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet of regulated material to submit a
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) that reports the on site chemical inventory.1
According to the Palo Alto Fire Department, as of October 30, 2015 there were approximately
420 buildings with hazardous materials in Palo Alto. The Hazardous Materials Tier 1 uses with
hazardous materials less than CUPA threasholds are dispersed throughout Palo Alto, and
include a wide variety of land uses such as gas stations, manufacturing businesses, retailers
who sell paint, solvents and pesticides, and nail salons.
1 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health's Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is the
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and administers the Hazardous Waste Generator Program and Tiered
Permitting (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5), Underground Storage Tank Program (California Health
and Safety Code Chapter 6.7) and the Risk Management Program (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95).
As a Participating Agency, the Palo Alto Fire Department administers the Hazardous Materials Business Plans
requirement (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95) and Aboveground Storage Tank (California Health
and Safety Code Chapter 6.67).
City of Palo Alto Page 7
ased on staff’s analysis, these proposed regulations would make three existing Tier 2 facilities
“legal and non-conforming,” meaning that the uses were legally permitted when they were
instituted, but would no longer conform to the ity’s zoning. The affected facilities are all on
the CPI site (Buildings 1A, 1B and 2/2A).6
Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses
As first discussed in April 2012, amortization is one means by which a city can terminate a
nonconforming facility. Amortization can phase-out a use or facility that is either incompatible
with adjacent uses or where a change in use is desired as part of an orderly transition to other
uses, for example, the conversion of an area from light industrial uses to residential. In the
past, the City of Palo Alto has provided amortization periods from five years to 30 years and has
terminated uses including a nonprofit molecular research activity, a dance studio, art studio,
gero-psychaitric skilled nursing facility, and tire sales and installation.
Generally, when zoning regulations change in a manner incompatible with a current use that
was lawfully established, the non-conforming use may remain but cannot expand or intensify.
The alifornia Supreme ourt has held, however, that “zoning legislation may validly provide
for the eventual termination of nonconforming uses without compensation if [the legislation]
provides a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved.”
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 435 Cal3d 848. Thus, to determine an amortization
schedule, the City must look at the value of the investments involved, and the Court has
indicated that “the reasonableness of the amortization period depends on the interplay of
many factors, including the depreciated value of the structures to be removed, their remaining
useful life, and the hardship to the public if they are left standing.” City of Salinas v. Ryan
Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (1987) 189 CalApp3d 416.
The proposed draft hazardous materials ordinance would clarify that non-conforming uses may
be amortized in less than 15 years, when supported by a site-specific amortization study.
In 2011, following three accidental hazardous materials releases at CPI, the City commissioned
an amortization study to determine a reasonable amortization period for CPI to meet the
standards for new CalARPP facilities that were contained in the Zoning Ordinance adopted in
2007. (This was before CPI reduced its use of hazardous materials below the CalARP thresholds
that the ordinance proposes to define as “Hazardous Materials Tier 3.”) The study, prepared by
economic real estate consultants CB Richard Ellis, concluded that a reasonable termination date
for PI’s plating shop would be 20 years from the date that the most significant improvements
occurred on the CPI site, which was in 2006. Thus the CB Richard Ellis study would support an
ordinance eliminating the nonconforming use in 2026. CPI subsequently submitted its own
The staff recommendation to use 300 feet as the minimum separation for hazardous materials uses (Hazardous
Materials Tiers 2) is based on the ouncil’s prior determination in 2007 to use 300 feet for uses with hazardous
materials over CalARP thresholds. It is also three times the distance of off-site impacts identified in the 2014
dispersion modelling completed by the ity’s consultant !EOM.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
6
amortization study which concluded that the plating shop could not be separated from the rest
of the facility, and that a reasonable amortization period for the entire facility would be about
40 years - or in 2052.
Both amortization studies can be reviewed at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/new projects/cpi.asp.
The proposed amortization ordinance (Attachment B) accepts the conclusions of both studies7
regarding CPI and would require that the plating shop be moved more than 300 feet away from
sensitive receptors by the end of 2026. The alternate version (Attachment C) presumes
technologies may change such that CPI can take advantage of the incentive which provides for
additional time in exchange for moving the plating shop off-site. This incentive (which at
publication time, the City is continuing to discuss with representatives of CPI and the neighbors)
would be predicated on execution of an enforceable agreement intended to provide additional
detail and enforcement mechanisms. The terms of such an agreement are provided in
Attachment D.
Public Outreach
City staff has made an effort to ensure that those who may be interested in the attached
ordinance are aware of the ity’s interest in regulating hazardous materials uses. Staff and
consultants from AECOM conducted a community meeting on October 22, 2015 and a written
summary of questions and answers from that meeting is provided as a part of the Council Staff
Report, see
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49766.
Staff also provided notice to potentially affected Hazardous Materials Tier 2 uses, and reached
out to those businesses that appeared on an initial list based on the 2014 inventory forms
submitted to the Palo Alto Fire Department. In the course of this outreach and review of the
2015 inventory forms, three of the potential Hazardous Materials Tier 2 uses that were on the
list shown at the October 22nd meeting have been determined to qualify as a Hazardous
Materials Tier 1 use (reducing the number of facilities on the list from 14 to the 11 listed in
Table 2 above).
Staff also reached out to representatives of CPI and the adjacent neighborhood to discuss terms
of a potential agreement to provide an incentive for CPI to relocate the plating shop off-site
rather than 300 feet from the property line. While the neighborhood representatives included
in these discussions could not speak definitively for the neighborhood as a whole, staff’s hope is
that their opinions and input reflect general sentiment of area residents and that the terms
See Attachment F for !EOM’s peer review of the 2011/2012 amortization studies. !EOM’s review concluded
that both studies are technically sound, and offered two important observations. Specifically, a longer amortization
period could be required if CPI has made investments in its facility since the date of the studies; also if plating
technologies change, it may be possible for CPI to separate its plating shop from the rest of the uses on its site
prior to the year 2052.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
7
included in Attachment D will be acceptable to the neighborhood as well as the signatories (the
City and CPI).
Timeline
Ordinances require two readings and become effective 31 days following adoption.
Resource Impact
The proposed draft ordinances would modify zoning regulations in the City and provide a
termination date for three legal and non-conforming uses that would be created under the new
zoning. No additional City resources would be required to implement the ordinances, however,
if additional facilities become subject to regulation or if substantial disputes arise from
adoption of the ordinances, additional resources may be required.
Policy Implications
The ity’s omprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that are protective of neighborhood
quality of life and the health of the community. The Plan also contains goals and policies that
support Palo !lto’s image as a business-friendly community (Policy B-10). On balance, the
proposed ordinance is consistent with the Plan’s vision of a healthy community which is
supportive of businesses to the extent that they are compatible with Palo !lto’s residential
character and natural environment (see Policy L-4, Goal B-1).
Environmental Review
As a regulatory action that would modify the list of permitted uses in industrial zones to protect
the health and life safety of Palo Alto residents, the proposed ordinances would be categorically
exempt from review under Section 15308 (Class 8, Actions for Protection of the Environment)
of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Hazardous Materials Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Amortization Ordinance (Recommended by Planning and Transportation
Commission) (PDF)
Attachment C: Updated Amortization Ordinance - Will Be Distributed in the Council
packet of February 25, 2016 (DOCX)
Attachment D: Proposed Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and CPI - Will Be
Distributed in the Council Packet of February 25, 2016 (DOCX)
Attachment E: AECOM Technical Memo Re: Background Materials Identifying Tier
between CUPA and CalARP (DOCX)
Attachment F: AECOM Memo Re: Amortization Studies (PDF)
Attachment G: City Council Action Minutes of November 16 (PDF)
Attachment H: Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Verbatim
Minutes (DOC)
Attachment I: Correspondence (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Zoning Regulations related to Hazardous Materials Use, Storage, and
Handling in the Office, Research, and Manufacturing Zoning Districts
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. The City of Palo Alto is committed to ensuring the quality of life, including public
health, safety, and welfare, of its residential neighborhoods, as evidenced by Goal L-3 of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the protection and enhancement of safe, attractive
residential neighborhoods.
B. There are businesses within the City that because of the types and quantities of
hazardous materials used, handled, and/or stored onsite may pose offsite health, safety, and
welfare effects.
C. In 2007, the City Council amended the Palo Alto Municipal Code to prohibit uses
that have acutely hazardous materials above thresholds identified in Title 19 of the California
Code of Regulations within 300 feet of residential zoned properties or existing residential
properties within a non-residential zone. There are currently no such uses within Palo Alto,
however the City is concerned that new such uses could present a risk regardless of their
distance from residential uses.
D. The City is also concerned that there may be uses within the City, both at this
time and potentially in the future, which involve hazardous materials that do not exceed
thresholds identified in Title 19, but that nonetheless may present a risk of offsite health, safety
and welfare effects, particularly if they are located within proximity to land uses such as
residences, schools, daycare centers, elder care facilities and similar uses whose occupants may
be more susceptible than the general population to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic
chemicals and other pollutants.
E. On October 6, 2014, the City Council discussed issues associated with
Communication & Power Industries, LLC (CPI), which is located in the Stanford Research Park
but is immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The Council directed staff to
prepare an ordinance that would identify appropriate hazardous materials thresholds,
considering the spectrum of businesses, facilities, and buildings in the City, and possibly
establish tiers for the facilities covered that take into account the quantities and types of
hazardous materials used, handled, and/or stored onsite and their proximity to land uses that
could experience health effects if an accidental release of hazardous materials were to occur
and travel off site.
1
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
F. The California Health and Safety Code at Division 20, Chapter 6.95 identifies
threshold quantities of hazardous materials (referred to as “CUPA thresholds”) above which
businesses are required to prepare Hazardous Materials Business Plans. Hazardous Materials
Business Plans, among other things, must include an inventory of hazardous materials onsite
and an emergency response plan that identifies the steps, actions, and communications to be
performed in the event of an accidental release. The State Legislature recognizes that “the
information provided by business and area plans is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate
the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or
threatened release of hazardous materials into the workplace and environment.”
G. A subset of the uses subject to the requirements of Health and Safety Code
Division 20, Chapter 6.95 are considered to involve acutely hazardous materials that may result
in health effects upon an accidental release. These include those defined as toxic or highly
toxic by the California Fire Code Chapter 2.
H. Establishing a minimum distance between these hazardous materials users in
the City’s industrial zoning districts and sensitive receptors will be protective of public health,
safety and welfare by preventing new uses of this type from locating within proximity of
existing sensitive receptors, and by preventing new sensitive receptors within industrial zoning
districts, when they would be within proximity of these hazardous materials uses.
I. Similarly, preventing establishment of new uses using these hazardous materials
above thresholds defined in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations will be protective of
public health, safety and welfare by eliminating the risk of exposure due to accidental releases
from these uses.
J. Existing uses and sensitive receptors within industrial zoning districts that do not
comply with this ordinance would become legal and non-conforming uses. Those uses would be
prevented from expanding or intensifying and could be subject to termination through
amortization.
SECTION 2. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a)
. . .
(66) Hazardous Materials.
(A) “Hazardous Materials Tier” means a manufacturing or processing use that utilizes,
handles, and/or stores particular types and quantities of hazardous materials as
follows:
(i) “Tier 1” means uses with quantities of hazardous materials that are not
defined as Toxic or Highly Toxic hazardous materials and that are both above
2
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
the threshold quantities in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95
and below the Title 19 thresholds of the California Code of Regulations.
(ii) “Tier 2” means uses with quantities of Toxic or Highly Toxic hazardous
materials that are both above the threshold quantities in Health and Safety
Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95 and below the Title 19 thresholds of the
California Code of Regulations.
(iii) “Tier 3” means uses with quantities of hazardous materials above the Title 19
thresholds of the California Code of Regulations.
(B) “Toxic and Highly Toxic hazardous materials” means substances defined in the
California Fire Code Chapter 2, as amended, and as adopted and amended by Title
17 of the City Municipal Code, and subject to requirements of ‘High-hazard Group H-
4’ of the State Building Code, as buildings that use, handle, or store hazardous
materials that are considered health hazards.
. . .
(127.7)“Sensitive Receptors” means land uses such as residences, schools, daycare
centers and homes, homes for the elderly, convalescent homes and similar uses whose
occupants may be more susceptible than the general population to the adverse effects
of exposure to toxic chemicals and other pollutants.
. . .
SECTION 3. Section 18.20.030 (Land Uses), Table 1 (Industrial/Manufacturing District Land Uses) of Chapter 18.20 (Office, Research, and Manufacturing [MOR, ROLM, RP and GM] Districts) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses
Table 1 lists the land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the industrial and manufacturing districts.
Table 1
Industrial/Manufacturing District Land Uses
[P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
MOR ROLM
ROLM(E) RP RP(5) GM
Subject to
regulations in
Chapter:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and P P P P Chs. 18.40, 18.42
3
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
activities customarily
associated with or
essential to permitted
uses, and operated
incidental to the
principal use.
Automatic Teller
Machines P P P P 18.20.030(d)
Home Occupations,
when accessory to
permitted residential
uses.
P P P P Chs. 18.40, 18.42
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Business and Trade
Schools P
Religious Institutions P P P
Colleges and
Universities P P P
Private Clubs, Lodges,
or Fraternal
Organizations
CUP CUP CUP CUP
Private Schools (K-12) CUP CUP CUP CUP
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Ambulance Services CUP
Convalescent Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP 18.23.100(B)
Medical Office P CUP CUP
Medical Research P P P 18.20.030(c)
Medical Support Retail P 18.20.030(b)
Medical Support
Services P 18.20.030(b)
MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING USES
Manufacturing P P P 18.23.100(B)
Recycling Centers CUP CUP CUP
Research and
Development CUP P P P 18.23.100(B)
Warehousing and P P P
4
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
Distribution
OFFICE USES
Administrative Office
Services P P CUP
Financial Services CUP CUP
Professional and
General Business Office P P
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Service and Equipment
Yards P
Utility Facilities CUP
Utility Facilities
essential to provision of
utility services but
excluding
construction/storage
yards, maintenance
facilities, or corporation
yards
CUP CUP CUP
RECREATION USES
Commercial Recreation CUP CUP CUP
Neighborhood
Recreational Centers CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family Not permitted 18.20.040(b) Two-Family Not permitted
Multiple-Family CUP CUP CUP
Residential Care Homes P CUP P CUP P CUP 18.23.100(B)
RETAIL USES
Eating and Drinking
Services, excluding
drive-in and take-out
services
CUP CUP CUP
Retail Services CUP CUP CUP
SERVICE USES
Animal Care, excluding P
5
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
boarding and kennels
Boarding and Kennels CUP
Day Care Centers P CUP P CUP P CUP 18.23.100(B)
Emergency Shelters
for the Homeless P (ROLM(E) 18.20.030(d)
Family Day Care
Homes
Small Family Day Care P CUP P CUP P CUP P 18.23.100(B)
Large Family Day Care P CUP P CUP P CUP P 18.23.100(B)
General Business
Services P
Lodging
Hotels providing not
more than 10% of
rooms with kitchens
CUP
Mortuaries and
Funeral Homes P
Personal Services CUP CUP CUP
Vehicle Services
Automobile Service
Stations, subject to
site and design review
in accord with the
provisions of Chapter
18.30(G)
CUP CUP
Automotive Services CUP
Off-site new vehicle
storage for auto
dealerships located in
Palo Alto
CUP CUP
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary Parking
Facilities, provided
that such facilities
shall remain no more
than five years
CUP CUP CUP CUP
6
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
TRANSPORTATION USES
Passenger
Transportation
Terminals
CUP
SECTION 4. Subsections (b) and (c) of Section 18.20.040 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.20 (Office, Research, and Manufacturing [MOR, ROLM, RP and GM] Districts) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
(b) Development Standards for Exclusively Residential Uses
Residential uses shall be permitted in the MOR, RP, RP(5), ROLM, ROLM(E), and GM
zoning districts, subject to the following criteria.
(1) It is the intent of these provisions that a compatible transition be provided from
lower density residential zones to higher density residential or non-residential zones.
The Village Residential development type should be evaluated for use in transition areas
and will provide the greatest flexibility to provide a mix of residence types compatible
with adjacent neighborhoods.
(2) No new single-family or two-family residential development is permitted in any
of the office, research and manufacturing districts, and no new residential development
is permitted within 300 feet of an existing Hazardous Materials Tier 2 use. Existing
single-family and two-family uses and existing residential development within 300 feet
of an existing Hazardous Materials Tier 2 use shall be permitted to remain, consistent
with the provisions of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities).
(3) MOR District. All multi-family development in the MOR zoning district shall be
permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the
development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district.
(4) RP and RP(5) Districts. All multi-family development in the RP, and RP(5) zoning
districts that is located within 150 feet of an R-E, R-1, R-2, RMD, or similar density
residential PC zone shall be permitted subject to the provisions above in
18.20.040(b)(2), approval of a conditional use permit, and compliance with the
development standards prescribed for the RM-15 zoning district, including Village
Residential development types. Multi-family development in the MOR, RP, and RP(5)
zoning districts that is located greater than 150 feet from an R-E, R-1, R-2, RMD, or low
density residential PC shall be permitted subject to the provisions above in
18.20.040(b)(2), approval of a conditional use permit, and compliance with the
development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district.
7
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
(5) ROLM (E) District. All multi-family development in the ROLM(E) zoning district
shall be permitted subject to the provisions above in 18.20.040(b)(2), approval of a
conditional use permit, and compliance with the development standards prescribed for
the RM-15 zoning district.
(6) ROLM District. All multi-family development in the ROLM zoning district shall be
permitted subject to the provisions above in 18.20.040(b)(2), approval of a conditional
use permit, and compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM-30
zoning district.
(7) GM District. All residential development is prohibited in the GM zoning district.
(c) Development Standards for Mixed (Residential and Nonresidential) Uses in the
MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, and RP(5) and GM zoning Districts
Mixed (residential and nonresidential) uses shall be permitted in the MOR, ROLM,
ROLM(E), RP, and RP(5) and GM zoning districts, subject to the following criteria:
(1) It is the intent of these provisions that a compatible transition be provided from
lower density residential zones to higher density residential, non-residential, or mixed
use zones. The Village Residential development type should be evaluated for use in
transition areas and will provide the greatest flexibility to provide a mix of residence
types compatible with adjacent neighborhoods.
(2) New sensitive receptor land uses shall not be permitted within 300 feet of a
Hazardous Materials Tier 2 or Tier 3 use. Existing sensitive receptors shall be permitted
to remain, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and
Noncomplying Facilities).
(3)(2) ROLM(E) District. Mixed (residential and nonresidential) development in the
ROLM(E) zoning district shall be permitted, subject to the provisions above in
18.20.040(c)(2), approval of a conditional use permit, determination that the
nonresidential use is allowable in the district and that the residential component of the
development complies with the development standards prescribed for the RM-15
zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for mixed use development is 0.3 to
1.
(4)(3) ROLM District. Mixed (residential and nonresidential) development in the ROLM
zoning district shall be permitted, subject to the provisions above in 18.20.040(c)(2),
approval of a conditional use permit, determination that the nonresidential use is
allowable in the district and that the residential component of the development
complies with the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. The
maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for mixed use development is 0.4 to 1.
8
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
(5)(4) GM District. Mixed use (residential and nonresidential) development is
prohibited in the GM zoning district.
In computing residential densities for mixed (residential and nonresidential) uses, the
density calculation for the residential use shall be based on the entire site, including the
nonresidential portion of the site.
SECTION 5. Section 18.20.050 (Performance Criteria) of Chapter 18.20 (Office,
Research, and Manufacturing [MOR, ROLM, RP and GM] Districts) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
All development in the Office/Research/Manufacturing zoning districts shall comply
with the requirements and guidelines outlined in Chapter 18.23. Such requirements and
guidelines are intended to reduce the impacts of these non-residential uses on
surrounding residential districts and other sensitive receptors.
SECTION 6. Subsection (B) of Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) of Chapter
18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(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 use or building or area used for supporting such storage, use and/or
handling is located within 150 feet of a sensitive receptor, residential zoning district or
parcel with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones 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 sensitive receptor or residential zones 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
Division 20, Chapter 6.95, upon:
(a) A change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site
resulting in quantities above the reporting threshold established in California Health and
Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95; and/or
9
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed hazardous
material stored, used or handled on the site at buildings or areas already above the
reporting threshold established in California Health and Safety Code Division 20,
Chapter 6.95; and/or
(c) Release/threatened release incidents.
(iv) For any such use or 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 operators, and occupants of residents of all sensitive
receptors and residentially zoned parcelsresidential property within 150 feet from the
property line, not later than ten days after issuance of the building permit. The notice
shall inform the property the sensitive receptor or residentially zoned property owners,
operators, and occupants 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.
(v) New Hazardous Materials Tier 1 manufacturing uses and new facilities (buildings
or areas) or modifications to existing facilities accommodating such uses shall be
permitted subject to compliance with the development standards prescribed for the
relevant industrial/manufacturing zoning district and the reporting and noticing
requirements identified above in Section 18.23.100(B)(iii).
(vi) New Hazardous Materials Tier 2 manufacturing uses and new facilities (buildings
or areas), or modifications to existing facilities accommodating these uses shall be
permitted subject to compliance with the development standards prescribed for the
relevant industrial/manufacturing zoning district and the reporting and noticing
requirements identified above in Section 18.23.100(B)iii, provided:
(a) approval by the fire chief of an emergency response plan that specifically
addresses toxic and highly toxic hazardous materials that exceed the quantities specified
in Section 17.16.025 of the Municipal Code shall be required;
(b) approval of a conditional use permit shall be required together with notification
by the City to owners, operators, and occupants of sensitive receptors or residentially
zoned land within 600 feet; and
(c) notwithstanding the provisions above, in no event shall such use, facility, or
improvement be allowed in the MOR zoning district or be allowed closer than 300 feet
10
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
to a sensitive receptor or residentially zoned land if such facility or improvement is
located in a ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), or GM district.
(vii) No Hazardous Materials Tier 3 uses shall be permitted in the City of Palo Alto.
(viiviii) No facility proposing the use of BioSafety Level 4 etiological agents shall be
permitted in the city of Palo Alto.
SECTION 7. Section 18.70.020 through Section 18.70.100 (regarding changes to
nonconforming uses and noncomplying facilities) of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and
Noncomplying Facilities) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
18.70.020 Nonconforming use -Expansion.
(a) A nonconforming use shall not be altered, enlarged, expanded, or extended,
except as provided in subsection (b) this prohibition shall include any moving,
enlargement, extension, expansion or alteration of a nonconforming use which:
(1) Increases the site area or floor area occupied by such use on the same or any
additional site;
(2) Increases the number of structures or the size of any structure housing such
nonconforming use or portion thereof.
(b) A nonconforming use which occupies a portion of a building may be expanded to
include additional floor area within the same building; provided that:
(1) Without substantial remodeling or reconstruction, the portion of building into
which expansion is proposed is not reasonably susceptible to use or occupancy by a
conforming use. The determination of whether a portion of a building is reasonably
susceptible to use or occupancy by a conforming use shall be made by the building
official and shall take into consideration, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) Whether any required remodeling or reconstruction would involve structural
alterations;
(B) Whether the building was designed and constructed for the nonconforming
use occupying the building or portion thereof, or uses of similar intensity or
classification;
(C) The degree of privacy, separation, and protection afforded the portion of the
building into which expansion is proposed from intrusion, interference, noise, and
similar effects resulting from or generated by the nonconforming use;
(D) Availability of access to the portion of the building into which expansion is
proposed.
(2) Such expansion within the building does not create, cause, or increase any
additional nonconformance or noncompliance with the requirements of this title.
(3) Nothing contained in this section authorizes a change in the nature of a
nonconforming use contrary to the provision of Section 18.70.030.
18.70.030 Nonconforming use -Change.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a nonconforming use shall not be changed
to or replaced by any use except a conforming use.
11
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) A nonconforming use may be changed to or replaced by another nonconforming
use which would have been permitted under the most recent zoning classification of the
property under which the nonconforming use was a conforming use and which is of no
higher occupancy rating than the existing nonconforming use as defined by Title 16
subject to the following limitations:
(1) The change or replacement shall not increase the extent of the nonconformity,
or the nature of the activity, or the site area or floor area occupied by the
nonconforming use on the site, except as may be provided by Section 18.70.020(b).
(2) Any period of temporary vacancy or discontinuance associated with such change
or replacement shall not exceed the limitations established by Section 18.70.040.
(3) Such change or replacement of nonconforming use to or by another
nonconforming use shall be permitted only if the building, or portion of a building,
presently occupied by the nonconforming use is not reasonably capable of conversion to
accommodate use and occupancy by a conforming use, without substantial
reconstruction or remodeling. The building official shall determine whether the building,
or portion of a building, is reasonably capable of such conversion. Said determination
shall take into consideration, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) Whether changes in the nature of the building or a portion of the building
would be required by Title 16 or similar regulations in order to convert the use of the
building, or portion of the building, to a conforming use;
(B) Whether any reconstruction or remodeling necessary to convert the use and
occupancy of the building, or a portion of the building, involves structural alterations;
(C) Whether the building, or portion of the building, was originally designed and
constructed for the particular existing nonconforming use or uses of similar character.
(c) A nonconforming use which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall
not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of
which changes from a nonconforming to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used
except to accommodate a conforming use.
18.70.040 Nonconforming use -Discontinuance.
(a) On any site having facilities thereon valued at less than one thousand dollars,
any nonconforming use, other than a residential use, which is discontinued or
abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of six months
or longer shall not be resumed, reestablished, or continued, and all subsequent use of
such site and facilities thereon shall conform to this title.
(b) On any site not subject to subsection (a), a nonconforming use of facilities
designed and constructed for nonresidential purposes which is discontinued or
abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of one year or
more shall not be resumed, and all subsequent use of such site and facilities thereon
shall conform to this title.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.70.030, or the provisions of
subsections (a) and (b) of this section, in any residential district, a nonresidential,
nonconforming use occupying facilities originally designed and constructed for
residential use which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and
12
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
use of the site for a period of ninety days or greater shall not be continued or
recommenced, and any subsequent use of the site and facilities shall conform to this
title. This provision shall not be construed to prevent a change of ownership or
management of such nonconforming use; provided, that any cessation of operation of
the use is solely in connection with the transfer of ownership or management to a
specifically designated person or entity and is solely for the purpose of accomplishing
any transfer of title, equipment, operational control, or similar purpose.
18.70.050 Nonconforming use -Maintenance and repair of facility.
Facilities occupied or used by a nonconforming use permitted by this chapter shall be
subject to the following provisions governing maintenance, repairs, alterations, or
replacement:
(a) Normal and routine maintenance of any structure for the purpose of preserving
its existing condition, retarding or eliminating wear and tear or physical depreciation, or
complying with the requirements of law, shall be permitted.
(b) Incidental alteration shall be permitted, provided the value of the incidental
alterations in any one-year period shall not exceed twenty percent of the value of the
facility prior to such alterations.
(c) Structural alterations or enlargement of the facility shall be permitted only to
accommodate a conforming use, or when made to comply with the requirements of
law.
18.70.060 Nonconforming use -Replacement of facility.
A facility, used or occupied wholly or partly by one or more nonconforming uses, which
is damaged or destroyed by any means except ordinary wear and tear and depreciation,
may be reconstructed or replaced only for occupancy or use by a conforming use,
except in the following instances:
(a) Where none of the nonconforming uses is subject to termination as provided by
Section 18.70.070, reconstruction or replacement for continued occupancy or use by
such nonconforming use shall be permitted only in accord with the following limitations:
(1) The extent of nonconformity, or the intensity of activity, or the site area or floor
area occupied by the nonconforming use subsequent to reconstruction or replacement
of the facility shall not exceed that existing prior to reconstruction or replacement.
(2) Reconstruction or replacement shall be subject to all applicable laws,
regulations, and procedures otherwise governing construction on the site.
(b) When one or more of the nonconforming uses is subject to termination as
provided by Section 18.70.070, reconstruction or replacement for continued occupancy
or use by such nonconforming use shall be permitted only in accord with the following
limitations:
(1) During the first one-third of the applicable termination period of such use, the
facility may be reconstructed or replaced; provided the value of such reconstruction or
replacement shall not exceed seventy-five percent of the value of the facility prior to
damage or destruction.
13
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
(2) During the second one-third of the applicable termination period of such use,
the facility may be reconstructed or replaced; provided the value of such reconstruction
or replacement shall not exceed fifty percent of the value of the facility prior to damage
or destruction.
(3) During the last one-third of the applicable termination period of such use, the
facility may be reconstructed or replaced; provided the value of such reconstruction or
replacement shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the value of the facility prior to
damage or destruction.
(4) Any reconstruction or replacement permitted in this chapter shall not extend or
otherwise modify the required termination date established by Section 18.70.070 and
applied to the nonconforming use prior to such reconstruction or replacement. Said
termination date shall apply to all portions of the site or structure, including those
portions reconstructed or replaced.
18.70.070 Nonconforming use -Required termination.
(a) In any district, a nonconforming, nonresidential use occupying a site having
facilities thereon valued at less than one thousand dollars, shall be terminated within
five years from the effective date of this section, or within five years from the date such
use becomes nonconforming, whichever date is later, and within such time the
improvements shall either be removed, or converted or modified to accommodate a
conforming use.
(b) In any district, a nonconforming, nonresidential use of a site not subject to
subsection (a) of this section shall be terminated in accord with the following provisions
and schedules:
(1) When occupying or using facilities designed and built for residential use, the
nonconforming use shall be terminated within ten years from July 20, 1978, or within
ten years from the date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever date is later, and
within such time the improvements shall either be removed, or converted or modified
to accommodate a conforming use.
(2) When occupying or using facilities designed or built for nonresidential use, the
nonconforming use shall be terminated, and the facilities shall be converted or modified
to accommodate a conforming use, or shall be removed at or before the time limit
prescribed in subdivision (3) of this subsection; provided, however, that unless a site-
specific amortization study is prepared, no such termination, removal, or conversion
shall be required within fifteen years from July 30, 1978, or within fifteen years from the
date such use became nonconforming, whichever date is later; provided, however, that
uses which were made non-conforming as a result of the 1974 Fire Zone 1 Study, by
Ordinance No. 2777, adopted March 25, 1974, shall terminate on November 23, 1990;
and provided, further, that any use made nonconforming by said Ordinance No. 2777,
the primary purpose of which is to prepare and deliver food to senior citizens, shut-ins
and others with limited mobility may remain and shall not be subject to termination
pursuant to this section. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace
site improvements in accordance with applicable site development regulations,
14
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in any
increased floor area.
Notwithstanding the dates of termination of uses required by this subsection (b)(2), the
required termination dates of the following uses shall be as hereinafter set forth:
(A) The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 440-460 Page Mill Road for
nonprofit orthomolecular and molecular medical research functions shall terminate on
or before July 20, 1998.
(B) The nonconforming use of the property at 464 Colorado Avenue for a dance
studio and associated parking shall terminate on or before July 20, 2003.
(C) The nonconforming use of the property at 440 Pepper Street for an art studio
specializing exclusively in the medium of monotype printmaking and associated
instructional uses shall terminate on or before July 20, 2018. Nothing in this ordinance
shall be construed to create a vested right for the nonconforming uses to remain after
July 20, 2003.
(D) The nonconforming use of the property at 4277 Miranda for a gero-
psychiatric skilled nursing facility shall terminate on or before January 20, 1994.
(E) The nonconforming uses of the property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage
Avenue/Olive Avenue for retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage
uses are permitted in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16,
2006, subject to the following limitations: (1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 square
feet, and (2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends.
(F) The nonconforming use of the property at 2011 El Camino Real for tire sales
and installation shall terminate on or before April 26, 2009.
Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements in
accordance with applicable site development regulations, provided that any such
remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in any increased floor area or
increase in intensity of the use, nor any loss of parking.
(3) The following schedule shall govern the period of time for termination of
nonconforming uses specified in subdivision (2) of this subsection unless a site-specific
amortization study is prepared:
Type of Construction Defined by
Building Code
Age of Structure Computed
From Date of Construction
Type I – Totally noncombustible 35 years
Type II – Fire resistive 35 years
Type III – Noncombustible
exterior, combustible interior 30 years
Type IV – Heavy timber 30 years
Type II – Nonrated 25 years
Type V – Wood frame 20 years
15
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
(4) Nothing contained in this subsection shall extend or otherwise modify any
termination date provided by any previously existing ordinance for any use which
became nonconforming under such ordinance prior to the effective date of this section.
Such termination dates for such previously existing nonconforming uses are
incorporated in this section and shall remain in effect.
(c) The director of planning and community environment shall determine those
properties the use of which were lawfully existing uses permitted or conditionally
permitted, in the districts in which they were located immediately prior to July 20, 1978,
and which uses were rendered nonconforming by reason of the adoption of this title on
July 20, 1978, and those properties which, prior to July 20, 1978, were located in an R-1
district which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without
benefit of prezoning, the uses of which were lawfully existing uses permitted or
conditionally permitted operating subject to a conditional use permit prior to the date
of annexation. Written notice of such nonconformance shall be mailed to the owner of
record of each such property and to the occupant of the property. Within two years of
the date of mailing of such notice, any owner of such property, lessee of such property
with the written consent of owners, or purchaser of such property when acting pursuant
to a contract of sale in writing duly executed and acknowledged by both the buyer and
the owner of record, may apply to have such property excepted from the termination
provisions of this section. Said application may be made to the director of planning and
community environment in such form as may be prescribed by the director of planning
and community environment. Said application shall include, but not be limited to, a
statement of the location and size of the property, the nature of its use on July 20, 1978,
a statement of reasons establishing that the use is compatible with and will not be
detrimental to the uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for the surrounding area
and properties, a map of the subject property indicating the location of all parcels of
real property within a distance of three hundred feet from the exterior boundary of the
subject property, a list as shown in the last equalized assessment roll, of the name and
address of the owner of record of each such parcel, and such other information as may
be required by the director of planning and community environment.
(1) Such application shall be accompanied by such fee as is prescribed in the
municipal fee schedule.
(2) Upon receipt of such application, the director of planning and community
environment shall so inform the chairperson of the planning commission who shall set a
date for a public hearing on the application which shall be held within a reasonable time
from the date of filing of the application. Notice of the hearing shall be given by
publication once in a local newspaper at least twelve days prior to the hearing and by
mail to owners and occupants of real property within 300 feet of the subject property.
(3) Upon the date set for hearing, the planning commission shall conduct a public
hearing thereon, unless, for cause, the commission shall on that date continue the
matter. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall determine whether the
use of the property on July 20, 1978, is compatible and not detrimental to the land uses
designated in the Comprehensive Plan for the surrounding areas of properties. In the
event the commission so finds, it shall recommend to the city council that the use shall
16
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
be exempted from the termination provisions of this section. The commission may
recommend such conditions as it may find necessary to insure compatibility including,
but not limited to, required improvement of or modifications to existing improvements
on the property, limitations on hours of operation, limitation on the nature of
operations, and a specified term of years for which the exception shall be granted.
(4) Upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission, the city
council shall consider the application within a reasonable time. The council may, at its
option, conduct a public hearing on the matter.
In the event the council finds the use of the subject property to be compatible with and
not detrimental to those land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for the
surrounding area and properties, it shall, by motion, except said use from the
termination provisions of this section. In granting such exception, the council may
include such conditions as are deemed necessary to insure such compatibility, including,
but not limited to, the conditions set out in subsection (c)(3) of this section.
(5) Any use which is excepted from the termination provisions of this section, and
which is changed pursuant to Section 18.70.030 shall be subject to the termination
provisions of this section as though no exception had been granted.
(6) Any use excepted from the termination provisions of this section shall be
permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, without
the necessity to comply with site development regulations, for continual use and
occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement, or
replacement shall not result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height,
length, or any other increase in the size of the improvement.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, any off-street parking lot which
was lawfully existing and not subject to any required termination provisions of any
predecessor ordinance on the effective date of this section, and which on that date was
and continues to be used accessory to a lawful conforming permitted use, shall be
permitted to continue in existence and use for the life of the principal use to which it is
accessory, regardless of whether said parking lot and principal use are located in the
same district.
18.70.080 Noncomplying facility -Enlargement.
(a) Except as specifically permitted by subsections (b) and (c) hereof or by Section
18.12.050(a), no enlargement, expansion, or other addition or improvement to a
noncomplying facility shall be permitted which increases the noncompliance. This
section shall not be construed to prohibit enlargement or improvement of a facility,
otherwise permitted by this title, which does not affect the particular degree of or
manner in which the facility does not comply with one or more provisions of this title.
(b) Except in areas designated as special study areas, the director of planning and
community environment may permit minor additions of floor area to noncomplying
facilities in the commercial CC, CS and CN zones and in the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP
and GM districts, subject to applicable site development regulations, for purposes of on-
site employee amenities, resource conservation, or code compliance, upon the
determination that such minor additions will not, of themselves, generate substantial
17
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
additional employment. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(1) Area designed and used solely for providing on-site services to employees of the
facility, such as recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias and day care facilities;
(2) Area designated for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling
and thermal storage facilities; and
(3) Area designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities,
handicapped access, and seismic upgrades.
18.70.090 Noncomplying facility -Maintenance and repair.
(a) Normal and routine maintenance of a noncomplying facility shall be permitted
for the purpose of preserving its existing condition, retarding or eliminating wear and
tear or physical depreciation, or complying with the requirements of law.
(b) Incidental alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted, provided
such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the
discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this title.
(c) Structural alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted when
necessary to comply with the requirements of law, or to accommodate a conforming
use when such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise
increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and requirements of this title.
18.70.100 Noncomplying facility -Replacement.
A noncomplying facility which is damaged or destroyed by any means except ordinary
wear and tear and depreciation may be reconstructed only as a complying facility,
except as follows:
(a) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects only a
portion of the facility that did not constitute or contribute to the noncompliance, said
portion may be repaired or reconstructed to its previous configuration.
(b) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of
the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or
reconstruction to such damaged portion shall be accomplished in such manner as not to
reinstate the noncompliance or degree of noncompliance caused by the destroyed or
damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title;
however, if the cost to replace or reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the facility to
its previous configuration does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost to replace or
reconstruct the facility in conformance with this subsection, then the damaged
noncomplying portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous configuration. In
no event shall such replacement or construction create, cause, or increase any
noncompliance with the requirements of this title.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) hereof, a noncomplying facility in the
commercial CS, CN and CC zones and the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts,
except for those areas designated as special study areas, existing on August 1, 1989,
which when built was a complying facility, shall be permitted to be remodeled,
improved or replaced in accordance with applicable site development regulations other
18
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
than floor area ratio, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement
shall not result in increased floor area.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c) hereof, a noncomplying facility
housing a conforming use in the R-1 and RE zones, which when built was a complying
facility, which is damaged or destroyed by non-willful means (i.e., acts of God) shall be
permitted to be replaced, on the same site, and in its previous configuration, without
necessity to comply with the current site development regulations, provided that any
such replacement shall not result in increased floor area, height, length or any other
increase in the size of the facility.
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this section with regard to replacement or
reconstruction of a portion of a facility to its previous noncomplying condition, all
reconstruction shall be subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and procedures
otherwise governing construction on the site at the time said construction is
undertaken.
SECTION 8. Section 17.16.010 (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) of Chapter 17.16 (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
Each applicant for a permit, a renewed permit, or an amended permit pursuant to this
title shall file a written plan, for the fire chief's approval, to be known as a hazardous
materials management plan (HMMP), which shall demonstrate the suitable storage of
hazardous materials. The HMMP may be amended at any time with the consent of the
fire chief. The HMMP shall be a public record except as otherwise specified. Section
18.23.100 in Title 18 identifies notification requirements of the availability of the
HMMP. Approval of the HMMP shall mean that the HMMP has provided adequate
information for the purposes of evaluating the permit approval. Such approval shall not
be understood to mean that the city has made an independent determination of the
adequacy of that which is described in the HMMP.
SECTION 9. Section 17.16.025 (Supplemental requirements for emergency
response plans) of Chapter 17.16 (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) In addition to the HMMP requirements set forth in this chapter, any person who
handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material, which has a
quantity at any one time during the reporting year equal to or greater than a total
weight of five hundred pounds, or a total volume of fifty-five gallons, or two hundred
cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure (STP) for compressed gas shall
establish and implement a plan for emergency response to a release or threatened
release of a hazardous material pursuant to this section. Said plan, including the
hazardous materials inventory statement (the "HMIS") described in Chapter 17.20 of
this title, shall comprise the "business plan" for purposes of Chapter 6.95 of Title 20 of
19
151104 sh 0140147
NOT YET APPROVED
the California Health and Safety Code. Section 18.23.100 in Title 18 identifies
notification requirements of the availability of the business plan.
SECTION 10. Subsection (a) of Section 17.20.020 (Information required) of Chapter
17.20 (Hazardous Materials Inventory) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(a) Information shall be included in the HMIS for each hazardous material or mixture
containing a hazardous material stored or handled in a facility (aggregated over all such
materials stored in one or more storage facilities) where the aggregate quantity
throughout the facility at any one time during the reporting year is equal to or greater
than five hundred pounds in weight for solids, fifty-five gallons for liquids, or two
hundred cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure (STP) for compressed gases.
Additionally, an HMIS also shall be filed for any "acutely hazardous materials" stored on
site, above threshold reporting quantities pursuant to 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A 42
U.S.C. 11001.
…
SECTION 11. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid.
SECTION 12. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations
Section 15308 (Class 8, Actions for Protection of the Environment), because it is designed to
assure the maintenance, enhancement, or protection of the environment and involves
procedures for the protection of the environment aimed at reducing risks to sensitive receptors
associated with potential accidental releases of hazardous materials.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
20
151104 sh 0140147
____________________________ ____________________________
____________________________ ____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 13. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-
first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Director of Administrative Services
21
151104 sh 0140147
Attachment B
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Zoning Regulations to Amortize Non-Conforming Hazardous Materials
Uses at Communications & Power Industries, Inc., Located 607-811 Hansen Way
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. The City of Palo Alto is committed to ensuring the quality of life, including public
health, safety, and welfare, of its residential neighborhoods, as evidenced by Goal L-3 of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the protection and enhancement of safe, attractive
residential neighborhoods.
B. There are facilities within the City that because of the types and quantities of
hazardous materials used, handled, and/or stored may pose offsite health, safety, and welfare
effects. One such facility is Communications & Power Industries, Inc. (CPI), 607-811 Hansen
Way. CPI is located within the Stanford Research Park and is also immediately adjacent to a
residential neighborhood.
C. In 2007, the City Council amended the Palo Alto Municipal Code to prohibit new
businesses that have acutely hazardous materials above thresholds identified in Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations within 300 feet of residential zoned properties or existing
residential properties within a non-residential zone. In 2007, CPI used and stored acutely
hazardous materials above the Title 19 thresholds. Subsequently, CPI reduced its use and
storage of hazardous materials.
D. In February 2016, the Council amended the Municipal Code to further address
potential risks presented by uses that involve hazardous materials that do not exceed
thresholds identified in Title 19, but that nonetheless may present a risk of offsite health, safety
and welfare effects, particularly if they are located within proximity to land uses such as
residences, schools, daycare centers, elder care facilities and similar uses whose occupants may
be more susceptible than the general population to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic
chemicals and other pollutants.
E. The Council established a minimum distance between users of acutely hazardous
materials that are defined as toxic or highly toxic by the California Fire Code Chapter 2 in the
City’s industrial zoning districts, and sensitive receptors, defined as residences, schools, daycare
centers, elder care facilities and similar uses.
F. The uses in buildings 1A, 1B and 2 at CPI are subject to this regulation and are
legal and non-forming under its terms. Under the Municipal Code, CPI may not expand or
intensify the non-conforming uses. In addition, the Council wishes to establish a schedule to
phase out the non-conforming uses through amortization.
1
151104 sh 0140146
NOT YET APPROVED
G. In 2011, the City retained the real estate economics firm CB Richard Ellis to
prepare a study to determine when CPI’s plating shop use could be terminated. The study
concluded that 20 years from the date of the studied investments, or 2026 would provide a
reasonable amortization period.
H. CPI subsequently retained another consultant to provide a separate study of this
issue, concluding that the plating shop could not be separated from the rest of the facility, and
that approximately 40 years would provide a reasonable amortization period for the entire
facility.
I. The City retained an additional consultant, AECOM Inc., to assist the City with
various tasks related to hazardous materials regulation, including conducting a peer review of
the prior amortization studies. AECOM found the methods and conclusions of both studies to
be generally valid, subject to several assumptions and clarifications.
SECTION 2. Section 18.70.070 (Nonconforming use – Required termination) of
Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to add Subsection (b)(2)(G) as follows:
(G) The non-conforming hazardous materials uses located within Building 2 and the
associated chemical storage area at 811 Hansen Way shall terminate or be relocated
greater than 300 feet from sensitive receptors on or before December 31, 2026. The
non-conforming hazardous materials uses located within Buildings 1A and 1B at 607
Hansen Way shall terminate or be relocated greater than 300 feet from sensitive
receptors on or before December 31, 2052.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations
Section 15308 (Class 8, Actions for Protection of the Environment), because it is designed to
assure the maintenance, enhancement, or protection of the environment and involves
procedures for the protection of the environment aimed at reducing risks to sensitive receptors
associated with potential accidental releases of hazardous materials.
//
//
//
2
151104 sh 0140146
____________________________ ____________________________
____________________________ ____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-
first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Director of Administrative Services
3
151104 sh 0140146
ATTACHMENT C
UPDATED AMORTIZATION ORDINANCE
(Will be distributed in the Council Packet of February 25, 2016)
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CPI
(Will be distributed in the Council Packet of February 25, 2016)
Attachment E
AECOM 415 796 8100 tel
300 California, Suite 400 415 796 8200 fax
San Francisco, CA 94101
www.aecom.com
Memorandum
To: Hillary Gitelman
Cc: Margaret Monroe
Subject: Background Materials to Identify a “Tier” between CUPA
and CalARP Thresholds
From: Rod Jeung
Date: January 7, 2016
Introduction and Summary
The intent of this memorandum is to identify buildings that have types and quantities of
hazardous materials onsite that could pose concern for neighboring land uses due to accidental
releases of these chemicals. The identification focuses on the type of hazardous materials, the
amount of hazardous materials, and the proximity of these buildings to sensitive land uses. The
State definition of hazardous material is a substance that, because of its quantity, concentration,
or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human
health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment
(California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Section 25501(n)). This definition
encompasses substances listed in the Code of Federal Regulations and the California Code of
Regulations.
There are multiple buildings throughout the City of Palo Alto, hereafter referred to as the City,
where hazardous materials are used, handled, or stored. Whether releases of hazardous
materials might result in a potentially significant health effect on nearby uses depends on:
the quantity of these materials, the inherent characteristics of these materials,
the location of, and circumstances resulting in, an accidental release,
the availability of a “transport” medium to convey the hazardous materials to a receptor
(i.e., through the air, water, dermal contact, or ingestion),
the proximity of the receptor(s), and
the administrative and engineering controls at the building that serve to prevent and/or
minimize accidental releases and to respond to these accidents.
This memorandum describes the existing procedures used by the City to obtain, notice, and
report information about hazardous materials, and provides background for an approach to
classifying manufacturing uses based on the type and quantity of onsite hazardous materials.
The City’s hazardous materials regulations (at Section 18.23.100 of the Municipal Code) already
identify two classifications, or tiers:
the first tier is for businesses with hazardous materials that must file an inventory form
– this tier includes a diverse set of businesses with hazardous materials that must
obtain permits from the Palo Alto Fire Department; and
a second tier is for businesses with “acutely hazardous materials” that exceed Title 19
quantities (also known as the California Accidental Release Program thresholds, or
CalARP thresholds, for short) and consequently must prepare a Risk Management
Prevention Plan – there are no businesses in the City that currently exceed the Title 19
quantities, which are substantially greater than the reporting thresholds used to
identify the first tier of uses.
The City Council in October 2014 directed staff to develop a new tier between the above two
tiers. Staff’s proposal was presented and discussed by the City Council at its November 16, 2015
meeting. This memorandum for the Planning and Transportation Commission acknowledges
and incorporates the direction from the Council’s motion at the November 2015 meeting.
The new tier zeroes in on hazardous materials that can result in human health hazards, as
opposed to physical hazards. In particular, the new tier is defined as those facilities with toxic or
highly toxic hazardous materials above specific quantities, because these chemicals are
considered by state and federal agencies, as well as fire and building safety codes, to pose a
potential for health effects on nearby uses in the event of an accidental release. It is proposed
that such facilities within 300 feet of a sensitive receptor would be prohibited; beyond 300 feet,
such facilities would need a Conditional Use Permit from the City Council.
It should be noted that the new tier submitted to the Council in November 2015 also included
Extremely Hazardous Substances, as defined by 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B. Many of
these substances are also considered toxic or highly toxic, although there are chemicals on one
list that are not on the other list. Concerns raised prior to and during the Council meeting about
arriving at a reasonable threshold resulted in abandoning the use of Extremely Hazardous
Substances as a criterion for the new tier.
Existing Hazardous Materials Inventories and Reporting
Businesses are required to submit information about their hazardous materials use on a
standard, statewide Hazardous Materials Registration Form. The form requests information
about the types, amounts, and hazard classifications for each hazardous material to be used,
handled, or stored onsite. As noted, these forms are part of a statewide system (California
Environmental Reporting System [CERS]) and provide a consistent way of reporting hazardous
materials across businesses and jurisdictions. Businesses are required to certify the accuracy of
their inventory statements on an annual basis. Hazardous materials inspectors from the Palo
Alto Fire Department verify the accuracy of the inventories during hazardous material
inspections. The Palo Alto Fire Department is required by State law to inspect the buildings
and/or facilities that exceed the “CUPA thresholds” (see below for definition) at least once
every three years.
The City requires businesses to report and obtain permits when hazardous materials quantities
exceed the State Health and Safety Code (Division 20, Chapter 6.95) and Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA) regulations, with one exception as indicated in Table 1 (see italicized
information). Those hazardous materials classified as toxic or highly toxic must be reported to
the Palo Alto Fire Department at quantities less than the State threshold quantities (referred
hereafter as the “CUP! thresholds”).
Table 1
Hazardous Materials Threshold Quantities Currently Requiring Permits
Type of
Hazardous
Material
City of Palo Alto State (Health and Safety Code)
Liquids
(gallons)
Solids
(pounds)
Compressed
Gases
(cubic feet)
Liquids
(gallons)
Solids
(pounds)
Compressed
Gases
(cubic feet)
Hazardous
Materials
other than
those
enumerated
below
55 500 200
55 500 200
Toxic 10 100 Any amount
Highly Toxic Any amount Any amount Any amount
Sources: City of Palo Alto, Municipal Code, Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage), Chapter 17.20 (Hazardous
Materials Inventory); State Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Section 25507(a)(1)
Note: Italicized text indicates Palo Alto reporting and permitting requirements that are more stringent than those
in the State Health and Safety Code that are used by most jurisdictions in the state.
More specifically, the City, in its reporting requirements, distinguishes between facilities that
have certain types of chemicals (i.e., toxic and highly toxic materials); whereas, the State in its
threshold quantities does not make this distinction. Facilities in the City using any amount of
“highly toxic” hazardous materials are required to file hazardous materials inventory forms and
obtain a permit. For materials that are considered “toxic,” the City requires the inventory forms
and a permit from the Palo Alto Fire Department for 10 gallons or more of a toxic liquid, for 100
pounds or more of a toxic solid, and for any amount of a compressed toxic gas.
Existing Requirements for Hazardous Materials Business Plans /
Hazardous Materials Management Plans
Businesses that exceed the CUPA thresholds defined by the State Health and Safety Code (see
Table 1) are required to prepare Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs). The State code
establishes minimum statewide standards for the content of the HMBPs and allows local
jurisdictions the discretion to adopt more stringent standards. In the City, HMBP requirements
are addressed in Title 17 (Chapter 17.16 Hazardous Materials Management Plan) of the
Municipal Code.
The City requirements in Title 17 identify two reporting threshold quantities. Businesses that
are required to submit a hazardous materials inventory form must prepare a Hazardous
Materials Management Plan (HMMP) as defined by the State Fire Code. If the quantities are at or
above the CUPA thresholds, businesses must provide supplementary materials that make the
HMMP the equivalent of the state HMBP.
In general, HMBPs/HMMPs contain the following information:
a site plan identifying, among other things, the locations of hazardous material handling
and storage areas, evacuation staging areas, and emergency response equipment;
an inventory of the amount and types of chemicals onsite;
a description of methods to separate and protect stored hazardous materials from
factors that may cause a fire or explosion, or the production of a flammable, toxic, or
poisonous gas, or the deterioration of the primary or secondary containment;
a monitoring program and recordkeeping forms; and
employee training in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of
a hazardous material.
The supplementary materials required by the City for businesses at or above the CUPA
thresholds, in order to make the HMMP the equivalent of an HMBP, include:
emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a release or threatened
release of a hazardous material;
procedures for mitigating a release or threatened release;
evacuation plans and procedures for the business site;
procedures to prevent an accidental spill or leak of hazardous materials from reaching
the sewer or storm drainage systems; and
alarm notifications within the facility and to neighboring facilities that may be affected
by an off-site release.
These plans are available for public inspection, except for specific information about the precise
location where hazardous materials are stored and handled on site.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code, similar to the State Code, has a list of materials that are excluded
from a hazardous material classification and, therefore, exempt from the HMMP requirements.
These materials include:
retail products, defined as hazardous materials contained solely in consumer products
packaged for distribution by retail businesses for the general public,
commercial products used at the facility solely for janitorial or minor maintenance
purposes,
hazardous materials contained in a substance intended for use as animal food,
hazardous materials located at a work station in a quantity reasonably required for use
as determined by the fire chief under the circumstances,
hazardous materials exempted by the fire chief when it has been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the city that the material in the quantity and/or solution stored does not
present a significant actual or potential hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare.
Proposed Chemicals of Interest for the New Tier
There are many types of hazardous materials and regulations governing their use and disposal.
The City’s regulations in Title 18 (Zoning) do not distinguish among these different types of
hazardous materials, with one exception. Section 18.23.100 specifically identifies hazardous
materials that require preparation of a Risk Management Prevention Plan pursuant to Title 19
(California Accidental Release Program) of the California Code of Regulations. Title 19
“regulated substances” include toxic and flammable substances subject to Section 112(r) of the
federal Clean Air Act and Extremely Hazardous Substances. Title 19 covers hazardous materials
that result in human health hazards and physical hazards.
The City Council expressed concern in October 2014 that hazardous materials at quantities less
than Title 19 levels could adversely affect nearby land uses and an approach should be
developed to address this potential effect.
The City’s hazardous materials requirements for permits provide direction to respond to the
Council’s motion in that they already require hazardous materials inventory forms from
businesses with toxic and highly toxic materials at amounts less than the CUPA thresholds. The
definitions of toxic or highly toxic substances are found in the California Fire Code (see Chapter
60 of the 2013 edition). These chemicals produce a lethal dose or lethal concentration in
laboratory animals.1
1 Highly Toxic. A material which produces a lethal dose or lethal concentration which falls within any of the
following categories:
1. A chemical that has a median lethal dose (LD50) of 50 milligrams or less per kilogram of body weight when
administered orally to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each.
2. A chemical that has a median lethal dose (LD50) of 200 milligrams or less per kilogram of body weight
when administered by continuous contact for 24 hours (or less if death occurs within 24 hours) with the
bare skin of albino rabbits weighing between 2 and 3 kilograms each.
3. A chemical that has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air of 200 parts per million by volume or less of
gas or vapor, or 2 milligrams per liter or less of mist, fume or dust, when administered by continuous
inhalation for one hour (or less if death occurs within 1 hour) to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300
grams each.
Mixtures of these materials with ordinary materials, such as water, might not warrant classification as highly
toxic. While this system is basically simple in application, any hazard evaluation that is required for the precise
categorization of this type of material shall be performed by experienced, technically competent persons.
Toxic. A chemical falling within any of the following categories:
1. A chemical that has a median lethal dose (LD50) of more than 50 milligrams per kilogram, but not more
than 500 milligrams per kilogram of body weight when administered orally to albino rats weighing
between 200 and 300 grams each.
2. A chemical that has a median lethal dose (LD50) of more than 200 milligrams per kilogram but not more
than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight when administered by continuous contact for 24 hours
(or less if death occurs within 24 hours) with the bare skin of albino rabbits weighing between 2 and 3
kilograms each.
3. A chemical that has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air of more than 200 parts per million but not
more than 2,000 parts per million by volume of gas or vapor, or more than 2 milligrams per liter but not
more than 20 milligrams per liter of mist, fume or dust, when administered by continuous inhalation for 1
hour (or less if death occurs within 1 hour) to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each.
While they do not address all hazards, such as physical hazards, they encompass many of the
hazardous material characteristics that the City Council requested be addressed by the new tier.
Moreover, toxic or highly toxic chemicals are already used in the City’s regulatory permit
system; i.e., such chemicals require permits from the Fire Department (for a Use and Occupancy
permit) and from the Building Department (for a “High-hazard Group H-4” permit).
Identification of Businesses with Chemicals of Interest
Based on the types of chemicals of interest identified above, the hazardous materials
information forms on file with the Palo Alto Fire Department were reviewed to identify those
buildings with these chemicals in quantities that exceed the CUPA thresholds. Of the
approximately 420 buildings that have forms on file in 2015, 13 facilities have toxic or highly
toxic chemicals above the CUPA thresholds.
As shown in Table 2, the following observations describe the businesses in the City with toxic or
highly toxic materials:
Eight of the facilities are located in the Stanford Research Park, two at the Stanford
Medical Center, and three in the San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor at the
southeastern end of the City.
Eleven of the facilities have toxic hazardous materials only. Two facilities - CPI Building
2 and the Palo Alto Research Center on Hillview Avenue – have both toxic and highly
toxic hazardous materials onsite.
Most of the facilities have relatively few toxic or highly toxic materials in amounts that
exceed the CUPA thresholds: nine facilities have 1 to 2 such chemicals; two facilities
have 3 such chemicals; and two (CPI Building 1B and CPI Building 2) have more than 10
such chemicals.
Buildings 12 and 13 in Table 2 are the only buildings in the City with toxic and highly toxic
hazardous materials in excess of the state thresholds that are not in an industrial/
manufacturing zone. They are both related to Stanford medical facilities, use and store
sanitizers and cleaners, and are not waste chemicals or chemicals used in a manufacturing
process. Because hospitals and other medical facilities provide services to the ill, youth, and
elderly, all of whom are considered sensitive receptors, they are required to implement
safeguards to avoid accidental exposure. As a result, these facilities are not anticipated to pose
the same public health effects that industrial buildings might, and are not recommended to be
included as buildings of interest for the proposed zoning regulations.
In summary, there are 11 buildings with toxic or highly toxic hazardous materials in sufficient
quantities that would be included in the new tier.
Table 2
Buildings with Toxic and Highly Toxic Hazardous Materials in Excess of CUPA Thresholds
Class 13
Class 31 # of Highly # of
Building Toxic Chemicals Toxic Chemicals
1 CPI 1A x 1
2 CPI 1B x 14
3 CPI 2/2A x 14 x 6
4 CPI 4 x 2
5 Dupont (Genecor International) x 3
6 Hammon Plating -855 Commercial x 2
7 ONED x 2
8 Palo Alto Research Center -3333 Coyote x 2
9 Palo Alto Research Center -3406 Hillview x 2 x 1
10 Space Systems Loral B3 x 1
11 Space Systems Loral B4 x 1
12 Stanford Central Core x 1
13 Stanford Phase 1 Diagnostic and Treatment x 2
Source: CERS data (hazardous materials inventory forms) filed by each of the businesses with City of Palo Alto Fire Department,
2015; data compiled by AECOM, 2015.
Notes:
Class 31 Toxic Materials
Class 13 Highly Toxic Materials
* Hazardous materials at this facility consist of miscellaneous flammable and combustible
liquids, none of which individually is expected to exceed CUPA thresholds.
Italicized buildings are not proposed for consideration in new tier of manufacturing uses with quantities of individual toxic or
highly toxic substances above the CUPA thresholds.
Proposed Receptors of Interest
The City’s existing hazardous materials regulations (Section 18.23.100 of the Municipal Code)
require noticing and specify use restrictions for businesses with hazardous materials in
quantities above CUPA thresholds. The noticing and use restrictions target residential
properties only (i.e., residentially zoned properties or a property with existing residential uses
in a nonresidential zone). The City Council during its discussion in October 2014 expressed
concern that other uses, besides residential uses, may also be particularly susceptible to
hazardous materials exposure.
The US Environmental Protection Agency, local/regional air quality management districts, and
public health agencies all recognize that certain populations are more susceptible to hazardous
materials exposure. In light of the City Council’s direction, the “receptors” that are targeted to
be informed and protected by the new zoning revisions is proposed to be expanded to include
“sensitive receptors” – residential areas, medical facilities, schools (typically, elementary and
middle schools), daycare facilities, homes for the elderly, or convalescent facilities.
Proposed Proximity to Sensitive Receptors
!s mentioned in the “Introduction and Summary,” a key factor in determining the potential for
off-site adverse health consequences from an accidental release is the distance between a
building with toxic or highly toxic hazardous materials and the sensitive receptors. The January
2014 risk assessment by AECOM showed that there are multiple factors, including the amount
of chemicals, the type of chemicals, the meteorological conditions, and the engineering and
administrative controls employed at a business, that affect the distance to the “toxic endpoint”2
and whether acute health risks may affect off-site neighboring land uses. The proximity of
sensitive receptors to buildings/facilities with toxic or highly toxic hazardous materials needs
to be considered in establishing the potential for land use incompatibilities and changes to the
City’s zoning regulations.
The definition of “proximity” can reasonably be based on the City’s current zoning and
hazardous materials regulations (Section 18.23.100):
150 feet – Residential properties receive written notice from the City when there would
be a change in the types or quantities of hazardous materials under conditions specified
in the regulations and an application for a building permit to enable such change is
approved.
300 feet – Businesses with hazardous materials above Title 19 thresholds are not
permitted within this distance (300 feet) of a residential property. Beyond 300 feet,
such businesses require a Conditional Use Permit.
The lesser distance above is relevant for manufacturing uses at or above the CUPA thresholds:
For any business proposing to change the type and quantities of hazardous materials stored,
used, or handled when the conditions in Section 18.23.100(B)(iii) are met (i.e., there is a change
in the amount of hazardous materials that results in exceeding the CUPA thresholds or a
doubling of the amount onsite, or the business has a release or threatened release incident),
residential property owners within 150 feet must be notified within 10 days after the issuance
of the building permit to enable such changes at the site (see Section 18.23.100(B)(iv)).
The greater distance above is relevant for manufacturing uses at or above the Title 19
thresholds: Pursuant to the City’s current regulations at Section 18.23.100 (B)(vi), no building
proposing to store, use, or handle hazardous materials that meet or exceed the threshold
quantities established by Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations (the California
Accidental Release Program) would be permitted within 300 feet of a residentially zoned
property or a residential use. None of the buildings in the City currently has hazardous
materials in amounts that trigger the Title 19 requirements. However, if a business were to
2 The toxic endpoint is the concentration of an acutely hazardous substance above which there may be a serious
acute health effect following a single short-term exposure.
exceed the Title 19 thresholds, Section 18.23.100(B)(vi) would require City Council approval of
a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits require that addresses within 600 feet of the
subject property be notified.
In light of the current regulations, the new tier, which includes buildings above the CUPA
thresholds but below the Title 19 thresholds, should logically result in a notification, setback,
and/or some restriction in uses with chemicals of interest at some distance greater than 150
feet (the notification requirement for businesses meeting the CUPA thresholds) and up to 300
feet (the setback requirement for businesses meeting the Title 19 thresholds). Because existing
buildings, as well as future buildings, could use amounts of hazardous materials, up to the Title
19 thresholds, it is reasonable that the noticing and regulatory distance for the new tier should
be no more than 300 feet from a sensitive receptor.
At a distance of 300 feet, three of the buildings identified in Table 2 would become nonforming
uses, if buildings with toxic/highly toxic chemicals above the state thresholds were not
permitted. The buildings are CPI Buildings 1A, 1B, and 2. This determination is based on the
hazardous materials inventory forms filed by these businesses in 2015.
Conclusion
A new tier of manufacturing uses has been defined that is: (1) conveniently based on hazardous
materials inventory forms provided to the Palo Alto Fire Department; (2) consistent with the
City Council’s direction to identify businesses with chemicals below the Title 19 (CalARP
thresholds) and with operations and potential hazards that could affect nearby land uses; and
(3) logically based and consistent with the existing notification and reporting requirements and
distances in Section 18.23.100. Table 3 summarizes the existing two tiers and how the new tier
fits in.
Table 3
Industrial/Manufacturing Tiers based on Hazardous Materials Type and Quantities
Tier
Type of Hazardous
Materials Regulated
Quantities
(X=maximum amount at
one time at site) New Restrictions on Use
1 All hazardous materials,
unless they meet Tier 2
or Tier 3 definitions
X < Title 19 (CalARP) None, except noticing would apply
to sensitive receptors (instead of
residential properties only)
2 Toxic/Highly Toxic
Hazardous Materials
CUPA < X < Title 19
(CalARP)
Prohibited within 300 feet of
sensitive receptor; CUP beyond
300 feet
3 Extremely Hazardous
Substances
X > Title 19 (CalARP) No such uses currently exist in the
City. Per City Council November
2015 direction, new uses subject to
Title 19 with Extremely Hazardous
Substances would be prohibited.
Memorandum
AECOM
300 California, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94101
www.aecom.com
415 796 8100 tel
415 796 8200 fax
Attachment
Table A-1
Buildings with Toxic and Highly Toxic Hazardous Materials in Amounts Greater Than
CUPA Thresholds (Max Daily Amounts), by Individual Chemical
Applicable CUPA
Threshold Amount (Cu.
Ft.=200, Gallons=55,
Pounds=500) Cubic Feet Gallons Pounds
Building/Substance (T=Toxic; HT=Highly Toxic)
CPI 1A 607 Hansen Way
Bead Blasting Waste (T) 0 0 670 500
CPI 1B 607 Hansen Way
Barium Contaminated Waste (T) 0 0 500 500
Bead Blasting Waste (T) 0 0 2,680 500
Beryllium Oxide Containing Waste (T) 0 0 4,000 500
Electroless Nickel Waste (T) 0 165 0 55
Ethylene Glycol Liquid Waste (T) 0 440 0 55
Kanthal/Copper Waste (T) 0 0 750 500
Misc. Labpack Waste (T) 0 0 1,200 500
Nickel Chloride Solution (T) 0 55 0 55
Nickel Stripping Waste (T) 0 110 0 55
Nickel Sulfamate Solution (T) 0 55 0 55
Scrubber Cleaning Waste (T) 0 330 0 55
Toxic Liquid Plating Chemicals (T) 0 200 0 55
Waste Cyanide Containing Liquid (T) 0 110 0 55
Wastewater Sludge (T) 0 0 4,900 500
Building/Substance Cubic Feet Gallons Pounds
Applicable CUPA
Threshold Amount (Cu.
Ft.=200, Gallons=55,
Pounds=500)
CPI 2 811 Hansen Way
Bead Blasting Waste (T) 0 0 670 500
CM-07 - Wood's Strike (T) 0 101 0 55
CM-09 - Nickel Chloride Plate (T) 0 327 0 55
Crohone Blasting Waste (T) 0 0 750 500
Cyanide Wastewater (T) 0 3,245 0 55
Emission Carbonates (T) 0 0 1,060 500
Hydrosulfuric Acid, Hydrogen Sulfide (T) 0 0 1,690 500
NA-01 - Wood's Strike (T) 0 75 0 55
NA-03 - Watts Nickel (T) 0 218 0 55
NB-01 - Wood's Strike (T) 0 75 0 55
NB-03 - Nickel Sulfamate (T) 0 218 0 55
PM-02 - Rinse Static (HT) 0 83 83 55
PM-04 - Rinse - Recycle (Local) (HT) 0 83 83 55
PM-09 - Rinse – Static (HT) 0 58 58 55
PM-11 - Rinse – Static (HT) 0 58 58 55
PM-24 - Cyanide Strip (HT) 0 58 58 55
PM-25 - Rinse - Slow Flow (HT) 0 58 58 55
PT-04 – Platinum (T) 0 75 0 55
Sulfuric Acid (T) 0 0 2,487 500
Waste Soldering Rinse (T) 0 55 0 55
CPI 4 3120 Hansen Way
Bead Blasting Waste (T) 0 0 1,340 500
Perfluoro Compounds and Coolants (T) 0 60 0 55
Source: CERS data (hazardous materials inventory forms) filed by each of the businesses with City of Palo Alto Fire Department, 2015; data compiled by AECOM, 2015.
Building/Substance Cubic Feet Gallons Pounds
Applicable CUPA
Threshold Amount (Cu.
Ft.=200, Gallons=55,
Pounds=500)
Dupont (Genecor) 925 Page Mill Road
Ammonium Hydroxide (T) 0 148 0 55
Hydrosulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide (T) 0 236 0 55
Sodium Hydroxide (pellets) (T) 0 145 0 55
Hammon Plating, 855 Commercial
Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate (T) 0 660 0 55
Sodium Nitrate (T) 0 0 2,000 500
ONED Material, 2625 Hanover Street
Hydrosulfuric Acid, Hydrogen Sulfide (T) 0 0 2,700 500
Waste Sodium Hydroxide Solution (T) 0 55 0 55
Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Road
Hydrogen Fluoride (T) 0 0 4,165 500
Hydrosulfuric Acid, Hydrogen Sulfide (T) 0 0 1,666 500
Palo Alto Research Center, 3406 Hillview Ave
Carbon Tetrachloride (T) 300 0 0 200
Chlorine Std Solution Ampules 30 mg/L chlorine (T) 200 0 0 200
Phosphine (HT) 400 0 0 200
Space Systems Loral Bldg 3, 3825 Fabian Way
Hydrochloric Acid (T) 0 200 0 55
Space Systems Loral Bldg 4, 3825 Fabian Way
Specially Denatured Alcohol (SDA) 40-B, 200 Proof (T) 0 69 0 55
Stanford Central Core 07-302, 300 Pasteur
Oasis 146 Multi-Quat Sanitizer (T) 0 87 0 55
Stanford Phase 1 07-310 thru 07-314, 300 Pasteur
Automated Gram Stain Kit (Solution III) and Cleaning
Solution (T) 0 143 0 55
Super Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipes (T) 0 0 700 500
2
AECOM 300 California, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94101 www.aecom.com
415 796 8100 tel 415 796 8200 fax
industrial facilities. He has experience managing, directing, and administering scientific work
force conducting broad spectrum program of highly sophisticated basic and applied research. Mr.
Couture has specific expertise in electroplating. metal finishing, and electronic components
manufacturing and has served as senior technical advisor to non-governmental environmental
organizations and U.S. government agencies on international environmental regulatory compliance
consulting and program development.
Amortization Period
AECOM reviewed the 2011 CBRE Amortization Study as well as the 2012 CPI response to the
analysis. In general, the evaluation approach deployed by CBRE is standard and reflects common
practice for considering the depreciated value of facilities, especially where reported depreciation
value numbers to the IRS are not available. It is clear that CBRE also did not have complete access to
all data and therefore did not know specifically the reported depreciated value of the plating
facility. Rather, CBRE used Marshall Evaluation Service life estimates to straight-line depreciate the
plating facility based on Marshall asset categories,reasonable practice in the absence of better
information.If AECOM had access to the actual reported depreciation of CPI’s facilities, we would be
able to provide more accurate estimate of when the plating facility and other buildings would be
fully depreciated. It is noted that the CBRE study was completed in 2011. If CPI has made capital
improvements to Building 2, the amortization period of 15 years to 2026 could be extended further
into the future.
Fundamental to CBRE’s evaluation was the assumption that the plating facility could be placed off
site without meaningful loss to CPI’s overall operation. In other words, the relocation or
outsourcing of thefacility would not result in substantialdisruption to CPI’s overall business
operations. This assumption may have resulted from CBRE’s scope of work, which may have
requested narrow line of investigation; i.e., what would be reasonable amortization period for
the plating shop only?
We find that CPI’s response to the CBRE Amortization Study is more business and legal argument
than an economic one. There is no supporting economic or financial information in the CPI
response that would suggest that the useful economic life of Building ʹ should be different than
identified by CBRE. In fact, the 40-year-threshold minimum, argued for in CPI’s response, would
imply that CPI is amortizing its facilities in Palo Alto at the slower depreciation rate. While AECOM
does not have access to CPI’s full detail tax receipts, we would be surprised if CPI were not
depreciating its assets as guided by the IRS. Commercial buildings are depreciated at 39 years Ȃ but
can depreciate more rapidly under certain circumstances Ȃ and capital equipment is depreciated
more rapidly still at the point of construction/installation. Unless building was constructed within
the last five years, one would expect much faster depreciation value.
However, since the plating shop appears to be critical to the ongoing operations of the overall
facility, as discussed below, then an amortization analysis would need to be widened to account for
the entire facility, including recently rehabilitated buildings and any new fixed equipment installed
on the site. As such, the CBRE study is reasonable for its intended purpose Ȃ to examine Building ʹ
independently Ȃ but limited in that it does not account for all of CPI’s facilities.
3
AECOM 300 California, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94101 www.aecom.com
415 796 8100 tel 415 796 8200 fax
CPI’s Plating Shop Interconnectivity with Other Onsite Facility Operations
CPI asserted in its 2012 response to the CBRE study that the plating facility is integral to the rest of
their business on Hansen Way and cannot be outsourced or relocated. Dr. Bhagat and Mr. Couture,
AECOM’s industrial engineers familiar with the manufacture of electronic devices in CPI’s lines of
businesses (as well as similar types of precision electronic devices), do not disagree with the CPI
argument concerning the interrelationship between the plating operations and other onsite
activities. Although CPI’s response to the CBRE Amortization Study were not supported by details
or specifics, and did not necessarily justify minimum 40-year amortization period, the comments
about the nature and process of product manufacturing were not invalid.
Based on our review of the information provided by CPI regarding their product manufacturing and
quality control/testing operations and our experience working with clients involved in
manufacturing electronic components and devices (and employing the same chemical cleaning,
etching, and plating processes employed at CPI’s Palo Alto facility), we understand CPI’s reasoning
that their plating and non-plating operations have critical interconnectivity and that these
operations must be performed within contiguous process areas. The devices manufactured by CPI,
including the individual components and sub-assemblies that ultimately make up these devices,
commonly move between mechanical (i.e., non-chemical), wet chemical process operations (e.g.,
cleaning, etching, plating), and quality control/testing operations, sometimes making multiple
passes back and forth among these operations.
Due to the precision nature of the devices manufactured by CPI, controlling and mitigating
environmental contamination of these devices are critical to their function and reliability for CPI’s
customers. The additional handling of components, sub-assemblies, and devices that would be
involved in conducting some of the manufacturing operations processes in an offsite/non-
contiguous facility could introduce additional opportunities for exposing the components/devices
to environmental contamination.
If the chemical cleaning, finishing, and/or plating operations associated with the manufacture of
these devices were required to be relocated to an offsite facility, the additional logistics, handling,
and transport that would be involved in moving the components, sub-assemblies, and devices
between the current CPI facility and offsite facility(ies) would add labor, other costs, and time to the
manufacturing process. The longer manufacturing time and additional costs that would be incurred
could make CPI’s product less competitive among other industry providers of these products.
Although we have not spoken to any CPI representatives or visited the facilities, it is our conclusion,
for the sake of ensuring product reliability and cost competitiveness of CPI’s devices, that all of the
manufacturing operations involved (including assembly and testing operations) should be co-
located, whether that be at CPI’s Palo Alto facility or an offsite location. Therefore, any amortization
evaluation/valuation should include all interconnected manufacturing operations/facilities and not
be limited to the wet chemical operations of concern.
Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the option of relocating the plating functions elsewhere
onsite at greater distance from sensitive receptor land uses should not be dismissed. Substantial
capital expenditures would be incurred by CPI to relocate plating operations elsewhere onsite, but
this option would mitigate several of the arguments in CPI’s response to the CBRE study.
4
AECOM 300 California, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94101 www.aecom.com
415 796 8100 tel 415 796 8200 fax
Notably, AECOM’s opinion that the facilities be co-located onsite or offsite is based on current
technologies and understanding of the processes that occur at CPI. In contrast to the chemical metal
finishing/plating operations currently conducted by CPI at their Palo Alto facility, there are existing
commercially available process technologies and process/manufacturing technologies in
development/early stage commercialization that could potentially replace the wet chemical
manufacturing operations that are conducted in CPI Building 2. These alternative manufacturing
process technologies may include, but are not necessarily limited to:
x Plasma etching
x Chemical Vapor Deposition
x Supercritical C02 cleaning/degreasing
x 3-Dprinting
Given the future availability of these alternative technologies for activities similar to those
performed at the CPI’s plating shop, it is not inconceivable that CPI might take advantage of them
and reduce the toxic/highly hazardous materials and Extremely Hazardous Substances use,
handling, and storage at Building ʹ or perform some of the Building ʹ activities non-contiguous
from other onsite operations.
Ram Bhagat, PhD, PMP, FASM
Chief Scientist and Senior Engineering Manager
Areas of Expertise Summary
Dr. Bhagat is a subject matter expert (SME) in materials, metallurgy, manufacturing, defense electronics, and mechanics. He has over 20 years
of experience in managing, directing, and administering a scientific work force conducting a broad spectrum program of highly sophisticated basic
and applied research, and exploratory and advanced development of new or improved materials used in Naval/Air force/Army weapon platforms and
systems.
Dr. Bhagat is also a recognized systems engineering leader of
national/international prominence. He planned and executed difficult programs of national significance demonstrating outstanding attainment in
the multifunctional materials, sensors, computational materials science and fracture mechanics.
Delivered results to sponsors and stakeholders for over 75 programs/projects on time and within budget.
Skilled in effective communication at multiple levels of the organization, delegating tasks, mentoring and motivating.
Responsive, results-oriented and agile.
Experience
United States Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC),
Infrastructure Consulting Services – Energy, AECOM [Germantown,
MD], Chief Scientist and Senior Engineering Manager, 2015. Dr. Bhagat was one of the principal authors of the proposal leading to a BPA
win for AECOM in July 2015; $50M (proposed, no BPA level ceiling) for 5 years.
United States Department of Defense, DSTAT/IAC, URS Corporation
[Germantown, MD], Chief Scientist and Senior Engineering Manager,
2013. Dr. Bhagat was the principal author and program lead for Advanced Materials for the DSTAT IDIQ proposal. URS was awarded DSTAT IDIQ in
June 2014 with a ceiling of $3B for 5 years.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) [Arlington, VA],
Assessment, and Analysis of a MACS MSC Truck Based Mobile
Sensor Platform, URS Corporation [Germantown, MD], Chief
Scientist and Senior Engineering Manager, 2014. Dr. Bhagat submitted a comprehensive report for the performance of vibration and shock
monitoring, assessment, and analysis of a MACS MSC truck based mobile sensor platform to Systems Engineering Directorate, Office of Technology
Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA).
United States Navy, Advanced Steam Turbine Magnetic Bearing
Engineering Model (AST MBEM), Dresser-Rand Corporation
Defense Systems Engineering
Metals Plating and Surface Engineering
High Temperature Multifunctional Materials Design and Analysis
Coatings and Thermal Protection Systems
Metallurgy and Composites
Aerospace Products Manufacturing
Processes and Standards
Sensors and Nanotechnology
Computational Materials Science
Structures Engineering and Mechanics
Defense Special Projects
Education
PhD, Metallurgical/Materials Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai India, 1982
MSME, Mechanical Engineering, West Virginia University, 1981
BS, Metallurgical/Materials Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India, 1975
Licenses/Registrations
None
Years of Experience
With AECOM <1
With Other Firms 38
With URS >2
Professional Associations
Fellow, ASM International
NRC Fellow, NASA Glenn Research Center
Member, Project Management
AECOM Ram Bhagat, PhD, PMP, FASM Page 2 of 3
International (PMI)
Member, MRS, SAMPE, TMS
Member, AAAS, ACerS, ASM International, IEEE
Member, NACE International
[Wellsville, NY], Chief Scientist, 2011-2012. Dr. Bhagat managed, directed, and administered a recognized scientific work force at Dresser-
Rand Govt. Business Unit – Navy/Nuclear in demonstrating a new technology – advanced steam turbine magnetic bearing engineering
model (AST MBEM) for Ohio Class submarines. A very challenging, program of national significance for tomorrow’s Navy. [Budget: $9.3M]
United States Department of Defense, Multiple Projects (see below),
Northrop Grumman Corporation [Linthicum, MD], Advisory Engineer
– Materials and Mechanics SME, 2002-2010, Cost > $100 M, Northrop
Grumman Electronic Systems. Performance on large defense programs
is presented below:
Large Defense Programs
IFTS, IFMU, F-16 ABR, F22, AWACS, Wedgetail, Blue Yonder, SSMIS, BAT, Longbow, AURA, STS SBIRS, V9, V10, B-1, JSTARS, Blue Storm,
SPQ9B, Expo, JSF, Cobra Judy, VADER, Phoenix, G/ATOR (Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar), ManTech Programs, and High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV).
Significant Results and Achievements
Provided DOD with significant operational benefits through critical
root-cause analysis after a catastrophic fatigue failure of a JSTAR in operation. Determined that a rotating part made of steel was given a
wrong heat treatment by a vendor; the hardness was too high.
Defined a new design and rework of a critical component whose earlier failure led to scrubbing a satellite launch. My root-cause
analysis showed that a solder cracked due to a lack of strain relief for the transistor leads. Authored a new document for the rework.
Established the root cause of fracture (of HTCC ceramic substrate) in
conjunction with environment-assisted slow crack growth for products already built. Led a risk analysis for the products’ acceptance. The
customer accepted my specific recommendations.
Led a thorough metallurgical evaluation combined with finite element analysis and concluded that the risk of device failure in the field as a
result of a missed processing step was minimal. The customer accepted my recommendations and authorized shipment.
Determined that a plated magnetic ceramic suffered a thermal shock
as a result of rapid cooling during the solder reflow cycle, and cracked. Suggested changes to the reflow cycle. This solved the problem.
Determined the root cause of device (silicon carbide transistor) failure
during thermal fatigue testing. Saved the program from potential cancellation, thereby saving NGES millions of dollars.
Patents and Invention Disclosures
ExoFlash Consolidation Technology for Fabricating Fully Dense
Nanostructured Materials (Patent, US 6,402,802 B1, awarded in 2002, principal inventor)
A Materials Solution to Nozzle-Clogging Issue in Thermal Spray
(invention disclosure, principal inventor)
Training and Certifications
2011, Project Management Professional (PMP) [Credentialed 2011-2020]
2004, Leadership Program at Northrop Grumman Corporation
2003, Art of Negotiation
2002, Proposal Manager's Course (CLC-02) at Northrop Grumman Corp.
1988, Executive Management Program at Penn State University
AECOM Ram Bhagat, PhD, PMP, FASM Page 3 of 3
Publications (Total count > 300)
Bhagat, R. B. Casting Fiber Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites. In:
Treatise on Materials Science and Technology Volume 32: Metal Matrix
Composites: Processing and Interfaces. R. Arsenault and R. Everett (eds), Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 43 82 [1991].
Rajesh, G., A. Sinharoy, and R.B. Bhagat, A Fracture Mechanics Based Numerical Analysis for Predicting Optimum Interface Properties in a Metal
Matrix Composite, Composites Engg, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 583-596 [1995].
Woytera, S.A., R.B. Bhagat, and M.F. Amateau, Development of Niobium
Aluminide Based Composites with Improved Toughness using Treated Reinforcements, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 963-
976 [March 1996].
Bhagat, R.B., J.C. Conway, Jr., M.F. Amateau and R.A. Brezler III,
Mechanical properties, wear resistance and a fracture mechanics based wear model for tungsten carbide-based cermets, Wear, Vol. 201, No. 1-2,
pp. 233-243 [1996].
Bhagat, R.B., Advanced Aluminum Powder Metallurgy Alloys and
Composites, Invited contributor to ASM Handbook Volume 7 Powder Metal Technologies and Applications, ASM International, Materials Park,
OH, [1998].
Raut, J., K.A. Fichthorn, and R.B. Bhagat, Sintering Mechanisms of
Aluminum Nanocrystals – A Molecular Dynamics Study, Nanostructured Materials, Vol. 10, N0. 5, pp. 837-851 [1998].
Bhagat, R.B., Specification for Electroless Palladium Plating for Printed Circuit Boards [PDS30058], Northrop Grumman Corporation - ES [2005].
Bhagat, R.B., S. Gurkovich, and C. Van Sickle, Intermetallics in Solder Joints, Proceedings of the Northrop Grumman Fifth Annual Materials
Science Forum, 20-21 June 2006, El Segundo, CA. [Presenter: Bhagat]
Bhagat, R.B., Gold Embrittlement Mitigation to Improve Solder Joint
Reliability in ES Products, Proceedings of the 3rd ES Symposium, 7&8 November 2007, Baltimore, MD.
Chronology
2011-2013: Dresser-Rand/Oxford Global Resources, Beverly, MA
2002-2010: Northrup Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, MD
1984-2001: Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA
1982-1984: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Contact Information
Company: AECOM Technical Services
Address: 12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876
Direct: 443-737-1297 Mobile: 814-876-3333
ram.bhagat@aecom.com
Stephen Couture, P.E., DEE, BCEE
Principal Water/Wastewater Engineer
Overview
Mr. Couture has experience in industrial wastewater treatment, including
system design engineering, water use optimization and wastewater
minimization, pollution prevention, water/wastewater utility energy
conservation, and environmental regulatory compliance. Additional
experience includes training for water/wastewater treatment operators
and development of industrial pretreatment and permitting programs for
municipal wastewater utilities. He has also provided environmental
regulatory and technical consultation to clients and legal counsel in
negotiating administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement settlements.
Additionally, Mr. Couture has served as senior technical advisor to non-governmental environmental organizations and U.S. government agencies
on international environmental regulatory compliance consulting and
program development.
Project Specific Experience
Electroplating. Metal Finishing, and Electronic Components
Manufacturing MAHLE Engine Components USA (Atlantic, IA)
Served as Project Technical Director and senior technical consultant on an industrial wastewater discharge compliance project to identify toxic
constituents in the wastewater treatment facility’s effluent and evaluate modifications to meet WET testing requirements. Technology evaluations included chelate breaking chemistry evaluations, Advanced Oxidation
Processes, diffusion dialysis, and evaporation. In parallel with evaluating upgrades to the industrial wastewater treatment system for surface water
discharge compliance, the project included evaluating the option of
discharging pretreated industrial wastewater to the local municipal sewerage system. The sewer discharge option evaluation included
assessing the impact to the POTW through respirometry and ultraviolet transmittance testing and the impact to the POTW receiving water through an anti-degradation assessment.
Pratt & Whitney (Columbus, GA)
Served as senior technical consultant for the conceptual design of
upgrades to the wastewater pretreatment facility for a jet engine maintenance and overhaul facility. In addition to engine maintenance and
overhaul operations, the facility includes chemical metal finishing operations to produce turbine engine components used in the maintenance and overhaul of jet engines.
Areas of Expertise
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Environmental Regulations
Industrial Water Treatment
Pretreatment and Permitting Water/Wastewater Systems
Water and Energy Conservation
Years of Experience
With AECOM: 11 With Other Firms: 26 Years
Education
MS/Environmental Engineering/ University of Maine/1978
BS/Civil/Environmental Engineering/University of Maine/1976
Registration/Certification
Diplomate Environmental
Engineer (DEE) Board Certification in Water and
Wastewater Engineering
(American Academy of
Environmental Engineers)
Board Certified Environmental
Engineer (BCEE) in Environmental Sustainability
(American Academy of
Environmental Engineers)
Professional Engineer, Maine and Massachusetts
Project Apollo -Confidential Client (China)
Senior technical consultant for process water reduction program development and industrial wastewater treatment systems’
compliance/performance at multiple printed circuit board manufacturing facilities. The project is part of the client’s assessment of their suppliers’ environmental compliance status and vulnerabilities and compliance with
their benchmark for water footprint reduction. Provided guidance and technical consultation to in country audit team regarding:
• printed circuit board manufacturing process and associated
wastewater treatment systems’ auditing.
• development of wastewater sampling plan.
• evaluation of in-process modifications for process water use minimization.
• independent technical review of project findings, recommendations, and deliverables.
Raytheon Company
• Cooling Water Treatment System – DOD Radar Station (Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands), Supervising engineer on preliminary and final design of high-purity recirculating
cooling water treatment system for phased array radar electronics for DOD Strategic Defense Initiative tracking
system.
• Missile Systems Division – Printed Circuit Board Metal
finishing Facility (Andover, MA), project manager on design,
installation, and commissioning of industrial wastewater
treatment system clarifier.
• Microwave and Power Tube Division (Waltham, MA), design
engineer and project manager on industrial wastewater
treatment recycle system for metal plating facility. Project
included metal recovery and rinsewater recycle using ion
exchange. Wastewater treatment included metal precipitation
and microfiltration. Project responsibilities included
construction management, system commissioning, and
operator training.
• Equipment Division (Waltham, MA), design engineer and
project manager on industrial wastewater treatment system for printed circuit board facility electroplating and metal
plating processes
Tyco
• Fire and Building Products Division (Lubbock, TX), member
of design and commissioning team for the industrial wastewater pretreatment systems (chelated metal precipitation/filtration, wastewater recycle ultrafiltration).
3
Responsibilities included technical lead on wastewater treatability studies and inprocess wastewater minimization
source reduction modifications.
• Printed Circuit Group (Manchester, CT and Stafford, CT), prepared industrial wastewater treatment systems’ evaluations (three facilities) to assist company with meeting negotiated
settlement requirements for Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection enforcement action. Tasks included preparing wastewater pretreatment discharge permit
applications and development and implementation of wastewater treatment upgrade and metal discharge reduction program.
IBM
Project engineer on industrial wastewater treatment system upgrade
design (Essex Junction, VT and Manassas, VA), for semiconductor fabrication facilities.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (Attleboro, MA), project engineer for
industrial wastewater treatment system pilot testing, design, and commissioning for multi-faceted electroplating, metal finishing, and
electronic components manufacturing facility.
TRW Carr Division (Cambridge, MA), prepared final design of
facility’s industrial wastewater segregation collection system. Also
conducted troubleshooting evaluation of facility’s industrial wastewater treatment system and developed electroplating metal
finishing process operations’ source reduction waste minimization modifications.
M/A-COM Advanced Semiconductor Division (Lowell, MA),
designed high purity process water treatment system (RO, ion exchange, UV disinfection) for the facility’s GaAs gate array
semiconductor fabrication operations.
Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Consulting and Design
Lockheed Martin - Avionics Systems Integration Division (Owego, NY) Provided technical consultation in identifying and evaluating
wastewater reduction/reuse and water use reduction optimization opportunities at Lockheed Martin’s avionics electronics
manufacturing and integration facility. Prepared final project report
presenting the evaluation of opportunities and recommendations for implementing wastewater reduction/reuse and water use reduction,
optimization to achieve company’s project goal of 25% reduction of wastewater discharged and water usage.
4
United Technologies Hamilton Standard Division (Windsor Locks, CT), project engineer for development electroplating/metal
finishing operations; inprocess source reduction waste minimization modifications and preliminary design of electroplating metal finishing
operations. US Agency for International Development, World Environment
Center (Latvia and Estonia), senior technical consultant for pollution prevention waste minimization program development, implementation, and training for the metal finishing electroplating
industry.
Texas Instruments Inc., (Attleboro, MA), conducted a facility wide source reduction waste minimization study at the company’s electronic components and electroplating-metal finishing facility,
resulting in a 45% reduction in the facility’s process water consumption and wastewater discharge volume.
MITRE (Bedford, MA), project engineer for final design of in-
process source reduction modifications for facility’s printed circuit board manufacturing, metal finishing, and satellite photography
developing operations. Vishay-Sprague (Concord, NH), evaluated facility’s industrial
wastewater reduction and treatment recycle options for operations related to the manufacture (conventional metal finishing electroplating) of tantalum capacitors.
EG&G Electro-optics (Salem, MA), prepared facility’s industrial
wastewater discharge permit and treatment system design plans submittal for regulatory approval.
Varian Vacuum Products (Lexington, MA), managed contract
operation of the site’s groundwater remediation system.
Conference and Workshop Presentations
A Combined Source Reduction/Process Modification and Pretreatment/Recycle Waste Management Strategy at a Metals Product Machining and Finishing Facility, Water Environment Federation, Industrial Water Quality Conference,
Providence, Rhode Island, 2007.
Tools for Reducing [Industrial Pollutant Loadings, Maine Wastewater Control
Association Spring Conference, Ogunquit, Maine, 2005.
Technologies for Compliance, Metal Products and Machining Point Source
Category Effluent Guideline Rule Seminar, sponsored by the Maine Metal
Products Association - Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing
Project, Portland, Maine, 1995.
5
Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer Electroplating Industry Waste
Minimization in the Republic of Latvia, presented at the 6th Annual New
England Environmental Expo, Boston, Massachusetts, April 1994.
Meeting Water Quality Based Discharge Limits with Advanced Treatment
Technology, presented at the Ninth Conference on Pollution Control for the
Metal Finishing Industry, Orlando, Florida. Sponsored by the American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.
Source Reduction of Hazardous Waste in the Printed Circuit Industry, presented at the Second Annual Hazardous Materials Management Conference,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Sponsored by Pollution Engineering Magazine, June 1984.
Publications
"World Environment Center's Waste Minimization Demonstration
Projects for the Electroplating Metal Finishing Industry in Latvia", Plating
and Surface Finishing, November 1993 (co-author).
"Electronics: Wastewater Treatment Systems at Texas Instruments
Among the Most Advanced in Industry," United Today, Spring 1988 issue.
"Environmental Update for Printed Circuit Manufacturers," Printed Circuit
Fabrication, May 1985 (contributing author).
"Chapter 16 - Wastewater Treatment," Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits Guidelines for Chemical Handling Safety in Printed
Circuit Manufacture, IPC-CS-70, 1984 (contributing author).
"High Purity Process Water Treatment for a Microelectronics Device
Fabrication Facility" Microcontamination, April/May 1984 (co-author).
Alexander Quinn, Director of Sustainable Economics Résumé
appropriate development fee program and public benefits
package for Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan. The intent of
the analysis was to maximize public benefit (e.g. affordable
housing, streetscape improvements, parking management,
transportation demand management, etc.) without saddling
projects where no developments would be initiated in
Downtown. AECOM deployed its multidisciplinary team of
economists, architects, costing engineers, and planners to
provide the most realistic depiction of development on
opportunity sits in Downtown. Ultimately, the analysis arrived
at a recommended fee level for downtown and an estimate of
how much the fee program would provide over the 20-year
Downtown Area Plan planning period.
Fruitvale Business Improvement District Economic
Strategy, Oakland, CA
Market repositioning strategy for the Unity Council's Fruitvale
Business Improvement District. The strategy included a real
estate and retail repositioning analysis, as well as an
evaluation of best management practices of business
improvement districts. AECOM performed a local shopper
intercept survey, retail leakage analysis - accounting for the
informal economy - and a opportunity site analysis to inform
the direction of the business district.
Coliseum City, New NFL Stadium and Ancillary Real
Estate Development, Oakland, CA
AECOM performed a comprehensive study for a new football-
only stadium with the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum
Authority. The analysis also considered supporting
commercial/ entertainment development. The study includes
analysis of local market conditions, analysis of the operations
of other NFL stadiums, demand for the Raiders, coordination
with ongoing masterplanning efforts, development
recommendations, forecasts of future stadium and other
development operations, and analysis of the viability of public
and private funding based on estimated construction costs
and operating needs. Mr. Quinn served as the market lead for
the potential ancilary development.
Balboa Reservoir Development Evaluation, San
Francisco CA
Evaluation of the land value and optimum development
program for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's
ancillary property near the Balboa BART Station. AECOM
evaluated the potential opportunity for mixed income housing
that maximized affordable housing and community open
space, while still generating sufficient returns for the property
owner (SFPUC). AECOM performed a full market and cash
flow analysis to inform the land value potential and the
affordable housing generation from the development. This
included considering 4 percent low income housing tax
credits and an infrastructure financing district. The analysis
informs a request for qualification process for developers who
will bid for the property.
Cleantech Corridor Feasibility Analysis and Clustering
Strategy, Los Angeles, CA
Evaluation and identification of Cleantech industry
opportunities for an aging manufacturing node south of
Downtown Los Angeles. The analysis evaluates market
opportunities presented in the corridor, location factors that
drive Cleantech site selection, evaluation of the corridor’s
competitive position, and a development strategy to facilitate
a Cleantech industry cluster within the study area. The
analysis also reviews existing Cleantech clusters across the
world that have parallels to Los Angeles. Mr. Quinn served as
Project Manager on this project for the Los Angeles
Community Redevelopment Agency.
Las Begonias Master Plan Market Analysis and Cash
Flow Model, Lima, Perú
Market and feasibility evaluation for the redevelopment of
Lima's growing downtown and burgeoning Class A office
market in San Isidro. For Urbanova, AECOM evaluated the
future Class A office, lifestyle retail, and hotel demand for
Lima's downtown area, providing the client with a detailed
absorption schedule by parcel. In addition, AECOM
developed a full cash flow model with estimates on returns on
investments, projected equity required, and premiums
realized by building a new park in the downtown. In total,
AECOM developed a long-term schedule and cash flow
model for over 500,000 square meters of new mixed-use
development that would be built over the next thirty years. In
addition to the demand projections and cash flow analysis,
AECOM also delivered both models to allow Urbanova to
adjust their projections as new data becomes available.
Central Market Economic Strategy, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Quinn served as the Principal-In-Charge for the Mayor’s
Office of Economic and Workforce Development. AECOM led
a study that was the culmination of more than ten months of
community outreach, technical research, and collaboration of
a diverse group of stakeholders, focused on creating a clear
and unified plan for improving the Central Market district, a
vital part of San Francisco’s urban core. The area had
struggled with high vacancy rates, lack of private investment,
physical blight, and other social challenges. The Economic
Strategy sought to build on existing community assets and
harness the energy brought about by the recent presence of
the creative technology industry as well as the growth of
cultural and performing arts organizations, facilities, and
institutions. Since the strategy, the study area has
experienced a remarkable rise in economic activity with over
Alexander Quinn, Director of Sustainable Economics Résumé
two million square feet of office absorption over a two year
period and over 1,000 housing multifamily housing units
under construction. Technology companies Dolby, Twitter,
and Square have all located in the area. The project won a
number of awards, including the San Francisco Chamber
Economic Development Award and the National American
Planning Association Award in Economic Development.
Port of Port Townsend Eco-Industrial Park Feasibility
Study, Port Townsend, WA
Having acquired 24 acres adjacent to its airport, the Port of
Port Townsend requested assistance from AECOM to
determine the feasibility of developing an eco-industrial park
on the site. The primary purposes of the study was to 1)
assess the demand for use of a light industrial facility at this
site, 2) develop profiles of likely facility users and 3) formulate
a conceptual design of future site development. The AECOM
team prepared a market study of the potential for an eco-
industrial park, identified existing conditions on the site and
prepared initial conceptual plans for review by the Port
Commissioner. The report included recommendations for LID
and sustainable design guidelines for buildings.
Japan Center Revitalization Plan, San Francisco, CA
Development of an urban design concept for 3-D Investments
to help create a world-class retail experience in the
neighborhood, while remaining true to the community's
cultural roots. A range of urban design schemes and
concepts address both commercial and residential land uses,
and improve the streetscape, pedestrian experience, and
transit access. A market and development feasibility analysis
was performed prior to the community participation process,
thereby confining the community discussion to economically
viable development alternatives.
Chinatown Economic and Tourism Development Action
Plan, San Francisco, CA
Economic Action Strategy to improve community economic
vitality for one of the City’s historic and cultural gems. San
Francisco’s Chinatown still acts as a gateway for Chinese
immigrants. Chinatown also is historic landmark as one of the
first Chinese communities in America initiated during the
California Gold Rush of 1849. While the neighborhood is a
historic and cultural gem, Chinatown struggles economically
as a predominantly low-income and poorly educated
population. In conjunction with local community organizations,
the Economic Action Plan assessed prevailing socio-
economic conditions, real estate markets, visitation, and
development opportunities in Chinatown. The action plan
included a visitor intercept survey to identify potential physical
and business improvements that would increase tourism
activity in Chinatown while maintaining its unique cultural
heritage. AECOM facilitated a community economic forum to
determine economic development priorities, community
champions, and city and local organizations to carry out
community priorities. The action plan will be used both as a
local economic strategy and as a mechanism to obtain
addition community development funds for the physical and
social improvement of Chinatown.
Northeast Fairfield Station Market Strategy and Industry
Cluster Analysis, CA
AECOM developed a market and industrial tenanting strategy
for the City of Fairfield for a large scale master-planned
community directly adjacent to a new Amtrak Station that is
part of the Capitol Corridor line in Northern California. The
market study evaluates viable rail logistics uses and
cleantech industries that could be located in the planned
research and development park, which could be located near
a major transit hub in Fairfield. The analysis includes detailed
housing absorption projections over the life cycle of the
project development, as well as optimized development mix
recommendations. In addition, the industrial tenanting
strategy evaluated cleantech industry site location attributes
to determine the ideal industrial area plan to meet this
growing real estate market in California. Finally, the market
analysis performed a comparable case study analysis of
projects throughout the Western United States to determine
absorption and land value premiums associated with
proximity to the planned regional rail station and incorporate
green infrastructure and building systems into the master
planned community.
Bayshore Boulevard Economic Action Plan,
San Francisco, CA
The development of an economic action plan and retail
corridor strategy for the City of San Francisco’s Bayshore
Boulevard area. The final plan includes retail corridor case
studies, real estate market analyses, employment analyses,
existing business mix and opportunity site identification,
stakeholder interviews and surveys, and community outreach.
The goal of the plan is to determine the desired business mix,
land use plan, and economic development strategies that
would best work towards the revitalization and redevelopment
of the Bayshore corridor. The plan focuses on actionable
near-term strategies that will generate immediate impacts on
the business environment along Bayshore Boulevard.
Alexander Quinn served as the project manager for AECOM
for the City of San Francisco’s Redevelopment Agency.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
January 27, 2016 3
4
DRAFT EXCERPT 5
Public Hearing 6
The Planning and Transportation Commission will hold a Public Hearing and consider recommending two 7
Ordinances to the City Council: An Ordinance that amends the Municipal Code regulations related to 8
Hazardous Materials Use, Storage and Handling in the Office, Research and Manufacturing Zoning 9
Districts and an Ordinance amortizing uses at Communications & Power Industries LLC (CPI), 607-811 10
Hansen Way. Amendments to the Municipal Code include the following sections: 11
12
a. Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) Section 18.04.030 (66) (A) (B) (C) and (127.7); 13
b. Chapter 18.20 Office, Research, and Manufacturing [MOR, ROLM, RP and GM] Section 14
18.20.030 (Land Uses) Table 1 (Industrial/Manufacturing District Land Uses); Section 15
18.20.040 sub sections (b) and (c) (Site Development Standards); and Section 16
18.20.050 (Performance Criteria) 17
c. Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and 18
Planned Community Districts) Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) subsection (B) 19
d. Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) Section 18.70.020 20
through Section 18.70.100, including Section 18.70.070 (Required Termination) 21
e. Chapter 17.16 (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) Section 17.16.010 (Hazardous 22
Materials Management Plan) and 23
f. Chapter17.20 (Hazardous Materials Inventory) Section 17.20.020 (Information required). 24
25
[The Commission heard this item following Item Number 1.] 26
27
Chair Fine: So this is a public hearing to consider recommending an Ordinance to the City Council that 28
amends the Municipal Code regulations related to hazardous materials use, storage and handling in the 29
Office, Research and Manufacturing Zoning Districts and an Ordinance regarding amortization of uses at 30
Communications and Power Industries. And the staff report has all the Codes that are affected here. I'd 31
also like to remember, remind the members of the public, if you'd like to speak to an item, please provide 32
a card up to us at the front, and we will listen to you. I believe staff has a report here. 33
34
Commissioner Downing: Chair, if I may? A point of privilege. I will need to step out for this item. I am 35
within 500 feet of this site, so it would be improper for me to participate tonight. 36
37
Chair Fine: Thank you for reminding me. Let's go through recusals and disclosures. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: The City Attorney also mentioned to me that my house is too close, so same 40
situation. 41
42
Chair Fine: Vice-Chair. 43
44
Vice-Chair Gardias: So before, I had, like maybe some other Commissioners, I had a conversation with 45
the representation from CPI that's present here on the floor, so I would like to disclose this item. Thank 46
you. 47
48
Chair Fine: I also had a discussion with Canyon Snow, the consultant for CPI, and I had an email 49
discussion with Art Liberman and Markus Fromherz from the Barron Park Association, but nothing that's 50
not in the public record. Commissioner Waldfogel. 51
52
Commissioner Waldfogel: I also had a discussion with the representatives from CPI. 53
54
Attachment H
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Commissioner Alcheck: Myself as well, Mike Alcheck. As representatives, Mr. Snow contacted me in an 1
effort to discuss any questions I might have about the agendaed item, and we had a discussion about it, 2
but most of the information we covered, all of the information we covered was in the packet. 3
4
Chair Fine: Excellent. Let's move to the staff report. 5
6
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director: Thank you, Mr. Chair and 7
Commissioners. Hillary Gitelman, the Planning Director. And I want to take a minute to introduce the 8
folks who are with me here this evening. Special thanks to Rod Jeung, on my right, who is from the 9
consulting firm AECOM, is working for the City and prepared the technical memos that supplement the 10
staff report. So he's here to bail me out if you have questions on that material. Helping him bail me out 11
is Meg Monroe on our staff who's been shepherding this item for years now. And representatives of the 12
Palo Alto Fire Department. In addition, Molly Stump, the City Attorney, is here. I think I warrant sort of 13
a personal presence from the City Attorney herself because I'm at great risk of getting myself into trouble 14
or something. I don't know. 15
16
But we're here to talk about two separate Ordinances which were in your packet, related to the issue of 17
hazardous materials in Palo Alto. So there's been a long history and this is kind of a technical matter. 18
The Commission hasn't really been involved in this, so I'm going to take a little bit more time than usual 19
to go through a staff presentation. We're going to share some background with you about how we got to 20
where we are today, try and summarize the two Ordinances, one of which is quite complicated, talk 21
about the next steps. As I indicated, Rod is here to help with some of the technical information. 22
23
As you know from the findings that are included in each of the draft Ordinances, the objectives of this 24
whole exercise relate to maintaining health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto; instituting regulations related 25
to a class of hazardous materials uses that are not currently regulated by the City; and providing for 26
termination of nonconforming uses if and when the proposed Ordinance should be adopted. So we had a 27
long discussion with the Council in November and received very specific direction from them to proceed 28
with the two Ordinances you have this evening. They also directed us simultaneously to explore a 29
potential for agreement between the parties. And I'll go into that a little bit at the end of this meeting 30
which we hope will focus on the Ordinances, but I wanted you to be aware that discussions are under 31
way, and I think we indicate that in our staff report. 32
33
So just in terms of the chronology. This goes back to 2006 when CPI plating shop activities were 34
consolidated in Palo Alto, so the intensity of that use on the CPI site increased. And then there were a 35
series of hazardous materials releases that just raised a level of concern in the community and down here 36
at City Hall. And I, we go through a number of years here in which the zoning, City zoning was amended 37
in 2007 to address some of the concerns that had been raised. There were amortization studies 38
prepared in 2011 and '12 which I'll talk about further in a moment. What, what's not shown really on 39
this chronology is some of the risk assessments and analysis that AECOM has done for us in the last few 40
years. And we can answer some questions about that if you like. 41
42
So first let me summarize the Hazardous Materials Ordinance. It effectively defines three different tiers 43
of hazardous materials uses and creates requirements that are specific to each. Some of these already 44
exist in the Code and some of them are new, but this idea that there are tiers is a new concept that we're 45
introducing into the Ordinance. It also defines sensitive receptors, and it establishes a minimum distance 46
between the middle tier of hazardous materials uses and the sensitive receptors. Then at the Council's 47
direction, it prohibits these, the third tier of hazardous materials uses, and I'll talk about what that is in a 48
minute. And then it addresses this whole question of amortizing nonconforming uses. Finally, it includes 49
some conforming amendments to the City's Fire Code. Most of the changes we're talking about are in 50
the Zoning Ordinance. 51
52
So this is a map of the City's Industrial Zoning Districts where the new Ordinance would apply. 53
Effectively we're amending that section of the Code that applies to these parts of town. There is an 54
amendment to the nonconforming use provisions, a minor amendment to the nonconforming use sections 55
that applies Citywide, but most of the changes are, just affect the shaded districts here. So in our 56
City of Palo Alto Page 3
existing Municipal Code, there are currently two different groups or now we're calling them tiers of 1
hazardous materials uses that are regulated. The first one, which now we're calling Tier 1, involve 2
hazardous materials quantities above what we refer to as the CUPA thresholds. Now, those thresholds 3
are established in State law, and CUPA uses are generally regulated by the County. Although, in Palo 4
Alto the Palo Alto Fire Department plays a role in reviewing and inspecting uses that exceed the CUPA 5
threshold. And there are requirements that the State applies and that we apply to this first tier of uses 6
which really are not proposed to change in the new Ordinance. So the third tier, so we're bookending 7
here, the first tier is the lowest tier. The highest tier is Tier 3. This is already in our Code as well. This 8
was added to the Code in 2007. This is the tier that exceeds the Title 19 threshold or what we call the 9
CalARP thresholds. Currently our Municipal Code prohibits Tier 3 uses within 300 feet of residences or 10
Residential Zoning Districts. We are now in this Ordinance proposing that these uses be prohibited 11
everywhere in Palo Alto. I should say that we are not aware, there are no Tier 3 uses currently in Palo 12
Alto. 13
14
So the main, you know, sort of the central portion of the Zoning Ordinance is to create this middle tier or 15
Tier 2 which is defined as hazardous materials uses involving toxic or highly toxic materials in quantities 16
that are above the CUPA threshold and below the Title 19 or the CalARP threshold. So it's between the 17
Tier 1 and Tier 3 in terms of quantities when it involves toxic and highly toxic materials, and those are 18
defined in the State Fire Code. The idea that is presented in the Ordinance is to prohibit, similar to the 19
current regulations for Tier 3 uses, the new Ordinance would prohibit Tier 2 uses within 300 feet of 20
sensitive receptors and Residential Zoning Districts. There are also some other requirements outside of 21
that 300-foot limit. These uses require a use permit. There's some notice requirements and other things 22
that would apply. The bottom line is that there are 11 Tier 2 uses that would be regulated for the first 23
time under this new Ordinance. And we have a map showing the 11 uses. They're in the pink with the 24
little green dotted lines around them. The green dotted lines show the 300-foot minimum distance 25
around each of the Tier 2 uses. The map also shows the sensitive receptors and Residential Zoning 26
Districts that are referred to in the Ordinance. And just to be specific, the sensitive receptors are shown 27
on the screen here. Effectively they are land uses, I'm sorry, was there a question? 28
29
Male: (inaudible) 30
31
Ms. Gitelman: I don't really see the yellow there, but most of the kind of lightly shaded ... 32
33
Chair Fine: The question is if yellow is housing, and I think it is. Yes. 34
35
Male: Just making sure. 36
37
Male: So residential (inaudible). 38
39
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. You can see it on the hard copy of the slide. It is in fact yellow. On the screen, it 40
doesn't look yellow. Yes. 41
42
So I have a couple slides that compare the current requirements to the proposed requirements. This 43
shows that under the current Ordinance, there's a distance requirement for noticing that affects the Tier 44
1 and Tier 3 uses in terms of where uses are not permitted. The Tier 3 uses are not permitted within 45
300 feet of sensitive receptors. And then in the proposed Ordinance, the new distance requirement, the 46
notice requirements are essentially the same, but in the last column there, the not permitted column, Tier 47
2 facilities are not permitted within 300 feet of sensitive receptors, and Tier 3 facilities are just not 48
permitted. 49
50
So the Commission is probably familiar with the concept of nonconforming uses. The Code defines 51
nonconforming uses as uses that were legal at the time they were established, but they are no longer in 52
conformance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. And the Code effectively prohibits nonconforming uses 53
from being expanded or intensified. The, these rules about nonconforming uses would apply to those 11 54
businesses we talked about. I'm sorry. Not to all 11 of them, to any of the 11 that are within the 55
minimum 300-foot distance, because those are the uses that would become legal and nonconforming. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 4
So this map kind of shows the bottom line. Again, you see the pink Tier 2 uses, the green dotted line 1
around those uses, and then really there are only 3 of the 11 where the green dotted line overlaps the 2
Residential Zoning Districts or the sensitive receptors, and those are the three uses at CPI that would 3
become legal and nonconforming under this Ordinance. Here's just an aerial map of CPI pointing out 4
where the plating shop use is in Building 2. Building 2 is a large building, but the plating shop is just a 5
portion of it. You see just how large the CPI site is as well. 6
7
So generally nonconforming uses have the right to remain in place, but there is an opportunity to phase 8
them out if you provide compensation or if you provide a reasonable amortization period that's 9
proportional to the investment that was made in the facility. So our Code already establishes some 10
termination dates for a bunch of different uses and provides a minimum of 15 years for businesses or 11
uses to be amortized. The proposed Ordinance proposed, proposes a change to that 15-year minimum 12
to say that it could be less if there's a site-specific amortization study that justifies a lesser period. 13
14
And there were two site-specific amortization studies prepared for the CPI facility. The first one was 15
specific to the plating shop in Building 2. It was prepared by CB Richard Ellis at the direction of the City, 16
and it concluded that at that time the amortization period based on the value of the investment that had 17
been made in the facility was 15 years or extended to the year 2026. CPI disputed the results of that 18
study and did their own study in 2012. The study really looks at the whole facility and its operations and 19
concluded that the plating shop could not be separated from the rest of the facility, and if you had to 20
amortize the whole facility, an appropriate amortization period would extend out 40 years or more to, 21
and we said to the year 2052. 22
23
So Rod and his folks reviewed both of these studies and found them to be basically sound in terms of the 24
scope of their endeavor. There were a few nuances that we've noted in the staff report and on this slide. 25
And effectively the approach we're taking in the Ordinance is to accept both of these studies at face 26
value. So we've used both of them in preparation of the Ordinance which requires that the plating shop 27
use would have to be relocated at least 300 feet, so that minimum distance that we've established in the 28
Ordinance, within the next, now it's 10 years because 5 years have passed, so by the year 2026. And 29
then because CPI's amortization study said well, you can't separate the plating shop from the balance of 30
the other uses, it would, presumably it would still be onsite and luckily they have that very large site I 31
showed you in the aerial, so it would be possible to physically relocate the plating shop use more than 32
300 feet away from the residential properties that abut the property and still be more than 300 feet, you 33
know, still be on the property. So the plating shop would still be related to, proximate to the rest of the 34
uses and the rest of the nonconforming uses would have to relocate by the date of 2052 which was the 35
date in that second amortization study. 36
37
So in terms of next steps, tonight we're hoping that you will conduct a public hearing, you know, hear the 38
public comments and that you will ask us any questions you have, make your own comments and 39
ultimately form a, forward a recommendation to the City Council. We have staked out a claim to a time 40
on the agenda at the City Council on February 22nd for their consideration of these two Ordinances. 41
42
And then as I mentioned, we're trying to reach a settlement or a compromise on this. If our 43
conversations are fruitful, it would probably involve amending the Amortization Ordinance to provide an 44
incentive for moving the plating shop entirely out of town instead of 300 feet away but still on the site. 45
And in doing that, in exchange for some more years, you know, so a little more time to obviously 46
technologies would have to change, but that's the kind of concept we're hoping or we're working 47
towards. It would be contingent on some kind of enforceable agreement that would give certainty to all 48
the parties, the City, the company and the neighbors. So fingers crossed that we will, those discussions 49
will bear fruit but, you know, with or without an agreement, we're proposing to move forward with the 50
Ordinances to the City Council in February. Thanks so much. We're happy to answer questions. 51
52
Chair Fine: Thank you, Director Gitelman. As we just heard obviously this is a public health and welfare 53
issue, and we have a number of speakers who would like to speak to that, so let's start with the public. 54
Vice-Chair. 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we have five speaker cards. I'm going to read out the 1
name and, of the speaker, of the upcoming speaker, and then the following one. So first one is Tom 2
Grant, followed by Amanda Mogan. And you have five minutes. 3
4
Tom Grant: Hello. My name is Tom Grant, and I'm the Vice President of Engineering for the Microwave 5
Power Products Division of CPI in Palo Alto. I've spent 34 years at CPI. I'm speaking to you tonight at 6
the request of Bob Fickett, CPI's President. Bob is unable to attend this meeting as he's on business 7
travel. In my role at CPI, I'm heavily involved in our manufacturing processes in Palo Alto including those 8
involving the use of chemicals and have a significant knowledge of the operations of our facilities. As you 9
are no doubt aware, CPI is the successor to the original business of Varian Associates, and we have been 10
in the same Stanford Research Park location since 1953. Our plate shop has been in its current location 11
for almost 60 years. It plays a vital role in the manufacturing of products used to treat cancer patients, 12
enable global communication systems and protect American and allied military personnel. The Zoning 13
Ordinance regulating a new class of hazardous materials that is under discussion tonight is unnecessary. 14
It specifically targets CPI and our manufacturing processes and facilities in Palo Alto. Based on my 15
experience at CPI, conclusions of numerous governmental agencies and the studies and findings of 16
multiple third-party experts, it is clear that CPI Palo Alto facilities are safe and safely operated. Three 17
independent experts have studied our facilities and processes in-depth. All of them, including those hired 18
by the City of Palo Alto, have come to the same conclusion. Our facilities are safe and pose no 19
reasonable threat of harm to our neighbors or our community. CPI understands why we are standing in 20
front of you today to discuss this Zoning Ordinance. Although we might wish it otherwise, we accept that 21
this process is being driven by fear not scientific fact. Fear is a strong and important emotion, but it 22
should not be the basis by which the City drives out a safe, longstanding and respected member of its 23
business community. CPI continues to endeavor to be a responsible and reasonable member of the Palo 24
Alto community. Since coming to Palo Alto in 1953, our operations have always been in conformance 25
with the law, and we do not intend for that to change. Therefore, we are prepared to continue to work 26
with the City and its representatives to conform to the new Zoning Ordinance that is being discussed 27
tonight provided that we are given a reasonable and feasible period of time in which to do so. The 28
current Amortization Ordinance being proposed is not reasonable. If CPI is penalized with an unrealistic 29
and unprecedented short amortization period that threatens the economic viability of our company, we 30
are willing and prepared to fight both Ordinances with legal action. Nonetheless, CPI will retain its 31
commitment to and focus on the continued safety of our operations. We look forward to continuing to 32
work through this issue with City representatives. Thank you for your time. 33
34
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Ms. Amanda Mogan followed by Jennifer Johnson. 35
36
Amanda Mogan: Good evening. My name is Amanda Mogan, and I am the Director of Investor Relations 37
for Communications & Power Industries. I have worked for CPI for 10 years which makes me a relative 38
newbie to the company. I grew up in this area. I went to high school at MA and earned my graduate 39
degree in communications at Stanford. I'm standing in front of you tonight because over the past 10 40
years I have been highly involved in CPI's community relations and in addressing questions about the 41
safety of our shared community and the fears of local residents. At times CPI has been portrayed 42
publicly as a callous and unfeeling Goliath trampling on the lives of local residents without any 43
consideration of their concerns. When numerous independent studies have shown our operations to be 44
safe, we have been accused of buying the results and brainwashing our employees. These accusations 45
could not be farther from the truth. I'd like to present a clearer picture of CPI's employees and the work 46
they do to maintain the health and safety of our community. I'll start with the employees themselves as 47
they are a unique animal in this time and in this area. CPI's approximately 600 Palo Alto employees have 48
worked for the company for an average of 20 years. Many of our employees spend their entire careers 49
with the company. They believe in the importance of the work that they do and in the company. Their 50
dedication and loyalty says quite a lot about CPI as a company and as an employer. More than 200 of 51
our Palo Alto employees are engineers and scientists. We also have highly trained assemblers and 52
technicians as well as office workers. These are not stupid people nor are they shy. They are well 53
trained in and committed to safety, and they speak up if there is an issue. CPI has a robust community 54
response program. We investigate and respond to all types of calls from the community. The questions 55
posed have ranged from concerns about a white cloud on our property which was steam to claims that 56
City of Palo Alto Page 6
CPI has caused an outbreak of fleas at a nearby house. We take each call very seriously. In recent 1
years in response to neighborhood inquiries, we have hired noise consultants, trimmed residents' trees, 2
investigated odors coming from sources including skunks in a nearby hotel laundry room, notified 3
neighboring businesses about complaints we have received regarding noise on their properties, and so 4
on. But when our investigations have shown that we can improve the situation, CPI has made the 5
merited changes. For example, when the City's' consultant made recommendations about chemical 6
deliveries, CPI personnel examined the delivery processes and put additional safeguards in place. We 7
take advantage of every opportunity to continue to improve the safety of our facility no matter the source 8
of the suggestion. As someone who has spent the past 10 years talking about the safety of CPI's 9
facilities and was witness to the enormous behind-the-scenes effort that goes into investigating every 10
neighborhood complaint and enacting each independent expert's recommendations for strengthening our 11
already impressive safety culture, I can assure you CPI is far from unfeeling. The company protects its 12
employees and environment with an unflagging commitment to safety and takes community concerns 13
very seriously. We know that when our community is safe, our workforce is safe and vice versa. Thank 14
you for your time and attention. 15
16
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Ms. Mogen. Ms. Jennifer Johnson followed by Betsy Lake. 17
18
Jennifer Johnson: Good evening and thank you. My name is Jennifer Johnson and I'm a cofounder of 19
Canyon Snow Consulting in Los Gatos. We are part of the CPI team working on communications with 20
members of the community. And I'm also an environmental engineer with a Master's Degree that 21
focused on air pollution modeling, and so I thought I would take a moment to share some insight on 22
models that have been used to predict offsite impacts from the facility and to talk about how 23
conservative those models are. The reason I'd like to raise this topic is to recognize that one of the key 24
issues up for discussion is the length of time for CPI's plating operation to remain a neighbor to the 25
nearby Barron Park community. Some of the concerns of the neighbors are based on the possibility of a 26
harmful offsite impact. However, we can confidently say that there is no likelihood of an incident or spill 27
onsite that would result in a harmful offsite impact. As you may know, offsite impact studies were done 28
by a number of experts looking at different possible accident scenarios. One scenario with normal 29
operations showed no offsite impacts from a spill. One scenario modeled to take place during a chemical 30
delivery did show potential offsite impacts, but the model only took place when the outdoor temperatures 31
were higher than those temperatures at which CPI allows deliveries. So when the heat rises in, ambient 32
heat rises they don't allow the deliveries, so that actually is not a possible accident scenario. And then 33
the third scenario modeled an earthquake of an unknown but catastrophic size that even the City staff 34
agreed was unrealistic that did show an offsite impact. In other words, no reasonable scenarios that 35
were tested would show a harmful offsite impact from CPI, a spill at CPI. In addition to the unlikely 36
conditions I just mentioned, the models themselves are based on very conservative assumptions, and I 37
wanted to share examples of three of those with you. The first is that you put chemical properties into 38
the model, and one of the properties is vapor pressure which helps you predict how well a chemical will 39
evaporate from a liquid state into the air. In our case, the actual vapor pressure of the chemicals used at 40
CPI is lower than the vapor pressure used in the model, and so the models over-predict the amount of 41
vaporization and the amount of offsite impact that would happen from a spill. Second, weather 42
conditions are put into the model, and in this case the ambient air temperatures during a potential spill 43
are assumed to be over 90 degrees and the speed of the wind is assumed to be lower than what is 44
normal for this area. And the importance of that is that high winds would dissipate any cloud or plume 45
and reduce the impacts. So under these modeling conditions, the plume would stick together better than 46
and more than what would be realistic. Finally, the third example. The modeling exercise assumes that 47
a spill would occur outdoors, and that the total amount of chemicals stored onsite would become entirely 48
and instantly spilled in a puddle on the ground. In reality, the chemicals are stored in baths and closed 49
vessels indoors. The baths, if they were to fail, would spill onto the floor which is structured like a strong 50
mesh. Any spillage flows through the mesh into collection pipes and into closed tanks below the floor, so 51
none of the predicted evaporation or the perfect cloud would even have a chance to materialize or 52
migrate anywhere. And it's also worth noting that since the Loma Prieta earthquake where no releases 53
occurred there have been even further retrofits put in place. So I share all this with the hope of a better 54
understanding that some of the fears are based in part on very conservative and very unlikely modeling 55
and scenarios. And very much appreciate the chance to share that tonight. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Ms. Betsy Lake followed by Bob Moss. 2
3
Betsy Lake: Good evening. I'm Betsy Lake, the last of the CPI contingent tonight. I am a former 4
resident of Palo Alto, graduate of Stanford Law School, and I'm now with Holland and Knight in San 5
Francisco, and we represent CPI. And I believe you've received my letter in your packets. And as stated 6
in that letter and as acknowledged by the City staff, CPI has legally vested property rights in this facility 7
in CPI in Palo Alto. And as noted by Tom, CPI is ready to defend them vigorously. CPI has not found 8
there to be a rational basis that supports the Tier 2 Zoning Ordinance but, as Tom also stated, CPI is 9
working with the City to try to achieve a reasonable settlement. And that really all revolves around 10
amortization. It revolves around how much time CPI has to come into conformance. And as I discussed 11
in my letter, I think there's lots of reasons why the proposed amortization schedule should be extended, 12
and the current Amortization Ordinance proposal is not legally sufficient. First, the City's existing 13
Amortization Ordinance is set at 15 years from the date the Ordinance is passed. And this proposal 14
would allow only 10 years for the plate shop chemical uses. Second, the proposal to provide less than 15
the minimum number of years is unprecedented in the City of Palo Alto. The City has only granted 16
extensions. They have never shortened the amortization time period. Third, the City's experts admit that 17
the 2026 date isn't valid if there's been additional improvements to the plating shop, and there have been 18
additional improvements. And then finally, it, the City's amortization study focuses only on one portion of 19
the site, the plating shop, and the City's experts acknowledge that the plate shop is integral to CPI's 20
operations and if the entire operations were to be amortized, that time period would run to 2052. That 21
said, we have started on behalf of CPI talking to the City about coming to agreeable settlement terms, 22
and we encourage the Planning Commission to in turn encourage the City and the parties to continue 23
those settlement discussions and to extend the amortization period so as to avoid a protracted and 24
expensive legal process which frankly would be good for me, but I think the outcome of a settlement 25
agreement would provide a great deal of certainty to the City, CPI and the stakeholders that would be 26
valuable. So thank you very much. 27
28
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Ms. Lake. Mr. Bob Moss. 29
30
Bob Moss: Thank you and I'll start out by saying that I've had decades of experience working with 31
hazardous and toxic materials, many of which are a lot nastier than anything that CPI uses, and so I'm 32
very well aware of the risks that you encounter when you have these kinds of materials onsite. So the 33
first question is do we need to tighten up our Ordinance, and I think absolutely we do. I think the 34
Ordinance that the staff is recommendation, recommending is reasonable, and I think we should start, 35
the first thing we should do is say yes, we have to have a tightening of the way we allow the use of 36
hazardous materials, especially right adjacent to residential areas. And by the way, it's not just 37
residential. A couple of blocks away we have a school. If we happen to have a spill at the time when 38
there's a relatively high wind coming from the north, we can have that toxic material come down over 39
Barron Park School, which is even nastier than just coming down on the homes. So we definitely have to 40
control what we put there and how we handle it. Now the first question, of course, is should we be 41
required, should we require CPI to amortize, and the answer is absolutely, there is no question. When 42
you have a risk to public health and safety, you are completely justified in amortizing out that use. Is 43
2026 a reasonable time? I think 2016 would be better, but if we're required to give them the extra time, 44
then we can go to 2026, but not 2027. The next question is how do we control what they're doing and 45
how they're doing it. Now it's kind of interesting. CPI claims that they have to have the plating lab 46
onsite, and they can't move it even 3 or 400 feet. We used to have parts plated in San Jose, in Fremont, 47
in Milpitas. We didn't have to have our plating lab onsite. We had a plating lab, this is talking about SSL, 48
but there were some things that we had to have plated elsewhere. It didn't bother us that it was being 49
plated 10 or 20 miles away. Saying that CPI absolutely must have their plating lab onsite and, oh by the 50
way, right next to the housing is absolutely inconceivable, completely unjustified. The next question is 51
how do we enforce this requirement, and I would suggest that if CPI doesn't move their plating facility at 52
least 400 feet from the residential area, that they be fined because they are creating a public health and 53
safety hazard, and the City can impose requirements when there is a public health and safety impact and 54
we have a risk to the health and safety of the people who live here. So I don't see any reason why we 55
should back off. I think we should be doing even more to make CPI safe and not creating an 56
City of Palo Alto Page 8
environmental hazard for the people who live in Palo Alto and particularly in Barron Park. I don't think 1
we should be risking the lives and the health and safety. CPI is saying they have all these controls in 2
place, but they've had three spills. One of them was a delivery truck. CPI doesn't control the delivery 3
trucks. We could have a delivery truck come in tomorrow and spill, and CPI would say oh, it's not our 4
fault. We didn't drive the truck. We just worry about what's on our site. That doesn't pay. Move 5
forward, approve the proposal the staff has suggested, and see if we can't justify amortization even 6
sooner than 2016. 7
8
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Moss. We have one more speaker card, Mr. Samir Tuma. You have 9
five minutes. 10
11
Samir Tuma: Good evening, Commissioners. Samir Tuma, 827 Chimalus Drive, a neighbor of CPI's. 12
This, you know, I remember several years ago when we started down this process, and at that time I 13
was sitting up there as a Planning Commissioner. And this first came to light, those of us who lived in 14
the neighborhood had no idea that it was there, and that came to light essentially because of an accident 15
that happened, that impacted our neighbors, made people sick. We have lived with this for years and 16
years and years. CPI is a master of delay here. They keep delaying. They want more studies. They 17
want more, you know, conflict of what the consultants say, and they try to obfuscate the issue and make 18
it difficult. It's really not that difficult. You have, you and the City Council and the City of Palo Alto have 19
an obligation to the residents to protect us. We have a hazard. It's very clearly a problem, and you 20
know we have, I think we've been incredibly patient. We've been told all along that the clock was 21
ticking, so yes, it was taking time, but the amortization had already begun. Now there's some question 22
about that. So it's really time to act. It's time to get this thing going, time to get it in place. CPI is going 23
to do whatever they're going to do from a litigation perspective. You can't back down. You've got to be, 24
you've just got to stick up to them and just do the right thing. You know, this is about the health and 25
safety of residents, and we've waited long enough. So please get this going, get it back to Council. Let's 26
get the Ordinance passed, and let's get them out of town. Thank you. 27
28
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Suma. I believe we're getting more speaker cards. So I just received 29
one more card, but apparently there is a couple more in the pipeline, so let's hear from Mr. Arthur 30
Liberman. And then we are awaiting additional speaker cards. Mr. Liberman, you have five minutes. 31
32
Arthur Liberman: Thank you. Good evening, Chair Fine and Commissioners. This story with CPI and the 33
residents of the City and residences has a long history. I think you're probably aware of that. I sent you 34
a long timeline, a two-page timeline before the meeting took, to fill you in on the history. I appeared 35
before this Commission ten years ago. Mayor Burt was the PTC Chair at the time, and maybe that has 36
something to say about your future political care. I don't know. But I do want to emphasize a few 37
points, first about the location of the CPI plating shop. If you look at that, one of the pictures that I 38
showed you which has an outline of where the CPI facility is and nearby residences, you can see how 39
close we are. We live really close to it, and much, close to the facility and specifically close to where the 40
hazardous materials are in the facility. When they sneeze, we catch cold. And Mayor Burt, himself the 41
owner for many years of a plating business in an industrial area in another city, said last November, and I 42
quote, "I would not want to be over the fence from this facility." Now CPI will tell you that they've 43
operated a plating shop there for many years. It is true that Varian had a plating shop, but that was built 44
at another time. That was before Bhopal. It was before EPCRA, the Emergency Planning and 45
Community Right-to-Know Act. It was before Barron Park became part of Palo Alto. We were 46
unincorporated Santa Clara County, and that was one mistake that was made to have allowed that facility 47
to be built. And another mistake, the second mistake, was to allow it to be rebuilt in the same place and 48
even more so without notifying us or informing us or consulting with us or having any kind of open 49
process. Mayor Burt also said at that meeting on November, last November, something rather very 50
important which I want to quote. He said, "We've become very, more urbanized in Palo Alto, and long 51
term it'll even be more so. We understand risks and incompatible uses better than we did." He went on 52
to say if we had hindsight, we wouldn't have done this sighting. So part of this meeting tonight or this 53
Ordinance is to redress that issue and that decision which was made some time back. I'm not going to 54
talk too much about the accident in 2006, except that it was the event that opened our eyes to what was 55
in our backyards and brought me to come to this, to the, to this issue, to investigate the issue and 56
City of Palo Alto Page 9
understand it. The investigation that the City carried out after that accident identified a number of 1
issues, inadequate process procedures, insufficient employee training, missing engineering controls. 2
Every accident is different. It's an accident. There was an accident recently, or not recently, a couple of 3
years after that first accident, in 2008, which was an acid spill that happened during delivery. Now CPI is 4
trying to be vigilant, but I'm sure that they would agree that not all circumstances can be foreseen, not 5
all conditions can be understood, and not all accidents can be prevented. Certainly natural disasters 6
cannot be predicted, and because CPI is so close, just one misstep with their toxic and highly toxic 7
materials would wreak havoc on our community. So if you turn over the page you can see a picture of, 8
that was taken from the internet of an accident involving a nitric acid spill at a plating business in 9
Massachusetts near a residential zone. And that indicates why it is so essential to have a buffer zone 10
between residents and toxic and highly toxic materials, and that's the first Ordinance from the staff that 11
is before you. Finally, let me just mention a few words about amortization. We'd like the CPI plate shop 12
to close or move now before something terrible happens, but the City Attorney says it can't be done 13
without due process. Amortization gives them due process. It gives CPI the time to obtain a full return 14
on their investment. Plating shops need to be rebuilt every 15 or 20 years. That's not me saying that, 15
that's Mr. Fickett who said that, he's the President of CPI, who said that publicly. So the 16
recommendation of the City's consultant estimating a 20-year economic play back, payback for its plating 17
shop when it was built is fair. And from our point of view, the clock has been ticking ever since that time 18
of 2006. So it should really not be a big hardship for CPI to rebuild or move their plating shop. Ten 19
years gives them plenty of time to restructure their process flow and their product fabrication. In 20
summary, we've come a long way since I was here ten years ago, but you need to act now. Vice Mayor 21
Scharff said at the meeting in November, "I don't really want it to be delayed where we have more and 22
more discussions forever without actually moving it forward." And that's exactly how we feel. It's really 23
time for it, the PTC to move this forward, follow directions indicated by the staff proposals and approve 24
them and move them to the Council. Thank you. 25
26
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Liberman. We like your comments about the Chairman and there is 27
more untapped talent here in the Commission and in the audience. So please come more often. Thank 28
you. We have one more speaker, Ms. Romola Georgia. You have five minutes. 29
30
Romola Georgia: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners and staff. Hi. I'm Romola Georgia. I've 31
lived in the Barron Park neighborhood for 35 years, and I've been writing and speaking to you since 32
2007, after CPI released the toxic nitric acid fumes into our neighborhood. And today, I'm asking you 33
one more time to please make our neighborhood safe. I want you to know that the problems connected 34
with this facility are ongoing and various. We live daily with geysers of unknown vapors and alarms and 35
sirens and noisy trucks delivering toxic contents. Would anybody here, who's here tonight who wants 36
toxic and hazardous materials removed from our Palo Alto neighborhoods please stand up and give a 37
wave? There are a few of us here, great. Thank you all. And I, I'm feeling very grateful to the Council 38
and staff for its long work regarding risks and zoning and amortization. In this year of focus on our 39
community's sustainability, I believe a top priority is the health and safety of residents. The risks of toxic 40
and hazardous materials are a major impediment to a sustainable, resilient community. The reports 41
before you are certainly complex, but our Barron Park neighborhood sees the issue, I believe, with great 42
clarity. Operations that use large quantities of toxic materials and chemicals should not be located right 43
next to homes. The homes on our blocks are filled with live people including babies and young children 44
and seniors. Moving CPI's operations from an industrial area in San Carlos to just a few feet from our 45
homes was a most unfortunate mistake, and it's time to rectify that error, remove this danger from 46
Barron Park. The news shows us daily that earthquakes and industrial accidents are neither predictable 47
nor preventable. Please, please vote tonight to approve the Ordinances to change the zoning rules and 48
begin the process that will help CPI move its plating facility and all toxic and hazardous material away 49
from our homes. We've been petitioning you and waiting nearly ten years. Thank you. 50
51
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Ms. Georgia. I believe we have no more speaker cards. 52
53
Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: No more cards. 54
55
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
Chair Fine: Thank you, everyone, for voicing your minds. We really appreciate the turnout tonight. I'd 2
like to turn it over to the Commission for a round of questions. Let's do five minutes each, and then any 3
comments you may have. Commissioner Rosenblum. 4
5
Commissioner Rosenblum: First just a question for staff. I want to clarify the purview of the PTC in this 6
matter, and there are a few things that I can see that are in the report that might be things that you 7
want us to comment on, but I wanted to clarify. The first is are you asking for whether or not the tiering 8
definition makes sense. So the representatives from CPI have challenged the definition of tiering, and so 9
question one is, is that on the agenda. Let me just go through these first, and then maybe you get an 10
answer for all of them at once. The second is whether or not CPI fits within the tiering structure if the 11
tiering structure seems appropriate. The third is an evaluation of the amortization schedule, and then 12
within that is whether there's reason to consider amortization for just the plate shop, is the schedule itself 13
fair. So in terms of guidance that the PTC can give back to Council, is there a particular area that you're 14
looking for us to concentrate on? 15
16
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you for those questions. I think the Commission understands that any time we 17
have a proposed Ordinance that proposes to amend Title 18, the Zoning Ordinance, the Code provides 18
for the Commission to review the Ordinance and make a recommendation to the Council. So just at a 19
high level, that's where we are. I think I indicated in my presentation, however, that we have been 20
working with the Council on this particular set of Ordinances for a long time and feel like we've gotten 21
very specific direction from them about what the Council's expectations are. So while they need your 22
recommendation to proceed, I don't know that they're looking for the Commission to rethink everything. 23
I think, you know, you could add value for sure with your questions and comments. I think particularly 24
on the Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the way we structure it around tiers and sensitive receptors, 25
that would be fantastic. But I don't think the Council is at this point expecting, you know, a whole, you 26
know, overturning of one direction and going in another. So I don't know if I got to all three of your 27
questions. Molly, you have anything to add? Okay, yeah. 28
29
Chair Fine: Any other Commissioners have questions? Commissioner Waldfogel. 30
31
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. That wasn't for me, was it? A short five minutes. No problem. 32
Thank everybody for their presentations. I'd just like a clarification on page 19 of the packet, the Section 33
4 of the proposed Ordinance, (b)(2), just a clarification. Does this restrict residential improvements 34
within the 300-foot radius of the Tier 2 facilities? 35
36
Ms. Gitelman: I'm sorry. Could you help me find where you are? 37
38
Commissioner Waldfogel: It's page, I'm sorry, it's page 7, but it says P&TC packet 19 of 66, so this big 39
thing. Section 4, Part (b), development standards for exclusively residential uses, Number 2 and the 40
underlined part that says existing residential development within 300 feet. Let's see. No new residential 41
development is permitted within 300 feet of an existing hazardous Tier 2 materials use. 42
43
Ms. Gitelman: I found where you are. This is an excellent question. We've drafted this Ordinance to 44
make it, to ensure that there are no new sensitive receptors introduced within 300 feet of Tier 2 uses 45
when those sensitive receptors occur, when, in regards to residences when it occurs within the Industrial 46
Zoning District. 47
48
Commissioner Waldfogel: And what would trigger that? Would redevelopment, would a new kitchen for 49
example be triggered, would that be allowed under this? 50
51
Ms. Gitelman: Let me say right off the bat we haven't identified any residences that are currently within 52
300 feet of these Tier 2 uses that are within the Industrial Zoning Districts. So this rule about 53
nonconforming uses and you can't expand and you can't introduce new uses doesn't apply to the 54
Residential Districts that abut the industrial zoning. This is, we're only amending the Industrial Zoning 55
Standards. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you for the clarification. It wasn't clear from this text. 2
3
Chair Fine: Mr. Vice-Chair. 4
5
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to time myself then, so rules are rules. I have 6
several questions, so please help me just with the distribution. So the first is related to the other 7
municipalities that might have a similar restriction, not necessarily tiering but pretty much just having the 8
boundary within the similar bracket between Title 19 and CUPA being applicable to the residential areas. 9
So could you give us example of some other municipalities, how they resolve this? I don't know if you 10
have them. So that would be my first question. We can just go through the other ones. 11
12
Ms. Gitelman: We have not identified another jurisdiction that has taken this approach of regulating a 13
tier between the CUPA and the Title 19, so we're forging new ground here. 14
15
Vice-Chair Gardias: The second question is about, just a moment. Is about the 300 feet perimeter, and I 16
believe this was, the reasoning was provided in the packet already, but if you could just clarify it for us. 17
What's the reason behind the 300-feet buffer zone between those facilities and the receptors? Why 300? 18
Why not some other, 200 or some other area? What's the methodology behind establishing this 19
(inaudible). 20
21
Ms. Gitelman: Certainly I'd be happy to respond to that. First, we have to recollect this is not the first 22
time that Palo Alto has embarked on a regulation around hazardous materials uses that is relevant here. 23
So back in 2007 when the Council initiated their desire to regulate hazardous materials uses, they created 24
this 300-foot distance between residential uses and what we're now calling Tier 3 uses. So when we 25
were charged with coming up with a minimum distance in this case, we used that earlier Ordinance as a 26
model. Basically we said, you know, back in the day if the Council was saying 300 feet was appropriate 27
for Tier 3, then it should be appropriate in this case for Tier 2. There's certainly no rationale to go larger 28
than 300. 29
30
Vice-Chair Gardias: And then the last question, I'm sorry. And the last question I had is about the 31
definition of the sensitive receptors that's on page 15 of the packet, that is paragraph, that's the 32
definition of the sensitive receptors. And I can just tell you that there's no need to go into the packet. 33
So pretty much businesses are not included in this definition, and that may be the case because there are 34
no residences, because it focuses on the residences. My question is like this, why office buildings are not 35
within this area of the safety zone? 36
37
Rod Jeung, AECOM: If I may, Vice-Chair. One of the reasons we started off with looking at uses that 38
might be affected besides just a residential in the residentially zoned properties which was previously 39
addressed in the existing zoning regulations is to recognize that there are certain populations that are 40
going to be more vulnerable to exposure to hazardous materials. And typically in environmental 41
documents, health risk assessments, you're looking at populations that might have immunities, might be 42
exposed easily and suffer consequences and compromised lung conditions. So we're looking at people 43
with asthma, children, residents, people in schools. Typically people in office buildings don't have the 44
same duration of exposure, and they typically have the air conditioning systems that allow the ventilation 45
and the exposure to hazardous materials to be obviated. 46
47
Vice-Chair Gardias: So if I may make comments, a couple of comments. So yes, that's right, but then 48
you can also foresee some other factors. Business is a concentration of the population and also during 49
the delivery hours and they may be exposed to those harmful vapors as well. So they may be subject of 50
the spill or some other incident. And then you're right, I mean, they have HVAC systems and others, but 51
regardless, right. My recommendation would be to include them just because that this is, that within 52
that, during the operation, during the time of the operations between 8:00 and 5:00, whenever CPI 53
operates, then pretty much you have the people are moving from their residences and just moving to the 54
businesses. That may not be the case. Maybe there is known business within the area, but that, there 55
may be a risk, right? So that's number one. Number two comment, and I'm already out, over my time, 56
City of Palo Alto Page 12
but I think that the Chair is granting me more leeway here. So keeping this 300 feet radius, I think that 1
if we may ask you to or if I may ask you just to take a look at the, what was the reason or calculation 2
behind this 300 feet that maybe there were different factors that were taken into consideration. So I 3
think that before, to have the final say of the radius, we would like to know there's some rationale, right. 4
Is it the wind? What was the rationale back then? Maybe there needs to be, it needs to be modified. 5
Thank you. 6
7
Chair Fine: Thank you, Vice-Chair. I have a couple of questions I'll go through also. So first of all, 8
they're kind of specific. Has the City undertaken any other site-specific amortization studies recently? 9
10
Ms. Gitelman: Certainly not recently, not that I’m aware of, no. 11
12
Chair Fine: Not in the past ten years or so? So this is the only one? 13
14
Ms. Gitelman: Not that I'm aware of. 15
16
Chair Fine: Have any other cities updated their Amortization Ordinance when it specifically affects a 17
single user or land use like this? 18
19
Ms. Gitelman: You know, I'm hesitating to answer just because I don't know the facts behind some of 20
the other amortization periods and situations we know about. We know, you know, that Mountain View 21
right over the border at one point amortized an industrial facility out in conjunction with a rezoning that 22
they did. So they were rezoning an area that was kind of industrial and mixed use to residential or some 23
other use, and so they gave the business a certain amount of time to leave. And then at some point the 24
business came and said we need a little more time. We need five more years, and they gave it, but there 25
was a kind of back and forth about what the period was going to be. I don't know, you know, what the 26
studies were that led to that, whether it was site specific or whether it was more general. So I'm afraid I 27
can't help you more than that. 28
29
Chair Fine: And then my last question is also about site specific amortization studies. The Ordinance 30
doesn't really have a quality threshold for those, does it? So I mean, what is the City of Palo Alto 31
considering such a study and should that be in the Ordinance? 32
33
Ms. Gitelman: I mean, I think basically an amortization study has to determine in a legally sufficient 34
manner what the value of the investment is and how long it would take the business owner to recoup the 35
value of that investment. So that's the philosophy or the thought process behind the study. And we 36
would, you know, need one that's prepared by someone who knows how to do this thing and that we 37
think would withstand a legal challenge. So I don't know that that needs to be in the Ordinance per se. 38
I think it goes without saying. 39
40
Chair Fine: All right. That's it for my questions. Let's turn to comments. And if anybody is interested, 41
one other thing I'd like to do this year is, we are able to make a motion at any time. So if you feel we 42
are ready at any time when we're discussing things, put a motion on the floor, and it will either die or 43
we'll talk about it. I see Commissioner Rosenblum. 44
45
Commissioner Rosenblum: I'll just make a comment. I feel, I'm taking to heart a couple of things. First 46
is Director Gitelman's comment that this has been a long time coming with Council. They spent a lot of 47
time going back and forth crafting this. From a statutory perspective, this has to go through the PTC, but 48
that Council at this point has given some clear direction about what they want to see. I feel like the 49
items of discussion are items of law that are going through a process with, between the City's lawyers 50
and CPI, and I'm not sure that we're here to open a hearing about amortization schedules, etc. I'd be 51
inclined to make a motion on this, but I'm going to wait to hear if there are any other comments first, 52
and then I'm going to come back and make a motion to accept staff recommendation unless one of my 53
colleagues persuades me otherwise. 54
55
Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
Commissioner Alcheck: On the bullet point list of the presentation, it's the fourth, fifth bullet says while 2
moving forward with the two Ordinances, the Council's directing us to explore potential for an agreement 3
that would eliminate the CPI plating shop from the site sooner than provided for in the draft Amortization 4
Ordinance. Can we explore that? Is there, I mean, we have residents tonight who would like to see 5
them out tomorrow. Is there a fund that we can tap to create a financial incentive to encourage their 6
departure? Can we participate in, I'm exploring as requested. I guess what I'm trying to say is I feel 7
similarly with Commissioner Rosenblum, you know, that, you know, the Council wants us to move this 8
forward, and I don't feel particularly confident, I mean if the appointed expert felt that both the reports 9
regarding amortization were, what was their terminology? It's like the most vague. I want to get it right. 10
He said, yeah, I mean, yeah, the, gosh, not what I wanted. 11
12
Chair Fine: Please, they were good. 13
14
Commissioner Alcheck: Right, and you get my point. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't feel 15
particularly confident in sort of suggesting any change to the Ordinance as its written, and so I feel more 16
comfortable moving it forward to Council to leave them with the responsibility of making this decision. 17
That said, they've asked for a discussion of potential alternatives of moving CPI out earlier. And based 18
on the presentation that CPI gave about amortization, it sounds like they're losing money here, that they 19
didn't expect to lose based on the schedule. They were hoping their investment would, I guess, provide 20
income for a greater period of time. So I'm just throwing this out there as an, one option, but are there 21
other ideas for how to, what was the language here? I'm all over the place tonight. You know, eliminate 22
the plating shop sooner than provided for in the amortization schedule. And my follow-up question, and 23
this is for my Commissioners as well, I mean, arguably the residents are interested in that, so are we 24
motivated enough to participate as a City on behalf of Barron Park to create the quote/unquote safer 25
environment that the Barron Park residents that are here tonight are interested in? 26
27
Molly Stump, City Attorney: So through the Chair, City Attorney Molly Stump. Perhaps I can help, 28
Commissioner Alcheck. So to clarify the Council's direction, the Council did want to move forward the 29
two draft Ordinances to this Commission for this Commission's input and recommendation in a timely 30
manner back to the Council. The direction to explore was really to the staff, and probably part of the 31
reason for that direction coming not to this Commission and its public process but to the staff is because 32
it does involve areas of legal risk. And so those explorations are underway, and that's happening really 33
at a staff level. I think the Council's direction to this Commission is to make sure that you help them to 34
keep the process moving by keeping these two draft Ordinances moving forward and back to them. And 35
we do have this date in February to do that, but the other process is running in parallel. 36
37
Commissioner Alcheck: So in response to that, I feel comfortable moving these Ordinances forward, but 38
I would encourage staff as directed by Council to work tirelessly to sort of come to some agreement. 39
And I say that because despite CPI's statements that the ten-year time period is too short, it sounds like 40
the residents feel very strongly the ten-year period of time is too long, and so I think there's potential 41
here. So I would, I am in favor of adding to our recommendation a note that we really do encourage our 42
City to potentially partner with CPI to come to an amicable result that everybody could be pleased with. 43
That's it. 44
45
Chair Fine: Thank you. Vice-Chair Gardias. 46
47
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. I just want to come back to the comment about the offices, and I was 48
thinking about this whole paragraph, about the definition. I understand where you're coming from pretty 49
much. From perspective of just defining those that would be more susceptible to the, to any risk than 50
the general population, which my understanding doesn't align with your, the way that you're trying to 51
approach it because given that there's no general population definition, then it's going to be, this clause 52
will be in question, and then pretty much the risk may occur somewhere else, and then somebody else 53
may raise the flag and say look, I am part of the general population, they didn't think about me and so 54
forth. So for this reason, I would recommend and I will just, when there's going to be a motion on the 55
floor, I will just propose to change this to pretty much expand it to the, to any of those that are within 56
City of Palo Alto Page 14
the given proximity. And I have language that I can recommend to you for consideration, so pretty much 1
as opposed to those are more susceptible than the general population, I would propose that those whose 2
occupants may be susceptible to the adverse effects of exposure of toxic chemical and pollutants due to 3
the risk, due to the proximity of the location. This pretty much will just address the entire population 4
that is within the certain radius as opposed to just singling out certain occupancies. 5
6
Chair Fine: Thank you, Vice-Chair. Commissioner Alcheck. 7
8
Commissioner Alcheck: We don't have a motion on the table yet, but I just want to throw it out there 9
before ones come up. I'm sort of looking to Commissioner Rosenblum to make it. I'm not sure I'm 10
comfortable supporting an amendment to the proposed Ordinance simply because I think it's pretty 11
complicated, and I think it's laying the groundwork for a referenced discussion or negotiation. And so my 12
preference would be to support a motion endorsed or recommended this Ordinance without amendment. 13
I know you, there isn't a motion on the table and that's not necessarily an, or a proposal yet, so I just 14
wanted to throw that out there before one was made. 15
16
Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Rosenblum. 17
18
MOTION 19
20
Commissioner Rosenblum: I'd like to make the motion and specifically in this case I am trusting that the 21
City in the negotiations with CPI is moving towards an amicable settlement and certainly hope that that's 22
the case. So I would make a motion that Council, that the two Ordinances as written by staff move on to 23
Council with PTC's recommendation. I don't see a particular need to add the qualifier and they should 24
look for an even faster settlement. I didn't necessarily see overwhelming, and neighbors certainly have 25
been patient, but it seems like in terms of legal options, there's been bookends from the minimum which 26
CPI disputes to a maximum which the City obviously disputes. And looking for something outside those 27
ranges, I'm just, I think is a bit of a wild goose chase. So the motion is for the two Ordinances to be 28
passed to Council with PTC's endorsement as they were written. 29
30
SECOND 31
32
Commissioner Alcheck: Second. 33
34
Chair Fine: So we have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Rosenblum, seconded by Commissioner 35
Alcheck. I'm going to take a moment to make a couple of comments. I agree with Commissioner 36
Rosenblum that we are not the Legal Department, we are the Planning Commission. In that case, that 37
means we need to think about the zoning implications here, particularly as they relate to public health 38
and safety. Commissioner Alcheck, you had a good question that Council was asking how we might do 39
this sooner. If staff is updating 18.70.070, the part about amortization studies, to include a part saying if 40
we've done a study, that's the clock, when the clock starts, why not just say, you know, do it in a year? 41
That is an option, so I'm just putting that out there. The, I think I'm going to support the motion. 42
43
AMENDMENT 44
45
Chair Fine: I'd like to make one friendly amendment. It's a few small things. Although I'm not in 46
support of saying all occupants may be susceptible to toxic, I would like to propose adding religious 47
facilities as sensitive receptors. I think the point of the sensitive receptors issue is to protect children and 48
the elderly. Religious facilities often have those groups. And then there's also many references to single-49
family and two-family, shouldn't we just say residential? So my amendment would be to add religious 50
facilities as sensitive receptors and instead of saying single-family or two-family, just say residential uses. 51
52
Commissioner Rosenblum: I accept the friendly amendment. 53
54
Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck? 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Commissioner Alcheck: I will accept the friendly amendment, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the 1
rationale behind expanding the receptors element of this, but I feel confident that staff could 2
communicate our support for the Ordinance and that the City Council will figure this out. 3
4
AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 5
6
Chair Fine: Director Gitelman. 7
8
Ms. Gitelman: If I could interject particularly on the question about residential uses. I think you're 9
reacting to, I'm looking at packet page 16 of 66. What you see here is the table of uses that are allowed 10
in these Industrial Districts, and like in other zoning districts, this table differentiates between single-11
family, two-family and other residential uses. So this is kind of a function of the way our Code is 12
structured, and so it would be difficult to make that change. The change about religious institutions, you 13
know, we would really have to analyze what the implications would be for the Ordinance. I don't know 14
whether there would be any religious institutions within the 300 feet of any of the other uses, so that 15
would take some additional effort to determine whether that's a change that has meaningful import or 16
not. 17
18
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN 19
20
Chair Fine: Then I think I would withdraw my friendly amendment and just ask staff to explore the 21
implication of adding religious facilities as a sensitive receptor. It's to you, Commissioner Rosenblum. 22
23
Commissioner Rosenblum: So from a process standpoint, we go back to the original motion and subject 24
it to a vote. Is that correct? 25
26
Chair Fine: I would, the original motion, I withdrew my first friendly amendment, and I'm putting a 27
second one forward about just asking staff to explore religious facilities for Council's ... 28
29
Commissioner Rosenblum: So we're back to the original motion. Is that correct? 30
31
Chair Fine: Yes. Vice-Chair. 32
33
Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So just based on this, what I was discussing previously, I'd like to just 34
propose a friendly amendment that, to include offices. And then based on the discussion, it may be of 35
the same nature pretty much, a recommendation to the staff to analyze what would be impact of 36
including offices within this group of the sensitive receptors. 37
38
Ms Gitelman: To the Chair, you know, of course it would take analysis to give you specific implications of 39
what that change would be, but I'd like to point out that we're talking about regulating facilities that are 40
within Industrial Districts where office use is a common occurrence. So I anticipate that we would find 41
that such a change would materially affect the impacts of this Ordinance and make it very difficult to 42
administer, potentially implicating a lot of these other Tier 2 uses. And now again, I can't say that with 43
certainty, but it would be, I think, a material change. 44
45
Vice-Chair Gardias: I totally understand. For this reason, I will not be, based on the discussion that my 46
colleagues just had, right, so I understand there could be material impact on this. But nevertheless, 47
right, that's an area I think of a risk, and then we need to just address it one way or the other. 48
49
Chair Fine: So we have a motion on the floor that the PTC endorses the two Ordinances and direct ... 50
51
Vice-Chair Gardias: I have one more. 52
53
Chair Fine: One more (inaudible)? 54
55
AMENDMENT 56
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
Vice-Chair Gardias: Yes. I have, so that was recommendation to the staff, right. But I have amendment 2
to make which is pretty much to include in the language to look at the 300, methodology behind 300-feet 3
radius and include the language in the Ordinance that is, that supports the 300-feet radius and that may 4
be pretty much the 300-feet radius or other ones calculated as and then blah, blah, blah, just spelling out 5
the methodology behind the calculation. When you're going to look at it, it might, the radius may change 6
which of course it's not going to affect the selection of these three facilities, but may affect other future 7
locations. You may decide after analysis to change the radius to make it smaller or larger. 8
9
Chair Fine: Commissioner Rosenblum. 10
11
Commissioner Rosenblum: So just point of order. I'm not sure what, where we are in this. Are you 12
proposing an amendment to the motion? Are we ... 13
14
Vice-Chair Gardias: That's correct, yes. 15
16
Commissioner Rosenblum: So from my perspective, there's no reason to include this as an amendment 17
to the motion. If you want to direct staff to additionally elucidate Council as to why 300 was the number, 18
then I think that's perfectly appropriate, but I don't think it has, it isn't really part of the motion. And I 19
don't think that we have sort of staff recommendations of further study as part of the motion. 20
21
Vice-Chair Gardias: So the reason behind this is that when they look at that definition methodology that 22
was established several years ago, they may find it's not supported today. And then someone may come 23
later on and just pretty much challenge us with just providing the number that's not truly properly 24
researched. So for this reason, I would like to just have it as part of the motion because if we're going to 25
just let it flow with the number that's not truly scientifically supported, we just expose ourselves to risk. 26
So for this reason, I would like to have it as part of the motion. 27
28
Ms. Stump: Through the Chair, if I may. Thank you, Vice-Chair Gardias. So this is a complicated area 29
technically as well as legally and from a policy standpoint. And it's my understanding, our expert can 30
help me if I'm wrong, that the chemical substances proposed to be regulated here have a variety of 31
properties. And so really it's a policy decision, and it probably does not have the level of precision that 32
you're thinking it may have, in part because we are talking about a general rule that can be understood 33
by businesses and residents that needs to apply to a whole class and category of chemicals. So I suspect 34
that when we look at this, we will be seeing something much more general about reasonable protective 35
buffers as opposed to a specific numerical formula. 36
37
Vice-Chair Gardias: I totally understand this, but then still, right, that there is a, then there may be some 38
reason behind this that's physically calculated, and then there is some reason buffer that's added to this. 39
So pretty much for, I think that this is worth just making an effort and just taking a look at this, what was 40
defined many years ago. 41
42
Chair Fine: I think that is a friendly amendment. It's to Commissioner Rosenblum. 43
44
AMENDMENT NOT ACCEPTED 45
46
Commissioner Rosenblum: I don't accept this as a friendly amendment for the reason I stated. I'm very 47
supportive of you giving in the notes recommendation to staff to pursue this and to give more direction 48
to Council, but I don't see it as part of this motion. 49
50
Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 51
52
Commissioner Alcheck: Agree. 53
54
Chair Fine: So we have a motion on the floor that the PTC endorses the, Vice-Chair. 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 17
AMENDMENT 1
2
Vice-Chair Gardias: So I'd like to try again, and then just propose it as a not friendly amendment for the 3
vote. 4
5
AMENDMENT FAILS 6
7
Chair Fine: Do we have a second for the Vice-Chair's unfriendly amendment to look at the methodology 8
behind the 300-foot radius and include language in the Ordinance that supports the radius? I see none. 9
Back to it. We have a motion that the PTC endorses the current two Ordinances as written by staff, and 10
that the Council pass them, or the Council explore them. And then the friendly amendment to that is that 11
staff explores implication of adding religious facilities as a sensitive receptor. Commissioner Rosenblum, 12
do you want to speak to your motion? 13
14
Commissioner Rosenblum: Sorry. I don't think that there was a friendly amendment as you just 15
mentioned. I think that was withdrawn by you. Is that correct? 16
17
Chair Fine: I thought we had gone through it twice, but I'm willing to leave it off. I think it is in the 18
record at this point. 19
20
Commissioner Rosenblum: It was a recommendation that staff research the implications of religious 21
facilities. That's not, you mentioned friendly amendment, so I wanted to make sure it's not an 22
amendment to this motion. 23
24
Chair Fine: So the motion is just clean. 25
26
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. Motion is that we, the PTC supports the two Ordinances as written by 27
staff to go through to Council for them to consider passing. 28
29
Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck, do you want to speak to the motion? 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: I don't have much to say except to encourage a speedy and amicable resolution 32
to this process, and I hope that we achieve it. 33
34
VOTE 35
36
Chair Fine: All right, let's vote. All in favor. All against, none. 37
38
Commission Action: Commissioner Rosenblum moved to approve staff recommendations second 39
by Commissioner Alcheck. Passed 5-0-2 with Commissioners Downing and Tanaka recused. 40
41
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Commissioners. 42
2
In 2006, an industrial accident at CPI released nitric acid fumes that wafted over the homes on Chimalus and Tippawingo. The investigation revealed that it was caused by a combination of factors:
carelessness, inadequate process procedures, poor employee training and a lack of engineering
controls.
That’s when I became involved. I am a retired physicist and a resident on Chimalus Drive. At one time I was the Engineering Manager of a division of a large multinational corporation. Our division made
vacuum electronic devices, similar in many respects to the vacuum electronic devices that CPI makes
in Palo Alto.
I attach a two page detailed timeline with significant events that happened, year by year.
The words written in red in the timeline indicate an initiative by residents. You can see that over this
period of time, residents have worked with:
the Palo Alto Fire Department to request unannounced inspections and to insure that CPI complies with the Fire Code by installing an emergency generator;
with CPI to request that they find more secure locations for hazardous materials and install
toxic gas sensors;
with the County which was responsible for overseeing the CalARP program to insure regulations were followed; and
with the City Planning officials to demonstrate that the juxtaposition of plating shop with
houses or other sensitive receptors poses a risk to residents and is incompatible with good
zoning practices in Palo Alto.
Some key points from the timeline (labelled with numbers in red, circled in red):
1 In 2004 and 5, CPI rebuilt their plating shop.
When CPI applied to rebuild its plating shop a few years before the accident, the City did not consult
with residents. We weren’t even notified! There was no environmental review. At that time, Palo Alto
had a different City Manager, Planning Department and Fire Marshal. CPI, for its part, did not reach
out to neighbors – it was a stealth operation.
I have been told that some highly regarded experts in the plating industry advised CPI management
at the time to not rebuild it in the same place. Instead, they advised CPI to rebuild it on the other side
of their property, away from residents’ homes. These experts were well versed in both plating
technology and land use zoning. They were aware of the rapidly increasing concern in the public about chemical accidents involving hazardous materials, and also aware of the subsurface
contamination in areas of Barron Park and elsewhere in Palo Alto caused by leaking containers of
volatile organic compounds at a number of places in the Research Park.
But CPI management said no - it would be too expensive. CPI’s management put its short term
financial interests ahead of the welfare of our community. The situation would have transpired
differently had CPI listened to those experts. The ordinances before you are the consequences of
CPI’s ill-advised management decision.
3
Merely because the plating shop had been there previously was not a reason for it to be rebuilt in the same place. Homes were actually on Chimalus long before Varian (precursor to CPI) built its plating
shop. That happened at a different time, when Barron Park was unincorporated Santa Clara County,
and the two jurisdictions did not communicate. A project review in 2004 would have revealed the
changing land uses in the Research Park and in Palo Alto and the tightened regulatory policies – at
Federal, State and City level - focused on greater scrutiny in the siting for facilities with large amounts of extremely hazardous materials. At the City Council meeting last November, in
commenting on the change in times and new perspectives for hazardous material facilities, Mayor
Burt said: “We understand risks and incompatible uses better than we did. If we had hindsight,
we wouldn't have done this siting.”
2 In 2006, an industrial accident at CPI released toxic nitric acid fumes.
Until that accident occurred, neither I nor my neighbors were aware that CPI was consolidating its hazardous materials operations in Palo Alto from its previous location in San Carlos, and rebuilding its Plating Shop directly behind homes on our street. We had been kept entirely in the dark.
With a little research after the toxic fume release accident, we learned that CPI had an enormous
inventory of extremely hazardous material on its site. Some was stored in outdoor sheds outside along the fence wall with residents. For a number of years, CPI’s plating shop was the only site in Palo Alto with quantities of materials (nitric acid and potassium cyanide – both high toxic materials)
above the thresholds in the State of California Title 19/ California Accidental Release
Program(CalARP).
Moreover, CPI designed its plating operation so that tanker trucks full of acid make deliveries in the narrow driveway between its building and our homes. CPI has lowered its inventories of hazardous
chemicals on its site, but they have increased the frequency of deliveries. During one such delivery in
2008 a significant amount of hydrochloric acid was spilled. The AECOM independent consultant hired
by the city said, in the report released in 2014, that the vapors from an accident involving nitric acid delivery would have very serious repercussions to our health. Worse things could happen, it says, if acids and cyanide materials would somehow mix, such as in a catastrophic earthquake.
3 In 2010, Palo Alto City officials authorize Amortization study
In 2010, new leadership in the City recognized the problem: the juxtaposition of a plating shop with
the largest amount of extremely hazardous materials in Palo Alto located just on the other side of a
fence from residents. The City sponsored an independent Amortization study by CB Richard Ellis, a
respected Real Estate firm in San Francisco. They were charged to determine the length of time required for CPI to recoup its financial investment in the plating shop. The report was released in
2012. It says that CPI would recoup its investment in 20 years from 2006 when CPI says its
investment was complete and the facility was operational.
4 In 2015, Palo Alto City Council approved the Staff proposal for new ordinances
By doing so, our City - both Council and Staff - has come to the understanding that this type facility should not be located so close to homes. The current situation poses a risk to nearby residents and
is incompatible with good zoning standards and current zoning practices. Already residents have
been patient, working very hard with all parties for 10 years, trying to be cooperative, to find a way
forward. Let’s not put this off any more. As Vice-Mayor Scharff said at the November C ouncil
4
meeting: “ I don't really want it to be delayed where we have more and more discussions
forever without actually moving forward.”
In Summary – we ask the PTC to approve the zoning ordinance that would make CPI’s plating shop a
non-conforming use and the ordinance to amortize it
Arthur Liberman
751 Chimalus Drive
1
Ellner, Robin
From:David Boxerman <dboxerman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:02 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:David Boxerman
Subject:Amortization of CPI and zoning changes
Dear Committee members, You have reviewed the details concerning CPI and its dangerously close proximity to residents on the other side
of the wall and beyond. Hopefully you will move forward with a plan to amortize their facility and also change
the zoning issues related to dangerous operations adjacent to residential property.
We moved here long before CPI moved its San Carlos operations to Hansen Way. The City approved this move without notifying adjacent residents, and essentially helped create the dangerous situation we live with every
day. It's the City's responsibility and obligation to rectify the situation. We would like CPI out of here NOW,
but since that's not very likely, they need to be gone ASAP. And don't let CPI's legal threats scare you into
backing down;. If CPI truly cared about the City's residents, they would move their operations to a safer location, even if only 300'.away from residents. But they have no plans to do that unless required to, because PROFIT is their
concern, not the welfare of people. Their executive, Mr. Fickett, stood before a crowd of angry residents at
Barron Park School about 7 years ago and told us: "It would cost us $40,000,000 to move, and WE'RE NOT
MOVING!" His words still ring in my ears whenever CPI comes up in a conversation. Two concluding points....
1. CPI objects to any amortization, yet there is a useful life span of their facility and equipment. If they were
truly 'good' neighbors as they portray themselves, why wouldn't they begin the process sooner rather than later, at less expense than waiting until everything is outdated and presents an even higher risk to neighbors and their employees? The answer?: Dollars matter,more than people. It really is all about money, profit, and greed. It's
not about being a responsible corporation like Varian or HP.
2. Knowing what you've learned over the months about CPI's dangerous materials present on its property, answer this question honestly: Would YOU want to live as close as 100', or 200' or even 300' from CPI and risk exposure to the dangers CPI presents? I don't imagine you would. So here's your chance to do something
about a situation the City helped create. Don't be intimidated by CPI's lawyers. Stand up to them and stand
behind the residents that have stood behind you since this issue began almost a decade ago.
We, the neighbors, have done all that we can. Now it's your turn to do the right thing. It's your responsibility.
David Boxerman
3470 Tippawingo St.
1
Ellner, Robin
From:Lilian Marcus <lilianmarcus1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2016 4:48 PM
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Amortization of CPI
I live on Chimalus Drive, but more than 300 feet (I think) from the building with the toxic materials. I am very concerned about the danger of someone being harmed, so I really believe the CPI should not be allowed to have
the plating shop there.
Please support the neighborhood by insisting that they stop it.
Best regards, Lilian Marcus
1
Ellner, Robin
From:Mark Steres <msteres@awattorneys.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:17 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Stump, Molly; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Silver, Cara
Subject:Letter re January 27, 2016 PTC Meeting - Agenda Item #3 - Ordinances re Hazardous
Material Users and Amortization Schedule
Attachments:20160121170736567.pdf; 0511_001.pdf; 0512_001.pdf; 0513_001.pdf; 0514_001.pdf
Chairman and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, on behalf of Communications & Power
Industries LLC, please see the enclosed correspondence and attachments relating to Item #3 on your Agenda for the
January 27, 2016 meeting. Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Steres
Aleshire & Wynder
Office 310 527‐6672
1
Ellner, Robin
From:Markus Fromherz <markus@fromherz.us>
Sent:Monday, January 25, 2016 8:29 AM
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Statement to support the proposed zoning ordinances on hazardous materials
locations
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission, The Board of the Barron Park Association supports the Barron Park residents who live near CPI and ask you to
approve the two ordinances before you on January 27: to create a buffer zone between residents and sites with
Toxic and Highly Toxic materials and to Amortize the CPI Plating Shop.
About a decade ago, CPI made a corporate decision to consolidate its hazardous materials activity at the very
back of its property on Hansen way, virtually in the backyards of Barron Park Residents who live on Chimalus
and Tippawingo. Residents were unaware of this at the time.
Soon after, an industrial accident at CPI released toxic nitric acid fumes that spread into neighborhood. During a delivery of acids in 2008, which take place in a narrow alleyway between CPI’s Plating Shop and the backyards
of residents, a significant amount of hydrochloric acid was spilled. Palo Alto hired an independent consultant to
evaluate this and other risks to residents from the hazardous materials in the CPI Plating Shop. Their report,
released in 2014, said that an accident during nitric acid delivery could cause serious health consequences to residents living nearby. Worse things could happen, they stated, if acids and cyanide materials would somehow mix, such as in a catastrophic earthquake.
So much extremely hazardous material so close to residents’ homes is inconsistent with good zoning practices.
The City Council, in their meeting last November, recognized this. Plating is an intrinsically messy and dangerous process. It involves extremely hazardous materials. The City has identified CPI as one of the sites in Palo Alto with Toxic and Highly Toxic chemicals within 300’ of residents, and the Council voted last
November to change the zoning to make such sites a non-conforming use and, in a separate ordinance, to phase
out the CPI Plating Shop over time.
The phase out, through amortization, would happen after a number of years, at a point when CPI would have received a full return on its investment in its Plating Shop facility. To determine this time, the City sponsored a
study in 2010 by an independent consultant, CB Richard Ellis, a Real Estate firm in San Francisco. The report,
released in 2012, stated that a reasonable time would be 20 years from the time when CPI invested in rebuilding
the Plating Shop, which was in 2006.
The neighbors of CPI have been trying for many years to have the City of Palo Alto take action to remove the
CPI Plating Shop and the large amounts of extremely hazardous materials. During all this time, the Board of the
Barron Park Association has supported these efforts, and we continue to do so. We urge the Commission to
support the two proposed ordinances from the Staff at your meeting on January 27. Sincerely,
Markus Fromherz
President, Barron Park Association
1
Ellner, Robin
From:Reine Flexer <reine13@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:16 PM
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Dangerous materials too close to residences -January 27th meeting
Hello,
Please allow me to share some information re the texts you will review on January 27th. The subject may be
new for some of you, but residents in Barron Park have been following the issues for many years and have been
concerned about the delays. I am: Reine Flexer at 595 Matadero avenue, a block south or Chimalus, which borders the CPI plants.
CPI keeps their tanks of dangerous chemicals just behind the residents fence. I believe that CPI workers are
very sincere when they say they follow safety measures carefully, however, following an earthquake or not,
accidents can happen and would be disastrous, people could even die. The present draft would also prevent OTHER companies from moving inside the city with highly toxic material, and current companies would not be allowed to increase such material beyond a dangerous limit.
Your coming meeting is a followup to the City Council's unanimous decision last November to authorize the
Planning Department Staff to draw up two ordinances: one that would modify zoning codes for sites using toxic and highly toxic materials near residences, which would make the CPI Plating Shop a 'non-conforming use', and a second that would amortize the CPI Plating Shop (require it to close after a certain number of years, when CPI
has obtained a full return on its investment, as determined previously by a City authorized consultant.
Many of my neighbors agree with me. Please support the City staff proposals and vote for both ordinances. Thank you,
Regards,
Reine Flexer
1
Ellner, Robin
From:Romola Georgia <rgeorgia@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:50 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Art Liberman
Subject:Rezoning and Amortization
As a long-time Palo Alto resident, a Santa Clara County Master Gardener, and a member of the
Barron Park Green Team, I urge you, at your January 27th meeting, to support the City Staff’s proposal for two ordinances:
first, to require a buffer between residents and sites that use and store toxic and highly toxic materials
second, to begin the amortization of the CPI plating shop.
These ordinances were drawn up following a unanimous vote in the City Council last November and are very important to the health and safety of Barron Park residents.
Hazardous Materials and Plating Shops should not be right next to families and children. Toxic releases and spills have proved that allowing the consolidation of CPI plating shop, with its large inventory of highly toxic materials, was an unfortunate error. Palo Alto residents receive notification
when any project will impact our homes and neighborhoods, but no notice was given of this
consolidation. Mayor Burt said in November at the City Council meeting: “I would not want to be over
the fence from this facility.” I personally never forget that the plating shop is on the second floor of Building 2 and we are very close to major earthquake faults.
This issue has a long history. Since 2006, the Chimalus neighbors have worked tirelessly to reduce
the risks to residents and resolve the looming threat of some grave accident or natural disaster at CPI that would endanger the health and safety of our neighborhood.
I spent last Sunday afternoon at Palo Alto's Sustainability and Climate Action Summit working
with other Palo Altans to plan for a sustainable and resilient future. I urge you to take a big step
toward that future by approving these ordinances and making our neighborhood free from toxic dangers.
Please review the background information and timeline provided by Art Liberman and and then vote
to approve the zoning ordinance that would make CPI’s plating shop a non-conforming use and also
to approve the ordinance to amortize the plating shop. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Romola Georgia