Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-11 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCR, MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting October 11, 1988 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 60-331 Minutes of September 12, 1988 60-331 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.44 of the 60-331 Palo Alto Municipal Code re Overnight Parking PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Remora- 60-331 nondation re Santa Clara County's Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Stanford University General Use Permit UEPORTS OF OFFICIALS 3. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions 4. Statement of Policy Water Quality Control Plant - WPDES Permit Rer-seal S. Water Usage and Conservation Update ADJOURNMUT Adjournment at 10:12 p.n. 60-341 60-342 60-345 60-346 60-330 10/11/88 Regular Meeting Monday, October 11, 1988 The City Council o2 the City of Palo Alto ast on this date in the Council Chasberm, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Fletcher City Attorney Diane Northway introduced Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Cass. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding street people and how many Police Department omplainta resulted in disciplinary actions. 2. Bunny Good, founder, International Group Organization for the Disabled, Menlo Park, spoke regarding inhumanity with respect to children's books. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the minutes of September 12, 1988, as submitted. MOTION PARSED by a vote of 7-8-1, Bechtel "abstai:aing,n Fletcher absent. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code re C,4fernight Parking Item removed by staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PUBLIC LNG: Planning Commission Recommendation re Santa Clara County's Draft Environmental. Impact Report on the Proposed Stanford University General Use Permit (232) ( R: 4$1:$) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber introduced Brent Ogden, Rorv* tnginsering, the traffic: consultant hired by Santa Clara County and Stanford University and Brian Boxer, EIP Associztaa, whose responsibility waspreparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). 6D-331 10/11/88 Mr. Schreiber said the DEIR tree prepared under the guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and its primary purpose was to provide a sufficient information resource for the decision -makers. Ths project was the adoption of a now Use Permit by Santa Clara County to govern the activities and future development on the Stanford campus. Staff separated review of the DEIR from review of specific conditions for the Use Permit since the information generated in the DEIR eight be important in wording specific conditions of the Use Permit. Council was requested to review the DEIR and comment back to Santa Clara County. Staff requested that Santa Clara County's proposed Use Permit conditions be forwarded to the City of Palo Alto for Planning Commission and City Council review prior to consideration by the County Planning Commission. The County Planning Commission was the gain focus of the Couxty's decision -making process. Council Member Patitucci clarified that individual projects on Stanford land which commenced after issuance of the Use Permit Haight also require a separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to completion. City Attorney Diane Northway said it would depend on the quality and size of the project. Council Member Patitucci clarified if the environmental impacts were considered in the previous EIR and the Use Permit, those projects world go ahead with an assessment. Ms. Northway said depending on the project's size, etc., the project might sous forward with an assessment. Additional environmental review might be required in the area of hazardous materials if it arose by virtue of a particular project. Council Member Patitucci clarified the City might not be involved in any of the individual projects depending on whether they fell within the City's sphere of influence in terns of zoning and regulations. Mr. Schreiber said the County referred to the City's planning staff, all unincorporated area pro j ects in Palo Alto's sphere of influence. Those projects were reviewed by the County at the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. For the majority of those projects, the City's review was a staff review and comment back to the County. If a new Use Permit was required, those applications were forwarded to the Planning Commission, and if an EIR vas prepared, in most cases that would also be referred to the Planning Commission. Council Member Patitucci queried whether the Use Permit overlapped or whether it was totally separate from those areas in which the City had actual zoning. 60-332 10/11/S8 Ms. Northway said the specific project referred to a County Use Permit so by implication it only applied to those areas on the Stanford campus in the unincorporated area and over which the County had jurisdiction. With respect to any areas within the city limits of Palo Alto, the Use Permit was not controlling. The City's zoning policies and Comprehensive Plan would apply. Council Member Renzsl asked for clarification that the structure of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measures created a presumption that if the diverted trips, i.e., those in some mode other than cars, were equal to the demonstrated population growth, then the Use Permit did not have an impact on growth of traffic at the intersections. Mr. Schreiber said Staeford proposal was to measure trips in carpools, vanpools, buses, trains, etc. They did not propose to measure bicycles or pedestrians because the vagaries of counting those people tended to dilute the validity of the counting system In that sense, the proposal was a conservative underestimate of the trips diverted out of cars. The presumption was the impacts of the Use Permit were adequately and appropriately mitigated. Intersection -by -intersection specific impacts might vary and there might be impacts at specific intersections which were not completely covered by the corresponding reduction in trips which might benefit other insections. The trade-off was thought by City staff to be worthwhile given the value the City placed on TDM programs and the attempt to emphasize trip reduction rather than intersection and roadway expansion. Council Member Renzel referred to TDM mitigations and her concern about projects outside the Use permit which could bump the intersections from Level "D" to "E" or "E" or "F" in some places. The project outside the Use Permit would be compelled to fix the intersections as mitigations. She asked how additional impacts were dealt with. Mr. Schreiber said the specifics of the TDM condition could be structured to address the question. The subject EIR did not remove previous obligations imposed on Stanford to pursue mitigation measures and did not limit or undermind the City or the County's ability in future environmental reviews to impose mitigations. In four or six years, he was certain the transportation analysis would include an assessment of the TDM measures and their status as well as the current status of roadways. It would then be up to the decisionemakirg body, whether it be the County or the City, to determine appropriate mitigation measures. Mitil ations were subject to CEQA and would need to receive environmental review. If mitigation were triggered by some agreement car by some level of service, at that point, the decision -making body would have to undertake an environmental assessment and determine whether the mitigations themselves had impacts which would lead to future mitigations. 150-333 10/11/18 1 Council Member Renzal referred to Stanford's latter in the packet (on fiie in the City Clerk's Office) which objected to the use of Palo Alto's standards for measuring traffic impacts. She queried what standard could be used and how it protected Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber said identification of a standard for determining what constituted a significant impact was the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. Palo Alto's standard regarding traffic impacts was strict and relatively moderate or low levels of impacts in certain situations were as deemed a significant level of impact because of the nature of the particular intersection. Staff hoard nothing from the_County which would indicate they would not use the Palo Alto standard. It was the County's ultimate responsibility to determine what was significant.. Council }ember Renzel asked whether staff's position with respect to the TDM program would remain the same if they County adopted a lesser standard. Mr. Schreiber said staff's position would remain the sane because the basic policy issue with the TDM program was whether to encourage a large-scale effort to get people c>;&t of single occupancy care or to pursue a large scale program of intersection and roadway improvements. Staff's understanding of the City's policy was in most situations to get people out of cars rasher than spending money on intersection and roadway improvements. Planning Commissioner Helene Wheeler referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:481;8) which outlined the major inadequacies of the HEIR in the areas of transportation, air quality, housing, public health and safety and traffic safety. While the Planning Commission separated the issues of the RIR and the Yse Permit process, the Commission believed it was important to make significant comments on the Use Permit issues at that time because it was only a request proposed to be made to the County that the Use Permit and its conditions return to the City and it was not guaranteed it would happen. A significant issue was a specified point in the development of the population threshold that would trigger an evaluation of the Stanford Use Permit. She referred to a tightening of permitted use for flexibility and a significant reduction in the amount of square footage allowed. There needed to be enhanced opportunities for City and public review of ASA applications and there needed to be the inclusion of specific provisions in the traffic mitigation agreement. The Planning Commission generally agreed with the issues raised by staff. She urged the Council support the recommended actions outlined on pages three and four of the staff report (CRP: 4 81; 8) . Council Member Woolley referred to the Housing issues, and asked whither the specifics of mitigation measures and the mechanism to 60-334 to/11/SS awake the mitigation measures binding would be in the EIR or the Use Permit. Mr. Schreiber said the specific implementation mechanism would be contained in the Use Permit. Council Member Woolley queried what mechanisms were envisioned to make the Housing mitigation measures binding. Mr. Schreiber said mitigation measures needed to be clearly identified in the environmental document either in the initial draft or the responses to the comments in public testimony for the County's use. The application of the mitigation measures would occur with the project approval, which was the Use Permit. Ms. Northway said when dealing with something like a Use Permit, it would be traditional to incorporate all the mitigation meaeursa as conditions of the Use Permit which was what made it binding because the permit could not be used without the conditions being complied with. In the instance of subdivisions, the mechanism often used to make mitigation measures binding was the agreement with the subdivider. Mayor Sutorius referred to the DEIR, Section 6, page 7, the bottom of the page which described "the most serious aspect of the projected traffic growth is the number of intersections which would be at or close to capacity." He was concerned about an intersection becoming worse than level of service "D" and the amount of time it could take before corrective action would be impl emented . Robert S. Grandy, Porvs Engineering, Inc., said the build out review encompassed a long term, and the actual growth on a year--by-year period would be slight if it was a uniform rate of growth. Generally, th, period during which an improvement could be implemented would not allow for a lot of growth in traffic due to the project, however, ' if the growth trend et Stanford began to deviate sebstantially from the projected rate of growth, it might be necessary to consider a way to dead with it ass special avant. Associate Transportation Engineer Carl Stoff,l said the procedure referred to by Ms. ?reason was the s etaajls of how the TOM and the intersection improvements interacted which would be part of the details which would return with the Use Permit conditions. If TDM was shown to be failing, then intersections were reviewed and if an intsrseotion reached level of service "U* or worse, then the time period was 18 months, which was the saris time period for the intersection monitoring program already in etZtect for several intersections due to previous projec'..s. The two to three year pew iod, actually referred to a period of time the City . allowed Stanford to thew that its TOM program vas working. 60-335 10/11/88 Council Member Cobb said if TDM failed and given the size of the proposed project, it seamed conceivable the point could be reached Where it was not just a case where an intersection had to be mitigated, but rather it became impossible to mitigate. He ,asked what happened to the process at that point. Mr. Schreiber said the assumption was it would be possible to mitigate the impacts of the Use Permit. The Use Permit had two caps,, one for square footage and one for population which related to the number of drivers during peak periods. Other developments and general traffic growth would also impact the roadway network. There might well be things going on outside of the project which lead to improvement or worsening of the traffic situations. He believed even a moderately successful TM( program would mitigate many of the impacts of the project, and it was possible to mitigate 311 of the impacts of the proposed project. It did not mean traffic would always flow smoothly through or around the University in the part of San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties. Mayor Sutorius asked about the statement in the DEIR that an independent evaluation of Stanford's TDM program indicated Stanford would reach TDM target. Mr. Grandy said Crane Associates was hired by HIP to review Stanford's TDM program. They reviewed all the different categories of people who eight participate in the program and evaluated the reduction in cr muters they thought would occur. The reduction in daily commuters was translated by Korve Engineering into the impacts that would occur at the intersections due to the level of paLticipation they projected. It appeared as if the reduced trips would mitigate the level of traffic projected during the peak period. Council Member Renzel queried whether part-time employees were counted in the population cap. Mr. Boxer said part-time employees were not included because of the presumption that part-time employees did not enter or leave the campus during peak hours and would not contribute to peak hour traffic in the sure way as full-time employees. Council Member Menzel disagreed. Theoretically, a part-time employee would have at least one-half of a peak round trip and the person working the other half day would have the other half of the peak round trip. She referred to the statement that Stanford p►rcpct.d to construct 3.8 million square feet of new buildings over the next L2 years. In addition, there would be the 1.6 million aquara feet of buildirg that was already approved:. and the additional 500,000 square feet. It added up to 5.6 million square feet in the pi_peiine plus the Use Permit.. The DEIR talked abut 3.38 million square feet. She queried whether the difference was projects that would require their riwn EXR. 60336 10/11/88 Mr. Schreiber said the process had gone on for a long time. When the first draft of the EIR was not accepted in 1986, a variety of projects that were part of theUse Permit in 1984 received their ow*t environmental reviews and were built, approved or acted on and were now outside of the Use Permit. Thera were also projects outside of the Use Permit that were included in the overall total of University lands development potential, i.e., Stanford West, but wore not part of the Use Permit itself. Mr. Boxer said the summary report produced by Stanford attempted to describe for the public its building plans on all of its land during the neat 12 years. The DEIR only attempted to analyze that which was anticipated to be built within the unincorporated County portion of Stanford lands. The DEIR analyzed the impacts of all of the building, but only a portion of the building was defined by the DEIR as the project. The remainder was identified as part of the cuaulative growth that would occur within the vicinity of the project. Mr. Schreiber said when Stanford issued its summary report, staff compared it with other EIR done recently, the EIR in process, and other things in process between the City and the County. Essentially the same set of numbers was used in all of the different environmental documents. The summary report was not new information. Council Member Renzel clarified they were talking about 5.6 million square feet of new building with that evening's discussion being 2.38 million square feet plus the additional room. Mayor Sutorius said that was correct. Council Namber Re zal said Stanford objected to counting mitigation for housing because housing was a mitigation measure itself. She clarified in a normal community all land uses would be considered in terms of their impacts rather than just selected uses. Fr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Rearing open, Sam Sparck, 565 hrastradera Road, represented the Barron Park Association (L144. who hoped its letter, which was Attachment 2 to the staff report (tom:481:1) , would be among the material forwarded to the County Planning Coy s ission. The DEIR did not contain,rough information to warrant a blanket Uso Permit for a-1 prof ects . Each project should be evaluated by the public on its own merits. Regarding toxic air emir: ions the BPA was coned about the current level of air quality, particularly of nitrogen oxides emitted from Stanford University's Incinerator Wo. 639. No paxit should be issued until the ommunity had a clear understanding that its health . was not comprised. Future 60-337 10/11/88 burning of dead animals, hospital waste, chemical and toxic waste should be included in the Use Permit planning and discussion. The State of California Air Resources Board had no current plans to perform air monitoring or source testing at the Stanford incinerator over the next five years. A program should be in place to monitor air emissions on a regular basis with results explained to the community. There needed to be protection of San Francisquito, Barron and Watadoro Creeks. The current ltatadero Creek construction work being performed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) could be impacted by Stanford's projected growth. Regarding traffic, if the mitigations were ineffective, the Barron Park neighborhood would be adversely impacted. The BPA urged regular studies be conducted to insure the effectiveness of the mitigations and that if any two of the intersections in Palo Alto listed in the DEIR on page 6 experienced a deterioration, that no development larger than 5,000 square feet be allowed without a separate Use Permit hearing. The BPA believed the DEIR was inadequate. It supported the staff report and Planning Commission recommendations to alter the EIR and better protect the residents in Palo Alto. Betsy Crowder, Community for Green Foothills, commended staff and the Planning Commission for their work. For the first 60 years of Stanford existence it was called the "Farm', and the campus was an island of academic buildings surrounded by open lands. Stanford now proposed to fill in the entire central campus with buildings and to begin development of the open space: south and west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. A small fringe would be left open along Palm Drive and E1 Camino Real along Sand Hill Road and the golf course. The student population had grown slowly. The DEIR indicated the anticipated maximum student population was 14,806. Based on Stanford's projections, it intended to more than quadruple its building size yet its students only increased by 5,000 since 1448. The Committee for Green Foothills agreed with Stanford's proposal to include the areas called Stanford North and South in Special Area C because it was the most ecologically sensitive of the Stanford lands. /Cooping .it in open space has served as a mitigation for development. The Committee believed the DEIR was inadequate in term* of population growth, and it needled to state who would monitor the proposed TDN mitigation. It appeared the only effective way to do so would be to reduce rather than add to the number of buildings on carpus. Hydrology was based on the 10 -year flood rather than the 100 -year flood. Colin Mick, 3130 Hanover Street, represented the College Terrace Neighborhood. The DEIR was a loose attempt to predict the future. Individual projects should be reviewed on their awn writs. Currently, the review was conducted at the County levol by the Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) group operating uncles* the County Planning Commission. He urged strong review of the Use Permit process and that the County Planning Commission consiager a system of review more attentive of public 60-338 10/11/68 participation. The ASA was not equipped to handle such projects as Stanford expansion. There needed to be a better way. Mayor Sutorius declared tho Public Hearing closed. Council Member Cobb asked about Stanford's rea►rtions to the Planning Commission recommendations. Stanford University Planning Director Phil Williams believed the Planning Commission review was thorough. Hs was surprised that a part of the City Services Agreement of 1974, which was the subject of continuing agreements between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford since that time, was somewhat modified in terms of the 5,000 square foot liait on building projects under the Use Permit in the Foothills Area of in Area C of the existing permit. Council Member Woolley referred to the Historic Values Index elaborated on in the DEM. The working group evaluated 43 features and she asked for clarificatio:a. Mr. Williams said the features, most of which were buildings, were evaluated on the basis of five categories which included age, impact on Stanford .cultures, and impact an community concerns that might deal with architectural heritage. The rating was not combined into an average score --it was more of a consumer report type of rating in order to see how each facility rated in each category. Stanford meet quarterly to discuss about six additional buildings each time. Council Mesbsr Woolley clarified it would be fairly easy to summarize the evaluations for the buildings. Mrs Williams said that was correct. Council Member Bechtel asked about the comment regarding the fact that the student population had not increased very such in the past 20 years, but overall staff and number of buildings had quadrupled. Mr. Williams did not want to separate academic and research. The kinds of teaching and research currently done required more space. In the summary report, Stanford tried to outline some of the characteristics which lead to the need for more space. The amount of staff required to handle governmental and other. requirements for accounting, personnel, etc., had increased significantly. The numbers of faculty and students recta► ,nsd fairly stable. The amount of space required for research andthe kind of equipment needed to . replace obsolete faeA1ities had nearly doubled over till) past ten years. Another factor which lead to more spans cn the campus without increasing the student body was the addition of fit. lot of housing. Stanford housed a audh higher percentage of students than it used to and it provided a more complete community environment in terms of recreation facilities, etc. 60-339 10/11/65 1 R Council Member Bechtel was advised that 20 years ago a graduate student and all professors eight not have an individual office whereas currently, they all demanded individual offices. Mr. Williams said that was correct. Often, graduate students were two, three or four in a given work area but nearly all of them had work space. Mayor Sutorius asked about the rationale for the ten-year flood management. Mac. Boxer said the reference to the ten-year flood capacity of the Matadoro Creek drainage waa based on information received from the Santa Clara valley Water District. In response to the concern, LIP was pursuing additional information regarding types of mitigations being taken and exploring how and what types of mitigations to build into the EIR. MOTION: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: 1. Forward the Planning Commission, staff and City Council comments to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission; 2. Request that Palo Alto's comments on the Use Permit he considered in drafting the ice Permit and that the Pala Alto Planning Commission and City Council be given the opportunity to review the proposed use permit conditions prior to their final consideration by the County Planning Commission; and 3. Indicate concurrence with the intent that the new use permit not include additional square footage in the areas west of Juniper* Serra Boulevard and Foothill Expressway; lea Further, include they individual written comments from Council Members. Council Member Woolley referred to the historic preservation section of the EIR, and said the 14 buildings listed cage out of an inventory done by the County when she chaired the commission in 1979. Palo Alto's list had increasse significantly since that time and she suspected there were a lot more than 14 significant buildings on the Stanford campus which should be considered as historic resources. While the historical values index was a good system and more buildings were being considered through the process, she believed it would be h.lptnl if the 43 features evaluated so far were added to the EIR. Vice Mayor Klein referred to the TOM program, and asked whether Stanford made provisions for coordinating its TDIK program with what the City expected d would be the Golden Triangle's TDM program, partioulary since it would now be :mandated by the Bay, Area Air Quality Managehent Board under Assemblyman Shsr i s bill AB 3585. 60-340 10/11/68 Mr. Williams did not believe the question was specifically addressed. As unincorporated County lands, Stanford was not directly part of the Golden Triangle effort. He was sure Stanford would try and design the program to coordinate with that effort and to be coordinated with public transit. Council Mesiber Renael wanted part-time employees to be accounted for in the total population unless . there was some factual basis for not doing so. Part-time employees created trips and the peak periods wore three hour time periods so they were talking about six hours during per day. Inasmuch as Stanford requested housing traffic not be counted, Palo Alto should be on record as indicating its standard practice was to do so. Because many of the intersections impacted by the Use Permit were Palo Alto intersections, Palo Alto's standards should be endorsed and should apply. She believed the DEIR was somewhat deficient in not going beyond the Table 6-2 intersections. Cars did not stop at perimeter points but would continue throughout the community wherever they could find an easy routs. If the TDM failed, she saw Palo Alto pinched at both sides with the University Circle project on one end and Stanford on the other. The Use Permit needed safeguards to keep the impacts from getting out of control. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 0-1, Fletcher absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 3. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions (1340-07) (CMR:484:8) Council Member Patitucci agreed with the staff recommendation except for the Resolution 47 regarding arbitration. Even though arbitration was part of ..ha Charter, it did not mean the City Council had to endorse it as a method of doing business. He opposed arbitration as a means of resolving labor disputes. NOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, aeconded by Woolley, to approve than otaff recommendation that the Council endorse the preliminary recommendations of the League of California Cities policy committees concerning Annual Conference Resolutions with the exception of supporting Resolution 47, the League's position to approve, as toile's*: Approve Resolutions 2, 31, 22, 24, 30, 24, 34►, 37, 42, amend and Approve Resolutions 10, 15 and 10; take no action or position en Resolutions 13, 1!, 30, 32, and 44: and instruct the Council's voting delegate aacordingl . Io DIVIO 101 10101100000 OP VOTING Council Member Levy referred to Resolution 24 which requs" ted the approval of a /0000 foot separation between residential community care and drt*g/alcohol recovery facilities. Ho believed 1,000 S0 -s341 10/111/62 i feet was too rigorous. He believed the figure should be rAuced to 500 feet. Council Member Levy asked to remove Resolution 24. vi yor Sutorius clarified the staff recommendation with r -� } to Resolution 47, arbitration, was to support the League of California Cities recommendation which was to oppose arbitration. FIRST PART OP MOTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 47, ARBITRATION, PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Sutorius, Bechtel, Klein voting "no," Pletcher absent. AMEWDMENTY Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to an amendment to Resolution 24 to reduce the separation to 500 feet. AMENDXENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Lev* Woolley, Klein voting "aye," Fletcher absent. SECOND PART or MOTION REGARDING ALL REMAINING XTEMS PASSED by a vote or $-0, Pletcher absent. Council Member Levy asked about Resolution 13 re "ticket scalping" and why staff took no position. Assistant to the Ci.y Manager Vicci Rudin said there was divided opinion on the League Policy Committee, The end result was to recommend no action. The Committee believed it could affect other avenues of ticket sales and work against people who wanted to obtain tickets. Council Mager Levy queried whether taking no action meant Council supported the position. Ms. Rudin said the item would not go before the General Assembly for a vote. 4. Statement of Policy Water Quality Control Plant NPDES Permit Renswa (1122-01) (Clot:482:8) Council Member Rensel generally supported the statement of policy, but queried whether the Council requ.sting sufficiently flexible implementation scAedule was meant to be a policy statement precluding any interim standards. City Manager Hill fanear did not believe the statement precluded the Soared from 'Adopting any standards they chose. Staff, s t osition was that prior to the adoption of any standards, a sufficient amount of study be accomplished to ensure the ztandarde could blis met. 60-342 10/11/86 Council Member Renzel clarified that if the policy was adopted, it could be used to say Council was opposed to any interim standards. Mr. Zaner said based on the policy, the Board would be end to not adopt any kinds of standard, interim or other, with • irst doing the necessary studies and analyses to make s ',' the standards wore reasonable. Staff did not try and use the policy as an indication that Council opposed the standards, but rather Council would not want to see standards adopted that were not prudent and the result of some type of recant study and analyses. Trish Mulvey, 527 Rhodes Drive, represented the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, urged :ouncil to strengthen the statement of policy for the Water Quality Control Plant permits by endorsing the establishment of enforceable numeric standards for heavy metals and other toxins and by supporting the prompt completion of the studies presently underway which were needed to identify the sources of pollutants. She also urged that staff review the ..cateement of work for the studies to assure the studies would accomplish the objectives. The extreme South Bay was recognized as a unique and particularly sensitive part of the estuary because of its shallow and constricted nature. She urged quarterly reports on status and periodic study sessions. Debbie Mytels, 2824 Louis Road, Executive Director of the Peninsula Conservation Center (PCC) Foundation, urged that the Regional Water Quality Control Board be called upon to set some enforceable standards for heavy motels end other toxic* which was necessary in order to fully protect the South Bay. The PCC requested City staff initiate a public education campaign to inform residents and small quantity waste generators about products which contributed to the load of metals and toxins in the Bay. People in Palo Alto cared about the health of the Bay. Vice Mayor Klein asked about staff's reaction to the changes proposed by members of the public. Mr. Zaner saw no problem with the educational caapsign other than the expense end effort. Me also saaw no problem with Council going on record as urging the Regional Water Quality Control Board to proceed with some diligence to complete the studies so the Bay was not subjected to further destruction. He was concerned about urging the Board to adopt numerical standards different than those already in effect. Thera were already numerical standards and Palo Alto exceeded each one. Before the Board adopted a new set of numerical standards, which would be stricter than the ones currently being adhered to, Palo Alto would w at to be sure that studies and analysis were done to justify and provide .4 rationale for the new etandards� Council Member nze1 understood the proposed language to endorse the establishment of enforceable numeric standards to protect beneficial uses. It did not say they needed to be established b0-343 10/11/85 1 8 1 prior to the studies, but rather that Council basically endorsed the concept of doing so. While there were existing standards, they were nationwide, general standards which did not apply specifically to a shallow water discharge area such as the South Bay. The Regional Water Quality Control Board in considering Palo Alto's perAit exemption was allowing Palo Alto to proceed providing it demonstrated beneficial uses. MOTION: Council Member Meisel wed to approve the • t.atement of policy adding at the end of the first paragraph "Council endorses the establishment of enforceable numeric standards for heavy metals and other taxies discharged into the extreme south bay which would protect its beneficial uses. MOTION DID FOR LACE OF . A SICOw[D. MOTION: Council Member Mensal moved, seconded by ilein;, to approve the statement of policy adding between the first and last sentence of the third paragraph "The Council endorses prompt completion of the studies presently underway." Mr. Zaner saw no problem in the endorsement of doing the studies promptly. He was concerned about phrases like "quantify all discharges" because it tended to get very broad quickly. Council Member Bechtel believed the proposed policy statement was very bread. She was hesitant when Council Member Renzel proposed her motion in addition. They were some very specific additions to a broad, generalized statement. a$CA iD TO MOTION WIT*DPAW'M, AND MOTION DIED FOR ACE OF A SECOND. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, n•aonded by Mleie, that Council adopt the statement of policy with the addition that Council endorses prompt completion of all studies presently underway. Council Member Renzel was cc : srned about not referring to proposed studies as well. Vino Mayor Klein was concerned about endorsing proposed studies because he did not know what they were. Council Member Rensel expressed frustration as the Council's representative to the South Bar Dischargers because the matter had been studied for i3 years and there were no changes in the applicable standards. Part of the problem was that at the end of the five-year study, these were supposed to be somas site specific standards and somehow the required information was not developed in the course of the studies. She believed it would be prudent fog; Council to request the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain the additional information necessary to sake their decisions so the .issre would not continue to be studied ad infinitum. 60-344. 10/11/SS NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis)` are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meec1ng tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two yeas from the cute of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours.