City of Palo Alto, San Antonio
Road Corridor Concept Plan
Alternatives Report
2 Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Land Use Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Alternative 1............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Alternative 2............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Alternative 3.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Transportation Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Alma Stret to Middlefield Road ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road .............................................................................................................. 19 East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard ........................................................................................................ 24 Alternatives Evaluation......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Land Use.................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30
3 Introduction
The City of Palo Alto must plan for creating 6,086 dwellings in the next eight years to fulfill its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The City’s plan encompasses a range of strategies. These include easing density restrictions in existing multifamily districts, exploring construction on city-owned parking lots, collaborating with Stanford on housing developments, and encouraging accessory dwelling units. The City has also identified a strategy to rezone manufacturing and light-industrial zones around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way to facilitate the redevelopment of existing commercial buildings with 1,185 housing units. Along with the facilitation new housing units, the City is seeking to improve current transportation conditions around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way by connecting varied land uses and promoting multi-modal access.
The San Antonio Road Corridor, spanning approximately 260 acres, is situated at the easternmost edge of Palo Alto, bordering Mountain View. It is located close to major technology companies in Silicon Valley, such as Google, Facebook, and Apple, and has fueled significant residential and commercial development. Accessibility through major highways, including Highway 101 and El Camino Real, further positions the corridor as a vital link to neighboring cities, airports, and the broader Bay Area.
The corridor centers San Antonio Road, one of Palo Alto’s main arterial road that connects Highway 101 to SR 82, making it a high-volume traffic and trucking route through the city. Other arterial roads within the project boundary also support heavy traffic traveling through and along the corridor. Alma Street was the most traveled arterial road, with 28,895 vehicles total along the section between East Charleston Road. The project is in close proximity to the San Antonio Caltrain Station which connects people to employment centers and leisure activities in surrounding cities. There are several bus routes serving the corridor including the VTA Route 21, VTA Route 40, and the ACE Orange Shuttle. Despite these public transportation services, ridership is substantially low citywide and was further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are minimal with a lack of bike lanes and sidewalks throughout the corridor.
The project boundary for San Antonio has multiple land use designations.
Research/Office/Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) and General Manufacturing (GM) zones constitute 57 percent of the project area, primarily in the north half. ROLM zones permit specific office, research, and manufacturing activities within a park setting, aiming for larger spaces with access to natural light and air. The ROLM district targets areas designated for research and office park use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Residential zones, constituting 15 percent of the project area, are concentrated in the southern half, south of East Charleston Road. Single Family Residential (R-1) aims to establish standalone homes with an emphasis on natural surroundings and open spaces. The various zones allow for 4 accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, and accessory structures or buildings.
Two-Family Residential (R-2) permits a second dwelling unit, with regulations in place to maintain the single-family character. Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-20) acts as a transitional zone, while Medium-Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-30) aims to create neighborhoods for multiple-family housing.
The City envisions transitioning the San Antonio Corridor from industrial land uses to create new housing opportunities with improved transportation conditions. Comprehensive planning is deemed essential to ensure future residents have access to necessary amenities and services, fostering the development of a new residential neighborhood. This includes identifying gaps, such as the need for parks, safer bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and access to neighborhood schools. The City's recently adopted Sustainability goals empower the integration of land use and transportation planning, with the overarching objective of expanding a city segment while concurrently reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This ambitious undertaking reflects the city's commitment to sustainable and well-planned urban development.
Project Area Hazards
Students produced an Existing Conditions Report for the project area to understand the strengths and weaknesses that already exist along the corridor. Environmental concerns proved to be a key weakness. The San Antonio Corridor has seven relevant environmental hazard scenarios that were considered in the land use alternative evaluation. Development alternatives were impacted by FEMA flood zone AE (100-year flood), high liquefaction susceptibility level, hazardous material sites with land use restrictions, sea level rise scenarios for 24 inches and 55 inches, and noise contours at 65 dBA and 70 dBA. The environmental hazard map, depicted in Figure 1, identifies a hazard value from zero to eight for each parcel calculated based on the number and severity of hazards on the parcel. The lower risk hazards, SLR 55 inches, and noise 65 dBA were given one point, and all higher risk hazards were given two points with total values expressing the relative environmental hazard risk. Flooding, sea level rise, and liquefaction are concentrated on the northern end of the site closest to the San Francisco Bay. Relevant noise contours are adjacent to Highway 101.
Due to these identified hazards, all land use alternatives in this document try to minimize the number of homes and residents in hazard-prone areas. It is not uncommon for buildings to be constructed along a highway or in a sea-level rise risk area, but avoiding this could avoid major challenges in the future.
5 Figure 1: Environmental Hazard Map
6 Land Use Alternatives
The land use alternatives include a baseline with no-change scenario, a 1,200-unit scenario, and a 2,000-unit scenario. The 1,200-unit alternative addresses the 1,185 units that the City identified in their strategy to rezone manufacturing and light-industrial zones around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way to facilitate redevelopment. The 2,000-unit alternative accommodates more units with relatively little change to the proposed land use and zoning changes. The City has 6,086 units to accommodate so increasing housing beyond the 1,185 units may be useful for the City goals.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 serves as a baseline scenario in alignment with the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It represents a no-change scenario, wherein no proposed density adjustments or alterations to existing land use designations (as indicated in Table 1) are considered. The current land use designations, illustrated in Figure 2, remain unchanged in this scenario. It is assumed in Alternative 1 that all ongoing pipeline projects will be executed as planned.
Table 1 - Description of Land Use Designations
7 Land Use
Designations
Allowed
Density/FA
R
Single-Family
Residential
Residential neighborhoods are characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling unit on each lot.
1-7 du/ac
1-14 du/ac*
Multi-Family
Residential
Residential neighborhoods are characterized by three or more dwelling units, which may be in the same building
or separate buildings on the same site.
8-40 du/ac
8-90 du/ac
Mixed-Use It is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities, and utilities together at various scales and intensities.
1.15 FAR
Service
Commercial
Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards,
appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types.
0.4 FAR
Neighborhood
Commercial
Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a
cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Typical uses include supermarkets,
bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops,
restaurants, self-serve laundries, dry cleaners, and
hardware stores.
0.4 FAR
Light Industrial Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing, and packaging of goods.
0.5 FAR
Research/
Office Park
Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses.
0.3-0.5 FAR
*On parcels where second units or duplexes occur
8 Figure 2: Existing Land Use Designations
9 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 aims to achieve an additional 1,200 housing units in the San Antonio Road corridor. This plan incorporates a significant increase in mixed-use and multi-family development. The alternative proposes land use changes from light industrial to mixed-use, service commercial to mixed-use, light industrial to multi-family, and service commercial to multifamily. The alternative includes an additional 840 units of mixed-use housing (24 dwelling units per acre) and 442 units of multi-family housing (50 dwelling units per acre), as depicted in Figure 3.
This alternative responds to the growing demand for diverse housing options and urban amenities. The proposed land use changes, such as transforming areas from light industrial to mixed-use and service commercial to multi-family, signal a shift towards a more vibrant and integrated community. The solution optimizes land utilization and creates a more sustainable, walkable, and socially connected urban environment. By diversifying housing types and promoting medium-density development, Alternative 2 envisions a corridor that not only accommodates increased housing demand but also establishes a resilient and dynamic community.
10 Figure 3: 1,200 Housing Unit Scenario
11 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is geared toward adding 2,000 dwelling units with an emphasis on workforce housing. This alternative proposes adding 1,575 units as mixed-use (38 dwelling units per acre) and adding 427 units as multi-family (77 dwelling units per acre), as depicted in Figure 4. Like Alternative 2, this alternative also proposes changing the land used in several areas. All Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial land uses would be changed to Mixed-Use. About half of all the Light Industrial land uses in the project area will also be changed to Mixed-Use with a small portion solely being Multi-Family.
Alternative 3 would help provide a portion of the workforce housing that Google and other companies need in this area. Google employs more than 34,000 people in the Bay Area alone. 20,000 of those employees work in Mountain View, with 1,000 more working in Palo Alto. To minimize employee commute times, Google envisions the construction of approximately 13,000 housing units across the South Bay Area. Palo Alto and the San Antonio Road Corridor can be a focal point for the needed workforce housing along with the overall need for more housing throughout the Bay Area and the state.
12 Figure 4: 2,000 Housing Unit Scenario
13 Transportation Alternatives
The San Antonio Road Corridor is encompassed by Terminal Boulevard to the north and Alma Street to the south and includes Fabian Way. Transportation on the corridor primarily consists of vehicular traffic and trucking with Class-II and Class-III bike lanes and sidewalks throughout.
With a projected increase in housing in the corridor, the current infrastructure is not sufficient to maintain a potentially high volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Safety for pedestrians and bicyclists using San Antonio Road is at risk with trucking and other traffic and a lack of bike lanes. In addition, access to the nearby Google campus and the Baylands is disconnected from the project area with few connections across US 101.
To discuss transportation alternatives, the San Antonio Road Corridor is broken into three sections - Alma Street to Middlefield Road, Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road, and East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard. These sections are further divided into three types of alternatives - existing conditions, a low-cost alternative, and a high-cost alternative. The existing conditions alternative reflects the corridor as it exists today without any changes, while the other two scenarios imagine different facilities stratified by estimated cost. These three alternatives give the City the flexibility to choose pedestrian and bicycle improvements based on anticipated need and available resources. In some cases, the existing conditions or low-cost alternative will meet the City’s goals for the corridor, while in others the high-cost alternative may be more appropriate. The City may also benefit from different alternatives when seeking funding to implement corridor safety improvements.
All transportation alternatives are illustrated in a map of the San Antonio Road Corridor (Figure 5). However, because of the large scale of the project site, it is difficult to see all the alternatives on one map. Therefore, dividing the corridor into three sections improves the readability of the illustrations, making it easier for people to conceptualize the proposed alternatives. Each of the three corridor sections presents three types of alternatives. Existing conditions are the alternative type where there are no changes made to the current street designs and intersections. The low- cost alternative is the more cost-effective option to implement. This can include the restriping of traffic lanes or adding street furniture. The high-cost alternative involves more expensive implementation measures such as repaving streets and safer bicycle lane buffers. 14 Figure 5: Transportation Alternatives Section Map
15 Alma Street to Middlefield Road
Existing Conditions
The existing portion of Alma Street to Middlefield Road. From the interchange heading northbound, two travel lanes extend towards the intersection with Middlefield Road, with merging lanes on and off the road. From Nita Avenue to the intersection, there are non- continuous sections of street parking available. San Antonio Road widens at the intersection to incorporate two turn lanes towards Middlefield Road. Traveling southbound, San Antonio Road consists of two travel lanes, with a third turning lane into Byron Street and Nita Avenue. South of Byron, the frontage road of San Antonio Avenue runs along the main Road. There is one vehicle underpass between the southernmost portion of San Antonio Road and the Alphabet office park. There is no bike infrastructure in this section. Pedestrian crossings exist at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road, and the intersection of Nita Avenue and San Antonio Road.
Low-Cost Alternative
This section of the San Antonio Road corridor extends from the crosswalk across Alma to the San Antonio Caltrain station to the intersection with Middlefield Road. Along the northbound side of San Antonio Avenue, a two-lane cycle track will run alongside the median between the Avenue and Road. The cycle track will have a total width of eleven feet and will be protected by flexible bollards. The intent of having a northbound cycle track is to reduce conflict points with cyclists and vehicles moving in and out of their driveways. At the point where San Antonio Avenue ends, at the intersection with Byron Street, the cycle track will continue along the turn lane with further bollard protection. Figure 6 depicts the low-cost street section.
Figure 6: Low-Cost alternative section, facing south.
High-Cost Alternative
16 The high-cost alternative will retain the two-lane cycle track, with further protection provided from raised curbs and planters providing further protection. A second Class-II protected cycle lane along northbound San Antonio Road will provide an alternative for cyclists to access locations on the east side of the road. Another pedestrian improvement will be the addition of a midblock pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Ferne Avenue, San Antonio Avenue, and San Antonio Road (Figure 7). This crossing will ideally be signalized with a HAWK crossing.
At the south end of San Antonio Avenue, at the intersection of Briarwood Way, some intersection redesigns would improve pedestrian and cyclist safety when crossing under San Antonio Road (Figure 8). The triangular buffer will be removed, allowing for the proposed cycle track to continue through the intersection. In doing this, the right-turn lane onto San Antonio Road will be removed, but the intersection will remain open to allow for appropriate turning. The Section 1 map provides an overview of the changes in the context of the corridor (Figure 9).
Figure 7: High-Cost alternative section, facing south.
17 Figure 8: San Antonio Avenue and Briarwood Road intersection.
18 Figure 9: Section 1 overview
19 Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road
Existing Conditions
At the southern end of the section, there are five lanes at the intersection of Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road, with three turn lanes and two travel lanes. Between the intersections of Middlefield and East Charleston, San Antonio maintains two travel lanes in each direction. In addition, on-street parking is available along both sides. At the intersection of San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street, northbound and southbound San Antonio Road have four turn lanes. Bike infrastructure consists of a sharrow along each direction of travel. Pedestrian crossings are at the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston, Leghorn, and Middlefield. In the northernmost part of San Antonio Road there is a single southbound lane for parking purposes that merges back onto the main right-of-way.
Low-Cost Alternative
The second section of the San Antonio Road corridor extends from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road. This section is in between the corridor’s two major intersections and includes a street frontage designated for parking. The low-cost alternative for this section is to transform the current frontage that is dedicated to vehicular parking into a continuation of the bollard-separated cycle track presented in the previous section. The cycle track will provide Palo Alto cyclists with enhanced safety and comfort. At the same time, they travel up and down the corridor without major conflict with cars and trucks driving along San Antonio Road. In addition to the cycle track, the remaining frontage space will be converted into a parklet designed to attract pedestrians and vibrant street activities into the public space. With amenities such as outdoor seating spaces, plantings, and bicycle parking, the parklet will benefit surrounding businesses while also serving as a core community space for the San Antonio Road corridor. The pairing of the parklet and the cycle track creates an attractive and welcoming entrance into the corridor for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. See Figure 10 for an illustration of the low-cost street section.
Figure 10: Low-Cost alternative, facing south.
High-Cost Alternative
20 The high-cost alternative for this section will keep the same cycle track proposed as the low-cost alternative. However, concrete or vegetated buffers will replace the flexible bollards that separate the cycle track from vehicular traffic (Figure 11). This will increase user safety by providing a physical buffer that can stop most vehicles with a more visually appealing separation. A linear park will be constructed instead of a parklet in the remaining frontage area. The park will include a vegetated pathway and outdoor seating to encourage movement and relaxation. In addition, bioretention basins and low-impact development will be incorporated into the park design to address flooding and runoff concerns. With more people drawn to the park, the use of the cycle track as an alternative mode of transportation will be more successfully promoted. A protected bike lane going northbound on San Antonio Road is another proposal for this section. This bike lane provides an alternative to the two-lane cycle track along San Antonio Road so that cyclists will not have such difficulty biking to the surrounding area.
The linear park will only extend to the end of the street frontage section to make use of the existing space there. However, the cycle track will continue along the entire section from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road. The continuation of this track will replace the existing parking lane that is parallel to the traffic lanes. The existing parking lane transitions into a right-turn lane at the Middlefield Road intersection. For this proposal, the right turn lane will be designated for the cycle track and the traffic lane going straight will be converted into a right turn and straight lane (Figure 12). The proposed Middlefield Road intersection changes can be seen in the birds’ eye view map in Figure 13. The Section 2 map provides an overview of the changes in the context of the corridor (Figure 14).
21 Figure 11: High-Cost alternative, facing south.
Figure 12: Street section of Middlefield Road facing north.
22 Figure 13: Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road intersection.
23 Figure 14: Section 2 overview.
24 East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard
Existing Conditions
Two travel lanes in either direction continue after the intersection of East Charleston and San Antonio Road. At the intersection, the southbound lane widens to incorporate three more turn lanes. Along the northbound lanes, there are merging lanes accessing and exiting the light industrial/office park area. San Antonio Road passes over Highway 101 with a partial cloverleaf interchange. There are low-quality pedestrian crossings across the interchange. At the north end of San Antonio lies the entrance to the Baylands Nature Preserve Trail. At Fabian Way, there are two travel lanes in the north and southbound directions. Four mid-block pedestrian crossings exist between East Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive. This portion of Fabian Way includes a Class-II bike lane in either direction. A multimodal pedestrian bicycle bridge crosses Highway 101 just outside of the project site.
Low-Cost Alternative
The third section of the San Antonio Road project area extends from East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard, which is the northernmost street before the Baylands. This section also includes Fabian Way and adjacent land area and extends to Industrial Avenue. The Low-Cost Alternative for this section continues the two-way cycle track presented for the other sections. At the San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road intersection, the cycle track will end and merge into the existing Class-II bike lanes on East Charleston Road. These bike lanes run in each direction of the road and off-site. The cycle track will then pick up on the west side of Fabian Way and continue to Federation Way. From there, the cycle track will move west toward Adobe Creek, where it will run on the existing pathway until reaching the pedestrian bridge that crosses West Bayshore Drive and US 101. This alternative proposes no bike lanes on San Antonio Road north of East Charleston Road.
A benefit of this alternative is that it presents the option of revitalizing Adobe Creek to better incorporate the cycle track with other pedestrian-friendly elements. The existing bikeway is wide enough for pedestrians and has a bike-friendly infrastructure but lacks the aesthetics needed to entice people to use it. The cycle track would make use of the existing multi-modal bridge that connects to Adobe Creek Loop Trail, therefore not requiring additional expansion and saving funding for other uses. In addition, having the cycle track along Adobe Creek as opposed to along Fabian Way increases safety for cyclists by reducing interaction with vehicles. However, having the cycle track discontinued along East Charleston Road is a potential consequence.
Cyclists would have to switch from cycle track to standard bike lane to cycle track to continue their ride, which poses some safety concerns when crossing a busy roadway. This alternative assumes that changes to building footprints and zoning proposed in the Land Use Alternative portion of this document are used.
High-Cost Alternative
25 The high-cost alternative for this section proposes the same cycle track infrastructure that the low-cost alternative proposed. However, this two-way cycle track will be accompanied by another stretch of cycle track that branches off from East Charleston Road, up Industrial Avenue, and connects directly to the Google campus across US 101 via a new pedestrian bridge. This pedestrian bridge will be multi-modal and allow for the cycle track and pedestrian right-of-way to be maintained. The cycle track will utilize part of Industrial Avenue through a development proposed in the Land Use Alternative portion of this document and will provide additional connections for new residents and businesses. Like the low cost, this cycle track increases cyclist safety by minimizing conflict with vehicles and provides a safe passage over the freeway. The construction of a new pedestrian bridge is what puts this alternative at a high cost and there must be communication with Caltrans.
To make the cycle track and Class-II bike lanes function properly, the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road must become a protected intersection. San Antonio Road, facing south at this intersection, will remove a left turn lane in favor of widening the sidewalk and parkway (Figure 15). This will allow all four corners to align straight, resulting in smoother travel for pedestrians and bicyclists. A protected intersection will provide safer crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians with enhanced pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and clear striping and signage. Protected intersections aim to slow down vehicle turns while increasing yield to pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, curb extensions and corner islands reduce the distance for pedestrians to cross the road. The cycle track will have its cross button and entrance that seamlessly merges with the standard East Charleston Road bike lanes, allowing for easy travel throughout the corridor. San Antonio Road is a trucking road, so this protected intersection would make it difficult for potentially large trucks and buses to make turns in the minimal space provided. Figure 16 depicts the proposed protected intersection. The Section 3 map provides an overview of the changes in the context of the corridor (Figure 17).
Figure 15: Low-Cost alternative, facing north.
26 Figure 16: East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road intersection.
27 Figure 17: Section 3 overview.
28 Alternatives Evaluation
This studio used ArcGIS Urban to compute a series of comparable metrics related to housing, land use, and the environment. These metrics are meant to help provide an easy means of comparison between the different land use alternatives. The transportation alternatives are compared through cost estimates for the proposed infrastructure.
Land Use
Table 2: Land Use Metrics
METRIC EXISTING
CONDITIONS
ALTERNATIVE #1
(1200 UNITS)
ALTERNVATIVE
#2 (2000 UNITS)
Population 9,578 10,589 10,667
Energy Use 4.64M kWh/d 4.63M kWh/d 4.63M kWh/d
CO2 Emissions 4.64M lb./d 3.31M lb./d 3.31M lb./d
Wastewater 3.09 gal/d 3.19M gal/d 3.19M gal/d
Daily Trips 1.35M/d 1.44M/d 1.43M/d
Daily Trips
Daily trips measure the number of motor vehicle trips based on a 24-hour basis. The daily trip calculation was estimated based on the equation daily trips=(net space area x trips per area) + (population x daily trips per person) + (households x daily trips per household) + (jobs x daily trips per job). There was a .10M/d trip increase between the existing conditions and the first alternative due to an increase in population and households. There is a minimal difference between alternative 1 and alternative 2; however, there is are a .01M/d decrease in daily trips in the second alternative because of the decrease in jobs in the area. The transportation analysis reveals an increase in daily trips from existing conditions to the proposed alternatives, which is driven by population household growth, and employment.
Population
The population metric calculates the holding capacity for the project area. The population metrics for the different alternatives were determined using the net land use area and a square- foot per person factor. The net land use area refers to the total area of the site. The difference between the three alternatives is determined by the change in net land use area.
The area per person for residential multi-family is 405 sq ft. The more multi-family residential units there are, the smaller the net area per person, leading to a larger population. For instance, the 2,000-unit alternative has more multi-family units compared to the 1,200-unit and existing conditions alternatives, resulting in a larger population for the 2,000-unit alternative.
CO2 Emissions
29 Carbon dioxide emissions measure the amount of carbon dioxide generated in pounds per day by the jobs and population in the project area. CO2 emissions are calculated based on the combined population and jobs emissions. Jobs are multiplied by emissions per job and population is multiplied by emissions per person.
The existing conditions generate 1.33 M lb./d more CO2 emissions than the two proposed alternatives. In both alternatives the number of jobs on site decreases and the population increases with the transition of commercial and light industrial land uses to housing. The decrease in job related CO2 emissions is greater than the increase in population related CO2 emissions therefore the total CO2 emissions for the alternatives is lower than the existing conditions. The two alternatives have the same CO2 emission generation estimates based on rounding despite differences in the jobs and population calculations for each alternative.
Energy Use
Energy use is measured in kilowatt hours per day based on jobs and population for the project area. The energy use total is calculated based on the combined population and jobs energy use.
Jobs are multiplied by energy use per job and population is multiplied by energy use per person.
Each job type has a different energy use.
The existing conditions use 0.1 M kWh/d more energy than the two proposed alternatives. In the proposed alternatives there is an increase in population and a decrease in jobs because of the proposed land use changes. There is an increase in housing and decrease in commercial and light industrial land use in both alternatives. The total energy use decreases in the alternatives because the decrease in job related energy use is greater than the increase in population related energy use. The two alternatives have the same total energy use estimates based on rounding despite differences in the jobs and population calculations for each alternative.
Wastewater
The wastewater metric measures the amount of waste produced per day by the and jobs in the area. For each of the three land use alternatives the amount of wastewater produced was calculated to understand the impact of each scenario. This metric used the following calculations to determine wastewater produced: population multiplied by wastewater per person, plus jobs multiplied by wastewater per job. Different job types have different wastewater production factors.
Alternative 1 and alternative 2 both produce .010 gal/d more than the existing conditions scenario. In the proposed alternatives there is an increase in the number of housing units.
Alternative 1 adds 1,200 housing units and alternative 2 adds 2,000 housing units. This increase in the number of housing units results in a small increase in the amount of wastewater produced.
Alternative 1 and alternative 2 produce the same amount of wastewater per day at 3.19M gal/d and the existing conditions produce 3.09 gal/d.
30 Transportation
Table 3: Transportation Cost Metrics
METRIC LOW-COST HIGH-COST
Cycle Track $1,136,520 $9,905,280
Pedestrian Bridge - $26,000,000
HAWK Signals - $116,000
Protected Intersection - $650,000
Linear Park - $860,000
Street Restriping $58,000 $58,000
Total $1,194,520 $37,589,280
Low-cost
The Cycle Track cost valuation was gathered using the costs of the San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor study. The high-cost and low-cost estimates were generated based on the cost per foot. The low-cost estimate of the cycle track will be $123 per foot for 1.75 miles. The low cost consists of installing bollards as a measure of dividing the street from the cycle track.
High-cost
The Cycle Track cost valuation was gathered using the costs of the San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor study. The high-cost and low-cost estimates were generated based on the cost per foot. The high-cost estimate is considered to be $1,072 per linear foot which includes a curb-separated cycle track stretching 1.75 miles. The pedestrian bridge estimate reflects the cost of the Highway 101 Pedestrian & Bike Bridge Project that was completed in 2021. That cost was $22.8 million. Assuming the same bridge design and construction methods are used, the cost of the new bridge, adjusted for inflation, is $26 million. HAWK signals cost an average of $58,000 per unit, according to the Federal Highway Administration, bringing its total cost to $116,000.
The $650,000 cost of the protected intersection construction is based on estimates listed in the 2020 Berkeley Pedestrian Plan. In addition, the cost to construct a linear park is roughly $50 per square foot. This estimates the approximately 17,200 square foot linear park to cost $860,000.