Palo Alto City Council
June 10, 2024

o Clarifier Equipment Enhancements (e.g., Passavant hydrograv Adapt System; flocculation)
o Clarifier Reconfiguration (e.g., square to round; deeper) o 7th Clarifier (planning)
o Selective WAS Thickening
o RAS Lines
o MABR (second phase of implementation)
• Filtration Process
o Dual Media Filter Rehabilitation or Replacement
• Electrical Distribution
o Arc Flash Study
• Recycled Water System
• Warehouse
o Expansion (Identify whether additional storage space is needed for projected future construction projects.)
o Improvements (e.g., controlled facility, security, climate controls) • Workspaces
o Align with conclusions from Task 3, as applicable
• Repurposing and Recovery of Retired Process Area
o Fixed Film Reactors (Superstructure will be decommissioned following completion of Secondary Treatment Upgrades Project in 2028. Note that City is interested in evaluating whether the decommissioned fixed film reactors’ structure can be used as warehouse storage or as space for future treatment process.) o Incineration Building
o Chlorine Building
• Gravity Thickeners
• Biosolids Facilities
o Align with conclusions from Task 2, as applicable
• Miscellaneous
o Recycle water line replacement
o Hypochlorite tank and appurtenances replacement
o Low voltage and communication system improvements (including fiberoptic network and public address system improvements)
Conduct at least two workshops with Plant staff to review and amend the project list. For each project, determine with the City if an evaluation of alternatives (e.g., technologies; location; capacity) is appropriate at this stage and if future alternatives analyses are required.

Coordinate with the regulatory group, including conducting a workshop as needed, to determine applicable regulatory requirements for air quality and water quality compliance. Determine if additional projects are needed based on the regulatory review.

For each of the capital improvement projects, determine which projects should be grouped, develop capital cost estimates, and prioritize projects to develop a reasonable implementation plan.

Compile these projects into a draft 50-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). For each project, provide the following details:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 188 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

• Name
• Description, capacity, and estimated useful life of the facility and major assets • Project development/definition steps
• LRFP Update to implementation schedule
• Estimated capital cost
• Estimated operations and maintenance cost
• Regulatory requirements
• Necessary sea level rise and changing shallow groundwater adaptations • Projected start of construction (year) and construction duration CONSULTANT will review Plant data, metered utility data, chemical costs, trucking costs, etc. and consult with Plant staff to estimate the O&M costs associated with each process (including recycled water facilities).

Develop a draft Recommended Improvements TM.

Task 6.2 – Final Recommended Improvements
Conduct at least one workshop with Plant staff to review the draft Recommended Improvements.

Incorporate City’s comments from the draft Recommended Improvements TM and the workshop comments in the final Recommended Improvements TM.

Deliverables:
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops:
o Project Identification Workshop.
o Project Prioritization and Sequencing Workshop.
o Recommended Improvements and 50-year CIP Workshop.
• Recommended Improvements TM, draft and final versions and comment log. • Schematic of recommended improvement projects overlaid on an aerial image of the Plant with keynotes and legend.
• 50-year CIP Excel Model.

Assumptions:
• Workshops will be attended by up to five Carollo staff and up to three Jacobs staff.

Workshops will be virtual and have a 2-hour duration.
• Cost estimates will be developed consistent with AACE Class 5. • All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.

Task 7 – Cost of Service Analysis
Task 7.1 – Operations and Maintenance Cost Allocation
Perform a Cost of Service Analysis for the Plant’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs.

Allocate/proportion the estimated O&M costs from Task 6 based on each Partner Agency’s respective flows, loads, or other identified allocation parameters (as applicable).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 189 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

Identify the share of O&M expenses for each process allocable for cost recovery from wastewater flow, BOD, suspended solids (SS), ammonia (NH3), and other parameters as warranted (e.g. some O&M costs may be equitably recovered based on the share of capacity owned by each member agency). The goal will be to determine cost recovery allocations for each Plant process for equitably recovering O&M costs from the City and its partner agencies.

Review how flow and load data is currently sampled and analyzed. Identify and evaluate options for establishing a consistent basis for measuring and determining wastewater flow and loadings for future O&M cost allocation. Consult with Plant staff and partner agencies to gain input and facilitate agreement regarding future flow and loading measurement.

Identify alternative approaches for using the flow and loading data for O&M cost allocation. For example, use of rolling multi-year data to help smooth annual changes in cost allocations, or evaluation of cost allocation based on the number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) assigned to each agency.

Conduct a survey of other regional and comparable multi-agency wastewater treatment plants for purposes of identifying how other agencies a) measure flows and loadings for allocating costs to member agencies, and b) apportion O&M and capital cost to their member agencies.

Discuss how other comparable regional wastewater treatment facilities collect data and allocate O&M costs. As warranted, develop up to three alternative methods each for allocating O&M costs based on different combinations of allocation factors and assumptions of data availability for relevant allocation factors and assumptions of data availability for relevant allocation factors, which could include flow information, loading information, number of customers or other allocation factors identified as relevant to developing an efficient and equitable allocation approach. The following background context will be used to guide selection of appropriate allocation factors to include in the alternative methods:

Partners like Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos began using strength components in the cost of service by agreement on January 14, 1980 with an effective start date of July 1, 1980. This approach was formalized with EPASD in 1989 and Stanford and Los Altos Hills in 1986. The cost components are set at 34% flow, 22% ammonia (NH3), 22% total suspended solids (TSS), and 22% chemical oxygen demand (COD). The allocations may be altered “based upon actual cost data derived in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and upon agreement of all parties hereto.” The City will use the results of this task to establish the cost data per generally accepted accounting principles to potentially change the allocation of total costs to be billed on annual basis for each of the six agencies and to potentially alter how data is collected for support of this calculation.

City staff will handle Partner agreement changes and be supported by the CONSULTANT.

Compare the existing and alternative methods, including the impact of the various options on costs allocated to the partner agencies for O&M costs during a future budget year, such as FY 2025, that would be selected in collaboration with the City. Evaluate alternatives to current sampling practices used to generate load data. Make preliminary recommendation on cost allocation approach. Finalize recommended approach after discussion with the City of advantages and disadvantages of the approaches evaluated.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 190 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

Draft an Operations and Maintenance Cost of Service TM Section. Facilitate a workshop to present the findings. Incorporate City’s comments from the draft Operations and Maintenance Cost of Service TM Section and the workshop comments in the final Cost of Service Analysis TM.

Task 7.2 – Capital Cost Allocation
Perform a Cost-of-Service Analysis for the Plant’s Capital Costs. Review the Plant’s current allocation of capital costs (debt) to the Partner Agencies as capacity shares. Partners established current fixed capacity shares in about April 1985 as follows:

MAXIMUM FLOW CAPACITY RIGHTS EXPRESSED IN ANNUAL AVERAGE FLOW

MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
Los
Altos
Mountain
View
East Palo Alto
Sanitary District
Stanford
University
Los Altos
Hills
Palo
Alto Total

3.80 15.10 3.06 2.11 0.63 15.30 40.00

FIXED CAPACITY SHARE OF CAPITAL ASSETS FOR DEBT SERVICE SHARE Los
Altos
Mountain
View
East Palo Alto
Sanitary District
Stanford
University
Los Altos
Hills
Palo
Alto Total

9.47% 37.89% 7.64% 5.26% 1.58% 38.16% 100%
Provide examples of capital cost allocations by other, comparable regional wastewater treatment plants.

Evaluate alternative capital cost allocation approaches, such as different mixes of allocation factors. Estimate the share of capital costs that would be allocated to the partner agencies in up to three alternative allocation approaches. The alternative approaches will use different combinations of allocation factors, such as capacity ownership, current and/or projected future wastewater flow, BOD, SS and NH3 and other factors such as number of customers, as warranted, to allocate costs of the major capital projects to the partner agencies. Incorporate input from Plant staff. The goal will be to determine an equitable approach for allocating the costs of the major capital improvement projects to each partner agency. After consultation with Plant staff, make recommendation for capital cost allocation approach from among the ones evaluated, and identify the resulting costs for each partner for currently identified capital projects based on the recommended allocation approach.

Draft a Capital Cost of Service TM Section. Incorporate City’s comments from the draft Capital Cost of Service TM Section and the workshop comments in the final Cost of Service Analysis TM.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 191 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

Provide the City with a user-friendly Excel model of the proposed O&M and Capital cost allocation tables and projections. The model will be developed with input from Plant staff and will be designed to be easy to modify and update.

Task 7.3 – Presentation Materials
Prepare a slide deck of technical support materials and exhibits for future City Council and Partner agency presentations, detailing the Plant’s cost of service analysis method and Partner allocations.

Provide each agency with a projection of its allocated O&M costs for the future budget year selected for the cost of service analysis in Task 7.2. and its allocated share of capital projects based on the selected methodology for capital cost allocation. Make content suitable for general audience understanding. Target a 20-minute length of presentation. Incorporate two cycles of City’s review comments.

Deliverables:
• Agenda, materials, and minutes for all workshops:
o Operations and Maintenance Cost of Service Allocation Workshop. o Capital Cost of Service Allocation Workshop.
• Draft Operations and Maintenance Cost of Service TM Section. • Draft Capital Cost of Service TM Section.
• Final Cost of Service TM.
• Cost of Service presentation materials for future City Council and partner agency presentations, two drafts and one final version.
• Cost Allocation Excel Model.

Assumptions:
• Workshops will be attended by up to one BWA staff, up to one Jacobs staff, and up to one Carollo staff. Workshops will be virtual and have a 2-hour duration. • All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.

Task 8 – Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report
Task 8.1 – LRFP Update Report
Prepare a draft and a final Long Range Facilities Plan Update that incorporates the findings from Tasks 2 through 8. Clearly note assumptions and append calculations. Submit a draft table of contents to the City for approval. The following shall be included in the report:
• Executive Summary
• Summary of the planning process in general (including evaluation criteria and methods) • Characterize the existing conditions, including:
o Characterization of waste streams
o Existing plant assessment and deficiencies
o Environmental setting and land uses
o Regulatory, Environmental, Financial, and Community Opportunities and Challenges
• Project Development
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 192 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

o Present and future requirements, needs, and opportunities o Selection of most promising alternatives
o Evaluation of alternatives
o Life cycle costs
• Recommended Projects
o Identify each Partner’s capacities by project, as applicable. o Present tables and figures that show projects by type (e.g., driver (increased capacity, regulatory, and/or rehabilitation); flow, load, or flow and load), assumed construction start year, assumed midpoint of construction, assumed useful life, preliminary size and location, etc.
• Financial plan
o Identify costs in aggregate and by Partner allocation. o Present project costs in both present value and in the assumed dollar value in the year of the construction start.

As directed by the City, prioritize the completion of Task 2 and Task 3 and summarize those findings in the Report. The background, alternatives, evaluations, and findings from Tasks 2 and 3 can be standalone sections (appendices) within the Report. Recommendations, including recommended capital projects from Tasks 2 and 3, shall be incorporated into the Report’s recommended projects and finance plan.

Task 8.2 – Presentation Materials
Prepare technical support materials and exhibits for City Council and partner agency presentations.

This presentation will compile previous presentation sections developed in Tasks 2, 3, and 6. Make content suitable for a general public audience. Incorporate two cycles of City’s review comments.

Task 8.3 – Presentation Support
Support City staff with presentations to each partner agency, including an overview of the Long Range Facilities Plan Update, the cost of service methodology, and the capital cost allocated share methodology. Support City staff with presentations for public workshops on topics related to this scope of work.
• Presentation for public workshops (2 day and 1 night meetings, in-person) • Presentation to Utilities Advisory Commission, Finance Committee, and Palo Alto City Council (3 night meetings, in-person)
• Presentation to Mountain View Council (1 night meeting, in-person) • Presentation to East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Engineering Committee and Board of Directors (1 day meeting and 1 night meeting, in-person) • Presentation to Los Altos City Council (1 night meeting, in-person) • Presentation to Los Altos Hills Town Council (1 night meeting, in-person) • Presentation to Stanford University staff (1 day meeting - virtual) • Presentation to all partners (3 day meetings - virtual) In-person support at a presentation shall include a member of the CONSULTANT’s project management team. Other staff or subconsultants may support the presentation of the LRFP Update through virtual technology.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 193 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

Deliverables:
• Draft Table of Contents for Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report. • Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report, draft and final versions and comment log. • Presentation materials for City Council and partner agency presentations, two drafts and one final version.

Assumptions:
• Presentations will be attended by up to one Carollo staff in person, up to two Carollo staff virtually, up to two Jacobs staff virtually, and up to one BWA staff virtually. Presentations and Q&A will have a 2-hour duration.
• All deliverables will be provided in electronic format.

V. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the City. The CONSULTANT, at the City Project Manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the City Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the of the services. The additional services include, but not limited to, the following:
• Additional technical supports associated with unforeseen conditions encountered during construction.
• Any additional work related to this Project, as requested by the City Project Manager, which is not in Basic Services.

VI. TIME OF COMPLETION
The project is budgeted for an estimated start date in the third quarter 2024, with a total duration (Task 1 – 8) of 30 months.

VII. OTHER PROVISIONS
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, CONSULTANT’s duties and services described in this Scope of Services shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of CITY’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project.

CONSULTANT’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications.

CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Scope of Services.

END OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 194 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

EXHIBIT A-1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. CONSULTANT shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.

CONTRACT NO.

OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE):
1B. TASK ORDER NO.:

2. CONSULTANT NAME:

3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION:
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT $_______________

5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________

6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:_____________________________________

7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
 SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
 MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)  REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)

8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): _____________________________ I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.

APPROVED:

CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.

APPROVED:

COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 195 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (“NTP”) from the CITY.

Milestones
Completion
Number of Days/Weeks (as specified below)
from NTP

1. Task 1 – Project Management 130 weeks

2. Task 2 – Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP)
Update
74 weeks

3. Task 3 – Workspace Planning 74 weeks

4. Task 4 – Background and Baseline
Information
50 weeks

5. Task 5 – Existing Plant Infrastructure and
Process Assessment
50 weeks

6. Task 6 – Identification, Evaluation, and
Recommendation of
Alternatives/Improvements
83 weeks

7. Task 7 – Cost of Service Analysis 115 weeks

8. Task 8 – Long Range Facilities Plan
Update Report
130 weeks
Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements. (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.)
The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 196 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

EXHIBIT C

COMPENSATION
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for Services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.

CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below, provided that the total compensation for the Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.

BUDGET SCHEDULE

TASK NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1
(Project Management)
$121,469
Task 2
(Biosolids Facility Plan Update)
$474,073
Task 3
(Workspace Planning)
$656,665
Task 4
(Background and Baseline Information)
$264,826
Task 5
(Existing Plant Infrastructure and Process Assessment)
$391,906
Task 6
(Identification, Evaluation, and Recommendation of
Alternatives/Improvements
$276,523
Task 7
(Cost of Service Analysis)
$139,364
Task 8
(Long Range Facilities Plan Update Report)
$163,405
Sub-total for Services $2,488,231
Reimbursable Expenses (if any) $5,200
Total for Services and Reimbursable Expenses $2,493,431 Additional Services (if any, per Section 4) $249,343
Maximum Total Compensation $2,742,774
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 197 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder.

Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are: Travel/Mileage up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $5,200.

A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay Area, including transportation and meals, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses.

B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost.

All requests for reimbursement of expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, shall be accompanied by appropriate backup documentation and information.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 198 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

EXHIBIT C-1

SCHEDULE OF RATES
CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows:

Prime Consultant: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 199 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

Subconsultant: Jacobs Engineering, Inc.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 200 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

Subconsultant: Bartle Wells Associates
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 201 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

EXHIBIT D

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE

CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN.

REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT

MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH

OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY

STATUTORY

STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY

YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING

PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM

PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET

CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL

LIABILITY

BODILY INJURY

PROPERTY DAMAGE

BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY
DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000

YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY,

INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED,

NON-OWNED

BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE

PROPERTY DAMAGE

BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY

DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000

YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,

INCLUDING, ERRORS AND

OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN

APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT

PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONSULTANT, AT ITS SOLE COST

AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM

OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONSULTANT AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.

I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:

A. FOR GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.

II. THE CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL: [email protected] III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS:

A. PRIMARY COVERAGE

WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED,

INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR

CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 202 of 636
Professional Services
Rev. Jan 29, 2024

ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.

B. CROSS LIABILITY

THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER

THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE

INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE

INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.

C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION

1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON

OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.

2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.

EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND OTHER RELATED NOTICES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SENT TO THE FOLLOWING EMAIL:

[email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CDC1BA0-AAD8-4FD6-832D-8F512908E4CE Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
C24189086 with Carollo
Engineers, Inc
Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 203 of 636
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Report #:2404-2878
TITLE
Approval of Construction Contract C24190538A with JJR Construction, Inc. in an Amount Notto-Exceed $1,586,191 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that May Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $158,619 for the Fiscal Year 2024 Sidewalk Repair ADA Improvement Project-REBID, Capital Improvement Program Projects PO-89003 and PO-12001; CEQA Status – exempt under section 15301(c)

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Construction Contract No. C24190538A with JJR Construction, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,586,191 for the Fiscal Year 2024 Sidewalk Repair ADA Improvement Project-REBID (Sidewalk Repairs (PO-89003) and Curb and Gutter Repairs (PO-12001) capital improvement projects); and

2. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with JJR Construction, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $158,619.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Engineering Services Division manages construction contracts for concrete sidewalk, driveway, curb ramp, curb and gutter repairs and maintenance at various locations throughout the City annually. The City completed its 30-year district by district repair program in 2017. That same year, the City contracted with Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) to evaluate the program and assess potential improvements.1 The study was completed in Spring 2019 and included surveying 20 percent of the City’s sidewalk network and nearly 60 percent of 1 City Council, November 06, 2017: Agenda Item# 11; SR #8611, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reportscmrs/year-archive/2017/id.-8611-sidewalk-assessment-study.pdf Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 204 of 636
the curb ramps. This data was used to determine trends for future repairs and determine funding needs to maintain the 30-year sidewalk district program.

The City deferred its annual sidewalk maintenance program due to funding being reduced in FY 2021 and FY 2022 as a part of the FY 2021 Capital Improvement Program budget strategy. The remaining funding was used to perform emergency maintenance and spot repairs. Funding was restored in FY 2023 to support pre-pandemic maintenance schedules, however Public Works Engineering Services Division was not fully staffed and was unable to manage a project in FY 2023. With the staff vacancies now filled, staff is ready to implement a larger sidewalk project that would incorporate additional funding from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).

The City will be resuming its sidewalk maintenance program and starting a new district by district repair cycle this fiscal year based on the data provided by the NCE study. The study renumbered the sidewalk districts in order of priority based on the quantity of repairs required.

Based on this new ranking, repairs for this fiscal year’s project will primarily be focused on sidewalk districts 1 and 2 which encompasses the Downtown and Professorville neighborhoods.

ANALYSIS
Staff recommends approval of Contract No. C24190538A2 as part of the program to maintain and improve the condition of Palo Alto’s sidewalk network. Each year this project addresses one or two of the 23 sidewalk districts. The City will be starting a new rehabilitation cycle starting with sidewalk districts 1 and 2. The work to be performed under this concrete involves sidewalk, driveway, curb ramp, curb, gutter, and asphalt pavement repairs. Repair locations are shown in Attachment A.

The scope of work includes the replacement of approximately 18,468 square feet of concrete sidewalk, 2,136 linear feet of curbs and gutters, and 3,759 square feet of driveways.

Additionally, 84 new curb ramps will be installed, and 33 existing curb ramps will be retrofitted with truncated domes to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

A portion of this project is funded by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Funds of $300,000 were reallocated from the Ravenswood Family Health Network3 and funds of $211,673 were appropriated to align the FY 2024 Budget with the FY 2023-24 CDBG Action 2 JJR Construction, Inc.FY24 Sidewalk Repair ADA Improvement Project, Contract #C24190538A; www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-services/cip-contracts/c24190538a-jjrconstruction_5.20.2024_staff-report_rev1.pdf 3 City Council, April 17, 2023; Agenda Item #9; SR #2302-0991; https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-services/cip-contracts/sr2302- 0991-4.17.2023-cdbg-funds-for-sidewalk-cip-po-89003.pdf Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 205 of 636
Plan4 totaling $511,673. The transferred funds will be used to cover a part of the project’s improvements which equates to 59 new curb ramps and 4,704 square feet of sidewalk.

Solicitation Process
On March 13, 2024, a notice inviting formal bids for the FY 2024 Sidewalk Repair ADA Improvement Project was posted on OpenGov, the City’s eProcurement platform. The bidding period was 21 calendar days. The City received three (3) responsive bids over the approved budget, hence the City exercised its right to reject all bids. Subsequently, on April 17, 2024, a notice inviting formal bids for the FY 2024 Sidewalk Repair ADA Improvement Project-REBID was posted on OpenGov with adjustments made to the project scope. The rebidding period was 14 calendar days. Bids were received from three (3) qualified contractors on May 1, 2024, as listed on the attached Bid Analysis in Attachment B.

Table #1: Summary of Invitations for Bid
Project Bid Name/Number FY 2024 Sidewalk Repair ADA Improvement Project-REBID (IFB 190538A)
Proposed Length of Project 210 calendar days
# of Bid Packages Downloaded by
Contractors
17 # of Bid Packages Downloaded by
Builder’s Exchanges
1 Total Days to Respond to Bid 14 calendar days
Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting? No
Number of Bids Received 3
Bid Price Range $1,481,791 to $2,373,045
Public Link to Solicitation https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/palo-altoca/projects/90537 The apparent low bidder was selected based upon the base bid. The bids ranged from $1,481,791 to $2,373,045 and from 20% below to 28% above the engineer’s estimate of $1,856,815. Staff reviewed the submitted bids and recommends the acceptance of the base bid submitted by JJR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,481,791, and that JJR Construction, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff also recommends awarding add alternates #1 and #2 in the amounts of $46,400 and $58,000 for additional sidewalk repairs. The total base bid plus the add alternates totals $1,586,191. The construction contingency amount of $158,619, which equals approximately 10% of the contract value, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, implemented via City-approved Change Order.

Staff reviewed information and similar projects performed by the lowest bidder, JJR 4 City Council, February 12, 2024; Agenda Item #11; SR#2311-2233; https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-services/cip-contracts/sr2311- 2233-2.12.2024-cdbg-fy-2024-mid-year.pdf
Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 206 of 636
Construction, Inc. and found them to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Staff also checked with the Contractor’s State License Board and confirmed the contractor has an active license on file.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for this contract is available in the Fiscal Year 2024 Adopted Capital Improvement Program Sidewalk Repairs project (PO-89003), and Curb and Gutter Repairs project (PO-12001).

The funding allocation is as follows:

Table #2: Funding Allocation
Funding Source Contract Contingency Total Encumbrance
PO-89003 $1,403,448 $140,345 $1,543,793
PO-12001 $182,743 $18,274 $201,017
Total $1,586,191 $158,619 $1,744,810

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Notices of sidewalk and driveway closures will be distributed to impacted parties 72-hours to 120-hours prior to the start of work. “No Parking” signs will also be posted 72-hours in advance of all work. The latest construction schedule will be posted on the City website and will be updated as necessary.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as the project scope involves the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing facilities including. No further environmental review is necessary.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Project Location Maps
Attachment B: Bid Analysis
APPROVED BY:

Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer
Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 207 of 636
Middlefield Road Middlefield Road
293 192, 193
191
80 79 75
86 78 83
87 95
6 84
T h e C i t y o f
89 88 96 P a l o A l t o 179 85
180
363 364
292
347 351 353
366
190
370 367
337
336
369
371 365
350
246
178 352 354
245
288
244
166
165
172
171
143 144
145 142
154
155 163 164
162 227
226 228
160
161 231
232 Kipling Street Kipling Street
170
318
300 303 316
295 298 301 305 312 314 317 330 331
306 218 334
335
Waverley Street Waverley Street Waverley Street
310
263 299 302 304
296
307 309
308
313 315239
240
333 332
175
259256 258
257 Scott Street
177
176 174 243
255 60 31 35 39 40 41 42238 57
27 32, 33
34 Bryant Street Bryant Street
188
189
36 37 38 43
291
272
Ramona Street Ramona Street Ramona Street
Emerson Street
High Street
266
Lane 12 W273 Lane 15 E
159
Emerson Street Emerson Street
242 187 LEGEND: 185 Lane 5 E 186 194 202 203
204
This map is a product of the
# City of Palo Alto GIS
#
#

SIDEWALK REPAIR

CURB RAMP - CDBG

CURB RAMP
205
206
183
184 8
182
195 196
241 # 197 RETROFIT
CURB
RAMP
7 CURB/GUTTER 17 18 15
REPAIR Alma Street 0' 350'
bleung, 2024-01-04 17:06:31
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb)
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.

The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 208 of 636
ad Middlefield Road Middlefield Road
217
94 61 22290 91
92 68 70 72 7481 6
T h e C i t y o f
P a l o A l t o
93 62 63
249
64 65 66 67 69 71 73 82 221
216
356
357 361 340 343 344 345 362
339
5 368
341 6
342
219
346
286
355 99 358 359
360
338 220 4
289
290
285 173
287
128 248 121
122 140
135
124 146 147 129 132 134 103 105 110 113 151152116 118
137
139
229
150 141 136 117
149 148
214
138 125 127 130 133102 104107
106108
237 225 111
112
153 114
115
123 109 119 120 3
126 131 233 215
Kipling Street
234 230 324
169 322 326 329
Waverley Street Waverley Street Waverley Street
168 319 323 213
320 325 327
321
211 328
98 297
281 167 282 2
1 236
44 212 47 48 50 51 1920 235 25 26 224
274
29 30 54
55 21
22 23 Bryant Street
56 46 52
49 53 58 59 24
275
276
28 45
268 269
eet
W
265 271
264
267 270 278 277
Emerson Street Emerson Street
198 207 208
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS 200
201
High Street
199 210 209
16 11 12 9 10 13, 14
Alma Street
0' 350'
bleung, 2024-01-04 17:07:45 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 209 of 636
6 T h e C i t y o f
P a l o A l t o
97 156
251
Louis Road
Barbara Drive
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
262
0' 420'
bleung, 2024-01-11 11:55:18
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb)
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.

The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 210 of 636
76, 77 Byron Street Byron Street
Byron Street
6 Webster Street
348 349 Webster Street
T h e C i t y o f
252 P a l o A l t o
Tasso Street
Cowper Street Cowper Street
Waverley Street
South Court
Bryant Street Bryant Street Bryant Street
Ramona Street
158
Emerson Street Emerson Street Emerson Street
157
High Street High Street Hi
Alma Street
CalTrain ROW
Mariposa Avenue
Castilleja Avenue
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
253
254
Esco
bit
a A
ve
nu
e
Birch Street
0' 420'
t
bleung, 2024-01-11 11:58:34 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 211 of 636
Indian Drive
6 Greer Road T h e C i t y o f
P a l o A l t o
Burnham Way
101
Louis Road
294
y
280
279
Stelling Drive
Rorke Way
n
100
Coastland Drive
o
Midtown Court This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Middlefield Road
0' 420'
bleung, 2024-01-11 12:00:00
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb)
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.

The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 212 of 636
6 T h e C i t y o f
P a l o A l t o
Road
Byron Street
250
Street
311
South Court
284
Street
Ramona Street
Emerson Street Emerson Street
Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS CalTrain ROW
Park Boulevard
0' 500'
bleung, 2024-01-11 15:59:38
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb)
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.

The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 213 of 636
Alma Street
260
261
Park Boulevard Park Boulevard
6 T h e C i t y o f
P a l o A l t o
247
ay
le W
rda
Inteay in W
Tha
223
Ave
nue mo
Cle
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
283
0' 550'
bleung, 2024-01-11 13:11:27
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb)
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.

The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 214 of 636
6 T h e C i t y o f
P a l o A l t o
181
Dartmouth Street
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
0' 262'
bleung, 2024-01-11 16:18:44 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 215 of 636
Lane 5 E
6 T h e C i t y o f
P a l o A l t o
Lane 8 West Lane A
A
A
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
0' 182'
bleung, 2024-04-15 10:02:30 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Item 7
Attachment A - Project Location
Maps
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 216 of 636
Bid Analysis
2024 Sidewalk
Base Bid
Traffic Control
Public Notification
Sidewalk
Engineer JJR
Total
$
Spencon R&S
Bid Item Name QTY UNIT Total
LS
Unit Price Total Unit Price Unit Price Total Unit Price 1 25,000.00 $ 430,000.00
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1 1
$ 80,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
80,000.00 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.00 1.00

23.20 15.00

30.00 35.35

35.35 35.35

73.35 1.00 $ 25,000.00

1.00 $ 20,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
430,000.00
5,000.00
646,380.00
4,960.00
LS
SF
SF
SF
SF
LF
SF
LF
LF
LF
EA
SF
EA
SF
EA
LS
20,000.00
369,360.00
2,480.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
20,000.00
424,764.00
1,240.00
15,800.00
124,047.00
213,600.00
127,200.00
61,500.00
104,130.00
8,400.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000.00
18468 35.00
248
632
3759
2136
5088
492
534
42 84
396
28 203
30 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

20.00 10.00

35.00 25.00

65.00 428,457.60
3,720.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

23.00 5.00

25.00 33.00
100.00

25.00 125.00
195.00
200.00
6,000.00
175.00
150.00

25.00 Sidewalk Removal 20.00

30.00 40.00

55.00 35.00

85.00 90.00

35.00 Brick/Paver Specialty Finish
Driveway
Type A curb
Gutter Pan
Type A curb, 1' Buried
Type B
22,120.00
93,975.00
138,840.00
330,720.00
63,960.00
96,120.00
10,500.00
504,000.00
31,680.00
14,000.00
4,060.00
18,960.00
132,880.65
75,507.60
179,860.80
36,088.20
66,402.90
4,743.90
465,276.00
13,068.00
4,200.00
18,960.00
150,360.00
117,480.00
178,080.00
41,820.00
48,060.00
1,470.00
672,000.00
29,700.00
4,200.00

65.00 130.00
180.00
250.00
6,000.00

80.00 500.00

20.00 2,000.00
10 11
12 124.35
112.95
5,539.00

33.00 150.00

17.75 Valley Gutter 3'
Curb Ramp
13 Detectable Warning Surface
504,000.00
69,300.00
4,200.00
8,000.00

75.00 150.00

25.00 150.00
15,000.00
14 15
16 17
Adjust Utility Box
AC Pavement
Reset Catch Basin
Misc. Improvements
3,603.25
34,020.00
5,075.00
60,000.00
15,000.00
5,075.00
4,500.00
15,000.00
60,000.00 1,134.00 2,000.00
$ 15,000.00 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1,856,815.00 $ 1,481,790.90
‐20%
$ 1,783,256.00 $ 2,373,045.00
‐4% 28%

UNDER UNDER OVER
Add Alt
Name
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Engineer JJR
Total
Spencon R&S
Total
$
$
$
Bid Item QTY
2000
2500
UNIT Unit Price Total Unit Price Unit Price
$
$
Total Unit Price
1 2
SF
SF
$
$

20.00 20.00
$
$
$
40,000.00
50,000.00
90,000.00
$
$

23.20 23.20
$
$
$
46,400.00
58,000.00
104,400.00

35.00 35.00
$
$
$
70,000.00
87,500.00
157,500.00
$
$

40.00 40.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
180,000.00
Item 7
Attachment B - Bid Analysis
Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 217 of 636
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Report #:2404-2881
TITLE
Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C21179265C with Carollo Engineers, Inc., to Increase Compensation by $4,151,386 and Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C21178333 with Black & Veatch to Extend the Contract Term through December 31, 2027 for the Local Advanced Water Purification System Project (WQ-19003); CEQA status - Notice of Determination Adopted November 18, 2019

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute:

1. Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C21179265C with Carollo Engineers, Inc., to increase the contract amount by $4,151,386 to provide construction management and inspection services during construction of the Local Advanced Water Purification System project, including $3,773,987 for basic services and $377,399 for additional services; and

2. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C21178333 with Black & Veatch, to extend the contract term through December 31, 2027 for design services, with no additional cost payable by the City.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report recommends award of a construction management contract and amendment to the design contract for the Local Advanced Water Purification System (Local AWPS) project to improve recycled water quality. The form of the construction management contract is through amendment to an existing agreement for on-call construction management and inspection services approved by the City Council in June 2021. Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 4 (Attachment A) to Carollo Contract C21179265C to increase compensation by $4,151,386, from $9,229,806 to $13,381,192. For design services, staff recommends approval of Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 218 of 636
Amendment No. 2 (Attachment B) with Black & Veatch to extend the duration of the design contract to December 31, 2027, to address the delayed construction start date and provide design services during construction.

BACKGROUND
The RWQCP treats wastewater from a total of six communities (Partner Agencies) and produces approximately 230 million gallons per year of tertiary-treated recycled water for beneficial reuse.

On January 25, 2010, City Council approved the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy, including a goal of reducing the recycled water salinity as measured by total dissolved solids (TDS) to under 600 parts per million (ppm).1 In the following years, the City and the other Partner Agencies completed several projects to reduce infiltration into sewers. The repairs reduced the salts entering the RWQCP, but not by enough to reach the target.

In 2017, City Council approved the Preliminary Conceptual Design Report for a phased Local Salt Removal Facility (Local Advanced Water Purification System or Local AWPS). The Local AWPS will improve the recycled water quality by reducing its average concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) from 800 ppm to 450 ± 50 ppm by blending reverse osmosis product water with the existing recycled water. The highly treated water would enable the City as well as Mountain View to expand non-potable recycled water use and/or provide a first step toward small-scale direct or indirect potable reuse in the City.

In December 2019, the City, Mountain View, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) signed an Agreement to Advance Resilient Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County.2 The Agreement included funding of $16 million from Valley Water that could be put towards finalizing the design and construction of the Local AWPS and in March 2021, the City hired Black & Veatch for the design.3
An update on the Local AWPS design including updated cost estimates was presented to Council at a September 12, 2022 study session.4 Due to increases in construction prices as well as refinement of design elements, the cost estimate of the Local AWPS at the detailed design was significantly higher than that of the preliminary design in 2017 ($20 million). Staff 1 City Council, January 25, 2010; Agenda Item #9, SR #111:10, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=55114&repo=r-704298fc 2 City Council, November 18, 2019; Agenda Item #17, SR #10627, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reportscmrs/year-archive/2019/id-10627-mini-packet-11182019.pdf?t=60382.02 3 City Council, March 3, 2021; Agenda Item #3, SR #11782, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=95&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=c6020df0-5272-425f-a399- 0d29b1a69b64
4 City Council, September 12, 2022; Agenda Item #3, SR #14650, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59240&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=1fc7f635-8174-45b3- b0b1-cd496145aa8f
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 219 of 636
committed at the September 12, 2022 study session to prepare a Preliminary Finance Plan to describe the costs associated with the project, the various funding sources available, and the fiscal impacts to the City. In October 2023, City Council approved a Financing Plan for the Project and directed staff to secure financing and to solicit bids for construction and construction management services contracts.5
In May 2024, City Council approved an application for a Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception to allow construction of this Project following the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board.6 C21179265C Construction Management Contract Amendment No. 4 On June 21, 2021, City Council approved five separate five-and-a-half-year contracts (Contract Nos. C21179265A through C21179265E) with MNS Engineers, Inc.; CDM Smith; Carollo Engineers; MCK Americas, Inc.; and Tanner Pacific, Inc. to provide on-call construction management and inspection services during construction of various capital projects at the RWQCP. These contracts were initially set at a not-to-exceed total amount of $1 per contract.7 For construction of each capital improvement project at the RWQCP, staff issued a request for work order proposals to all five aforementioned construction management consultants, evaluated the proposals received, and selected one consultant that best met the project needs.

Staff then sought Council’s approval on a project-specific amendment (Task Order) to the selected construction management consultant’ s contract as part of the staff report for the approval of the construction contract for that project.

On November 14, 2022, City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to Contract C21179265C with Carollo to add Task 2: Construction management and inspection services for the 12kV Electrical Power Distribution Loop Rehabilitation Bid Package 1 Project, and to increase compensation for basic and additional services by $604,246, from $1 to $604,247. Task 2 Services were funded by the Plant Repair, Retrofit, and Equipment Replacement Project (WQ-19002).8 On December 5, 2022, City Council approved Amendment No. 2 to Contract C21179265C with Carollo to 1) add Task 3: construction management and inspection services for the Secondary Treatment Upgrades Project; 2) extend the contract term through March 31, 2028; and 3) 5 City Council, October 16, 2023; Agenda Item #10, SR#2308-1863, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=67870&repo=r-704298fc 6 City Council, May 13, 2024; Agenda Item #11, SR#2404-2760, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/PdfViewer.aspx?file=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.laserfiche.com%2FPortal%2FEle ctronicFile.aspx%3Fdocid%3D72055%26repo%3Dr-704298fc%26pdfView%3Dtrue#page=153 7 City Council, June 21, 2021; Agenda Item #21; SR # 12324, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reportscmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12324.pdf 8 City Council, November 14, 2022; Agenda Item #5, SR #14602, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59114&repo=r-704298fc Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 220 of 636
increase compensation for basic and additional services by $8,237,021, from $604,247. Task 3 Services were funded by the Secondary Treatment Upgrades Project (WQ-19001).9 On October 23, 2023, City Council approved Amendment No. 3 to Contract C21179265C with Carollo to increase compensation for basic and additional services by $388,538, from $8,841,268 to $9,229,806. Task 1A Services were funded by the Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation Project (WQ-14003).10
Amendment No. 4 to Carollo Contract C21179265C will increase compensation for basic and additional services by $4,151,386, from $9,229,806 to $13,381,192. The Local AWPS Project final completion date is expected to be in June 2027. Amendment No. 4 to the Carollo Contract C21179265C will not change the current contract end date of March 31, 2028.

Black and Veatch Design Contract Amendment No. 2
On March 10, 2021, City Council approved a professional services contract for design services with Black and Veatch (B&V) for the Local AWPS Project at the RWQCP. The original contract amount was $3,182,960, including $2,893,600 for basic services and $289,360 for additional services. The current contract expiration date is June 30, 2024.11 After initial contract award, B&V progressed through the 30%, 60%, and 90% design stages. At 60% design, staff was informed by the City’s Planning Department that the project would require a Major Architectural Review and then approval of a Site and Design Review from Council. Staff submitted an application at the 90% design stage and worked with the Planning and Development Services Department to move the project through the Planning and Transportation Commission, Architectural Review Board, and City Council12.

ANALYSIS
C21179265C Construction Management Contract Amendment No. 4 On January 16, 2024, staff issued a Request for Work Order Proposal to each of the five construction management consultants with a scope of services and a list of tasks needed for the upcoming Local AWPS construction project (i.e., Work Order #5). Three proposals were received 9 City Council, December 5, 2022; Agenda Item #8, SR #14710, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59033&repo=r-704298fc 10 City Council, October 23, 2023; Agenda Item #4, SR# 2309-2090, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=68316&repo=r-704298fc 11 City Council, March 3, 2021; Agenda Item #3, SR #11782, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=95&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=c6020df0-5272-425f-a399- 0d29b1a69b6
12 City Council, May 13, 2024; Agenda Item #11, SR#2404-2760, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/PdfViewer.aspx?file=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.laserfiche.com%2FPortal%2FEle ctronicFile.aspx%3Fdocid%3D72055%26repo%3Dr-704298fc%26pdfView%3Dtrue#page=153 Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 221 of 636
from Carollo Engineers, CDM Smith, and MCK Americas, with prices ranging from $2,776,304 to $4,320,562 (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of Request for Work Order Proposals (Task Order #5) Proposal Description Request for Work Order Proposal #5 Proposed Length of Project 3 years
Number of Vendors Notified 5
Number of Proposal Packages Downloaded 5
Request for Work Order Proposal Issued January 16, 2024 Total Days to Respond to Proposals 45
Deadline for Questions and Clarifications February 15, 2024 Proposals Due Date March 1, 2024
Proposals Received 3
Firms Interviewed 2
Proposals Price Range $2,776,304 to $4,320,562
An evaluation panel consisting of RWQCP Engineering staff and WQCP CIP Program Management staff reviewed the three proposals. Staff carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the Request for Work Order Proposal, including quality and completeness of the proposal, quality and effectiveness of services, and experience of their staff with projects of similar complexity and scope. Two firms were selected for interviews.

Staff recommends amending the contract with Carollo, who has provided adequate construction management services to existing large capital projects at the RWQCP. The firm demonstrated clear understanding of the Local AWPS project needs. The proposal included staff that have construction, operations, electrical engineering, and owner’s experience integrated in the same team. Carollo’s proposal had the lower cost of the two interviewed firms. Total costs are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Carollo Engineering, C21179265C, Authorized Funding Staff Report
Basic
Services
Additional
Services
Not-to-Exceed
Total
Initial contract,13 6/21/22 $1 -- $1
Amendment #1, 11/14/22, 12 kV Electrical Power Distribution Loop Rehabilitation Package 1 Project (WQ-19002)14
$549,314 $54,932 $604,246
13 City Council, June 21, 2021; Agenda Item #21; SR # 12324. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reportscmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12324.pdf 14 City Council, November 14, 2022; Agenda Item #5, SR #14602 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59114&repo=r-704298fc Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 222 of 636
Amendment #2, 12/5/22, Secondary Treatment Upgrades
Project (WQ-19001)15
$7,488,201 $748,820 $8,237,021
Amendment #3, 10/10/23 Primary Sedimentation Tank
Rehabilitation Project (WQ-14003)16
$246,700 $141,838 $388,538
Amendment #4, 6/3/24 Local Advanced Water Purification
System (WQ-14003)
$3,773,987 $377,399 $4,151,386
Black and Veatch Design Contract Amendment No. 2
Staff recommends that City Council approve Amendment No. 2 to extend the duration of the Black & Veatch design contract to December 31, 2027, given the delayed construction start date and need for design services during construction.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding of $1.1 million for the Carollo contract is available in the Fiscal Year 2024 Wastewater Treatment Fund Adopted Capital Budget for the Local Advanced Water Purification System Capital Improvement Program project (WQ-19003). In the Fiscal Year 2025 Proposed Capital Budget, a total of $63.5 million has been proposed for WQ-19003 for construction, construction management, and design, subject to Council approval. Staff is currently working with staff from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program and US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to formalize a loan and grant agreement, respectively, and will return to City Council later this year or early next year for approval prior to the start of construction.

The project’s construction management services will be expensed against the project budget.

Paid invoices will be promptly submitted for reimbursement to Valley Water, the SRF program, and the USBR.

Amendment #2 of the Black & Veatch design contract does not include an increase to the original contract compensation.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
A summary of stakeholder engagement for this Project is included in Staff Report #2403-2760, which recommended Council approval of the Site and Design Application17.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
15 City Council, December 5, 2022; Agenda Item #8, SR #14710 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59033&repo=r-704298fc 16 City Council, October 23, 2023; Agenda Item #4, SR# 2309-2090 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=68316&repo=r-704298fc 17 City Council, May 13, 2024; Agenda Item #11, SR#2404-2760, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/PdfViewer.aspx?file=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.laserfiche.com%2FPortal%2FEle ctronicFile.aspx%3Fdocid%3D72055%26repo%3Dr-704298fc%26pdfView%3Dtrue#page=153 Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 223 of 636
Council action on this item is within the scope of the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Environmental Impact Report and Addendum (SCH 2011062037). The Council adopted a Notice of Determination for the Project on November 18, 2019. 18

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment #4 to Contract C21179265C with Carollo Engineers, Inc Attachment B: Amendment #2 to Contract C21178333 with Black & Veatch APPROVED BY:

Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer
18 City Council, November 18, 2019; Agenda Item #17, SR #10627, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reportscmrs/year-archive/2019/id-10627-mini-packet-11182019.pdf?t=60382.02 Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 224 of 636

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. C21179265C

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.

This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C21179265C (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 10, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC., a California corporation, located at 2795 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties to provide construction management and inspection services on an on-call, as-needed, time-limited basis in connection with individual projects or inspection tasks at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), as detailed therein.

B. The Parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to add Task 2 services (referred to as Work Order No. 2) for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 12kV Electrical Power Distribution Loop Rehabilitation Bid Package 1 Project, and to increase compensation by Six Hundred Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($604,246.00), from One Dollar ($1.00) to Six Hundred Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Seven Dollars ($604,247.00), as detailed therein.

C. The Parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to (1) extend the contract term through March 31, 2028; (2) add Task 3 services (referred to as Work Order No. 3) for Construction Management Services for the Secondary Treatment Upgrades Project; and (3) increase compensation by Eight Million Two Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Twenty-One Dollars ($8,237,021.00), from Six Hundred Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Seven Dollars ($604,247.00) to Eight Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Dollars ($8,841,268.00), as detailed therein.

D. The Parties entered into Amendment No. 3 to (1) add Task 1A services (referred to as Work Order No. 1A) for Construction Management Services for the Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project; and (2) increase compensation by Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand FiveHundred Thirty-Eight Dollars ($388,538.00), from $8,841,268.00 to Nine Million Two Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Six Dollars ($9,229,806.00), as detailed therein.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 225 of 636

E. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to (1) add Task 4 services (referred to as Work Order No. 5) for Construction Management Services for the Local Advanced Water Purification System; (2) increase compensation by Four Million One Hundred Fifty-One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($4,151,386.00), from Nine Million Two Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Six Dollars ($9,229,806.00) to Thirteen Million Three Hundred Eighty -One Thousand OneHundred Ninety-Two Dollars ($13,381,192.00); (3) add Haley & Aldrich, Inc. as a subcontractor; and (4) add Exhibit C-2 Schedule of Rates, as detailed herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C21179265C between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated June 14, 2021, as amended by:

Amendment No. 1, dated November 7, 2022
Amendment No. 2, dated December 5, 2022
Amendment No. 3, dated October 16, 2023
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

“The CITY is engaging multiple consultants, including CONSULTANT, that are eligible to respond with proposals to the CITY’s project-specific Task Orders under the process described in Exhibit A. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed One Dollar ($1), unless CITY selects CONSULTANT, according to the process in Exhibit A, to perform services under one or more Task Orders not to exceed Thirteen Million Three Hundred Eighty-One Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Two Dollars ($13,381,192.00) over the term of the Agreement. No pre-qualified consultant, including the CONSULTANT under this Agreement, is guaranteed selection or assured of any minimum quantity of work to be performed. In the event CONSULTANT is not selected to provide Services under a Task Order, no payment is due from CITY.

The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES” and Exhibit C-2, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 4.” Any work performed, or DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 226 of 636

expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.

A. The City has selected CONSULTANT to perform Work Order #2, for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Medium Voltage Electrical Network (12kV Elec. Loop) Rehabilitation Bid Package 1 Project, in the amount not to exceed Five Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($549,315.00).

CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services (as defined below) are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses for Work Order #2 shall not exceed Six Hundred Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Seven Dollars ($604,247.00).

B. The City has selected CONSULTANT to perform Work Order #3, for Construction Management Services for the Secondary Treatment Upgrades Project, in the amount not to exceed Seven Million Four Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred One Dollars($7,488,201.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services (as defined below) are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses for Work Order #3 shall not exceed Eight Million Two Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Twenty-One Dollars ($8,237,021.00).

C. The City has selected CONSULTANT to perform Work Order #1A, for Construction Management Services for the Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade Project, in the amount not to exceed Two Hundred Forty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($246,700.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services (as defined below) are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses for Work Order #1A shall not exceed Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand FiveHundred Thirty-Eight Dollars ($388,538.00).

D. The City has selected CONSULTANT to perform Work Order #5, for Construction Management Services for the Local Advanced Water Purification System, in the amount not to exceed Three Million Seven Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars ($3,773,987.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services (as defined below) are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses for Work Order #1A shall not exceed Four Million One Hundred Fifty-One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($4,151,386.00).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 227 of 636

Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not-toexceed compensation amount for Additional Servicesis allocated below under this Section 4.) In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not-toexceed compensation amount of Fifty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars ($54,932.00) for the performance of Additional Services for Work Order #2; Seven Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars ($748,820.00) for Work Order #3; One Hundred Forty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars ($141,838.00) for Work Order #1A; and Three Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-NineDollars ($377,399.00) for Work Order #5. The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, shall not exceed Thirteen Million Three Hundred Eighty-One Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Two Dollars ($13,381,192.00), as detailed in Exhibit C.
“Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in a Task Order issued under Exhibit A. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”.

Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.

To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4.

Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 228 of 636

SECTION 3. Section 12 “SUBCONTRACTING” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“ Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 (Assignment) above, CITY agrees that subcontractors may be used to complete the Services. The subcontractors authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:

Silveira Consulting
Salimi Construction Management
Bay Area Coating Consultants, Inc.

BSK Associates
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee.”
SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract are hereby amended, as indicated below, to read asset forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “A-4” entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDERNO. 5, AMENDMENT NO. 4” (ADDED).
b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 4” (AMENDED,

REPLACES PREVIOUS)
c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 4,” (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS).
d. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 4,” (ADDED).

SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 229 of 636

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO
______________________________
City Manager or Designee
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney or Designee
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.

Officer 1
By:_____________________________
Name:__________________________
Title:____________________________
Officer 2
By:_____________________________
Name:__________________________
Title:____________________________
Attachments:

Exhibit “A-4”: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER NO. 5, AMENDMENT NO. 4 (ADDED) Exhibit “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 4 (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS) Exhibit “C”: COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 4 (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS) Exhibit “C-2”: SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 4 (ADDED) DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Senior Vice President
Rick Chan, Senior Vice President
Anne E. Prudhel
Executive Vice President
Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 230 of 636

EXHIBIT “A-4
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER NO. 5, AMENDMENT NO. 4 (ADDED)
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. CONSULTANT shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.

CONTRACT NO. C21179265C
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO.: C21179265C
1B. TASK ORDER NO 5: Work Order No. 5 for Construction Management Services for the Local Advanced Water Purification System

2. CONSULTANT NAME: CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.

3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

START: Immediately Once Notice to Proceed (NTP) is Issued; COMPLETION: 12/31/2027
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER NO. 1A PRICE: $3,773,987.00
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT: $0

5. WBS/CIP: WQ-19003

6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER: Tom Kapushinski Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, RWQCP

7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE:
 Services and Deliverables to Be Provided
 Schedule of Performance
 Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)  Reimbursable Expenses, If Any (With “Not to Exceed” Amount)

8. ATTACHMENTS: Task Order No. 5 Scope of Services, including Schedule of Performance and Compensation Schedule
TASK ORDER #5 SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. General Requirements/ Project Management

1. For any work which requires licensing, the Proposers shall be appropriately licensed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The cost for any required licenses, permits or training shall be the responsibility of the successful Proposers and shall not be expensed as part of this contract.

2. Special Requirements
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 231 of 636

i. Project Manager shall have a minimum of 5 years of relevant construction management experience working on membrane-based water treatment systems.
ii. Resident Engineer shall have a minimum of 5 years of construction management working on membrane-based water treatment systems. iii. Startup Manager shall be a startup and testing expert with a minimum of 5 years of experience starting up equipment and systems of similar type, size, capacity and complexity to the equipment and systems included in this Project. iv. Staff’s related construction experience shall include:
• Minimum of 5 years of demonstrated experience in membrane-based water treatment systems with experience on coordinating installation and testing of membrane filtration and reverse osmosis equipment. • Minimum of 5 years of experience in inspection of membrane-based water treatment systems.
v. As part of the proposal submittal, CONSULTANT shall include two references (names, agencies, email addresses, and phone numbers) minimum for each of their proposed Project Manager, Resident Engineer and specialty inspectors.

3. CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit to the City a Project Management Plan to include schedule; budget;spending projection and staffing levelfor each month for the duration of the contract term; personnel roles and construction management procedures. CONSULTANT shall provide all necessary administration, project controls, quality assurance and professional oversight to ensure that:
a. the project remains on schedule, within budget, ensures continuity of information, and satisfies the requirements of the CONTRACT. b. The construction project is progressing per construction contract’s requirements.

4. For the Local AWPS Project, the CITY will seek reimbursement from California State Revolving Fund (SRF) and reimbursement from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) for some or all of the CONSULTANT’s costs. Additionally, the City is working to receive a US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) grant. CONSULTANT shall provide SRF, USBR or Valley Water required documentation with the invoices and clearly indicate the eligible SRF disbursement amount.

5. At the beginning of each month, CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit to the City Project Manager a monthly invoice package. The City prefers processing CONSULTANT pay requests that cover one calendar month. Invoices covering two different fiscal years (e.g., June 2024 and July 2024 shall not be combined. Monthly invoice packages shall include the cost incurred during previous month including subconsultant cost and expenses, and a progress report documenting progress. The report shall include the progress by each task, the budget status (authorized amount, current billing, billed to date, previously billed, amount remaining, and percent spent), outstanding issues, potential changes, project schedule and schedule impacts. CONSULTANT shall identify and mitigate potential budget overruns; and notify CITY Project Manager as soon as DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 232 of 636

the potential overrun is identified. If SRF, USBR or Valley Water funding is used, progress reports shall include a summary of eligible costs per month.

B. Preconstruction Phase Tasks

1. CONSULTANT shall perform reviews of construction drawings and specifications at 100% design, as directed by the CITY with focus on constructability of the project. At a minimum, the CONSULTANT shall provide and log comments regarding the plans, specifications, and construction cost estimate in an Excel Workbook, provided to the CITY. Comments should at a minimum include feedback on measurement and payment, sequencing, schedule, constructability, and required contractor qualifications.

2. The CITY may assign milestone reviews of other projects in the preconstruction phase.

Reviews shall determine the coordination required between the subject project and other projects for concurrent work and the constructability of other projectsfollowing the completion of the subject project. This work shall be tracked via a separate subtask.

3. The CITY may request the CONSULTANT to attend the pre-bid meeting. CONSULTANT shall assist the City with evaluation of construction bidsto determine bid irregularities, if any. The successful bidder will be based on the lowest responsive and responsible bid.

4. Administration
a. CONSULTANT shall propose a project administration procedure, including an online document tracking system, for CITY approval. The administration procedure will detail how the CONSULTANT will track, store, distribute, and manage digital and hardcopy correspondence and project documentation and strategy for managing project communications.
b. CONSULTANT shall establish and maintain a health and safety plan specificfor CONSULTANT’s staff and subconsultants. CONSULTANT shall submit a copy for City’s record. During construction activities, CONSULTANT shall follow CONTRACTOR(S)’s health and safety plan(s), if it is more stringent.

5. Field Office Setup
a. CONSULTANT shall organize the hardcopy and digital files for the project prior to commencement of construction and coordinate with the CITY and CONTRACTOR for office trailer set-up.
b. CITY will designate a location for the CONTRACTOR’S office trailer and provide utility connection points.
c. CONSULTANT will be provided with an office space in the Administration Bldg.

All office equipment and materials, such as, copier, phone/service, and internet access are to be furnished by the CONSULTANT.

6. Preconstruction Activities
a. Site Walk Observations and Documentation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 233 of 636

i. CONSULTANT will conduct preconstruction inspections, documenting conditions in a log and providing digital photographs and video(s) to the CITY.
b. Preconstruction Submittals
i. CONSULTANT to develop a list of CONTRACTOR pre-construction submittals.
ii. CONSULTANT shall review CONTRACTOR’s pre-construction submittals, schedule of values, and preliminary schedule.

C. State Revolving Fund (SRF)/USBR Title XVI WIIN Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Funding (WIIN)/ Valley Water Reimbursement Compliance Tasks

1. CONSULTANT shall prepare and package for submittal all required SRF documentation needed to obtain monthly SRF loan disbursements during the construction period.

CITY will submit the documentation to the State.

2. CONSULTANT shall prepare and package for submittal Quarterly Construction reports required for SRF compliance. Package shall include a narrative and photos of construction activities performed during the reporting period. CITY will submit the documentation to the State.

3. Within 15 days of the end of a reporting period, CONSULTANT shall prepare and package for submittal all required USBR documentation related to the WIIN Grant needed to obtain reimbursement for the expenses incurred. The submittal includes preparation of a report that documents the work completed over the reporting period and progress towards meeting the project’s outcomes. CITY will submit documentation to the USBR.

4. USBR Construction Reporting: On a monthly basis, CONSULTANT shall provide certified percentage of completion; any significant developments, including impacts to scheduled performance of activities; any problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will adversely impact the project; and any favorable developments that could result in completing project objectives sooner than anticipated or at less cost than anticipated or produce more or different beneficial results. CITY will upload reports to the ASAP platform used by USBR.

5. CONSULTANT shall facilitate inspections by USBR staff and make pertinent construction records readily available for inspection/audit.

6. CONSULTANT shall document CONTRACTOR’s compliance with all SRF and USBR requirements, including:
a. When applicable, recognize the contribution of SRF or USBR, through Project signage meeting SRF/USBR requirements.
b. American Iron and Steel (AIS)requirements
c. Build America, Buy America (BABA) – if applicable to this project d. Davis-Bacon Act compliance
i. CONSULTANT shall perform Davis-Bacon Wage Rate Interviews at intervals required by SRF, but not less than every time a new contractor, subcontractor, or trade begins work. Subsequent DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 234 of 636

interviews shall be required periodically based upon the CONSULTANT and CITY’s assessment of Risk of Noncompliance.
e. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certifications f. Project Closeout forms
g. Certified payrolls

7. CONSULTANT shall maintain a submittal log of materials subject to AIS requirements and/or approved exemptions.

8. CONSULTANT shall prepare and package for submittal Project Close Out Report required for SRF compliance. CITY will submit the documentation to the State.

D. Construction Phase Tasks

1. ConstructionAdministration
a. Project Coordination
i. CONSULTANT shall act as the project coordinator and the point of contact for all communications with the CONTRACTOR. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate construction activities with the CITY, ENGINEER, and CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT responsibilities include:
conduct team meetings with the CONTRACTOR to review progress, coordinate evaluations and identify information needs; disseminate information to the design team; manage the project budget; manage the projectschedule;manage sub-consultants;manageQA/QCteam; coordinate communications with other ongoing projects’ construction managers to facilitate the construction of ongoing projects and continuous Plant operations.
ii. CONSULTANT shall provide a contact phone number to respond to issues related to construction activity or coordination, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
b. Document Tracking System: CONSULTANT shall establish, implement and maintain an online system for tracking all correspondence and documents on the Project or shall adopt a project administration procedure previously approved by CITY. CONSULTANT shall incorporate within the tracking system the means to track the routing of submittals/RFIs to the CITY’s other consultants.
c. Construction Administration Services: CONSULTANT shall provide administrative and management services. The CONSULTANT shall receive all correspondence from the CONTRACTOR and address all inquiries from the CONTRACTOR and construction related correspondence. The ENGINEER will be responsible for providing design input.

2. Meetings
a. CONSULTANT shall prepare agendas for kick-off meeting, weekly progress meetings and other construction/technical meetings required during the term of the Project.
b. CONSULTANT shall preside the meetings, address administrative and non-design DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 235 of 636

issues, and prepare meeting minutes for distribution. CITY, ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR’s team will attend these meetings. The ENGINEER will address design issues.
c. CONSULTANT shall have all pending decisions detailed for the meetings as well as project statistics (schedule updates, risks as identified by risk register, percent of project complete, near-term milestones, etc.). d. Anticipated Meetings
i. Construction kick-off meeting
ii. Weekly progress meetings
iii. As-needed technical meetings with CITY, ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR and manufacturer’s representative(s) to resolve equipment and/or installation issues
iv. Minimum two (2) Electrical/Water Service Coordination Meetingswith City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)
v. Minimum two (2) Sewer Alignment Coordination meetings with CPAU vi. Minimum two (2) Fire Department Coordination Meetings vii. Minimum of two (2) City of Palo Alto Building Department Coordination Meetings
viii. I&C Standards Review Meeting with RWQCP Technology / SCADA Support Staff
ix. Membrane filtration and reverse osmosis system supplier coordination meetings
x. Project punch list and close-out Meeting
xi. Attend other concurrent projects’ kickoff meetings
xii. Periodic coordination meetings with other ongoing projects’ construction managers and the CITY

3. Submittals
a. CONSULTANT shall use the online document tracking system to log and coordinate the submittal process.
b. CONSULTANT shall receive the submittals, including CONTRACTOR’s red-line drawings, from the CONTRACTOR and check the submittals for completeness and general conformity with the Construction Contract requirements. If obvious deficiencies are apparent in the submittal, the CONSULTANT shall reject and send the submittal back to the CONTRACTOR for correction. c. CONSULTANT shall route the submittals to the ENGINEER for review and shall route the reviewed submittal back to the CONTRACTOR. The CONSULTANT shall review comments on the submittals to determine if additional follow-up with the CONTRACTOR and/or ENGINEER is warranted and to identify any scope changes.
d. CONSULTANT shall coordinate the ENGINEER’s submittal review and track the status of shop drawing resubmittals with theCONTRACTOR. e. CONSULTANT shall review the submittals for progress schedule, temporary facilities, construction sequencing, conduit/pipe layout plan, DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 236 of 636

manufacturer/applicator/installer’s certificates, and other non-technical submittals.
f. CONSULTANT shall review temporary facilities submittals for operability as well as conflicts with other ongoing projects’ active and/or proposed construction.

The City may request CONSULTANT to review other ongoing projects’ temporary facilities submittals for coordination logistics and constructability issues.

4. Request for Information/Clarification Process
a. CONSULTANT shall utilize the online document tracking system for processing requests for design clarifications.
b. CONSULTANT shall receive all requests for information (RFIs) from the CONTRACTOR and determine if the request is a valid RFI; i. If valid, ENGINEER will review the RFIs and provide design response.

CONSULTANT shall review the ENGINEER’s response, verify acceptability of response and transmit the Clarification Response to the CONTRACTOR.
ii. If the request is not valid, CONSULTANT shall return the RFI to the CONTRACTOR with justifications.
c. CONSULTANT shall provide a response within 10 working days to the CONTRACTOR for any administrative, field condition specific and general RFI. d. ENGINEER shall prepare Design Clarifications where design issues are identified by the CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, or CITY. CONSULTANT shall prepare the Clarification Letter for transmittal to the CONTRACTOR of the ENGINEER’s Design Clarification and other clarifications.
e. CONSULTANT shall work with the CITY Project Manager to maintain an Error and Omission Log to document change orders, RFIs and RFCs that are a result of ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR errors in design and construction, respectively.

The log shall record the hours spent by the ENGINEER to respond to the RFIs/ RFCs and associated cost impact to the construction. CITY may seek reimbursement from the ENGINEER and/or CONTRACTOR.

5. Change Order Preparation, Negotiation &Processing
a. CONSULTANT shall review all change order requests (either initiated by the CITY or by the CONTRACTOR).
i. CONSULTANT shall utilize the online document tracking system to log, track, and process changes.
ii. CONSULTANT shall maintain Change Event files. These files shall compile all data related to specific items that arise that may have cost or time impacts orneither.
b. CONSULTANT shall judge the validity and/or merits of all CONTRACTOR initiated change order requests. CONTRACTOR initiated change orders deemed unnecessary, or not substantiated by a deficiency in the construction documents shall be returned to CONTRACTOR unapproved with an DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 237 of 636

explanation.
c. CONSULTANT shall negotiate change orders with the CONTRACTOR, considering impact to the schedule, as well as, reasonableness of cost, and impact to total project budget. CONSULTANT shall provide updates regarding potential cost and schedule changes to CITY.
d. CONSULTANT shall prepare an independent cost estimate and/or verify the acceptability of the CONTRACTOR’s cost proposal for each approved change request. At CITY’s discretion, ENGINEER’s opinion may be requested for specific equipment and material costs.
e. CONSULTANT shall prepare change orders using CITY’s procedure for execution by the CITY and CONTRACTOR.
i. CONSULTANT shall prepare a Change Order Memorandum, if requested by the CITY, to provide additional background discussion for need of the change and reasonableness of cost and schedule impact. ii. ENGINEER shall prepare design details for change requests as needed.

CONSULTANT to coordinate schedule and distributionof designdetails. iii. CONSULTANT shall prepare, and issue approved change order requests to the CONTRACTOR with the appropriate design documents as directed by the CITY.
f. In the event the CONTRACTOR encounters a time sensitive problem where time is not available to negotiate a settlement, CONSULTANT shall issue a field order in accordance with the City’s procedures.
i. All work done under a field order will be completed on a time and material basis. CONSULTANT to track actual time and material expended for the field order work.
ii. Field orders shall be reviewed and approved with the CITY prior to issuance.

6. Documentation of Environmental Compliance
a. CONSULTANT shall document compliance with environmental permittingand mitigation measures in accordance with the requirements of the environmental documents and regulatory permits.

7. Progress Payment
a. CONSULTANT shall review the initial schedule of values (cost breakdown) prepared by the CONTRACTOR and generate a progress payment request form for the CONTRACTOR’s use which is compatible with the SRF CONTRACTOR Spreadsheet (Form No. 259) and acceptable to SRF - Financial Assistance Division, by the USBR or by Valley Water procedures if seeking reimbursement from either agency.
b. CONSULTANT shall review and process the progress payment requests and determine whether the amount requested reflects the actual status of the Contractor’s work in place, materials on site and other contractrequirements. c. CONSULTANT shall perform the appropriate administration, preparation and DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 238 of 636

processing of the monthly progress payments so the CITY can respond in accordance with the time periods set forth in the Public ContractCode. d. CONSULTANT shall prepare the summary cover sheet for the progress payments which will be executed by CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR and CITY. e. CONSULTANT shall not recommend final payment to the CONTRACTOR until the CONSULTANT has determined CONTRACTOR has complied with the project closeout requirements, including submittals of record documents, warranties, and operations and maintenance manuals. CITY will release the retention only after a Notice of Completion has been recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk’s Recorder Office.

8. CONTRACTOR’s Certified Payroll
a. On a bi-weekly basis, or when otherwise requested by the CITY, State, or other agency or public inquiry, the CONSULTANT shall collect certified payrolls from the CONTRACTOR. Apart from the regular, bi-weekly collection, the CONSULTANT shall obtain payroll records within 10 days ofthe CITY’s request. b. CONTRACTOR is responsible for submitting electronically their certified payroll records to the State Department of Industrial Relations. c. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for documenting and conducting interviews of the CONTRACTOR’s field staff/crew for compliance with CITY prevailing wage ordinance and SRF requirements(SF-1445).

9. Schedule
a. CONSULTANT shall review CONTRACTOR’s initial Baseline schedule submittal to determine whether it is realistic and prepared in accordance with the Contract Documents, that the milestone and Substantial Completion dates meet the overall goal for schedule and that no major conflicts exist. CONSULTANT shall advise CITY of the review determination and provide written comments to the CONTRACTOR.
b. CONSULTANT shall review the CONTRACTOR’s schedule updates and provide written comments to the CONTRACTOR.
c. CONSULTANT shall review and evaluate the CONTRACTOR’s requests for Contract time extension and/or monetary claim and make written recommendations to the CITY regarding entitlement and the number of days, if any, to be added to the Contract Time(s). If requested by the CITY, CONSULTANT shall provide a written assessment of the time request.

CONSULTANT shall evaluate and negotiate schedule adjustments with the CONTRACTOR.

10. Field Quality Control (Inspection Services)
a. CONSULTANT shall provide field observation services to monitor compliance with the Contract Documents.
i. CONSULTANT staff shall have sufficient training and experience regarding the specific construction activities being performed by CONTRACTOR.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 239 of 636

1) CONSULTANT shall provide staffing at a level that match construction load and as required to observe CONTRACTOR’s activities.
2) CONSULTANT shall provide subconsultant(s) as needed to observe specialty work or conduct specialty tests (see Special Inspections).
3) CITY may set an allowance on a task order specific basisfor the increased cost only of inspectional services if required during off hours and on weekends. Consultant to provide sufficient hours to cover all inspectional services anticipated at standard rates. b. Reporting
i. CONSULTANT shall prepare daily inspection reports documenting observed field activities, field crews, CONTRACTOR equipment, and field problems. CONSULTANT shall collect and compile CONTRACTOR daily reports. Such information shall be accessible by the City. ii. CONSULTANT shall provide and maintain photographs of field activities for status monitoring of the project.
iii. CONSULTANT shall monitor record documents (redline drawings) on a bi-weekly basis to determine if they are being maintained by the CONTRACTOR and are in substantial conformance with the
CONSULTANT’s information/observations.
iv. CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly report to include major work performed, outstanding issues, project photographs, schedule status, pending and executed change orders summary, and quality issues. This report shall also be part of CONSULTANT’s monthly progress payment report.
c. Special Inspections
i. CONSULTANT shall furnish the materials testing and special inspections required to be performed for the Project. Special Inspection and materials testing include, but not limited to:
1) Excavation and Fill for Structures
2) Geotechnical inspections and observations for drilled piles.

CONSULTANT shall enlist the services of a qualified firm as the Engineer of Record for special inspection and observation of pile installation. Assume a staff engineer for 10 hours - 10 weeks, field/coordination and internal project management. 3) Trenching and Backfilling
4) Concrete Paving
5) Soils testing for HazMat compliance
6) Soils compaction and relevanttesting
7) Concrete sampling and testing
8) Structural steel welding
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 240 of 636

9) Rebar and concrete for mat foundations
10) Membrane filtration and reverse osmosis units’ installation 11) Special inspections as listed in the project specificdesign drawings and specifications.
ii. CONSULTANT shall schedule and coordinate the material testing services and have responsibility for the specialty inspections and testing services.
iii. CONSULTANT shall perform all geotechnical and structural observations/inspections, particularly foundation pile installation observation and special inspection. The geotechnical inspections will be performed by a California registered geotechnical engineer.

11. System Outages
a. CONSULTANT shall review and evaluate the CONTRACTOR’s system outage requests (SOR) in conjunction with the CITY. CONSULTANT shall assess the reasonableness of the duration of the requested shutdown. b. The SORs shall be reviewed and approved at least two weeks ahead of the actual outage/shutdown.
c. CONSULTANT shall facilitate/coordinate shutdowns with the CONTRACTOR, CITY and ENGINEER.
i. CITY isresponsible for reviewing and approving system outage request and duration, confirming the outage is properly planned, implementing the outage, and bringing services back online after the outage.

12. Means and Methods of Construction
a. CONSULTANT shall not direct the means and methods of construction.

CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for the means and methods of construction. In the event when the CONTRACTOR’s means and methods and/or work sequence are perceived to have negative impacts on the final work quality or may damage existing City’s property, the CONSULTANT shall communicate with the CONTRACTOR and inform the CITY and ENGINEER.

13. Construction Staging and laydown Area
CONSULTANT shall periodically observe the construction staging and laydown areas to check if:
a. Equipment and materials are being stored in accordance with the manufacturers’ procedure (e.g., protection from weathering elements). b. Exiting plant equipment (e.g., electrical switchgear) are being protected. c. Heavy loads are not concentrated at or adjacent to locations were underground utilities are present.
d. Contractor is maintaining any necessary access
e. Site is cleaned up every day
f. Site is isolated and general public and wildlife are protected, in particular along Embarcadero Road.

14. Safety
a. CONSULTANT shall comply with appropriate regulatory, project and CITY codes in addition to CONSULTANT’s Health and Safety Plan regarding necessarysafety DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 241 of 636

equipment and procedures used during performance of the CONSULTANT’s work and shall take necessary precautions for safe operation of the CONSULTANT’s work, and the protection of the CONSULTANT’s personnel from injury and damage from such work.
b. Neither the professional activities of the CONSULTANT, nor the presence of the CONSULTANT’s employees or sub-consultants at the construction/project site, shall relieve the CONTRACTOR and any other entity of their obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending, or coordinating their work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City codes, and any health or safety precautions required by pertinent regulatory agencies. CONSULTANT and its personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any CONTRACTOR or other entity or their employees in connection with their work or any health or safety precautions.

15. Spare Parts
a. Based on the specifications and vendor O&M Manuals, CONSULTANT shall prepare a consolidated/complete list of required spare parts in Excel. b. CONSULTANT shall inventory spare parts as they are delivered by the CONTRACTOR and transfer spare parts to the CITY. The transfer of parts shall be documented via material transmittal, signed by CONTRACTOR, CONSULTANT and CITY.

16. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals
a. CONSULTANT shall prepare a list of anticipated O&M Manuals and track the submittal and review process in the online document tracking system.

ENGINEER will prepare the O&M Manual and Standard Operating Procedures into a combined document.
b. CONSULTANT shall verify that the submitted O&M manuals are the correct and latest version, and that the ‘lessons learned’ and notes taken during startup and commissioning are included in the final versions of O&M manuals.

CONSULTANT shall coordinate delivery of final hardcopies and electronic copy from the CONTRACTOR/ENGINEER to CITY.

17. Testing, Training and Initial Operations Period Support a. CONSULTANT shall coordinate and oversee manufacturer/vendor provided testing/startup/commissioning activities and training sessions. It is anticipated that there will be multiple training sessions to be conducted. At a minimum, the following startup training sessions are anticipated:

1. Membrane Filtration: Including MF feed equipment, MF filters systems, MF cleaning system, MF compressed air systems.

2. Reverse osmosis system (RO): Including RO Feed tank, RO Pumps, RO cartridge systems, RO Trains, membrane cleaning system and membrane flush systems.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 242 of 636

3. RO permeate transfer: Including transfer pump and permeate tank.

4. RO Permeate blending: Including blending station, blending ratios and control strategies

5. Overall Local AWPS system operation, water quality monitoring, requirements, reports, training on sampling, analyzer maintenance schedule.
b. ENGINEER will provide technical assistance associated with the design intent during testing/startup/commissioning operations.
c. CONSULTANT shall provide part-time support during the initial operations following start-up and testing.
d. CONTRACTOR will develop and submit a Testing and Startup Plan. CONSULTANT shall coordinate with CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER and CITY on the development and review of the Testing and Startup Plan.
e. CONSULTANT shall provide oversight and administration of training andtesting. f. CONSULTANT shall observe start-up and testing as the CITY’s representative and maintain copies of start-up documentation in an organized binder (and scanned electronic copy) that shall be turned over to the CITY at the end of the project.
g. CONSULTANT shall coordinate the training with the CONTRACTOR, vendor and CITY staff. Some of the equipment will need training for third party personnel with whom the CITY may be contracting with. CITY will provide the vendor contact information for CONSULTANT to coordinate with. Trainings shall be coordinated so that key CITY staff can attend; schedule shall accommodate key CITY staff/ Plant operations shifts. Multiple training sessions for day shift and night shift operators may be required.
h. CONSULTANT shall attend training sessions and collect attendance sheets and copies of training material.
i. If required by CITY, CONSULTANT shall coordinate production quality audio and video recording and editing of training sessions to be used for future training sessions. The final digital copy shall be labeled and have an introduction that indicates the type of training, the process area, the equipment name, the vendor(s) / manufacturer(s) if applicable, the date, and theCONTRACTOR. j. Refer to the CITY’s Demonstration and Training Standards for more details. k. CONSULTANT shall prepare necessary CITY documentation recommending acceptance of the completed work by the CITY.
l. After training is complete, CONSULTANT shall assist CITY staff during an initial operating period by providing additional training if needed, answering questions, making recommendations on system control adjustment, and supporting staff to investigate issues that arise during this period.

18. Corrective Work Item List
a. The CONSULTANT shall prepare and maintain a Corrective Work Item list (CWL) with the input from the CITY and ENGINEER.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 243 of 636

b. CONSULTANT shall confirm that the items identified in the CWL are completed in preparation for issuance of Substantial Completion Certificate(SCC). c. CONSULTANT shall prepare the SCC for execution by the CITY and the CONTRACTOR when the Corrective Work Items are completed to the CITY’s, ENGINEER’s and The CONSULTANT’s satisfaction.

19. Coordination with Suppliers
a. CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the Membrane Filtration System Supplier (MFSS), ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR for installation, startup and testing of filtration systems. CONTRACTOR will install equipment while the MFSS shall supply units and subsystems (e.g.., backwash and clean-in-place) furnished with all instruments and individual panels prewired and calibrated. b. CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the Reverse Osmosis System Supplier (ROSS), ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR for installation, startup and testing of reverse osmosis systems and ancillary equipment. CONTRACTOR installation is limited to bolt the RO units to the floor while the ROSS shall provide units and subsystems skidded and assembled to the greatest extend practical.

E. Project Closeout Phase Tasks

1. Punch List and Final Inspection
a. Punch List
i. CONSULTANT shall identify work with outstanding deficiencies and generate Punch List in Excel. Coordinate site walkthrough with the CITY and CONTRACTOR, as needed.
ii. CONSULTANT shall have primary responsibility for verifying that the Punch List work is complete.
b. CONSULTANT shall turnover project documentation to the CITY in an orderly manner and in a timely manner after completion of the project and all punch list activities. The CONSULTANT shall retain all change event files at the end of the project. The CITY shall have the right to request review and/or copies of the change events files.
c. Final Inspection
i. CONSULTANT shall have primary responsibility for conducting the final inspection. Coordinate site walkthrough with the CITY and CONTRACTOR, as needed.
1) CITY will participate and provide input on the final inspection. 2) ENGINEER will provide design input on final inspection items if determined necessary by the CITY.

2. Warranty Coordination
a. CONSULTANT shall maintain a warranty file in the online document tracking system. All warranty documentation shall be handed off to the CITY at conclusion of the contract.

3. Project Closeout
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 244 of 636

a. CONTRACTOR shall furnish record documents, which the CONSULTANT shall review and transmit to ENGINEER for preparation of record drawings. b. CONSULTANT shall prepare necessary CITY documentation recommending acceptance of the completed work by the CITY.
c. CONSULTANT shall turnover project documentation to the CITY in an orderly manner and in a timely manner after completion of the project and all punch list activities. The CONSULTANT shall retain all change event files at the end of the project. The CITY shall have the right to request review and/or copies of the change events files.
d. CONSULTANT shall verify that final testing, clean-up, restoration, and demobilization are complete. CONSULTANT shall ensure that all on- and offsite areas are returned to pre-construction condition.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 245 of 636

Work Order No. 5: Milestone Schedule of Performance
TASK # MILESTONES

NUMBER OF WEEKS TO

COMPLETION FROM WORK
ORDER #1A NOTICE TO

PROCEED (NTP)

NO LATER THAN
DATE
Task 1
General
Requirements/Project
Management
186 Weeks
12/31/2027
Task 2 Preconstruction Phase 40 Weeks 3/15/2024
Task 3
SRF, USBR, Valley
Water Financing and
Funding Compliance
186 Weeks
12/31/2027
Task 4 Construction Phase 186 Weeks 12/31/2027
Task 5 Project Closeout 186 Weeks 12/31/2027
Work Order No. 5: Milestone Compensation Schedule
TASK # MILESTONES NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT
Task 1 General Requirements/Project Management $114,480 Task 2 Preconstruction Phase $111,240
Task 3
SRF, USBR, Valley Water Financing and Funding
Compliance $192,540
Task 4 Construction Phase $3,082,387
Task 5 Project Closeout $173,340
Task 6 Inspection Allowance $100,000
Sub-total Basic Services $3,773,987
Reimbursable Expenses $0
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses $3,773,987 Additional Services (per Section 4) (Not to Exceed) $377,399 Maximum Total Compensation 4,151,386
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 246 of 636

EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 4
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements. (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.)
The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved TaskOrder, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shallfall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement.

WORK ORDER #2
Tasks 1-5 completed within 125 Weeksfrom the Notice to Proceed for Work Order 2, as detailed in the Milestone Schedule of Performance attached to Work Order #2 (Amendment No.1).

WORK ORDER #3
Tasks 1-5 completed within 276 Weeks from the Notice to Proceed for Work Order 3, as detailed in the Milestone Schedule of Performance attached to Work Order #3 (Amendment No.2).

WORK ORDER #1A
Tasks 1-3 completed within 37 Weeks from the Notice to Proceed for Work Order 1A, as detailed in the Milestone Schedule of Performance attached to Work Order #1A (Amendment No.3).

WORK ORDER #5
Tasks 1-5 completed within 186 Weeks from the Notice to Proceed for Work Order 5, as detailed in the Milestone Schedule of Performance attached to Work Order #5 (Amendment No.4).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 247 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT #4
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for on-call, as-needed, time-limited project support services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in a specific Task Order budgetschedule. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth in a specific Task Order.

CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories within a specific Task Order, provided that the total compensation for the Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder.

Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are: NONE up to the not-to-exceed amount of $0.00.

WORK ORDER #2
Compensation as detailed in the Milestone Compensation Schedule attached to Work Order #2., Not to Exceed:

Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses $549,315 Additional Services (per Section 4) (Not to Exceed) $54,932 Maximum Total Compensation $604,247
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 248 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

WORK ORDER #3
Compensation as detailed in the Milestone Compensation Schedule attached to Work Order #3., Not to Exceed:

Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses $7,488,201 Additional Services (per Section 4) (Not to Exceed) $748,820 Maximum Total Compensation $8,237,021
WORK ORDER #1A
Compensation as detailed in the Milestone Compensation Schedule attached to Work Order #1A., Not to Exceed:

Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses $246,700 Additional Services (per Section 4) (Not to Exceed) $141,838 Maximum Total Compensation $388,538
WORK ORDER #5
Compensation as detailed in the Milestone Compensation Schedule attached to Work Order #5., Not to Exceed:

Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses $3,773,987 Additional Services (per Section 4) (Not to Exceed) $377,399 Maximum Total Compensation $4,151,386
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 249 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT C-2
SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 4
(ADDED)
CONSULTANT’S schedule of rates is as follows (by calendar year):

SUBCONSULTANTS’ schedule of rates is as follows (by calendar year):

SILVEIRA CONSULTING
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 250 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

HALEY & ALDRICH (rates and services effective with Amendment #4) BAY AREA COATING CONSULTANTS, INC. (BACC)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 251 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E6C747C-1EC7-4B0F-8F92-1A8521AE4DD8 Item 8
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 4 to
Contract with Carollo
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 252 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C21178333

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND

BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C21178333 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 3, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, located at 2999 Oak Road, Suite 490, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties to provide design and engineering services for the Advanced Water Purification System, as detailed therein.

B. The Parties entered in to Amendment No. 1 to update Exhibit C-1 Schedule of Rates, with no additional cost to the City, as detailed therein.

C. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to (1) extend the contract term by thirty (30) months, from June 30, 2024 to December 31, 2027; (2) update Exhibit B Schedule of Performance, with no additional cost payable by the City; and (3) add Exhibit C-2 Schedule of Rates, as detailed herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C21178333 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated March 8, 2021, as amended by:

Amendment No. 1, dated December 20, 2023
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2027 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 40267B13-B29A-43FB-85BA-FBEF073BFA0D Item 8
Attachment B -
Amendment No. 2 to
Contract with Black &
Veatch
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 253 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “B” entitled “Schedule of Performance, Amendment No. 2”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
b. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “Schedule of Rates, Amendment No. 2”, ADDED.

SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40267B13-B29A-43FB-85BA-FBEF073BFA0D Item 8
Attachment B -
Amendment No. 2 to
Contract with Black &
Veatch
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 254 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Attorney or Designee

BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
Officer 1
By:________________________
Name:_____________________
Title:_______________________
Officer 2
By:_________________________
Name:______________________
Title:________________________
Attachments:

Exhibit B: “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2” (AMENDED, REPLACES

PREVIOUS)
Exhibit C-2: “SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 2” (ADDED) DocuSign Envelope ID: 40267B13-B29A-43FB-85BA-FBEF073BFA0D Craig Lichty, Vice President, Client Dire
Vice President
Senior Vice President
Angela Hoffman, Chief Financial Officer, W
Item 8
Attachment B -
Amendment No. 2 to
Contract with Black &
Veatch
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 255 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed.

Milestones Completion
No. of Weeks
From NTP

1. Kickoff Meeting 01

2. 100% design of Odor Control System (Task 2) 32

3. 60% design of Phase 1 AWPS (1.125 MGD) (Task 1) 43

4. 100% design of Phase 1 AWPS (1.125 MGD) (Task 1) 186

5. Services during Bidding of Odor Control System (Task 6) 209

6. Services during Bidding of Phase 1 AWPS (Task 5) 209

7. Services during Construction of Odor Control System (Task 6) 355

8. Services during Construction of Phase 1 AWPS (Task 5) 355

9. 100% design of Phase 2 AWPS (2.25 MGD) (Task 3) 355
The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is being entered into in the context of a pandemic (known as the COVID-19 pandemic), which has the potential to cause disruptions and delaysto the work beyond the Parties’ reasonable control. The Parties agree that an actual delay directly required by compliance with COVID-19 governmental orders or regulations, and not due to fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, may be considered an excusable delay (as below) in accordance with this section. CONSULTANT may be entitled to an equitable adjustment in schedule in the event such COVID-19-related delays occur, but only to the extent reasonably required based upon the circumstances, as agreed in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 40267B13-B29A-43FB-85BA-FBEF073BFA0D Item 8
Attachment B -
Amendment No. 2 to
Contract with Black &
Veatch
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 256 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

A COVID-19-related excusable delay will not be a default or a ground for termination for cause of the Agreement, provided that the CONSULTANT provides the CITY with prompt and detailed notice of the COVID-19-related delay as soon as is reasonably feasible under the circumstances and uses reasonable efforts to overcome the effects of such delay as promptly as reasonably feasible under the circumstances. Notwithstanding the above provisions of this Section, in the event of a period of nonperformance by CONSULTANT lasting more than thirty (30) days due to a COVID-19-related delay, CITY may elect to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) herein.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 40267B13-B29A-43FB-85BA-FBEF073BFA0D Item 8
Attachment B -
Amendment No. 2 to
Contract with Black &
Veatch
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 257 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT “C-2”
SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(ADDED)
Black & Veatch 2027 Bill Rates held through December 2027:

Black & Veatch Classification
2027
Billing
Rates
Client Director, Sr. Project Manager, Sr. Quality Manager (Grade 9)
$353.00
Project Manager, Sr. Engineer (Grade 8) $334.00
Project Manager, Sr. Engineer (Grade 7) $312.00
Engineer/Scientist (Grade 6) $289.00
Engineer/Scientist (Grade 5), BIM Manager (Tech 8) $261.00 Engineer/Scientist (Grade 4), Sr. BIM (Tech 7) $247.00
Engineer/Scientist (Grade 3), BIM Lead (Tech 6) $221.00 Engineer/Scientist (Grade 2), BIM (Tech 5) $184.00
Engineer/Scientist (Grade 1), BIM (Tech 4) $171.00
BIM/CAD (Tech 3) $151.00
CAD (Tech 2), Administrative Assistant $139.00
CAD (Tech 1), Engineering Intern $131.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40267B13-B29A-43FB-85BA-FBEF073BFA0D Item 8
Attachment B -
Amendment No. 2 to
Contract with Black &
Veatch
Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 258 of 636
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Report #:2404-2844
TITLE
Adoption of a Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) revising the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy (ERMP) (Attachment B).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s ERMP is the overriding document for the monitoring, measuring, and controlling risks associated with electric and gas commodity transactions. Proposed changes to this Policy are:

1. Memorializing the Utility Risk Oversight Coordination Committee’s decision to have the City Council receive semi-annual updates from the City Manager regarding energy risk management activities versus quarterly.

BACKGROUND
City of Palo Alto Utilities purchases gas and electricity to serve the energy needs of residents and businesses in the City. An energy risk management policy is necessary because commodity markets are dynamic, commodity purchases are large transaction amounts, and authority to commit the City to these transactions is delegated down to staff.

The ERMP is the overarching document for the management of the City’s risks associated with purchasing electric and gas commodities. In addition to the ERMP, there are two more detailed sets of documents that support it: the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (Guidelines) and the Energy Risk Management Procedures (Procedures). The documents describe key policies and control structures to minimize risks by, for example, ensuring transparent and appropriate purchasing procedures, segregating duties, establishing acceptable risk parameters and limits, and instituting multiple review processes.

Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 259 of 636
The Guidelines are more detailed than the ERMP and are reviewed and approved by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC), which consists of the General Manager of Utilities, Director of Administrative Services, Director of Public Works, and a representative from the City Manager’s Office. The Procedures, which cover operational actions, are approved by the General Manager of Utilities and the Administrative Services Director. The ERMP clearly delineates that all of the City’s utility contract transactions, whether carried out under Master Agreements or not, must fully comply with the Municipal Code.

Transactions carried out by the Northern California Power Agency, including scheduling, are covered under a separate Member Services Agreement.

ANALYSIS
Council last approved the ERMP on June 22, 2020 (Staff Report # 9813). The proposed update reflects minor changes needed to align the document with current City of Palo Alto Utilities procurement practices.

Proposed changes to this Policy are:

1. Memorializing the Utility Risk Oversight Coordination Committee’s decision to have the City Council receive semi-annual updates from the City Manager regarding energy risk management activities versus quarterly.

Prior to June 2020, the City utilized services provided by the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) to more effectively manage the electric utility and lower operating costs. In June 2020 1 (CMR ID # 11086), Council approved entering into the Amended and Restated Market Purchase Program (MPP) Agreement to enable the City to utilize NCPA staff and resources for the City’s medium-term electric portfolio planning and resource management functions, functions that were carried out in-house. This authorized NCPA to purchase and sell market power, resource adequacy capacity products, and renewable energy credits on behalf of the City. Contracting with NCPA for these functions has enabled Palo Alto to achieve operational efficiencies and freed up additional staff time to devote to other projects and programs and shifted the risk associated with this to NCPA staff. The purchases and sales made by NCPA on Palo Alto’s behalf under the MPP Agreement conform to NCPA’s Energy Risk Management Policy and Regulations, and to the City’s Energy Risk Management Policies.

To put this into context, the Table 1 below has the three-year actual electric commodity purchases and excess energy sales by megawatt-hour (MWh). Based on the average three-year MWh, 95.5% of electric commodity purchases are under long-term agreements that are not 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reportscmrs/year-archive/2020/id-11086-mini-packet-062220.pdf Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 260 of 636
part of this proposed semi-annual reporting. These agreements have and are approved by the City Council as they are enacted and/or renewed. Of the remaining, 2.5% (Spot Market) net purchases and sales are done by NCPA under their Risk Management Program. Prior to the NCPA MPP Agreement, City staff did these purchases and sales. City Utility staff coordinates with NCPA the amount of MWh purchases and sales needed. A City staff sits as a voting member of their Risk Oversight Committee and attends their Finance Committee to monitor their activities. Around 1.9% of commodity purchases and sales (Forward Market) are done by City staff and is the focus on the proposed semi-annual report.

As a result, based on the above especially because around 1.9% of the commodity purchases and sales are done by City Staff, semi-annual reporting to City Council is recommended. A “redlined” version of the document is included as Attachment B.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Approval of the recommendation will not have a financial impact.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff works internally with the UROCC and Utility department for the proposed change.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Council informational report is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Table 1: Electric Commodity Purchases and Excess Energy Sales - Megawatt-Hour (MWh) by Calendar Year Resources
Calaveras 46,497 5.7% 63,719 7.5% 232,332 26.9% 114,182 13.5% COBUG 0.0% 3 0.0% 21 0.0% 8 0.0%
Landfill 104,441 12.7% 96,930 11.4% 101,912 11.8% 101,094 12.0% Solar 311,975 37.9% 330,752 39.0% 362,488 42.0% 335,072 39.7% Western 208,961 25.4% 96,383 11.4% 275,030 31.9% 193,458 22.9% Wind 121,300 14.7% 39,012 4.6% 29,341 3.4% 63,218 7.5%
Sub-Total 793,174 96.4% 626,798 73.9% 1,001,124 116.0% 807,032 95.5% Forward Market (City Staff) (3,136) (0.4%) 64,339 7.6% (12,120) (1.4%) 16,361 1.9% Spot Market (NCPA) 32,666 4.0% 157,404 18.6% (125,614) (14.5%) 21,486 2.5% Sub-Total 29,530 3.6% 221,743 26.1% (137,734) (16.0%) 37,847 4.5% Grand Total 822,705 100.0% 848,541 100.0% 863,390 100.0% 844,879 100.0% Note: negative amounts represent (net) excess energy, typically due to Hydro generation, that are sold. 2021 2022 2023 Three Year Average
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 261 of 636

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy
Attachment B: Proposed Energy Risk Management Policy with Redline Changes APPROVED BY:

Lauren Lai, Administrative Services Director
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 262 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. XXXX
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy

RECITALS
A. In 1998, the City of Palo Alto (“City”) adopted a policy governing the management, monitoring, and hedging of risks associated with electric and natural gas commodity transactions effected by the Utilities Department.

B. The policy is memorialized in the document entitled “Energy Risk Management Policy” (“Policy”), which the City most recently updated on June 22, 2020.

C. Staff has identified an opportunity to update the Policy to change the schedule for reporting to the City Council on energy risk management activities from quarterly to semi-annually.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:

SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy (Attachment B), as amended.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Item 9
Attachment A -
Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto
Approving Revisions to
the City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management
Policy
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 263 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED

ATTACHMENT A
SECTION 2. Adoption of this Resolution is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
General Manager of Utilities
Item 9
Attachment A -
Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto
Approving Revisions to
the City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management
Policy
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 264 of 636
Proposed
With Redline Changes
City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management
Policy
May 2024
Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 265 of 636
1 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy
Table of Contents
A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE .......................................................................................................2 B. APPLICABILITY ......................................................................................................................3 C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND ORGANIZATION..............4

1. City Council ............................................................................................................................4

2. Utilities Advisory Commission..............................................................................................4

3. City Manager..........................................................................................................................4

4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) ....................................4

5. CPAU/ASD Oversight............................................................................................................4 b. ASD Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting ...........................................................................5 c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording.....................................................................................................................5

6. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA) ...............................................5 D. TRANSACTIONS ......................................................................................................................6

2. Maximum Transaction Term ......................................................................................................................................6

3. Competitive Process ......................................................................................................................................................6 E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT ....................................................................................................6 F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING ....................................................................................7 G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................7 H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY ...............................................................................................8 I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST .....................................................................................................8 J. DODD-FRANK APPLICABILITY AND COMPLIANCE ...................................................8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS................................................................................................................9 Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 266 of 636
2 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The City of Palo Alto’s (City) Department of Utilities (CPAU) purchases and sells electricity and gas to meet the needs of its customers. The City’s Energy Risk Management Policy (ERM Policy) describes the management organization, authority, and processes to monitor, measure, and control market risks, which include price risk, credit risk, and operational risk, to which the City is exposed in the normal course of managing its energy portfolio to meet the needs of the City’s electric and gas utility customers.

The ERM Policy describes the key policies and control structures for prudent energy risk management processes, in accordance with the City’s municipal code, financial requirements set forth by the City Council and the Director of Administrative Services, and applicable law. The ERM Policy focuses on the following areas:
• Segregation of duties and delegation of authority (Section C) • Organizational structure for risk management controls to include the front, middle, and back offices (Section C)
• Transacting (Section D)
• Counterparty credit (Section E)
• Reporting (Section F)
• Permitted transaction and product types (Section G)
• Conflict of interest (Section I)
The ERM Policy sets forth the City’s objectives, policies and control structures for prudent energy risk management. This Policy is supported by policy/implementation- level and operations-level documents including: the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (ERM Guidelines); Energy Risk Management Procedures (ERM Procedures) for the Front, Middle, and Back Offices; and the Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP), and the Utilities Strategic Plan. The ERM Policy does not address general CPAU business risks such as fire, accident, casualty, worker health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the Policy cover the water fund, the electric and gas distribution business units, nor the telecommunications business unit.

Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 267 of 636
3 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 B. APPLICABILITY
The ERM Policy applies to all City employees within business units engaged in transacting in the electric and gas markets. All employees participating in the energy procurement process must have knowledge of the ERM Policy and adhere to it during such participation.

The electric and gas supply business units are part of the electric and natural gas enterprise funds and employees within these business units are responsible for the acquisition and potential sale of energy supply resources.

Employees within the relevant business units are required to follow the ERM Policy regarding these topics: management, organization, authority, processes, tools and systems to monitor, measure, and control risks to which the City is exposed.

Energy Risk Management Policy, Guidelines, and Procedures Diagram Energy Risk Management Policy (Highest Level)
Approved by: City Council
Energy Risk Management Guidelines (Guiding Principles)
Approved by: Utilities Risk Oversight Coordinating Council (UROCC) Energy Risk Management Procedures-(Detailed instructions on how to perform the procedures.) Front Office (approved by Utilities Director) Middle Office (approved by Administrative Services Department (ASD) Director, Back Office (approved by Utilities and ASD Directors)
Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 268 of 636
4 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND

ORGANIZATION
This section defines the overall roles and responsibilities for the City’s implementation of the ERM Policy. Additionally, the ERM Guidelines and Procedures contain more specific information describing these roles and responsibilities within the energy risk management program structure at the City.

1. City Council
The City Council reviews and adopts by resolution the ERM Policy as developed and recommended by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) and delegates its implementation to the City Manager. The Council will, at a minimum, review the Policy every three years. Additionally, the City Council shall receive semi-anualquarterly updates from the City Manager regarding energy risk management activities.

2. Utilities Advisory Commission
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is responsible for advising the City Council on long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electric and gas utilities. While it has no formal responsibility in energy risk management, the UAC shall receive informational copies of the semi-annualquarterly reports sent to the Council regarding energy risk management activities.

3. City Manager
The City Manager has overall responsibility for executing and ensuring compliance with policy adopted by the City Council. The City Manager reports semi-annuallyquarterly to the City Council regarding energy risk management activities.

4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) The UROCC is an advisory board which governs by the UROCC Roles and Purpose document. UROCC consists of city management and staff. It is comprised of the Utilities General Manager (designated as the Chairperson), the Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer, the Director of Public Works, and a representative from the City Manager’s Office. The staff City Attorney assigned to Utilities and the City Auditor serve as non-voting advisors to the UROCC. The Energy Risk Senior Management Analyst serves as the Secretary to the UROCC. The UROCC is responsible for monitoring compliance with the ERM Policy. The UROCC is also responsible for approving and implementing the ERM Guidelines consistent with the City Council- approved ERM Policy.

5. CPAU/ASD Oversight
City Staff (CPAU, ASD) implements and oversees ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines, and ERM Procedures at the operational level in the City’s Front Office, Middle Office and Back Office.

Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 269 of 636
5 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 a. Utilities Resource Management Front Office – Planning and Procurement In reporting to the Utilities General Manager, the Front Office is primarily responsible for resource planning and procuring energy supplies and services. The Front Office, by delegation of the City Manager, has a critical role in risk management through its transacting operations. Front Office staff has the authority to commit the financial capital of the City to energy transactions with counterparties up to the limits designated in the ERM Guidelines.
b. ASD Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting The Middle Office consists of the Energy Risk Senior Management Analyst, and he or she shall institute, supervise, and review all energy risk management activities, including portfolio exposure, credit exposure, transaction compliance, and ongoing approval of counterparties and transacting limits. In reporting to the Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer, the Middle Office provides the primary independent oversight of the energy procurement practices.
c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording
The Back Office is primarily responsible for settlement of bills, recording transactions, bookkeeping and accounting, and contract administration. Functions within the Back Office are performed by both the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and CPAU staff and are detailed in the ERM Guidelines.

6. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA)
NCPA balances the City of Palo Alto’s electric loads and electric supplies on a daily, hourly, and sub-hourly basis. The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which executes transactions on the City’s behalf. NCPA also undertakes transactions for durations greater than a month under the terms of the Council approved Market Purchase Program Agreement (MPP). The NCPA Commission approves its own energy risk management policies for the acquisition of energy supply resources. The City’s energy risk management staff, however, is actively involved in NCPA’s Risk Oversight Committee and meetings to monitor possible risk exposures resulting from the City’s membership in the NCPA Joint Powers Agency, even where the City is neither a project nor a program participant, to ensure that NCPA observes best practices in its energy risk management program as it relates to the City.

All transactions undertaken by NCPA on behalf of Palo Alto under the MPP shall be governed by NCPA’s Risk Management Policy and Regulations, the City’s Energy Risk Management Policy and Guidelines, and the Council Resolution (#9896) approving the MPP Agreement. In the event of a conflict between the City’s and NCPA’s ERM governing documents, staff will direct NCPA to adhere to the City’s ERM Policy and Guidelines, via staff’s authorization of individual transactions under the MPP.

Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 270 of 636
6 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 D. TRANSACTIONS
Transactions under the Electric Master Agreements and the Gas Master Agreements (collectively, Master Agreements) must be executed as described in this section and in a manner consistent with the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Such transactions will be carried out to manage risk inherent to the electric and gas supply portfolios without exposing the City to unnecessary risk. There are three key elements:

1. Anti-speculation
Speculative buying and selling of energy products is prohibited. Speculation is defined as buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not owned.

In no event shall transactions be entered into for the purpose of speculating on market conditions. The ERM Guidelines shall prescribe volume and sales dollar amount limits for forward purchases and sales.

2. Maximum Transaction Term
The maximum term of any supply resource transaction (purchase or sale) is five years, as stated in PAMC Section 2.30.210(k), unless approved by the Council.

3. Competitive Process
The Front Office will endeavor to obtain three or more quotations from eligible electric and gas supply counterparties and select the best price. The ERM Guidelines outline the trade capture process.

E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT
Credit exposure related to wholesale commodity transactions and potentially defaulting counterparties shall be minimized by:

1. Establishing a credit risk management governance and oversight structure within the existing ERM program;

2. Providing a framework to enable the City to qualify energy suppliers and transact with eligible counterparties;

3. Providing counterparty transacting parameters (limits) to control and measure the City’s exposure to any one supplier;

4. Implementing a mechanism to monitor and report on supply portfolio-related counterparty credit exposures; and

5. Managing counterparty credit requirements.

PAMC Section 2.30.340 sets forth creditworthiness standards and certain contractual provisions applicable to contracts for wholesale utility commodities and services. As such, transactions carried out under the Master Agreements are limited to counterparties with a Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 271 of 636
7 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 Standard and Poor’s issuer rating of BBB- or better, or a Moody’s Investor Services issuer rating of Baa3 or better. Only the Council can approve exemptions to this requirement (See PAMC Section 2.30.340(d)(2)(c)).

The ERM Guidelines shall set forth specific counterparty credit limits for volume, term, credit exposure, and counterparty reporting requirements.

F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING
Reporting of critical information to relevant parties is a key component of energy risk management. Semi-AnnualQuarterly reports will be distributed to the UROCC, the UAC, and the Council; those reports shall provide details on the City’s forward contract purchases, market exposure, credit exposure, counterparty credit ratings, transaction compliance, and other relevant data.

The Front and Middle Offices shall prepare performance reports containing an analysis of physical and financial positions. The frequency and content of performance reports for each oversight body shall be prescribed in the ERM Guidelines. Should the risks associated with the portfolio or a specific transaction within the portfolio fall outside of the risk limits prescribed in the ERM Guidelines, the Energy Risk Senior Management Analyst will quantify the risk, identify and recommend a remedy, if any, and report to the UROCC within one business day via email. The event and remedy, if any, will be reported to the Council in the next semi-annualquarterly energy risk management report.

G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS
The Council shall delegate to the City Manager the authority to transact under Councilapproved Master Agreements. Products transacted under the Master Agreements (listed below) must be consistent with the needs of CPAU and fall within the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager. The following products and/or transactions are approved to be executed under the Master Agreements:

1. Purchase of physical fixed price, index-based price, call options, capped-price or collar-priced energy, gas, capacity, transportation, basis and transmission products to meet load requirements;

2. Sale of physical fixed price or index-based price energy, gas, capacity, storage, and transmission incidental to load;

3. Purchase of electric heat rate products to meet load;

4. Purchase and sale of renewable energy credits (RECs) with or without bundled energy;

5. Purchase of gas storage;

6. Purchase and sale of electric ancillary services;

7. Purchase of resource adequacy capacity products to meet the City’s resource adequacy requirement and the sale of resource adequacy capacity products to reduce cost associated with the City's resource adequacy obligation; Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 272 of 636
8 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020

8. Fixed price or index-priced purchases and sales to substitute the use of higher cost resources with lower cost market alternatives;

9. Fixed price or index-priced forward purchases and sales of transmission and transmission rights to meet contractual obligations or to dispose of surplus capacity;

10. Purchase of physical call options and physical collars;

11. Purchase and sale of emission allowances from bilateral trades and from the California Air Resources Board-administered Cap and Trade Program auctions and reserve auctions to satisfy actual and/or forecasted GHG emissions compliance obligations;

12. Purchases of carbon offsets to supply voluntary programs and/or to satisfy GHG emission compliance; and

13. Sales of Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits.

H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY
In accordance with PAMC section 2.30.210(k), the City Manager has the authority to purchase and sell wholesale energy commodities for terms of up to five years and for a price not to exceed $250,000 or more in any one year. PAMC section 2.30.270(b) governs the City Manager’s delegation of authority. Delegation of authority for and on behalf of the City Manager shall be established in the ERM Guidelines. The City Clerk maintains the list of CPAU staff authorized to engage in wholesale utility commodity transactions.

I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In accordance with Chapter 2.09 of the PAMC and applicable California law, City personnel who are involved in transacting and exercising oversight of CPAU’s supply resource acquisition, contract negotiation, risk management, and back office programs may not participate in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest.

J. DODD-FRANK APPLICABILITY AND COMPLIANCE
Congress adopted the Dodd-Frank Act1 in 2010, which includes a variety of federal regulations largely affecting financial institutions. Certain types of “swap” transactions are subject to disclosure, registration and reporting requirements under Dodd-Frank, depending on the details of each individual transaction and the characteristics of the transacting parties. Since Dodd-Frank’s enactment, City utility transactions have fallen below applicable Dodd-Frank compliance triggers and have meet the Act’s exemptions from the definition of “swaps”.
1 Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 273 of 636
9 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Back Office A set of positions in the Utilities and Administrative Services Departments whose responsibilities include trade confirmation, accounting, and other processes that support commodity transactions California Independent
System Operator (CAISO)
A non-profit public benefit corporation that oversees the operation of California's bulk electric power system, transmission lines, and market for electricity generated and transmitted by its member utilities.

Call Options An option that allows the owner the right to purchase energy at the specified price
Cap Price A structured product that contains a strip of multiple call option contracts with identical but staggered expirations.

Carbon Offsets A reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) made in order to compensate for or to offset an emission made elsewhere.

Credit Risk The probable change in the value of a contract due to a counterparty Defaulting.

Electric Ancillary Services The services (e.g., scheduling and dispatch) necessary to support the transmission of electric power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system. For example, spare generating capacity that can quickly increase its energy output if the grid needs additional energy is an ancillary service.

Electric Heat Rate Product A contract based on how efficiently a generator uses heat energy in fuel (i.e., natural gas) to generate electricity.

Front Office A set of positions in the Utilities Department whose responsibilities include energy procurement operations. NCPA staff is permitted to undertake Palo Alto Front Office functions on the City’s behalf, as needed to conduct transactions authorized under the City’s Market Purchase Program Agreement with NCPA.

Index-based Price A price that varies based on published index prices.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS) Credit
A product that can be bought or sold under the California Air Resource Board’s program to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels.

Market Risk The probable change in value of (or sensitivity to) a contract, position, or portfolio due to general changes in market conditions Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 274 of 636
10 City’s Energy Risk Management Policy Reso #9896 Last Approved by City Council on June 22, 2020 Market Purchase Program Program established by NCPA whereby a member may authorize NCPA to transact on behalf of the member
Master Agreement A standardized agreement for the purchase and sale of wholesale energy commodities
Middle Office A set of positions in the Administrative Services Department whose responsibilities include energy risk management activities Physical Fixed Price A contract for a fixed price which settles when one counterparty delivers the commodity to another counterparty and pays a cash settlement
Resource Adequacy (RA) A regulatory construct developed to ensure that there will be sufficient resources available to serve electric demand under all but the most extreme conditions
Resource Adequacy
Qualifying Capacity
Products from a generation unit located in the CAISO control area that meet RA requirements
Risk Management The set of skills and processes for measuring, controlling, and hedging risk.

Supply Portfolio The composition and amount of all purchased energy Transmission Product The sale or purchase of a non-energy asset to transport energy Item 9
Attachment B - Proposed
Energy Risk Management
Policy with Redline
Changes
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 275 of 636
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Staff Report: 2312-2318
TITLE
Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Execute the Following Five Utilities Contract Amendments for the Electric Grid Modernization Pilot: 1) Amendment Number 1 to VIP Powerline Corp C23185980 Increasing Compensation by $16,000,000 Through April 2028; 2) Amendment Number 1 to Davey Surgery Tree Company C20176920 Increasing Compensation by $3,103,484 Through May 2025; 3) Amendment Number 1 to Stella-Jones Blanket Purchase Order Increasing Compensation by $3,000,000 Through June 2026; 4) Amendment Number 1 to Oldcastle Infrastructure Blanket Purchase Order Increasing Compensation by $450,000 and Extending the Term to December 31, 2024; and 5) Amendment Number 1 to Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs S22183236 Increasing Compensation by $200,000 Through December 2024; CEQA Status: the Grid Modernization Project is Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302, 15303 and 15183.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute the following first amendments to two blanket purchase orders and three contracts, for overhead and underground construction, pole replacement, vegetation management for line clearing, utility pole and underground equipment purchases, and traffic control services used for the electric grid modernization pilot project:
(1) Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C23185980 with VIP Powerline Corp increasing the contract limit by $16,000,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $36,000,000 for the remaining term of the contract through April 9,2028 (for a total term of five years), to provide pole replacement, 4/12kV overhead conversion and system improvement work on the electric distribution system (Attachment A);
(2) Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C20176920 with Davey Tree Surgery Company increasing the contract limit by $3,103,484 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $17,589,541 for the remaining term of the contract through May 31,2025 (for a total term of three years) to provide utility line clearing and vegetation management (Attachment B); Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 276 of 636
(3) Amendment No. 1 to Blanket Purchase Order with Stella-Jones increasing the contract limit by $2,250,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $3,000,000 for the remaining term of the contract through June 30, 2026 to purchase new utility poles (for a total term of three years); (4) Amendment No. 1 to Blanket Purchase Order with Oldcastle Infrastructure increasing the contract limit by $450,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $2,050,00 and extending the term of the contract to December 31, 2024 (for a total term of five years) to purchase equipment for the electric underground system;
(5) Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S22183236 with Statewide Traffic Safety increasing the contract limit by $200,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $455,000 for the remaining term of the contract through December 31, 2024 (for a total term of three years) to provide traffic control services (Attachment C).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 19, 2023, the City Council approved the FY 2024 CIP Budget with the new Grid Modernization for Electrification Project (EL-24000). Staff is deploying a pilot to determine how to align the grid modernization upgrades (Grid Mod) with fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) program Phase 1 buildout, to help minimize utility engineering pole make-ready work, pole replacements, noise disruption, and construction activity in neighborhoods and these are necessary contract amendments to support this project. The purpose of the pilot is to determine the feasibility of engineering designs and construction methods and implement best practices to facilitate the most cost-effective deployment of resources.

Given the anticipated increase in engineering design work, City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) will need to add resources to manage and perform a high volume of pole make-ready work and replacements. In the meantime, staff recommends leveraging existing on-call construction and engineering contracts to perform the engineering design, overhead and underground construction including vegetation management, and installation for the pilot area (approximately 409 poles and 1,224 homes). Authorizing additional services within the scope of existing contracts will reduce the construction timeline by 6 – 9 months, which would otherwise be prolonged in the process of issuing multiple invitation for bids (IFBs) to perform the work for grid modernization. The pilot area will be treated as a testbed to design and construct both projects in parallel to minimize community disruption and reduce shared construction costs.

The pilot will inform CPAU how to most effectively bid out the engineering, construction and installation services required for FTTP and grid modernization for the remaining Phase 1 area (an additional 1,241 poles and 5,560 customers). The City will issue public solicitations for each of these services for subsequent phases of the grid mod and FTTP projects.

Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 277 of 636

BACKGROUND
One major initiative in the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) is to promote the transition to all-electric homes and electric vehicles (EVs) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the City launched an update to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels, i.e., reduce 624,095 metric tons of greenhouse gases by 2030 (the “80 x 30 goal").

This goal exceeds even the state of California's world-leading reduction goal of 80% by 2050; the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and set an aspirational goal to reduce emissions 80% by 2050. A 2021 impact analysis showed that to meet the “80 x 30 goal”, the City must electrify all of its roughly 15,000 single-family homes, replacing natural gas equipment with efficient electric alternatives. Also, currently, one in six Palo Altans drive an electric car, and EVs now account for more than 30% of new car sales in Palo Alto – the highest adoption rate in the country. One of three newly registered vehicles in Palo Alto is an EV. This transition, or “electrification,” will require an extensive upgrade to the electric distribution network due to a large increase in electrical energy needed to replace gas heating equipment with electrical equipment and to support EVs.

As a result, Grid Mod was developed to enhance the distribution system’s grid resiliency and reliability in a manner that will continue to accelerate the City’s clean energy and decarbonization goals. Palo Alto already supplies customers electricity from a 100% carbon neutral portfolio and has been in the forefront of efforts to design programs allowing customers to easily utilize clean energy through EVs and electric appliances.

Palo Alto’s grid must be modernized to reach the capacity required to electrify all homes and cars. The modernized system will be designed to fully accommodate energy received from local generation such as rooftop solar and battery storage, an important element in decarbonization goals. There will be an upgrade to the distribution system to incorporate local generation, allow two-way power flow, meet projected capacity needs, enhance voltage regulation and system protection requirements, and provide a high level of resiliency and reliability.

The City conducted an electrification study to evaluate the impacts of projected electrification loads on Palo Alto’s distribution and substation transformers, primary/secondary distribution circuits, and to propose upgrades needed to mitigate overloads. The estimated cost to construct the necessary electric system upgrades for a 100% electrification scenario is between $220 million to $306 million, depending on the approach. Of the nine substations in Palo Alto, the study recommends major design and equipment upgrades at two of the nine substations, and minor to moderate upgrades at four substations to meet projected loads to support 100% electrification.

The Grid Mod Project requires bringing online more transformers, replacing aging infrastructure, upgrading, or replacing poles, and providing battery storage and solar energy system support to the interconnected grid. Specifically, the Project involves replacing the City’s current 1,413 single-phase pole-top transformers rated less than 50kVA with the same type of Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 278 of 636
transformers rated 50kVA or larger. Additionally, there are currently 261 single-phase padmounted transformers and 231 single-phase underground transformers installed on the distribution system. Based on the projected average peak load of 6kVA per customer, 341 of these transformers (including all 231 underground transformers) will need to be replaced with 75kVA or larger transformers to mitigate overloads. In order to limit the maximum number of customers per transformer to 15 (90kVA), the City will need to install an additional 83 transformers. Furthermore, 296,300 circuit feet of open wire secondary conductors in the distribution system will be replaced with aluminum aerial cable. These design aspects will accommodate 100% residential electrification of end uses in the Palo Alto community, aligning with the City’s primary goal of decarbonization. For future housing development, the City will perform new analyses and make appropriate electric distribution network changes as needed for electrification.

ANALYSIS
As noted, staff routinely use a cohort of contract support to build, maintain, and invest in the City’s electric system infrastructure. To achieve efficiencies in timing for this pilot phase of electrification and fiber to the premise build, leveraging these existing resources is recommended. The recommended contract amendments reviewed below will enable current routine daily business to proceed while ensuring capacity to support this pilot phase one build.

VIP Powerline Corp (VIP) – Electrical Construction - Contract No. C23185980 For more than 25 years, CPAU has routinely hired contractors to assist Electric Operations crews in offsetting the labor shortage of qualified electrical journey-level workers throughout the industry. Over the past 10 years, CPAU has not been able to successfully hire and retain qualified electrical journey-level staff, specifically in the line construction section, to perform the required work on the electric distribution system. Given the magnitude of work that is required to upgrade the electric distribution system and to meet the 2030 emissions reduction goal through electrification, staff recommends increasing the annual amount for VIP’s electrical contractors from $4 million to $8 million for the remaining four years of the contract and increasing the five-year not-to-exceed amount of the contract from $20 million to $36 million.

This will enable VIP to bring in one or two additional crews to perform Grid Mod work on a regular basis. The estimated cost for a 5 day/5 person crew is approximately $72,000 weekly or $3,500,000 annually (Attachment A). The original contract was approved by Council on April 10, 2023 (Staff Report #2303-11191)
1 Staff Report 2303-1119
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meeting/document/1862.pdf?name=Item%2010%20Staff%20Report Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 279 of 636
Davey Tree Surgery Company (Davey Tree) – Line Clearing - Contract No. C20176920 The City has contracted for utility vegetation management services since the mid-1980s to ensure the clearing of trees and other vegetation from electrical conductors, poles, substations, fiber optic lines, traffic signals, and streetlights throughout Palo Alto that meets or exceeds regulatory requirements. There is increased pressure on Investor-Owned Utilities such as PG&E to reduce the potential for fires around their electric infrastructure through enhanced vegetation management. This has contributed to a statewide shortage of qualified line clearance tree workers. In addition to this increased demand for qualified workers, a recent State Assembly Bill, SB 247, has mandated that these tree workers be “…paid a rate no less than the prevailing wage rate for a first period apprentice electrical utility lineman…”. This increased base pay rate is 36% higher than the 2019 prevailing wage document for this trade.

Given the number of trees that will need to be pruned and the extra time it will take to fully clear heavily vegetated areas, CPAU requires a significant increase to the capacity of line clearance crews. Staff estimates needing a 100% increase of line clearance capacity to continue vegetation maintenance, hazard tree removal, and pruning for the primary, secondary, and electric service drop cables for Grid Mod. Of the 409 poles in the pilot area, staff estimates 25% or 100 poles will require significant pruning to achieve 1-3’ radial clearance along the path of the various cables. Staff recommends increasing the contract limit by $3,103,484 for the remaining term, which will increase the total not-to-exceed amount from $14,486,057 to $17,589,541 for the five year contract term through May 31, 2025 (Attachment B). The original contract was approved by Council on June 1, 2020 (Staff Report #108832).

Stella-Jones – Utility Wood Poles – Blanket Purchase Order CPAU has a recurring capital improvement project Wood Pole Replacement (EL-19004) to replace between 50 to 100 wood poles on an annual basis because the poles have exceeded their average service life of 50 years and/or other weakening conditions. Wood poles are used to support overhead utility lines throughout the city. Though poles are inspected, tested, and treated to maintain their integrity, over time poles will degrade and require replacement for the safety of the community or utility workers. The City issued a formal solicitation (Request for Quotation # 188453) on June 13, 2023 for the purchase and delivery of treated wooden poles.

Stella-Jones was one of two responsible bidders. Stella-Jones was awarded a blanket purchase order to purchase wood poles, in an annual amount of $250,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $750,000 over three years. For Grid Mod, staff estimates a replacement of 25% or 1500 of 6000 poles over the next several years to accommodate the weight of the new transformers and distribution cables while maintaining compliance with rules for overhead electric line construction (California Public Utilities Commission General Order 953) . Since CPAU 2 Staff Report 10883 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutesreports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-10883.pdf?t=62508.97 3 California Public Utilities Commission General Order
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M338/K730/338730245.pdf Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 280 of 636
will be replacing about 300 to 400 poles annually over the next five years, staff recommends increasing the annual purchase order amount from $250,000 to $1,000,000 with Stella-Jones for the remaining three years of the contract, increasing the total not-to-exceed amount from $750,000 to $3,000,000 over the three-year term. In addition, staff separately solicited for Hclass poles in March 2024 and Stella-Jones was the lowest responsible bidder, so staff recommends adding H-class wood poles under the Stella-Jones contract. The H-class poles are larger in diameter and will support more equipment load, otherwise, the City would need to install additional poles. The City will issue new purchase orders on an as-needed basis as the quantity, size and type of pole replacements are determined for the Grid Mod project.

Oldcastle Infrastructure – Underground Vaults and Pads - Blanket Purchase Order CPAU purchases large, pre-cast concrete pads, vaults, covers, and extensions for its underground infrastructure. The materials come in various sizes and styles to meet unique design requirements and field conditions. The vaults contain electric distribution system cables and equipment used to provide power to customers throughout the City. In December 2014, Council authorized Utilities to standardize with Oldcastle for this underground equipment (Staff Report #53094) because Oldcastle is one of two vendors on the West coast that manufacture concrete pads, vaults, extensions, and covers in the sizes and styles that meet Utilities’ standards for the construction of the utility underground electric system (Electric Service Requirements5). Oldcastle is the City’s preferred supplier because of lower costs and higher quality than the other West coast supplier. On February 24, 2020 Council approved a blanket purchase order with Oldcastle as the City’s standard supplier of certain equipment for the electric underground system, in an annual amount of $350,000 for a total not-to-exceed purchase amount of $1,600,000 over 4.5 years (Staff Report #109606). Staff recommends extending the contract term for an additional six months from June 30, 2024 to December 31, 2024, and staff is recommending increasing the annual amount from $350,000 to $800,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of the contract from $1,600,000 to $2,050,000 over the five year term. The City will issue new purchase orders on an as-needed basis as the quantity, size and type of underground equipment are determined for the Grid Mod project. 4 Staff Report 5309 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/citymanager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2014/final-staff-report-id-5309_utilities-substructure-standardization-witholdcastle.pdf 5 Electric Service Requirements https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Utilities/Utilities-ServicesSafety/Engineering-and-Operations/Electric-Service-Requirements 6 Staff Report 10960 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutesreports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-10960-mini-packet-022420.pdf?t=53347.87 Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 281 of 636
Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs – Traffic Control - Contract No. S22183236 A traffic control plan must be included in every permit application submitted to the Development Center and Transportation Department for projects that involve work within the public right-of-way. The traffic control plan must be approved prior to the start of work. The City may require additional measures of traffic control or time-of-work restrictions on a caseby-case basis. The City issued a formal solicitation (Request for Proposals # 183236) in 2021 for Utilities Construction On-Call Traffic Control Services, and Statewide was awarded the threeyear contract. In the pilot area, CPAU will have to replace and upgrade about 90 wooden poles to accommodate the weight of the new transformers and distribution cables. Most of these poles are in the public right of way which will require traffic control services (i.e. flagging, traffic shifts, sign boards) when performing the construction work. Staff recommends increasing the annual amount of the Statewide contract from $85,000 to $285,000 per year for the remaining term through December 31, 2024, which increases the total not-to-exceed amount from $255,000 to $455,000 over the three-year term. (Attachment C).

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the five contract amendments is available in the FY 2024 Electric capital budget under CIP Grid Modernization for Electrification (EL-24000). All the contract amendments are for on-call services or as-needed purchase orders. Any unspent funds from the contracts will be returned to the Electric Grid Modernization CIP. Funding in subsequent years is subject to Council’s approval of each fiscal year’s budget appropriation.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The services are coordinated with internal stakeholders and the service providers.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The grid modernization project will replace aging infrastructure and install modern network infrastructure to meet future needs related to home electrification. This project does not expand the existing footprint of the City’s network; there is sufficient capacity on the existing sub-transmission lines, substations, and primary feeders to serve the energy load that is being added to the system. Changes to the equipment on the network will include replacement and Vendor
Contract
No
Original Not-toExceed AmountOriginal
Term Date
Amendment
Amount*
Years
Remaining
Revised Notto-Exceed
Amount
Revised
Term Date*
VIP Powerline C23185980 $ 20,000,000 4/9/2028 16,000,000 4 $ 36,000,000 4/9/2028 Davey Tree C20176920 $ 14,486,057 5/31/2025 3,103,484 1 $ 17,589,541 5/31/2025 Stella-Jones Blanket PO $ 750,000 6/30/2026 2,250,000 3 $ 3,000,000 6/30/2026 Oldcastle Infrastructure Blanket PO $ 1,600,000 6/30/2024 450,000 1 $ 2,050,000 12/31/2024 Statewide Traffic Safety S22183236 $ 255,000 12/31/2024 200,000 1 $ 455,000 12/31/2024 Total $ 37,091,057 $ 22,003,484 $ 59,094,541
* Changes in contract amounts and term date are bolded
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 282 of 636
installation of pad-mounted transformers and new protective devices to improve reliability, and system controls to allow for the import and export of energy from homes on the network. This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review under CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures) and section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities). In addition, Council’s approval of the grid modernization project does not require additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, because the grid modernization project, an element of the Council-approved S/CAP, is consistent with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Council approved on June 5, 20237.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract With VIP Powerline; C23185980, Amendment 1 Attachment B: Contract With Davey Surgery Tree; C20176920, Amendment 1 Attachment C: Contract With Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs; S22183236, Amendment 1 APPROVED BY:

Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities
Staff: Dave Yuan, Strategic Business Manager
7Environmental Impact Report https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12530 Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 283 of 636

CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER

CITY OF PALO ALTO
DEPARTMENT: ELECTRIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS
Electric Utility Construction Services Project
Contract Change Order # 1
Project Title: Grid Modernization Project No.: EL-24000 Contract Number: C23185980 Date: 4/16/2024
Contractor: VIP Powerline Corp Change Order No.: 1
Description of Change Order
Background Information: The Electric Grid Modernization project is to enhance the distribution system’s grid resiliency and reliability in a manner that will continue to accelerate the City’s clean energy and decarbonization goals. Palo Alto’s grid must be modernized to reach the capacity required to electrify all homes and cars.

The original contract C23185980 was approved by City Council on April 10, 2023 under staff report 2303:1119. The original terms of the contract was an annual not-to-exceed amount of $4,000,000 per year, for a five-year contract not-to-exceed a total amount of 20,000,000 from April 10, 2023 through April 9, 2028.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meeting/document/1862.pdf?name=Item%2010%20Staff% 20Report
Change Order Justification: To meet the expected increase in demands, Grid Mod will increase network capacity. Capacity increases will include the following work: converting 4kV systems to 12kV; installing more distribution transformers with greater capacity; and rebuilding secondary networks by increasing conductor size, replacing utility poles, and creating more secondary networks.

Staff recommends increasing the annual amount from $4 million to $8 million for the remaining four years of the contract and increasing the five-year not-to-exceed amount of the contract from $20 million to $36 million.

Description of Work to be Performed: Contractor will provide electric line construction crew(s) to be used on an ongoing basis to assist with construction and operating activities on the City’s 12kV and 4kV Electric Distribution System. The City proposes to utilize contract labor and equipment to supplement the City’s crews in the construction of necessary maintenance, pole replacements, and existing facilities upgrades on its Electric System. The project includes replacing 1,400 pole top transformers and 341 underground transformers. Furthermore, 296,300 circuit feet of open wire secondary conductors in the distribution system will be replaced with aluminum aerial cable.

Approximately 1,500 or 25% of 6,000 poles will need to be replaced and increased in size to support the weight of the new transformers, wires, and equipment.

Incorporates Field Order Number(s): Bid items 1 - 20
Cost Time
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62DD72C0-4AF6-4490-BEC3-AA490040557D Item 10
Attachment A - Contract
With VIP Powerline;
C23185980, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 284 of 636
This Change Order will:
 No cost change: N/A
X Increase cost by $ 16,000,000.00
 Decrease cost by $ N/A
This Change Order will:

X Not change time
 Increase time by ____ days
o ___ days Excusable Delay
o ___ days Compensable Delay
 Decrease time by ____ days
The date of completion as of this Change Order is:

Requesting this change for year 2 (current) through year 5 contract.

G/L account number (s): 40029013 / 31650
Basis for change in cost:
 Unit price(s)
 Lump sum
X Time and Materials
 Compensation for Compensable Delay
X Other: Time and Equipment
Contract Change Order – continued
CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION: By signing below, Contractor agrees that this Change Order constitutes full resolution, settlement, accord and satisfaction with respect to any and all pending or future Claims for cost and extensions of time that were asserted, or that could have been asserted, in connection with the Work covered by this Change Order, as more fully set forth in Article 7 of the Contract General Conditions.

FAILURE TO EXECUTE: If Contractor fails to promptly execute this Change Order after it has been submitted for Contractor’s signature, the City may unilaterally approve this Change Order as set forth in Article 7 of the Contract General Conditions. Contractor may dispute the terms of a unilaterally-approved Change Order, in whole or in part, by submitting a Claim in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth herein within fourteen (14) days after the Change Order is approved by the City. If Contractor fails to submit a Claim within that 14-day period, with respect to all or part of the unilaterally-approved Change Order, those portions of the Change Order which have not been disputed by timely submission of a Claim shall be deemed to have the same effect as if the Change Order was fully executed by both parties as set forth above.

Accepted for Contractor: Accepted for City of Palo Alto:

By: Ryan Tufnail By: Jose Ibarra
Title: President Title: Utilities Supervisor
Date: Date: PCO No. ASI FOCOR CO
Description Amount Reason for Change
1 Foreman/ Crew Leader (12 kV rubber glove
certification required) $514,000 Electric Grid Modernization Project 2 Line Person/ Journeyman (12 kV rubber glove
certification required) $892,000 Electric Grid Modernization Project 3 Line Person/Journeyman Apprentice (12 kV rubber
glove certification required) $394,000 Electric Grid Modernization Project 4 Truck Driver/ Ground Person (12 kV rubber glove
certification required) $314,000 Electric Grid Modernization Project Scope of Work
DocuSign Envelope ID: 62DD72C0-4AF6-4490-BEC3-AA490040557D 4/25/2024 4/25/2024
Item 10
Attachment A - Contract
With VIP Powerline;
C23185980, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 285 of 636
5 Overtime Foreman/ Crew Leader (12 kV rubber
glove certification required) $293,000 Electric Grid Modernization Project 6 Overtime Line Person/ Journeyman (12 kV rubber
glove certification $247,000 Electric Grid Modernization Project 7 Overtime Line Person/ Journeyman Apprentice (12
kV rubber glove certification required) $214,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
8 Overtime Truck Driver/ Ground Person (12 kV
rubber glove certification required) $162,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
9 Line Truck Capable of setting and removing poles up
to 70’ $192,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
10 Line Truck Capable of setting and removing poles up
to 80’ $90,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
11 Material Handler/ Bucket Truck capable of
facilitating live line work at 55’ $192,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
12 Material Handler/ Bucket Truck capable of
facilitating live line work at 70’ $100,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
13 Cargo Trailer capable of hauling material including
poles up to 80’ $20,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
14 Bucket Truck capable of working on electric
secondary level (35’) $70,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
15 18k LB Boom Truck (e.g. Small Crane) $70,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
16 Single Reel Dolly Trailer $20,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
17 3 Reel Dolly/Trailer or Truck $20,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
18 40k LB Take up Dolly (e.g. 4k Hogg Davis Cable
Puller) $70,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
19 Underground Splicing Van $70,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
20 Traffic Control Services $56,000
Electric Grid Modernization Project
Total for this Change Order $4,000,000
Annual incremental percentage increases in bid prices shall be listed for each additional year of the contract.

YEAR 2 - 1st Optional 12-month extension (Items 001 – 0020) 3.90% YEAR 3 - 2nd Optional 12-month extension (Items 001 – 0020) 3.70% YEAR 4 - 3rd Optional 12-month extension (Items 001 – 0020) 3.50% YEAR 5 - 4th Optional 12-month extension (Items 001 – 0020) 3.30% DocuSign Envelope ID: 62DD72C0-4AF6-4490-BEC3-AA490040557D Item 10
Attachment A - Contract
With VIP Powerline;
C23185980, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 286 of 636
Document Preparation
By: Dave Yuan
Title: Utilities Strategic Business Manager
Date: April 16, 2024
City Approval – Division Head
Signature required on all Change Orders
By :

Title :

Tomm Marshall
Assistant Director, Electric Engineering and Operations Date:

City Approval – Department Head
Signature required when any individual Change Order exceeds $10,000.

By:

Title: Dean Batchelor
Director of Utilities
Date:

Contract Change Order – continued
Summary of Amounts Payable Under Contract (For Internal Purposes Only) Original Contract Sum: $ 20,000,000.00
Previous Change Orders $ 0.00
This Change Order $ 16,000,000.00
Revised Contract Sum: $ 36,000,000.00
Compare to:

Original Contract
Authorization: $ 20,000,000.00 Contingency: 0.00
Contract Amendment
Authorizations $ 0.00 Contingency added: 0.00
Contingency Authorizations: $ 0.00 Used to date (0.00)
Total Authorized Funding: $ 20,000,000.00 Balance remaining 0.00 Change Orders shall not be initiated for Council-approved contracts if the revised Contract Sum exceeds the total authorized funding amount.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 62DD72C0-4AF6-4490-BEC3-AA490040557D 4/30/2024
4/30/2024
Item 10
Attachment A - Contract
With VIP Powerline;
C23185980, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 287 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C20176920

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND

DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY
This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C20176920 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 17, 2024 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, located at 2617 South Vasco Road, Livermore, CA 94550 (“CONTRACTOR ”). CITY and CONTRACTOR are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of utility line and pole tree clearing services, as detailed therein.

B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to add more hourly line clearing and contingency funding for the electric grid modernization pilot project, increasing compensation by Three Million One Hundred Three Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars ($3,103,484.00) from Fourteen Million Four Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand Fifty-Six Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents ($14,486,056.88) to a new total not to exceed amount of Seventeen Million Five Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars and EightyEight Cents ($17,589,540.88).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C20176920 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated June 1, 2020.
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 5 “COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-toexceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:

A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Seventeen Million Five Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents ($17,589,540.88).

CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 50FB16F1-F3CC-4D3F-9A1E-70288021EB07 Item 10
Attachment B - Contract
With Davey Surgery Tree;
C20176920, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 288 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

Included in the maximum compensation amount set forth above, CITY has set aside the sum of Three Million One Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Ten dollars and Sixty cents ($3,184,010.60) for Additional Services. If requested by CITY, CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1 (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Performance of and payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.” SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “C” entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. b. The portion of Exhibit C-1 entitled “RATE SCHEDULE YEAR 5 (6/1/2024- 5/31/2025)”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.

SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 50FB16F1-F3CC-4D3F-9A1E-70288021EB07 Item 10
Attachment B - Contract
With Davey Surgery Tree;
C20176920, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 289 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney or designee

DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY
By:______________________________
Name:___________________________
Title:____________________________
By:______________________________
Name:___________________________
Title:____________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 50FB16F1-F3CC-4D3F-9A1E-70288021EB07 President & General Manager
Larry Evans
Erika Schoenberger
General Counsel, Secretary
Item 10
Attachment B - Contract
With Davey Surgery Tree;
C20176920, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 290 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT C

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Compensation based upon fee schedule
CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for Services rendered as assigned by the City according to the contract year fee schedule table below and the detailed rate schedule provided in Exhibit C-1 for the applicable contract year. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR, including both payment for Services and any specified reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 5 of the Agreement. Any Services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY. Unless a different timeframe is agreed upon by CITY and CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR will invoice completed work to the CITY monthly.

Hourly Basis and Per-Unit Basis
The parties understand and agree that the CITY may assign work to the CONTRACTOR on an hourly basis or a per-unit basis, in the CITY’s sole discretion, based on the nature of the work and the CITY’s needs. Hourly pricing and per-unit pricing are set forth in Exhibit C-1.
90-day Per-Unit Pricing Review
The CITY’s assignment of per-unit work to the CONTRACTOR depends in part on the CONTRACTOR’s per-unit pricing. Within 90 calendar days of the start of this Agreement, after having completed work for the CITY hereunder and having gained greater familiarity with the CITY’s trees and work assignments, CONTRACTOR will assess whether its perunit pricing can be decreased, and CONTRACTOR will notify the CITY of the results of its assessment in writing to the CITY’s Project Manager. If CONTRACTOR does find that it can lower its per-unit pricing, it will include its revised, lower per-unit price in the aforementioned notice to the CITY’s Project Manager. This 90-day per-unit pricing review will benefit the CONTRACTOR by providing the potential to be assigned more work by the CITY on a per-unit basis, and will benefit the CITY by providing the potential of greater affordability for per-unit work.

During the initial 90-day period, CONTRACTOR will be paid at the hourly rate.

If production results during the 90-day period are mutually favorable to the CITY and the CONTRACTOR, and the CONTRACTOR provides a lower per-unit rate, as detailed above, the parties will execute an amendment to this Agreement as provided for in Section

27.4 herein, memorializing the lower per-unit rate, and the line clearance trimming work will be shifted to per-unit cost pricing. If unfavorable, CONTRACTOR will be assigned and paid at the hourly rate unless and until a re-proposed, lower per-unit price is mutually agreed to via an amendment to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the forgoing two DocuSign Envelope ID: 50FB16F1-F3CC-4D3F-9A1E-70288021EB07 Item 10
Attachment B - Contract
With Davey Surgery Tree;
C20176920, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 291 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

sentences, the assignment and payment of work on an hourly basis or a per-unit basis will remain a determination made by the City in its sole discretion, based on the CITY’s needs.

Additional Services (if any,
Services per Section 5) Subtotals /
Totals
Contract Year 1 $2,598,989.60 $129,949.48 $2,728,939.08 Contract Year 2 $2,676,563.39 $133,828.17 $2,810,391.56 Contract Year 3 $2,756,827.12 $137,841.36 $2,894,668.48 Contract Year 4 $2,839,500.77 $141,975.04 $2,981,475.81 Contract Year 5 $3,533,649.40 $2,640,416.55 $6,174,065.95 Subtotals /
Totals $14,405,530.28 $3,184,010.60 $17,589,540.88
DocuSign Envelope ID: 50FB16F1-F3CC-4D3F-9A1E-70288021EB07 Item 10
Attachment B - Contract
With Davey Surgery Tree;
C20176920, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 292 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT C-1
RATE SCHEDULE - YEAR 5 (6/1/2024 to 5/31/2025)
EXHIBIT C-1
RATE SCHEDULE - YEAR 5 (6/1/2024 to 5/31/2025)
ITEM

ESTIMATED

QUANTITIES

PERYEAR

UNITS DESCRIPTION& PROPOSALITEM RATE TOTALPRICE
01 3100 EA UNIT COST LINECLEARING(PERTREEUNIT) $306.60 $950,460.00 02 20 EA UNIT COST POLECLEARING(PERPOLE) $168.83 $3,376.60 03 10 EA UNIT COST POLECLEARING& SPRAYING(PERPOLE) $196.96 $1,969.60 04 7453 HR
HOURLYCOSTLINECLEARING- 2 PERSONCREW +
EQUIPMENT& TOOLS $296.67 $2,211,081.51
05 80 HR

HOURLYCOST

LINECLEARING
(ASNEEDED)
2 PERSONCREWOVERTIME $430.36 $34,428.80
06 525 HR 3 PERSONCREW + EQUIP& TOOLS $401.12 $210,588.00 07 10 HR 3 PERSONCREWOVERTIME $581.69 $5,816.90
08 475 HR 1 PERSONCREW + EQUIP& TOOLS $153.17 $72,755.75 09 10 HR 1 PERSONCREWOVERTIME $222.12 $2,221.20
10 16 HR

EMERGENCY

RESPONSERATES
(ASNEEDED)
2 PERSON CREW M-F AFTERHOURS

AND ALLDAYON

WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS
$430.36 $6,885.76
11 16 HR
3 PERSON CREW M-F AFTERHOURS

AND ALLDAYON

WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS
$581.64 $9,306.24
12 17 HR
1 PERSON CREW M-F AFTERHOURS

AND ALLDAYON

WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS
$222.12 $3,776.04
13 200 HR SPECIAL

EQUIPMENT(AS

NEEDED)
70FT AERIALLIFT TRUCK $44.14 $8,828.00
14 100 HR 100FT AERIALLIFT TRUCK $121.55 $12,155.00
TOTAL,ITEMS 01-14
$3,533,649.40
TOTALINWORDS: Three Million Five Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Nine Dollars and Forty Cents
DocuSign Envelope ID: 50FB16F1-F3CC-4D3F-9A1E-70288021EB07 Item 10
Attachment B - Contract
With Davey Surgery Tree;
C20176920, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 293 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S22183236

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND SIGNS INC.

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. S22183236 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of April 15, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND SIGNS INC., a Delaware corporation, located at PO Box 31001-2620, Pasadena, CA 91110-2620 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract(as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of providing on-call traffic control services, as detailed therein.

B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to increase the total not-toexceed amount of the Contract by Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) from Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($255,000)to a new total not-to-exceed amount of Four Hundred FiftyFive Thousand Dollars ($455,000) over the three-year term.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. S22183236 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated December 23, 2021.
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation Not to Exceed Compensation of Four Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($455,000). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: AB08A23C-A5E7-44AD-842C-A0F5FA2F5C77 Item 10
Attachment C - Contract
With Statewide Traffic
Safety and Signs;
S22183236, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 294 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: AB08A23C-A5E7-44AD-842C-A0F5FA2F5C77 Item 10
Attachment C - Contract
With Statewide Traffic
Safety and Signs;
S22183236, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 295 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney or designee

STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND
SIGNS INC.

Officer 1
By:______________________________
Name:___________________________
Title:____________________________
Officer 2
By:______________________________
Name:___________________________
Title:____________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: AB08A23C-A5E7-44AD-842C-A0F5FA2F5C77 Director of Contracts
Anthony Amato
Chief Legal Officer
Matthew Hunt
Item 10
Attachment C - Contract
With Statewide Traffic
Safety and Signs;
S22183236, Amendment
1 Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 296 of 636
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Report #:2404-2899
TITLE
Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C21181223A with Integrated Design 360, LLC. in the Amount of $100,000 and Extend Term by Six Months for Sustainability Services Related to Green Building, Energy Reach Codes, and Sustainability Climate Action Plan; CEQA Status: Not a Project.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C21181223A (Attachment A) with Integrated Design 360, LLC. for sustainability services in an amount not to exceed $100,000 and a term extension of six (6) months. This amendment results in a revised total contract not-to-exceed amount of $850,000 for basic services and reimbursable expenses, through December 31, 2024.

BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2021, the City Council approved1 Contract Number C21181223A with Integrated Design 360, LLC, and Contract Number C21181223B with Integral Group Holdings, LLC, for a shared not-to-exceed amount of $750,000 to provide ongoing sustainability services for green building, energy reach code, and the Sustainability Climate Action Plan for a term of three years through June 2024. The City partnered with Integral Group Holdings, LLC, on a limited basis and spent $71,453 through Spring 2022. The City does not plan to use Integral Group Holdings, LLC's (Integral) services for the remaining duration of the contract period due Integral‘s internal staffing transitions, which resulted in the lack of expertise required to support this work. The City partners regularly with Integrated Design 360, LLC, and through Contract Number C21181223A has spent $557,913 to date. These firms were selected from a competitive solicitation (request for proposal, RFP #181223 Green Building Services), conducted in April 2020. Combined, roughly $630,000 of the shared $750,000 was utilized to date and will meet the contract threshold by June 2024.
1 CMR 12322: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/citymanager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12322.pdf Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 297 of 636

ANALYSIS
The Planning and Development Services Department has two existing contracts with Integrated Design 360, LLC. The primary contract, C21181223A, includes ongoing work related to the development and administration of the Green Building and Energy Reach Code Program, assistance with sustainability and program metrics management and reporting, green building and energy reach code training, green building and energy reach code policy review and creation, ongoing development and administration of the green building special inspector program, and assistance with Sustainability Climate Action Plan implementation. This amendment is considered ongoing daily work associated with green building activities.

On April 1, 2024, City Council approved2 a second contract, C24190818, with Integrated Design 360, LLC, for the development of the “One Margin” Reach Code. Although the work is similar, this secondary contract is distinct as the “One Margin” Reach Code work is for a unique specific project on an expedited timeline, with different expectations and deliverables, not included in the original scope of work in the primary contract.

The contract amendment for primary ongoing services with Integrated Design 360, LLC, will align the end date of the ongoing sustainability support services with the broader Development Services On-Call contracts for building inspection, building plan check, project coordination, and other services offered at the Development Center. A RFP is expected to be released in Summer 2024 to secure new on-call contracts, including sustainability services, starting January 1, 2025.

The results will be presented to City Council in late Fall 2024. Approval of this amendment will result in further efficiency in the procurement process and allow for continuity in services until updated vendor(s) are secured.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Approval of the recommended contract amendment will allow the department to continue utilizing consultants for specific expertise. The use of consultants provides an efficient and effective means of accessing the technical skills needed quickly. Fiscal Year 2025 contracts are budgeted in the Planning and Development Services Department, subject to City Council approval of the Fiscal Year 2025 Operating Budget. The use of contractors for development services work is contingent on (1) an approved contract with the capacity to support the required scope, and (2) availability of funding in the department’s approved budget. No work will be assigned to consultants under this contract unless there is sufficient operating budget to cover the costs. 2 CMR 2403-2709: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=7f697cae-2d04-49a0- 8ad4-6adb9b459460
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 298 of 636

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
City staff from various departments contributed to the selection criteria development, RFP drafting, proposal review, and firm interviews for the original contract award. Recommendations for contract awards to multiple firms were made following internal panel assessment and discussion.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of these contracts is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore, no environmental review is required.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment No. 1 with Integrated Design 360 (C21181223A) APPROVED BY:

Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 299 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C21181223A
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. dba ID360 This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C21181223A (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 3, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. dba ID360, a California corporation, located at 809 Laurel Street, #308, San Carlos, California 94070 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of updates to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as detailed therein.

B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by six months, increase compensation by One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) from Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) to a new total not to exceed compensation of Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C21181223A between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated May 14, 2021.
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 2 TERM of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31,2024, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.

SECTION 3. Section 4 NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000). The hourly schedule of rates, if DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F6B68A5-9835-4FB2-A5A2-B09F94B5AB41 Item 11
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 1
C21181223A Intergrated
Design 360
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 300 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.

SECTION 4. Section 12 SUBCONTRACTING of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 (Assignment) above, CITY agrees that additional subcontractors may be used to complete the Services with prior approval, documented in writing, including Scope of Services, cost, and schedule of performances. The use of subcontractors cannot increase compensation pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee
SECTION 5. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. d. Exhibit “C-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES”, AMENDED, REPLACES

PREVIOUS
SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F6B68A5-9835-4FB2-A5A2-B09F94B5AB41 Item 11
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 1
C21181223A Intergrated
Design 360
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 301 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney or designee
INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC
Officer 1
By:

Name: Melanie Jacobson
Title: Principal
[email protected]
Officer 2
By:

Name: Cindy Mack
Title: Administrative Leader
[email protected]
Attachments:

Exhibit B – Schedule of Performance, Amendment No.1 (Amended, Replaces Previous) Exhibit C – Compensation, Amendment No.1 (Amended, Replaces Previous) Exhibit C-1 – Schedule of Rates, Amendment No. (Amended, Replaces Previous) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F6B68A5-9835-4FB2-A5A2-B09F94B5AB41 Item 11
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 1
C21181223A Intergrated
Design 360
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 302 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO.1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (“NTP”) from the CITY.

Tasks Description
Completion
Number of
Days/Weeks (as
specified below)
from NTP
Task 1 Ongoing Development and Administration of the Green Building and Energy Reach Code Program
December 31, 2024
Task 2 Sustainability and Program Metrics Management and Reporting
December 31, 2024
Task 3 Green Building and Energy Reach Code Training December 31, 2024 Task 4 Green Building and Energy Reach Code Policy Review and Creation
December 31, 2024
Task 5 Ongoing Development and Administration of the Green Building Special Inspector Program
December 31, 2024
Task 6 Sustainability Implementation Plan Support December 31, 2024 Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements. (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.)
The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F6B68A5-9835-4FB2-A5A2-B09F94B5AB41 Item 11
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 1
C21181223A Intergrated
Design 360
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 303 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT C
COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for Services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.

CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below, provided that the total compensation for the Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.

BUDGET SCHEDULE

TASK NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 to Task 6 $850,000.00
Sub-total for Services $850,000.00
Reimbursable Expenses (if any) $0.00
Total for Services and Reimbursable Expenses $850,000.00 Additional Services (if any, per Section 4) $0.00
Maximum Total Compensation $850,000.00

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder.

Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are: NONE up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $0.00.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F6B68A5-9835-4FB2-A5A2-B09F94B5AB41 Item 11
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 1
C21181223A Intergrated
Design 360
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 304 of 636
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT C-1
SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows:

ID360 Rates:

Position/Title FY2022 Rates FY2023 Rates FY2024 Rates FY2025 Rates Principal $205.00 $212.00 $218.00 $246.00
Program Manager $168.00 $173.00 $178.00 $201.00
Project Manager II $130.00 $134.00 $138.00 Not Applicable Project Manager I $107.00 $110.00 $113.00 Not Applicable Technician $91.00 $93.00 $96.00 Not Applicable
Position/Title FY2025 Rates
Associate Principal $232.00
Project Manager $128.00
Associate $109.00
CITY and CONSULTANT may at any time mutually agree to add new position titles, rates, and adjust listed rates so long as the changes do not increase the not to exceed amount as noted in Section 4 of the Agreement. CONSULTANT will apply a twenty percent (20%) mark up to SUBCONTRACTOR invoices.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F6B68A5-9835-4FB2-A5A2-B09F94B5AB41 Item 11
Attachment A -
Amendment No. 1
C21181223A Intergrated
Design 360
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 305 of 636
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Report #:2405-3041
TITLE
Hearing on Written Protests Against Proposed Discontinuance of a portion of El Camino Park; and Adopt a Resolution and Ordinance Approving a Ballot Measure for the Discontinuance of a portion of El Camino Park and Calling a Special Election on November 5, 2024; CEQA status - statutorily exempt per Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12).

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hear and pass upon all valid written protests received by the Clerk regarding the proposed discontinuance of a portion of El Camino Park to construct a roadway for transit vehicles;

2. Sustain or overrule (majority vote) the protests; and

3. If protests are overruled, adopt the attached ordinance and resolution calling for a special election on November 5, 2024 and submit to the voters a ballot measure of whether to discontinue the park use of approximately 0.33 acres of El Camino Park for the purpose of constructing a roadway for transit vehicles between El Camino Real and the Palo Alto Transit Center

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a proposal to construct a roadway for transit vehicles from the intersection of Quarry Road & El Camino Real to the Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC), through a currently passive section of El Camino Park. The proposal would facilitate direct transit movement onto and from El Camino Real, potentially reducing bus transit times by an estimated 5-8 minutes per trip. This improvement will also alleviate congestion at the University Avenue/El Camino Real interchange and University Circle by streamlining bus movements and mitigating the need for buses to navigate through densely trafficked areas.

Concurrently, the proposal includes enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle paths within El Camino Park and at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real. These enhancements Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 306 of 636
are designed to improve safety, access, and connectivity to the broader pedestrian and bicycle network, encouraging greater use of these modes of transportation. The proposal aligns with the upcoming Caltrain electrification project, which will alter train frequency and potential increases in bus and shuttle services to meet service planning needs.

The City Council is asked to review conceptual plans for this proposed transit connection and to consider taking the formal steps toward undedicating a portion of El Camino Park needed for the project's implementation. This would involve approving a ballot measure for the November 2024 election to repurpose a specified area of the park for the transit connection. This parkland undedication can also be considered within the context of other parkland dedication efforts citywide. The project is supported by various goals and policies outlined in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, emphasizing the improvement of transportation infrastructure and multimodal connectivity.

The estimated construction cost for the proposed project is roughly $4.3 million, with efforts underway to secure funding through external sources, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The outcome of the electoral process and subsequent design development will dictate the project's timeline and final implementation steps.

BACKGROUND
Transit and Shuttle Service at the Palo Alto Transit Center The Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC) is the mobility hub of Palo Alto and has the second highest Caltrain ridership on the corridor. SamTrans, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA), AC Transit, and Dumbarton Express all run buses to the PATC to complement Caltrain service and connect Palo Alto to San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and the East Bay, respectively.

Additionally, Stanford’s Marguerite shuttle service and other private shuttles provide last-mile connections from the PATC to campus facilities for employees and visitors.

In total, roughly 600 buses serve the transit center daily; roughly half are Marguerite shuttles.

Transfers from Marguerite shuttles account for approximately 40 percent of Caltrain daily boardings at the transit center.

Bus and shuttle services use a combination of 10 bus bays and curbside space at the PATC, including in University Circle. Public transit service is restricted to the use of bus bays – bays are assigned to specific operators and lines – and shuttles use stops along the curb of University Circle. Employer and Stanford Health Care shuttles pick-up and drop-off in a parking area on the Palo Alto side of the station along Alma Street. The station area also accommodates layovers for bus and shuttle service.

Caltrain electrification is currently scheduled to begin in fall 2024. Electrification will alter train service to every 15 minutes during the peak periods in each direction and from one (1) to two Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 307 of 636
(2) trains per hour per direction during off peak periods, including weekends. Bus and shuttle services are likely to increase to align with Caltrain service.

The station is also a significant source for bicycle trips on Caltrain. Bicycle equipped passengers at the PATC are estimated to be between 750-800 per day. Palo Alto is the second highest bicycle ridership stop along the Caltrain corridor at roughly 14 percent of all bicycle boardings and alightings (descending or disembarking from the train), second only to 4th/King in San Francisco. Assuming 10 percent of daily passengers travel in the peak hour, the Palo Alto Transit Center serves roughly 75-80 Caltrain bicycle passengers/hour during the peak hour.

Recognizing the significance of the Palo Alto Transit Center serving as the main gateway to both the City of Palo Alto and Stanford, Stanford is committed to working in collaboration with the City and transit partners on a long-term visioning process to study both how the transit center and Stanford’s adjacent parcels (27 University, 400 Mitchell) might function better and explore new future uses that could be implemented. This will include community input as part of the public process.

Proposed Roadway Connection
As envisioned in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as Program T3.10.4 (2017), the proposed roadway would create a direct transit connection between the transit center bus bays and El Camino Real at Quarry Road through a passive portion of El Camino Park (see Attachment A).

The proposed project would allow buses that use the bus terminal to exit at Quarry Road to El Camino Real rather than to circle back through University Avenue. The bus operators have estimated savings of approximately 5-8 minutes per trip could be achieved by avoiding University Circle and directly connecting with Quarry Road at El Camino Real.

The bus route reorganization would have secondary benefits to the University Avenue and University Circle area by eliminating the need for some buses to make constrained turning movements in the corridor. Articulated buses require additional turning radii to access the transit center from University Avenue which regularly causes congestion and delays for vehicular traffic and creates additional conflict points for bicycles and pedestrians at the gateway to Downtown Palo Alto.

The project would also include multiple pedestrian and bicycle improvements within El Camino Park adjacent to or near the proposed transit connection and at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real. Specifically, the proposed project would:
• Upgrade the crossing of El Camino Real to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists on both sides of Quarry Road, which would reduce crossing time; and Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 308 of 636
• Add safety and accessibility measures at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real (e.g., curb extensions and tighter turning radii, new pedestrian/bicycle ramps, pedestrian and bicycle refuge islands, and high visibility bicycle markings are currently being considered).Through the above improvements, there would be enhanced visibility of the existing multi-modal path to the transit center and its connections to the existing Class 1 multi-modal path that connects to El Camino Park and into Menlo Park, through the PATC to the Embarcadero Bike Path, and to the Stanford Perimeter Trail. These connectivity improvements would also make the active park facilities in El Camino Park more accessible for bikes, pedestrians and transit riders.

Designs for the roadway connection are in the early stages, but all feasible options are under consideration, ranging from a new connection providing full access to buses between the transit center and El Camino Real to an outbound-only transit lane. The conceptual design under consideration is illustrated in Attachment B. The preliminary concept design includes 12.5 foot wide inbound and outbound transit travel lanes (188 feet and 163 feet in length, respectively), with six-inch curbs, separated by a landscaped median that ranges in width between 18-33 feet that would house existing utilities.1 The utilities accommodated in the median are illustrated in Attachment C.

The projected area needed to implement this extension is approximately 0.24 acres, including 0.10 acres of a landscaped median that, although part of the project area, would remain in its current state. Voter approval would be requested to discontinue use for park purposes of a slightly larger area—approximately 0.33 acres total—as minor shifts in the location of the proposed project may be required as project plans are finalized, to better meet access, circulation, and other goals. The additional 0.09-acre area represents a ten-foot-wide buffer around the projected location of the improvements at the current conceptual design stage (see Attachment D). Following completion of project construction, the City would anticipate re-dedicating for park purposes the portion of the discontinued area that was not needed for the project. As such, these figures conservatively reflect the maximum exposure, though pending final design may have a smaller impact.

The proposed project could require the removal of approximately 15 trees, and there are an additional three trees in the project buffer area. The project could include lighting, benches, signage and low level, drought tolerant landscape planting, mulch, and additional tree planting. A conceptual landscaping plan will be developed in the next phase of the project. If any tree removal is needed, replacement per City ordinance will occur. Any lighting and planting would be harmonious and compatible with the existing conditions in El Camino Park.

Other modifications and improvements could include, but are not limited to, wayfinding Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 309 of 636
signs, additional striping and green bike lanes to help identify buffered lanes and highlight any potential conflict areas between buses, transit and bicyclists in the corridor, crosswalk striping, and refuge islands.

April 22, 2024 City Council Meeting
During the April 22, 2024 City Council meeting, staff presented the proposal and the need to undedicate a portion of El Camino Park. The meeting included a review of the concept plans and the adoption of a Resolution of Intention to undedicate the necessary parkland. The Council discussed the potential benefits, including reduced bus transit times, alleviated congestion, and improved multimodal connectivity.

Resolution of Intention:

The Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to undedicate approximately 0.33 acres of El Camino Park for the project. This resolution set a public hearing for June 10, 2024, to address any formal written protests regarding the proposed discontinuance of the parkland. The resolution also contained a finding that the proposed project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12).

ANALYSIS
El Camino Park consists of approximately 10.75 acres of land and is leased by Stanford to the City under a 1915 lease that currently is set to expire in June 2042. The Park has been dedicated by the City by ordinance for recreational and conservation purposes. Palo Alto Ordinance No. 2252 (Sept. 13, 1965); Palo Alto Municipal Code § 22.08.230 & Ex. A-19.

The proposed project would develop a strip of the underused, passive portion of El Camino Park to provide a direct transit connection to the transit center, where bike and pedestrian access are currently occurring. This area of the park does not have playing fields but does provide circulation throughout that serves the park. The project improves multi-modal movement to and through the park. The proposed transit connection would enhance the use and enjoyment of El Camino Park and the recreational amenities provided to the residents of Palo Alto and the surrounding communities.

Additional Bicycle/Pedestrian Visibility and Bicycle Connectivity High visibility bicycle and pedestrian crossings included in this project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian visibility and bicycle connectivity at the existing El Camino Real intersection connecting the PATC and Quarry Road. The existing bike path from the PATC to the Quarry Road /ECR intersection provides critical east-west access for bicyclists and pedestrians between the Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Stanford Medical Center. This intersection is also a gateway for cyclists traveling north and south on the multi-use paths along both sides of El Camino Real, including the City's path to Menlo Park on the east Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 310 of 636
side and the Stanford Perimeter Trail on the west side. Access to these important paths that allow cyclists to travel car-free in all directions would be enhanced by El Camino Real intersection upgrade that includes green bike lane markings and signage.

The proposed roadway connection aims to enhance the Palo Alto area through various improvements and modifications. The potential impacts and considerations include:
• Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle paths within El Camino Park and at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, aiming to improve safety, access, and connectivity. The proposed project includes high visibility crossings and green bike lane markings to facilitate east-west and north-south travel for cyclists and pedestrians, connecting key areas such as the Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Stanford Medical Center.
• Potential to augment the park's recreational facilities by improving connections to existing paths, thereby integrating the park more effectively into the regional pedestrian and bicycle network.
• A direct transit connection between the transit center bus bays and El Camino Real could streamline bus traffic, potentially reducing congestion and emissions in the vicinity of the park and improving the overall circulation environment for pedestrians and cyclists. • Activation of underused areas of the park through thoughtful design, which could enhance safety and usability of the space.
• Improved functionality of the Palo Alto Transit Center by facilitating more efficient bus and shuttle service operations, which could benefit public transportation users accessing the park and surrounding areas.

Challenges and considerations for the project include:
• Removal of trees and changes to green spaces, which will require thoughtful strategies to address.
• Funding and budget considerations, as the estimated construction cost is roughly $4.3 million, with efforts to secure funding through external sources. • Caltrans review and approval of this project will be necessary, which will not occur until after voter approval of the ballot measure in November 2024.

Discontinuance of Parkland Use
Consideration of the required El Camino Park undedication for the proposal can be considered within the city's actions related to adding parkland to the City’s existing parks inventory. The Parks and Recreation Commission has established an ad hoc committee and has been working with staff to identify appropriate locations to dedicate city-owned property as parkland. The recent unanimous decision by the City Council on March 4 to dedicate the 0.2-acre Tower Well site as parkland, characterized by its historical water tower and naturalistic elements, is the most recent example of new parkland dedication. The recent dedication, along with ongoing Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 311 of 636
evaluations for further parkland dedications, were considered and discussed by the Stanford Ad Hoc Committee.

The project was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting at their March 2024 meeting. The PRC had the following questions related to the proposed project:
• Will the trees to be removed be replaced?
• Will the Olympic Grove Redwood Trees be impacted?
• What vegetation currently exists within the project area? • Will the project look at cumulative impacts of other transportation projects in the area?
• Would there be adverse impacts to the fields due to the buses such as vibration? Some members of the PRC noted that the project will create a roughly 1.0 acre of El Camino Park that is separated from the rest of the park by the new access road making that area unusable. They requested that an additional acre of land be dedicated by Stanford to compensate for this area being separated from the rest of the park.

Other comments were related to reducing lighting, ensuring new plantings are native species, and increase in air pollution exposure to field users, especially children. Overall, the commission's feedback highlighted a balance between recognizing the project's benefits and addressing environmental and community concerns.

Article VIII of the Palo Alto City Charter governs dedicated parklands and states as follows:
• All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance. • No land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII shall conform to the provisions set forth in general law as it existed January 1, 1965, except that the council may call such election by majority vote. • No substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development upon or with respect to any lands so dedicated shall be made except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum.

The proposed roadway does not qualify as a park purpose, as it will be used mostly to transit through the park rather than access the park itself. Given that El Camino Park has been dedicated by the City for recreational and conservation purposes, a majority vote of the electorate is necessary to discontinue from park use the portion of El Camino Park that would be used to facilitate transit circulation.

Voter approval would be requested to discontinue use for park purposes of approximately 0.33 Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 312 of 636
acres. The preliminary design concept alternatives have estimated that up to 0.24 acres of parkland would be required to accommodate the proposed transit connection, with an additional 0.09 acres of buffer for project design that would be rededicated for park use after project construction.

If there is no desire to undedicate parkland for the project, the current state of the Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC) and the surrounding areas will remain unchanged. This means that the existing transit operations, including the flow of buses and shuttles through the University Circle and along University Avenue, will continue without the anticipated reduction in transit times. Consequently, the potential benefits of alleviating congestion and improving connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, as outlined in the project proposal, will not be realized. The parkland will retain its current recreational and conservation designation, and no changes to the physical landscape of El Camino Park will occur as a result of the project.

Timeline
This item provides for the Palo Alto City Council to consider placing the proposed parkland discontinuance on the ballot for the November 2024 election. If the ballot measure passes, the City and Stanford will work with the transit agency stakeholders and Caltrans to further develop construction plans, seek grant funding, and apply for necessary permits.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The preliminary cost estimate for constructing the proposed project is estimated to be roughly $3.55 to $4.3 million but is dependent on ultimate design. These costs will be updated as the design is advanced and construction documents are prepared. Funding is being pursued through multiple venues, including, but not limited to MTC, and may not be identified until after the ballot measure is considered by voters.

According to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, a ballot measure is estimated to be an additional $85,341. This is estimated only based on projected registration and available information. It is subject to change upon final billing of the actual charges after the election.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stanford University has played a pivotal role in advancing the project, working in close collaboration with City of Palo Alto staff. This partnership has been instrumental in the project's development, ensuring that the proposed changes align with the broader transportation and community goals of the area. Representatives of the University, staff, and the City Councils’ Stanford Ad Hoc Committee have discussed the proposed project in the broader context of long-term opportunities at the Palo Alto Transit Center and El Camino Park. A letter of intent has been discussed as a possible means to articulate joint interests on next steps. Once finalized, this letter will be advanced for City Council consideration.

Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 313 of 636
In addition to Stanford's involvement, there has been active coordination with the various public transit operators that service the Palo Alto Transit Center (PATC). These operators include Caltrain, SamTrans, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), AC Transit, and the Dumbarton Express, all of which are integral to the regional transit network and have a stake in the project's outcome due to its potential impact on their operations.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has been engaged in the process, given its role in funding and planning for transportation projects across the Bay Area.

The MTC's involvement is crucial for securing the necessary funding and ensuring that the project aligns with regional transportation strategies and priorities.

This project has also been recently reviewed by the CIty’s PRC and by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC).

The proposed Quarry Road Transit Connection Project would advance numerous Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, as follows:
• Policy T-1.11 Encourage continued enhancement of the Caltrain stations as important transportation nodes for the city.
• Program T1.11.1 Collaborate with Stanford University, VTA, Caltrain and other agencies to pursue improvements to the Palo Alto Transit Center area aimed at enhancing the pedestrian experience and improving circulation and access for all modes, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles.
• Program T3.10.3 Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center areas and housing along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road corridors to Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown Palo Alto and other primary destinations.
• Program T3.10.4 Pursue extension of Quarry Road for transit, pedestrians and bicyclists to access the Palo Alto Transit Center from El Camino Real. Also study the feasibility of another pedestrian and bicycle underpass of Caltrain at Everett Street. • Policy T-8.2 Coordinate with local and regional agencies and Caltrans to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the Multi-Modal Transit Center.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project comes within the statutory exemption for “facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12). Due to its fixed location, Caltrain qualifies as an “exclusive public mass transit guideway” service. The Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 314 of 636
proposed project would extend the existing transit center facility by approximately 210 feet, through the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, to facilitate the transfer of passengers to Caltrain, among other public transit services.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Transit and Multi-model Connections
Attachment B: Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment C: Utilities in the Landscaped Median
Attachment D: Project Buffer
Attachment E: Resolution of Intention to Call an Election to Submit the Question of Discontinuance of a Portion of El Camino Park as Dedicated Parkland Attachment F: Ordinance Calling a Special Election for November 5, 2024 to Submit the Question of Discontinuance of a Portion of El Camino Park as Dedicated Parkland APPROVED BY:

Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 315 of 636

EL CAMINO REAL

QUARRY ROAD
PALM
DRIVE

MITCHELL LANE
Uni
City of Palo Alto
ncorporated Santa Clara County

EXISTING

PEDESTRIAN
Caltrain Commu
TUNNEL ter Railway

ALMA STREET
!Î!Î !Î

EVERETT AVENUE

LYTTON AVENUE

UNIVERSITY
AVENUE
400 Mitchell
Quarry Road Connection
Class 1 path with park
amenities and lighting
!Î
COMPLETED 2017
El Camino Park
Á

EL CAMINO REAL

UNIVERSITY AVENUE
VTA Terminal
Palo Alto
Train Terminal
MacArthur
Park
Copyright
nearmap
Stanford University Land Use & Environmental Planning
Prepared: April 12, 2024, Aerial photo: March 2024
LBRE Maps & Records, Quarry_Rd_Intermodal_Sta.mxd ¹
Exhibit 1:

Quarry Road Connection
Illustrative Concept Design
Project Improvement
Existing Path
0 150 Feet
Item 12
Attachment A - Transit and Multimodal Connections
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 316 of 636
ESDDI
RIM 60.80
ESDDI
RIM 61.17

BKF ENGINEERS
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
FIG-1
04/17/2024

PALO ALTO, CA

PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER - QUARRY ROAD EXTENSION
Item 12
Attachment B - Conceptual Site Plan
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 317 of 636

BKF ENGINEERS
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
FIG-2
04/17/2024

PALO ALTO, CA

PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER - QUARRY ROAD EXTENSION
Item 12
Attachment B - Conceptual Site Plan
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 318 of 636
ESDDI
RIM 61.17

BKF ENGINEERS
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
FIG-3
04/17/2024

PALO ALTO, CA
PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER - QUARRY ROAD EXTENSION: SITE CONSTRAINTS Item 12
Attachment B - Conceptual Site Plan
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 319 of 636
8 | P a g e March 2024
Attachment C: Utilities in the Landscaped Median
Item 12
Attachment C - Utilities in
the Landscaped Median
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 320 of 636
9 | P a g e March 2024
Attachment D: Project Buffer
A 10-foot-wide project buffer is illustrated in red.

Item 12
Attachment D - Project
Buffer
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 321 of 636
Not Yet Approved
112_20240530_ts24 1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Calling a Special Election for November 5, 2024 for Submittal to the Qualified Electors of the City a Measure to Discontinue the Use of Approximately 0.33 Acres as Park Land at El Camino Park

R E C I T A L S
A. The area known as El Camino Park is owned by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) and is leased to the City of Palo Alto (City) until June 30, 2042.

B. Article VIII of the Palo Alto Charter provides that “All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance.” Accordingly, the City adopted an ordinance dedicating El Camino Park for park, playground, recreation, or conservation purposes, as codified at Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 22.08.230. A legal description of El Camino Park is codified as Exhibit A-19 to PAMC Title 22.

C. Article VIII of the Charter requires that “[n]o land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII shall conform to the provisions set forth in general law as it existed January 1, 1965, except that the council may call such election by majority vote.” The Charter includes the “provisions set forth in general law” in Appendix A to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.

D. The City Council proposes that the voters discontinue park use for an approximately 13,960 sq. foot (or approximately 0.33 acre)segment of El Camino Park to be used to build a road connecting the adjacent Palo Alto Transit Center with El Camino Real, a state highway (the “project”). This will allow buses, shuttles, and other transit vehicles to shorten the drive time to and from the Transit Center and will encourage use of public transportation, among other benefits. The proposed project will also include multiple pedestrian and bicycle improvements adjacent to or near the proposed transit connection, including at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real.

E. Construction of the project is contingent on state agency approval, finalization of design, and obtaining adequate funding. If built, the project will remain under the terms of the El Camino Park lease, meaning that it will be owned by Stanford and leased to the City until 2042.

Unless a new agreement is reached, the project and El Camino Park will thereafter revert to Stanford.

F. On April 22, 2024, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to Call an Election to Submit the Question of Discontinuance of a Portion of El Camino Park as Dedicated Parkland and setting June 10, 2024 for a Public Hearing for Protests.

G. In compliance with the City Charter, the City Council now desires to call and fix a special election to submit to the city electors the question of the discontinuance of the use of approximately 0.33 acres of park land at El Camino Park.

H. A proposed ordinance attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Attachment “A” (the “Ordinance”) would amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to amend Exhibit A-19 to PAMC Title 22 to amend the area commonly known as El Camino Park to reduce the Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 322 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
2 dedicated area by approximately 0.33 acres.

I. By its Resolution No. XXXXX the City Council called a general municipal election for November 5, 2024 (“Election”).

J. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222 and 10403, the City Council desires to submit the Ordinance to the voters of the City.

The City Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that each of the findings set forth above are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Election. The City Council proposes to discontinue the park use of approximately 0.33 acres of El Camino Park as set forth in the Ordinance and to present this proposal to the voters on November 5, 2024.

SECTION 3. Measure. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council hereby submits a proposition for the enactment of the Ordinance to the voters at the Election and orders the following question to be submitted to the voters at the Election:

To reduce traffic congestion and travel time for transit riders, shall the measure undedicating a 0.33-acre portion of existing parkland in El Camino Park for the purpose of creating a new road primarily for transit vehicles linking the Palo Alto Transit Center with El Camino Real, be adopted? YES
NO
This question requires the approval of a majority of those casting votes.

SECTION 4. Adoption of Measure. The measure to be submitted to the voters is attached to this Resolution as Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference. The City requests that the full text of the measure, including its exhibit, shall be printed in the County’s Voter Information Guide.

SECTION 5. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the Election is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the Election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

SECTION 6. Impartial Analysis. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 15, 2024.

Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 323 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
3 SECTION 7. Ballot Arguments. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9286 et. seq., August 13, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. shall be the deadline for submission of arguments in favor of, and arguments against, any local measures on the ballot. If more than one argument for and/or against is received, the priorities established by Elections Code Section 9287 shall control.

SECTION 8. Rebuttal Arguments. The provisions of Elections Code Section 9285 shall control the submission of any rebuttal arguments. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be August 20, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.

SECTION 9. Authorization to File Arguments. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282(b), the City Council hereby authorizes Councilmembers XXXXX to file a written argument in favor of this measure and also to file a rebuttal argument.

SECTION 10. Consolidation Request (Cal. Elections Code § 10403). The Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara permit the Registrar of Voters to completely consolidate the City’s General Municipal and Special Elections for November 5, 2024 and the City Council consents to such consolidation. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto. The Council acknowledges that the Election will be held and conducted according to procedures in the Elections Code, including Section 10418.

SECTION 11. Request for County Services. Pursuant to Section 10002 and 10520 of the Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating to the conduct of Palo Alto’s General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be held on November 5, 2024, and shall reimburse the county for the costs incurred by the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters in conducting the election for the City of Palo Alto. The services shall be of the type normally performed by the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections including, but not limited to, checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election supplies, and furnishing voting machines, the canvassing of the returns of the election, the furnishing of the results of such canvassing to the City Clerk, and, the performance of other election services as may be requested by the City Clerk. The City requests the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors permit the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters to prepare the City’s election materials.

SECTION 12. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is hereby directed to submit forthwith a certified copy of this resolution to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and to the Registrar of Voters.

Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 324 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
4 SECTION 13. Environmental Review. The City Council finds the proposed project as described in the Recitals in this Resolution exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project comes within the statutory exemption for “facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12). Due to its fixed location, Caltrain qualifies as an “exclusive public mass transit guideway” service. The proposed project would extend the existing transit center facility by approximately 210 feet, through the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, to facilitate the transfer of passengers to Caltrain, among other public transit services.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSENTIONS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor
______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager
_____________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney Director of Community Services
______________________________
Chief Transportation Official
Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 325 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
5 Attachment A
** START HERE **
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Area Dedicated as El Camino Park to Discontinue the Park Use of Approximately 0.33 Acres The People of the City of Palo Alto do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Exhibit A-19 of Title 22 (Parks) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new text underlined):

EXHIBIT A-19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EL CAMINO PARK
Beginning at the most northerly corner of that certain 1.194 acre parcel of land described in that certain sublease between the City of Palo Alto and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated October 2, 1939; thence S. 17° 13' 57" E. along the westerly line of said parcel 143.13 feet; thence S. 51° 41' 59" E. 421.31 feet; thence northeasterly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 13.64 feet, through a central angle of 90 00' for an arc length of 21.42 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence southeasterly along a curve to the right, having a radius of

13.64 feet, through a central angle of 90° 00', for an arc length of 21.42 feet; thence S. 51° 41' 59" E. 122.41 feet; thence southerly along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 75 feet, through a central angle of 87° 29' 32", for an arc length of 114.53 feet, to a point of reverse curve; thence southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 300 feet, to a point of reverse curve; thence southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 300 feet, to a point of compound curve; thence continuing southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 68 feet, through a central angle of 20° 03' 52" for an arc length of

23.81 feet, to a point of reverse curve; thence southwesterly, along a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 33.40 feet, through a central angle of 77° 52' 04", for an arc length of 45.39 feet, to a non-tangent point on the northeasterly line of El Camino Real; thence northwesterly, along said northeasterly line, the following courses and distances: N. 51° 13' 12" W. 566.52 feet; N. 42° 20' 20" W. 80.45 feet; along a curve to the left, having a radius of 1333 feet through a central angle of 8° 24' 00", for an arc length of 195.43 feet; N. 51° 08' W. 68.39 feet; along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 900 feet, through a central angle of 11° 08' 21", for an arc length of 174.97 feet; N. 39° 59' 39" W. 317.82 feet; along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 72 feet, through a central angle of 73° 09' 21", for an arc length of 91.93 feet; N. 45° 58' 59" W. 436.48 feet; N. 41° 16' 13" W. 151.00 feet; along a curve to the right, having a radius of 102 feet, through a central angle of 16° 19' 30", for an arc length of 29.06 feet, to a point of compound curve, along a curve to the right, having a radius of 12 feet, through a central angle of 90° 08' 53", for an arc length of 18.88 feet; N. 31° 10' 38" W. 85.53 feet; N. 51° 31' 10" W. 123.49 feet; N. 49° 31' 31" W. 69.11 feet to a point in the centerline of San Francisquito Creek; thence leaving said northeasterly line of El Camino Real, and running along the centerline of said creek S. 85° 56' 59" E. 164.52 feet and N. 62° 31' 01" E. 77.22 feet, to a point on the southwesterly line of the Southern Pacific right-of-way; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line S. 51° 35' 10" E. 7.93 feet; S. 51° 41' 59" E. 797.87 feet and S. 46° 56' 10" E. 602.08 feet; thence S. 38° 18' 01" W. 60.00 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 326 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
6 therefrom the following described portion of Palo Alto Avenue: Beginning at the northerly terminus of the above described as "having a radius of 12 feet, through a central angle of 90° 08' 53", for an arc length of 18.88 feet"; thence easterly along a compound curve to the right, having a radius of 182 feet, through a central angle of 19° 27' 55", an arc length of 61.83 feet; thence N. 81° 46' 56" E. 59.63 feet; thence N. 84° 40' 59" W. along said right-of-way line 86.96 feet; thence S. 84° 40' 05" W. 192.23 feet; thence westerly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 382 feet, through a central angle of 7° 50' 24", an arc distance of 52.27 feet; thence S. 31° 10' 38" E. 85.53 feet to the point of beginning. Also excepting therefrom that portion thereof described in Resolution No. 5802 of the City of Palo Alto recorded July 16, 1980 in Book F442 of Official Records at Page 707, records of Santa Clara County, California. Also excepting therefrom that certain 0.551 acre parcel described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southwesterly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company's right-of-way, 230 feet in width, (as described in that certain easement of Leland Stanford to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23, 1892, and recorded October 28, 1915, in Volume 435 of Deeds at page 244, Santa Clara County Records, in which the bearing of said line is called North 51 28' West, which is also the southwesterly line of that certain easement (Palo Alto Agreement No. 224) granted by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to the City of Palo Alto by Agreement dated October 2, 1939, and recorded November 27, 1939, in Book 954 of Official Records, page 567, Santa Clara County Records), with the center line of University Avenue produced southwesterly, as said University Avenue exists 75 feet in width (said intersection being the most easterly point of Parcel 1 as described in that certain lease of the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University of the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto Lease No. 3) dated June 10, 1915, and recorded by Stanford University on September 23, 1915, in Vol. P of Leases at page 333 et seq., Santa Clara County Records, in which the bearing of said line is called North 51 45" West); thence North 51 45' West along said southwesterly line a distance of 467.50 feet to the intersection of said line of right-of-way with the center line of Lytton Avenue (prolonged); a distance of 81.00 feet to a point on the southwesterly most line of Parcel No. 2, City of Palo Alto Agreement No. 46, dated October 2, 1939, and recorded October 30, 1939, in Book 951 of Official Records, page 580, Santa Clara County Records, which point is the true point of commencement; thence South 51 45' East, along said southwesterlymost line, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence South 38 15' West a distance of 120.00 feet; thence North 51 45' West a distance of 200.00 feet; thence North 38 15' East a distance of 120.00 feet to a point on the above mentioned southwesterlymost line of Parcel No. 2; thence South 51 45' East a distance of 175.00 feet along said line to the true point of commencement.

SAVE AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PORTION THEREOF DISCONTINUED FOR PARK PURPOSES PURSUANT TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, AS CONFIRMED BY ORDINANCE NO. _____:

Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:

Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 327 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
7 Being a portion of Park Parcel 1, as said Parcel 1 is described in that certain document, recorded on September 6, 2012, as Document 21840095, Official Records of Santa Clara County, more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCING at the most westerly corner of Palo Alto Station Grounds, as said Station Grounds are described in that certain easement from Leland Stanford to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23, 1892 and recorded October 28, 1915 in Volume 435 of Deeds at Page 244, Official Records of Santa Clara County, said point being marked by a found 3/4” iron pipe with wood plug and tack;
Thence along the northeasterly line of said Park Parcel, South 16°12’28” East, 56.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said point and continuing along said northeasterly line, South 16°12’28” East,

86.65 feet to an angle point in said northeasterly line; Thence along said northeasterly line, South 50°40’30” East, 4.34 feet; Thence leaving said northeasterly line, South 34°32’43” West, 24.21 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 273.00 feet; Thence southwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 09°40’14”, for an arc length of 46.08 feet;
Thence South 44°12’57” West, 49.45 feet, to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 49.50 feet;
Thence southerly along said curve, through a central angle of 62°46’25”, for an arc length of

54.23 feet to the northeasterly line of El Camino Real (State Highway 82); Thence northwesterly along said northeasterly line, North 41°18’51” West, 2.64 feet; to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 1,333.00 feet, with a radial line that bears North 48°17’29” East;
Thence continuing along said northeasterly line and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 04°28’38”, for an arc length of 104.17 feet; Thence leaving said northeasterly line, North 44°14’48” East, 87.93 feet; to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 260.50 feet; Thence northeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 04°48’43”, for an arc length of

21.88 feet;
Thence North 49°03’31” East, 59.71 feet, to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 19.50 feet;
Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 328 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
8 Thence northerly along said curve, through a central angle of 66°09’32”, for an arc length of

22.52 feet; Thence North 29°22’27” East, 14.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 13,960 square feet, more or less.

SECTION 2. The area being discontinued for park purposes in Section 1 of this Ordinance is based on the legal survey attached as Exhibit 1.

SECTION 3. The area being undedicated as parkland by this Ordinance may only be used to construct a road linking the adjacent Palo Alto Transit Center with El Camino Real and related improvements, such as but not limited to: bus stops, utility infrastructure, landscaping, sidewalks, bicycle paths, safety infrastructure, parking spaces, lighting, signage and wayfinding, parking restrictions, and any improvement otherwise permitted in dedicated parkland (including those permitted after adoption of an ordinance).

SECTION 4. The City Council finds this proposed transit connector project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project comes within the statutory exemption for “facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12). Due to its fixed location, Caltrain qualifies as an “exclusive public mass transit guideway” service. The proposed project would extend the existing transit center facility by approximately 210 feet, through the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, to facilitate the transfer of passengers to Caltrain, among other public transit services.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective only if approved by a majority of the voters and shall go into effect immediately after the vote is declared and this ordinance is adopted by the City Council.
//
//
//
//
Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 329 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
9 SECTION 6. Execution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by the voters of the City by signing where indicated below.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED by the People of the City of Palo Alto voting in the election set on November 5, 2024 and ADOPTED by the City Council pursuant to California Government Code section 38451 as incorporated into Appendix A to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.

ATTEST:
__________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________ City Attorney or designee City Manager
___________________________
Director of Community Services
___________________________
Chief Transportation Official
Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 330 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
10 Exhibit 1
Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 331 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
11 Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 332 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
12 Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 333 of 636

NOT YET APPROVED
13 ** END HERE **
Item 12
Attachment E - Resolution
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 334 of 636
Not Yet Approved
1 111_20240530_ts24
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling and Fixing Date of a Special Election to Submit to the City Electors the Question of Discontinuance of the Use of a Portion of Park Land at El Camino Park
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. The area known as El Camino Park is owned by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) and is leased to the City of Palo Alto (City) until June 30, 2042.

B. Article VIII of the Palo Alto Charter provides that “All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance.” Accordingly, the City adopted an ordinance dedicating El Camino Park for park, playground, recreation, or conservation purposes, as codified at Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 22.08.230. A legal description of El Camino Park is codified as Exhibit A-19 to PAMC Title 22.

C. Article VIII of the Charter requires that “[n]o land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII shall conform to the provisions set forth in general law as it existed January 1, 1965, except that the council may call such election by majority vote.” The Charter includes the “provisions set forth in general law” in Appendix A to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.

D. The City Council proposes that the voters discontinue park use for an approximately 13,960 sq. foot (or approximately 0.33 acre) segment of El Camino Park to be used to build a road connecting the adjacent Palo Alto Transit Center with El Camino Real, a state highway (the “project”). This will allow buses, shuttles, and other transit vehicles to shorten the drive time to and from the Transit Center and will encourage use of public transportation, among other benefits. The proposed project will also include multiple pedestrian and bicycle improvements adjacent to or near the proposed transit connection, including at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real.

E. Construction of the project is contingent on state agency approval, finalization of design, and obtaining adequate funding. If built, the project will remain under the terms of the El Camino Park lease, meaning that it will be owned by Stanford and leased to the City until 2042.

Unless a new agreement is reached, the project and El Camino Park will thereafter revert to Stanford.

F. On April 22, 2024, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to Call an Election to Submit the Question of Discontinuance of a Portion of El Camino Park as Dedicated Parkland and setting June 10, 2024 for a Public Hearing for Protests.

G. In compliance with the City Charter, the City Council now has heard and desires to overrule all protests and desires to adopt this ordinance to call and fix the date of a special Item 12
Attachment F - Ordinance
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 335 of 636
Not Yet Approved
2 election to submit to the city electors the question of the discontinuance of the use of a portion of park land at El Camino Park.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overrules all protests received regarding this proposed discontinuance.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby calls a special election to submit to the city electors the question of the discontinuance of the use of a portion of park land at El Camino Park. Such election shall occur on November 5, 2024, consistent with Resolution XXXXX.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project comes within the statutory exemption for “facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(12). Due to its fixed location, Caltrain qualifies as an “exclusive public mass transit guideway” service. The proposed project would extend the existing transit center facility by approximately 210 feet, through the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, to facilitate the transfer of passengers to Caltrain, among other public transit services. //
//
//
//
//
Item 12
Attachment F - Ordinance
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 336 of 636
Not Yet Approved
3 SECTION 5. As an ordinance relating to an election, this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

INTRODUCED:

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Chief Transportation Official
Item 12
Attachment F - Ordinance
Calling a Special Election
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 337 of 636
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Report #:2402-2597
TITLE
Selection of Rail Grade Separation Alternatives and Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Near the Churchill Avenue Crossing for the Advancement of the Alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase; CEQA status – statutorily exempt under CEQA section 15262 (feasibility and planning study).

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council discuss and review the grade separation alternatives considering Rail Committee recommendations and other work completed to date for the selection of preferred alternative(s) and select which alternative(s) to advance into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase.

Staff is seeking the Council action on the following key decisions:

1. The Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at Kellogg Avenue versus Seale Avenue for the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue Crossing. The Rail Committee recommended the Seale Avenue as preferred alternative unanimously.

2. The selection of Preferred Alternative(s) at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for advancing grade separation alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase. The Rail Committee voted, with two in favor and one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The grade separation projects at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road involves construction impacting railroad facilities with active commuter and freight lines. This item seeks the Council direction on the selection of alternatives as the project moves forward into the preliminary engineering and environmental phase.

Staff is seeking the Council action on the following key decisions:

1. The Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at Kellogg Avenue versus Seale Avenue for the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue Crossing. The Rail Committee recommended the Seale Avenue as preferred alternative unanimously.

2. The selection of Preferred Alternative(s) at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 338 of 636
advancing grade separation alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase. The Rail Committee voted, with two in favor and one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review.

Since the selection of the Partial Underpass as the preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue and the narrowing of the alternatives to Hybrid, Trench, and Underpass for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings by the City Council in 2021, the City has conducted various studies and refinements to underpass alternatives. In addition, the Council-adopted Evaluation Criteria was updated following Rail Committee recommendation in June 2023.

Caltrain engagement has also increased significantly through the alternatives analysis. In June 2022, the City requested evaluation of four tracking segment needs and concerns with the design criteria. As a result, Caltrain embarked upon the Caltrain Corridor Strategy Project to review the concerns of various local agencies with projects along the corridor including an analysis of 4 tracking needs. In June 2023, a service agreement was executed for Caltrain review of the project including impacts on the Caltrain Right of Way (ROW), and for technical input on conceptual plans. The City received comments from Caltrain in November 2023 and these comments, affecting various elements, discussed by the Rail Committee in January 2024.

Subsequently, City and Caltrain staff convened to understand the comments concerning Caltrain policies, updated standards, constructability, and the four tracking needs impacting the conceptual design for various alternatives. Impacts requiring high-level material changes to these concepts were discussed by the Rail Committee on March 19 and April 16, 2024. At this meeting the Rail Committee recommended the Seale Avenue as preferred alternative unanimously and voted, with two in favor and one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review. In addition, a study session with the City Council was held on April 29, 2024. Following the study session, the Rail Committee held another meeting on May 23, 2024, to provide the community with an additional opportunity for feedback. The discussion at this meeting reinforced the previous recommendation to the Council.

Staff is therefore seeking Council action on the preferred bicycle and pedestrian crossing location for Churchill Underpass Alternative and the selection of the preferred alternative for grade separations at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing to advance the crossings into Preliminary Engineering and Environmental documentation phase.

Additionally, staff in the separate item will seek Council approval at a future date for a funding agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration securing the grant funding contributions of $6.0 Million towards completing the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation for the three crossings at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road.

Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 339 of 636

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
After receiving the final report from the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on March 23, 2021 (Staff Report 117971), Staff presented a detailed review of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing alternatives on August 23, 2021 (Staff Report 134352) and presented details on Churchill Avenue crossing alternatives for grade separation on November 1 & 29, 2021 (Staff Report 135433) & (Staff Report 137874).

City Council Selection of Alternatives
At these meetings in November 2021, the Council eliminated the Viaduct Alternative and selected the Partial Underpass Alternative as a preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue with the Closure Alternative as backup.

For Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing, the Council in August 2021 narrowed the alternatives in consideration to three alternatives, namely Hybrid, Trench, and Underpass. The City Council also directed staff to perform additional studies. These studies included work to refine Underpass alternatives with input from PAUSD, PABAC, and Stanford to address current shortcomings and to conduct additional outreach to these stakeholders. On May 23, 2022 (Staff Report 143415) the City Council authorized an amendment with the consultant to perform these additional tasks.

Refinements to Underpass Alternatives
Following the City Council and Rail Committee direction, City Staff and the consultant reached out to the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Stanford, City School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC), and members from the community who were involved in developing the conceptual design of these partial underpass alternatives for their feedback and comments for refinement to the conceptual plans. Staff compiled all the comments received from these stakeholders and developed a master list of all comments. These comments were then categorized into four elements: Bicycle and Pedestrian, Roadway, Structures, and Rail. The following list of comments was reviewed and addressed in the refinements.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
o Width and Pathway configurations
o Grade/slope
o Maneuvering and additional crossings
1 City Council, March 23, 2021; Item 1, Study Session, SR# 11797 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=55803&repo=r-704298fc 2 City Council, August 23, 2021; Item 6, Action Items, SR# 13435 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=61831&repo=r-704298fc 3 City Council, November 1, 2021; Item 15, Action Item, SR# 13543 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=61747&repo=r-704298fc 4 City Council, November 29, 2021; Item 11, Action Items, SR # 13787 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=61795&repo=r-704298fc 5 City Council, May 23, 2022, Consent Items, SR# 14341
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59504&repo=r-704298fc Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 340 of 636
o Design speed, design bicycle, turning radius and sight distance o Construction impacts
o Bicycle and Pedestrian pathway on each side (Meadow and Charleston Underpass alternative)
o Kellogg Avenue vs Seale Avenue and Bike Lane configurations on the pathway for Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass alternative
• Roadways:
o Shoulder and lane widths
o Vehicular lane reductions
o Intersection, turning radius, school bus turning radius o Roadway Grade/Slope
o Signage
o Loss of landscaping strip on Alma Street
o Roundabout for Charleston Underpass Alternative only
o Bike boulevard continuity at intersections
• Structures
o Bridge Depth thickness
o Vertical clearance
o Aesthetics
• Rail
o Raise the rail
The various elements related to these facilities were discussed during Rail Committee study sessions on October 19, 2022 (Staff Report 148136) and November 18, 2022 (Staff Report 149047).

Based on the study session review and feedback, the Conceptual Plans of the Partial Underpass at Churchill Avenue and Underpass Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road were refined and approved by the Rail Committee on May 23, 2023 (Staff Report 2302- 09738). Following major elements were revised to prepare the refined plans.
• Added Buffer Zones between vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian facilities • Reduced Vehicular lane widths
• Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Improved maneuverability and turning radii
• Reduced bridge span width at Churchill Avenue
Re-evaluation of Viaduct Alternative in-lieu of Trench alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing for review by Caltrain
During the Rail Committee study sessions reviewing the refinements of underpass alternatives in 6 Rail Committee, October 19, 2022; Item 2, Study Session, SR # 14813 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=56013&repo=r-704298fc 7 Rail Committee, November 18, 2022; Item 2, Study Session, SR # 14904 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=56014&repo=r-704298fc 8 Rail Committee, May 23, 2023; Item 2, Action Items, SR # 2302-0973 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=66337&repo=r-704298fc Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 341 of 636
October and November of 2022, the members of the community, PABAC, and PAUSD expressed concerns about bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and requested to reconsider Viaduct Alternative for Rail Committee’s review, evaluation, and recommendation to Council. In addition, during the same time; Caltrain staff provided information regarding the four tracking needs in Palo Alto. Therefore, the Rail Committee paused further analysis of the trench alternative, mainly due to its high cost and feasibility challenges concerning accommodating and addressing the four tracking needs of Caltrain.

Furthermore, the Service Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) for the Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Projects at these crossings was in the development process during this time. The draft service agreement was reviewed by the Rail Committee at its April 26, 2023, meeting (Staff Report 2303-11999). The Service Agreement was intended to provide early coordination, technical review, input, and expertise to inform the capital project development process for the selection of Preferred Alternative(s). Therefore, the Rail Committee considered this an opportunity to further review the Viaduct Alternative instead of the Trench Alternative for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing at the June 20, 2023, Rail Committee meeting (Staff Report 2305-154610) to accommodate community concerns.

Based on Caltrain’s review of the proposed viaduct alignment to keep the structure away from residential properties west of the railroad track while keeping existing tracks as shoefly track, addressing technical comments, and the four tracking needs; this alternative would cause significant encroachment on Alma Street potentially reducing the street into one lane in each direction. The Rail Committee meetings in March and April 2024 discussed a possible iteration to the viaduct alternative with the proposed viaduct alignment to shift westward towards the residential properties and to construct the shoefly tracks on the east side of the tracks. This alternative was not evaluated by Caltrain as the intent was to remain consistent with the previously envisioned concept that was developed through community input by the City. In addition, there were time and scope constraints in the Caltrain Service Agreement.

Following an in-depth review and discussion, the Committee voted, with two in favor and one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review. Therefore, the Viaduct alternative was eliminated from further consideration by the Rail Committee.

City Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria & Additional Studies The Rail Committee on March 29, 2023 (Staff Report 2302-101011), and April 26, 2023 (Staff Report 9 Rail Committee, April 26, 2023, Item 2, Action Items, Staff Report 2305-1546 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=66336&repo=r-704298fc 10 Rail Committee, June 20, 2023, Item 1, Action Items, Staff Report 2305-1546 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=66338&repo=r-704298fc 11 Rail Committee, March 29, 2023; Item 1, Action Items, SR # 2303-1010 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=66345&repo=r-704298fc Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 342 of 636
2304-126912), reviewed the Council Adopted Evaluation criteria, which led to a recommendation from the Rail Committee the additional measures to be included in the Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria. The revised evaluation criteria were unanimously approved by the Rail Committee and recommended to the City Council for approval. The City Council approved the updated evaluation criteria at its June 12, 2023, meeting (Staff Report # 2305-142613).

The additional measures in the evaluation criteria include reviewing impacts such as connectivity, corridor travel times, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, sustainability, sea-level rise, and visual and privacy considerations. These additional elements for the alternatives in consideration were further evaluated. The Rail Committee reviewed the update to the Summary of Evaluation of Council Adopted Criteria at its February 20, 2024, meeting (Staff Report # 2401- 250314).

The City’s engineering consultant (AECOM) also conducted the subsurface exploration and performed data collection for the project. A study report was prepared by the Consultant which included findings addressing subsurface conditions and the feasibility of alternative construction methods with respect to soil conditions and recommendations for additional studies in future phases. The study was presented to the Rail Committee on August 23, 2023, Rail Committee Meeting (Staff Report 2307-174715)
In addition, at the Rail Committee’s request the Noise and Vibration Comparative Analysis Report prepared by AECOM Engineers in July 2020 for the evaluation of the Grade Separation Alternatives was reviewed to discuss the technical insights in a study session on September 19, 2023 (Staff Report 2308-194316)
Caltrain Review (Four Tracking and Technical Review of Alternatives) The Caltrain 2040 Business plan’s inclusion of a possible passing track segment in either Palo Alto or Mountain View presented challenges for grade separation planning in Palo Alto. At each of these crossings, Caltrain required that grade separation designs not preclude four- tracking.

These requirements indicated a significant impediment to the timely and cost- effective project development. Caltrain staff had previously indicated that Caltrain was taking the most conservative approach in considering the potential for a four-track segment between the San Francisquito Creek Bridge in Palo Alto and just through the Mountain View Station. Therefore, in June 2022, City staff sent formal requests to consider narrowing the extent of the four-track 12 Rail Committee, April 26, 2023; Item 1, Action Items, SR 2304-1269 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=66336&repo=r-704298fc 13 City Council, June 12, 2023; Item 6, Consent Items, SR# 2305-1426 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=66112&repo=r-704298fc 14 Rail Committee, February 20, 2024; Item 1, Action Items, SR 2401-2503 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=70469&repo=r-704298fc 15 Rail Committee, August 23, 2023; Item 2, Action Items, SR# 2307-1747 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=67605&repo=r-704298fc 16 Rail Committee, September 19, 2023; Item 2, Study Session, SR# 2308-1943 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=67755&repo=r-704298fc Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 343 of 636
segment and review technical issues and concerns that surfaced related to their design criteria.

To address the City’s concerns, Caltrain initiated a Caltrain Corridor Strategy Project to review the grade separation projects along the corridors and to provide a more thought-out and comprehensive review. Also, the City and Caltrain entered into a Service Agreement on June 8, 2023. The agreement would provide railroad expertise and technical input for the review of alternatives in consideration for advancement of the alternatives to select the preferred alternative for the three crossings at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road.

As part of the Caltrain Crossings Strategy, Caltrain also reviewed the need for four tracking segments along the corridor. A study session regarding the Caltrain review and proposal for a four-track segment in Palo Alto was conducted at the November 21, 2023, Rail Committee (Study Session, Presentation17). Caltrain staff reviewed various alternatives including four tracking segments at the following three locations:
• Palo Alto Avenue Station (Four tracking between Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill Avenue)
• California Avenue Station (Four tracking between Churchill Avenue and Meadow Drive)
• San Antonio Station (Four tracking between Rengstroff to Charleston Road) The analysis indicated that the proposed segment at California Station requiring four tracks between Churchill Avenue and Meadow Drive crossing has the highest likelihood to address Caltrain needs while minimizing the community and infrastructure impacts and therefore the highest desirability to address passing needs in Palo Alto. Caltrain thus asked the City to ensure that designs for the grade separation at Meadow Drive and Churchill accommodate this fourtracking segment. The following exhibit from the Caltrain presentation depicts the proposed four tracking segment in Palo Alto.

Exhibit A: California Avenue Four Tracking Segment
17 Rail Committee, November 21, 2023; Item 1, Study Session, Presentation https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13219 Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 344 of 636
On November 8, 2023, Caltrain staff conducted their first technical review and provided comments to City Staff. Staff presented the major elements affecting various alternatives and identified the initial impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards at the January 23, 2024 (Staff Report 2311-230318) Rail Committee meeting. At this meeting, the Rail Committee directed staff to coordinate with Caltrain staff and to determine the material changes to the alternatives’ concepts to address updated standards guiding the substantiate changes in the alternative’s concepts. These comments are related to the following major elements.
a. Vertical Alignment
• Roadway vertical clearance
• Bridge structure depth
• Railroad grade and profile
• Pedestrian and Bicycle path clearance
b. Horizontal Alignment
• Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
• Pedestrian facilities encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way • Railroad encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
• Width of Bridges
• Retaining wall offsets/clearance from structure and roadways • Maintenance and access requirements along railroad tracks • Clearance for MSE Wall construction between shoofly and new walls and maximize the right-of-way use
c. Four (4) tracking segments
• Four (4) tracking segments and roadway encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
• Four track alignment
d. Roadway Design
• Road profile/sag curve/grades
• Acceleration/deceleration lane, lane drops and weaving • Roundabout design
• Curved bridges
e. Miscellaneous/Other
• Construction technology
• Culverts
Subsequently, City and Caltrain staff met to understand how addressing Caltrain comments and adhering to Caltrain Standards will impact the conceptual design alternatives and understand the high-level material changes that may be required to the concepts. A follow- up study session 18 Rail committee, January 23, 2024; Item 1, Action Items, SR# 2311-2303 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=70179&repo=r-704298fc Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 345 of 636
with the Rail Committee was conducted on March 19, 2024 (Staff Report 2402-267519) presented key findings on the impacts to various alternatives and discussed the material changes required for various alternatives.

The Rail Committee discussion regarding Caltrain's comments continued to the April 16, 2024 meeting. City and Caltrain Staff provided the details of major elements affecting various alternatives identifying impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards.

Following an in-depth review and discussion, the Committee voted, with two in favor and one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review.

Additionally, the Rail Committee unanimously reconfirmed the preference for the Partial Underpass for the Churchill Avenue crossing. The Committee also recommended to consider the following elements for Underpass Alternatives at all crossings during the Preliminary Engineering phase.
• Seek ways to reduce property impacts
• Optimize bike/pedestrian crossings
• Where feasible, improve connections to bike infrastructure beyond the study area to improve the network
o Improve connection to Park Blvd
o Explore modifications/refinements to the Bike Blvd, along Park Blvd to improve overall bike network
o Further refine the traffic circle on Charleston Road to reduce the property impacts
o Refine construction impacts to better understand possible mutations needed during the lengthy construction process.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing - Kellogg Avenue vs. Seale Ave At the November 29, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to ensure that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan included an evaluation of the bicycle and pedestrian crossing for the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass at the locations of Kellogg Avenue and Seale Avenue. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan completed the evaluation of this and prepared a technical memorandum summarizing their assessment (Attachment J: Technical Memorandum Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment) The assessment included a review of the prior analysis and plans, proximity to alternative routes, landing locations, network connectivity, and community input. Based on this analysis, it is recommended that bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue would fill a longer gap between alternative locations and would increase connectivity. In addition, due to right-of- way constraints on the west side of the railroad tracks at the Kellogg Avenue location, there is potential for additional impact on the Palo Alto Unified School District property. The Kellogg 19 Rail Committee, March 19, 2024; Item 1, Action Items, SR 2402-2675 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=70816&repo=r-704298fc Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 346 of 636
location also requires additional turns on the west side of the tracks to connect to the Embarcadero Bike path which is currently within the easement on the Caltrain property.

Exhibit B: Kellogg Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing In addition to the above factors, the Seale Avenue crossing ends in Peers Park (as is currently conceptualized). Significant construction involving Peers Park requires compliance with the City’s park improvement ordinance process, which generally includes review by the City’s Park and Recreation Commission and final approval by the City Council.

Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 347 of 636
Exhibit C: Seale Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Finalizing the location of a Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing presents complexities when considered with the planned partial underpass at Churchill including but not limited to land use and right of way. Staff is considering additional outreach to incorporate input from stakeholders including but not limited to Palo Alto Unified School District, residents around the crossings, and bike and pedestrian users including students at key locations such as Palo Alto High School and affected neighborhood streets. In addition, this will allow staff to review the crossing layout and the integration of a potential underpass with parkland uses at Peers Park before the Rail Committee makes its final recommendation to the City Council.

Staff presented a review of the merits of Kellogg vs Seale to the Rail Committee on April 16, 2024 (Staff Report 2403-280220) The Rail Committee reviewed and unanimously selected Seale Avenue as the preferred bicycle and pedestrian crossing location. Staff sent the mailers to the property owners adjacent to the project to conduct additional outreach to stakeholders and inform the community about the bicycle and pedestrian crossing location. The mailer provided information to attend the City Council Study Session on April 29 and future Rail Committee meeting on May 23 and a planned Council Meeting on June 10. In addition, a Rail Blog Series was added to provide the information for the larger community outreach 20 Rail Committee, April 16, 2024; Item 2, Action items, SR# 2403-2802 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=71988&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=820dc4f3-5f4a-4078- b004-9d06eeb26b40
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 348 of 636
providing information about the upcoming meetings and discussions leading to action by the City Council.

The City Council Study session on April 29, 2024 (Staff Report 2402-259321) provided review of the additional studies, refinements, and updates that were performed to date on the grade separation projects and the rail committee actions. Following the study session, the Rail Committee held another meeting on May 23, 2024, to provide the community with an additional opportunity for feedback. The discussion at this meeting reinforced the previous recommendation to the Council.

Next Steps: Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase The project's next phase involves advancing into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase. In October 2022, the Office of Transportation Staff submitted an application requesting a $6.0 million Federal Grant from the Rail Crossing Elimination Program to contribute towards preliminary engineering and environmental documentation preparation. The remaining $14.0 million is anticipated from the Santa Clara County Measure B Grade Separation Fund. This phase is scheduled to be completed within three years, ending in June 2027. City staff are actively working on executing the agreement to secure this $6.0 million grant funding from the Federal Railroad Administration.

The grant application was based on the selected partial underpass alternative at Churchill Avenue. Additionally, the application assumed the selection of the preferred alternative prior to preliminary engineering for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings. In discussions with FRA Staff, the City and Caltrain staff proposed that the FRA allows the City to move forward with two alternatives into the earlier preliminary engineering activities. This first step in the earlier Preliminary Engineering and Environmental documentation phase will allow the project to focus on refining conceptual plans to a 15% level of design. The design will provide greater detail and will take the opportunity to refine the plans to minimize property impacts and optimize improvements while ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. These updated plans at the 15% design level will provide additional information for the City to allow the selection of the preferred alternative at the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings. Therefore, seeking additional time to then advance the selected preferred alternative into the second step for developing 35% plans and commencing necessary environmental studies required environmental approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
21 City Council, April 29, 2024, Item 2, Study Sessions, SR# 2402-2593 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=71985&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=bf0359c1-b812-4150- bc39-b36b40598095
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 349 of 636
The Funding Agreement with FRA was also scheduled for review by Rail Committee at its May 23, 2024 meeting( Staff Report 2404-202422). The Rail Committee unanimously recommended the approval of funding agreement with FRA. FRA is performing the final review of the draft agreement and staff plans to bring this funding agreement for the City Council approval at its June 17 meeting.

The railroad right of way is maintained and operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joints Power Board (PCJPB) and has operating and agreements with other existing and planned service operators. Therefore, PCJPB will serve as the lead implementing agency and will play a major role in the design and construction of this grade separation project. Staff is also working with the three agencies‘ agreement between VTA, PCJPB, and the City of Palo Alto. This agreement will formalize the roles of each agency for the preparation of Preliminary Engineering and Environmental documentation and funding from the Measure B Grade Separation funding. The funding for the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase is programmed for allocation in the VTA budget from the Measure B Grade Separation funding for the City of Palo Alto Grade Separation Projects. However, City will need to enter into a separate agreement for award of this Measure B grade separation funding through three party cooperative funding agreement. Staff will bring forth this agreement(s) for the rail committee review and City Council Approval in near future.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for these projects is programmed in the 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Plan in the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road (PL-24000) and Churchill Avenue (PL-24001) Rail Grade Separation and Safety Improvements projects. The total anticipated cost for the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase is estimated at $20 million. The Federal Railroad Administration grant if the agreement is approved by the City Council will fund 30% of the cost up to $6.0 million and the remaining $14 million is expected to be funded through Santa Clara County Measure B Grade Separation funding through a separate agreement with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency. Funding for possible amendments to the agreement and/or future agreements will be requested through budget amendments as needed or appropriated through the annual budget process.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Rail Committee and the City Council meetings are open to the public, offering community members opportunities to provide comments and feedback. The Rail Committee meetings are regularly conducted, and their information is posted on the City Calendar. Residents who have subscribed to City Meetings notifications receive notifications about the Rail Committee meetings. Additionally, notifications about the Rail Committee and the City Council meetings are disseminated through the City’s YouTube Channel. The Transportation Department also provides 22 Rail Committee, May 23, 2024; Action item 1, SR# 2402-2024 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=72104&repo=r-704298fc Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 350 of 636
updates on City projects, including Rail Grade Separation projects, in the Transportation Connect Newsletter and, on the project’s, ConnectingPaloAlto.com website. As part of the next steps, staff sent out mailers to the residents affected by and are located adjacent to the project area, informing them about the Rail Committee meeting of May 23, 2024 and this June 10, 2024 City Council meeting. In addition, as part of the rail blog series, a blog was issued providing information about the project and upcoming reviews by the Rail Committee and the City Council meeting providing greater details about the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action is part of a planning study for a possible future action, which has not been approved, adopted, or funded and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. The future decision to approve the construction of any one of the identified potential alternatives would be subject to CEQA and require the preparation of an environmental analysis. The project plans to enter the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase and will conduct an environmental review pursuant to CEQA and NEPA requirements.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass; Plan, Profile, Sections, and Renderings (Updated May 2024)
Attachment B: Churchill Avenue Closure Plan and Profile (August 2020) Attachment C: Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Hybrid; Plan, Profiles, and Renderings (Updated May 2024)
Attachment D: Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Trench; Plan and Profile (August 2020) Attachment E: Meadow Drive Underpass; Plan, Profile, Sections, and Renderings (Updated May 2024)
Attachment F: Charleston Road Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections, and Renderings (Updated May 2024)
Attachment G: Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Viaduct Plan and Profile (August 2020) Attachment H: Technical Memorandum Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment (February 2024)
Attachment I: Caltrain 4 Tracking Analysis Presentation at Rail Committee (November 2023) Attachment J: Caltrain Technical Comments Review Staff Presentation at Rail Committee (January 2024)
Attachment K: Caltrain Technical Review Results (Caltrain and City Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee (March 2024)
Attachment L: Staff Presentation to the Rail Committee (May 23, 2024) Attachment M: Summary of Evaluation Matrix based on Council Adopted Criteria Assessment (May 2024)
APPROVED BY:

Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 351 of 636
Plan & Profile
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave Aerial View (Plan)
Alma St (Profile)
Detail A
See Detail A

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:

Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
Alma St Profile
Partial Underpass at Churchill
11'
10'
11'
5'
13'
10'
0 ft 50 100 ft
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
M
e
vlille
Ave
K
ellogg
Ave
ChurchillAve
C
o
el
rdgi
e
Ave
Alma St
Paly Rd
Mariposa Ave
Castilleja Ave
Alma St

0.0%

0.0%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
Roadway
60 50
40 30
20 60
50 40
30 20
202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00 Total Length = 1,129 ft
Ave
Kellogg
Ave
Churchill
Ave
Coleridge
-8%
+8%
-0.3%
380' VC
104' VC 112' VC
380' VC
213+00
R=5' R=5'
32'
9'
9'
12'
Tunnel below
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 352 of 636
Profile & Typical Sections
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave (Profile)
Alma St (North of Churchill Ave)
Typical Section
Churchill Ave Underpass
Typical Section
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Churchill Ave
Seale Ave
Kellogg Ave or
Typical Section
a maximum span length of 75-80 ft)
(Based on a 2-span structure with
Note: Top of Rail to Soffit = 7'-6"

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Original Ground = Existing Top of Rail
CL
Churchill Ave
22' - 4" *
11' 11' 11'
centerline of Churchill Ave
*Dimension shown at
8'
WB Lane
Turn Lane
EB Left
Turn Lane
Shld EB Right Shld
MT-2
Exist
Var 8' to 22' 8'
11'
NB Alma St
SB Lane SB Lane NB Lane
11'
13'
NB Lane NB Lane
10'
10' 5'
Shld
R/W
Caltrain
4'
PL
Prop
PL
Exist
Sidewalk
5'
Landscape
Track
MT-2
Track
MT-1
14' +/-
12'
9'
R/W
Caltrain
Ped/Bike Path
Southbound
Ped/Bike Path
2-Way
To Be Reconstructed
Existing Bleachers
9'
Ped/Bike Path
Northbound
2'-4"
Shld
2'
12'
LANE
RAMP
Ped/Bike
FL
FL
16'
Sidewalk
16'
LANE Sidewalk
PL PL
2'-6" 4'± 4'± 2'-6"
60'
12' 13' 15' 12'-6"
54'-6"
(Beyond) MT1 MT2
OCS Pole
Abutment Wall Edge of Abutment = Face of Retaining Wall 1' (Typ)
See Note
Note:
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Churchill Ave
MT2
Profile Grade
Roadway
Total length = 440 ft
Castilleja Ave
Paly Rd/
Alma St
NB
60 50
40 30
20 99+00 100+00
60 50
40 30
20 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00
0%
Ground
Original MT1
Ped/Bike Bridge
St
Alma
RR Bridge
1 6
'
-
6 "
1 6
'
-
6 "
+2%
204' VC
190' VC
-12%
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 353 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 354 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 355 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 356 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 357 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 358 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 359 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 360 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 361 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 362 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 363 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 364 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 365 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 366 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 367 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 368 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 369 of 636
Item 13
Attachment A - Churchill Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 370 of 636
Option 1
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
CL
Alma St
Mariposa Ave
C
hurch
lilAve
Section A-A
Section B-B

PRELIMINARY
50 100 ft

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
Alma St
A A
B
B
Item 13
Attachment B - Chruchill Avenue
Closure Plan and Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 371 of 636
Option 2
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
A
ml
a
S
t
M
arpi
osa
Ave
Churchill Ave
Section A-A Section B-B
A
CL
Alma St

PRELIMINARY
50 100 ft

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
A
B
B
Item 13
Attachment B - Chruchill Avenue
Closure Plan and Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 372 of 636
LOMA
VERDE
AVE
EL
VER
A
N
O
A
VE
C
H
A
RLE
S
TO
N
RD
AlmaSt
Park Blvd
ParkBlvd

EMERSON ST ADOBECREEK
M
EAD
O
W
D
R
LIDERO
DR
TENNN
E
S
EE
LN
FERN
E
A
VE

LUNDY LANE
G
R
EEN
M
EA
D
O
W
W
A
Y

FERNE CT

BEN LOMOND DR
0 GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200

0 20
40 60
0 20
40 60
80 1
4 .0
'
1 4
.0
'
B
A
R
R
O
N
C
R
EEK

MEADOW DR CHARLESTON RD
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Hybrid C
urtnerAve
Ventura
Ave

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 08, 2018
6 .0
'
6 .0
'
Profile
Hybrid Track
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:

Limits Of Roadway
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 E
L
E
V
A
T
IO
N
(ft)

AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)

ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Lowering
Robles Park
Outlet
Grocery
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek

0.3%

1.0%

1.0%

TEMPORARY TRACKS CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)

CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
ELEV. 50.2

TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 53.8

TOP OF RAIL

ROADWAY

ROADWAY
(TYP)

EMBANKMENT

RETAINED

HYBRID PROFILE

UNDERPASS
BRIDGE

UNDERPASS
BRIDGE

CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN

CONSTRUCTION

END NEW TRACKS

LIMITS OF ROADWAY

LOWERING

LIMITS OF ROADWAY

LOWERING

PALO ALTO

CITY LIMIT
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 373 of 636
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Meadow Dr Aerial View (Plan)
Meadow Dr (Profile)
Alma St (Profile)
E
le
vatio
n
(ft)
E
le
vatio
n
(ft)
To San Francisco
To San Jose
Alma St
Park Blvd ParkBlvd
E
M
eadow
D
r
Palo Alto
60 50
40 30
20 12+00 13+00
50 40
30 20
10 12+00 13+00

0.0%
-3.0%

3.0%

0.0%
14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00
14+00

0.0%
-5.0%

1.6%
15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00

0.0%
20+00 21+00
22+00 23+00
10 20
30 40
50 22+00
20 30
40 50
60 W
M
eadow
D
r

PRELIMINARY
50 100 ft

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:

Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
Meadow Dr
Total length = 469 ft
M
in
V
ertC
lr
1 6
'-6
"
Total length = 400 ft
Alma St
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for W Meadow Dr
NOTE:

Original Ground
Original Ground
Roadway Profile Grade
Railroad Bridge Structure
50' VC
90' VC
50' VC
60' VC
60' VC
-0.3%
75' VC 90' VC
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 374 of 636
Plan& Profile
Meadow /CharlestonHybrid
Charleston Rd Aerial View (Plan)
Charleston Rd (Profile) Alma St (Profile)
E
le
vatio
n
(ft)
E
le
vatio
n
(ft)
To San Jose
Alma St
Park Blvd
ParkBlvd
W
C
harleston
R
d
E
C
harleston
R
d
E
ly
P
l
LinderoDr
To San Francisco
Palo Alto
60 50
40 30
20 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00
20 30
40 50
60 60
50 40
30 20
13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 20 30
40 50
60 0.0%
-5.0%

1.6%

0.0%

0.0%
-3.0%

3.0%

0.0%

PRELIMINARY
50 100 ft

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:

Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
Total length = 403 ft
Alma St
Charleston Rd
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for Charleston Rd
NOTE:

Ground
Original
Railroad Bridge Structure
Roadway Profile Grade 90' VC
50' VC
50' VC
M
in
V
ertC
lr
1 6
'-6
"
Total length = 469 ft
Original Ground
60' VC
60' VC
-0.3%
75' VC 90' VC
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 375 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 376 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 377 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 378 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 379 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 380 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 381 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 382 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 383 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 384 of 636
Item 13
Attachment C - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Hybrid Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 385 of 636
LOMA
VERDE
AVE
EL

VERANO AVE
C
H
A
RLE
S
TON
RD
AlmaSt
P
Park Blvd
ark
B
lvd

EMERSON ST
M
EAD
O
W
D
R
LIDERO
DR
TENNN
E
SEE
LN
FERN
E
A
VE

LUNDY LANE
G
REEN
M
EADO
W
W
A
Y

FERNE CT

BEN LOMOND DR
0 GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200

0 20
40 60
-20
80 MEADOW DR 30
'
30 '

CHARLESTON RD

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
C
urtnerAve
Ventura
Ave
B
A
R

RON CREEK

ADOBECREEK
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Trench

ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)

AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
115+00 120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 -20
0 20
60 40
80 Landmark
Creek
Influence Area
Ground Anchor
Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:

ELEVA
T
ION (ft)
Profile
Trench Track
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek

2.0%

0.3%

INFLUENCE AREA

GROUND ANCHOR

PUMP STATION

EMERGENCY ACCESS STAIRS

TEMPORARY TRACK

LIFT STATION

LIFT STATION

GROUNDWATER

ELEVATION
(2%)

TRENCH PROFILE
ELEV. 9.9

TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 6.1

TOP OF RAIL

NEW PERMANENT TRACK

CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN

CONSTRUCTION
END

MEADOW DR

STAIRS AT

EMERGENCY ACCESS

POTENTIAL
LIFT

STATION

LOCATION

POTENTIAL
LIFT

STATION

LOCATION

AT CHARLESTON ROAD

PUMP STATION
BRIDGE

OVERCROSSING
BRIDGE

OVERCROSSING
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's

CALTRAIN

RIGHT OF WAY
(WEST)

CALTRAIN

RIGHT OF WAY
(EAST)

PALO ALTO

CITY LIMIT
Item 13
Attachment D - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Trench Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 386 of 636
Trench
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
E Compton Blvd, Compton, CA
Alameda Trench Corridor - Completed 2002
E Compton Blvd & Alameda Street, Compton, CA
Alameda Trench Corridor - Completed 2002
Mission Road and Ramona St, San Gabriel, CA
Alameda Corridor East
Mission Road - San Gabriel, CA
Alameda Corridor East
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Lowered)

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 13
Attachment D - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Trench Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 387 of 636
Trench
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Trench - Looking North
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Trench Solution Overview - Looking South West
Charleston intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Typical Property West of the Trench
Backyard View - Looking East
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Lowered)

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 13
Attachment D - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Trench Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 388 of 636
Meadow Drive Aerial View (Plan)
Meadow Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Alma St
ParkBlvd
ParkBlvd
EmersonSt
E
M
eadow
D
r
2ndSt
0 ft 50 100 ft
See note
See note
NOTE:
beacons, to be considered in future phases.
traffic signals and rectangular rapid flashing
Additional features at crosswalks, such as HAWK

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:

Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 389 of 636
Profiles & Typical Section
Meadow Dr Underpass
Meadow Dr Underpass
Typical Section
Meadow Dr Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Emerson St
(North Side of Meadow Dr)
Park Blvd Profile
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Meadow Dr
Meadow Dr to NB Alma St
Ramp Profile
SB Alma St to Meadow Dr
Ramp Profile
a maximum span length of 60 ft)
(Based on a 2-span structure with
Note:Top of Rail to Soffit = 6'-7"

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
11'
EB Lane
11' 8'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
58' ±
12'
Ped/Bike Path
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 10 20
30 40
50 0
10 20
30 40
50 0
Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Emerson St
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 10 20
30 40
50 60
10 20
30 40
50 60
North Side
Side Street Profile from Park Blvd to Meadow
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
20 30
40 50
60 400+00 401+00
20 30
40 50
60 12' 13' 15' 12'-6"
54'-6"
(Beyond) MT1 MT2
OCS Pole
Abutment Wall Edge of Abutment = Face of Retaining Wall 1' (Typ)
See Note
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Meadow Dr
301+00 302+00 303+00 304+00 305+00
10 20
30 40
50 0
10 20
30 40
50 0
check 64 no plot for 9% slope
Crest curve designed for 25 mph. 209.9' required
Sag curve designed for 15 mph and based on passenger comfort. 67.7 require 501+00 502+00 503+00 504+00 505+00
10 20
30 40
50 0
10 20
30 40
50 0
Side Street Profile from SB Alma to Meadow
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
check 64 no plot for 9% slope
Crest curve designed for 25 mph. 209.9' required
Sag curve designed for 15 mph and based on passenger comfort. 67.7 require Alma St
-0.5%
Total Length = 730 ft
St
Emerson
Original Ground
195' VC
296' VC
190' VC
1 6
'
-
6 "
-12%
+10%
-1%
1 5
'
-
6 "
1 6
'
-
6 "
Blvd
Park
Profile Grade
Bridge
Ped/Bike
Bridge
Ped/Bike
1 6
'
MT2
MT1
RR Bridge
100' VC
50' VC
Original Ground
9 '
-
6 "
1 0
'
-
0 "
0%
-1%
-5%
+5%
St
Emerson
Profile Grade
Blvd
Park
St
Alma
Bridge
Ped/Bike
1 2
'
-
0 "
Bridge
Ped/Bike
MT1
MT2
RR Bridge
50' VC
1 1
'
-
0 "
50' VC
35' VC
Ground
Original
0%
+8%
-2%
Grade
Profile
Dr
Meadow
40' VC
200' VC
-2%
Dr
Meadow
-0.4%
Profile Grade
Ground
Original
+15%
+12%
70' VC
210' VC
-2%
Dr
Meadow
-0.4%
Profile Grade
Ground
Original
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 390 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 391 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 392 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 393 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 394 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 395 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 396 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 397 of 636
Item 13
Attachment E - Meadow Underpass
Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 398 of 636
Charleston Road Aerial View (Plan)
Charleston Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:

Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
AdobeCr
0 ft 87.5 175 ft
ParkBlvd
Alma St
Alma St
Park Blvd
W
C
harleston
R
d
E
ly
P
l
G
reenm
eadow
W
ay
E
Charleston
Rd
MumfordPl
WrightPl
RuthelmaAve
CarlsonCt
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 399 of 636
Profiles & Typical Section
Charleston Underpass
Charleston Rd Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Wright Pl
EB Charleston Rd to SB Alma St
Ramp Profile
Typical Section - Charleston Rd Underpass PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 Ramp Profile from Charleston to Alma
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 0
Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Mumford
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-5%
+4%
10 20
30 40
50 60
0 298+00 299+00 300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 304+00 305+00 306+00 307+00 10 20
30 40
50 60
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00
10 20
30 40
50 60
0 11'
EB Lane
12'
EB Lane
8'
5'
Sidewalk
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
14'
WB Lane
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
~12'
Alma St
MT2 MT1
Grade Separation Structure
Park Blvd
Wright Pl
Bridge
Ped/Bike
186' VC
296' VC
190' VC
1 5
'-6
"
-12%
+10%
-1% -1%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
1 6
'-6
"
1 7
'-0
"
MT2
MT1
Alma St
Wright Pl
50' VC
1 0
'-0
"
150' VC
1 0
'-0
"
-1%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Blvd
Park
Road Profile
Governed by
50' VC
Charleston Rd
-2%
55' VC
+9%
425' VC
0%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 400 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 401 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 402 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 403 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 404 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 405 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 406 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 407 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 408 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 409 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 410 of 636
Item 13
Attachment F - Charleston
Underpass Plan, Profile, Sections and
Renderings
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 411 of 636
LOMA
VERDE
AVE
EL

VERANO AVE
C
H
A
RLE
S
TON
RD
AlmaSt
Park Blvd
Park Blvd

EMERSON ST
M
EAD
O
W
D
R
LIDERO
DR
TENNN
E
SEE
LN
FERN
E
A
VE

LUNDY LANE
G
REEN
M
EADO
W
W
A
Y

FERNE CT

BEN LOMOND DR
LEGEND:
0 GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200

CHARLESTON RD
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
C
urtnerAve
Ventura
Ave
B
A
R

RON CREEK

ADOBECREEK
20 .5
'

MEADOW DR
20 .5
'
0 20
40 60
80 MEADOW DR
0 20
40 60
80 ELEVA
T
ION (ft)
105+00 110+00 115+00 120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 180+00 Tracks
Existing
Profile
Viaduct Track

AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)

ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Bridge
Track
New Permanent
Groundwater
Meadow DriveandCharlestonRoad-PlanandProfile-Viaduct
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park

0.086%
Barron Creek

0.3%
-1.4%
Adobe Creek

1.0% -0.031%

CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)

CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)

CONSTRUCTION DURING CONSTRUCTION

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
END
ELEV 61.80

TOP OF RAIL
ELEV 55.45

TOP OF RAIL

EXISTING TRACKS

TO REMAIN OPERATIONAL

AND REMOVED AT END

OF CONSTRUCTION

ROADWAY

ROADWAY

VIADUCT PROFILE

TRACKS ON VIADUCT

PROPOSED NEW

APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER

ELEVATION
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's

CITY LIMIT

PALO ALTO
Item 13
Attachment G - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Viaduct Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 412 of 636

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
Walnut Creek BART Station
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
BART Viaduct, El Cerrito, CA BART Viaduct at distance, El Cerrito, CA Link Light Rail, East Marginal Way, Seattle, WA
Item 13
Attachment G - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Viaduct Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 413 of 636
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Viaduct - Looking North
(Typical End Sections)
Example Section - Retained Fill - Looking North
(Typical Between Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd)
Track Level View - Looking North
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Viaduct Solution Overview - Looking South West Charleston Road Intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings

PRELIMINARY

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Item 13
Attachment G - Meadow Drive &
Charleston Road Viaduct Plan and
Profile
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 414 of 636
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 14, 2024 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy, Arce
Palo Alto Office of Transportation
,
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

RE: Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail
Crossing Assessment
The BPTP Update consultant team evaluated the merits of each location (Seale and Kellogg) for a grade separated rail crossing based on the following assessment topics:
 Prior analyses and plans
 Proximity to alternative routes
 Landing location
 Network connectivity
 Community input
The findings of the assessment are presented in Table 1. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP
Update_Seale v Kellogg
Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 415 of 636
March 14, 2024 Page 2
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 1 Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Assessment Topic Seale Kellogg
Prior analysis and plans The 2012 BPTP identifies Seale Avenue as a recommended location for an across barrier
connection.

The 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
identified Seale Avenue a potential crossing
location.

The 2021 XCAP Report identified the addition
of a bike/ped crossing at Seale as a general
potential mitigation for the Churchill grade
separation. This option was selected with
mitigation.

The 2012 BPTP does not identify Kellogg
Avenue as a recommended across barrier
connection or location for a grade separated
rail crossing.

The 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
identified Kellogg Avenue a potential crossing
location.

The 2021 XCAP Report included a ped/bike
tunnel as part of concept designs for the
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass. This option
was not selected.

Proximity to alternative routes Seale Avenue is located about 1,700 feet north of the Cal Ave Tunnel and about 1,850 feet
south of the at-grade rail crossing at Churchill
Ave.

Kellogg Avenue is located about 450 feet north
of the at-grade crossing at Churchill and about
1,200 feet south of the grade-separated rail
crossing at Embarcadero.

Landing locations There is space available at Peers Park for a landing.

There is limited space available for a landing at
Paly High School.

Network connectivity Seale Avenue connects to the Serra Street/Park Boulevard and Stanford Avenue east-west
bikeways (along with the north-south
Castilleja-Park-Wilkie Bicycle Boulevard) across
Caltrain.

Kellog Avenue connects to the Embarcadero
Bike Path and Bryant Street Bike Boulevard.

Kellog Avenue terminates at Waverley Street
three blocks east of the rail line, limiting utility
of this route as a through connection.

Community input Comments received on the interactive map during the BPTP Update indicate a strong
demand for a grade-separate bike/ped
crossing of Alma and the rail line. Ideas
proposed for a new crossing include an
While comments received on the interactive
map during the BPTP Update indicated
demand for grade separated crossings, they
did not identify Kellogg as a preferred
alignment.

Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP Update_Seale v
Kellogg Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 416 of 636
March 14, 2024 Page 3
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
alignment at Seale under the tracks to Peers
Park.

Churchill Avenue, the crossing nearest to Seale,
was flagged as stressful for cyclists and
pedestrians, indicating a lower stress route is
desired. A grade separated crossing at Seale
would provide an alternate low-stress facility.

Overall The Seale Avenue crossing is supported by
prior plans and analyses, would fill a longer
gap between alternative crossing locations,
appears to have adequate space for a landing
location, would increase connectivity to the
transportation network, and has been
identified as a potential alignment for a gradeseparated rail crossing in public involvement efforts for the BPTP Update.

The Kellog Avenue crossing would not fill as
long a gap between crossing locations and
have limited utility in terms of increasing
network connectivity.

Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP Update_Seale v
Kellogg Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 417 of 636
March 14, 2024 Page 4
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

REFERENCES
Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP
Update_Seale v Kellogg
Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 418 of 636
March 14, 2024 Page 5
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
 BPTP Update – Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
Yellow = pedestrian-involved collisions
Orange = bicycle involved collisions
Red line = Kellog (northwest) and Seale (southeast) crossing locations Green line = bike/ped path access to Paly
 BPTP Update – Draft Technical Analyses
o Five-Year (2018-2022) Collisions TIMS
Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP
Update_Seale v Kellogg
Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 419 of 636
March 14, 2024 Page 6
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
 Rail Crossing Study
o Figure 4.1
Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP
Update_Seale v Kellogg
Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 420 of 636
March 14, 2024 Page 7
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
 2021 Report of the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on Grade Separations for Palo Alto, page 57
Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP
Update_Seale v Kellogg
Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 421 of 636
March 14, 2024 Page 8
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
 School Catchment Area Maps - https://locator.pea.powerschool.com/?StudyID=171992 Item 13
Attachment H - BPTP
Update_Seale v Kellogg
Grade Sep Rail Crossing
Assessment
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 422 of 636
4-Track Analysis

11.21.23 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 423 of 636
AGENDA
Operations Considerations
4-Track Analysis
Purpose & Initial Approach
4-Track and Crossings
Preliminary Review
Next Steps and Engagement
4-Track Analysis
Corridor and Palo Alto Segments
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 424 of 636
Meeting Objectives
3 Review 4-Track Analysis
approach considerations and
trade-offs
Outline N. Santa Clara
Adopted Service Vision
segments
Discuss N. Santa Clara
Adopted Service Vision
segment observations and
constraints
Review operations
considerations
and analysis
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 425 of 636
Track Configuration Today
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
4 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 426 of 636
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segments
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
Main Track Line
Adopted Service Vision Controlled Siding
4- Track Segment Options
x
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
Notes:
* Identified in Business Plan
*
5 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 427 of 636
4-Track Analysis
Purpose & Initial Approach
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 428 of 636
4-Track Analysis Purpose
7 Provide location, length, and mile post limits based on 4-track segments identified in the Caltrain Business Plan
Define required infrastructure to meet the 2040 Long Range Service Vision (Adopted Service Vision) for Caltrain and HSR service
Utilize analysis of 4-track segments to guide grade separation projects Purpose
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 429 of 636
Business Plan (2017-2019):

Growth Scenarios Recap
Moderate Growth (Adopted Service Vision)
• 8 Caltrain trains + 4 HSR trains phpd
High Growth (Higher Growth Service)
• 12 Caltrain trains + 4 HSR trains phpd
8 PCJPB agrees that it shall not take action
… that PCJPB knows or reasonably should
have known at the time of the action would
effectively preclude or make materially
more complicated or expensive CHSRA’s
future operation in the Peninsula Rail
Corridor…
– PFMA Section 5.3.1
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 430 of 636
4-Track Initial Planning Approach
• Tested 4-track layouts using
Caltrain, CPUC, and HSR
engineering criteria
• Evaluated and simulated service
parameters of 4-track layouts
• Refined and validated 4-track
limits through service operations
and engineering analysis
Service
Engineering ROW
Criteria
9 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 431 of 636
4-Track Initial Evaluation Process
North Santa Clara County Segments
Focused on trade-offs between operations, ROW, and design Worked towards reducing potential impacts to the surrounding environment (i.e., at-grade crossings, adjacent land use, buildings, and infrastructure) Identified interdependencies between platform configuration, express/highspeed services (110mph), and turnout design and configuration Focused on horizontal layout, but considered vertical opportunities and constraints
10 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 432 of 636
Operations
Considerations
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 433 of 636
Planning Parameter Assumptions
12 Planning Parameter Assumption
Headway / Separation 2-minute minimum corridor separation time Minimum Turnaround Time
HSR: 20 min
Caltrain: 20 min
Minimum Dwell Time
HSR: 2 min
Caltrain: 1 min at major stations, 0.7 min at minor stations Rolling Stock
HSR: Generic High-Speed Trainset
Caltrain: KISS EMU
Freight: Dash9
Speed Limit 110 mph (Class 6 Passenger Track)
50 mph (Freight Speed)
Recovery Time 10% Distributed
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 434 of 636
Adopted Service Vision - 12 TPH (8 Caltrain + 4 HSR)
13 Proposed 4-track sections for
HSR Platform
Proposed 4-track sections for
overtakes
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 435 of 636
01:0032
Two Minute Separation: In & Out of a 4-Track Segment
14 1:50
05:00
03:2040
04:20
2-minute separation between trains
00:00
Station
02:5062 04:
2:20
00:00
Control Point Control Point
Dwell Time
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 436 of 636
4-Track Segment
Analysis
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 437 of 636
Track Configuration Today
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
16 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 438 of 636
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segments
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
Main Track Line
Adopted Service Vision Controlled Siding
4- Track Segment Options
x
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
Notes:
* Identified in Business Plan
*
17 The Mountain View Transit Center was identified as a potential 4-track segment for the adopted Service Vision. The segment was removed prior to the 4-track analysis process due to:
• 4-track capacity further north better supports blended service patterns • Not operationally preferred in the adopted Service Vision for a 4-track capacity because it would not support service patterns developed under the Service Plan Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 439 of 636
Initial Trade-Offs &
Key Elements
18 Service
Design ROW
Impact sites vs. impact corridors
Changing schedules or
overtakes vs. no changes
Turnout design
Ownership, RCUP Basis of design,
function, and trackway
Location of 4-Track
segments
Type of grade
separation
Location of 4-Track segment and service
resilience
Train Speed
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 440 of 636
Influence of Turnout Design on Service
19 Maximum
Allowable Speed
Transition
Length to Center
Platform with
Left Hand
Turnout
(Approximate)
Transition
Length to Center
Platform with
Right Hand
Turnout
(Approximate)
79 mph 1200 ft. 1800 ft.
110 mph 1500 ft. 2200 ft.

Turnout No. Passenger Train Speed
Through Turnout
20 50 mph
24 60 mph
Left Hand Turnout Right Hand Turnout
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 104 Packet Pg. 441 of 636
Typical Section for Running Track
• Parameter assumptions
presented in Basis of Design
• Tangent 4-track running track
section
• Reusing existing OCS
equipment where possible
20 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 105 Packet Pg. 442 of 636
Technical Analysis
Cross-sections
21 Operations
Turnouts
Alignment
Concept
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 106 Packet Pg. 443 of 636
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 29.7 - 30.9
Length (miles)* 1.2
Stations Impacted Palo Alto &
Stanford Stadium
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 2
Grade Separations Impacted 3
Active Projects Connecting Palo Alto
*Length includes 2- to 4-track transitions
Palo Alto Station Segment
High Community & Infrastructure Impacts
North Santa Clara Segment – Option A
Segment Location
22 x
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 107 Packet Pg. 444 of 636
Palo Alto Station Segment
San Francisquito
Creek Bridge and
El Palo Alto Tree
El Camino Park
Palo Alto Southern
Pacific Station
Sutter Health
Center
Alma Street and
University Avenue
Area of Influence Caltrain Corridor
Palo Alto Station
North Santa Clara Segment – Option A
23 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 108 Packet Pg. 445 of 636
Palo Alto Station Segment
North Santa Clara Segment – Option A
Palo Alto Station
(Expanded & Relocated)
24 *Illustrative *Illustrative ––Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed. Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.

Caltrain ROW Area of Influence Legend
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 109 Packet Pg. 446 of 636
San Antonio Station
Segment
Palo Alto Station
Palo Alto
Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 110 Packet Pg. 447 of 636
California Ave Station Segment
Limited Community & Infrastructure Impacts
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 30.9 - 32.8
Length (miles)* 1.9
Stations Impacted California Avenue
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 2
Grade Separations Impacted 2
Active Projects Connecting Palo Alto
*Length includes 2- to 4-track transitions
North Santa Clara Segment – Option B
Segment Location
26 x
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 111 Packet Pg. 448 of 636
California Avenue Station Segment
Alexander Peers
Park
California Avenue
Station
Oregon
Expressway
Area of Influence Caltrain Corridor
North Santa Clara Segment – Option B
27 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 112 Packet Pg. 449 of 636
California Ave Station Segment
North Santa Clara Segment – Option B
28 Caltrain ROW Area of Influence Legend
*Illustrative – Tracks can shift towards Alma Street, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.

Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 113 Packet Pg. 450 of 636
California Ave Station Segment
29 California Avenue Station
North Santa Clara Segment – Option B
*Illustrative – Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.

Caltrain ROW Area of Influence Legend
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 114 Packet Pg. 451 of 636
California Avenue Station
Oregon
Expressway
California
Avenue Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 115 Packet Pg. 452 of 636
San Antonio Station Segment
High Community & Infrastructure Impacts –
Major Reconstruction
31 North Santa Clara Segment – Option C
Segment Location
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 33.25 - 34.60
Length (miles)* 1.35
Stations Impacted San Antonio
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 3
Grade Separations Impacted 2
Active Projects
Connecting Palo Alto &
Rengstorff Grade
Separation
*Length includes 2- to 4-track transitions
x
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 116 Packet Pg. 453 of 636
San Antonio Station Segment
32 *Illustrative – Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.

Caltrain ROW Area of Influence Legend
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 117 Packet Pg. 454 of 636
San Antonio Station Segment
San Antonio Road
Overpass
33 San Antonio
Station
Area of Influence Caltrain Corridor
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 118 Packet Pg. 455 of 636
San Antonio Road Overpass
34 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 119 Packet Pg. 456 of 636
San Antonio Road Overpass
35 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 120 Packet Pg. 457 of 636
San Antonio Road Overpass
36 Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 121 Packet Pg. 458 of 636
San Antonio
Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 122 Packet Pg. 459 of 636
Northern Santa Clara County
Palo Alto (A) California (B) San Antonio (C)
Constraints • Palo Alto Southern Pacific
Station (SHPO - Cultural
Resource)
• University Ave/Alma Street
Interchange and Underpass
• San Francisquito Creek Bridge and
El Palo Alto Tree
• El Camino Park
• Homer Avenue pedestrian
undercrossing
• Sutter Health Center
• Palo Alto High School
• Residential areas surrounding
Caltrain ROW
• Alexander Peers Park
• Oregon Expressway – “T”
intersections for ramp
exits/entrances
• San Antonio Road Interchange and
Overpass
• Residential areas surrounding
Caltrain ROW
• Existing curve south of San Antonio
Station (Speed Constrain below
110 mph)
Adopted Service Vision
Refined 4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
38 Northern Santa Clara County Segment
Segment Option Considered x
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 123 Packet Pg. 460 of 636
Northern Santa Clara County Preliminary Understanding
39 Validated 4-Track segment lengths
Assumes upgraded signaling system for 2-minute buffer between trains (current signal system allows for 4-minute buffer) Supports and provides operational flexibility for the service in the Adopted Service Vision
Local train dwells 4 minutes (3 minutes more than standard 1-minute station dwell)
Operations Simulation of Segments
2 +3
4-Track Segments in Northern Santa Clara County were analyzed to evaluate trade-offs and determine the most viable option to meet the needs of the Adopted Service Vision goals and Caltrain’s obligations for blended service in the corridor.

Caltrain will continue to coordinate with the city to not preclude future 4-track, as the city develops their Connecting Palo Alto alternatives
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 124 Packet Pg. 461 of 636
Comments/Questions
Item 13
Attachment I - Caltrain 4 Tracking
Analysis Presentation at Rail
Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 125 Packet Pg. 462 of 636
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review
January 23, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org 1
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 126 Packet Pg. 463 of 636
Purpose
2 Purpose
• Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on specific elements.
• Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to alternatives
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 127 Packet Pg. 464 of 636
Background
3 • Select Preferred Alternative to Proceed with Goal Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Grant Funding Objective Agreement in place by July 1, 2024. • Rail Committee to provide guidance to on
implementing design changes sufficient to support Guidance the goal.

Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 128 Packet Pg. 465 of 636
Background
4 CAP &
XCAP
• Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 - July 2020) • Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August – October 2020) • Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 - March 2021) City
Council
• Council Review and Discussion
• Meadow Drive – Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) - August 2021 • Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) - November 2021 Rail
Committee
• Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023) • Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria
• Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical
Caltrain /JPB
Review
• Service Agreement with Caltrain (June 2023)
• Technical Review and Comments to City November 2023
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 129 Packet Pg. 466 of 636
Overview of Caltrain Capital Project Management Process 5 Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 130 Packet Pg. 467 of 636
Major Elements
6  Vertical Alignment
 Vertical Clearance
 Bridge Structure Elevation (Viaduct Only)
 Railroad Grade Profile
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Clearance
 Horizontal Alignment
 Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain ROW
 Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities Encroachment into Caltrain ROW  Railroad Encroachment into City’s ROW
 Retaining Wall offset/clearance from structures and roadways  Maintenance Access requirement along the railroad tracks  Clearance for MSE Wall construction during construction and maximize use of ROW
 Four Track Segment
 Four Track segments and Roadway encroachment into Caltrain ROW  Four Tracking Alignment
 Roadway Design
 Road Profile, Sag Curves, Grades etc.
 Offset from Barriers
 Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes, Lane drops,
weaving distance, etc.
 Roundabout Design
 Curved bridges
 Construction Technology
 Shoofly vs Box Jacking
 Culverts
 Reconstructing and extending culverts
 Cost Estimates
 Preliminary Cost Estimates
 Cumulative Concerns
 Compounded impacts from above comments
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 131 Packet Pg. 468 of 636
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
7 1. Vertical Dimensions (Roadway Vertical Clearance required across Caltrain ROW )
 Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 15.5’ to

16.5’)
Likely affects
length of
Meadow Charleston roadway profile - Hybrid
Profile View
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Meadow Drive Underpass
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 132 Packet Pg. 469 of 636
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
8 2. Vertical Dimensions (Top of Rail to Top of Roadway – Viaduct Alternative only)  Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 20.5’ to 24.0’) Provide 24’
vertical distance
Provide 24’
vertical distance
Likely affects
length of
roadway profile
Meadow Charleston - Viaduct Alternative
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 133 Packet Pg. 470 of 636
Summary of Comments - Churchill Avenue
9 Churchill Closure with Mitigations - Option 1
• New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.

If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval
* No Changes for Churchill Avenue Closure with Mitigations Option 2 Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 134 Packet Pg. 471 of 636
Summary of Comments - Churchill Avenue – Closure Option 1 10 Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track New active
transportation
facilities should be
placed outside of
Caltrain ROW. If not,
subject to JPB Board
approval.

Extend tunnel to
extent of Caltrain
ROW
Relocate stairs
outside of
Caltrain ROW. If
not, subject to
JPB Board
approval.

Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 135 Packet Pg. 472 of 636
Summary of Comments - Churchill Avenue – Closure Option 2 11 Alma St
Mariposa
Ave
Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track
Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track
and 4-Track
Show lane
width and
shoulder
dimension
s
No Major/Significant
Concerns
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 136 Packet Pg. 473 of 636
Summary of Comments - Churchill Avenue
12 Churchill - Partial Underpass
• New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.

If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval.
• Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW.
• Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway
• Bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency vehicles.
• Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO ‘Highway Safety Manual’
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 137 Packet Pg. 474 of 636
Profile View
Extend bridge width to
Caltrain ROW to provide
access to Caltrain
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between
2-Track and 4-Track
New active transportation
facilities should be placed
outside of Caltrain ROW.

If not, subject to JPB
Board approval.

Summary of Comments - Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass 13 Roadway & Walls to
be outside of
Caltrain ROW
Provide 16’-6”
vertical clearance
Will affect length
roadway profile,
ROW, Driveways,
intersection, etc.

Other elements:
• Merging taper/median
design
• Offset from barriers
• Lane width etc.
• Curved bridges
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 138 Packet Pg. 475 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
14 Meadow Charleston - Underpass
• Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway.
• Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency vehicles.
• Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW to accommodate 4-track and 4- track transitions, provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access, and maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
• Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO ‘Highway Safety Manual’
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 139 Packet Pg. 476 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Dr - Underpass
15 Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track Adjust wall/foundation design
and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Additional
width is not needed for turning
lane sight distance.

Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW,
which will impact ROW,
Driveways, road profile.

Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 140 Packet Pg. 477 of 636
Summary of Comments –Charleston Rd - Underpass
16 Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track Min vertical clearance is 16’-
6” across ROW, which will
impact ROW, Driveways, road
profile.

Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 141 Packet Pg. 478 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
17 Meadow Charleston - Hybrid
• Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain ROW.
• Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions. • Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
• Provide sufficient space (10’ min) clearance from the walls to the roadway or structures
• Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly track—constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad.

Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 142 Packet Pg. 479 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd - Hybrid 18 Plan View
Profile
Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-
track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Min vertical clearance requirement
is 16’-6” across ROW
Provide additional width on the
bridge to accommodate access
road for maintenance and
emergency vehicles
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should
be tangent as special
trackwork should stay
outside of vertical curves
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 143 Packet Pg. 480 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Dr - Hybrid
19 Profile View
Plan View
Typical Section
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Width not
sufficient for
maintenance
vehicle access
Provide additional
width on the bridge to
accommodate a
maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 144 Packet Pg. 481 of 636
Summary of Comments – Charleston Rd - Hybrid
20 Min 16’6”
clearance across
Caltrain ROW
Plan View
Profile View
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
10’ min for maintenance access
between face of retaining walls/
barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Provide additional
width to the bridge
for maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Typical Section
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 145 Packet Pg. 482 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
21 Meadow Charleston - Viaduct
• Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain ROW— will require reprofiling of roadway and/or Caltrain tracks. • The vertical dimension from the top of the roadway to the top of the rail should be 24’ instead of 20’ to accommodate 5-foot bridge depth and 2’-6” Rail. • Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency vehicles.
• Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions. • Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
• Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly track— constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad. • Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO ‘Highway Safety Manual’
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 146 Packet Pg. 483 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd - Viaduct 22 4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4- track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Increase distance roadway to top of
rail to 24’ to accommodate 16’-6”
roadway clearance
Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should be tangent as
special trackwork should stay outside of
vertical curves
Plan View
Profile
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 147 Packet Pg. 484 of 636
Summary of Comments – Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd - Viaduct 23 Place the permanent track
alignment to enable
maintenance and maximize
utility of ROW
16’-6” min
from roadway
to soffit
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Extend OCS
foundation to
connect with
bridge pier
The plans show
part of the viaduct
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW
Typical End Section Typical Section
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 148 Packet Pg. 485 of 636
Next Steps
24 Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is seeking
• Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on specific elements.
• Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to alternatives
Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 149 Packet Pg. 486 of 636
25 Item 13
Attachment J - Caltrain Technical
Comments Review Staff Presentation
at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 150 Packet Pg. 487 of 636
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review Results
March 19, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org 1
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 151 Packet Pg. 488 of 636
City and Caltrain Staff
City Staff
• Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
• Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer
Caltrain Staff
• Robert Barnard, Chief, Rail Design and
Construction
• Mike Rabinowitz, Principal Planner
• Navi Dhaliwal, Government & Community
Affairs Officer
• Edgar Torres, Consultant, Kimley Horn and
Associates
2 Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 152 Packet Pg. 489 of 636
Purpose
3 Purpose
• Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration of Caltrain’s Review and Results
• Rail Committee’s reviews and provide guidance and directions to staff. • Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s) for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation.

Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 153 Packet Pg. 490 of 636
Background
4 CAP &
XCAP
• Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 - July 2020) • Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August – October 2020) • Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 - March 2021)
City
Council
• Council Review and Discussion
• Meadow Drive – Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) - August 2021 • Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) - November 2021 Rail
Committee
• Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023) • Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria (May 2023) • Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical (August 2023) • Study Session of Caltrain four-track segment analysis (November 2023) • Discussion of Caltrain comments with Rail Committee (January 2024) • Reviewed Updated Summary of Evaluation Criteria (February 2024) Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 154 Packet Pg. 491 of 636
AGENDA
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Schedule
Caltrain’s Results of
Process by Alternative
Draft and deliberative - For discussion purposes only
Executive Summary
Next Steps
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 155 Packet Pg. 492 of 636
Project Planning
6 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
City
Caltrain
VTA
FRA
Rail
Committee
City
Council
City and Caltrain to collaborate for Selection of alternatives to advance into next phase
Develop Service Agreement and/or Cooperative Agreement
with VTA, Caltrain, City for PE & Env Phase
City and Caltrain collaborate to develop and execute agreement with FRA Review Alternatives Recommend Local
Preferred Alternative(s)
City Council to review and select
Locally Preferred Alternative(s) for
next phase
Begin PE & Environmental
Prepare and Execute Funding Agreement
Execute FRA Funding Agreement
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 156 Packet Pg. 493 of 636
Next Steps
7 Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is seeking
• Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for recommendation to the City Council
• Study session with City Council (April 2024)
• City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
• Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain & VTA
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 157 Packet Pg. 494 of 636

CONNECTING PALO ALTO

CONCEPTUAL

ALTERNATIVES

TECHNICAL REVIEW
MARCH 19, 2024
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 158 Packet Pg. 495 of 636
Caltrain’s engagement on Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives • Execute Service agreement
• Initial review against Caltrain’s 2024 standards and policies • Meetings with Palo Alto staff to share initial observations • Presentation to Palo Alto’s January Rail Committee of initial observations • Today - presentation with an intent to focus on developing solutions Caltrain’s Engagement
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 159 Packet Pg. 496 of 636
Developed draft solutions based on available planning
level information
• Deeper dive analysis to support decision-making
• Seeking to balance needs of railroad and community
• Maintain utility of region’s investment in Caltrain
• Enable community’s vision for Palo Alto
• Intent to minimize additional private property impacts Caltrain’s Partnership
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 160 Packet Pg. 497 of 636
Caltrain Partnership
1/29 • Engineering Team workshop of potential design and constructability solutions for all alternatives (internal)
1/30 • Shared potential design and constructability solutions with City • Received Questions from City
1/31
• Caltrain Team met with Chief Safety Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Director of Engineering regarding solutions and questions (internal)
• Shared feedback on design and constructability solutions with City 2/1 • Caltrain Team met with Executive Director regarding solutions and Caltrain expectations (internal) 2/2 - 2/9 • Caltrain Team begins applying direction to exhibits and materials (internal) • Ongoing coordination between City staff and Caltrain
2/13 and 2/16 • Caltrain Team shares materials with City staff 3/19 • Rail Committee presentation
Steps Guiding Solution-Oriented Thinking
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 161 Packet Pg. 498 of 636
Reviewed Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives with a focus on • Safety – Constructability
• Engineering – Practical Constraints
• Maintenance and Operations
• Policy and Agreements – Ensure projects are designed to meet Caltrain's future railroad needs and preserve property rights.
• Design Criteria “Preserve the existing ROW” (2007, 2011, 2020, 2024) • Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP) (2020)
• Property Conveyance and fee schedule policy (2010, 2021) • California High Speed Rail Authority agreements
• Union Pacific Railroad agreements
Caltrain’s Focus of Review
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 162 Packet Pg. 499 of 636
Railroad property is Caltrain’s most valuable and durable asset • Caltrain will explore encroachments through revocable license agreements subject to appraisals, annual fees escalated at CPI, and Board approval via the RCUP and Property Conveyance processes.
• For all alternatives and configurations requiring temporary use of Palo Alto right-ofway, a future "construction, operation, and maintenance agreement" between the City and Caltrain is needed.

Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 163 Packet Pg. 500 of 636
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Current at-grade crossings support
Caltrain’s use of its full ROW width
for railroad purposes
2021 Conveyance Policy
“Staff will analyze the request to
ensure . . . applicant’s
improvements are designed to be
compatible with the broadest range
of possible transportation
alternatives for the entire width of
the ROW”
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.

Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.

Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 164 Packet Pg. 501 of 636
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Provide a minimum 15’-6”
vertical clearance with
variance and sacrificial
beams across entire
width of Railroad ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.

Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.

Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 165 Packet Pg. 502 of 636
• City designs that do not allow for above may proceed, but City will be responsible for rebuilding roads, or the incremental cost to the railroad to utilize the Caltrain ROW.

Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.

Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.

Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 166 Packet Pg. 503 of 636
Executive Summary
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 167 Packet Pg. 504 of 636
Churchill Summary of Findings
Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
High-level
Findings
• Roadway and railroad
improvements viable with
refinements to Alma Street cross
section
• Bikeway western encroachment
into Caltrain ROW not viable
• Reduce width of pathway facility to
fit within available 25’ expired easement
or widen to the west
• Or relocate pathway undercrossing
to Seale Ave/Peers Park (under
preliminary review by others)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
• Moderately
viable with
refinements, less
than optimal eastern
ramp width (~7’)
• Wider eastern
ramp would impact
Alma Street travel
lanes
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
• Viable
as shown
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 168 Packet Pg. 505 of 636
Viaduct
• Viable with refinements
• Permanent impact to Alma travel
lanes for approach structures
(19’)
• Reducing the impact to Alma
travel lanes for approach
structures requires a new shoofly
track (6’)
• To retain use of Alma travel lanes
below viaduct requires a more
complex structure
• Caltrain to retain existing at grade
tracks for railroad purposes
Meadow/Charleston Summary of Findings
Alternative Hybrid
High-level
Findings
• Viable with refinements
• Includes elevating
width of Caltrain’s ROW
to retain utility
• Shoofly tracks will
impact Alma travel lanes
(12’) during construction
Underpass
• Viable with
refinements
*Trench Alternative: At the City of Palo Alto’s request, Caltrain was not charged with reviewing the trench alternative after it was replaced by the viaduct alternative within the Service Agreement.

Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 169 Packet Pg. 506 of 636
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 170 Packet Pg. 507 of 636
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 171 Packet Pg. 508 of 636
Maximum 3’ encroachment into Caltrain, revocable
license agreement is required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
Interior of bridge to
accommodate:
25’ offset from MT1 track center
(towards Alma St) and

12.5’ offset from MT2 track
center (towards private property)
New tracks must be 15’
on center Widen railroad bridge to
accommodate

12.5’ offset from MT 2
Remain in existing 25’
easement (expired) or
widen to west
No further encroachment
into Caltrain ROW
Existing 25’ easement for
Embarcadero Bike Path has expired,
a revocable license agreement is
required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and
Board approval
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 172 Packet Pg. 509 of 636
Draft and deliberative - For discussion purposes only
Churchill Partial Underpass
Existing 25’ easement for
Embarcadero Bike Path has expired,
a revocable license agreement is
required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and
Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed
with variance but will require a
sacrificial beam with an agreement for
the City to cover the cost (of repair and
Caltrain operations) if beam were to be
struck
Longer bridge span to accommodate
design vehicle turning templates
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 173 Packet Pg. 510 of 636
Churchill Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 174 Packet Pg. 511 of 636
Churchill Partial Underpass
with Kellogg Undercrossing Summary
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 175 Packet Pg. 512 of 636
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 176 Packet Pg. 513 of 636
Churchill Closure
w/ Kellogg Underpass Summary
Under preliminary review by others:

Locate bike path at Seale Ave connecting
Peers Park
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 177 Packet Pg. 514 of 636
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
(With Kellogg Undercrossing LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Viable as shown
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 178 Packet Pg. 515 of 636
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 179 Packet Pg. 516 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Tracks will be aligned as far west as the
southern portion of ROW allows and
retaining walls will be placed to maximize
utility of Caltrain ROW
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Place western retaining wall at 10’ from
residential property line.

Place eastern retaining wall after removal
of shoofly on Alma St property line Temporary wall will be required between activation of hybrid tracks and
removal of shoofly
Caltrain will be allowed to close a lane
on Alma St to inspect retaining walls.

Permits will be at no cost to Caltrain and
will not be unreasonably withheld.

If bridge minimum vertical clearance (16’-6”
or 15’-6” with a variance and sacrificial
beam) is not achieved across Caltrain ROW,
if in the future the full width is needed for
Railroad purposes, it will be the City’s
choice to rebuild road or pay incremental
cost for raising portion of railroad corridor.

Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 180 Packet Pg. 517 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Interim Condition
Shoofly tracks will impact Alma travel lanes
(12’) during construction
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 181 Packet Pg. 518 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Retained fill between temporary
wall and Alma Street wall to
maintain utility of Caltrain
operating ROW.

Interim Condition Final Condition
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 182 Packet Pg. 519 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
80’
Implications of ROW Offset
at Meadow Drive
95’
100’
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 183 Packet Pg. 520 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Existing Condition
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Meadow
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 184 Packet Pg. 521 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Construction zone
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
construction barrier/fence
Build New Shoofly
Tracks along Alma
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
9'
26'
10'
18'
45'
SF2
SF1
Build SF1
Build SF2
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 185 Packet Pg. 522 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
Shoofly Tracks along Alma
operational
SF2
SF1
45’
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 186 Packet Pg. 523 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Build Hybrid and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
SF2
SF1
New Main Track 1: MT1
New Main Track 2: MT2
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 187 Packet Pg. 524 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Remove Temporary Shoofly tracks along Alma
Street
Construction zone
SF2
SF1
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 188 Packet Pg. 525 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Shoofly tracks removed, prepare for next phase Construction zone Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 189 Packet Pg. 526 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Build Final Eastern Retaining Wall and Retain Fill
Final Retaining
Wall
Construction zone
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 190 Packet Pg. 527 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Final Condition
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 191 Packet Pg. 528 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT1
MT2
MT1
MT2
SF1 SF2
25’ clearance between track
center and fence
45’
NORTH of Meadow Avenue Bridge
Looking South Final
Existing
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024 Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 192 Packet Pg. 529 of 636
Plan View
Meadow Drive
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 193 Packet Pg. 530 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 194 Packet Pg. 531 of 636
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 195 Packet Pg. 532 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Tie-ins will require additional engineering and
constructability evaluation during Preliminary Engineering Caltrain will retain use of remaining tracks for railroad purposes as it deems necessary.

With a 13’ translated shoofly, viaduct and approach
structures will need to be placed over Alma Street ROW.

Viaduct will be required to provide 16’6” vertical clearance from structure and appurtenances.

Approach structure
approximately 1,600 feet long
south of Charleston Road
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 196 Packet Pg. 533 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 197 Packet Pg. 534 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston

49.5’ 25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
Viaduct and Approach Structure
Footprint without Shoofly
52’
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 198 Packet Pg. 535 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 199 Packet Pg. 536 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
SF2
Build New Shoofly 2
Build SF2
Example South of Charleston
Shoofly 2: SF2
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 200 Packet Pg. 537 of 636
MT2
MT1
Draft and deliberative - For discussion purposes only
Example South of Charleston
SF1
SF2
Build Viaduct and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 201 Packet Pg. 538 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Example South of Charleston
Final Condition
Siding 2
Siding 1
Tracks to remain for
future railroad use
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
MT2
MT1
52’
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 202 Packet Pg. 539 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
SF1
SOUTH of Charleston Road
Looking South
Using Shoofly Tracks
SF2 MT2
MT1
52’
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024 Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 203 Packet Pg. 540 of 636
North of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600
feet long south of Charleston Road and
2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 204 Packet Pg. 541 of 636
South of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600
feet long south of Charleston Road and
2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 205 Packet Pg. 542 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Existing Tracks at
Grade to Remain
in Place
Viaduct and approach
structures will need to
be placed over/on Alma
Street ROW
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 206 Packet Pg. 543 of 636
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA) Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 207 Packet Pg. 544 of 636
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Meadow Underpass Will require revocable
license agreement
Interior of bridge extend
25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and

12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Pedestrian bridges typically have
additional vertical clearance due
to vulnerable users
Place fence on
Caltrain ROW line
Provide required OCS
pole offset
Track alignment
shifted to west
New tracks – 15’
on track center
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 208 Packet Pg. 545 of 636
Meadow Underpass
• Interior of bridge over Meadow Dr to
accommodate 25’ offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and

12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property
• Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Meadow Dr
• 15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 209 Packet Pg. 546 of 636
Meadow Underpass Summary
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 210 Packet Pg. 547 of 636
Pedestrian bridges typically have
additional vertical clearance due
to vulnerable users
Interior of bridge extend
25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and

12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Charleston Underpass
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Provide required OCS
pole offset
Place fence on
Caltrain ROW line
Track alignment
shifted to west
New tracks - 15’ on
track center
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 211 Packet Pg. 548 of 636
Charleston Underpass
• Interior of bridge over Charleston Rd to
accommodate 25’ offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and

12.5’ offset from proposed MT 2 track
center (towards private property)
• Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Charleston Rd
• 15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 212 Packet Pg. 549 of 636
Charleston Underpass Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 213 Packet Pg. 550 of 636
Next Steps
64 Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is seeking
• Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for recommendation to the City Council
• Study session with City Council (April 2024)
• City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
• Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain & VTA
Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 214 Packet Pg. 551 of 636
65 Item 13
Attachment K - Caltrain Technical
Review Results (Caltrain and City
Staff Presentation) at Rail Committee
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 215 Packet Pg. 552 of 636
Rail Committee Meeting
Review of Updated Materials
Grade Separation Projects
May 23, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org 1
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 216 Packet Pg. 553 of 636
AGENDA
Purpose
Technical Reviews
Draft and deliberative - For discussion purposes only
Project Planning
Next Steps
Alternatives Update
• Churchill Avenue
• Meadow Drive
• Charleston Road
Background
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 217 Packet Pg. 554 of 636
Purpose
3 Purpose
• Review of the updated Grade Separation materials for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 218 Packet Pg. 555 of 636
Background
4 CAP & XCAP City Council Rail Committee Caltrain/PCJPB • Alternatives developed,
reviewed and updated
(2018 - July 2020)
• Community Outreach &
Community Feedback
(August – October 2020)
• Deliberation and
Recommendation to City
Council (November 2020 -
March 2021)
• Council Review and Discussion
• Meadow Drive –
Charleston (Narrowed
Alternatives) - August
2021
• Churchill Avenue
(Preferred Alternative &
Backup Selection) -
November 2021
• Approved Amendment with
AECOM June 2021
• Approve Updated Council
Adopted Evaluation Criteria
(June 2023)
• Study Session to Review the
Grade Separation Alternatives
(April 2024)
• Stakeholder Outreach and
Review of Underpass
Alternative (July – Nov 2022)
• Reviewed and Refined
underpass alternatives (Dec
2022 -May 2023)
• Reviewed and updated
Council Adopted criteria
(March-April 2023)
• Conducted Review of
Preliminary Geotechnical
Analysis (August 2023)
• Reviewed Matrix with
updated Council Adopted
Evaluation Criteria (Feb 2024)
• Service Agreement with
Caltrain (December 2022 -
June 2023)
• Technical Review and
Comments from Caltrain
(November 2023 –
January 2024)
• Four Tracking Review and
Comments from Caltrain
(November 2023)
• Caltrain Technical Review
Results (January – April
2024)
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 219 Packet Pg. 556 of 636
Project Planning - Rail Grade Separation Design and Approval Process

EXPENDITURES
Identify Project
Need Secure
Funding &
Programming
Prepare Project
Report &
Environmental
Studies
Secure Caltrain
& Other Agency
Approvals
Complete
Design,
Acquisition &
Agreements
Prepare
Construction
Contract
Construction
Consideration of
Alternatives
Prelim Engineering
(Caltrain):
• Rail Operations
• Freight
• Safety/Security
• Structural
• Hydraulics
• Geotechnical
• Constructability
Prelim Engineering
(City/Others):
• Traffic/Bike/Ped
• Property Needs
• Utilities
Conceptual
Engineering
Alternatives
Evaluation
Estimate Cost,
Schedule, and
Scope
Secure
Funding
Source(s)
Agency
Commitment
to Proceed
with Project
Development
Formal Review
& Approval of
Project Report
&
Environmental
Document
(PR & ED)
Prepare Plans,
Specifications &
Estimates (PS&E)
for Construction
Acquire Properties
incl. Temporary
Construction
Easements
Final Interagency
Construction &
Operations
Agreements
Obtain Permits
from Resource and
Responsible
Agencies
Prepare Traffic &
Constr. Mgt Plan
Problem
Statement
WE ARE
HERE
5 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 220 Packet Pg. 557 of 636
Project Planning
6 Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept
Review and selection of alternatives to
advance into next phase
Develop Service Agreement and/or Cooperative
Agreement with VTA, Caltrain, City for PE & Env
Phase
Develop and Execute Funding agreement
with FRA
City Council Review Alternatives
for Selection of Preferred
Alternative(s)
Begin PE & Environmental
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 221 Packet Pg. 558 of 636
Technical Review – Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria
Elements included in the Evaluation Criteria are as follows A. Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation B. Reduce delay and congestion for vehicular traffic at rail crossings C. Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the rail corridor, separate from vehicles
D. Support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements E. Finance with feasible funding sources (order of magnitude cost) F. Minimize right-of-way acquisition (Private property only) G. Environmental Factors such as, Reduce rail noise and vibration, Sea Level Rise Susceptibility, Heat Island Effect, Stormwater Treatment
H. Maintain access to neighborhoods, parks, and schools along the corridor, while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets
I. Minimize visual changes along the corridor
J. Minimize disruption and duration of construction
K. Order of Magnitude cost
7 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 222 Packet Pg. 559 of 636
Technical Review - Alternatives Under Council Consideration 8  Churchill Avenue Alternatives
 Partial Underpass
Alternative (Local Preferred
Alternative)
 Closure with Mitigations (Backup)
 Option 1 and 2
 Meadow – Charleston Alternatives (Council)
 Trench
 Hybrid
 Underpass Alternative
* Viaduct Alternative was considered by Rail Committee for additional review
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 223 Packet Pg. 560 of 636
Technical Review – Additional
Refined to incorporate feedback from stakeholders
 Added Buffer Zones between vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian facilities
 Reduced vehicular lane widths
 Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities
 Improved maneuverability and turning radius
9 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 224 Packet Pg. 561 of 636
Technical Review - Caltrain Engagement & Technical Review Engagement with Caltrain
 Grade Separation Projects Service Agreement
 Caltrain Corridor Crossing Strategy Meetings
 City & County Staff Coordination Group (CSCG) Meetings  Local Policy Makers Group (LPMG) Meetings
10 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 225 Packet Pg. 562 of 636
Technical Review - Four Tracking Segments
Four tracking segments at the following three locations were evaluated:
 Palo Alto Avenue Station (Four tracking between Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill Avenue)
 California Avenue Station (Four tracking between Churchill Avenue and Meadow Drive)
 San Antonio Station (Four tracking between Rengstorff and Charleston Road)
11 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 226 Packet Pg. 563 of 636
Technical Review - Caltrain Engagement & Technical Review Major Elements from Technical Review
 Addressed updated vertical clearance requirements
 Improved horizontal alignments to address Caltrain standards  Reduced Right of Way Encroachments
 Considered Four Tracking Segment Design
 Updated plans to reflect new operation and maintenance requirements to address overhead contact system.
12 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 227 Packet Pg. 564 of 636
Technical Review - Kellogg Avenue Vs Seale Avenue Crossing 13 • Prior analyses and plans
• Proximity to alternative routes
• Landing location
• Network connectivity
• Community input
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 228 Packet Pg. 565 of 636
Technical Review – Conceptual Phase Property Impact Assessment  Project is currently in conceptual phase (about 5% level of design)  At this early phase, the project is identifying the potential properties that may tentatively be impacted, though further design and engineering is needed in the next phase
 Rail Committee directed to reduce impacts to properties through refinements to the design during the Preliminary Engineering Phase  The Rail Committee/City Council will have an opportunity to review and determine property impacts after the Preliminary Engineering Phase and before advancing to Final Design.
14 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 229 Packet Pg. 566 of 636
Technical Review – Real Estate Regulations
 Federal and State Regulations: The Federal and State Regulations has specific requirements for property impacts assessment and acquisitions.
 Federal: U.S. Constitution, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) (49 CFR Part 24)
 State: California Constitution, California Government Code, California Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (CCR Title 25, Chapter 26), and the California Code of Civil Procedure  Grade Separation Projects: The grade separation project involves State and Federal funding and therefore will be subject to these requirements.
15 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 230 Packet Pg. 567 of 636
Technical Review – Real Estate Regulations
 Example of Community Information: The VTA has developed a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and provided information to the community on the applicable processes and regulations.
 Find detailed information on the VTA’s website for the BART Project at the following link:
https://www.vta.org/projects/bart-sv/phase-ii/real-estate  Link to FAQ: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/Real-AcquisitionVTA-Projects.pdf  Link to Document: Your Property…. Your Transportation Project:
https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/your-property-your-rights-information.pdf 16 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 231 Packet Pg. 568 of 636
Churchill Partial Underpass
17 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 232 Packet Pg. 569 of 636
Churchill Partial Underpass
with Kellogg Undercrossing Summary
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 233 Packet Pg. 570 of 636
Maximum 3’ encroachment into Caltrain, revocable
license agreement is required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
Interior of bridge to
accommodate:
25’ offset from MT1 track center
(towards Alma St) and

12.5’ offset from MT2 track
center (towards private property)
New tracks must be 15’
on center Widen railroad bridge to
accommodate

12.5’ offset from MT 2
Remain in existing 25’
easement (expired) or
widen to west
No further encroachment
into Caltrain ROW
Existing 25’ easement for
Embarcadero Bike Path has expired,
a revocable license agreement is
required, subject to appraisal,
annual fee (indexed to CPI), and
Board approval
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 234 Packet Pg. 571 of 636
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
20 Widened & elongated Bridge
and outside walls providing
space for maintenance and
emergency vehicles
Reduced Caltrain
ROW encroachment
Updated Roadway profile to reflect
new vertical clearance requirements
Adjusted the horizontal
alignment and spacing
between tracks, OCS poles,
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 235 Packet Pg. 572 of 636
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
21 Provide 16’-6” clearance in the
entire Full Caltrain ROW Width
Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements
Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements Increased grades to from 6.5% to 8% minimize the limits impacts to
project footprint
Increased grades to from 11% to
12% to minimize the limits impacts
to project footprint
Increased grades to from 7% to 8%
minimize the limits impacts to
project footprint
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 236 Packet Pg. 573 of 636
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
22 Widened and elongated the bridge
Added the center column
Reduced Shoulder width to minimize
encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Reduced Lane Widths
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 237 Packet Pg. 574 of 636
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
23 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 238 Packet Pg. 575 of 636
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
24 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 239 Packet Pg. 576 of 636
Churchill Avenue – Partial Underpass
25 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 240 Packet Pg. 577 of 636
106
(695)
110
118
126
138
1415
(277)
114
142
1425
(200)
1435
(195)
1445
(267)
105
(317)
102
(383)
103
(544)
119
117
123
135
1347
1325 to 1345
(21)
1525
(188)
1545
(193)
1551 (188)
1555
(237)
109 A 102
(217)
109
(343)
96 111
119
129
135
143
122
112
120
128
136
118
140
1511 1519
1527 1539 1547
1563
92 1512 1520
1528 1540 1550
1560
Churchill Av Partial Underpass Alternative
86 62
Tentative Property impacts based on current
conceptual phase. To be refined in future phases
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 241 Packet Pg. 578 of 636
Meadow Drive Underpass
27 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 242 Packet Pg. 579 of 636
Meadow Underpass Summary
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 243 Packet Pg. 580 of 636
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Meadow Underpass Will require revocable
license agreement
Interior of bridge extend
25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and

12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Pedestrian bridges typically have
additional vertical clearance due
to vulnerable users
Place fence on
Caltrain ROW line
Provide required OCS
pole offset
Track alignment
shifted to west
New tracks – 15’
on track center
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 244 Packet Pg. 581 of 636
Meadow Drive - Underpass
30 Adjusted the horizontal alignment
and spacing between tracks, OCS
poles, and outside walls
Updated Roadway profile to reflect
new vertical clearance requirements
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing space
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 245 Packet Pg. 582 of 636
Meadow Drive - Underpass
31 Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements
Provide 16’-6” clearance in the
entire Full Caltrain ROW Width
Increased vertical clearance for
Pedestrian crossing from 8.0’ to 9’-6”
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing space
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 246 Packet Pg. 583 of 636
Meadow Drive - Underpass
32 Adjust the rail track offsets and
bridge width to meet Caltrain
updated standards
Widened Bridge to
accommodate updated
standards providing space for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 247 Packet Pg. 584 of 636
Meadow Drive - Underpass
33 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 248 Packet Pg. 585 of 636
Meadow Drive - Underpass
34 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 249 Packet Pg. 586 of 636
Meadow Drive - Underpass
35 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 250 Packet Pg. 587 of 636
3553
Alma
3553
3553
3553
3553 3553
3553 3553
171
(157) 4097
Park
4093
4085
4079
4081
4075
4060
4068
4070
4080
150
(697) 150A
250
(77)
270
4101
4103
4105
4107
4104
212
Meadow Drive Underpass Alternative
Tentative Property impacts based
on current conceptual phase. To
be refined in future phases
Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 251 Packet Pg. 588 of 636
Charleston Road Underpass
37 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 252 Packet Pg. 589 of 636
Charleston Underpass Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 253 Packet Pg. 590 of 636
Pedestrian bridges typically have
additional vertical clearance due
to vulnerable users
Interior of bridge extend
25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and

12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Charleston Underpass
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Maintenance
vehicle crossing
Provide required OCS
pole offset
Place fence on
Caltrain ROW line
Track alignment
shifted to west
New tracks - 15’ on
track center
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 254 Packet Pg. 591 of 636
Charleston Road- Underpass
40 Adjusted the horizontal alignment
and spacing between tracks, OCS
poles, and outside walls
Updated Roadway profile to reflect
new vertical clearance requirements
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing space
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 255 Packet Pg. 592 of 636
Charleston Road- Underpass
41 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 256 Packet Pg. 593 of 636
Charleston Road- Underpass
42 Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements
Increased vertical clearance from
15’-6” to 16’-6” within Caltrain ROW
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing spacing
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 257 Packet Pg. 594 of 636
Charleston Road- Underpass
43 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 258 Packet Pg. 595 of 636
Charleston Road- Underpass
44 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 259 Packet Pg. 596 of 636
Charleston Road- Underpass
45 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 260 Packet Pg. 597 of 636
Charleston Road- Underpass
46 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 261 Packet Pg. 598 of 636
4187
41734183
4180
4225
4203
4207
4217
4201
(351)
42314237
4206
(1063)
4200
265
(1044)
275
(952)
285
(437)
220
(200)
240
(666)
250
270
280
4201 &
4201A
(444)
4205
4215
Charleston Rd Underpass Alternative (west side)
Tentative Property impacts based
on current conceptual phase. To
be refined in future phases
Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 262 Packet Pg. 599 of 636
102
(2235)
174
126
(114)
160
170
214
228
(180)
242
Charleston
256
Charleston 272 (51)
3787
(240)
110
(873)
145
(980)
137
(689)
129
(917)
109
(461)
119
110
122
127
161
124
Charleston Rd Underpass Alternative (east side)
Tentative Property impacts based
on current conceptual phase. To
be refined in future phases
Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 263 Packet Pg. 600 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
49 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 264 Packet Pg. 601 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
80’
Implications of ROW Offset
at Meadow Drive
95’
100’
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 265 Packet Pg. 602 of 636
Plan View
Meadow Drive
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 266 Packet Pg. 603 of 636
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 267 Packet Pg. 604 of 636
Meadow Drive - Hybrid
53 Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for maximizing ROW use
by Caltrain
Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for full ROW use
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 268 Packet Pg. 605 of 636
Meadow Drive - Hybrid
54 Increased vertical clearance from
15’-6” to 16’-6” within Caltrain ROW
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing spacing
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 269 Packet Pg. 606 of 636
Meadow Drive - Hybrid
55 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 270 Packet Pg. 607 of 636
Meadow Drive - Hybrid
56 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 271 Packet Pg. 608 of 636
Meadow Drive - Hybrid
57 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 272 Packet Pg. 609 of 636
Charleston Road- Hybrid
58 Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for maximizing ROW use
by Caltrain
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for full ROW use
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 273 Packet Pg. 610 of 636
Charleston Road- Hybrid
59 Increased vertical clearance from
15’-6” to 16’-6” within Caltrain ROW
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing spacing
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 274 Packet Pg. 611 of 636
Charleston Road- Hybrid
60 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 275 Packet Pg. 612 of 636
Charleston Road- Hybrid
61 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 276 Packet Pg. 613 of 636
Charleston Road- Hybrid
62 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 277 Packet Pg. 614 of 636
Estimated Costs
63 Alternative Previous
Estimate
Previous
range
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Increase
by %
2031
Range
Meadow/ Charleston
Hybrid 210 190-230 331 344 358 372 387 403 419 436 102% 390-480 Meadow/ Charleston
Underpass 380 340-420 582 605 629 655 681 708 736 766 107% 690-850 Meadow/ Charleston
Viaduct 450 400-500 679 706 734 764 794 826 859 894 99% 790-970 Churchill
Partial Underpass 180 160-200 220 229 238 247 257 268 278 290 61% 260-320 Notes
• Estimated Costs is Million Dollars
• Previous cost estimates are from 2018 escalated to 2025 with 3% inflation • New estimates are based on current costs with 4% inflation up to 2031 Item 13
Attachment L - Staff Presentation to
Rail Committee (May 23, 2024)
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 278 Packet Pg. 615 of 636
Charleston/Meadow Rail Committee Recommendations
64 The Rail Committee Recommendations
• Recommended Seale Avenue for Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at for the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue Crossing to advance into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase.
• Recommended the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review • Seek ways to reduce property impacts • Optimize bike/pedestrian crossings and where feasible, improve connections to bike infrastructure beyond the study area to improve the network • Further refine the traffic circle on Charleston Road to reduce the property impacts
• Refine construction impacts to better understand possible mutations needed during the lengthy construction process.