Agenda packet — Palo Alto City Council, December 1, 2025 (part 5 of 6)

APPROVAL NO. 2025-07
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 511 BYRON STREET, 660 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 680 UNIVERSITY AVENUE/500 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD:

PLANNED COMMUNITY REZONING
[FILE NO 21PLN-00341]
On November 10, 2025, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning, making the following findings, determinations, and declarations:

SECTION 1. Background.

A. On December 21, 2021 Architect Amanda Borden, on behalf of Smith Properties and Palo Alto Dental Research A Corp (“Applicant”) applied for a Planned Community Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to construct a residential mixed-use building. As the result of several revisions, the project includes a new six-story mixed-use building with 70 multi-family residential units and 1,984 square feet of commercial office space, plus ground floor resident common space, an office lobby, and a fitness area for residents and office tenants. The 70 units include 28 studios, 33 one-bedroom and nine two-bedroom units and a two level below-grade parking garage. This project also includes a Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow commercial use to replace existing medical office in the Multiple Family Residential Land Use Designation.

B. The project site consists of three existing parcels located at 511 Byron Street, 0 University Avenue, and 680 University-500 Middlefield (APNs 120-03-042, 120-03-043, 120-03-044) totaling 0.52 acres.

Existing improvements include two existing medical office buildings totaling 9,216 sf, and associated parking.

C. On October 25, 2021 Council conducted a prescreening review of the proposed legislative actions in accordance with PAMC 18.79.

D. On November 16, 2022 the Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the applicant submit the proposed plans to the Architectural Review Board based on the conceptual design and proposed project in accordance with the Planned Community Rezoning process.

E. Following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s initial review, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2022 to provide feedback and allow for public comment on the proposed project. After receiving ARB and PTC comments at hearings set forth below, the plans were resubmitted in October and December 2023, February and May 2024, and June 23, 2025.

F. On April 18, 2024, December 5, 2024, and August 21, 2025, the ARB held duly noticed public hearings on project revisions and on each occasion recommended approval of the proposed project.

I. On March 12, 2025 and October 8, 2025 PTC reviewed the project plans as revised and the associated Planned Community Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and on each occasion recommended approval.

J. On November 10, 2025 the City Council reviewed the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community rezoning. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve/adopt:
• Resolution 10258 adopting the EIR;
Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 2 of 21 ends

• Resolution 10259 amending the Comprehensive Plan Text; and • Ordinance 5684 amending the zoning of the proposed resulting parcel to Planned Community
• This Record of Land Use Action
K. This application is subject to the conditions set forth in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and constructing the Project. A Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a 45-day period from April 2, 2024, through May 17, 2024. A Final EIR was prepared to respond to comments and published on October 1, 2025. The City Council certified and made related findings by Resolution 10258 on November 10, 2025, prior to approval of the decision that is the subject of this RLUA. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action.

SECTION 3. PLANNED COMMUNITY FINDINGS
Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.

The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:

The proposed project includes a density of units for the site that exceed what is allowed by the RM-20 zoning. It has street frontage on three sides, and a protected Oak tree overhanging the fourth side, which results in larger setbacks and a smaller buildable area than other (interior) lots of a similar size.

Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district.

The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:

The primary public benefit for this project is additional housing units to assist the City in reaching their Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals. Under the RM-20 zoning, the maximum development potential of this property would be 10 units, but through this PC application, the project proposes 70 units. The project proposes 20% (14) of the units to be designated Below Market Rate, half of which are allocated to Very Low Income and Low Income households.

Finding #3: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 3 of 21 ends

The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:

This project requires approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow maintaining the existing office use. The project is otherwise compatible with the Comprehensive Plan as detailed further in Section 4 Finding #1 below. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as it is primarily multiple-family housing and small offices. Additional care has been taken to ensure viability of the neighboring Oak tree.

SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.

The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:

With approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning in accordance with Resolution 10259 and Ordinance 5684, the proposed project complies with the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. The project is not located within a coordinated area plan area. The proposed project is consistent with relevant goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies:

Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
the site is Multiple Family Residential.

The project proposes high-density housing in an
area designated for high-density housing. The
project includes a Comprehensive Plan text
amendment to allow for existing non-conforming
office uses to be redeveloped when part of a new
mixed-use development. This would align the
proposed project with the underlying
comprehensive plan land use designation.

Land Use Element
Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban
service area should be compatible with its
surroundings and the overall scale and character
of the city to ensure a compact, efficient
development pattern.

This project proposes to redevelop two existing
medical office buildings into a mixed-use, office
and multiple-family residential rental building
within the Downtown neighborhood.

Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable
housing units for middle to lower income level
earners, such as City and
school district employees, as feasible.

This project includes 13 BMR units, which is 20%
of the 66 provided housing units.

Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate greenery and
natural features such as green rooftops, pocket
parks, plazas and rain gardens.

The proposed building includes a deck area for
the office and individual balconies for the
residents, in keeping with the urban character of
the project and neighborhood. Greenery is
incorporated into the ground level planters.

Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site
planning that is compatible with
The proposed residential building will act as a
gateway to the Downtown area and meets the
Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 4 of 21 ends

surrounding development and public
spaces.

Architectural Review Board findings for approval.

Policy L-6.7 Where possible, avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between residential
and non-residential areas and between
residential areas of different densities. To
promote compatibility and gradual transitions
between land uses, place zoning district
boundaries at mid-block locations rather than
along streets wherever possible.

The proposed project is six stories, two stories
taller than the nearby Lytton Gardens and The
Hamilton residences. While it will be the tallest
building in the immediate area, overall it is
compatible with the Downtown neighborhood.

Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage
and support bicycling and walking.

The project includes sufficient short and long
term bicycle parking in compliance with the code
requirements.

Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.

The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:

There is internal order between the ground floor lobby and amenity spaces, ground floor office, and upper floor residences. There are separate, defined entrances for the residents and office tenants. There are no historic resources on this property. The context-based design criteria do not apply. However, the project incorporates many of the design intents and is consistent with the Architectural Review findings for approval. The six-story building is taller than nearby four-story buildings. However, this is to accommodate the mixed use ground floor for flood zone requirements, and to respect the Middlefield special setback. It will enhance the residential options Downtown by providing additional units at various sizes.

Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.

The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:

The project incorporates a variety of materials, including gray cast concrete, wood tone panels, painted siding, glass, and landscape elements that are of high quality and that integrate well to create a cohesive design. The project proposes on site Public Art, which will also enhance the design. The project will stand out from other nearby buildings, because it uses a variety of materials to break up the massing and add visual interest. Most other buildings in the area use a more limited palette.

Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 5 of 21 ends

for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).

The project is consistent with Finding #4 because:

The driveway to the below grade garage is located on Byron St. due to traffic limitations on University Avenue and Middlefield Road. The bike rooms are located below grade and are accessible by stair or by elevator.

Building operations such as refuse collection and utilities have been designed to be oriented towards the side streets to create a cohesive façade along University Ave. Pedestrian access is clear and a separate entrance is provided for the residents and office users.

Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.

The project is consistent with Finding #5 because:

The project is consistent with the finding in that the project provides landscaped area around the perimeter wherever possible, including 9 new trees, and 4 new street trees (13 trees total), as well as in planter boxes on the rooftop garden. The project will protect the Coast Live Oak and provides measures to ensure the tree’s protection through construction. All plants proposed are very low to moderate water use, as well as native or regionally adapted.

Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.

The project is consistent with Finding #6 because:

In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project proposed an all electric design and will be consistent with Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

PLANNING DIVISION

1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on August 8, 2025, as modified by these conditions of approval.

2. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions as contained in this document.

3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 6 of 21 ends

4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.

5. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such one/two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration.

6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning of Planning and Development Services.

7. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary.

8. BASEMENT EXCAVATION: Any retaining wall required for basement excavation shall not prevent the planting and future growth of required landscaping. This shall be review by the Project Planner prior to issuance of a Building permit.

9. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks.

10. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise.

11. NOISE REPORT AT BUILDING STAGE. An analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with the City’s noise requirements for the proposed HVAC was prepared as part of the documentation to support a Class 32 categorical exemption. At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation of any such mechanical equipment, if the proposed equipment exceeds the anticipated noise level that was analyzed or is proposed in a location that is closer to the property line, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures, such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 7 of 21 ends

12. LIGHTING. For the office use only, between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property shall be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate security, in order to minimize light glare at night.

13. WINDOW SHADES. For the office use only, between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), automatic shades shall be utilized to further reduce the light visible from the exterior at night.

14. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning.

15. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT (RENTAL PROJECT). This project is subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and has chosen alternative compliance as a part of the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) approval. Per the PHZ, at least 20% of the units shall be affordable to very low, low, or moderate income such that the income restricted units average out to no more than 80% AMI. The proposed project is required to contain no less than thirteen (14) below market rate units, allocated as described in the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance.

16. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND AGREEMENT. The applicant shall prepare an affordable housing plan.

An affordable housing agreement, reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto, shall be recorded prior to the approval of any final or parcel map or building permit for the development project (PAMC

16.65.090).

17. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 14 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement.

Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement.

18. TRASH ROOM. The trash room shall be used solely for the temporary storage of refuse and recycling that is disposed on a regular basis and shall be closed and locked during non-business hours.

19. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.

20. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING. Up to 46 required parking spaces may be provided in a puzzle parking system, which allows independent access to each vehicle. The property owner shall have a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer and the system shall be operational at all times. All new renters/employees shall be given instructions on how to operate the lift system. If the lift system is out of Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 8 of 21 ends

operation for any reason, anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 10-minute period shall be reimbursed by the property owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence.

21. UTILITY LOCATIONS. In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain.

22. EASEMENT REQUEST. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall dedicate a Public Access Easement over a portion of the 24-foot front yard special setback, including to a depth of 20 feet, for multi-modal transportation improvements in a form acceptable to the Planning and Development Services Director, Public Works Director, and City Attorney. Any future easement may require the removal of site improvements to facilitate multi-modal transportation improvements or Transportation Element Comprehensive Plan policies, except to the extent that the features required for site circulation and egress shall be allowed to remain. The City accepts this may reduce parking from 78 to 72 parking spaces. If future City projects or utility needs require removal or relocation of facilities within this setback, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for all associated costs, including administrative processing and construction fees. The developer shall accept financial responsibility for any such relocation or retrofit required by future City projects.

23. SUBDIVISION MAP. The Lot Merger shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance.

24. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $3,063,197.53 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit.

25. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with PAMC 16.61, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan, or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit.

26. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM

CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 9 of 21 ends

27. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.

28. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Kallas at [email protected] to schedule this inspection.

BUILDING

29. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. Note that Building permit submission after 12/31/25 shall follow the 2025 CA Building Standards Code amended by the City.

30. At time of building permit, the following items shall be reviewed in detail. a. Building and site accessibility per CBC 11A, 11B
b. Regular and van accessible spaces including EV per CBC and PAMC c. Building Code analysis
d. Fire-rating and protection of opening at roof, floors, and walls e. Green building compliance.
f. Structural design calculations, plans, and details.
g. Refer to https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/DevelopmentServices/Apply-for-a-Permit/Apply-for-a-Building-Permit for building permit submittal requirements.

31. At building permit, provide structural design of the basement wall and parking. Future building permits shall be required for any future city improvements within the Special Setback.

PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE

32. Project will be required to submit a salvage survey prior to receiving the building permit.

Please anticipate meeting PAMC 5.24 Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management requirements.

33. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details.

As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 10 of 21 ends

container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, open space, lobby, garage, mail room, gym, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items.

Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-GoesWhere/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894.

TRANSPORTATION

34. MECHANICAL LIFT: The applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Development Services, that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system with respect to operational details, identifies a regular and emergency maintenance schedule, and procedures and backup systems for tenants prior to building permit issuance. The applicant agrees to maintain a maintenance service contract with a certified individual/organization that will provide a prompt response (same day) to address system issues. An annual audit of the system must be provided to Planning/Transportation staff of the system to ensure the system operates effectively. If the audit or performance reports reveal that the system is not functioning or is failing to meet required operational standards, the applicant will be required to take corrective measures. Failure to address identified issues may result in penalties or restrictions, including but not limited to enforcement actions under local code enforcement procedures.

35. TDM PROGRAM. The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “660 University Avenue, Transportation Demand Management Prepared for Smith Development”, dated October 24, 2025 or as updated to the satisfaction of the Office of Transportation prior to issuance of the building permit.

36.TDM ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT. The TDM plan shall include measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 20%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan shall include an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official.

Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule.

37. TDM PLAN MONITORING. The Owner and any subsequent Owner(s) of the property, including their successors, assigns, or agents, shall comply with all Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures set forth in this approval. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 11 of 21 ends

Official on an annual basis, demonstrating adherence to the approved TDM measures. Should the Owner fail to meet the established targets and goals of the TDM Plan, the director may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months.

38. SPILLOVER PARKING. As part of the TDM plan, the applicant shall propose a method to assess spillover parking created by the project, to the satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official, and identify incentives or penalties to address spillover parking, if it occurs. This method may include but is not limited to:
a. Beginning two years after building occupancy, the property owner shall report to the Office of Transportation the number of parking spaces being leased. This shall be compared to the number of RPP permits issued to residents of this building, for the purpose of determining if resident parking is spilling over into the neighborhood.

39. DRIVEWAY APRON FOR WASTE COLLECTION: If the driveway apron is to be used for rolling out bins during waste collection, it shall have a smooth flow line (no more than ½-inch lip). The applicant shall confirm with Zero Waste/Green Waste that the driveway apron design is acceptable for collection use.

40. TRASH STAGING IN RIGHT-OF-WAY: Trash staging shall not occur within the public right-of-way. Any references to trash staging in the right-of-way shall be removed from the plan set.

URBAN FORESTRY

41. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as well as relevant CEQA Mitigation Measures.

42.TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the street trees to remain, the neighboring Coast Live Oak, and for all tree/shrubs proposed to be maintained.

43. TREE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. The property owner shall follow all conditions from the Urban Forester and all recommendations and guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby, including but not limited to:
a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Urban Forestry at 650-496-5953 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing.

The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
b. Prior to mobilizing equipment to the site, install tree protection fencing for tree #10, utilize Type I Protection, which includes affixing 5- to 6-foot tall chain link onto 2-inch diameter steel posts spaced apart as needed to remain upright.
c. Digging for any bollards or permanent fencing within a TPZ, such as for #10, shall be manually performed using a shovel or post-hole digger. For any root encountered during the process with a diameter ≥2 inches, shift the hole over by 12 inches and repeat the process. d. All pruning shall be performed under the direction of the Project Arborist, conducted in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal code 8.10.020 regarding the prohibited use of excessive pruning for Quercus agrifolia species, in addition to the best management practices outlined in ANSI A300, and implemented by a California licensed tree-service contractor (D-49) with an ISA Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 12 of 21 ends

certified arborist in a supervisory role.
e. All pruning work on oak #10 shall be supervised directly by the project arborist. Any authorized digging within the TPZ shall be supervised directly by the project arborist. Roots encountered with diameters of ≥2 inches shall be retained and protected. Once exposed, cover with wet burlap and keep continually moist until they can be assessed by the project arborist; once assessed, cleanly sever at 90° to the angle of root growth against the cut line using a fine tooth saw, and then immediately after, bury the cut end with soil or keep continually moist by burlap until the dug area is backfilled. Roots encountered with diameters <2 inches can be cleanly severed at a 90° angle to the direction of root growth.
f. Removing existing asphalt and base material located beyond the proposed deck and within #10's TPZ shall be performed after all other construction is completed, and under direct supervision by the project arborist.
g. Once work is completed, restrict heavy equipment from traveling over the newly exposed ground, manually spread a 4- to 6-inch layer of coarse wood chips (or as determined by the project arborist), and expand protection fencing. The removal of any existing plant material within a TPZ must be manually performed, and the work reviewed with the project arborist beforehand.

44. Expected impacts to neighboring protected coast live oak tree #10 as described in the C8 updated consulting arborist report from David Babby and from the ground penetrating radar study provided by consulting arborist Robert Booty, are within acceptable parameters of industry standards, provided that all mitigation methods outlined in the consulting arborist report are followed during construction. In addition, prior to the applicant receiving building permit approval, a security bond will be placed on the neighboring coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) 50" DBH tree #10 for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the tree. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. See language below pertaining to the tree bond as specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual:

45. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section

6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall work with the Urban Forestry Section to prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating its duration and a monitoring program. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal”. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the approval of the Urban Forester.
a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the following protected status tree: Tree #10, 50" DBH Quercus agrifolia on the neighboring property. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.
b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and providing recommendations to correct potential tree decline. The monitoring program shall end three years from date of final occupancy.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 13 of 21 ends

c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. Should the tree die, a new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) with permission of the tree owner at 517 Byron Street.

Landscape area and irrigation shall be adapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree at applicants expense. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new three-year establishment and monitoring program. The applicant shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required.
d. FORFEIT OF DEPOSIT. The City may determine that if the tree should die (as defined above) and an agreement on a replacement tree cannot be reached with the tree owner at 517 Byron Street, it will constitute a forfeit of the deposit equal to the appraised value. Any forfeit will be deposited into the Forestry Fund to plant new trees elsewhere. Issues causing forfeit of any portion of the deposit may also be subject to remedies described in Palo Alto Municipal Code.

PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING

46. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and-Permits

47. PARCEL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of and recordation of a parcel map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the parcel map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to issuance of any construction permits.

48. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW: The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map.

49. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements.

50. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE

SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.”
Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 14 of 21 ends

51. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc.

52. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan.

53. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use.

54. SHORING & TIEBACKS: Provide a shoring plan showing the existing utilities (if needed), to clearly indicate how the new structures will be constructed while protecting the existing utilities (if any). If tiebacks are proposed they shall not extend onto adjacent private property, existing easements or into the City’s rightof-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.

55. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”.

56. CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING: At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit a recent groundwater level reading. This project may be subjected to a dewatering permit during construction due to the groundwater level relative to the depth of excavation.

57. FLOOD ZONE: This project is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and shall comply with the requirements in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52.

58. DRY-FLOODPROOFING PLAN INSERT: Insert the “Plan Insert for Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings” sheet into the plan set.

59. FLOODPROOFING CERTIFICATE: A Floodproofing Certificate (FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-153, also formerly known as 086-0-34) shall be completed by a licensed professional engineer prior to building permit approval.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 15 of 21 ends

60. FLOODPROOFING PLANS REQUIRED: Prior to building permit final, a licensed professional engineer shall submit a (1) Flood Emergency Operations Plan and (2) Inspection and Maintenance Plan. Additional information may be obtained from Section 5.5 of FEMA Technical Bulletin 3, dated January 2021.

61. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to Public Works final inspection, the owner shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure that the Flood Emergency Operations Plan, and the Inspection and Maintenance Plan are followed for the life of the structure and that the agreement will be transferred to future owners and/or leaseholders. This agreement shall be notarized and recorded with the County of Santa Clara and passed on to all subsequent owners.

62. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way.

63. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit.

64. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet.

65. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11.

66. Submit the following:
a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form-_-updated__4- 12-2023_clean_fillable.pdf
b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11.

67. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final.

68. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 16 of 21 ends

building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans.

69. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage.

70. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan.

71. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO): The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan.

72. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (ELEVATION CERTIFICATE): The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted by Public Works inspector as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements prior to final City approval of the structure.

WATERSHED PROTECTION

73. Stormwater treatment measures
a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. c. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at [email protected]. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. d. Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.

74. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) - Add these bullets as a note to the building plans. a. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscapeguidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. b. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 17 of 21 ends

75. Stormwater quality protection
a. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). c. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. d. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day.

76. All proposed Stormwater treatment measures should have a detail on this detail sheet. Provide a standard detail for the pervious pavers.

77. Alternative Compliance for Stormwater Treatment: The applicant and the City shall enter into an agreement acceptable to the Public Works Director or designated representative to provide alternative compliance as either approved equivalent treatment area or with payment of in-lieu fees to comply with the regulated projects stormwater treatment obligations.

FIRE

78. Include the following notes in the Building Permit plan set:
a. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe, NFPA 20 fire pump and NFPA 72 fire alarm system.
b. This building shall be evaluated for an Emergency Responder Radio System.

ELECTRICAL UTILITIES

79. UTILITIES APPLICATION. Changes to existing electric utilities equipment on site, such as the transformer, will require a utilities application. Submit a utilities application and obtain City of Palo Alto Utilities Electrical Engineering approval for the modifications to the electrical system.

80. UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED. Prior to energization, a public utility easement is required to provide access to the proposed transformer. This can either be provided through separate instrument and documented on the tentative and final map or dedicated through the tentative and final map process.

81. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services proposed for removal, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and, as applicable, removed.

82. SPECIAL STREET LIGHT: This project is located within the Downtown area and shall install decorative streetlights as shown in the Special Street Light Style Placement Guide. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/currentplanning/pw-style-placement-guide-2020.pdf

83. Install 1-2" conduit from the MPOE to existing CPAU cabinet.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 18 of 21 ends

WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITIES

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT

84. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utility demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.

FOR BUILDING PERMIT (WGW Utility Engineering)

85. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m. and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain).

86. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation.

Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas.

87. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).

88. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, and laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals.

89. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead-free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.

An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City owned meter, within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 19 of 21 ends

90. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.

91. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.

92. If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. If the existing fire service to remain.

Applicant to sign an application for CPAU connection for & agree to operate the fire service in accordance with these rules & regulations. Applicant needs to verify whether the existing water supply can meet the current & anticipated fire flows at the site & all equipment for the sprinkler system is in accordance with the fire department requirements.

93. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.

94. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the sewer lateral on the plans. Existing sewer laterals (city's co to sewer main) if determined to be in poor condition shall be replaced at the owner's expense. A video inspection and full evaluation of the lateral will be performed by WGW utilities operations. The applicant will be informed of the sewer lateral assessment and need to install a new lateral. If a new sewer lateral is required, a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities.

95. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards.

96. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters.

97. The applicant shall provide to the WGW Utility Engineering department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual service installation.

98. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

Page 20 of 21 ends

99. The contractor is to temporary plug the sewer lateral during construction. (by using t cone plug:
expandable pipe plug with no metal parts)
SECTION 7. Term of Approval.

1. Planned Community Development Schedule. Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify the property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of Section 18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if granted, shall result in:
(a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The director shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building official of such expiration; and (b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in accordance with Chapter

18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change.

PASSED: November 10, 2025
AYES: Burt, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl
NOES: Lu
ABSENT: Stone, Veenker
ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ___________________________ Director of Planning and Assistant City Attorney
Development Services
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:

1. Those plans prepared by KSH Architects titled “660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on August 8, 2025.

Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the
Classification of Property
Located at 511 Byron St,
660 University Ave, and 680
University Ave500
Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to
Planned Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 627 of 828
MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 1 PROJECT NAME 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use
Project

APPLICATION
NUMBER
21PLN-00341

APPLICANT

AGREEMENT
DATE 10/1/2025

APPROVED BY
APPLICANT/OWNER Smith Development
682 Villa Street, Suite G
Mountain View, California 94041
The Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project identifies the mitigation measures that must be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the project. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code:
... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.

Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an EIR.

The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section

18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the
Classification of Property
Located at 511 Byron St,
660 University Ave, and 680
University Ave500
Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to
Planned Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 628 of 828
MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 2 Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation

AIR QUALITY
AQ-1. Construction Emissions Reduction. Prior to construction activity and issuance of grading and building permits, the property owner or their designee shall ensure that the following specifications are detailed in the grading plan, building plan, and any contractor agreements and ensure that they be implemented during construction:
 All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities over 25 horsepower shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.
 All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities under 25 horsepower, such as generators, pumps, forklifts, cement and mortar mixes, and plate compactors shall be equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters.

Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Prior to the
initiation of
construction
activities
During grading
and construction
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Biological Resources
BIO-1. Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Not more than
14 days prior to
scheduled
vegetation
clearance and
structure
demolition, if
construction
proposed during
the general
avian nesting
season
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, and 680 University
Ave500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to Planned
Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 629 of 828
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 3 Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1.

During project
construction
BIO-2. Tree Protection Plan. During the project design phase, the project applicant shall comply with and implement design guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby. Guidelines include delineation of tree protection zones, specific actions related to grading and excavation, specifications for new paving and hardscape, and erosion control and landscaping requirements, among others., the project applicant shall comply with tree protection measures listed in Section 6.2 of the Arborist Report. Guidelines include a review of tree protection and construction processes, inspections and supervisions under direction of the project arborist, and installation of TPZs, among others. During demolition, grading, and construction, the project applicant shall comply with tree protection measures listed in Section 6.3 of the Arborist Report.

Guidelines include specific actions related to demolition, excavation, and trenching, supervisions under direction of the project arborist, and disposal requirements, among others. A qualified arborist shall be retained and present for any activity that could impact trees on- and off-site.

Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
During project
design
Prior to
demolition,
grading, and
construction
During
demolition,
grading, and
construction
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
BIO-3. Oak Tree Pruning and Protection. Larger roots shall be pruned using a finetooth saw, and smaller roots shall be pruned using a hand looper. If roots are to be left exposed for long periods of time, especially in warm weather, they must be covered in burlap cloth and kept wet. Branch pruning shall be highly selective and limited to avoid significant cuts. A qualified arborist shall be present on site to oversee any root pruning activities, as well as any branch pruning activities and shall provide guidance regarding which branches to cut. The qualified arborist shall also perform annual inspections for five to 10 years following building occupancy. Branch pruning work shall be performed by a tree service with an ISA Certified Arborist in a supervisory role on-site.

Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
During pruning
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-1. Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program. The property owner or their designee shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities.

Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Prior to the
commencement
of any ground
disturbing
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, and 680 University
Ave500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to Planned
Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 630 of 828
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 4 Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find, and an outline of the penalties for the willful and intention damage of cultural resources.

Department
CUL-2. Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earthdisturbing work near the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA (Section 15064.5f; PRC 21082), additional work, such as preservation in place or archaeological data recovery, shall occur as recommended by the archeologist in coordination with City staff and if applicable, the most likely descendants. Once the resource has been properly treated or protected, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material.

Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
During ground
disturbing
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1. Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation. Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (defined by the SVP (2010) as an individual, preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology, who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for at least two years). The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff.

Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities reaching more than 5 feet below the ground surface in areas mapped as Quaternary coarse-grained alluvium and ground.

Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor.

The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Prior to the start
of grading or
construction
activities and
during
construction
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, and 680 University
Ave500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to Planned
Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 631 of 828
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 5 Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City of Palo Alto. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at that time.

In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, the following measures shall apply:
 Fossil Salvage. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt or temporarily divert construction equipment within 50 feet of the find until the paleontological monitor and/or Qualified Professional Paleontologist evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits
 Fossil Preparation and Curation. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a museum repository with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist.  Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations.

The report shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Development Services. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, and 680 University
Ave500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to Planned
Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 632 of 828
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 6 Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Noise
Recommmended Measure N-1. Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The construction contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure noise levels are reduced at nearby residences. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures:

1. Construction Operating Hours. Limit all construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Construction activity shall be prohibited on Sundays and national holidays.

2. Mufflers. During all construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

3. Silencing. Power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with silencing devices consistent with manufacturer’s standards, if available. Equipment shall be properly maintained, and the project applicant or owner shall require any construction contractor to keep documentation on-site during any earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

4. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors.

5. Signage and Noise Complaint Coordinator The project applicant shall designate an on-site construction project manager who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. This person shall be responsible for responding to concerns of neighboring properties about construction noise disturbance and shall be available for responding to any construction noise complaints during the hours that construction is to take place. They shall also be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad silencer) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A toll-free telephone number shall be posted at construction site entrances for the duration of construction and provided in all notices (mailed, online website, and construction site postings) for receiving questions or Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
During grading
and construction
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, and 680 University
Ave500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to Planned
Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 633 of 828
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 7 Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
complaints during construction and shall also include procedures requiring that the on-site construction manager to respond to callers. The on-site construction project manager shall be required to track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction and shall notify the City’s Community Development Director of each complaint occurrence.

6. Smart Back-Up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels.

7. Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.

8. Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect a temporary noise barrier along the eastern project boundary, and the southern and western project boundaries, where feasible, during demolition and grading/excavation phases. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier at a minimum height of 12 feet. Where a solid barrier is not feasible, sound blankets affixed to the construction fencing shall be used. If a sound blanket is used, the sound blanket must have a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the construction fencing, and the sound blank shall be rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.

N-2. Construction Vibration Control Plan. The construction contractor shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Construction Vibration Control Plan shall specify the vibration reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure vibration levels are reduced to 0.2 in/sec PPV at nearby residences. The measures specified in the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall include the following measures:

1. For paving activities within 25 feet of offsite residences, a static roller shall be used in lieu of a vibratory roller.

2. For grading and earthwork activities (not including the drop-bucket or scoop) within 15 feet of offsite residences, off-road equipment shall be limited to 100 horsepower or less.

Project Applicant/
verified by the
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
During grading
and construction
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of Project Applicant/
verified by the
During ground
disturbing
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, and 680 University
Ave500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to Planned
Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 634 of 828
City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 8 Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist and culturally affiliated Native American representative have evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the culturally affiliated local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

Planning &
Development
Services
Department
activities Development
Services
Department
Docusign Envelope ID: 2CBFA166-051D-4935-90AB-16DA3B54CE6E Item 17
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, and 680 University
Ave500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20
Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential (RM-20) to Planned
Community (PC)
Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 635 of 828
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025
Report #:2507-4950
TITLE
Recommendation from Rail Committee for City Council on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Initial Review of Conceptual Design Alternatives and Elimination of Alternatives from Further Consideration; CEQA Status - Not a Project as Defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)

RECOMMENDATION
The Rail Committee and staff recommend the City Council review eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project for grade separated bicycle and pedestrian rail crossings.

The Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and eliminate all other alternatives from further consideration. Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Alternative A be advanced with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing of Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Avenue.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Project) to assess ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in portions of the City south of Oregon Expressway. This Project will identify locations and develop 15% conceptual designs for up to two new grade-separated crossings.

This Staff Report presents eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and an Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) that compares those alternatives for community review and feedback. The eight alternatives include the following:

A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 636 of 828
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
The Rail Committee and staff recommend the City Council review and provide feedback on these alternatives and the analysis of these alternatives. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement and technical design work will also be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been selected. This review could include a Council action to eliminate one or more alternatives from further consideration. Based on the analysis of alternatives and initial feedback gathered from the community, the Rail Committee and staff recommend the Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and remove all other alternatives from further consideration. Rail Committee and staff also recommend that Council advance Alternative A with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing at El Dorado Avenue, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks near El Dorado Avenue. The support for Alternative A is due to limited property impacts, higher anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand, location near Matadero Creek, and opportunities for direct bicycle and pedestrian connections through adjoining neighborhoods.

This Project aligns with the City’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan and 2025 Safe Streets for All Action Plan. The Project has also been undertaken in consultation with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update, San Antonio Road Area Plan, and Cubberley Community Center Master Plan. This Project will improve active transportation to and from the neighborhoods that will receive new housing growth and amenities, enhancing safety and comfort for people in these areas.

If more than two Alternatives are advanced at this stage, staff will return to City Council in early 2026 with a request to select up to two preferred conceptual design alternatives to pursue grants and advance to engineering design. Following the selection of up to two alternatives, a public draft report with a funding and implementation plan for two preferred alternatives will be shared for community feedback in fall 2026, and a final report will be shared in spring 2027 for community review and Council review and potential adoption. The public draft report may be provided at an earlier time if a single alternative is advanced at this stage.

BACKGROUND
In July 2012, Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012 BPTP)1 to guide investments in non-motorized transportation facilities and programs in the City. The 2012 1 City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Adopted July 2012; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/bicycle-pedestrian-transportationplan_adopted-july-2012.pdf Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 637 of 828
BPTP identified the 1.3-mile distance between the California Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Tunnel and Meadow Drive as the longest stretch of track barrier in Palo Alto and recommended a gradeseparated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street in the vicinity of Matadero Creek/Park Boulevard or between Margarita Avenue and Loma Verde Avenue.

On January 22, 2013, Council approved the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (2013)3 which identified a need for additional grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings, particularly in the southern portion of the City. This need was reiterated in November 2017, when Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan4. The Comprehensive Plan includes Program T1.19.3 to "increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings across Alma Street and the Caltrain corridor, particularly south of Oregon Expressway."
On June 19, 2023, Council authorized staff to undertake the BPTP Update5. On June 2, 2025, Council reviewed, provided input, and expressed general support for the plan’s draft framework and many projects.6 On June 2, 2025, Council also adopted the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan7 which includes, “Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings Along the Caltrain Corridor” as one of many strategies to help eliminate transportation fatalities and serious injuries by 2035.

On April 15, 2024, Council also adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element8, which provided a framework for accommodating 6,086 new housing units by 2031 to meet State requirements.

Maintaining quality of life while accommodating growth, reinforces the need for convenient and high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that address everyday trips and free up roadway capacity.

In addition to City plans, in 2018, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) adopted the Countywide Bike Plan (CBP) which identified the Caltrain tracks in southern Palo Alto as a key barrier to bicycle movement in the County. The VTA CBP identified crossing locations between Oregon Expressway and Meadow Drive as Priority Across Barrier Connections (ABC) due to the long distance between crossings of major barriers and inadequate roadway crossings; and 3 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, Approved January 22, 2013; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-developmentprojects/parc-130122-final-report.pdf 4 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, Adopted November 13, 2017, Amended December 19, 2022; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-development-services/3.-comprehensiveplan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf 5 City Council, June 19, 2023; Consent Calendar Item #34; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1170 6 City Council, June 2, 2025; Study Session Item #3;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16122 7 City of Palo Alto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, Adopted June 2, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/ss4a-safety-action-plan/palo-altosafety-action-plan_final_june_2025.pdf 8 City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Adopted April 15, 2024, Certified August 20, 2024; https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element.pdf Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 638 of 828
identified San Antonio Road across the Caltrain corridor as an Unconstructed On-Street Cross County Bicycle Corridor (CCBC) and Priority CCBC.15
On September 9, 2024, Council approved a professional services contract (C25191297) with Kittelson & Associates to provide professional services to support concept design for pedestrian/bicycle crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto.16 The project scope, which is being undertaken collaboratively with City staff, includes:
• Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions; • Community Outreach and Engagement;
• Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria; • Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives;
• Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives;
• Identification of two Locally Preferred Locations and Concepts; • 15% Design of the Locally Preferred Alternatives for new Grade-Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossings, plus context-sensitive pedestrian and bicycle enhancements that link to the existing or planned transportation networks; • Development of an Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy; and • Securing funding for future project phases, including preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design, and construction.

On November 18, 2025, the Rail Committee reviewed the project update including eight shortlisted alternatives and a staff recommendation to eliminate Alternatives D, E and F from further consideration. Rail Committee unanimously supported a motion to recommend to Council that Alternative A be advanced as the single preferred alternative with all other alternatives eliminated from further consideration. As part of this motion, Rail Committee also recommended advancing Alternative A with two variants: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing across Alma Street, and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under both Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of El Dorado Avenue. Rail Committee members also requested that the project team explore different project parameters (such as 8% grade and lower internal clearances) to reduce ramp length and property impacts.

ANALYSIS
The following tasks have been undertaken so far:
• Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions • Community Outreach and Engagement Plan
• Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria 15 Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan, May 2018; https://www.vta.org/projects/santa-clara-countywide-bike-planupdate-2018 pp. 32, 27, 61. 16 City Council, September 9, 2024; Consent Calendar Item #7; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14393 Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 639 of 828
• Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
• Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives
The Community Outreach and Engagement Plan and associated efforts are described in the section on Stakeholder Engagement below. Efforts related to design priorities and evaluation criteria, preliminary conceptual alternatives and initial assessment of conceptual alternatives are described below.

Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design priorities and evaluation criteria provide metrics to guide the development, assessment, and comparison of preliminary design alternatives. Based on Council approved plans, such as the Comprehensive Plan, 2012 BPTP, and Rail Corridor Study, the Project team prepared draft design priorities and evaluation criteria for community feedback during the first phase of engagement.

The Project team has provided a memorandum on Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria, which considers and incorporates community feedback and is available on the project webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings).19
Updated design priorities include:
• Improve Mobility: Prioritize locations and designs that integrate with surrounding networks, provide access to critical destinations, serve the most users, and accommodate current and future transportation needs.
• Enhance User Experience: Design facilities guided by the prioritization of the most vulnerable populations,20 and create safe, well-lit spaces that are comfortable to access and utilize.
• Maximize Ease of Construction: Minimize potential for disruption during construction and complexity of design, while ensuring that construction costs and maintenance costs are feasible to implement given reasonably expected project funding. • Enhance Visual Appeal: Ensure that newly constructed facilities enhance the sense of community by incorporating public art, public spaces, and attractive structures. • Minimize Community Impacts: Limit potential impacts on existing neighborhoods, including the amount of space needed (parking spaces, roads, and buildings are minimally affected) and impacts on the environment.
19 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Memorandum, July 23, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikepedrailroad-crossings/spa-bike-ped-connectivity_updated-design-priorities-and-evaluation-criteria_2025-07-23.pdf 20 Vulnerable populations are groups or communities at a higher risk of experiencing negative health, social, or economic outcomes due to various factors. These factors can be related to social, economic, political, environmental, or individual circumstances. Examples include children, older adults, people with disabilities, lowincome individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities.

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 640 of 828
Evaluation criteria are presented in Table 1, with updated criteria and descriptions shown in bold text.

Table 1: Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Neighborhood
accessibility
Walk and bike access within 5-, 10-, and 15-minutes of each crossing location. Information will be presented as an isochrone map of walk and bike sheds overlaid with key destinations such as schools and parks.2
Demand# Projected number of users (people walking and biking) on a daily basis and during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This analysis will account for future population growth and land use development.

Improve
Mobility
Facility width and
capacity#
Width of facility and ability of rail crossing to accommodate people walking and biking, including people with mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs), cargo bikes, and bike trailers.

Crossing length# Total length of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the crossing distance of the tunnel/bridge and ramp structures.

Crossing elevation
and ramp grade#
Total change in elevation of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the ramp grades and distance below/above grade required for the tunnel/bridge structure.

Pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort
Extent to which existing pedestrian and bicycle network would provide low-stress access to and through the rail crossing(s). This analysis considers the existing network and the types of improvements (e.g., new or upgraded facilities) required to provide comfortable on-street connections to and through the new crossing.

Enhance User
Experience
Personal security Alignment of rail crossing facility (e.g., directness of the crossing, number of turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis considers access control to direct people to designated entrances and exits, as well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for natural observation of people within the crossing, reducing opportunities for criminal activities and other unwanted behaviors.

Utility impacts Level of disruption to existing and planned utilities, extent of relocations required.

Construction cost# Rough order of magnitude of project construction cost, including cost of the tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required to provide low-stress on-street connections.

Construction
duration
Anticipated duration of construction, level of disruption and level of coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade Separation Project expected during the construction period.

Maximize Ease
of
Construction
Operations and
maintenance cost
Magnitude of projected annual cost of operations and maintenance (e.g., flooding, landscaping).

Enhance Visual
Appeal
Public space and
green infrastructure
Potential to create new public spaces and implement green infrastructure.

Minimize
Community
Impacts
Environmental
impacts
Extent to which crossing impacts the environment - impervious areas, creeks/drainage, sea level rise, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and existing parkland.

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 641 of 828
Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Parcel impacts# Number of parcels needed, all or in part, to construct crossing and approach facilities.

Traffic, parking, and
driveway impacts
Extent to which rail crossings affect existing vehicle circulation, vehicle parking, and access to existing driveways.

Notes:
1 Criteria marked with an “#” are quantitative and a specific value will be presented. Criteria without a “#” are qualitative and will be scored using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance. 2 An isochrone map of a walk or bike shed represents areas accessible within the same amount of time from a specific point.

Bold text indicates language that has been added or updated.

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
The Project team identified eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) to achieve the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved direction:

A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel: Alternative A would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between El Dorado Avenue and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal and dual ramps and stairways extending along the landscaping strip between the railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. A ramp would be constructed through an existing surface parking lot, connecting to existing bike facilities on Park Boulevard.

B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel: Alternative B would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue and Margarita Avenue. The tunnel would connect a center-running two-way bike/ped ramp on Loma Verde Avenue to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue.

C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative C would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Loma Verde Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal and a stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the landscaping strip between the railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. The tunnel would connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue potentially using a combination of switchback ramps and stairs.

D. Lindero Dr Tunnel: Alternative D would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a T-intersection and a ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the east side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs.

E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative E would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 642 of 828
signalized T-intersection. A ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the west side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs.

F. Ely Pl Tunnel: Alternative F would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Ely Place and Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive. An enhanced pedestrian crosswalk, such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, would be installed at the intersection of Alma Street/Ely Place. A pathway and ramp would extend in the north-south direction along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street. The path would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs.

G. Ferne Ave Tunnel: Alternative G would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Ferne Avenue in Palo Alto and Del Medio Avenue in Mountain View. The intersection of Alma Street/Ferne Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A ramp would extend north-south along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street. The path would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and then turn back another 90 degrees to connect into Mountain View. Further coordination is needed to refine designs and obtain design approval in Mountain View.

H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements: Alternative H would install a center-running two-way separated bike lane along San Antonio Road from Nita Avenue in Palo Alto to Mountain View. Protected bike lanes would be installed on San Antonio Avenue and the existing sidewalk/shared use path on the west side of Alma Street would be widened and improved to enhance the existing connection for people walking and biking along San Antonio Avenue to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and tunnel at Mayfield Avenue.

Further coordination is needed to refine designs and obtain design approval in Mountain View.

Please note that these alternatives are high-level, preliminary concepts. Each of the above alternatives has right-of-way implications that would also need to be addressed once the list is narrowed down. Importantly, no decision has been made by the City to acquire any property for this project.23
23 Without authority from the City Council, staff has no authority to commit to the acquisition of any property that might be impacted by the conceptual design alternatives presented in this analysis. Before that decision can be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an appraisal approved by the City.

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 643 of 828
Additionally, each of the above alternatives would also be contingent upon the City obtaining relevant permits or permissions from other involved agencies such as Caltrain, the City of Mountain View, the County of Santa Clara, and Valley Water.

Figure 1 shows the locations of the eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives. Figure 2 shows the basic concept designs of all eight Conceptual Design Alternatives on a single page for ease of comparison. See Attachment A for a full set of concept designs with supporting imagery for all Conceptual Design Alternatives.

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 644 of 828
Figure 1: Locations of Crossing Alternatives
Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 645 of 828
Figure 2: Overview of All Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives The identification of the above conceptual alternatives included development of a comprehensive list of potential alternatives and an initial screening process. Over 25 potential design alternatives considering crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignments) and facility types (e.g., bridge or tunnel) were included as part of the initial screening process. As with all transportation projects, the identification of alternatives for this Project involved consideration and balancing of diverse and sometimes competing needs in the allocation of public right-of-way and resources. The initial screening criteria aligned with Project goals and design priorities and aimed to systematically identify less feasible or reasonable alternatives. There were three primary reasons why an alternative was eliminated from further consideration:

1. The alternative did not satisfy the Project goals and design priorities;

2. The alternative was determined to be not practical or feasible from a technical, environmental and/or economic standpoint; or

3. The alternative substantially duplicated another alternative and offered little advantage to similar alternative(s).

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 646 of 828
Transportation projects are inherently complex. Each of the eight alternatives included above were developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines and standards, including the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide (August 2024), Caltrain Design Criteria (January 2024), Caltrain Standards for Design and Maintenance of Structures (January 2024), American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and informed by the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).

While specific requirements and guidance were used to ensure that the alternatives were all technically feasible, the alternatives are still fluid and subject to refinement. For example, ramp alignments, grades, tunnel heights and tunnel widths could be altered to address design or property concerns. Design variations are described in more detail in the Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B). Additional community engagement and technical design work will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been selected.

Refinement and selection of designs will also involve collaboration with multiple agencies with authority and interest in this Project, including the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) (owner and operator of Caltrain), City of Mountain View, County of Santa Clara, Valley Water, Caltrans, and others. The City will need to continue to work with these agencies as we advance through the design process to secure permits and meet their needs.

Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives
The Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) evaluates and scores each of the eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives using the design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignments with community values, and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

The Project team completed a technical evaluation of the alternatives, considering each of the crossing options and the corresponding community connections. An overview of the assessment for each alternative is presented below. Error! Reference source not found. 2 presents a summary of the results from the alternatives evaluation used to assess the degree to which the alternative aligns with each of the selected evaluation criteria. Additional information is presented in the Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B).

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 647 of 828
Table 2: Evaluation Criteria Results Summary
Evaluation Criteria
A. El Dorado Ave TunnelB. Loma Verde Ave TunnelC. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St SignalD. Lindero Dr TunnelE. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St SignalF. Ely Place TunnelG. Ferne Ave TunnelH. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation & Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bike Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveways
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Neighborhood Accessibility. Alternatives A, B, and C provide the greatest increase in accessibility and would close the largest gap in distance between crossings. Alternatives D and E would provide the lowest reduction in travel times for crossings.

Demand. Alternatives A, B, C, G, and H are estimated to attract the greatest number of bike and pedestrian users. Alternatives D, E, and F are expected to attract the fewest users due to their close proximity to crossings at Charleston and Meadow, longer distance to schools, and wayfinding challenges in the Circles and Alma/San Antonio neighborhoods.

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 648 of 828
Facility Width and Capacity. Facility width and capacity would be similar across alternatives, with the exception of Alternative H, which would construct a narrower 10-foot wide two-way separated bike lane compared to the 20-foot wide tunnel and 12-foot wide ramps currently assumed for other alternatives.

Crossing Length. Alternative H would utilize existing crossings and would not reduce the distance to cross relative to existing conditions. Alternative A would have the shortest crossing length but would require some out-of-direction travel along the crossing alignment, while Alternative B would have the longest crossing length but would provide the most direct connections to the existing bike network.25
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade. Alternatives would perform the same with respect to crossing elevation and ramp grade. Alternatives A through G propose ramps constructed with a 7% slope. Pedestrian access under Alternative H includes enhanced connections to the existing tunnel at the San Antonio Caltrain Station near Mayfield Drive, which is constructed at the same depth and with similar ramping as the other alternatives.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort. Alternative B would provide the greatest level of pedestrian and bicyclist comfort to and through the tunnel, as it would create a low-stress connection across Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and would provide the most direct and comfortable connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Personal Security. While all alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices, Alternative B would rank the highest, providing the greatest level of visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance because of the shorter and more direct tunnels. Alternative F and G would be least desirable as a result of the number of 90-degree turns and ramp access locations in less active areas.

Utility Impacts. Alternative H would have the least impact on utilities, except for the overhead lighting in the center median on San Antonio Road. Alternatives B and D would have the greatest potential impact, requiring relocation of existing utilities within the roadway to outside of the proposed tunnel limits.

Construction Cost. Due to their longer tunnels under Alma Street as well as the railroad tracks, Alternatives B and D are projected to be the most expensive to build, while Alternative H is anticipated to have the lowest construction cost.

Construction Duration. Alternatives A, B, and C are anticipated to have the shortest construction duration and earliest possible construction start time since they are expected to be outside 25 Crossing and ramp dimensions are based on Caltrain‘s Corridor Crossing Delivery Guide, which requires a minimum 5‘ of cover (from the bottom of railroad ties to top of structure) if a minimally invasive construction method such as box jacking or tunneling is utilized. The dimensions also assume a 12‘ tunnel height. Minimum pedestrian and bicycle vertical clearance is 10’.

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 649 of 828
proposed construction limits for the Rail Grade Separation projects. Alternatives G and H are also anticipated to have shorter construction durations and start times but require additional coordination with the City of Mountain View and other agencies that may extend overall durations.

Operations and Maintenance Cost. Alternatives B and D are anticipated to have the highest operations and maintenance costs, while Alternative H is expected to have the lowest operations and maintenance costs.

Public Space and Green Infrastructure. Alternatives D and E provide more opportunities for landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas. Alternatives C and F are expected to have the least potential to improve existing public space or provide new green infrastructure.

Environmental Impacts. Alternative H is expected to have a minimal impact on the environment as it would not require tunneling, would not result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks, drainage, sensitive habitats, wetlands or parkland.

Parcel Impacts. Alternatives A, G, and H are anticipated to impact (either fully or partially) the fewest number of parcels, while Alternative D, E, and F are projected to fully impact one parcel.

Alternatives B and C are estimated to impact two parcels.

Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts. Alternatives D and H would have the least potential to increase vehicle delays, reduce parking availability, or affect driveway access compared to other alternatives.

Stakeholder Input
As outlined under Stakeholder Engagement, community members provided diverse input on the eight initial alternatives under consideration. This feedback is summarized below:
• Strong preference for Alternatives A, B, and H (and interest in Alternative G) that minimize right-of-way impacts (especially to private homes), provide direct connections to existing bike facilities, grade-separate Alma Street to avoid added delay and safety issues at new signals, and have higher bicycle and pedestrian demand projections. • Alternative A: Favored for location and limited property impacts. Stakeholders encouraged extending the tunnel under Alma Street to El Dorado Avenue to achieve a grade-separated crossing.
• Alternative B: Favored for a grade-separated Alma Street crossing. Stakeholders flagged trade-offs due to property acquisitions (Park Blvd) and circulation impacts near Loma Verde Avenue to be addressed.
• Alternative G: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing near San Antonio Road. Stakeholders noted additional coordination with Mountain View would be needed.
• Alternative H: Interest tied to station-area access and future housing along San Antonio Road. Stakeholders suggested refinements to address comfort concerns with Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 650 of 828
center-running bikeways and improve connections (e.g., Mackay–Nita, Briarwood tunnel, path to Mayfield).
• Alternatives D/E/F: Generally, not favored due to lower projected demands (e.g., limited opportunity for mode shift) given close proximity to existing at-grade crossings (and planned grade separations), lack of direct connections through adjoining neighborhoods, and technical challenges associated with overlapping construction areas for rail grade separation.
• In addition to above preferences, several stakeholders suggested refinements to concept designs that would apply to all alternatives:
o Reduce tunnel heights and depths to shorten ramps, minimize property and circulation impacts, and increase visibility.
o Consider locating ramps/tunnels within the landscaped strip on the east side of Alma instead of the street centerline where feasible.
o Prioritize user comfort and safety elements for pathways that include gentler ramp grades (compared to California Avenue undercrossing), wider two-way facilities with separated space for bicyclists and pedestrians, more direct alignments, and strong lighting to support day/night visibility. o Consider trade-offs with different slopes and ramps lengths as well as whether to cross Alma Street at-grade (via new signalized intersection) or below-grade (via tunnel).

Deliberation Options
Two pathways below describe possible Council direction related to this Project.

Deliberation Option 1: At this point, Council could review and provide initial feedback on all eight alternatives. In early 2026, staff would then return to Council with a request to select up to two preferred conceptual design alternatives to advance to 15% design.

Deliberation Option 2: At this point, Council could review and provide input on all eight alternatives including a Council action on options to be eliminated from further consideration.

Initially, staff had recommended eliminating Alternatives D, E and F from further consideration due to the likely lower levels of ridership, close proximity to existing crossings, more challenging wayfinding on the west side and lower levels of community support. Following Rail Committee deliberations on November 18, 2025, the Rail Committee and staff recommend that Council select Alternative A as the preferred alternative and eliminate all other alternatives from further consideration. Furthermore, Rail Committee and staff recommend that two variants be advanced for Alternative A: Alternative A1 with a signalized crossing across Alma Street at El Dorado and Alternative A2 with a tunnel under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of El Dorado. The support for Alternative A is due to limited property impacts, higher anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand, location near Matadero Creek, and opportunities for direct bicycle and pedestrian connections through adjoining neighborhoods. Prioritization of Alternative A and elimination of all other alternatives would allow the project team to focus Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 651 of 828
more attention on refinement of the remaining alternatives and would provide some clarity and relief to potentially affected property owners.

Next Steps
Preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis are being shared with the community for review and feedback in Phase 2 of engagement. Feedback received during Phase 2 of engagement will result in the refinement and Council selection of two preferred alternatives that will be carried forward for 15 percent design (conceptual design) in early 2026.

A public draft report with a funding and implementation plan for the preferred alternative(s) will be shared for community feedback in fall 2026, and a final report will be shared in spring 2027 for community review and Council review and potential adoption. This timeline may be shortened if a single alternative is advanced at this stage.

After identification and completion of conceptual design, Staff will pursue subsequent phases as directed by Council including:
• Securing Caltrain Service Agreement to advance the project • Seeking grants and funding
• Undertaking preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (Caltrain) • Completing final design (Caltrain)
• Obtaining other inter-agency agreements and permits
• Securing right of way, acquisition or easements
• Completing construction (Caltrain)
• Transitioning completed project facilities to Palo Alto This Project involves Caltrain, and the City will need to align with Caltrain’s corridor crossings strategy and Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide.27 The City expects that Caltrain will lead efforts for preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, and construction.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
On September 9, 2024, Council approved the professional services contract (C25191297) with Kittelson & Associates for a not-to-exceed amount of $499,491 for the Project for a term of two-years. Sufficient funding for anticipated expenses related to the project scope outlined in the Background section of this memorandum was appropriated as part of the FY 2026 Adopted Capital Budget for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation project (PL04010) in the Capital Improvement Fund. Additional costs beyond completion of the 15% Design of the Locally Preferred Alternatives will be identified as part of the scope of the contract with Kittelson & Associates, and staff will return to Council for appropriation of funding for future phases of the project, including full design and construction. 27 https://www.caltrain.com/caltrain-corridor-crossings-delivery-guide Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 652 of 828

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement for this Project includes four phases:
• Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed • Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025 – Early 2026) – Underway
• Phase 3 Community Engagement: Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026) • Phase 4 Community Engagement: Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027) Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed The first phase of engagement29 included the following elements. • Project Webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings) with updates on meetings, events and Project materials.
• Project Fact Sheet shared with community members during in-person meetings and events.
• Small Group Discussions held virtually from November through December 2024 including representatives of the City Schools Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC), Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Caltrain, Palo Alto Unified School District, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC), and Stanford University. Participants also shared a list of criteria and priorities for evaluating alternatives and emphasized the need for easy, well-lit, accessible, safe crossings that are suitable for all ages and reduce the long distances between crossings today. Participants also encouraged the team to consider a network perspective addressing how to get to/from crossing points. • Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on April 2, 2025 and attended by approximately 50 community members. Community members prioritized crossings that improved mobility and emphasized their general support for the project and interest in fast completion. A crossing around Matadero Creek (El Dorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue) was the most popular location amongst attendees, followed by locations between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
• Online Survey was made available on the Project webpage from April 1, 2025, to May 22, 2025. The City promoted the survey during in-person events, Weekly City Manager Updates, PaloAltoConnect Blog, social media posts, UpLift Local eNewsletter, and emails to Neighborhood Associations in south Palo Alto, public and private schools, Stanford University, and community stakeholders in Mountain View. The survey gathered more 29 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary Report, July 29, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroadcrossings/spa_bike-ped-connectivity_phase-1-engagement-report_final_7.29.25.pdf Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 653 of 828
than 700 responses, offering insight into typical travel patterns and preferences regarding new bike and pedestrian rail crossings.
• Pop-Up Events at California Ave Third Thursday (April 17, 2025), Earth Day Festival (April 27, 2025), and Bike to Work Day (May 15, 2025).
• Mailers sent to more than 1,500 business, community organization and residential property addresses in the vicinity of the Project.
• Emails to Principals, PTA Team Presidents, and Traffic Safety Representatives (TSRs) of all public schools in the southern portion of the City, as well as private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in south Palo Alto, in addition to several public and private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in Mountain View to inform them about the Project, share ways to provide feedback, promote the online survey, and ask community partners to spread the word to their networks by via a communications toolkit.
• Presentations at meetings with the PABAC,31 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC),32 Rail Committee,33 City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTCS),34 and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)35 in May 2025. In addition, Alternative H was discussed at a joint meeting of PABAC and Mountain View Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee on August 28, 2024.
• Additional Collaboration included interagency discussions as reflected in unscheduled matching funds for the San Antonio Class IV Bikeway (US-15) in the City of Mountain View Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2023-24 through 2027-28.

Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025 – Early 2026) – Underway Phase 2 community engagement is currently in progress. During Phase 2, City staff are presenting the initial eight alternatives and completed alternatives analysis for review and feedback.

Feedback received during Phase 2 of engagement will be considered in the selection and refinement of two preferred alternatives to be carried forward for 15 percent conceptual design.

A summary of Phase 2 outreach and engagement activities is provided below:
• Project Webpage (as in Phase 1)
• Project Fact Sheet (as in Phase 1)
31 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, May 6, 2025; Discussion Item #7.a.; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings2025/2025-05-06_pabac-agenda-packet_final.pdf 32 Planning and Transportation Commission, May 14, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16526 33 Rail Committee, May 20, 2025; Study Session Item #2; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17205 34 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, May 22, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Officeof-Transportation/May-2025-CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting 35 Parks and Recreation Commission, May 27, 2025; Business Items Item #5; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16896 Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 654 of 828
• Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on September 9, 2025, and attended by nearly 40 community members. Community members provided feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives. Alternative B (Loma Verde Ave Tunnel), Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel), and Alternative H (San Antonio Bridge Enhancements) were the most popular conceptual designs amongst attendees.

Participants expressed support for alternatives that limit right-of-way impacts, provide more direct routes, connect to existing bike facilities, grade-separate Alma Street, and are located further away from existing or planned grade separated rail crossings. Several participants also suggested changes to assumed tunnel dimensions such as reducing the height of the tunnel to shorten ramps.
• Online Survey available on the Project webpage from August 15, 2025, through October 12, 2025. The City promoted the survey as in Phase 1. The survey gathered nearly 500 responses. Respondents provided feedback on the eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives. Key findings included:
o Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel) was the favorite alternative amongst respondents, followed by Alternative B (Loma Verde Ave Tunnel), then Alternative H (San Antonio Bridge Enhancements).
o Alternative E (Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal) was the least favorite alternative amongst respondents, while Alternative F (Ely Pl Tunnel) ranked second to last.
o Respondents generally supported alternatives that minimize impacts to residential properties and that grade-separate Alma Street, due to concerns about delays to motor vehicle travel and safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Alma Street at new signalized intersections. o Respondents expressed a desire for high-quality pathways (e.g., wide, direct/straight, open, well-lit, separate space for cyclists and pedestrians) where cyclists would not need to dismount.
o Respondents suggested Alternative A (El Dorado Ave Tunnel) would be even more desirable if it tunneled under Alma Street.
o Several respondents recommended the City consider enhancing the existing grade-separated rail crossing at California Avenue rather than building a new crossing nearby.
• Pop-Up Events at Bike Palo Alto (October 5, 2025), California Ave Third Thursday (October 16, 2025), and other community-wide events through early 2026. • Mailers sent to around 1,200 business, community organizations and residential property addresses in the vicinity of the Project.
• Emails (as in Phase 1).

Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 655 of 828
• Presentations at meetings with the PTC41, CSTSC42, PABAC43, and Rail Committee44. A synthesis received during each meeting is presented in the Attachment C. Upcoming meetings with PABAC, PTC, Rail Committee, and Council are tentatively scheduled in Quarter 4 in 2025 and Quarter 1 in 2026.

Phase 3 Community Engagement Review Public Draft Report (Fall 2026) The Public Draft Report will include a funding and implementation plan for two preferred alternatives that will be shared for feedback as part of Phase 3 of engagement in fall 2026.

Phase 4 Community Engagement Council Adopt Final Report (Spring 2027) The Final Report will be shared in spring 2027 in Phase 4 for community review and Council review and potential adoption.

Given the Rail Committee’s recommendation, staff have been in initial conversations with a representative of Vance Brown Builders, which is the property management company representing the owners of the office development at 3101 Park Boulevard on the west side of the Caltrain tracks. Staff briefed them on the project status and informed them of Council’s discussion of this item on December 1, 2025. Staff also invited them for further discussion prior to this December 1, 2025 meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action item is not a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). CEQA will be conducted according to state law should the city proceed on an actual project.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Conceptual Design Alternatives
Attachment B: Alternatives Analysis
Attachment C: Phase 2 Community Engagement Synthesis of Standing Meetings APPROVED BY:

Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
41 Planning and Transportation Commission, September 10, 2025; Study Session Item #4; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16582 42 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, October 23, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/EventsDirectory/Office-of-Transportation/CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting 43 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, November 4, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-Walking/Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-AdvisoryCommittee-PABAC 44 Rail Committee, November 18, 2025; Action Item #1;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17255 Item 18
Item 18 Staff Report
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 656 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 657 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 658 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 659 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 660 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 661 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 662 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 663 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 664 of 828
Item 18
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 665 of 828
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Alternatives Analysis
September 2, 2025 Project# 30555
To: Charlie Coles, City of Palo Alto
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

RE: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Introduction
The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Project) to assess ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in the southern portion of the City. goals, this Project will identify locations and design concepts where two new grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto (south of Oregon Expressway) may be constructed.

This Alternatives Analysis presents an assessment of eight conceptual design alternatives for community review and feedback that builds on the analysis of existing conditions, incorporates feedback from the community gathered during the first phase of engagement for this Project, and is consistent with the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved plans and direction. Eight conceptual design alternatives presented and discussed further in this analysis include the following:

Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Figure 1 shows the locations of the eight alternatives evaluated in this Alternatives Analysis. The concept design, description, and assessment of each alternative is presented in the following sections.

Over 25 potential design alternatives considering crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignments) and facility types (e.g., bridge or tunnel) were included as part of the initial screening process. Alternatives that would involve minor variations or shifts in alignment were not considered as part of the initial screening, since minor changes in alignment would not meaningfully affect the performance of an alternative. Attachment A describes the process used to develop and identify eight conceptual design alternatives through the initial screening process.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 666 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 2
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1: Locations of Crossing Alternatives
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 667 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 3
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Alternatives A, C, E, F, and G propose new at-grade crossings of Alma Street with a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks, while Alternatives B and D propose tunnels underneath Alma Street and the railroad tracks.

Alternative H is a bridge/tunnel combination, utilizing the existing overpass structure on San Antonio Road to provide a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks for bicycles. Alternative H will also include enhancements to the existing at-grade crossing of Alma Street at San Antonio Avenue to provide improved connection to the existing bike/ped tunnel underneath the railroad tracks at the San Antonio Caltrain Station at Mayfield Avenue in Mountain View.

Alternatives A, B, C, and H appear to have the most potential to move forward based on initial input from the community and prior Council approved plans and direction. However, in an effort to present a range of potentially feasible options and confirm preferred locations and designs, the City developed eight conceptual design alternatives for analysis, review and feedback from the community.

All conceptual design alternatives has been developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines and standards, including the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide dated August 2024, Caltrain Design Criteria, 4th Edition dated January 2024, Caltrain Standards for Design and Maintenance of Structures Revised January 2024, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and informed by the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).

Design concepts presented in this analysis are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement, technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been decided.

These conceptual design alternatives were developed with the intent of getting input from the community to inform key design elements, such as the location and alignment of the tunnel and ramps/stairs, treatment at Alma Street (tunnel or signal), as well as general design characteristics, including ramp/tunnel widths and grades. These potential design variations are described in more detail for each alternative in the following sections. Community feedback on the alternatives and design variations is being gathered during the next phase of engagement. This input will be considered in selection of the locally preferred alternatives to carry forward to 15 percent concept design.

While identifying and developing 15 percent concept designs for two preferred railroad crossing options is the primary aim of the Project, an additional purpose is to identify the surface street improvements that would be paired with each crossing to make walking and biking easier and more comfortable. The specific bicycle and pedestrian network enhancements will be developed for each of the two alternatives in the next phase of this Project and constructed in combination with each crossing to provide high comfort connections to existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement (see Table 1).

Design priorities are organized in order of importance based on community feedback, with the highest design priority (Improve Mobility) listed first. A High (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values, and a Low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 668 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 4
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 1: Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design
Priority
Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Improve
Mobility
Neighborhood
accessibility
Walk and bike access within 5- 10- and 15-minutes of each crossing location. Information will be presented as an isochrone map of walk and bike sheds overlaid with key destinations such as schools and parks2. Demand#
Projected number of users (people walking and biking) on a daily basis and during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This analysis will account for future population growth and land use development.

Facility width and
capacity# Width of facility and ability of rail crossing to accommodate people walking and biking, including people with mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs), cargo bikes, and bike trailers.

Enhance User
Experience
Crossing length#
Total length of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the crossing distance of the tunnel/bridge and ramp structures.

Crossing elevation
and ramp grade#
Total change in elevation of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the ramp grades and distance below/above grade required for the tunnel/bridge structure.

Personal security
Alignment of rail crossing facility (e.g., directness of the crossing, number of turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis considers access control to direct people to designated entrances and exits, as well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for natural observation of people within the crossing, reducing opportunities for criminal activities and other unwanted behaviors.

Maximize Ease
of Construction
Utility impacts Level of disruption to existing and planned utilities, extent of relocations required.

Construction cost# Rough order of magnitude of project construction cost, including cost of the tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required to provide low-stress on-street connections.

Construction
duration
Anticipated duration of construction, level of disruption and level of coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade
Separation Project expected during the construction period.

Operations and
maintenance cost
Magnitude of projected annual cost of operations and
maintenance (e.g., flooding, landscaping).

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 669 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 5
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Design
Priority
Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Enhance Visual
Appeal
Public space and
green infrastructure
Potential to create new public spaces and implement green infrastructure.

Parcel impacts# Number of parcels needed, all or in part, to construct crossing and approach facilities.

Traffic, parking, and
driveway impacts
Extent to which rail crossings affect existing vehicle circulation, vehicle parking, and access to existing driveways.

Notes: 1 nd will be scored using a scale
of high, medium, and low, for its performance. 2 An isochrone map of a walk or bike shed represents areas accessible within the same amount of time from a specific point.

The results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives. The evaluation criteria and scoring methodology is included as Attachment B. The accessibility analysis maps are included as Attachment C.

Importantly, no decision has yet been made by the City to acquire any property. Before that decision can be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an appraisal approved by the City. Without authority from the City Council, Staff has no authority to commit to the acquisition of any property that might be impacted by the conceptual design alternatives presented in this analysis.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 670 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 6
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Description. Alternative A would construct a 110 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 200 feet long. The total crossing would be 490 feet long and would be the shortest of the eight crossings.

The intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal and high visibility crosswalks. A stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the landscaping strip between Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street in both directions. Alma Street would be reconfigured to provide a widened sidewalk and bulbouts at the intersection. Construction of the stairway and ramps would require the shifting of travel lanes on Alma Street. The ramp on the west side would connect to Park Boulevard through an existing surface parking lot. This alternative would require partial acquisition of the surface parking lot on Park Boulevard, resulting in the removal of about 40 off-street parking spaces.

Alternative A is located approximately 2,450 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue and 4,475 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with the Alternatives B and C at Loma Verde Avenue would provide the greatest increase in access for people walking and biking and would result in the following estimated weekday trips1:

AM Peak Hour 220 peak hour trips (70 walking and 150 biking trips) Daily 2,600 daily trips (800 walking and 1,800 biking trips) This alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park Boulevard and would provide an enhanced bike connection on El Dorado Avenue between Alma Street and existing bicycle routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct for people walking as stairs would provide a shorter and more direct path from El Dorado Avenue and the ramp connection to Park Boulevard would be relatively straight. Some out of direction travel would be required for bicyclists accessing the ramps along Alma Street with 90 degree turns potentially limiting visibility and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking.

Alternative A involves constructing a short tunnel beneath only the Caltrain corridor, with generally favorable site conditions for staging and access. On the east side, the design would require narrowing Alma Street to accommodate the tunnel and associated ramps. On the west side, an open parking lot would provide space for staging and for the proposed meandering pathway connection. This configuration avoids the need to grade separate Alma Street, substantially reducing the complexity of traffic handling, utility relocations, and construction phasing. The tunnel box would likely be bore-andjacked beneath the tracks to minimize impacts to rail operations, allowing work to proceed with minimal disruption to train service.
1 For reference, based on counts collected in April 2025 there were about 1,800 daily pedestrian and bicycle trips and 300 peak hour pedestrian and bicycle trips observed on the California Avenue underpass; around 600 daily bicycle trips and 170 peak hour bicycle trips were observed crossing the railroad tracks at Meadow Drive; and around 400 daily bicycle trips and 100 peak hour bicycle trips were observed crossing the railroad tracks at Charleston Road. Pedestrian counts were not collected at Meadow Drive or Charleston Road.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 671 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 7
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The straightforward nature of the construction, combined with the absence of major constraints or overlapping work zones, positions this alternative as having the lowest anticipated cost and an approximate construction duration of 18 months one of the shortest among the tunnel options considered. While the design includes two ramps along Alma Street, these do not introduce significant additional complexity compared to other alternatives.

Alternative A will likely have moderate utility impacts as there is an existing sewer line and overhead lines within the proximity of the proposed crossing alignment. Alternative A proposes to tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level. A partial right-of-way acquisition from the private parking lot near Park Boulevard would remove several stalls and require reconfiguration to accommodate the meandering pathway to the new tunnel crossing. Alternative A would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland. There is an opportunity to provide green infrastructure and new open space as part of the stair/ramp design at El Dorado Avenue and as part of the ramp design through the surface parking lot connecting to Park Boulevard.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative A, including:

Traffic control. A traffic signal would be required to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings of Alma Street to access the new tunnel. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a traffic signal. This design variation would require people walking or biking to activate the device before crossing, which may reduce potential delay impacts to vehicle traffic.

Ramp configuration, east side. One ramp, instead of two, could be constructed on Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue. This variation would reduce construction costs. However, it would also limit connectivity for people biking or rolling. Other variations to ramp configurations could be considered, including reconfiguring the ramp to make a 90-degree turn below grade to meet the top of the stairs at-grade, reducing the crossing length for bicyclists.

Increase ramp width, east side. The ramps on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.

Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp through the surface parking lot could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would increase the extent of parcel acquisition and increase the number of parking spaces impacted.

Evaluation. Table 2 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (dark green) indicating strong alignment to low (dark orange) indicating weak alignment.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 672 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 8
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2: Alternative A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative A
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 673 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 9
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 674 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 10
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Description. Alternative B would construct a 220 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath Alma Street and the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 250 feet long. The total crossing would be 650 feet long. While it would be the longest of the eight crossings it provides a relatively direct path with minimal out-of-direction travel.

The tunnel would connect a center-running two-way bike/ped ramp on Loma Verde Avenue to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue using a combination of switchback ramps and stairs. It is anticipated that this alternative would require the acquisition of two parcels on Park Boulevard.

Construction of the center-running ramp on Loma Verde Avenue would require the reconfiguration of Loma Verde Avenue to remove about 10 spaces of existing on-street parking and require right-in/rightout driveway operations for the four parcels adjacent to the ramp. Construction of the ramp connecting to Park Boulevard would require the removal of about two existing on-street parking spaces on Park Boulevard.

Alternative B is located approximately 3,900 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue and 3,000 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with Alternative A at El Dorado Avenue and Alternative C also at Loma Verde Avenue would provide the greatest increase in access and would result in the following estimated weekday trips:

AM Peak Hour 230 peak hour trips (70 walking trips and 160 biking trips) Daily 2,470 daily trips (740 walking trips and 1,720 biking trips) This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park Boulevard and Margarita Avenue and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Loma Verde Avenue from the tunnel entrance to the existing bicycle routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment on Loma Verde Avenue would be relatively direct with switchbacks limiting visibility and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking on the ramp to the Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue intersection. Stairs would provide a more direct path enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing, including at the entry/exit to Park Boulevard.

Alternative B involves constructing a long tunnel beneath both the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street, with the alignment positioned generally in the center of Loma Verde Avenue. The portion of the tunnel beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. Outside of the Caltrain corridor, the tunnel would be constructed using opencut methods to be more cost effective. This configuration introduces significant construction complexity due to the need to grade separate Alma Street while maintaining traffic along the corridor during construction. Doing so would likely require staged construction, temporary traffic shifts, and more intricate traffic handling measures compared to alternatives that avoid grade separating Alma Street. The longer tunnel length also increases the amount of excavation, structural concrete, and associated construction activities relative to shorter tunnel options.

Alternative B would have a substantial impact on existing utilities, as the proposed tunnel would cross Alma Street and be located within the middle of Loma Verde Avenue. Existing utilities within both Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 675 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 11
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
roadways would need to be relocated outside of the proposed tunnel limits. While the tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks, it would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.

Staging areas for Alternative B are more constrained than at other sites, further complicating construction sequencing and equipment access. The combination of longer structure length, traffic management requirements, major utility relocations, and limited staging areas is anticipated to result in higher construction costs and an approximate construction duration of 24 months longer than alternatives that avoid grade separating Alma Street.

Alternative B would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland. There is an opportunity to provide green infrastructure and new open space as part of the ramp/stair design connecting to Park Boulevard.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative B, including:

Ramp alignment, east side. The ramp that is currently proposed to run down the middle of Loma Verde Avenue could be realigned to the north or south side of the street. This variation would increase potential driveway impacts, limiting access to the two parcels on the ramp side.

Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp on Loma Verde Avenue could be increased from 12 feet to 15.5 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would require the reconfiguration of Loma Verde Avenue to provide one-way travel for vehicles and increase potential impacts to traffic and driveway access.

Decrease ramp slope and increase length, east side. The ramp slope could be reduced, and the ramp lengthened to connect directly to the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue/Emerson Street.

This design variation would require a larger ramp structure, increasing the cost of construction.

Increase ramp slope and decrease length, west side. The ramp slope could be increased and the ramp shortened with tighter switchbacks, resulting in decreased visibility around corners and increasing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking while reducing the extent of parcel acquisition required from two parcels to one.

Evaluation. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 676 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 12
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3: Alternative B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative B
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 677 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 13
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 678 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 14
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Description. Alternative C would construct a 110 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 250 feet long. The total crossing would be 540 feet long.

The intersection of Alma Street/Loma Verde Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the landscaping strip between Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street in both directions. Alma Street would be reconfigured to provide a widened sidewalk and bulbouts at the intersection. Construction of the stairway and ramps would require the shifting of travel lanes on Alma Street. Similar to Alternative B, the tunnel would connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Ave using a combination of switchback ramps and stairs. Alternative C would require the acquisition of two parcels and removal of two existing on-street parking spaces on Park Boulevard.

Alternative C is located approximately 3,900 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue and 3,000 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with Alternative A and Alternative B would provide the greatest increase in access and would result in the following estimated weekday trips:

AM Peak Hour 230 peak hour trips (70 walking trips and 160 biking trips) Daily 2,460 daily trips (740 walking trips and 1,720 biking trips) This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park Boulevard and Margarita Avenue and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Loma Verde Avenue from the tunnel entrance to the existing bicycle routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment at Loma Verde Avenue would be relatively indirect for people biking as bicyclists would need to cross at the signal and travel out-of-direction to access the ramps, which would require one U-turn and one 90 degree turn, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. Stairs would provide a more direct path enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing, including at the entry/exit to Park Boulevard and Loma Verde Avenue.

Alternative C is located in the same general area as Alternative B, but avoids the need to grade separate Alma Street. On the east side, this would require slightly narrowing Alma Street to accommodate the parallel ramp connections. On the west side, the design includes a meandering structure pathway that will require parcel acquisitions to accommodate tying into the surrounding network.

The tunnel portion beneath the Caltrain corridor would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. Alternative C would have a minimal potential impact on utilities, except for overhead lines near Alma Street. The tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks and would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level. Because the alignment does not pass beneath Alma Street, the overall structure length and construction complexity are reduced compared to the full Alma grade separation option. The absence of significant traffic staging along Alma Street also limits potential disruption to local travel. Overall, Alternative C is expected to have lower construction Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 679 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 15
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
costs and shorter durations than options requiring Alma Street grade separation, with an approximate construction duration of 18 months.

Alternative C would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative C, including:

Ramp configuration, east side. One ramp, instead of two, could be constructed on Alma Street at Loma Verde Avenue. This variation would reduce construction costs. However, it would also limit connectivity for people biking.

Evaluation. Table 4 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 680 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 16
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 4: Alternative C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal Results Evaluation Criteria Alternative C
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 681 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 17
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 682 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 18
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
Description. Alternative D would construct a 160 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath Alma Street and the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 230 feet long. The total crossing would be 570 feet long.

The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a T-intersection and a ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the east side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs. This alternative is anticipated to require the acquisition of one parcel on Park Boulevard and would reconfigure/extend the existing driveway on Lindero Drive at the northeast corner of the Alma Street/Lindero Drive intersection. It may require the removal of one existing on-street parking space on Park Boulevard.

Alternative D is located approximately 850 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Meadow Drive and 850 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Charleston Road. This alternative would provide a limited increase in access for people walking and biking as it is located immediately between the existing crossings at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The alternative would primarily attract bicycle trips that would use the lower stress crossing compared to crossing at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.

Alternative D would result in the following estimated weekday trips:

AM Peak Hour about 50 peak hour trips (<10 walking trips and 40 biking trips) Daily 570 daily trips (100 walking trips and 470 biking trips) This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike roures on Park Boulevard and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Lindero Drive from the ramp entrance to the existing bicycle routes on Starr King Circle, Redwood Circle, and Bryant Street. This alternative would also enhance connections to and through Robles Park. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct, though it does include one 90 degree turn, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. Stairs would provide a more direct path to Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing.

Alternative D involves constructing a long tunnel beneath both the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street, with the alignment positioned to connect to Lindero Drive. On the east side, this configuration would require grade separating Alma Street, introducing significant construction complexity due to the need to maintain traffic along the corridor during construction. On the west side, the design includes a meandering pathway connection that would require a parcel acquisition to tie into the surrounding network.

The portion of the tunnel beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. Outside of the Caltrain corridor, the tunnel would be constructed using open-cut methods to be more cost effective. Alternative D would have a significant impact on existing utilities, as the proposed tunnel would cross Alma Street. Existing utilities within both Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 683 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 19
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
roadways would need to be relocated outside of the proposed tunnel limits. While the tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks, it would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.

In June 2024, Council advanced the Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass Alternative for the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road with 2 Alternative D overlaps with areas
proposed for construction (subject to change) for rail grade separation, specifically the Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two projects interface. In addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would need to be sequenced to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located in the same physical area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project would be directly dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would extend the overall delivery time for this crossing.

The combination of longer structure length, the need for Alma Street grade separation, major utility relocations, parcel acquisition requirements, constrained staging areas, and potential coordination with the Rail Grade Separation Project is anticipated to result in higher construction costs, potentially longer construction start time and an approximate construction duration of 24 months longer than alternatives that avoid grade separating Alma Street.

Alternative D would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative D, including:

Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.

Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation may increase the number of parcels required, which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.

Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners, improving opportunities for natural surveillance and reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would likely increase the number of parcels required, which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space. 2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/Rail-Grade-Separation Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 684 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 20
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Evaluation. Table 5 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Table 5: Alternative D. Lindero Dr Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative D
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 685 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 21
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 686 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 22
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Description. Alternative E would construct a 100 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 230 feet long. The total crossing would be 510 feet long and would be the second shortest crossing distance of the eight alternatives.

The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a signalized T-intersection. A ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the west side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs. This alternative would require the acquisition of one parcel on Park Boulevard and would reconfigure/extend the existing driveway on Lindero Drive at the northeast corner of the Alma Street/Lindero Drive intersection. It may require the removal of one existing on-street parking space on Park Boulevard.

Alternative E is located approximately 850 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Meadow Drive and 850 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Charleston Road. This alternative would provide a limited increase in access for people walking and biking as it is located immediately between the existing crossings at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The alternative would primarily attract bicycle trips that would use the lower stress crossing. Alternative E would result in the following estimated weekday trips:

AM Peak Hour about 50 peak hour trips (<10 walking trips and 40 biking trips) Daily 570 daily trips (100 walking trips and 470 biking trips) Similar to Alternative D, this conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to the existing bike route on Park Boulevard and would enhance connections to and through Robles Park. This alternative would also provide an enhanced bike connection on Lindero Drive from the signalized intersection at Alma Street to the existing bicycle routes on Starr King Circle, Redwood Circle, and Bryant Street. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct, though it does include one 90-degree turn, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. On the east side of the railroad, stairs would provide a more direct path to Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing.

Alternative E involves tunneling beneath the Caltrain corridor, which would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. This alternative would have a minimal potential impact on utilities and right-of-way, as no major underground utilities are located within the proposed crossing alignment. Overhead lines near Alma Street would require relocation based on available information. The tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks and would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.

Alternative E overlaps with areas proposed for construction (subject to change) for the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, specifically the Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two projects interface. In Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 687 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 23
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would need to be sequenced to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located in the same physical area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project would be directly dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would extend the overall delivery time for this crossing.

Overall, Alternative E is expected to have lower construction costs and shorter durations than options requiring Alma Street grade separation, with an approximate construction duration of 18 months.

Alternative E would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative E, including:

Ramp configuration, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be reconfigured to extend from the intersection to the south. This design variation would change the alignment and location of the tunnel to connect south of Robles Park and would impact one different parcel along Park Boulevard.

Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.

Evaluation. Table 6 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 688 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 24
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 6: Alternative E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal Results Evaluation Criteria Alternative E
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 689 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 25
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 690 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 26
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

F. Ely Pl Tunnel
Description. Alternative F would construct an 85 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 300 feet long. The total crossing would be 565 feet long.

A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon would be installed at the intersection of Alma Street/Ely Place. A pathway and ramp would extend in the north-south direction along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street, within Caltrain right-of-way. The alignment would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive using a combination of a curving ramp and stairs that would pass through one existing property and may impact one parking space.

Alternative F is located approximately 750 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Charleston Road and 3,600 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Mayfield Drive. This alternative would provide limited access improvements for walking and biking as it is located adjacent to the existing Charleston Road crossing. The alternative would result in the following estimated weekday trips:

AM Peak Hour 50 peak hour trips (10 walking trips and 40 biking trips) Daily 680 daily trips (50 walking trips and 630 biking trips) This alternative would enhance the bike connection on Ely Place to existing bike routes on Duncan Place and Carlson Court/Carlson Circle, on Whitclem Drive to existing routes on Wilkie Way, and on Park Boulevard to existing routes on Park Boulevard north of Charleston Road. The proposed alignment would include one 90-degree turn and tight switchbacks on the ramp abutting Adobe Creek, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. On the east side of the railroad, stairs would provide a more direct path to Whitclem Drive/Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing.

Alternative F proposes a short tunnel beneath the Caltrain corridor, with limited available right-of-way for the required parallel ramp connection to Alma Street. Due to the constrained site conditions, the ramp structure would need to be located within Caltrain right-of-way. This would require obtaining a variance from the Caltrain Board, a process that introduces additional coordination requirements and approval uncertainty, as there is no guarantee that the variance would be granted. The outcome and timing of this process could affect both the overall cost and the construction schedule.

The tunnel portion beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. This conceptual design alternative would have a minimal potential impact on utilities, with the exception of an existing gas line along Alma Street. The tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks but would require a ramp structure within the Caltrain right-of-way to connect at Alma Street. In addition, a full acquisition would be required on Park Boulevard to accommodate the new tunnel approach pathway. While the alignment does not pass beneath Alma Street, its proximity to the corridor still requires careful coordination to manage potential traffic and utility impacts during construction.

Alternative F overlaps with areas proposed for construction (subject to change) for the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, specifically the Hybrid Alternative (including a Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 691 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 27
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two projects interface. In addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would need to be sequenced to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located in the same physical area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project would be directly dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would extend the overall delivery time for this crossing.

If the Caltrain variance is approved, the approximate construction duration for this alternative would be 18 months.

Alternative F would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not substantially impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative F, including:

Crossing alignment. The pedestrian crossing could be relocated to the north side of the Alma Street/Ely Place intersection and relocated to tie in at Whitclem Drive/Park Boulevard. This design variation may require additional parcel acquisitions on Park Boulevard.

Ramp configuration, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be reconfigured to extend from the intersection to the north. This design variation would change the alignment and location of the tunnel and ramps to connect within 500 feet of the intersection of Alma Street/Charleston Road, which would likely reduce the benefits to accessibility resulting in lower estimated demand.

Shift ramp, east side. The path and ramp on the east side of Alma Street could be shifted to the north to avoid encroaching on Caltrain right-of-way. This design variation would require reconfiguration of Alma Street and would require the removal of vehicle travel lanes.

Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide. This design variation may increase the number of parcels required, which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure.

Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners, improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts. This design variation would increase the number of parcels required.

Evaluation. Table 7 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 692 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 28
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 7: Alternative F. Ely Pl Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative F
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 693 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 29
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 694 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 30
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
Description. This alternative would require further coordination with Mountain View as the majority of the Project would be constructed within Mountain View. For purposes of the analysis, assumptions were made about specific design elements, including ramp configuration and alignment. These are described in this section and are subject to change pending community input and coordination on design elements within Mountain View.

Alternative G would construct an 85 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the railroad tracks.

Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long.

The ramp on the west side would be 280 feet long. The total crossing would be 545 feet long.

The intersection of Alma Street/Ferne Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A ramp would extend north-south along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street, within Caltrain right-of-way. The alignment would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and then turn back another 90 degrees to connect Del Medio Avenue via a ramp and path running alongside Caltrain rightof-way.

Alternative G is located approximately 2,650 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Charleston Road and 1,950 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Mayfield Drive. This conceptual design alternative would provide increased access for the areas of Palo Alto immediately north of San Antonio Avenue, as the tunnel at Mayfield Avenue is not easily accessed from south of San Antonio Avenue and is more likely to serve trips starting and ending in Mountain View. The alternative would result in the following estimated weekday trips:

AM Peak Hour 190 peak hour trips (50 walking trips and 140 biking trips) Daily 2,510 daily trips (460 walking trips and 2,050 biking trips) This conceptual design alternative would enhance connections on Ferne Avenue to existing bike routes on Mackay Drive and Shasta Drive and on Del Medio Avenue to existing routes at Miller Avenue. The proposed alignment would include two 90-degree turns, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking.

Alternative G proposes an underpass beneath the Caltrain corridor constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. The alternative would also require a ramp structure within the Caltrain right-of-way to conform at Alma Street. In addition, partial property acquisition was assumed to be required in Mountain View, to accommodate the ramp structure and the at-grade pathway connecting to Del Medio Avenue.

Alternative G would have a minimal potential impact on utilities, with the exception of an existing gas line along Alma Street. Utility conflicts within Caltrain right-of-way or near the tunnel approaches would need to be addressed during design. Any use of Caltrain property, including the longitudinal ramp segment, would require additional coordination, including securing variances that must be approved by the Caltrain Board. This process introduces cost and schedule risk, as approval is not guaranteed and could add procedural steps and review cycles.

The location falls within the City of Mountain View, requiring additional coordination that may introduce further permitting steps, review cycles, and staging considerations. Overall, the combination of Caltrain Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 695 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 31
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
variance requirements, property acquisition needs, and multi-jurisdictional review is anticipated to add complexity compared to tunnel alternatives without these constraints. If Caltrain approvals are secured and coordination proceeds without significant delays, the approximate construction duration for this alternative would be 18 months.

Alternative G would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not substantially impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative G, including:

Traffic control. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a traffic signal. This design variation would require people to activate the device before crossing, which may reduce delays to vehicle traffic but would be less convenient for people walking and biking.

Alignment. The ramp on Alma Street could be configured to extend from the intersection at Ferne Avenue to the north or to the south before turning 90 degrees to tunnel underneath the railroad and turn 90 degrees to the north or south to ramp along the backside of existing parcels in Mountain View. These design variations would change the alignment and location of the tunnel and ramps, which would impact different properties and would change impacts to parking.

Shift ramp and construct additional crosswalk, east side. The ramp on the east side of Alma Street could be shifted to the north and a new crosswalk installed on the north side of the intersection to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movements on both sides of the intersection. This design variation would require additional path construction which would increase construction cost.

Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes.

Increase ramp and path width, west side. The ramp and path width on the west side of the railroad could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would require additional right-of-way, increasing potential impacts to existing vehicle parking.

Evaluation. Table 8 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 696 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 32
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 8: Alternative G. Ferne Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative G
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 697 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 33
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 698 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 34
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Description. This alternative would require further coordination with Mountain View as the Project extends into Mountain View. For purposes of the analysis, assumptions were made about specific design elements, such as the connection at California Street/San Antonio Road. These are described in this section and are subject to change pending community input and coordination on design elements within Mountain View.

Alternative H would install a 10-foot-wide center-running two-way separated bike lane along San Antonio Road connecting from Nita Avenue to California Street in Mountain View. Installation would not impact lane number and would be accomplished by reducing travel lane widths on San Antonio Road to two 10.5 foot wide lanes and one 11 foot wide lane in each direction. This alternative would also enhance the existing connection for people walking and biking along San Antonio Avenue to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and tunnel at Mayfield Avenue by installing a Class II bicycle facility on San Antonio Avenue with crossbike markings3 at the intersection of Alma Street/San Antonio Avenue and widening and improving the existing sidewalk/shared use path on the west side of Alma Street, between San Antonio Avenue and Mayfield Avenue.

Alternative H would modify existing crossings at San Antonio Road and at Mayfield Drive and would not construct a new tunnel crossing as in the other alternatives. The alternative would improve conditions for people biking by creating a dedicated crossing of the train tracks along San Antonio Road and by creating bike crossings across San Antonio Road. The alternative would result in an estimated 190 AM peak hour and 2,640 daily bicycle trips. The estimate only included bike trips that travel along San Antonio Road to cross train tracks. Pedestrian trips were not included as pedestrians would cross via the existing tunnel.

Alternative H proposes the most straightforward construction methods given all improvements are at the roadway surface and additional grade separations are not proposed. As a result, there are minimal potential impacts to utilities as no major above- or under-ground utilities are located within the proposed crossing alignment. The alternative proposes to enhance the existing sidewalk on/along Alma Street and may impact Caltrain right-of-way. In general, the overall construction duration is anticipated to be approximately 12 months. Since this alternative does not involve new subsurface structures or significant structural modification, it is assumed that no seismic upgrades would be required, consistent with standard practice.

Alternative H would not require tunneling and therefore would have a minimal potential impact on the environment. It would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.

Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative H, including:

Increase bike lane width. The width of the proposed center-running two-way separated bike lane could be increased from 10 feet to 12 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for 3 Crossbike markings are a paint treatment that uses green paint to make a crosswalk-like stripes at intersections to illustrate where there is potential conflict between people biking and motor vehicle.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 699 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 35
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
conflicts between people biking in opposite directions. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of San Antonio Road and would require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.

Install shared use path. The width of the proposed center-running two-way separated bike lane could be increased from 10-feet to 12- or 14-feet wide to increase provide sufficient space for a shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of San Antonio Road and would require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.

Evaluation. Table 9 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Table 9: Alternative H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements Results Evaluation Criteria Alternative H
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 700 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 36
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 701 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 37
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Evaluation Summary
The team completed a technical evaluation of the alternatives, considering each of the crossing options and the corresponding community connections. Table 10 present the results of this Alternatives Analysis used to evaluate the degree to which the preliminary conceptual design alternatives align with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria, using a scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.

Table 10: Evaluation Criteria Results Summary
Evaluation Criteria A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal D. Lindero Dr Tunnel E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal F. Ely Place Tunnel G. Ferne Ave Tunnel H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation & Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bike Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveways
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.

High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 702 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 38
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Neighborhood Accessibility. Alternatives A, B, and C provide the greatest increase in accessibility and would close the largest gap in distance between crossings. Alternative D and E would provide the lowest reduction to travel times to crossings.

Demand. Alternatives A, B, C, G and H are estimated to attract the greatest number of bike and pedestrian users. Alternatives D, E, and F are expected to attract the fewest users.

Facility Width and Capacity. Facility width and capacity would be similar across alternatives, with the exception of Alternative H, which would construct a narrower 10 foot wide two-way separated bike lane compared to the 20 foot wide tunnel and 12 foot wide ramps proposed for other alternatives.

Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade. Alternatives would perform the same with respect to crossing elevation and ramp grade. Alternatives A through G propose ramps constructed with a 7% slope.

Alternative H would enhance connections to the existing tunnel at the San Antonio Caltrain Station near Mayfield Drive, which is constructed at the same depth and with similar ramping as the other alternatives.

Personal Security. While all alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices, Alternative B would rank the highest, providing the greatest level of visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance because of the shorter and more direct tunnels and use of the existing bridge structure. Alternative F and G would be least desirable as a result of the number of 90-degree turns and ramp access locations in less active areas.

Construction Cost. Alternatives B and D are projected to be the most expensive to build, while Alternative H would have the lowest estimated construction cost.

Construction Duration. Alternatives A, B, and C are anticipated to have the shortest construction duration and earliest possible construction start time since they are outside proposed construction limits (subject to change) for the Rail Grade Separation Project. Alternatives G and H are also anticipated to have shorter construction durations and start times but require additional coordination with the City of Mountain View and other agencies that may extend overall durations.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 703 of 828
September 2, 2025 Page 39
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Operations and Maintenance Cost. Alternatives B and D would be anticipated to have the highest operations and maintenance costs, while Alternative H would have the lowest operations and maintenance costs. Public Space and Green Infrastructure. Alternatives D and E provide more opportunities for landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas. Alternatives C and F would have the least potential to improve existing public space or provide new green infrastructure.

Environmental Impacts. Alternative H would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not require tunneling, would not result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.

Parcel Impacts. Alternatives A, G and H are anticipated to impact (either fully or partially) the fewest number of parcels, while Alternative D, E, and F are projected to fully impact one parcel. Alternatives B and C are estimated to impact two parcels.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 704 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A. INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ATTACHMENT C. ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS MAPS
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 705 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ATTACHMENT A. INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 706 of 828
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
September 2, 2025

SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY

ATTACHMENT A ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT &

INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in the southern portion of the City.

To improve bicycle and pedestrian connec
goals, this Project will identify locations and design concepts where two new grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto (south of Oregon Expressway) may be constructed.

This memorandum describes the process used to develop and identify the eight crossing design concept in southern Palo Alto for further development and evaluation as part of this Project.

The alternatives identification and initial screening process consisted of the following three steps:

1. Identify comprehensive list of potential crossing locations and designs

2. Apply initial screening criteria

3. Select eight alternatives for evaluation and feedback Each step is discussed further in the following sections.

Step 1: Identify Potential Crossing Locations and Designs The first step in the development of eight alternatives was identifying the full range of crossing alignments and potential design options. A total of 27 potential design alternatives were identified. These alternatives consider crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignment) and facility type (e.g., bridge or tunnel). Designs that would involve minor variations or shifts in alignment were not considered as part of the initial screening, since minor changes in alignment would not meaningfully affect their performance.

The list of potential crossing locations and designs that were considered during initial screening are presented in Table 1.

Step 2: Apply Initial Screening
The purpose of the initial screening is to narrow down the list of potential crossing locations and designs.

The criteria for the initial screening aligns with the Project goals and objectives and community values, and is intended to systematically and objectively identify reasonable alternatives by screening out Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 707 of 828
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
unreasonable alternatives. There are three primary reasons why an alternative might be eliminated from further consideration:

1. The alternative does not satisfy the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved plans and direction

2. The alternative is determined to be not practical or feasible from a technical, environmental, and/or economic standpoint

3. The alternative substantially duplicates another alternative and offers little to no advantage and it has impacts and/or costs that are similar to or greater than that of the similar alternative(s) Crossing locations and designs that were determined to not satisfy the Project and design priorities are not carried forward for further refinement and analysis. For example, overpasses (i.e., bridges) were removed from consideration as these structures require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain catenary system (i.e., overhead wires) making them costly and not as attractive or comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist. The results of the initial screening are presented in Table 1 below.

Step 3: Select Alternatives for Evaluation
Table 2 lists the crossing locations and designs identified in the initial screening process (Step 2) above, describes potential design variations, and identifies the alternatives selected for further evaluation based on the Project goals, design priorities, and Council approved plans and direction. Eight preliminary conceptual design alternatives were selected for further development and evaluation as part of the Alternatives Analysis and are listed below:

Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Design concepts presented in the Alternatives Analysis are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement, technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed once locations and basic design concepts have been decided.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 708 of 828
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Table 1: Potential Crossing Locations and Design Options Crossing Location Facility Type (Bridge, Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes Colorado Ave Page Mill Rd Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Colorado Ave Page Mill Rd Tunnel No Wider section of Alma Street and sloping exit ramp creates challenges for tunnel structure and would require deeper and longer ramp and tunnel sections.

El Dorado Ave Park Blvd Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

El Dorado Ave Park Blvd Tunnel Yes El Dorado Ave Park Blvd (City-Owned Substation)
Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist. Limited right-of-way available for pathway in/near City-owned Alma Street substation due to challenges moving/consolidating electrical equipment and desire to preserve space for utility maintenance, future growth, and safety.

El Dorado Ave Park Blvd (City-Owned
Substation)
Tunnel No Limited right-of-way available for pathway in/near City-owned Alma Street substation due to challenges moving/consolidating electrical equipment and desire to preserve space for utility maintenance, future growth, and safety.

Matadero Creek Park Blvd (City-Owned
Substation)
Tunnel No Insufficient right-of-way along Matadero Creek. Would require tunneling and impacts to environmentally sensitive area. Limited right-of-way available for pathway in/near City-owned Alma Street substation due to challenges moving/consolidating electrical equipment and desire to preserve space for utility maintenance, future growth, and safety.

El Carmelo Ave Park Blvd/Chestnut Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 709 of 828
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge, Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes El Carmelo Ave Park Blvd/Chestnut Ave Tunnel No Constraints identified near Matadero Creek.

Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd/Margarita Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd/Margarita Ave Tunnel Yes El Verano Ave Park Blvd/Curtner Ave- Ventura Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

El Verano Ave Park Blvd/Curtner Ave- Ventura Ave Tunnel No Constraints due to narrow roadway width of El Verano and frequent driveway spacing on Alma Street.

W Meadow Dr No Constructing a bike/ped crossing here would duplicate efforts with the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.

Lindero Dr Park Blvd (Robles Park) Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Lindero Dr Park Blvd (Robles Park) Tunnel Yes W Charleston Rd No Constructing a bike/ped crossing here would duplicate efforts with the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.

Ely Pl Park Blvd/Edlee Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Ely Pl Whitclem Dr Tunnel Yes Adobe Creek Park Blvd/Whitclem Dr- Monroe Dr Tunnel No Insufficient right-of-way along Adobe Creek. Would require tunneling and impacts to environmentally sensitive area.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 710 of 828
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge, Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes Greenmeadow Way Monroe Dr Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Greenmeadow Way Monroe Dr Tunnel No Lack of direct bicycle and pedestrian connections, and limited right-of-way that would require substantial parcel acquisition.

Hemlock Ct Del Medio Ave Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Hemlock Ct Del Medio Ave Tunnel No Lack of direct bicycle and pedestrian connections, and limited right-of-way that would require substantial parcel acquisition.

San Antonio Ave Frontage Bridge No Bridge structures would require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain railroad tracks and overhead catenary system making them costly and less comfortable to use as a pedestrian or cyclist.

San Antonio Ave Tunnel Yes Enhance bike and pedestrian connections to existing tunnel located nearby at San Antonio Caltrain Station.

San Antonio Road Bridge Yes Consider use of existing overpass structure.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 711 of 828
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Table 2: Selected Alternatives for Evaluation Crossing Location Facility Type (Bridge, Tunnel)
Description Alternative
Selected for Evaluation? (Yes, No)
East Side West Side
El Dorado Park Blvd Tunnel Two ramps along west side of Alma Street connecting to Park Blvd through an existing surface parking lot.

Yes Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Center running straight ramp along Loma Verde connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with tight switchbacks.

No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Loma Verde WB landscaping strip and curb lane connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with tight switchbacks.

No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along southeast side of Alma connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with tight switchbacks.

No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with tight switchbacks.

No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Center running straight ramp along Loma Verde connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.

Yes Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Loma Verde WB connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.

No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along west side of Alma Street connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.

No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Two ramps along west side of Alma Street connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.

Yes Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip connecting to Park Blvd at Margarita Ave with curves and connecting staircase.

No
Loma Verde Ave Park Blvd at Margarita
Ave
Bridge Triple helix ramp structure at southeast corner of Loma Verde/Alma Street connecting to triple helix ramp structure at Park Blvd/Margarita Ave.

No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Center running slightly curved ramp along Lindero Dr connecting to Park Blvd at Robles Park with tight curves.

Yes
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 712 of 828
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Crossing Location Facility Type
(Bridge, Tunnel)
Description Alternative
Selected for Evaluation? (Yes, No)
East Side West Side
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Hooked ramp from property on southeast corner of Lindero Dr/Alma St connecting to Park Blvd at Robles Park midblock with tight curves.

No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip connecting to Park Blvd at Robles Park midblock with tight curves.

No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street SB landscaping strip from Lindero Dr connecting to Park Blvd at Robles Park existing trail with tight curves.

No
Lindero Dr Park Blvd (at Robles
Park)
Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street NB landscaping strip from northwest corner of Lindero St/Alma St connecting to Park Blvd at Robles Park existing trail with tight curves.

Yes Ely Place Whitclem Drive Tunnel Ramp along Alma Street SB landscaping strip across from Ely Place and connect through corner property to cul-de-sac at Whitclem Dr Yes Ely Place Edlee Ave Tunnel Straight connection between Ely Place and Edlee Avenue No Ferne Ave Del Medio Ave Tunnel Ramp along Alma St SB landscaping strip across from Ferne Ave and connect with a tunnel to connect to cul-de-sac on Del Medio Ave in Mountain View
Yes San Antonio Rd/Nita
Ave & San Antonio
Ave/Alma St
San Antonio
Rd/California St &
Mayfield Dr/Tunnel
Existing
Bridge &
Tunnel
Center running separated bike lane from Nita Ave to California St with strengthened pedestrian connection from San Antonio Ave to existing tunnel at Mayfield Ave at San Antonio Caltrain Station
Yes
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 713 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ATTACHMENT B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 714 of 828
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

September 2, 2025

SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY

ATTACHMENT B EVALUATION CRITERIA & ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY
Alternatives were scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria in Table 1 developed in the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement.

Design priorities and evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the degree to which each crossing design alternative aligns with community values. The Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Memorandum, available online on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), provides additional background on how the design priorities and evaluation criteria were selected.

Table 1: Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design Priorities Criteria
Improve Mobility
Enhances bike and pedestrian access between
key destinations.

Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Enhance User Experience
Prioritizes spaces that are comfortable for
people of all ages and abilities.

Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort
Personal Security
Maximize East of Construction
Limits costs (time and money) and prioritizes
designs that are feasible to implement.

Utility Impacts
Construction Costs
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Enhance Visual Appeal
Enhances the sense of community with spaces
and structures that are visually appealing.

Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Minimize Community Impacts
Limits potential impacts on existing
neighborhoods and the natural environment.

Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts
The following section describes how each criterion was scored. The results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 715 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2

IMPROVE MOBILITY
Design Priority: Prioritize locations and designs that integrate with surrounding networks, provide access to critical destinations, serve the most users, and accommodate current and future transportation needs.

NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESSIBILITY
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that reduce existing barriers to crossing the train tracks by shortening the distance to the closest rail crossing for walking and biking.

Process: Alternatives were evaluated to identify the degree to which they reduce travel time and increase the area that can be accessed within a 5, 10, or 15 minute walk or bike trip from a rail crossing. For each alternative, the proposed crossing was added to the transportation network and the accessibility analysis was re-run to observe how travel times for walking and biking changed compared to existing conditions.1 More details on the accessibility analysis and results under the existing conditions can be found in the Existing Conditions Report available online on the project webpage. Note that the bike accessibility analysis varies slightly from the Existing Conditions Report, as the baseline analysis for existing conditions was updated to allow cyclists to use high-stress intersections. This change was made to reflect the use of crossing guards at some locations and assumed new crossings would be paired with enhancements at signalized intersections providing better bike accessibility.

Results for each alternative are shown in Attachment C. Scores were assigned by visually comparing the alternatives to identify the degree to which each crossing reduces walking and biking travel times to a crossing. For reference, Figure 1 showed the walking accessibility results for a high and low performing crossing. Thin lines indicated walk or bike access area under existing conditions, and thick lines indicated locations where a new crossing reduces travel time to a rail crossing. Table 2 illustrates how the Neighborhood Accessibility criterion was scored.
1 The analysis assumed one crossing would be built and did not assess how accessibility might change under a combination of buildout scenarios.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 716 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Figure 1: Walking Access for Alternative A (Left) and Alternative D (Right) Table 2: Scoring Neighborhood Accessibility
Change in Neighborhood Accessibility Score
Substantial decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing High (most desirable) Decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing Limited decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing Isolated reduction in travel time walking and biking to a crossing No reduction in travel time (high overlap with existing crossing Low (least desirable) DEMAND
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that are expected to attract more walking and biking trips.

Process: The analysis estimated weekday daily and weekday peak hour (morning commute) walking and biking trips for each alternative. The future year of 2031 was selected for analysis to be consistent with the adopted Housing Element and to account for future land use and population growth. Trips were estimated using a six-step calculation process that factored for planned growth and captured both route shift (existing walk and bike trips shifting from existing crossings to proposed alternatives) and mode shift (existing driving trips changing to walk or bike trips) as a result of a more comfortable or shorter route.

Step 1 Create Existing Origin-Destination Trip Matrix
The existing origin-destination (O-D) trip matrix was created using trip data from the travel data company Replica.2 The trip data represented trips for a typical weekday in Spring 2023. Trips were filtered to include 2 Replica is a transportation data company that models travel patterns based on multiple data sources, including data collected by vehicles, land use and Census data, and public transportation data sets. More information about Replica can be found at Appendix C of the Existing Conditions Report at https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/South-Palo-Alto-BikePedConnectivity.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 717 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
trips that (1) started, ended, or passed through the City of Palo Alto and Stanford (2) had a distance of 5- miles or shorter, and (3) were completed by walking, biking, driving, rider in personal vehicle, taxi, or ridehail. The 5-mile trip limit was used to exclude trips that were unlikely to change from driving due to their length.

Step 2 Grow Trip Matrix to Represent 2031 Scenario
The existing O-D matrix was then adjusted to account for planned land use and population growth in Palo Alto as captured in the VTA Model.3 Trip data for all modes combined was extracted for the years of 2015 (existing conditions year for the Housing Element) and 2031, respectively. An annualized growth rate was calculated for each O-D pair using the following formula and applied to 2023 trips volumes from Step 1.4 Step 3 Identify Walk and Bike Routes
For each O-D pair, a script was used to identify the preferred walking and biking route under existing conditions and when each alternative was made available. Walking routes were routed based on the shortest travel path. Biking routes were calculated based on a combination of trip length and the stress level for using different roads (i.e., if there were two similar length routes, the route would reflect the more comfortable route). Figure 2 illustrated an example O-D where the availability of Alternative B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel for walking resulted in a 0.6 miles shorter walking route compared to the existing conditions.

For each alternative, the O-D matrix from Step 2 was reduced to include only trip patterns where an improved route became available for walking or biking and the corresponding change in trip length. The change in trip length for walking was based on the length of the route. The change in the length of the biking trip used a weighted trip length that considered the stress of routes (i.e., if a new crossing created a route that was equal in length but more comfortable, the weighted length would reflect a reduction in length).
3 The refined version of the VTA model by the City of Palo Alto was used to incorporate land use and population from the Housing Element.
4 Individual growth rates for each O-D. It was found that a small fraction of O-D pairs were calculated as having unrealistic rates due to small sample sizes in the model data. These pairs were capped at a 200% growth in trips.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 718 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Step 4 Estimate Rerouted Walking and Biking Trips
If an alternative provided an improved route for trips that were already being complete by walking or biking, the trip was assumed to shift to the new alternative. Table 4 and Table 5 provided the final estimates at the end of the section reported the total shifted walk and bike trips under each alternative for the year 2031.

Step 5 Estimate Mode Shift from Driving
If an alternative provided an improved route for trips that were driving trips under existing conditions (including driver, passenger, or taxi and ride-hail passenger), the trips were evaluated based on their trip lengths under existing conditions and under each alternative to determine potential for trips to change mode. The model assumed increasing share of driving trips as distance increased and given the same distance change, a higher percentage of mode shift would occur for shorter trips (e.g., the share of driving trips would increase by about 20 percent when distance increased from one to two miles while it would increase by less than 5 percent when distance increased from four to five miles). To calculate potential mode shift, an equation was fit to the mode share for driving trips in the replica data, comparing trip length to percent of trip driving. Figure 3 showed the trip data and fitted curve.

Line Description Distance
Existing Conditions 2.0 miles
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 1.4 miles
Figure 2: Example Walking Route Evaluation
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 719 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Figure 3: Percent Mode Share by Distance
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from Replica Fall 2023 Weekday Trips that start, end, or pass through Palo Alto.

For each O-D pair, the possibility to shift from driving to walking and to biking, respectively, was estimated based on the ratio of walk to bike mode share by distance for existing trips. The evaluation was done in tandem to avoid double counting the same driving trip as both new walk and bike trips.

Table 3 provides an illustrative example for a single O-D pair. In this example, there were projected to be 50 person-trips between an O-D pair, and the proposed crossing would reduce the trip distance from 1.5 miles to 0.5 miles. Using the mode-choice equation, 70 percent (~35 trips) of the total 50 trips were driving trips under existing conditions and 40 percent (~20 trips) of the total 50 trips would be driving trips with the proposed crossing. Therefore, the delta, 30 percent (~15 trips) of the total 50 trips would be converted to walk or bike trips. At 0.5 miles, it was observed that 75 percent of walking and biking trips were walking and 25 percent were biking. Therefore, after rounding to the nearest whole number, the 15 shifted trips were estimated to result in 11 walking trips (75% x 15 trips) and 4 biking trips (25% x 15 trips).

Table 3 Example Mode Shift Calculation
Metrics Values
Trip Demand between O-D Pair 50 trips
Existing Distance (Miles) 1.5
% Existing Trips Driving (Trip Counts) 70% (35)
Alternative Distance (Miles) 0.5
% Alternative Trips Driving (Trip Counts) 40% (20)
% of Trips Shifted to Walk and Bike Trips (Trip Counts) -30% (-15) % of Driving Trips Shifted to Walk Trip (Trip Counts) 75% (11) % of Driving Trips Shifted to Bike Trip (Trip Counts) 25% (4) Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. numbers are representative of process for single O-D pair for all day travel. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Trip Distance (miles)
Drive Mode Share
Fitted Equation
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 720 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Step 6 Final Matrix and Score Assignment
Total estimated demand of each alternative was calculated as the sum of estimated route shift and estimated mode shift, for walk and bike trips, respectively. The final estimates for each alternative are provided in Table 4 and Table 5. Note that the estimates for San Antonio Bridge Enhancements (Alternative H) did not include trips for walking, as the alternative would not create a new crossing; however, the estimate for the alternative did include bike trips that were shifted by the addition of a new lower-stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.

Table 4: Estimated Weekday Trips by Crossing, Future Year 2031 Weekday Total 2031 Shifted Mode Change Total
Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Total
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel 560 1,620 240 180 800 1,800 2,600 Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 550 1,550 190 170 740 1,720 2,460 Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with
Alma St Signal 550 1,550 190 170 740 1,720 2,460
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel 90 450 10 20 100 470 570 Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma
St Signal 90 450 10 20 100 470 570
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel 50 560 - 70 50 630 680
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel 390 1,700 70 350 460 2,050 2,510 Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements1 NA 2,100 NA 540 NA 2,640 2,640

1. Estimate does not include trips for walking, as alternative does not create a new crossing. Estimate includes bike trips that are improved by adding a new lower stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.

Table 5: Estimated Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips by Crossing, Future Year 2031 Weekday AM Peak Hour Total 2031 Shifted Mode Change Total Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Total
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel 60 140 10 10 70 150 220 Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 60 140 10 20 70 160 230 Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with
Alma St Signal 60 140 10 20 70 160 230
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel - 40 - - - 40 40
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma
St Signal - 40 - - - 40 40
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel 10 40 - - 10 40 50
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel 50 110 - 30 50 140 190
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements1 NA 150 NA 40 NA 190 190

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 721 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
A High score was assigned to crossings with the highest daily estimated use. A Low score was assigned to crossing with the lowest daily estimated use. Other crossings were scored relative to the highest and lowest demand proportionally based on estimated use. Table 6 illustrates how the Demand criterion was scored.

Table 6: Scoring Demand
Estimated Daily Walk/Bike Demand Score
2,600 or more daily trips High (most desirable)
2,000 to 2,599 daily trips
1,500 to 1,999 daily trips
1,000 to 1,499 daily trips
1,000 or less daily trips Low (least desirable)
As shown in the demand estimates presented in Table 4 and Table 5., Alternative A, B, C, G, and H have higher estimated demand, and are projected to have more than 2,400 weekday daily trips and more than 190 weekday AM peak hour trips. As a comparison, there were around 1,800 daily pedestrian and bicycle trips and 300 peak hour pedestrian and bicycle trips observed at the California Avenue underpass in April 2025.5 Alternatives D, E, and F would generate lower demand of fewer than 800 weekday daily trips and around 50 weekday AM peak hour trips. As a comparison, there were around 600 daily trips and 170 peak hour trips observed crossing the railroad tracks at Meadow Drive, and around 400 daily trips and 100 peak hour trips observed crossing the railroad tracks at Charleston Road.

FACILITY WIDTH AND CAPACITY
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that maintain a wider cross-section that allows for more comfortable and efficient travel for people walking and biking across the crossing.

Process: Alternatives were evaluated based on the minimum cross-section of the ramps shown in the concept designs. Tunnels would be 20 feet wide per standards documented in Caltrain Design Criteria

3.1.2 Pedestrian Underpass. In addition, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities published by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 2012 recommended wider pathways (11 to 14 feet) for shared use paths expected to serve a high percentage of pedestrians (30 percent or more of the total volume) or high user volumes (more than 300 peak hour users). The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide identifies a preferred width of 11 feet and minimum width of 8 feet for shared use paths with low volumes (50 peak hour cyclists) and a preferred width of 15 feet and minimum width of 11 feet for shared use paths with 5 Observed counts at existing crossings were collected over a 12-hour period between 7am and 7pm on Thursday, April 24, 2025. The daily demand would be slightly higher than the 12-hour counts. Pedestrian counts at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road were collected for the same time period on Thursday, May 16, 2024.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 722 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
medium volumes (up to 400 peak hour cyclists). For reference, the Embarcadero Bike Path varies from eight feet to 12 feet wide and the US 101 Bike/Ped Overpass is 12 feet wide.

As shown in Table 4 and Table 5,, no alternatives were projected to serve more than 300 peak hour walk/bike trips in 2031. Regarding pedestrian percentage, three alternatives (Alternative A, B, and C) met the 30 percent threshold. All three alternatives had a minimum ramp cross-section of 12 feet and met the AASHTO and NACTO recommendation.

A High score was assigned to crossings with a minimum ramp cross-section of 12 feet or more. This ramp cross-section width would allow bidirectional travel by people walking and biking with minimal potential for conflict between users. A Low score was assigned to crossings with a minimum ramp cross-section of

9.9 feet or less. At less than 10 feet wide there would be potential for conflict between users and would likely need to require people biking to walk through the crossing. Table 7 illustrates how the Facility Width and Capacity criterion was scored.

Table 7: Scoring Facility Width and Capacity
Facility Width and Capacity Score
12 or more High (most desirable)
11 1
Less than Low (least desirable)

ENHANCE USER EXPERIENCE
Design Priority: Design facilities guided by the prioritization of the most vulnerable populations6, and create safe, well-lit spaces that are comfortable to access and utilize.

CROSSING LENGTH
Criterial Goal: Crossing length considered both the length of the new crossing itself and the degree of which it would allow direct routes (i.e., a short route that would require a lot of out-of-direction travel was not considered a short crossing). The goal of this criterion was to prioritize alternatives that provide more direct connections between the transportation network on either side of rail and to discourage designs that included hairpin turns or other features that would increase the amount of out of direction travel a person may be required to complete.

Process: The criterion was evaluated qualitatively by referencing the concept designs. A High score was assigned to alternatives that provide a direct crossing, similar to the California Avenue Underpass which 6 Vulnerable populations are groups or communities at a higher risk of experiencing negative health, social, or economic outcomes due to various factors. These factors can be related to social, economic, political, environmental, or individual circumstances. Examples include children, older adults, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 723 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
draws a straight line between California Avenue on either side of the train tracks. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that generate substantial out-of-direction travel, similar to the crossing by the underpass at the San Antonio Caltrain Station where ramps for the crossing run parallel to the train tracks.

The evaluation was conducted based on the alignment of ramps and length of the crossing and did not consider the potential for more direct paths using stairs, as stairs are not accessible for all users, including people biking and people in wheelchairs or using other wheeled mobility devices. Table 8 illustrates how the Crossing Length criterion was scored.

Table 8: Scoring Crossing Length
Crossing Length and Path of Travel Score
Direct route that connects to crossing locations High (most desirable) Direct route with limited potential out of direction travel for specific routes Limited out-of-direction travel for most routes
Substantial out-of-direction travel for some routes
Includes substantial out-of-direction travel for most routes Low (least desirable)

CROSSING ELEVATION AND RAMP GRADE
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that provide lower ramp grades that increase user comfort, encouraging all ages and abilities.

Process: A High score was assigned to alternatives that provide ramping at 4.9% or lower. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with ramp grades in excess of 8.33%. Alternatives A through G propose ramps at 7% grade and score Medium under this criteria. For reference, ramps at the Homer Avenue Tunnel are around 5 percent, ramps at the Palo Alto Caltrain Station are between 7 and 8 percent, and ramps at the California Avenue Tunnel are around 9 percent. Table 9 illustrates how the Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade criterion was scored.

Table 9: Scoring Elevation and Ramp Grade
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade Character Score
All ramping is 4.9% or lower High (most desirable)
Ramping is between 5 and 6.9% grade
Ramping is primarily at 7%
Ramping is between 7 and 8.33%
Grade exceeds 8.33% Low (least desirable)

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST COMFORT
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with design characteristics that create a more comfortable walking and biking experience by (1) reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking on the alternative and (2) creating seamless connections to the larger transportation network.

Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated for potential to reduce or eliminate conflicts and provide low-stress connections to the existing network. The factors evaluated were:

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 724 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Grade separated intersections. Alternatives that tunnel underneath Alma Street were assigned a higher score, because they would provide a more seamless and lower-stress connection across by removing potential conflicts at the intersection with Alma Street.

Ninety (90)-degree turns. Alternatives that would require a 90-degree turn into the tunnel were assigned a lower score as turns increase potential for conflicts between people traveling in opposite directions. Turns may also reduce visibility and line of sight, making it difficult to see people ahead and difficult to judge distances and react.

Ramp access locations. Higher scores were assigned to ramp access locations near existing lowstress bicycle routes and pedestrian crossings.

A High score was assigned to alternatives identified as having the least potential for conflict and greatest comfort for people walking and biking, and for alternatives that could be accessed via more direct and low-stress routes. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with the greatest potential for conflict and/or features likely to make use and access more uncomfortable. Table 10 illustrates how the Pedestrian and Bicyclist criterion was scored.

Table 10: Scoring Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort Score
More comfortable High (most desirable)
Less comfortable Low (least desirable)

PERSONAL SECURITY
Criteria Goal: All alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices and meet the basic standards for personal security. However, some alternatives provided relatively more visibility and connectivity. The goal of this criterion was to prioritize alternatives that would increase pedestrian and bicyclist security by providing good visibility and access points at high-traffic locations.

Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated for visibility at crossing and connectivity of access points based on the conceptual design layouts.7 The factors evaluated were:

Ninety (90)-degree turns at tunnels. Unobstructed and well-lit tunnel entrances and exits allow users to see ahead and offer natural surveillance, which allows nearby observers to monitor Alternatives that would
require a 90-degree turn into the tunnel were assigned a lower score as turns may limit visibility and natural surveillance, therefore, lowering personal security. 7 Further treatments, such as security cameras, lighting, skylights, emergency phones, can be used to increase visibility and sightlines. This evaluation did not consider these mitigating factors.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 725 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Ramp access locations. Higher scores were assigned to ramp access locations in areas where people naturally pass by, which provide more opportunities for natural surveillance. For example, Alternative A would lead to a parking lot and the crossing itself would also have higher demand (2,600 total pedestrian and bike trips), as shown in Table 4. Ramp access locations at isolated or less-traveled paths would have less activity to support natural surveillance. For example, the tunnel entrance of Alternative F would be between two residential parcels and therefore pedestrians on Park Boulevard and Whitclem Drive may not be able to directly see activities in the tunnel. In addition, Alternative F would also have the second to lowest demand among all alternatives (680 total pedestrian and bike trips), which may limit natural surveillance.

A High score was assigned to unobstructed and well-connected alternatives with more opportunities for natural surveillance. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with sightline obstructions and less opportunities for natural surveillance. Table 11 illustrates how the Personal Security criterion was scored.

Table 11: Scoring Personal Security
Personal Security Character Score
Higher visibility, connectivity, and opportunities for natural surveillance High (most desirable) Lower visibility, connectivity, and opportunities for natural surveillance Low (least desirable)

MAXIMIZE EASE OF CONSTRUCTION
Design Priority: Minimize potential for disruption during construction and complexity of design, while ensuring that construction costs and maintenance costs would be feasible to implement given reasonably expected project funding.

UTILITY IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would minimize potential conflicts with existing utilities to reduce construction risk, cost, and schedule delays. Alternatives that avoid major utility corridors or require minimal relocation were preferred, as utility conflicts could introduce significant complexity and require extensive coordination with utility owners.

Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated based on site observations and general utility information available at each location. A High score was assigned to alternatives that largely avoid known utility corridors and are expected to require minimal utility relocations. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that intersect with major utility lines (transmission) or are located in dense utility zones where significant relocations would likely be required. Intermediate scores were assigned to alternatives with minor or localized conflicts.

For this analysis, conventional utilities such as gas, water, sewer, telephone, fiber optic, electrical distribution/transmission were the focus based on site investigations and limited available information at Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 726 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
this stage. Items such as street lighting were not considered, as they fall outside the conventional utility definition and represent comparatively minor relocations relative to moving more significant distribution/transmission lines. Table 12 illustrates how the Utility Impacts criterion was scored.

Table 12: Scoring Utility Impacts
Utility Impacts Score
Lower potential for utility impacts High (most desirable) Higher potential for utility impacts Low (least desirable)

CONSTRUCTION COST
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would be cost-effective to construct. Alternatives that minimized the need for complex structural features, extensive utility relocation, or right-of-way acquisition would be preferred, provided that they would still meet Project objectives and accessibility requirements.

Process: At this early feasibility stage, detailed construction cost estimates are not yet reliable because the concepts are schematic and subject to change as the design advances. These concepts have been developed specifically to help narrow down a preferred alternative location within the broader evaluation not to define exact scope or quantities. Providing dollar figures or even ranges at this stage could create a false sense of precision and misrepresent the true variability of costs. Instead, the evaluation uses a qualitative, side-by-side comparison based on the key cost drivers for each alternative.

This approach ensures that differences in the relative costs are captured in a consistent and defensible way without overstating accuracy at this stage of the planning process.

The evaluation considered factors such as the overall footprint for each alternative, anticipated site impacts, and general staging and traffic handling needs during construction. Parcel acquisition In general, tunnels
passing underneath only the railroad tracks are shorter estimated at 85 to 110 feet in length depending on the crossing location and ramp configurations. Structure costs for these shorter tunnels are expected to be similar regardless of the alternative, with construction likely achieved by jacking the tunnel box beneath the tracks to minimize disruption to train operations.

Longer tunnels passing underneath both Alma Street and the railroad tracks are estimated at 160 to 220 feet in length. Because of the increased length, structure costs will be higher. In addition, potential staged construction in Alma Street and adjacent local streets would add to the overall construction cost.

Alternatives that require use of Caltrain right-of-way will also carry added cost implications. Any such use will require additional coordination with Caltrain, including obtaining variances that must be approved by the Caltrain Board. These requirements introduce additional permitting steps, review cycles, and potential design modifications, which can increase both the complexity and cost of the alternative.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 727 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Several of the evaluated alternatives are also located within areas proposed for construction as part of the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road8. In June 2024, Council advanced the Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass Alternative for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
Alternatives D, E, and F are located within proposed construction limits (subject to change) for rail grade separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road and would require close coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This coordination could add cost and schedule risks, depending on how the two projects interface.

For both shorter and longer tunnel options and those overlapping with rail grade separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road the overall cost will also be influenced by factors such as the number and geometry of ramps, presence of existing underground utilities, subsurface soil conditions, and the These cost considerations are preliminary planning-level assumptions intended for relative comparison only and will be refined as design advances and more detailed engineering, utility coordination, and staging plans are developed.

A High score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have lower estimated construction costs. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have higher estimated construction costs. Table 13 illustrates how the Construction Costs criterion was scored.

Table 13: Scoring Construction Costs
Construction Costs Score
Lower estimated construction costs High (most desirable) Higher estimated construction costs Low (least desirable)

CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Criteria Goal: Minimize overall construction duration to reduce disruptions to the surrounding community, minimize adverse effects on nearby transportation corridors/systems, and reduce project delivery risks. Alternatives that allowed for more streamlined construction coordination, staging, and fewer complex construction elements were preferred.

Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively based on the relative complexity of construction activities, including construction coordination, structural components, staging requirements, and potential constraints related to site access or active transportation detours. A High score was assigned to alternatives expected to have shorter construction durations and sooner construction start dates. This would include alternatives with shorter tunnel lengths, fewer ramps and stairs, fewer utility conflicts, fewer 8 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/Rail-Grade-Separation Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 728 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
right-of-way conflicts, and more streamlined construction coordination with other projects and/or agencies. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with prolonged construction activities and construction start dates. This would include alternatives with longer tunnels (grade separating Alma Street and the Caltrain corridor), known overhead/underground utility impacts, right-of-way impacts, and known factors that could influence construction start date. Mid-range scores were assigned to alternatives with moderate construction durations and start times.

Most alternatives, with the exception of Alternative H, would require similar construction activities given they involve grade separating the Caltrain corridor. The approximate construction duration to complete these activities is assumed to be about 18 months. For alternatives that also grade separate Alma Street, construction becomes far more involved due to the need to navigate more utilities within Alma Street and maintain traffic along the corridor during construction. These alternatives scoring lower under this criterion would likely require approximately 24 months to complete.

Alternatives G and H extend into City of Mountain View right-of-way, requiring additional coordination that may introduce further permitting steps, review cycles, and staging considerations, potentially extending the overall duration.

As discussed earlier, Alternatives D, E, and F are located within proposed construction limits (subject to change) for rail grade separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for the Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston and would require close coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This coordination could extend construction duration and start time, depending on how the two projects interface. If the Hybrid Alternative is advanced, any bike/pedestrian undercrossing construction at these locations would need to wait until Meadow/Charleston construction is completed, given the overlap in work areas. This dependency could delay the start of construction and extend overall delivery time for these alternatives. These durations are preliminary planning-level assumptions intended for relative comparison only and will be refined as design advances and more detailed staging, permitting, and phasing plans are developed.

A High score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have shorter anticipated construction durations and earlier start dates. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have longer anticipated construction duration and later start date. Table 14 illustrates how the Construction Costs criterion was scored.

Table 14: Scoring Construction Duration
Construction Duration Score
Shorter anticipated construction duration and start date High (most desirable) Longer anticipated construction duration and start date Low (least desirable) Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 729 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would minimize long-term operations and maintenance needs for the City. Designs with a smaller physical footprint and fewer infrastructure elements requiring ongoing upkeep such as the tunnel, ramp structures, at-grade pathways, traffic signals/pedestrian hybrid beacons were preferred, as they would naturally reduce long-term maintenance responsibilities and associated costs.

Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively by reviewing key design features likely to influence operations and maintenance responsibilities. A High score was assigned to alternatives with low anticipated maintenance demands, such as common roadway at-grade features. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with high anticipated operations and maintenance demands, such as structures, pump stations, and traffic signals or pedestrian hybrid beacons. Table 15 illustrates how the Operations and Maintenance Cost criterion was scored.

Table 15: Scoring Operations and Maintenance Cost
Operations and Maintenance Costs Score
Relatively lower anticipated operations and maintenance costs High (most desirable) Low to moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs Moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs
High to moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs Relatively higher anticipated operations and maintenance costs Low (least desirable)

ENHANCE VISUAL APPEAL
Design Priority: Ensure that newly constructed facilities would enhance the sense of community by incorporating public art, public spaces, and attractive structures.

PUBLIC SPACE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with greater potential to improve existing public space or provide new public space and green infrastructure.

Process: A High score was assigned to alternatives that created the most opportunities for landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas and enhanced connections to existing public space. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with constrained site plan that would limit opportunities to create new public spaces and implement green infrastructure. Table 16 illustrates how the Public Space and Green Infrastructure criterion was scored.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 730 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Table 16: Scoring Public Space and Green Infrastructure Public Space and Green Infrastructure Impact Score
Directly connects to park or other public space High (most desirable) Improves visual appeal of local context
Neutral effects on local context
Potential limited opportunities to create public space and green infrastructure Limited opportunities to create public space and green infrastructure Low (least desirable)

MINIMIZE COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Design Priority: Limit potential adverse effects on existing neighborhoods, including the amount of space needed (parking spaces, roads, and buildings are minimally affected) and adverse effects on the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would avoid or reduce environmental impacts to the built and natural environment.

Process: Alternatives were evaluated to identify the degree to which an alternative would avoid or reduce adverse effects to both the built and natural environments, as well as what level of environmental compliance may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and potentially the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if federal funding is used for the Project. With the exception of Alternative H, which would not build a new tunnel, each alternative would result in a similar level of impacts under CEQA and NEPA for a variety of environmental topics based on the environmental setting and characteristics of each alternative. Such environmental topics included but were not limited to geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials. Regarding biological resources, none of the alternatives would impact creeks, and any tree removal would be replaced pursuant to City policy). As such, these topics would not help to differentiate the alternatives and were not evaluated.

Pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, and based on the environmental setting and characteristics of each alternative, The primary environmental impact considered for the evaluation of each alternative includes short-term construction impacts to residential uses (i.e., air quality, noise, vibration, and traffic which is discussed under Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts).

A High score was assigned to alternatives that did not require tunneling adjacent to residences and thus would require less environmental review pursuant to CEQA, likely in the form of a Categorical Exemption.

A Low score was assigned to alternatives requiring tunneling adjacent to residences, which would not likely qualify for a CEQA Categorical Exemption and instead may require an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Table 17 illustrates how the Environmental Impacts criterion was scored.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 731 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Table 17: Scoring Environmental Impacts
Environmental Impact Score
Lower level of environmental impacts and required environmental compliance High (most desirable) Higher level of environmental impacts and required environmental compliance Low (least desirable)

PARCEL IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Minimize adverse effects on private property or publicly owned parcels not currently dedicated to transportation use. Alternatives that would fit within existing public right-of-way or affect only publicly owned land designated for transportation purposes were preferred, as they would help avoid displacing existing uses, reduce property acquisition costs, and minimize community disruption.

Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively using the conceptual design layouts and assessing whether alternatives directly affect private property and buildings within parcels. A High score was assigned to alternatives that did not require full or partial parcel acquisition. A Low score was assigned to alternatives requiring full or partial acquisition of two or more parcels. Table 18 illustrates how the Parcel Impacts criterion was scored.

Table 18: Scoring Parcel Impacts
Parcel Impact Score
No parcel impact High (most desirable)
Partial parcel impact (no impact on existing buildings) Full parcel impact on 1 parcel
Full parcel impacts on 2 parcels
Full parcel impact on more than 2 parcels Low (least desirable) The concept design alternatives are very high-level and schematic, developed solely to help narrow down preferred rail crossing locations and basic conceptual designs. They are intended for decision-making purposes only and represent conceptual, planning-level designs that will be refined and are subject to change during subsequent design phases. Throughout the evaluation, an emphasis was placed on avoiding and minimizing potential adverse effects to private property wherever feasible. Any potential parcel impacts identified are preliminary and will be subject to further study and refinement.

Importantly, no decision has yet been made by the City to acquire any property. Before that decision can be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an appraisal approved by the City. Without authority from the City Council, staff has no authority to commit the City to the acquisition of any property that might be affected by the bicycle and pedestrian grade separation alternatives.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 732 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19

TRAFFIC, PARKING, AND DRIVEWAY IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with less potential to increase vehicle delay, modify existing driveway access, and reduce the amount of on- and off-street parking.

Process: The criterion was evaluated qualitatively by referencing the conceptual design layouts.

Potential for vehicle delay considered how alternatives would impact motor vehicle travel on Alma Street.

Under existing conditions, there is no intersection delay for vehicles traveling on Alma Street at the proposed crossing locations (one-way stop controlled crossing for Alternatives A through G), except Alternative H which has an existing signal. Specifically, the scoring made the following considerations (ranked from highest to lowest weight):

Traffic control delays were given higher weight in consideration as new intersection controls would introduce delays to all drivers traveling on Alma Street, while changes in driveway access and reductions in on- and off-street parking would affect fewer people. 9 o Alternatives B, D, and H would not install new signals or PHBs and, therefore, would not introduce traffic control delay.
o Alternative F proposed installing a pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) which would introduce some vehicle delays, as drivers would need to stop when a pedestrian or bicyclist activated the crossing signal.
o All other conceptual design alternatives proposed installing new signals and would introduce higher delays as drivers traveling along Alma Street would need to stop for red lights.

A High score was assigned to alternatives that would not change existing driveway access or reduce parking and had less potential to result in increases in vehicle delay. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that would affect existing driveway access and parking and could result in increased vehicle delays.

Table 19: Scoring Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts Score
No changes to existing traffic control, driveway access, or parking High (most desirable) Some reconfigurations of driveways and/or loss of parking Most potential to increase traffic delay, change driveway access and/or reduce parking
Low (least desirable)
9 Signal treatments, such as signal timing optimization, pre-detection, and adaptive phases, can be used to reduce vehicle delays at signalized intersections. This evaluation did not consider these mitigating factors.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 733 of 828
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ATTACHMENT C. ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS MAPS
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 734 of 828
Reading Maps Maps identify locations where a
crossing improves access by
reducing travel distance.

Thicker and brighter lines show
where access is improved by
reducing travel distance.

Thinner and darker lines show
access from existing crossings.

Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 735 of 828
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 736 of 828
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 737 of 828
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 738 of 828
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 104 Packet Pg. 739 of 828
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 105 Packet Pg. 740 of 828
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 106 Packet Pg. 741 of 828
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 107 Packet Pg. 742 of 828
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
No New Pedestrian Crossing Created
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 108 Packet Pg. 743 of 828
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 109 Packet Pg. 744 of 828
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 110 Packet Pg. 745 of 828
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 111 Packet Pg. 746 of 828
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 112 Packet Pg. 747 of 828
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 113 Packet Pg. 748 of 828
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 114 Packet Pg. 749 of 828
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 115 Packet Pg. 750 of 828
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Item 18
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 116 Packet Pg. 751 of 828
November 19, 2025

Page 1 ends

Palo Alto City CouncilDecember 1, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
December 1, 2025