Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 307-10______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 307:10 Page 1 of 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JULY 12, 2010 CMR: 307:10 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Recommendation of High Speed Rail Committe e fo r Council Review and Direction Regarding Draft Scope of Work for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study and Creation of a Rail Corridor Task Force EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This proposal outlines a scope of work, timeline and budget to prepare a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. The intent of the proposed Rail Corridor Study is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor, particularly in response to improvements to fixed rail services along the tracks through Palo Alto. The proposal anticipates that a Task Force representing 9-15 key stakeholders would be appointed by staff to provide input to the study and to solicit information from the broader community. Committee members would also serve as conduits for sharing information back to the community, formally and informally. The study is proposed in three phases and the estimated timeframe for completion is 13-16 months. The approximate cost of $200,000 would include about $100,000 in the current fiscal year (already approved by Council) and $100,000 in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The next steps in the process would be to solicit proposals from planning and urban design consultants and to initiate formation of the Task Force. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Review and comment on the Draft scope of work for a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study; and 2. Direct staff to proceed with the study, including issuance of a Request for Proposals for consultant services. BACKGROUND On June 23, 2010, the City Council conceptually approved the City’s comments to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) regarding the Authority’s Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report, and directed staff to work with the Mayor, Chair of the High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee, and accept other Council input to finalize the comments. The letter was sent to the CHSRA on June 29, 2010. The Council and the High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee have also discussed the need for a rail corridor study to address the City’s vision for this corridor, in conjunction with or apart from High Speed Rail and coordinated with the City’s Comprehensive Plan update. On June 28, the Council approved a budget with funds designated to support a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study for the fiscal year 2011. The funding was approved contingent upon subsequent Council direction to proceed with the study at the July 12 meeting. On July 1, 2010, the Council's High Speed Rail Committee voted 3-1 (Chair Klein dissenting) to recommend to the full Council that the study proceed as outlined in the following scope of work. Most of the Committee discussion dealt with the composition and responsibilities of the community task force proposed to provide input for the Study (see Discussion below). DISCUSSION The intent of the proposed Rail Corridor Study is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor, particularly in response to improvements to fixed rail services along the tracks through Palo Alto. The study may address some High Speed Rail (HSR) issues in a timely manner, but is not limited to the HSR effort and would provide a vision and context for other rail improvements (even without HSR) and the City's land use, transportation and urban design response to those actions. The study area is not specifically defined at this time, but should begin with at least a boundary of Alma Street on the east and EI Camino Real on the west, with the city boundaries of Menlo Park and Mountain View to the north and south (Attachment B), to be expanded as impact and opportunity areas are more clearly defined. A draft scope of work (Attachment A) for a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, with timeline and budget estimates, is included for Council review and is discussed below: a. Phased Approach: The scope of work outlines three primary phases of study over a 13-16 month time frame: o Phase I (4-6 months) would outline the preliminary "Context and Vision" for the corridor, including· updated goals and policies and definition of key land use and transportation parameters that will require further analysis and review. o Phase II (6 months) would include the "Analysis" of land use, transportation, and urban design components of potential rail and development scenarios, resulting in two or three alternatives and urban design considerations. o Phase III (3-4 months) would integrate a preferred approach into a "Plan and Implementation" to become a part of the Comprehensive Plan, including new or modified goals, policies, and programs, implementation measures, mitigation, and fmancing measures. The phased approach is not entirely linear, however, as there are certain to be overlapping components of the various phases, and staff will attempt to time the deliverables to provide information that is timely to current reviews, such as the HSR effort. b. Timeline: The scope anticipates a 13-16 month timeline for staff and consultant work efforts. There is also likely to be about a 6-8 week lead time to bring a consultant aboard, though staff could begin its work immediately. c. Budget and Staff Resources: Staff would devote at least 0.5 FTE (half-time) of one Planner or Senior Planner position to coordinate this effort and conduct the staff synthesis .CMR: 307:10 Page 2 of4 of existing and past planning efforts and analysis of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Consultant services will be required for planning and urban design, transportation, and economic analysis support. Estimated costs for consultant services are estimated at $200,000 over the 16-month period, about 75% of which would be for planning and urban design services. About half of this amount has been approved by Council for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, and the remaining $100,000 would be required in the following fiscal year to complete the study and plan by late 2011. d. Public Outreach: The scope of work proposes a Rail Corridor Study Task Force to serve as the primary conduit for input on and information flow regarding the Study to and from key stakeholders and the larger community. Staff proposes that the Task Force be set up and operate as follows: o The Task Force would be appointed by the City Manager and would comprise 9-15 member~, representing broad stakeholder and community interests, including but not limited to: adjacent or affected neighborhoods (3); business interests in downtown, California Avenue, and elsewhere (3); Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) (1); the Palo Alto Unified School District (1); an ~ffordable housing developer (1); an environmental representative (1); Stanford University (1); and the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (1). o Representatives from relevant City boards and commissions (e.g., Planning and Transportation Commission, Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Citizen Traffic Safety Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission) would be invited to appoint liaisons to the Task Force to attend and observe meetings. o 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 ofthe broader community throughout the study. o The Task Force will be a Brown Act committee, all meetings would be open to the public and· notice would be provided to an extensive list of stakeholders and interested individuals. o The Task Force members will take votes to recommend components of the study to the Planning and Transportation Commission and· to the Council's HSR Committee. Those two groups will then make recommendations to the City Council. Community outreach would also include community workshops, web-based interactive information sharing and input, and periodic updates to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. Public hearings before both of those bodies will be required prior to action on any of the Plan components. Staff believes that this approach to public outreach is critical to producing a study within the prescribed budget and timeframe. . Economic Analysis of High Speed Rail The Council has previously voted to conduct a study of the key economic impacts and opportunities of the High Speed Rail alternatives, rather than incorporate the analysis into the Rail Corridor Study. This will allow for more timely input on these economic components to be CMR: 307:10 Page 3 of4 completed within the next 3-4 months. Approximately $40,000 of the funding approved by the Council on June 28 is intended for the economic analysis (about $100,000 is then available for the Rail Corridor Study in this fiscal year). Staff from Planning and the Manager's office will meet later this week to outline the process for moving forward on the economic study, and will present that outline and schedule to the HSR Committee and Council at upcoming meetings. NEXT STEPS Upon direction from the Council, staff will prepare a Request for Proposal, incorporating and . expanding the scope of work, to disseminate to interested consultants. Staff will also proceed immediately with collecting and summarizing· relevant existing documents and studies and setting up the Task Force. The Task Force could proceed with its organization and outreach kickoff prior to the consultant(s) beginning work. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Study is intended to review the existing policies of the qty and to propose revisions or additions for consideration. At this time, there is no action proposed contrary to existing policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Study proposal and scope of work do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. At this time, staff anticipates that environmental review for the rail corridor study will be completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan. PREPARED BY: CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED BY: kZ-h..'~"'1f STEVEEMSL~ Deputy City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Scope of Work for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study B. Preliminary Map of Study Area Boundary CMR: 307:10 Page 4 of4 City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Draft Scope of Work July 12, 2010 ATTACHMENT A A. Rail Corridor Study Intent and Definition: The Rail Corridor Study is intended to generate a community vision for land use, transportation, and urban design opportunities along the corridor, particularly in response to improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks through Palo Alto. Those improvements may include any or all of the following: Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or High Speed Rail service. The "corridor" would . cover, at a minimum, the Caltrain tracks from the Menlo Park boundary on the north to the Mountain View city limit on the south, Alma Street parallel to the tracks, and sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected by potential land use, transportation, and urban design changes. The study would then be translated into a Plan and implementation measures, and would be incorporated, at least by reference, into the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. Phase I: Context and Vision 1. Intent: Articulation of community values, character, vision 2. Contextlbackground: Comprehensive Plan, HSR Alternatives Analysis, technical/operational (HSR, Caltrain) analyses, Revised Program EIR (Central Valley to Bay Area), Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center planning 3. Work Tasks: a. Define key land use parameters and issues: e.g., redevelopment and/or intensification opportunities, proximity to residential and transitions from residential; preservation of community characterlhistoric resources b. Define key transportation parameters and issues: grade separations, Alma Street design, Palo Alto High Speed Rail station, pedestrian and bicycle linkages and opportunities 4. Outreach: Stakeholder/public task force; community meeting; web-based interactive community involvement; and progress meetings and public hearings with the PTC and Council; other outreach methods to be identified 5. Deliverables: Updated goals, policies and vision statement(s); identification of issues and opportunities for detailed analysis 6. Resources: Comp Plan planner (0.5 FTE); planning/urban design consultant ($50,000) 7. Schedule: 4-6 months (timed to provide input prior to release ofHSR DEIR) Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: July 12,2010 Page 2 C. Phase II: Analysis , 1. Intent: Analysis and development of land use, transportation and urban design alternatives reflecting vision, goals and policies for corridor 2. Context: Phase I products and background, Draft EIR for San Jose-San Francisco HSR (if available) 3. Work Tasks: a. Evaluate land use constraints and opportunities, such as redevelopment/mixed use along corridor (including Alma), open space enhancements, LEED-ND consistency, housing sites, performing arts facilities; and define implications for schools and parks, business districts, PTOD areas, potential right-of-way needs (for rail or for grade separations) ,b. Evaluate transportation constraints and opportunities, such as grade separations, upgrading Alma Street, facilitating pedestrian/bike modes and new linkages; and define key impacts on existing road networks, transit, bicycle/pedestrian travel; and potential right-of-way needs (for rail or grade separations) c. Evaluate urban design constraints and opportunities, such as integration of transportation network (auto, transit, bike, ped) with land uses, including mixed use and open/public spaces; historic resource compatibility; public art; and appropriate transitions from neighborhoods; as well as design of transportation infrastructure (rail facilities, grade separations, bike/ped facilities); and impediments to cohesive design (at grade/elevated tracks, grade separations, etc.) 4. Outreach: Stakeholder/public task force; community workshops; web-based interactive community involvement; progress meetings and public hearings with PTC and Council; other outreach methods to be identified 5. Deliverables: Up to 3 alternative land use/transportation scenarios, preliminary traffic and visual impact analyses, and identification of draft urban design principles and opportunities 6. Resources: Compo Plan plamier (0.5 FTE); planning/urban design consultant ($50,000); transportation/engineering consultant ($25,000) 7. Schedule: 6 months Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: July 12, 2010 Page 3 D. Phase ill: Plan and Implement~tion 1. Intent: Prepare plan as guidance for corridor development and for integration into Comprehensive Plan; and implementation measures and schedule 2. Context: Phase I and Phase II products and background; Comprehensive Plan update; future High Speed Rail studies or decisions 3. Work Tasks: a. Identify preferred land use/transportation/urban design strategy(ies) b. Refine vision/goals/policies from Phase I c. Identify key environmental considerations/mitigation d. Identify key costs implications/considerations e. Identify implementation and funding approach (CIP, bonds, tax increment financing, public/private partnerships, TDR, codes) 4. Outreach:. Stakeholder/public task force, community workshops, web-based interactive community involvement, and public meetings and hearings with PTC and Council; other outreach methods to be identified 5. Deliverables: Draft Rail Corridor Plan and implementation components for public review; Comprehensive Plan amendments as necessary 6. Resources: Comp Plan planner (0.5 FTE); planning/urban design consultant ($50,000); transportation/engineering consultant ($25,000); economic consultant ($15,000) 7. Schedule: 3-4 months (not including EIR) Total Time and Cost Phase I Phase II Phase III Totals Additional Assumptions: . Time 4-6 months 6 months 3-4 months 13-16 months Cost (excluding staff costs) $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 90,000 $200,000 1. Most public outreach embodied in proposed Task Force (9-15 members); appointed by staffto represent broad cross-section of stakeholders (adjacent/nearby homeowners, businesses, CAARD, PAUSD, housing, environmental, Stanford, Caltrain JPB, etc.); all meetings open to the public and invitees will include an extensive list of stakeholders 2. Environmental review builds on HSR or Comp Plan EIR or is an additional task 3. No extensive design study of an HSR station co I­ Z L.L.I ~ :::J: ~ I::::: City Jurisdictional Limits _ Rail Corridor Study Preliminary Boundary y-+-Railroad '* m The City of Palo Alto .~~ ]] o (/.) 0 .::=~~ ~~ ~ -I:: ~ ro 0 ..... ~US _ ..... ..... -ro Q) ~~ This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ~ --0' 2508' HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE EXCERPT ,July 1, 2010 Review of Rail Corridor Study Scope of Services 5 Planning Director Curtis Williams spoke regarding the Scope of Services Study. He said it would help inform the High Speed Ri3i1 deliberations in a policy sense. In the longer term it would meld with the Comprehensive Plan update. The overall intent was to provide some vision of community values and project character issues. He said there were three parts to the study. The first part was the context of the Comprehensive Plan policies and integrating them into the discussions. The second part was to update the goals and policies around the rail corridor issue. Lastly, the study would provide estimates of Staff and Consultant resources. This phase was 4-6 months to a finished draft EIR on High Speed Rail. They could then start phase two which would be a technical analysis. Phase two would evaluate land use constraints and opportunities, overall planning for neighborhood development, linkages to open space, mixed use potential, transportation components, pedestrian bike travel links, urban design constraints and opportunities, and three alternative land use and transportation scenarios. It would take approximately six months to undertake the process. Staff would then take that information and use it to develop a alternative recommendation for land use and transportation and urban design in the corridor. All of this information will be incorporated into Comprehensive Plan and the Corridor Study. The last part, phase three would take three to four months. The esUmate did not include the environmental review. ,He gave a summary of total project time and cost estimates, saying it would be about 13-16 months and about $200,000. He said it would take a couple of months to hire someone so the time line would begin once that person starts. He said Staff worked on community outreach with the suggestion to setup a task force of members from different interested groups to help the community work through the process. He felt this would be a better process than having many meetings with many different multiple boards. He said they would discuss a High Speed Rail Station and the City's policy toward that, though a specific element for this would not be included. He said this was scheduled to go to Council on July 12, 2010. Council budgeted $90,000 for the fiscal year, they could also take about $50,000 from the Comprehensive Plan project. He said that was a total of $140,000 to cover the economic study and about half of it was for this study. They would need approximately $100,000 in additional funds to get through process. Staff would get more detailed with Council's direction. Council Member Price asked about the environmental component to the Rail Corridor Study being related to the Comprehensive Plan, she thought it should require an Environmental Impact Review (EIR). Mr. Williams said it didn't require one, but a program EIR could be included. It might not be called that, or be at a level of detail to a specific parcel. Council Member Price said it was an update not a start from scratch. She wanted to truncate some of the potential cost. If it were closely linked to the Comprehensive Plan it could apply to this as well. Mr. Williams that was Staff's thought as well. Council Member Price said she liked the detail of the report, but wanted to know how Staff thought the phases would overlap. Mr. Williams said some things could overlap. Some things may also need to be revisited. It was generally a linear proposal but there were components that could shift around. Council Member Price asked if Staff anticipated the part-time Planner allocations starting work prior to a detailed Requestfor Proposal (RFP) for other resources. Mr. Williams said the planner was already designated and could start shortly. Council Member Price said the implementation would not be deferred then. Mr. Williams said they could start now. Council Member Shepberd asked if this was coming from Planning and not High Speed Rail Staff. She wanted to confirm that questions about the Corridor Study should go to the Planning Director. Mr. Williams confirmed that questions should be directed to him. He said that Planning and the City Managers Office would work closely together but it was a Planning responsibility. Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager said that the City Manager's office would be the central project coordinator. Council Member Shepherd said she understood the preliminary economic study was already approved, she wondered if it could go further into complementing some of the community interests in a station study. Mr. Williams said the economic study would discuss the potential economic benefits and downfalls to a station to the extent information were available. He said that generally be more of a policy discussion versus a detailed station plan. Council Member Shepherd said it would be a quick studyfor economic impact but it would not discuss the station option. Mr. Williams said the report would have some information to help develop a policy. It would not however, have design specifics as part of an economic study. Council Member Shepherd said that it will help go into that period where the High Speed Rail Authority will ask Cities whether or not they want a station. James Keene, City Manager said there would be aspects of many subject areas but in a general manner. Council Member Shepherd said it would be wise' to pull that part out to accelerate the process. Mr. Emslie said the next set of technical documents will be focused on the station. Council Member Shepherd said she wanted to be prepared for those documents. She asked if the task force will have a Comprehensive Plan in addition to or part of the report. Mr. Williams they don't have a task force for the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Shepherd asked if there would be facilitators for the community meetings. Mr. Williams said he wasn't sure if it would be the consultant or facilitators. Mayor Burt said he wanted to discuss the sequence of both the corridor study and the immediate tasks that will feed into the study. The economic analysis will start immediately and would take three months but Staff wasn't planning on waiting until the end of three months, instead they would build the knowledge base as they went along. Mr. Williams agreed that Staff would build their knowledge base as they prog ressed. Mayor Burt confirmed that they would get technical documents on the station within the next month or two. Mr. Emslie said it would likely be in the next month. Mayor Burt it would be August by the time it was done. He suggested use of a prior analysis as an early set of reference documents to allow us to see the station with some concept of possible physical designs. MI". Williams agreed. Mayor Burt suggested that Phase one would be commencing early was the vision and context. He confirmed that Phase One work could start prior to hiring a contractor. Mr. Williams confirmed that it could. Council Member Price said she heard a corridor study had been done in the 1990s. Williams wasn't aware if it had a station or not. He recalled that a study on the EI Camino corridor was done, but he did not remember a rail corridor study. Mayor Burt confirmed there was no study in the 1990s. Council Member Price confirmed that station concepts included possibilities of not only University but also California Avenue and San Antonio. Mr. Williams said they should look at the parameters for all of those, so far the conversations had been University Avenue. Council Member Price said that all work would be folded together as a foundation for the early Phase One work. Mr. Williams agreed that it would. Mayor Burt said he thought the documentation was specific to the High Speed Rail stop station, not the impacts of the High Speed Rail on the various stations. Mr. Williams said he thought it was correct. Mayor Burt said they had two aspects to station consideration. Would University Avenue Station be a High Speed Rail stop, and the corridor study would be about the various stations from Palo Alto's point of view. Mr. Williams said that California Avenue had been mentioned at other meetings Council Member Klein said it could be called the Rail Corridor Community task Force. He asked how it would be formed. Mr. Williams said it would be a Staff driven task force. Staff would identify what the member representation would be, but then it would probably go before Council. Council Member Klein asked if it should be a Brown Act Task Force. Mr. Williams said they would have to discuss it. He thought the meetings should be public anyway. Council Member Klein confirmed that it was not yet clear whether or not Staff or Council would appoint the members. Mr. Williams confirmed that it wasn't clear, although they had anticipated a Staff appointed task force. Mayor Burt thought going to Council was to endorse how Staff intended to compose a task force or was it to have Council affirm appointments. Council affirming appointments would drive a Brown Act. Mr. Keene said the start up can be done fairly quickly. Council Member Klein said there were some difficult policy decisions to make as a result he didn't believe it would be appointed quickly. Council Member Price said this would not delay the background research; it needs to continue to move along. Mr. Williams said that was correct. Council Member Klein said the task force issue raises the question of who reviews the work. Currently there were three different groups prior to getting to the City Council: the Task Force, the Planning & Transportation Commission and the High Speed Rail Committee. He asked which group would review the Staff Reports. Mr. Williams said the direction would be to work with the Task Force primarily. Until such pOint as they need a recommendation the Planning Commission and the High Speed Rail Committee. Council Member Shepherd asked if this review was going to be similar to the time a Task Force reviewed the Comprehensive Plan. She wanted to know if they could use the same model for processing information. Council Member Price said that was a large task force with around 50 members. Mr. Keene added that managing decisions between many groups would create a need for a formalized way of connecting the community with the Task Force. A technical advisory group could be another sounding board or location for Staff work to receive feedback. He recommended a Staff driven task force to stay on any type of schedule. He said that Staff was Quilding a schedule on the website to cross link with some activities. Spending this amount of money would create generalized planning tools that would not be definitive. How Staff will manage evolving alternatives will be key. Ultimately we want something that will work with Caltrain even if High Speed Rail never happens. Mr. Williams said that they didn't want too much technical analYSiS, but still required some alternatives. Lynda (A Public Speaker) suggested a creative approach. She said she was open to the idea of a California Avenue station. If they don't know we are considering that they won't know to include it in the information. Bill Cutler said the greatest failure would be lack of adequate stake holder involvement. An explicit stake holder engagement plan is needed, part of which would be to make a role for a task force community liaison, and to add more than nine members from stakeholder groups. Tony Carasso liked the corridor study. He thought the task force should report to the High Speed Rail Committee. Planning & Transportation would not have that deep knowledge to provide feedback. The City Manager said it would need flexibility because it changes fast, the consultant needed to be nimble. Nadia Naik said that the City of Mountain View was considering a potential station. She added that consistency of community meetings was important. She requested a live document to update the public. Rita Wespi agreed that outreach was important in each phase. All tasks should be considered for money allocation, including outreach. She discussed some different rail designs as part of a legislative update. Mayor Burt discussed the Community Liaison concept, he said they many want to look at a previous process that identified the specific stakeholder groups. He said that representative could then define their own set of community values for their own interests; it leverages the work of the group really well. Unfortunately, it also took a long time. The challenge was now how to learn from the good and bad practices. Council Member Shepherd said she would be interested to hear how the stake holders were brought into the process on the 12th. She asked for clarification about a traffic study. Mr. Williams said it was difficult to know what level in the process it would be completed in. A preliminary level should into enough detail to know how neighborhoods would be affected, and what the impact of increased development ~ould be. Council Member Price said Phase One and Two would overlap so it would be to the City's advantage to complete them within one to six months. Compressing and accelerating the process was important. The draft EIR was in December or January, so keeping value and input was critical. MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the High Speed Rail Committee recommends the City Council approve the Draft Rail Corridor Study and that the item goes before the Council on July 12, 2010. Council Member Price said they had discussed the study many times it was important and relevant. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the community task force shall be apPointed by Staff, advisory to Staff, designed as representing stake holder groups, and hold open meetings. Council Member Shepherd said she thought this would be vetted more between now and the Council meeting. Mayor Burt said that his goal was to escalate the process. Council appointments take too long. The task force could still be open meetings, but it could still be less formal. Council Member Klein said he would vote no as the motion was premature and will be counter productive. He thought this could take focus away from High Speed Rail and not produce the expected results. There were too many moving targets. He said that in order to have a meaningful corridor study they needed to first know what was going to happen with High Speed Rail and CalTrain. This was spending money on unneeded and unfocused items. He thought they would probably not warit a station. But it was important to keep an open mind. They would need to start thinking about their response to the High Speed Rail Authority's Draft EIR that would be released early in 2011. He said that ridership figures were flawed, and an effort to make sure those numbers were meaningful was important, until then the rail corridor study was premature. They needed to be proactive. He stated that High Speed Rail was not Palo Alto's project, and being proactive, coming up with alternatives, and approving designs was not constructive. It was counter productive. He was concerned that alternatives that included elevated High Speed Rail would be interrupted by the Authority as being acceptable. Council Member Price said she felt this would help them focus. Having input into the Draft EIR was a good beginning. It was important to the community to have this input. Council Member Shepherd said the more information she had the more she felt able to articulate a response to any decisions made by the High Speed Rail Authority. Mayor Burt said this had been a useful discussion. They will be able to make an informed recommendation to Council. He reminded them that there was a value in going through the process. Council Member Klein voiced concern that they hadn't thought though the use of citizen input. He wasn't clear on what the lines of communication would be. Council Member Shepherd said the Chair of Committee should meet with the City of Mountain View to discuss their ideas for a station. Council Member Klein asked for clarification. Council Member Shepherd said the City of Mountain View was looking at a San Antonio station which would be close to Palo Alto potentially affecting the need for a Palo Alto station .. Mr. Keene said the Staff had had some preliminary conversations with relevant City of Mountain View Staff. They will continue to have conversations with them. Council Member Klein urged not to have that fn the motion as it didn't relate directly to corridor study cJ Mayor Burt said that from a timing standpoint the station discussion was outside this motion. There should definitely be discussions with surrounding communities. MOTION PASSED: 3-1, Klein, no MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member xxx xx to direct Staff to contact surrounding communities to explore station options and criteria. Mr. Emslie said Staff had already started the process. Council Member Price asked if the Committee could expect an update on the discussions at the next meeting. Mr. Emslie said they could.