Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 371-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT, DATE: OCTOBER 4,2010 CMR: 371:10 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of Revised Composition for Stakeholder Task Force for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, which includes adding a business member from the California Avenue area and replacing· Canopy (who withdrew) with an additional environmental/neighborhood representative. The Task Force membership will increase by one, to 1 7 members. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2010, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with a scope of work and Request for Proposal for consulting services to assist with preparation of a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. On July 26, 2010, the Council approved the composition of a 16-member stakeholder task force to be appointed by the City Manager to support the Rail Corridor Study. The Council's meeting minutes are included as Attachment B. Following Council action, staff provided approximately a one-month period for accepting applications for the Task Force, and for entities such as the PAUSD, Stanford, Palo Alto Neighborhoods, the Chamber of Connnerce, and others to make appointments. Staff has reviewed the various applicants (approximately 35) and evaluated how each fits into one or more of the specific categories of stakeholders designated for the Task Force. Also, Canopy has declined to participate on the Task Force, preferring to act as an environmental resource for the group, reducing the total number to 15. Staff believes" after its review of all of the applicants, that a couple of minor changes to the composition would enhance the representative nature of the group, and asks Council to formalize the revised makeup prior to the City Manager finalizing appointments. DISCUSSION The composition of the Task Force, as directed by the City Council, is outlined in Attachment A, which is modified to reflect the following two changes proposed by staff: CMR: 371:10 Page lof3 1. The business representation would be expanded to include one additional person, so that there would be one from downtown, one from the California Avenue area, and one more representing business interests in general (Chamber of Commerce). As the list has developed, it appears that the Califonlia Avenue area nlay be without representation otherwise. 2. Since Canopy declined to participate, an additional environmental/neighborhood representative would be added to the Task Force. The Sierra Club nominated 3 persons for the one environmental position, but they represent highly varying viewpoints in terms of their environmental perspectives. This addition, in lieu of Canopy, would allow for a second environmental representative who also is closely connected to neighborhoods (not necessarily within the rail corridor) to participate. Other Appointments Staff believes that the other applicants and appointees from other bodies will result in a well­ balanced and productive Task Force for the study: 1. Five (5) neighborhood representatives would represent neighborhoods within or proximate to the rail corridor study area, and are geographically well dispersed from downtown north to Greenmeadow south, with two north of Oregon Expressway, two south, and another south but just outside the corridor area. 2. Another neighborhood representative will be at-large (appointed by Palo Alto Neighborhoods) from outside the corridor area, and one of the environmental representatives will similarly provide connections to the larger residential community. 3. The five (5) business representatives will represent downtown, California Avenue, the Chamber of Commerce at-large, a realtor, and an architect. 4. Specific appointments are made from P AUSD, Stanford, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, environmental organizations (2 persons), and a Caltrain rider who is also a Palo Alto resident. With Council approval of the revised composition, staff would finalize the appointments and set the first meeting of the Task Force for mid-October. A few boards and commissions have appointed liaisons to the Task Force, and staff expects to contact others that might be interested to assure they have the same opportunity. NEXT STEPS Staff has received five (5) Requests for Proposal from consultants to assist staff and the Task Force in preparation of the Rail Corridor Study. Three or four of the consultant teams will be interviewed by a combination of staff and community members over the next two weeks, and a contract will be presented to Council in late October or early November. The Task Force will meet once or twice prior to the consultant coming on board, focusing on organization, background information, and community outreach. CMR: 371:10 Page 2 of3 PREPARED BY: CURTIS WILLIAMS r of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS A. Revised Composition of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force B. July 26,2010 City Council Minutes CMR: 371:10 Page 3 of3 Attachment A Rail Corridor Task Force (t(}..17 members) 1. Neighborhood Representatives (in conidor): 5 members* 2. Palo Alto Neighborhoods (general representative): 1 member 3. Business Representatives: 42 merrlbers • Chamber of Commerce (1) • Silicon Valley Board of Realtors (1) • Propertylbusiness owner (1) • ArchitectlUrban Designer (1) • California Avenue Merchant/Owner (1) 4. Stanford University: 1 member 5. Palo Alto Unified School District: 1 member Caaopy: 1 member 6. Environmental Organization: 1 member + 1 environnlentallneighborhood in lieu of Canopy) 7. Social Service! Affordable Housing: 1 member 8. Caltrain Rider: 1 member I * The added environmental representative under #6 will also be a neighborhood representative 1 ATTACHMENT B Special Meeting July 26, 2010 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:40 p.m. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Shepherd, Yeh arrived at 6:00 p.m. Absent: Schmid ACTION ITEMS Assista 0 the City Manager, Kelly Morariu spoke on the process Policy and ices Committee and Staff worked through in setti e 2010 Council Prioritl . orkplan (Workplan). She reviewed the f Council top priorities, which . as follows: 1) City Finances; and Use and Transportation; vironmental Sustainabilit 4) Emergency Preparedness; and 5) Co nity Collaboration fo uth Health and Well- Being.Over the course of six .etings, the P" and Services Committee received presentations from Staf provi input on both the content of the Workplan and the current and fu rocess for developing Workplans. She spoke on the "See-It" site, matrix of final recommended priorities, strategies and actio help ac lish the Council priorities. She spoke on several issu _ at would neces' e follow-up work. She stated a more effectiv proach would be for ttl " "ty Council to adopt Council priorities e two years, and for Staff to then elop a Workplan and reporting cture based on this timeline. The Poli nd Services Committe " ntified the need to find more effective mec "ms for estab" 9 priorities, and reporting to the City Council on Staff w d. was an interest in having the Policy and Services Committee ident 1 07/26/10 before we actually bring back the Final EIR and the entitlements as a package in the fall, November/December timeframe. 3. Approval of a Stakeholder Task Force and Direction to the City Manager to Appoint Task Force Members for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (Continued from July 12, 2010). pirector of Planning & Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated that on July 12, 2010, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with a scope of work and Request for Proposal for consulting services to assist with the preparation of a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (Rail Corridor Study). The Agenda Item outlined the composition of the proposed stakeholder Task Force. Notice of Staff's suggested Task Force was emalled on July 15, 2010 to various organizations and individuals who might be considered stakeholders. Staff's proposal comprised of a 15 member Task Force. He outlined the proposed composition of the Task Force. The Task Force would recommend components of the Rail Corridor Study to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), which would report recommendations to the City Council. Staff proposed quarterly status reports of the Rail Corridor Study's progress. He spoke, on the advantages of a Task Force and Staff leading the Rail Corridor Study, opposed to the PT&C and Staff leading the Rail Corridor Study. Staff recommended that the City Council approve the composition of the Task Force for studying the Rail Corridor Study, and I' direct the City Manager to appoint the members of the Task Force. Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired on any alternative scenarios that Staff looked into on the structure of the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated the primary alternatives were including one or two more neighborhood representatives, and including representation from the Palo Alto Neig hborhoods (PAN) and the Chamber of Commerce. The exclusion of a Caltrain rider and a representative from the Santa Clara Valley American Institute of Architects was looked into. Staff considered the addition of a commercial property owner and residential housing developer. Council Member'Shepherd stated the Task Force was inspired by the SOFA2 Task Force. She inquired on the corn position of the SOFA2 Task Force. She supported the civic engagement aspects of the SOFA2 Task Force. Mr. Williams stated the SOFA2 Task Force members were appointed by the City Manager and was based on stakeholder representatives. 46 07/26/10 Mayor Burt spoke on the primary distinctions between the SOFA1 and the SOFA2 Task Force members.-He stated SOFA1 Task Force members were appointed by the City Council, and comprised of stakeholder representatives and alternatives. He spoke on the importance of defining the role of the alternate members. He stated stakeholder representatives wore more than one hat which expanded the members' roles. He stated Board and Commission members were appointed as representatives in the SOFA2 Task Force. Council Member Shepherd -inquired whether the current proposal for appointments could be made to individuals not residing in Palo Alto. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Mayor Burt stated the City Council did not use a day and night distinction in appointing SOFA Task Force members solely based on whether they lived and worked in Palo Alto. He indicated it was a valid policy question for the City Council. Council Member Holman stated she did not relate the SOFA appointments with the Rail Corridor Study Task Force appointments. It was her belief the proposal eliminated much of the expertise found within the community. The Rail Corridor Study would evaluate land use, transportation, and urban design elements of the corridor. She suggested the Task Force include representation from the P&TC, Canopy, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and Stanford. She felt the Task Force should include representation from an environmental group, an architect, a business owner, and neighborhood members. Mayor Burt stated the Task Force would serve as a primary conduit for input on the information flow regarding the Rail Corridor Study to and from key stakeholders and the larger community. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Mayor Burt stated the SOFA Task Force communicated with neighborhood groups, and had defined subcommittee groups containing roughly 50 participants. Council Member Scharff inquired how the apPointment number of 15 was selected for the Task Force. He inquired whether Staff recommended additional members on the Task Force. 47 07/26/10 Mr. Williams stated Staff did not recommend more than 15 members on the Task Force. He stated appointing twelve to fifteen members was ideal. Council Member Scharff inquired who would be appointing the members to the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated Staff would propose appointment recommendations to the City Manager. The City Manager would have the ultimate decision on appointments to the Task Force. Council Member Scharff stated Staff would be conducting the recruitment process for the Task Force, and would recommend appointment recommendations to the City Manager. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Council Member Scharff inquired whether other persons would be providing input. Mr. Williams stated Staff would be communicating with PAN, the Chamber of Commerce, Californians for Responsible Rail Design (CARRO), and other individuals and organizations. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the recruitment process would be solely based on the individuals who have shown interest, or whether Staff would be recruiting other potentially interested individuals in the community. Mr. Williams stated the process would encompass a combination of reaching out to individuals currently interested, and seeking out other individuals within the community. Council Member Scharff inquired on the term of the Task Force, and how often they would meet. Mr. Williams stated Staff anticipated that the Task Force would meet once a month for a total of 13 to 16 months. He stated there may be additional meetings, as needed. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Task Force would vote on recommendations quarterly, or at the conclusion of the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated the voting process was still unclear at this time. The Rail Corridor Study would run parallel to the High Speed Rail process. He indicated Staff wanted to stay flexible in the Rail Corridor Study's analysis to 48 07/26/10 provide input in a timely manner with the High Speed Rail process. It was anticipated that the Task Force would report on quarterly status reports. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the recommendations by the Task Force would be folded in with the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Williams stated the two projects would be tracked parallel to one another. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the appointment of Task Force members would return for ratification by the City Council. Mr. Williams stated Staff's recommendation was not to have the appointments return to the City Council. Elaine Meyer, Palo Alto, spoke on the Rail Corridor Study's interest serving developers. Sheri Furman, Palo Alto, spoke on her recommendation for the composition of the Task Force, and the use of subcommittees. Ken Allen, Palo Alto, spoke on the importance of the Task Force complying with the Brown Act, and having access to record-keeping, Staff support, civil engineering and urban planning expertise. Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on the necessity for the Task Force's subcommittees to comply with the Brown Act. He spoke on the relationship, and corresponding timelinesi between the Task Force and the California Avenue Area Study. Council Member Holman stated she would be interested in having an alternate composition of the Task Force. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study be: 2 Planning & TranSportation Commission members, 1 Architect, 1 Representative from Canopy, 1 Bicycle Advisory Committee member, 1 Stanford representative, 1 member from an environmental group or environmental interest, 3 business owners or business property owners, 4 neighborhood representatives, and 1 Palo Alto Unified School District representative or liaison. 49 07/26/10 Council Member Holman stated her vision for the proceedings of the Task Force was a round table forum where input from each member was welcomed and accepted. She stated desired candidates would have expertise and knowledge on land use, transportation, and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. City Attorney, Gary Baum stated P&TC members could be liaisons to the Task Force, but not full participants. He stated this was because the Task Force was designed to be an advisory board to the P&TC. Council Member Holman stated P&TC mernbers could provide input, but could not give direction or advice as liaison members. Mr. BaLim stated P&TC members could attend Task Force meetings and respond to questions. P&TC members could not provide input on issues as they arose. The Task Force was established to provide recommendations to the P&TC. He stated P&TC members fully participating in the Task Force would conflict with the Fair Political Practices Cornmission Form 700 . . Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff could describe the definition of a liaison member. Mr. Baum stated a liaison member attended and monitored meetings without being full participants. They could not vote or provide input. He stated a liaison member could respond to a question on a plan, but could not recommend how a plan should be employed. Council Member Scharff spoke on his concern for appointing one member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Mr. Baum stated the highest level of concern was the appOintment of a P&TC representative on the Task Force. He stated all other appOintments were at the City Council's discretion .. Council Member Scharff spoke on his concern that there was not enough representation from the various neighborhoods. He stated four out of eleven neighborhoods was not enough representation. He suggested adding two additional members, from different neighborhood groups, to the Task Force. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the 2 Planning & Transportation Commission members be liaisons with the group, other Board & Commission members to serve as liaisons, and to include 2 additional members from neighborhoods. 50 07/26/10 Council Member Price stated the challenge of appointing the Task Force was ensuring it was inclusive and operational. She suggested one environmental representative and one Caltrain rider. She suggested geographic representation from the business representatives. She stated representation from the Youth Council and people-oriented services were not included in the Motion. CO,uncil Member Holman stated there was no attempt to exclude the Youth Councilor people-oriented services. She stated she focused her Motion on the stated goal of land use, transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor, and recommended the appointment of individuals who had expertise in these fields. Council Member Price inquired whether the Maker of the Motion was in favor of including a Caltrain rider, and whether that experience could be met by a neighborhood representative. Council Member Holman stated a Caltrain rider could provide useful input to the Task Force. Council Member Shepherd recommended· that during the recruitment process, additional pOints be awarded to individuals that rode Caltrain. She suggested the Motion include two representatives being Caltrain riders, inclusive of their titles as a member on the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated Staff could possibly find one neighborhood member who regularly commuted on Caltrain. She spoke on her concern for precluding neighborhood members who were interested in the Task Force. She felt Caltrain ridership information could be provided without a designated Caltrain rider on the Task Force. Council Member Shepherd stated the Caltrain rider could be anyone of the indi'viduals selected on the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated her intent was having one neighborhood representative also be a routine Caltrain commuter. Her intent was not to preclude interested neighborhood representatives, however, priority be given to an individual that had significant Caltrain ridership experience. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that one of the neighborhood representatives also be a routine train commuter. 51 07/26/10 Council Member Shepherd suggested that a member of the PAUSD be appointed to the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated that was the intention of the Motion. The PAUSD would be responsible for appointing a member to the Task Force, whether it was a member of the PAUSD, or Parent Teacher Association (PTA). Council Member Shepherd spoke of her concern that a social services provider was excluded from the Motion. She inquired whether it was possible to merge the environmental and Canopy representatives into one representative, and add a social services provider. Council Member Holman stated her preference was not to merge the environmental and Canopy representatives as they had different expertise. She stated social service providers were welcome to provide input. Council Member Shepherd inquired what specific expertise was desired in the environmental representative. Council Member Holman stated there was a broad spectrum of expertise desired in the environmental representative, which included circulation and aquifer expertise. Council Member Shepherd spoke on her interest for one of the business representatives being a realtor. Realtors were providing full disclosure material to potential homebuyers along the corridor, and understood the management of real estate along the corridor. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that one of the four business members be a realtor. Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether the Motion was inclusive of all the recommendations in the Agenda Item, and the Maker was making changes strictly on the composition of the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether there was consideration by the City Council for a representative of PAN and the Chamber of Commerce. His intention was to replace the two positions, which opened due to the removal of the P&TC members, with a PAN and Chamber of Commerce representative as a broad community voice .. 52 07/26/10 Council Member Scharff stated he supported this recommendation. Council Member Holman supported one of the six neighborhood representatives being a PAN representative. Mr. Williams stated there were not six neighborhood representatives. He stated there was the original four neighborhood representatives, plus one member from PAN, in lieu of one P&TC representative. The Chamber of Commerce representative was proposed in lieu of the second P&TC member removed. Vice Mayor Espinosa concurred with Mr. Williams's recommendation to appoint a PAN and Chamber of Commerce representative in lieu of the two removed P&TC representatives. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that there be 4 neighborhood members plus 1 member from Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN). Council Member Holman asked how much Stanford owned land was on the map contained within the Staff Report. She stated Stanford primarily owned land on the West side of EI Camino Real. Mr. Williams stated Stanford owned the Sheridan Hotel along EI Camino Real. He stated this parcel was in the general area of the Rail Corridor Study's preliminary boundary. Council Member Holman inquired on Staff's preference to have a Stanford represe~tative or the Chamber of Commerce representative on the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated Staff agreed with the approach to have a representative from PAN and the Chamber of Commerce on the Task Force as representatives of the broader community. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDED that the four business representatives would include one representative from the Chamber of Commerce. Council Member Yeh spoke on representation from the youth and a social services provider. He spoke on his concern of an on-going commitment from a high school student. He suggested the Task Force holding a targeted meeting with the youth and social services providers. 53 07/26/10 MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study be: 1 PAUSD representative; 5 neighborhood representatives with one being from PAN; 4 business representatives with one being from the Chamber of Commerce and one a Realtor; 1 environmental representative; 1 member -from Stanford, 1 Bike Advisory Committee member, 1 representative from Canopy, 1 Architect; and two Planning & Transportation Commission liaisons. Mayor Burt spoke on his concern with the composition for the Task Force. He felt there should be less modification from Staff's proposal. He recommended that a Stanford representative be on the Task Force. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study be: 1 member from Stanford; 1 environmental representative; 3 business community members including 1 realtor, 1 member from the Chamber of Commerce, and 1 property/business owner; 1 Architect, 5 neighborhood representatives; 1 PAN representative; 1 PAUSD representative; 1 Caltrain rider; 1 social services/affordable housing member; and include liaisons from Boards and Commissions who wish to participate. Mayor Burt stated that his Substitute Motion included one representative from Stanford, a social services provider, and a Caltrain rider rather than the representative from Canopy and the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether an architect was included within the Substitute Motion. Mayor Burt stated yes. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Substitute Motion included a Chamber of Commerce representative. Mayor Bu rt stated yes. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Substitute Motion included a realtor. Mayor Burt stated the realtor would be selected within the business community members' selection. 54 07/26/10 Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Task Force would be involved in the Economic Study of the rail corridor. Mr. Williams stated the Task. Force would not be responsible for overseeing the Economic Study. He stated Staff would report to the Task Force on Economic Study work. Council Member Klein stated the creation of the Task Force was premature. He spoke on his concern for having two P&TC liaisons on the Task Force. He recommended one P&TC liaison on the Task Force, as seen in other City Task Forces. Mayor Burt stated the Substitute Motion consisted of Staff's recommendation to approve liaison representatives from a variety of interested City boards and commissions. Council Member Klein spoke on the differences between the Motion and Substitute Motion. He suggested that a representative from Canopy be included in the Task Force, in lieu of the social services provider. Council Member Shepherd inquired how Canopy would benefit the Task Force as a stakeholder member. Council Member Holman stated, in the last several years, there had been erosions near the rail corridor due to Caltrain projects, Public Works Department projects, and lack of replanting treescapes. Canopy was an organization that was knowledgeable on trees, and what types of trees would sustain the development that may happen in the rail corridor area. She suggested the Caltrain rider and neighborhood representative be merged into one member and add a Canopy representative. Mayor Burt stated Staff recommended the City Council approve no more than 15 Task Force members. He did not see the need for the Task Force to be an odd number of members, and recommended adding one Canopy member to bring the total membership to 16. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add 1 Canopy representative. Council Member Shepherd stated her interest for adding a social services provider was due to the different trends seen at the station on California Avenue. 55 07/26/10 Council Member Price inquired whether the social services/affordable housing representative was part of the Substitute Motion. Mayor Burt stated the Motion included one representative for those. two stakeholder groups. Council Member Price stated there was a distinction between transit dependent users and routine cornmuters of Caltrain. She stated the perspectives of the users were important. Council Member Scharff inquired how the business representatives were handled in the Substitute Motion. Mayor Burt stated the business representatives included a member from the Chamber of Commerce, a realtor, a business/property owner, and one representative at-large. Council Member Yeh stated there was much to be learned from non-Caltrain users. He spoke on the different motivations between Caltrain users and non-Caltrain users. Council Member Holman stated there were five neighborhood representatives proposed in the Substitute Motion. She stated one of those members was a PAN representative. She inquired whether the other four would be from different neighborhoods. Mayor Bu rt stated that was correct. Council Member Scharff recommended that the four neighborhood representatives be within the Rail Corridor Study area. Mayor Burt concurred with Council Member Scharff. Council Member Holman inquired whether different parts of town would be equally represented. Mayor Bu rt stated that was correct. Council Member Holman stated the business representatives included the Chamber of Commerce. She inquired whether the other business representatives would be from different parts of town. 56 07/26/10 Mayor Burt stated the Sub~titute Motion did not specify that. His intent was for Staff to recommend members that had broad perspectives, and diversity of geographic perspectives. Mr. Williams stated Staff would keep Mayor Burt's suggestion in mind when recommending potential members to the Task Force. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent Council Member Holman inquired on the position of the P&TC member as a liaison to the Task Force. Mayor Burt stated the Substitute Motion included Staff's recommendation to include liaisons from Boards and Commissions who wished to participate. Council Member Holman stated the Rail Corridor Study's map was sweeping in scope. She inquired when a refined map would be returning to the City Council. Mr. Williams stated the map was a broad first sweep of the rail corridor location, and there would be deviation to it. Refining the boundaries of the map would potentially be one of the first assignments of the Task Force. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Espinosa to accept the' balance of Staff recommendations: 1) The Task Force should serve as a conduit to and from other stakeholders and should work with Staff to set up networks and techniques at the outset of the process to assure engagement of the broader community throughout the study. An initial effort of the Task Force will be to develop a plan for outreach to assure extensive input from all interested and affected segments of the community, 2) Meetings of the Task Force would be subject to all Brown Act committee requirements. Meetings would be open to the public notice would be provided as prescribed by the Brown Act, at a minimum (Staff anticipates considerably more extensive notice would be provided to an extensive list of stakeholders and interested individuals, 3) Individuals on the Task Force would not, however, be subject to filing the Form 700 disclosure statements of conflicts of interest, since any recommendations will be subject to substantive intervening review by the Planning & Transportation Commission (PT&C), prior to recommendations to Council, 4) The Task Force Members will take votes to recommend components of the study to the Planning and Transportation Commission, which will then report its recommendations to the City Council, and 5) Quarterly status reports of the study progress will be provided by Staff to the Council, Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Council's HSR Comrnittee. Reports from the Planning 57 07/26/10 and Transportation Commission will be provided for information to the HSR Committee prior to Council review. Where timely, reports and recommendations of the Task Force that are relevant and timely to address High Speed Rail issues will also be forwarded to the Council's HSR Committee. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid no 4. Direction Regarding Content of Charter Amendment to Repeal Binding Arbitration for Public Safety. Mayor Burt stated this was a continued Council session to further discuss the content of the proposed Charter Amendment to repeal Binding Arbitration for public safety. Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated Staff included additional recent articles to assist with the City Council's discussion and possible direction to Staff. The ballot language preparation was in progress, and would return to the City Council on August 2, 2010. Mayor Burt inquired whether this would comply with the meet and confer requirements relating to union negotiations, and whether it was an obligation of the City. He inquired whether it should be included in discussions with the City's labor groups that would be potentially affected. City Attorney, Gary Baum stated it was as issue that was perrnissive subject of bargaining, and the City was not required to meet and confer. He spoke on several California cities where the issue was upheld. Staff provided the City Council with a memorandum that showed Staff's analysis. He indicated Staff's analysis had been reviewed and endorsed by the City's outside counsel. Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on the Charter Amendment in 1978, past Binding Arbitration decisions, and the firefighters' petition. Robert Moss, Palo Alto, spoke on his support for the City Council to place the Charter Amendment on the ballot. Catherine' Capriles, Palo Alto Fire Department, spoke on her support for Binding Arbitration. Alan Davis, Palo Alto, spoke on the benefits of Binding Arbitration and meet and defer requirements. 58 07/26/10