News

Palo Alto looks to phase out plating shop

Council agrees to adopt new law, begin process of amortization for Communication & Power Industries

After more than half a century at its location on Hansen Way, Communication & Power Industries will soon be asked to leave Palo Alto.

Prodded by years of complaints from the Barron Park residents about the prospect of an "extreme event" releasing hazardous materials into the neighborhood, the City Council agreed late Monday night that it's time for the city to change its zoning laws to prohibit the location of plating shops near residential areas and to begin the process of amortization for CPI, which manufactures microwave and radio-frequency equipment.

The council's 8-0 vote (Larry Klein was absent) followed a new risk assessment that showed that while an event of the sort that can harm residents is very unlikely, it's not entirely impossible. A scenario in which an earthquake ruptures tanks at one of CPI's buildings, prompting the mixing of chemicals and a release of hydrogen cyanide, could harm residents up to 616 feet from the shop. The area includes Chimalus Drive, where residents have been asking the city for nearly a decade to do something about the looming threat from the hazardous materials used by CPI.

The latest assessment followed two prior ones that effectively concluded that a spill at CPI would almost certainly have no effect on the residents. A 2008 study by AECOM considered two different accidents and found that even in the worst-case scenario, the airborne nitric acid and potassium cyanide "are not expected to travel offsite and exceed the toxic endpoint."

Residents argued that these analyses did not consider the "extreme-event" scenario and urged the city to do further analysis.

"It's really not that complicated," said Samir Tuma, who lives on Chimalus Drive. "Fundamentally, what you have is a risk to human life in proximity to residents in the city of Palo Alto. Their lawyer likes to use words like 'very unlikely,' and 'not expected to travel off site.' But you know what? Things that are unlikely do happen."

CPI officials vehemently protested the assertion that their operations pose a risk to health. Bob Fickett, the company's president, said that it's becoming "increasingly difficult to stomach" how the company is being treated like a "pariah" by residents and the city. He noted that in more than 50 years at its present site, not a single resident or employee has been harmed by operations from the plating shop.

"We're not the enemy. We take the health and safety of the community and our employees very seriously," Fickett said.

The company, he said, is willing to continue to "work with the city to an acceptable solution. But like anyone, he added, "we do have our limits."

The council, for its part, sided with the residents, more than 20 of whom attended a discussion that stretched deep into the night. Bob Moss, who lives in Barron Park, was one of many to frame the issue as one of life-and-death and urge the council to begin the amortization process.

"Amortize them out and in six or 10 or 12 years, the safety will be returned to the community because the plating shop will be gone," Moss said. "It's the only safe approach you can take. It's the only sane approach you can take."

The council ultimately agreed, with Councilwoman Gail Price making the proposal to begin zoning revisions to considering amortization. The council should follow staff's recommendation to prepare a zoning ordinance that "protects our communities" and do a "thorough analysis in terms of what is an appropriate amortization period."

Even though the company protested that it has adopted numerous safety measures and plan to further minimize risk, Price and the rest of the council agreed that the very nature of the operation is incompatible with the nearby neighborhood.

Vice Mayor Liz Kniss, a former nurse, recalled an episode in which she took care of two people who were victims of an explosion that caused a chemical spill. One of them did not survive, she said.

"Most of us have agonized over this," Kniss said. "In the end, it comes down to the safety of the people who live in our community and we're in charge of that safety."

Councilman Pat Burt requested that staff go further and research other types of industrial uses, including circuit-board manufacturing and metal etching, that would be included in the new ordinance. His colleagues agreed and directed staff to do further analysis and return with an update at the end of the year.

For residents, the vote was long overdue. Concerns about CPI's operations have been floating around Barron Park since about 2005, when the company was in the midst of consolidating its San Carlos operations in its Palo Alto plating shop and upgrading its facility.

Between 2005 and 2008, the company had three accidents. In 2005, nitric acid was released into the air, creating a noxious odor. In 2008, it was involved in two chemical spills. In March 2008, about 20 gallons of 31 percent hydrochloric acid was released in the company's rear driveway. In May of that year, about 50 gallons of wastewater containing copper and nickel was accidentally dumped into Matadero Creek because of an improper weekend shutdown of process equipment and improper opening of a containment valve, according to staff.

The company, which employs about 660 people at its Palo Alto facility, has since reduced the amount of chemicals processed at its site. Fickett noted that the amount of hazardous materials is now at its lowest level ever. He also noted that the company has taken steps such as adding perimeter sensors, adding alarm systems and installing "backup safety systems."

"We even put in systems that back up our backup systems," Fickett said.

For the council, however, these precautions weren't enough. Mayor Nancy Shepherd joined her colleagues in concluding that it's time to rethink the company's location.

"It's been a long time coming," Shepherd said. "I think the nail on the head for me is that we just don't mix this research-and-development, these hazardous materials, near residents anymore. It's just not how we plan our communities."

Related content:

Residents question chemical-hazards report for CPI

New zoning law targets Palo Alto plating shops

Comments

10 people like this
Posted by Ed
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 7, 2014 at 10:55 am

That is too bad.
That building and operation was the first in the Stanford Industrial Park (then Varian Associates).
Never a real problem all these years. Predates any resident.


12 people like this
Posted by allen edwards
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:16 pm

[Post removed.]


10 people like this
Posted by HUTCH 7.62
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:22 pm

[Post removed.]


3 people like this
Posted by Jim
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:59 pm

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by Jim H
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:59 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Running scared
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm

[Post removed.]


15 people like this
Posted by Cynic
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Lets' see:
*660 jobs we can wipe out of the local lunch and shopping economy.
*Let's wipe out those pesky PCB shops too; since all we do is "Knowledge Worker" start-ups in Palo Alto, there is no need for hardware prototyping to be done here. Send it, and the rest of the attendant manufacturing activity, anyplace but here.
*Once we free up that acreage, we can jam a s**load of houses in there and dump more traffic on (what some genius wants to make a two lane road) El Camino.

I wonder where the whiners were 50 years ago, when CPI started providing a service that made much of Palo Alto's economy possible.

Bob Ficketts' comment are spot on!


8 people like this
Posted by Hulkamania
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:53 pm

Varian/CPI has been in their present location forever. They pour millions of tax dollars into Palo Alto. They are a good employer with thousands of high tech jobs at excellent salaries. And the city council wants to run them out of town?

What's wrong with this picture?


11 people like this
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 7, 2014 at 3:01 pm

Fred Balin is a registered user.

Start by noting that the city never, ever revealed that there were toxics on the site, even when permits were allowed to substantially increase the size of the plating shop and therefore the quantities of the toxics on the site, until ....

... the level of hazardous material was finally unearthed by a resident and found to be so high that the site was one of only 25 in Santa Clara county site that was under state (rather than local) regulation and with a very nasty worst-case scenario toxic "end point" of Hydrogen Cyanide (think the gas chamber) well into the neighborhood.


16 people like this
Posted by Think five times
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 3:43 pm

Neither the city nor past real estate agents ( or home sellers, for that matter) disclosed what was being done at CPI. U til recently, no one was aware of the use of the toxic chemicals--u til some smelly toxic fumes escaped.

Had I bought a home in that vicinity, and only found out years or even decades later what CPI really did at that plant, I would have brought a lawsuit against the seller and the seller's real estate agent, maybe even the city, for non-disclosure of this toxicity in the vicinity.

It has been the law in California for over twenty years that the seller and the seller's representatives must disclose this sort of thing before the final sale of the home, and if they did not, they must, by law, return the buyer's down payment and pay off that mortgage--so that the buyer may start fresh and buy a house somewhere safer.

We had to get a real estate lawyer and go through this process several years ago when a deceitful home seller did not inform us of toxic mold, and lied about the house being fully insulated when it was not. The seller and his realtor had to pay our legal fees, too. The home inspector had collaborated with the seller and the agent on top of it all.


CPI has been polluting the air and the soil, possibly the groundwater, for a very long time, unknown to the population of Palo Alto that currently lives in that vicinity. [Portion removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by RD
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 7, 2014 at 3:52 pm

[Portion removed.]

I can't stop laughing at this "while an event of the sort that can harm residents is very unlikely, it's not entirely impossible.".
If this is the standard then we need the same language in every risk assessment ever written in this City. I was not in the room, but I would bet that the "Not entirely impossible" language was inserted to mollify the whiners and justify the actions being taken.

On the other hand it has been 16 years since El Nino rains flooded hundreds of homes around San Francisquito creek and the City does nothing. Worse this was not the first flood the same thing happened in 1956.
Since it is a creek and a city and county boundary it is politically tough, but the actual flood mitigation work is mostly removing obsolete bridges that limit the capacity of the creek and replacing them with bridges that don't effect the creeks natural flow.

So Palo Alto has an actual proven flooding problem that has cost property owners 10s of millions of dollars as well as both the physical harm and mental harm to individuals of losing much if not all of their most precious possessions and does nothing for nearly 60 years, but a [portion removed] neighbor makes a stink about a good local business with a perfect safety record of 50 years, and we are going to zone them out of business.


6 people like this
Posted by History Buff
a resident of another community
on Oct 7, 2014 at 4:37 pm

[Portion removed.]
Does anyone really think it's an economic advantage to live near dangerous chemicals?

Barron Park was an established neighborhood before Varian Associates built their plant. CPI is a spin-off and originally had its mail plating shop in an industrial park in San Carlos. They moved the plating shop from San Carlos to the Varian site, and it's now a much larger operation than Varian's ever was. Since CPI arrived in 2005-06, there have be several accidents involving escaped gases and chemical spills.

May 2008: CPI leaks chemicals to storm drain and creek
Web Link

March 2008: 100-gallon acid spill at Palo Alto manufacturer
Web Link

January 2007: City and hazardous-leak firm reach settlement
Web Link



Like this comment
Posted by Margaret Fruth
a resident of Ventura
on Oct 7, 2014 at 4:48 pm

Margaret Fruth is a registered user.

Thank you, City Council, for finally listening to residents & voting to sunset CPI as soon as possible. I speak from professional experience as a Retired Workers' Compensation Claims Examiner handling the aftermath of industrial accidents; children & pregnant women are even more vulnerable than the workers I served.


4 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:24 pm

How many people have been killed at this business site over the past fifty years? None?

Yet--at least sixteen people have been killed at the Palo Alto airport over the past thirty-five years, or so, and more will be killed in the future!

Got to wonder how people on the City Council evaluate risk? No deaths to date at CPI vs sixteen at the Palo Alto Airport--and more on the way!

CPI should use every legal avenue at its disposal to continue operations at this site.


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 7, 2014 at 10:58 pm

"We're not the enemy. We take the health and safety of the community and our employees very seriously," Fickett said.

The company, he said, is willing to continue to "work with the city to an acceptable solution. But like anyone, he added, "we do have our limits."

I hope CPI sues the heck out of Palo Alto.


4 people like this
Posted by Adrian
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 8, 2014 at 9:22 am

There's a precedent in land use law called "coming to the nuisance": Web Link

This case seems like a perfect violation of this precedent - CPI existed before most (all?) of these residents moved to Barron Park. CPI is a productive company that employs local folks and contributes to our tax base. Yes, they do metal plating - it's not the latest startup, but it's important work: Web Link

On a less legal, but more personal note, this seems like simple discrimination. CPI is being singled out for their status and behavior, which is highly suspect to me. Seems like Palo Alto is running a business out of town, which sends a negative signal to prospective businesses and entrepreneurs.


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 8, 2014 at 10:06 am

The presence of hazardous chemicals disallows any residential development on that property. Like other hazardous chemical residues at Moffat, etc. there will have to be a EPA clean-up and then possible commercial development. Any developer that is eye-balling that property for homes will be wasting money. Not going to happen. Note the soccer fields at the corner of Oregon and El Camino - there was a long period for the chemical residue to dissipate prior to be safe enough for the soccer fields.

Commercial development is the better answer - removal of damaged soil for underground garages will help. Take that soil to the baylands then you are in TROUBLE. The reason we do not have a yacht harbor is that the dredging of PCB soil was disallowed.


Like this comment
Posted by Censorship rules
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2014 at 10:15 am

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 8, 2014 at 10:27 am

I attended the Commonwealth Club presentation on Google - Erich Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg. They made it clear that all good decisions start with FACTS. FACTS lead to successful decisions.

Numerous people venting their opinions which have no facts to support their opinions is of no use to anyone else who is reading on these topics. It helps if someone can point to other references which lend support to their postings.


Like this comment
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2014 at 11:02 am

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 8, 2014 at 11:10 am

Wondering - I was responding to the comment on Censorship Rules. If you want your comments to remain and not be removed then they need to be specific to the topic at hand. People tend to wander off and introduce other topics which are specific to other topics on this system. MY OPINION.


1 person likes this
Posted by LOL@PA
a resident of another community
on Oct 8, 2014 at 12:54 pm

Welcome to Fremont! We'll gladly take another tax paying company off your hands. I remember when I actually wanted to live in Palo Alto. Now? Not so much. #TooMuchNimby


6 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 8, 2014 at 4:34 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

To understand the residents' concerns about CPI, it is instructive to look at the 2005 nitric gas release. An operator dumped a batch of chemicals into the waste tank without first confirming what was already in the tank. This mistake set off a runaway chemical reaction. The waste tank system was designed to tolerate such mistakes, but the safety system was deactivated. I never found out whether there were supposed to be additional checks or prohibitions before using the waste tank when the safety system was deactivated. To further compound the error, the backup/secondary safety system was simultaneously deactivated. One doesn't need to have a background in safety systems to understand that this demonstrated major problem in CPI's "safety culture". To make matters worse, in the meetings with CPI (I was Barron Park Association President at the time), CPI didn't seem to recognize this.

At an earlier hearing before City Council, the consultant for CPI presented a risk-assessment that said that it was implausible for the safety system to fail -- that the first stage had a small chance of failure and the backup/secondary guaranteed no non-trivial release. The consultant gave no explanation why he thought recent events weren't going to happen again.

In another meeting with CPI hosted by the Assistant City Manager, the topic was an alerting system for residents in case of a release. The residents were pushing for a quick alerting system. CPI was willing to have only a system which would require tens of minutes to activate during normal operating hours and hours to activate during nights and weekend. This for a situation where the release would *start* within a hundred feet of the first homes.

I raised the topic that CPI should provide nearby residents with information about whether they should evacuate or shelter-in-place. CPI rejected this.

During these meetings, one of CPI's facility engineers made the comment that the danger of toxic releases was grossly exaggerated, and that there would have been few casualties in the Bhopal Disaster (Web Link) if the people around the plant had run. When I asked him how they should have known that running was better than sheltering-in-place, his response was that it was up to the residents to know that.

We had residents who where scientists and engineers coming away from the meetings with CPI shaking their heads and saying that the attitudes displayed by CPI would never be tolerated in their companies.


Like this comment
Posted by Slaf
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Oct 8, 2014 at 4:55 pm

I hate to tell them that CPI has a 99 year lease on the land from Stanford. They are about 60 years into that lease so maybe in about 40' years they can get rid of it.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 8, 2014 at 5:28 pm

If they have a lease that was negotiated 60 years ago there is probably some type escape clause. The state did not have the same type of hazardous waste requirements 60 years ago - or an EPA set of policies that are continually being updated.

But you point out a good fact - this is SU property and I can bet that SU has better plans for this property. I am sure that their return on investment is not very high and they may have been the reason why this is coming to a head.


2 people like this
Posted by Guy_Fawkes
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:50 pm

Guy_Fawkes is a registered user.

Does CPI pay any tax to Palo Alto? They don't show up in any of our budget or revenue reports.


7 people like this
Posted by what's next barron park?
a resident of another community
on Oct 8, 2014 at 8:40 pm

given what happened in san bruno a few years back, i guess barron park's next target is pg&e?


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 8, 2014 at 9:20 pm

If this is a lease from SU then it is on SU's books as leased property.


4 people like this
Posted by mj
a resident of another community
on Oct 8, 2014 at 9:48 pm

What happens to the families of 660 employees?


5 people like this
Posted by Next Door
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 9, 2014 at 1:22 am

When I purchased my house 20 years ago, all I knew was some company that fought cancer was behind my house (Varian). Then 8 years ago I find out we had a toxic release from a company that had 1) just consolidated and vastly enlarged their plating shop and 2) was created by a leveraged buyout from varian about 8 years before. I then found out that 50 feet from my house was a cyanide storage facility. These were never disclosed. The only way CPI has to not send chemical pollutants into the air, is they need to run their scrubbers 24/7. This doesn't give me a great deal of confidence. What was a very small plating shop 20 years ago under varian, has become a very large plating shop for CPI, a company created 14 years ago who's beholden to New York investment banks not the city of Palo Alto. This facility has a 10 foot buffer to property line and water district has a 30 foot green zone, our houses are literally 50-60 feet from the facility, which is a total zoning screw up.

How does it happen? On CPI's plans submitted to the county's emergency response team for chemical emergencies, they show only the Water District land, not the residential neighborhood. I invite any resident of Palo Alto to drive down Chimalus Drive and image that the looming building had a problem and you tell me that it's an OK idea to have a large chemical site, adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

Also, one other issue, CPI could relocate the plating shop onsite, but they have chosen to make this a relocation issue, not a plating shop location issue.


2 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm

> Does CPI pay any tax to Palo Alto?


Companies like CPI end up paying property tax (directly, or indirectly), of which about 9% goes to the City. There is no parcel-by-parcel listing of these commercial properties in the City budget, or on its web-site. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.

Companies who use the Palo Alto Utilities pay the UUT (Utility Users Tax), and presumably they pay TOT when they are compensating visitors to their Palo Alto operations who stay in Palo Alto hotels.

Companies like CPI would also pay fees to the City for Fire Department Safety inspections. Fees are not taxes, but the money goes into the City General Fund.

BTW--any mention of these Fire Department inspections seem to be missing from the articles about this matter. Presumably the Fire Department does inspect these facilities. How often do these inspections occur, and what are the results of these inspections?

Shouldn't we be auditing the Fire Department and its capability to properly inspect, and report, on this (and all similar) facilities here in Palo Alto? And if the Fire Department does see a problem, why such a big fuss?


2 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2014 at 1:21 pm

Woops ..

> And if the Fire Department does see a problem, why such a big fuss

Should be--

And if the Fire Department does NOT see a problem, why such a big fuss


1 person likes this
Posted by Next Door
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 9, 2014 at 1:36 pm

Wondering, CPI pays almost no property taxes to the city cause of Varian's leasehold and the effects of prop 13. They avoided a change of ownership property tax claim when the leveraged buyout occured. And as for the fire department they have a LOT of expenses to support the chemical requirement of CPI, at least one deputy chief (HAZMAT) and lots of specialized training of individual firefighters. Fee's couldn't possibly cover these costs.

What the PAFD has told the residents is if a major spill occurs, the company will call 911 (they have not always done so), a team will be dispatched onsite. If the spill is major, they will send a team to our street to assess the problems and if it is toxic, they will issue a neighborhood wide shelter in place. The estimated time for this is 30-60 minutes. people downwind could be dead by then. read the consultant's report.


4 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2014 at 2:30 pm

> CPI pays almost no property taxes to the city cause of Varian's
> leasehold and the effects of prop 13.

It is hard to believe that CPI is not paying all of the property tax legally required of it. It also pays unsecured property taxes, which are not linked to Prop.13. BTW--about 15% of Palo Alto residents live in homes assessed at less than $150,000. Might want to look around at your neighbors before you claim that CPI is paying "virtually no property tax"--a lot of your neighbors are paying very much either.

> Fee's couldn't possibly cover these costs.

The fees are set by the Fire Department, and the City Council. Rational people would like to believe that over a period of time, the fees--required of all companies inspected by the Fire Department--would cover the total costs of providing this service. This means that Industrial Hazardous Waste Inspection/Incident Response fees should cover the costs of the personnel, training, and equipment. If these fees do not cover these costs--then we have only the FD management, and the City Council to blame for this failure.

> If the spill is major,

And just what is the probability of there being a "major" spill? Are we talking tens of thousands of gallons of chemical(s), or perhaps just hundreds. To date, is it not true that all of the spill incidents have been very minor?

The question put to the general reading public previously was: "how often does the PA FD inspect CPI, and what are the results of these periodic inspections"? One would like to believe that these inspections are more than once a year, and that a check sheet of inspection points are reviewed by the inspector (or team) when on site. So--where are these written reports? Does the FD believe that the daily operations of CPI are unsafe, or safe?

Time for some hard information, and not a bunch of "probably this", and "probably that". Where are the written inspection reports from the PA Hazardous Waste Inspections?


4 people like this
Posted by Art Liberman
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 9, 2014 at 9:30 pm

A point missed by many who have submitted comments: the recent City Council action was addressing just the hazardous material use at the plating shop at CPI and NOT the entire CPI operation. It is CPI who says that the zoning change would require its entire operation to move - not the City staff, not the residents, not the independent consultants.

The City commissioned an independent study to estimate the time for amortization of the CPI plating shop and associated chemical storage areas in 2010 and the answer was that CPI would recoup its investment in that facility in 20 years - with the clock starting in 2005 or 06 when CPI moved its operation from San Carlos and rebuilt its plating shop in Palo Alto. CPI's own management says that plating shops, because of the corrosive chemicals used, need to be completely rebuilt every 15 years anyway.

Until now, CPI has refused to consider moving its plating shop. CPI presented its own Amortization estimate in 2012. In this document, CPI refused out-right, with little justification, to consider moving its plating shop to the other side of its property(or outsourcing its plating activity altogether). CPI says it would need to move its entire facility and it would need 40 years - the time duration on its low-rent sublease on the property.

CPI has a ton (literally! more than 2000 lbs) of extremely hazardous substances in its plating shop and chemical storage areas. Perhaps the zoning change will cause a change in heart at CPI and its management, if it wants to remain in Palo Alto and keep a captive plating shop as part of its operation and decide to invest in a new facility - one that is not virtually in the backyard of residents.


2 people like this
Posted by Slaf
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Oct 10, 2014 at 5:48 pm

Yes Varian medical does build clinic machines for cancer detection, cpi was a part of varian and they build microwave tubes that are used to protect our men and women serving in our armed forces. I would never buy a house next to a factory of any kind.


4 people like this
Posted by License to Poison?
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 10, 2014 at 11:21 pm

For heaven's sake, please realize that there are times when noxious odors emanate from the CPI building ( usually in the mornings) that frequently go unreported, yet people who are home in the morning can smell them. What else does CPI do that is less detectable, that goes unreported, that could be poisoning us?

Who among us knew that CPI was using toxic chemicals all these years? What real estate agent, home inspector, or government office disclosed what CPI was doing? What home buyer was ever advised that it was a bad idea to buy in Barron Park because CPI was toxically polluting the neighborhood? The home prices certainly do not indicate that anything is or was amiss for the last twenty years.

Is there not a legal obligation for developers and home sellers to warn potential buyers about such risks? If so, that law was blatantly ignored in Barron Park!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,476 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,361 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,091 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 897 views

Mountain View's Hangen Szechuan to close after 25 years
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 780 views