CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C27197334
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of the 14 th day of
September, 2026 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP, INC., a corporation, located at 1109 1st Ave, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101 (“CONSULTANT”).
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this reference:
RECITALS
A. CITY intends to complete a waste characterization study (the “Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to carry out a waste characterization study on the City’s solid waste stream and report on the findings of the study in connection with the Project (the “Services”, as detailed more fully in Exhibit A).
B. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if any, possess the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY, in reliance on these representations, desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit A in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.)
CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize on-call Services up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4 (Not to Exceed Compensation).
CONSULTANT shall provide on-call Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. On-call Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1 entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”.
Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 130 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Compensation for on-call Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.
To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation due to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth in Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for on-call Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. Performance of and payment for any on-call Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from September 14, 2026 through August 15, 2027 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed Two Hundred SixtyOne Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Eighty Dollars ($261,428). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.
Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not-to-exceed compensation amount for Additional Services is allocated below under this Section 4.)
In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the notto-exceed compensation amount of Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Five Dollars ($8,805) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, shall not exceed Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($270,233), as detailed in Exhibit C. “Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 131 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
described at Exhibit A. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.
To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4.
CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the Services performed and the applicable charges (including, if applicable, an identification of personnel who performed the Services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Exhibit C or, as applicable, CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s invoices shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to CITY’s Project Manager at the address specified in Section 13 (Project Management) below. CITY will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable invoice.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, if any, possess the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, if any, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All Services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 132 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds the CITY’s stated construction budget by ten percent (10%) or more, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the Project design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will act as and shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which CONSULTANT performs the Services requested by CITY under this Agreement.
CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will not have employee status with CITY, nor be entitled to participate in any plans, arrangements, or distributions by CITY pertaining to or in connection with any retirement, health or other benefits that CITY may offer its employees. CONSULTANT will be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities related to CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT providing same. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between CITY and CONSULTANT or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from CITY shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of CONSULTANT’s provision of the Services only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the City Manager. Any purported assignment made without the prior written approval of the City Manager will be void and without effect. Subject to the foregoing, the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assignees of the parties.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 133 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Services to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the City Manager or designee. In the event CONSULTANT does subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible for all acts and omissions of subcontractors.
Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 (Assignment) above, CITY agrees that subcontractors may be used to complete the Services. The subcontractors authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:
• Waste Busters, Inc – 321 S. Main Street, PMB #42, Sebastopol, CA 95472 • Nothing Wasted Consulting LLC – 1512 S. De Anza Blvd., #126, San Jose, CA 95129 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Heather Levy as the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day performance of the Services. If circumstances cause the substitution of the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager or any other of CONSULTANT’s key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute Project Manager and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s Project Manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove CONSULTANT personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Services or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
CITY’s Project Manager is Chuck Muir, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, 3201 E Bayshore Rd, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, Telephone: (650) 496-6979. CITY’s Project Manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate Project Manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. All work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, studies, sketches, photographs, plans, reports, specifications, computations, models, recordings, data, documents, and other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement, in any form or media, shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work product pursuant to this Agreement are vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT hereby waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such work product available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Services.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 134 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
years from the date of final payment, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement, including without limitation records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 10 (Independent Contractor). CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least four (4) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement or the completion of any audit hereunder, whichever is later.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
[Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all third party demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) to the extent that such Claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. CITY will reimburse CONSULTANT for the proportionate percentage of defense costs exceeding CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault as determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
[Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from a Claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party that is not contributed to by any act of, or by any omission to perform a duty imposed by law or agreement by, CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s Services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. No waiver of a condition or nonperformance of an obligation under this Agreement is effective unless it is in writing in accordance with Section 29.4 of this Agreement. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted shall Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 135 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
apply solely to the specific instance expressly stated. No single or partial exercise of any right or remedy will preclude any other or further exercise of any right or remedy.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D, entitled “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS”. CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided under this Agreement or at law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement sooner upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of any notice of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will discontinue its performance of the Services on the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 136 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
19.2. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will deliver to the City Manager on or before the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination, any and all work product, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials), whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in the performance of this Agreement. Such work product is the property of CITY, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials).
19.3. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered and work products delivered to CITY in accordance with the Scope of Services up to the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s Services provided in material conformity with this Agreement as such determination is made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 17, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30.
19.4. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement, unless made in accordance with Section 17 (Waivers).
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the Project Manager at the address of CONSULTANT recited on the first page of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY of any change of address.
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subcontractors or other persons or parties having such an interest.
CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 137 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
State of California, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT agrees to notify CITY if any conflict arises.
21.3. If the CONSULTANT meets the definition of a “Consultant” as defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT will file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended from time to time.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION; COMPLIANCE WITH ADA.
22.1. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.510, as amended from time to time, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person due to that person’s race, skin color, gender, gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic information or condition, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section
2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
22.2. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that pursuant to the Americans Disabilities Act (“ADA”), programs, services and other activities provided by a public entity to the public, whether directly or through a contractor or subcontractor, are required to be accessible to the disabled public. CONSULTANT will provide the Services specified in this Agreement in a manner that complies with the ADA and any other applicable federal, state and local disability rights laws and regulations, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT will not discriminate against persons with disabilities in the provision of services, benefits or activities provided under this Agreement.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, hereby incorporated by reference and as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include, first, minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste; and, third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following Zero Waste requirements:
(a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable-based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Department’s office.
(c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 138 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE.
CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.060.
SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS.
26.1. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages and related requirements. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages and meet related requirements under the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations in the performance and implementation of the Project if the contract:
(1) is not a public works contract;
(2) is for a public works construction project of $25,000 or less, per California Labor Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and 1773.3(j); or (3) is for a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance project of $15,000 or less, per California Labor Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and 1773.3(j).
OR
26.1. This Project is subject to prevailing wages and related requirements as a “public works” under California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and related regulations.
CONSULTANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in California Labor Code Section 1773.1 and Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq., as amended from time to time. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773, the CITY has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the CITY’s Purchasing Department office. The general prevailing wage rates are also available at the DIR, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, web site (see e.g. http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/index.htm) as amended from time Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 139 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
to time. CONSULTANT shall post a copy of the general prevailing wage rates at all Project job sites and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code (Labor Code Section 1720 et seq.), including but not limited to Sections 1725.5, 1771, 1771.1, 1771.4, 1773.2, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, 1813 and 1815, and all applicable implementing regulations, including but not limited to Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq. (8 CCR Section 16000 et seq.), as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit E, entitled “DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS”, for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance, including but not limited to the obligations to register with, and furnish certified payroll records directly to, DIR.
SECTION 27. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS”. For purposes of this Section 27, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. (Cal. Pub. Cont. Code § 9204.) Per California Public Contract Code Section 9204, for Public Works Projects, certain claims procedures shall apply, as set forth in Exhibit F, entitled “Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”.
This Project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the claims procedures set forth in Exhibit F, entitled “Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”.
OR
This Project is not a 9204 Public Works Project.
SECTION 28. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
28.1. In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT may have access to CITY’s Confidential Information (defined below). CONSULTANT will hold Confidential Information in strict confidence, not disclose it to any third party, and will use it only for the performance of its obligations to CITY under this Agreement and for no other purpose.
CONSULTANT will maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security, confidentiality and integrity of the Confidential Information.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to its employees, agents and subcontractors, if any, to the extent they have a need to know in order to perform CONSULTANT’s obligations to CITY under this Agreement and for no other purpose, provided that the CONSULTANT informs them of, and requires them to follow, the confidentiality and security obligations of this Agreement.
28.2. “Confidential Information” means all data, information (including without limitation “Personal Information” about a California resident as defined in Civil Code Section 1798 et seq., as amended from time to time) and materials, in any form or media, tangible or intangible, provided or otherwise made available to CONSULTANT by CITY, directly or indirectly, pursuant to this Agreement. Confidential Information excludes information that CONSULTANT can show by appropriate documentation: (i) was publicly known at the time it was provided or has subsequently become publicly known other than by a breach of this Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 140 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Agreement; (ii) was rightfully in CONSULTANT’s possession free of any obligation of confidence prior to receipt of Confidential Information; (iii) is rightfully obtained by CONSULTANT from a third party without breach of any confidentiality obligation; (iv) is independently developed by employees of CONSULTANT without any use of or access to the Confidential Information; or (v) CONSULTANT has written consent to disclose signed by an authorized representative of CITY.
28.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to the extent required by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or governmental body, provided that CONSULTANT will notify CITY in writing of such order immediately upon receipt and prior to any such disclosure (unless CONSULTANT is prohibited by law from doing so), to give CITY an opportunity to oppose or otherwise respond to such order.
28.4. CONSULTANT will notify City promptly upon learning of any breach in the security of its systems or unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, Confidential Information in its possession or control, and if such Confidential Information consists of Personal Information, CONSULTANT will provide information to CITY sufficient to meet the notice requirements of Civil Code Section 1798 et seq., as applicable, as amended from time to time.
28.5. Prior to or upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will honor any request from the CITY to return or securely destroy all copies of Confidential Information. All Confidential Information is and will remain the property of the CITY and nothing contained in this Agreement grants or confers any rights to such Confidential Information on CONSULTANT.
28.6. If selected in Section 30 (Exhibits), this Agreement is also subject to the terms and conditions of the Information Privacy Policy and Cybersecurity Terms and Conditions.
SECTION 29. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
29.1. This Agreement will be governed by California law, without regard to its conflict of law provisions.
29.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
29.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties.
29.4. This Agreement, including all exhibits, constitutes the entire and integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, representations, statements and undertakings, either oral or written. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the authorized representatives of the parties and approved as required under Palo Alto Municipal Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 141 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Code, as amended from time to time.
29.5. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
29.6. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto (per Section 30) or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the event of a conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the exhibits shall control.
29.7. The provisions of all checked boxes in this Agreement shall apply to this Agreement; the provisions of any unchecked boxes shall not apply to this Agreement.
29.8. All section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
29.9. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when executed by the authorized representatives of the parties, shall together constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 30. EXHIBITS. Each of the following exhibits, if the check box for such exhibit is selected below, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein:
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT A-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
EXHIBIT B: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT C: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT C-1: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT E: MATERIALS TYPES LIST
THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL SELECTED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 142 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
CONTRACT No. C27197334
SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney or designee
CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
Officer 1
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
Officer 2
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Amity Lumper
Co-President & Co-owner
Co-President and Co-Owner
Stephanie Thomas
Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 143 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall provide the Services detailed in this Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, CONSULTANT’s duties and services described in this Scope of Services shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of CITY’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project.
CONSULTANT’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications.
CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Scope of Services.
Introduction
CONSULTANT shall conduct a waste characterization study (WCS) of the City’s municipal solid waste stream. All materials are collected by the City’s exclusive contractor, GreenWaste of Palo Alto (GWPA).
The current Zero Waste Plan (ZW Plan), last updated in 2018, establishes strategies and initiatives to help the City achieve its objective of diverting 95 percent of waste from landfill disposal by 2030. The city completed a comprehensive WCS in 2017 to support the ZW Plan. A new WCS is needed to support a future update of the ZW Plan, which will be conducted under a separate Agreement.
Under this Agreement, the consultant shall conduct a 2026 WCS, analyze the collected data, and develop clear visual representations of the findings suitable for use in reports, presentations, and public communications and to help guide an update to the future ZW Plan. The consultant shall also perform a comparative analysis between the 2026 results and the 2017 WCS to assess changes and trends. Based on the findings, the consultant shall provide recommendations on materials and strategies that could further reduce landfill disposal and support progress toward the City’s diversion goal.
The WCS shall include the following waste sectors:
• Residential single-family garbage, recyclables, and compost are materials GWPA collects from single-family residences (single-family homes and townhouses or buildings with up to four residential units). These materials typically arrive at the GreenWaste Recovery Materials Recovery Facility located in San Jose (GWR MRF) in packer trucks (e.g., side loaders). Compost is taken to the GreenWaste Renewable Energy Digestion Facility. During this study, CONSULTANT shall collect samples of these materials directly from carts at the curb in front of single-family homes on collection day and bring collected samples to the GWR MRF for sorting by CONSULTANT field team stationed there.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 144 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
• Residential multifamily garbage, recyclables, and compost are collected by GWPA from multifamily residences (apartments or condominiums with more than four residential units). It typically arrives at GWR MRF in packer trucks (e.g., front loaders). GWPA collects multifamily materials in the same truck as commercial garbage, recyclables and compostable materials therefore some coordination with GWPA shall be necessary to ensure a select amount (or volume) of material is collected from multifamily locations for the WCS.
• Commercial garbage is garbage collected from the commercial sector in a front-load, or side-load compacting vehicle. The materials are delivered to the GWR MRF for processing.
• Commercial recyclables are recyclable materials collected from the commercial sector in a front-load, or side-load compacting vehicle. The materials are delivered to the GWR MRF for processing.
• Commercial compost is compostable material collected from the commercial sector in a front-load, or side-load self-contained compacting vehicle. It is typically delivered to GreenWaste Renewable Energy Digestion Facility. Selected loads shall be rerouted to the GWR MRF for sampling during this study.
• Hospital garbage is collected in compactors from the three local hospitals located in Palo Alto in a roll-off vehicle. The materials are delivered to the GWR MRF for processing. Hospitals in Palo Alto consist of the Stanford Hospital, the Veteran’s Affair Hospital, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation.
• Loose roll-off garbage is garbage collected from the commercial sector in a noncompacted open-top roll-off container, commonly referred to as a “debris box” or “dropbox.” • Mixed construction and demolition materials (C&D) is recoverable material generated from construction activities and bulky materials delivered to the GreenWaste Zanker Resource Recovery Facility in loose roll-off boxes.
• Residuals are produced as byproducts from the two GreenWaste materials recovery facilities. Residuals do not include fines screened from the trommels.
The primary objectives of the 2026 WCS are:
A. Characterize Waste Composition
CONSULTANT shall determine the composition of the City’s recycling, compost, and landfill waste streams using a statistically representative sampling methodology and material categories relevant to the Palo Alto waste stream. To allow for the comparison of the 2017 WCS data with the new 2026 WCS data, CITY requests using the sampling methodology utilized in 2017 WCS Appendix B, Study Design or an alternative methodology to be approved by the City.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 145 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
B. Quantify Materials by Weight
CONSULTANT shall quantify the weight and proportion of each material type within the recycling, compost, and landfill waste streams.
C. Identify Recovery and Diversion Opportunities
CONSULTANT shall identify recyclable and compostable materials currently disposed of incorrectly and evaluate opportunities to increase material recovery and diversion from landfill.
The information shall be made relevant to existing recycling and compost markets and to future realistic market opportunities.
D. Evaluate Variability Across the Community
CONSULTANT shall assess differences in waste composition across sectors.
E. Support Program Evaluation
CONSULTANT shall compare results with the City’s 2017 waste characterization study and identify materials, and products frequently disposed of incorrectly. CONSULTANT shall provide capture rates of all waste material categories.
F. Inform Future Program Development
CONSULTANT shall provide actionable data to support the planning, development, and evaluation of programs that advance the City’s Zero Waste goals.
Task 1. Project Coordination and Administration
CONSULTANT shall provide management of all task activities under this Agreement, including project team assignments; meeting preparation and attendance; maintenance and monitoring of the budget and schedule; quality assurance and quality control of all deliverables; and coordination of any and all sub-CONSULTANT s.
CONSULTANT shall provide project coordination and administration for all tasks including project start-up, team assignments, internal team coordination, meeting preparation and attendance, maintenance and monitoring of the budget and schedule, quality assurance and quality control of all deliverables, and coordination of all subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall provide regular invoices and progress reports.
CONSULTANT shall attend a kick-off meeting with the City to confirm project objectives, scope, roles, communication preferences, data needs, schedule milestones, and next steps.
CONSULTANT shall provide a meeting agenda, summarize meeting outcomes, and provide a project work plan. CONSULTANT shall meet at least every two weeks or as needed to provide to review of completed work, upcoming activities, schedule and budget status, key decisions, and any study concerns. CONSULTANT shall provide agendas and supporting materials to document action items and next steps with estimated completion dates.
CONSULTANT shall ensure all team members, including subcontractors, are accountable for their work tasks being on time and within budget. CONSULTANT shall provide hands-on supervision of all team members, including subcontractors, provide at least weekly check-ins or as needed, discuss project status, and make any adjustments. Any major changes to the schedule or budget Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 146 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
shall be shared with and approved by the City. CONSULTANT Project Manager shall provide frequent updates and meeting notes to the City’s Project Manager via email, virtual check-in meetings, or phone.
CONSULTANT shall use Deltek Vantagepoint to manage staff availability and schedule staff time for each project and task in Cascadia’s book of work. CONSULTANT shall go over Deltek Vantagepoint and book of work with the City prior to beginning any work. CONSULTANT project managers and field work leads shall meet weekly to plan field work schedule, ensure experienced staff are available for each field work task, ensure experienced staff are not over or double booked, that project plans are up to date, and staff calendars are up to date and reflect field work dates to prevent scheduling conflicts.
CONSULTANT shall provide manager(s) to ensure adequate qualified staff are available and that the study stays on schedule. CONSULTANT shall track the progress of the study and provide regular client check-ins and progress reports.
CONSULTANT shall use Vantagepoint to track labor and expenses at the various project levels, provide activity reports with each invoice and report on the remaining budget amounts per task.
Task 2. Waste Characterization – targeted waste audits
SubTask 2a. Conduct Project Meetings and Prepare Work Plan CONSULTANT shall work with City staff and internal team members to solidify the methodology, protocols, and tools needed for the WCS including development of a detailed work plan, sampling plan and schedule, preparation of field forms and databases, and methodology for comparing data to the previous WCS. CONSULTANT shall collaborate with the City’s hauler GWPA for the selection of routes, and timing of arrival at GWR MRF. Task 2 provides a foundation for all fieldwork, data entry, analysis, and reporting that shall be conducted as part of the study. The CONSULTANT shall identify common findings from waste characterization studies conducted in up to two cities similar to Palo Alto and within key sectors such as multifamily dwellings and shall meet with City staff to determine the specific audits, analyses and summary report format needed.
CONSULTANT shall review waste sectors, material streams, sampling methodology, ideal number of samples, sample type and size per material streams, sampling logistics, and material categories.
CONSULTANT shall use two different methods to select a load for sampling:
• Loads from sectors with regularly scheduled waste collection routes shall be pre-selected using a random selection method.
• Loads from sectors that do not have regularly scheduled waste collection routes shall be systematically selected on each day of sampling.
CONSULTANT shall sample single-family residential material by systematically selecting households and collection “paired samples” including garbage, recycling, and organics from single-family dwellings. “Paired” samples refer to the simultaneous collection and sorting of multiple carts from a single household, as part of the same set-out. Systematic selection involves Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 147 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
creating a sampling frequency to ensure random selection.
CONSULTANT shall sample at least the preliminary list of waste sectors and streams that match the 2017 WCS and shall include any additional waste streams not in the original the 2017 WCS.
Table 1: Waste Sectors, Materials Streams, and Characterization Methods Sector and Waste Stream Characterization Method Sample Selection Method Commercial front-load garbage Hand sort Pre-selected
Commercial Compactor garbage Hand sort Pre-selected
Commercial front-load recycling Hand sort Pre-selected
Commercial front-load compost Hand sort Pre-selected
Loose roll-off Visual Characterization Systematic selection Loose roll-off: C & D Visual Characterization Systematic selection Hospital Garbage Compactors Hand sort Pre-selected
Multifamily Garbage Hand sort Pre-selected; special study routing1 Multifamily recycling Hand sort Pre-selected; special study routing1 Multifamily compost Hand sort Pre-selected; special study routing1 Single family: garbage Hand sort Households will be systematically selected; paired sampling
Single family: recycling Hand sort Households will be systematically selected; paired sampling
Single family: compost Hand sort Households will be systematically selected; paired sampling
Residuals - from the recycling
Material Recovery Facility Hand sort Systematic selection Residuals - from the garbage
Material Recovery Facility Hand sort Systematic selection 1CONSULTANT shall work with the City’s waste hauler, GreenWaste of Palo Alto, to isolate multifamily from commercial routes.
SubTask 2b. Sorting Area
Below is a list of the Palo Alto waste streams collected and processed by the various GreenWaste of Palo Alto processing facilities. CONSULTANT shall work with GreenWaste of Palo Alto to clarify the exact sampling locations within each listed facility for each specified waste stream. This shall be done before the first official kick-off meeting. If sufficient sampling locations can’t be confirmed, the CONSULTANT shall suggest alternative locations to sample the various waste streams within the available facilities. If acceptable sorting locations cannot be identified within the listed GreenWaste facilities, the City shall secure alternative viable facilities at no cost to the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT field crew will be receiving all samples in the sorting area.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 148 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
All field work for one day will occur concurrently or consecutively without long breaks between field tasks.
Table 2: Sorting and sampling locations
Sector and Stream Processing Location Sampling
Location
Commercial front-load
garbage
GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery
Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112 GWSJMRF
Commercial Compactor
garbage
GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery
Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF
Commercial front-load
recycling
GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery
Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF
Commercial front-load
compost
GreenWaste Renewable Energy Digestion
Facility (GWREDF), 685 Los Esteros Rd.,
San Jose, CA 95134
GWREDF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Loose roll-off GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery
Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Loose roll-off: C & D
GreenWaste Zanker Resource Recovery
Facility (GWZRRF), 675 Los Esteros Rd.,
San Jose, CA 95134
GWZRRF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Hospital Garbage
Compactors
GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery
Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF
Multifamily Garbage GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF
Multifamily recycling GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF
Multifamily compost
GreenWaste Renewable Energy Digestion
Facility (GWREDF), 685 Los Esteros Rd.,
San Jose, CA 95134
GWREDF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Single family: garbage GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Single family: recycling GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Single family: compost
GreenWaste Renewable Energy Digestion
Facility (GWREDF), 685 Los Esteros Rd.,
San Jose, CA 95134
GWREDF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Residuals - from the
recycling Material
Recovery Facility
GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery
Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Residuals - from the
garbage Material
Recovery Facility
GreenWaste San Jose Material Recovery
Facility, 625 Charles St., San Jose, CA 95112
GWSJMRF or
CONSULTANT
to specify
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 149 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Garbage and Recyclables
The City has confirmed that the GreenWaste San Jose Materials Recovery Facility located at 625 Charles St., Charles Street, San Jose will act as the sorting area for garbage and recycling waste streams for single family households, multifamily dwellings, and commercial customers including loose roll-off, unless another location or methodology is proposed by CONSULTANT.
Compostables
CONSULTANT shall confirm with GreenWaste whether compostable waste sampling will be performed at the Zero Waste Energy Development Company (ZWEDC) processing facility or another location. Compostable waste processed at ZWEDC includes commercial customers, multifamily dwellings, loose roll-offs (compostable), and single-family households.
CONSULTANT shall confirm with GreenWaste of Palo Alto where specific “green material only” commercial compostables are processed and provide a location where samples shall be sampled.
This may include ZWEDC located in San Jose, CA; Z-Best located in Gilroy, CA; or GWR located in San Jose, CA or as specified by CONSULTANT.
Roll-offs & Roll-offs C&D
CONSULTANT shall confirm with GreenWaste where loose roll-off, loose roll-off - C&D; as well as residuals from the various processing facilities will be sampled. This may include GWR located in San Jose, CA or Zanker Materials Processing Facility located in San Jose, CA or as specified by CONSULTANT.
CONSULTANT Task 2c. Develop Detailed Study Design
The study design shall include protocols for a representative and unbiased approach to select routes, residences, businesses, etc. for sampling, the number size, and allocation of samples, and sample selection and characterization processes. The design shall also include field forms specific to each study that are designed to maximize data collection efficiency and minimize data collection errors.
Within the study design, CONSULTANT shall design a sampling schedule based on regular collection and operating schedules to be provided by GWPA. CONSULTANT shall design the schedule to ensure an even distribution of samples across days of the week. CONSULTANT shall design and share with the City a sampling schedule the evenly distributes samples across the days of the week.
CONSULTANT shall develop and present to the City a detailed study design consistent with the 2017 WCS that shall include protocols for selecting routes, residences, and businesses for sampling. CONSULTANT shall pre-select random loads of materials for sampling based on regular collection route information. CONSULTANT shall specify the number, size, and allocation of samples, sample selection, and characterization process. CONSULTANT shall provide detailed field forms. CONSULTANT shall provide details on data analysis and reporting procedures and methodologies.
CONSULTANT shall propose a material category list that shall be approved by the City. The list shall be based off City’s RFPs Attachments B and C to ensure consistency with 2017 WCS, adhere to CalRecycle standards list of materials, and compliance with GWPA acceptable materials list.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 150 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
CONSULTANT shall classify materials according to recoverability (i.e. recyclable, compostable, potentially recyclable, and problem materials). The classification shall be approved by the City.
CONSULTANT shall document all assumptions, deviations, and refinements to the sampling design in the final work plan. CONSULTANT shall describe any variations such as different processing facilities and technologies, etc. and their implications and how the differences are addressed analytically.
Task 2d. Field Sampling and Waste Sorting
The CONSULTANT shall conduct fieldwork to collect and sort waste samples (garbage, recyclables, and compostables) for the characterization study. The only exceptions include garbage only compactors for hospitals, garbage only loose roll-off containers, and mixed construction and demolition materials (C&D) roll-off boxes. During this period, the CONSULTANT shall propose the number of samples to be collected and sorted per day. The final number of samples and daily sampling schedule may be refined in coordination with the City during Task 2c (Study Design).
The CONSULTANT shall propose the most appropriate sampling methodologies for each waste sector to ensure representative and statistically valid results. Sampling methods shall account for differences in waste generation and collection practices among single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, roll-off containers, and compactors.
The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the City during study design to finalize the sampling approach, schedule, and logistics, including site access, collection coordination, and safety procedures.
Single-family residential sampling
The CONSULTANT shall collect samples of single-family waste materials directly from carts at the curb in front of single-family homes on collection day and bring collected samples to the GWR MRF for sorting by the CONSULTANT field team. The number and types of samples shall be provided in the study design and approved by the City. CONSULTANT may propose an alternative method which shall be approved by the City.
Multi-family residential and commercial sampling
CONSULTANT shall characterize organic waste from the multi-family residential sector separately from the commercial sector. GWPA collects multifamily organic waste in the same truck as commercial organics therefore coordination with GWPA shall be done to ensure a select amount (or volume) of material shall be collected from multifamily locations for the WCS. The number and types of samples shall be provided in the study design and approved by the City. To characterize commercial organic waste selected loads shall be rerouted to the GWR MRF for sampling during this study. CONSULTANT may propose an alternative method which shall be approved by the City.
The following table outlines Cascadia’s proposed sampling schedule and detail.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 151 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Table 3: Sampling Schedule and Details
Study
week
Day of
week Proposed sort location Role Number of samples
W1 Monday GreenWaste MRF Non-single family
garbage and recycle 21 hand, 2 visual
W1 Tuesday GreenWaste MRF Non-single family
garbage and recycle 23 hand, 3 visual
W1 Wednesday GreenWaste MRF Non-single family
garbage and recycle 24 hand, 2 visual
W1 Thursday GreenWaste MRF Non-single family
garbage and recycle 25 hand, 2 visual
W1 Friday GreenWaste MRF Non-single family
garbage and recycle 25 hand, 3 visual
W1 Saturday GreenWaste MRF Non-single family
garbage and recycle 25 hand, 3 visual
W2 Monday
GreenWaste MRF,
GreenWaste Digestor,
GreenWaste Zanker
Non-single family
garbage and recycle
Up to 26 hand, 3
visual
W2 Tuesday
GreenWaste MRF,
GreenWaste Digestor,
GreenWaste Zanker
Non-single family
garbage and recycle
Up to 26 hand, 3
visual
W2 Wednesday
GreenWaste MRF,
GreenWaste Digestor,
GreenWaste Zanker
Non-single family
garbage and recycle
Up to 26 hand, 3
visual
W2 Thursday
GreenWaste MRF,
GreenWaste Digestor,
GreenWaste Zanker
Non-single family
garbage and recycle
Up to 26 hand, 3
visual
W2 Friday
GreenWaste MRF,
GreenWaste Digestor,
GreenWaste Zanker
Non-single family
garbage and recycle
Up to 26 hand, 3
visual
Task 2e. Characterize Samples
CONSULTANT ’s field manager shall be on-site at the outset of all sorting activities to ensure that the crew follows approved protocols and maintains consistency across samples and sampling events. Field manager shall brief personnel on any facility-specific health and safety requirements, personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, contingency protocols, and ensure the quality and efficiency of field work.
Table 4: Proposed sample allocations and weights
Sector and Stream Number of
samples
Sample weight
Commercial front-load garbage 30 150 lbs.
Commercial compactor garbage 10 150 lbs.
Commercial front-load recycling 20 100 lbs.
Commercial front-load compost 20 150 lbs.
Loose roll-off 15 Entire load
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 152 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Loose roll-off: C & D 15 Entire load
Hospital garbage compactors 3 150 lbs.
Multifamily garbage 30 150 lbs.
Multifamily recycling 20 100 lbs.
Multifamily compost 20 150 lbs.
Single family garbage Up to 30 Up to 30 lbs.
Single family recycling Up to 30 Up to 30 lbs.
Single family compost Up to 30 Up to 50 lbs.
Residuals – from the recycling Materials Recovery Facility 15 50 - 150 lbs.
Residuals – from the garbage Materials Recovery Facility 15 50 lbs.
CONSULTANT shall follow its standard process for sorting all materials and provide a copy of that process to the City for approval.
Photographs
• A member of the field crew shall take photographs of the sample using a digital device.
The sample placard identifying the sample shall be positioned to be visible in each photo.
CONSULTANT
o Two types of images shall be taken – perspective and close-up. Perspective image is a photograph taken from a distance of 10’-20’. A close-up image is a photograph taken from a distance of 1’-3’.
o For the photographic evidence, each photographic set shall consist of:
▪ Photographs shall be provided of the samples before separated from the vehicle, bin or cart;
▪ Photographs shall be provided of the samples after they are separated from the vehicle, bin or cart;
▪ Photographs shall be provided of the samples when the samples are comingled, but the contents not removed;
▪ Photographs shall be provided of the samples before the samples are composited; and,
▪ Photographs shall be provided of the samples when the materials are sorted and comingled.
Sorting
• The field crew shall sort the sample into the material categories and store separated materials in separate containers. Individual members of the sorting crew typically specialize in groups of materials, such as papers or plastics. The field manager shall monitor the homogeneity of material in the containers as they accumulate, rejecting any materials that are improperly classified.
• The field manager shall then visually inspect the purity of each material as it is weighed in its container using a pre-calibrated scale and shall record each material weight on data sheet.
Custodial bags
• CONSULTANT shall determine the percentage of commercial customers using colored custodial bags. Commercial customers are required to utilize blue see-through recycling bags or no bag; green compostable see-through bag for compostables or no bag; and clear Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 153 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
bags or no bag for landfill waste. Determine what percentage of commercial customers are using colored see-through custodial bags.
• CONSULTANT shall determine the percentage of single-family and multi-family residential customers that are using green colored see-through compostable bags. Single family and multi-family residents are only required to use green see-through compostable bags for the collection of food waste if bags are used.
Hand sorting
• CONSULTANT shall follow their standard process for hand-sorting process for most municipal solid waste (MSW), recyclable materials, organics, and residuals. A copy of the standard hand-sorting process shall be provided during the kick-off meeting. • CONSULTANT shall take pre-sample collection (before material separated from container), sample captured on tarp (not yet composited), and composited samples (sorted into the various material categories) consistent with recent CalRecycle methodologies.
Visual characterization
• For commercial and multifamily loads, CONSULTANT shall follow their standard process of visually characterizing waste. A copy of the standard visually characterizing waste process shall be provided during the kick-off meeting.
o CONSULTANT shall characterize organic waste from multi-family residential sector separately from commercial sector. GWPA collects multifamily organic waste in the same truck as commercial organics therefore coordination with GWPA shall be done to ensure a select amount (or volume) of material shall be collected from multifamily locations for the WCS. The number and types of samples shall be provided in the study design and approved by the City. To characterize commercial organic waste selected loads shall be rerouted to the GWR MRF for sampling during this study.
CONSULTANT may propose an alternative method which must be approved by CITY.
Task 2f. Data Management, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, and Statistical Analysis CONSULTANT shall record and manage field data. The electronic capture of data shall be linked to cloud-based storage to prevent the loss of data.
CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a written QA/QC protocol during the kick-off meeting.
The CONSULTANT shall analyze the data collected and documented during Task 2e, using rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and established statistical methodologies commonly applied in municipal waste characterization studies, including those used in prior Palo Alto studies and the most recent CalRecycle statewide waste characterization methodology. CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a written QA/QC protocol for the City to review and describes procedure for data verification, validation, and statistical analysis.
CONSULTANT shall enter all field data into a waste characterization database following each sampling event. CONSULTANT The database and associated outputs shall be accessible to the City and provided in a format compatible with common software platforms, including *.CSV and/or Microsoft Excel file formats. At the conclusion of the study, the CONSULTANT shall provide the City with a complete electronic accounting of all sorted samples and associated Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 154 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
datasets.
CITY will provide the CONSULTANT with annual and/or monthly tonnage estimates for the applicable waste streams, including commercial, single family residential, multifamily residential, and roll-off services. These tonnage estimates shall be used to support the statistical analysis and extrapolation of results.
CONSULTANT shall conduct the appropriate statistical analysis depending on the sampling method used, including disposal site analysis (and generator-based analysis where applicable). All calculations and approaches shall be consistent with those used in the most recent CalRecycle statewide study. If alternative analytical approaches are proposed, CONSULTANT shall coordinate with CITY and receive approval to ensure the methodology is defensible and capable of producing representative, reliable, and statistically valid results.
As part of the analysis, the CONSULTANT shall develop charts, tables, and figures to clearly present and interpret the findings. The presentation of results shall follow industry best practices and may reference formats used in the City’s 2017 Waste Characterization Study Report.
At a minimum, the CONSULTANT shall include the following data visualizations and summary tables:
• Pie charts showing recoverability groupings, including:
o Recyclable materials
o Compostable materials
o Potentially recyclable materials
o Problem materials
o Potentially recoverable materials
o Reusable items or materials (e.g. furniture, reusable cups, textiles, and other items commonly identified as reusable)
• Summary tables identifying the most prevalent material types by weight. • Detailed composition tables presenting the quantity and percentage by weight of each material type, including the full list of approximately 80 material categories used in the study.
Task 3 - Prepare Report
CONSULTANT shall assemble findings and recommendations into a clear, concise, and highly visual report that the City can use with confidence for short-and long-term planning. To ensure that CONSULTANT fully meets project expectations, CONSULTANT ’s project manager shall develop and submit an outline of the final report for review by City staff. The outline shall indicate all sections and analyses that are expected to be part of the final report. Upon approval of the outline, the project team shall prepare a draft of the report, including executive summary, description of research protocols, and findings.
CONSULTANT shall include at least two City review cycles in the project schedule. At the 90% completion stage, CONSULTANT shall submit a draft report to City for review and comment.
City will return comments to CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT shall revise the draft to incorporate the requested changes.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 155 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Following those revisions, CONSULTANT shall submit an updated draft for a second City review.
City may provide additional comments, and CONSULTANT shall incorporate any final revisions and submit the completed 100% final report.
CONSULTANT shall provide a report with components as identified below.
Report components:
A. Task 1 - Project Coordination and Administration
B. Task 2 - Develop Plan/Study Design
1. Task 2a – Prepare Work Plan
2. Task 2b – Select Sorting Area
3. Task 2c – Study Design
4. Task 2d – Field Sampling and Waste Sorting
5. Task 2e – Sample Characterization
6. Task 2f – Data Management, QA/QC, and Statistical Analysis C. Task 3 - Prepare Report
1. Findings
2. Comparison of 2026 to 2017 Waste Characterization Study results
3. Provide Recommendations
4. Appendices
Task 4 – Additional Services
CONSULTANT shall provide additional services as needed to assist the City in collecting waste characterization data. For example, additional samples may need to be collected, and additional reporting may be needed to thoroughly analyze the results of any extra sampling.
At the request of the CITY, CONSULTANT shall perform additional services. A cost estimate for additional services includes a total of $8,805 for one day’s worth of sampling. Alternatively, the additional services money may be used if CITY requests additional analysis and/or comparison of the data or as needed by CITY to complete the WCS. Non-sampling additional services will be billed based on the hourly rate schedule in Exhibit C-1.
Additional services
Scope Rate (per additional day of sampling)
Task 4: Additional services $8,805
Schedule of work
Table 5: Project schedule and activities
Deliverable Activities Timeline
Kick-off
meeting/draft work
plan
Kick-off meeting
Confirm study objectives
Review methodologies and samples
Prepare and submit draft work plan
Two weeks after Notice
to Proceed (NTP) is
issued
2 nd Meeting/Final Add City comments to work plan Three weeks after NTP Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 156 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Work Plan Finalize study design
Confirm scope, schedule, duties
Submit final work plan
Work commences Field work mobilization and crew scheduling Coordinate sample collection
Field sampling, sorting, and documentation
Data entry and field QA/QC
Six weeks after NTP
Draft report due Complete data review
Develop tables and findings
Prepare draft report
Submit draft to City for review
Ten weeks after NTP
Final report due For draft report address City comments Refine analysis
Finalize report
Submit report and supporting data files
No later than January
18, 2027
The final report is due no later than January 18, 2027.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 157 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT A-1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. CONSULTANT shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO.
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE):
1B. TASK ORDER NO.:
2. CONSULTANT NAME:
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION:
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT $_______________
5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:_____________________________________
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
▪ SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
▪ SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
▪ MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable) ▪ REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): _____________________________ I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.
APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED:
COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 158 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (“NTP”) from the CITY.
Milestones
Completion
Number of Weeks (as specified below)
from NTP
1. Kick-Off Meeting/Draft Work Plan Two Weeks
2. 2
nd Meeting/Final Work Plan Three Weeks
3. Work Commences Six Weeks
4. Draft Report Due Ten Weeks
5. Final Report Due No later than January 18, 2027
Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements. (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.)
The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 159 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT C
COMPENSATION
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for Services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below, provided that the total compensation for the Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
TASK NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1
(Project Coordination and Administration)
$9,018
Task 2
(Waste Characterization - Targeted Waste Audits)
$167,987
Task 3
(Prepare Report)
$32,470
Sub-total for Services $209,475
Reimbursable Expenses (if any) $51,953
Total for Services and Reimbursable Expenses $261,428
Additional Services (if any, per Section 4) $8,805
Maximum Total Compensation $270,233
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder.
Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be reimbursed at actual cost including meals at the GSA per diem rate for Palo Alto. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are up to the not-to-exceed amount of Fifty-One Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Three Dollars ($51,953).
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 160 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay Area, including transportation and meals, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost, including meals at the GSA per diem rate for Palo Alto, subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost.
All requests for reimbursement of expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, shall be accompanied by appropriate backup documentation and information.
The table below outlines the reimbursable expenses the CONSULTANT anticipates to complete the WSC.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Expense Type CCG Waste Busters Nothing
Wasted Subtotal
Flights $2,400.00 $1,666.65 $2,475.17 $6,541.82
Hotels $5,280.00 $3,666.64 $5,445.38 $14,392.02
Per diem $2,024.00 $1,405.54 $2,087.40 $5,516.94
Rental $2,200.00 $1,527.76 $2,268.91 $5,996.67
Fuel $756.00 $525.00 $779.68 $2,060.68
Supplies $6,000.00 $4,166.63 $6,187.93 $16,354.56
Baggage $225.00 $156.25 $232.05 $613.30
Mileage $175.00 $121.53 $180.48 $477.01
Total $19,060.00 $13,236.00 $19.657.00 $51,953.00
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 161 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT C-1
SCHEDULE OF RATES
CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows:
Title Hourly Rate
Director $285.00
Senior Associate $200.00
Associate $135.00
Senior Associate $210.00
Director $290.00
Fieldworker Lead $135.00
Associate $135.00
Principal $112.50
Principal $150.00
Onsite Manager $112.50
Sorting Staff $89.00
Safety Manager $70.00
Field Lead $70.00
Sorting Staff $70.00
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 162 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT D
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE
CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN.
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY
DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY,
INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED,
NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
INCLUDING, ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN
APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONSULTANT, AT ITS SOLE COST
AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM
OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONSULTANT AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
II. THE CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL: [email protected] III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS:
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED,
INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR
CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 163 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER
THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE
INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE
INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND OTHER RELATED NOTICES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SENT TO THE FOLLOWING EMAIL:
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 164 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT E: Material List and Definitions
Samples will be characterized according to the list of 80 materials below.
PAPER
CLEAN, FLATTENED, UNCOATED CORRUGATED CARDBOARD: Uncoated boxes, packaging, sheets and other pieces with a corrugated layer sandwiched between two outer layers that has been flattened to reduce the volume. Examples include shipping boxes, and some shoe boxes.
CLEAN, UNFLATTENED, UNCOATED CORRUGATED CARDBOARD: Uncoated boxes, packaging, sheets and other pieces with a corrugated layer sandwiched between two outer layers that has NOT been flattened to reduce the volume. Examples include shipping boxes, clean pizza box, and some shoe boxes.
NEWSPAPER: Ground wood paper used in newspapers. Includes clay coated (not poly coated) glossy ad inserts and other items made from newsprint, such as advertising circulars, election guides and tax instruction booklets.
OTHER CLEAN PAPER: Paper and products recycled curbside except newspaper, and corrugated cardboard. Includes high grade white or colored ledger, paper bags, bond, rag (paper made of cotton or linen), stationary, office, copy or printing paper and low grade mixed junk mail, envelopes (plastic windows ok), magazines, clay coated glossy catalogs, brochures and pamphlets, hardback and paperback books, spiral notebooks, manila folders, index cards, self-adhesive notes, phonebooks, shredded paper, construction paper, butcher paper, kraft or bleached sheets, toilet paper tubes, paper towel tubes, non-corrugated box/liner/chip/paper board (e.g., cereal and tissue boxes, six pack holders), egg cartons, tissue wrapping paper, blueprints, photographs (not Polaroid), hard cover books, and carbonless forms. Minor amounts of glue or other binding are okay.
PAPER TISSUE & TOWELS: Paper towels, napkins, tissues, toilet paper, and other short fiber, potentially soiled, paper that is not recyclable, but is compostable. Includes cotton balls, pads and non-plastic swabs and wipes.
OTHER SOILED UNCOATED FIBER: Uncoated paper and paper products that are not tissue & towels, that may be recyclable, but are too food-soiled or dirty and can be composted such as, food-soiled paper plates, french fry containers and coffee filters. Recyclable paper that was likely soiled in the collection bin or truck should be included in the appropriate recyclable paper category.
COATED CORRUGATED CARDBOARD: Boxes, packaging, sheets and other pieces with a corrugated layer sandwiched between two outer layers where at least one of the 3 layers is “waxed” or paraffin or poly coated, typically to make it liquid resistant such as for perishable produce shipping boxes.
OTHER COATED PAPER: Paper and paper products that are poly, compostable plastic or wax (not clay) coated inside and/or outside. Includes fast food wrappers, pizza box liners, butcher paper, and ice cream and other frozen/refrigerated food packaging. This does not include coated corrugated cardboard, items with a gable top, or prepared food takeout containers GABLE TOP CARTONS: Containers that are poly or wax (not clay) coated inside and/or outside with a gable top such as milk and juice cartons (including those with plastic spouts). Does not include aseptic packaging.
ASEPTICS: Multilayer composite cartons of bleached paper, poly film and foil, such as juice, milk, soup and tofu boxes.
PAPER TAKEOUT CONTAINERS: Rigid paper containers used for serving or transporting single-use, ready to eat, prepared foods from a food service point-of-sale. This material type includes containers that could have been avoided had a customer brought a re-usable food container to the point-of-sale.
Example include boxes and clamshells for items from the “hot food” bar or salad bar at a grocery store or deli, “Chinese food” take out cartons, etc. This does not include paper cups or paper wraps Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 165 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
(like for a hamburger, deli sandwich, or burrito). This does not include items in paper retail packaging like frozen foods, cereals.
COATED PAPER CUPS: Cups that are poly, compostable plastic or wax coated inside and/or outside such as for coffee and other hot drinks or soda and other cold drinks.
PIZZA BOXES: Boxes used for take-out or delivery of prepared pizza. Includes both clean and soiled boxes.
OTHER COMPOSITE PAPER: Items, not including aseptics, predominantly paper, but with one or more other material rendering them hard to recycle or compost, such as orange juice concentrate cans, carbon copy paper, foil laminated paper boxes and gum wrappers, packaging with large plastic windows (blister packs) or integrated foam, padded envelopes, and heavily plastic laminated or painted paper.
PLASTIC
#1 PETE PLASTIC PACKAGING: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, jars, clamshells, frozen food trays, retail packaging and other rigid items such as food and beverage containers. #1 PETE PLASTIC PACKAGING THERMOFORMS: Clamshells, trays, and cups. #2 HDPE PLASTIC PACKAGING: High-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, jars, tubs, lids and other rigid items such as distilled water, milk, juice, vinegar, yogurt, detergent and empty motor oil or antifreeze containers.
EXPANDED #6 PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING: Styrofoam and other expanded polystryrene cups, plates, bowls, clamshells, packaging blocks and peanuts (except compostable ones), insulation, noncorrugated foamcore (Include sandwiched between two layers of paper or plastic)and other rigid items.
OTHER #3-7 PLASTIC PACKAGING: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), non-expanded styrene (PS), other (#7, various resins) and unlabeled, unidentifiable bottles, jars, tubs, lids, and other rigid items such as some salad dressing, syrup and prescription bottles, CD cases, auto parts. Items are typically constructed of a single plastic resin and smaller than a basketball.
DURABLE PLASTIC PRODUCTS: Large, rigid items made predominately from plastic (usually a single resin) and intended for multiple uses. Examples include clothes hangers, buckets, lawn furniture, plastic pipe, plates, cups, and some toys,
PLASTIC TAKEOUT CONTAINERS: Rigid plastic containers used for serving or transporting single-use, ready-to-eat, prepared foods from a food service point-of-sale. This material type includes containers that could have been avoided had a customer brought a re-usable food container to the point-of-sale. Example include boxes and clamshells for items from the “hot food” bar or salad bar at a grocery store or deli, “Chinese food” take out cartons, plastic tubs and bowls from fast food restaurants, etc. This does include plastic to-go cups. This does not include items in plastic retail packaging like frozen foods, microwavable soups, etc.
COMPOSTABLE PLASTIC BAGS: Polylactic acid (PLA) and other bags labeled “compostable” (such as used for kitchen composting pails, as produce bags, or as bathroom bags to collect paper hand towels or for restaurant food scrap collection). Does not include compostable plastic bags that are not ASTM D6400 or D6868 compliant.
OTHER COMPOSTABLE PLASTIC: Polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and other cups, straws, lids, plates, bowls, clamshells, trays, utensils and other non-bags labeled “compostable.” Does not include compostable plastic products that are not ASTM D6400 or D6868 compliant.
RECYCLABLE FILM PLASTIC: Single layer clear or colored film without an inner foil or metallic layer accepted in the Palo Alto recycling carts. Includes, dry cleaner, newspaper, Ziploc, bread, cracker, Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 166 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
tortilla chip, stretch, shrink and bubble wrap, plastic sheeting, frozen food, and clear or colored grocery, department store and other retail and food establishment merchandise and to go bags.
FLEXIBLE PLASTIC POUCHES: means plastic pouches made of thicker, multi-layer flexible material. May have a flat bottom so that package would stand up on its own, but not always. Material is thicker than potato chip bags and frozen vegetable bags. Includes plastic coffee bags like Starbucks and Peet’s; Capri Sun pouches; baby food pouches – may have plastic screw top; soup pouches; salad dressing pouches; wine pouches; backpacking meals in pouches; soap refill pouches; laundry detergent pouches; and other similar items.
INCLUDED – THICKER, MULTILAYER PACKAGINGEXCLUDED – THINNER, SINGLELAYER PACKAGING Plastic coffee bags
(Starbucks and Peet’s)
Juice pouches (Capri Sun)
Baby food pouches – may
have plastic screw top
Soup pouches
Salad dressing pouches
Wine pouches
Backpacking meals in
pouches
Soap refill pouches
Laundry detergent pouches
Other similar items
Potato chip bags and similar
Candy wrappers
Tortilla bags
Frozen food bags (vegetables,
berries)
Nut/snack bags
Shrink plastic wrappers (Slim
Jim and string cheese
wrappers)
Ziplock bags intended for home
use
Thin produce bags as used in
grocery stores
Newspaper bags
Bread bags
Small (2 inch) pouches for
condiments (mustard, relish,
etc.)
Yogurt tubes (Gogurt)
Mailing pouches, usually
colored or white (not clear)
(LL Bean, medication
pouches)
100% Plastic mailing pouches
with bubble wrap
Other similar items
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 167 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
OTHER COMPOSITE FILM PLASTICS: Items made of multi-layer, multi-material films, typically with a metallic or foil layer. Examples include potato chip bags, candy bar wrappers, energy bar wrappers, and anti-static electronics wrappers.
OTHER PLASTIC: Items that are predominantly rigid plastic, but have more than one type of plastic and/or other materials like metal or film plastics not described elsewhere. Includes toothbrushes, disposable razors, pens, some toys, lighters, vinyl binders, hoses, foil and plastic blister packs (such as for medications), and fiberglass products except insulation. Does not include appliances or Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 168 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
electronics. Includes non-recyclable film like trash bags, condiment pouches, mailing pouches, shower curtain, woven polyethylene (e.g., grain bags, wipes, dryer sheets), and mylar balloons.
GLASS
GLASS BOTTLES & JARS: Any container grade glass bottles and jars (except red or blue), for water, soda, juice, wine, beer, liquor, vinegar, condiments, pickles, body care and other products.
BLUE OR RED GLASS BOTTLES & JARS: Any red or blue bottles, jars, and other container grade glass.
OTHER NON-COMPOSITE GLASS: Items made only of clear or tinted glass that is not container glass.
Includes drinking glasses, crystal, and laboratory ware, table tops, or blown glass. Includes tempered or toughened glass (such as flat side or rear window auto glass).
OTHER COMPOSITE GLASS: Items that are predominantly glass, but have other materials like wire mesh or plastic lamination (curved auto windshields, bus shelter and other safety glass), silvering (mirrors), or other components (incandescent and halogen bulbs). Does not include mercury lamps, which go in the mercury lamps hazardous category. Does not include glass used for construction purposes which goes in C&D glass.
METAL
ALUMINUM CANS & FOIL: Aluminum cans and bi-metal cans made mostly of aluminum (for beverages, pet food, etc.), empty aluminum aerosol cans for hazardous products, all (empty or full) aluminum aerosol cans with non-toxic contents, and aluminum food containers, trays, pie tins and foil.
OTHER NON-FERROUS METAL: Items at least 75% non-ferrous metal (metals not derived from iron, to which a magnet will not adhere, and not stainless steel). Includes aluminum products and scrap that are not cans & foil, such as window frames, siding and cookware. Includes other metals and alloys such as copper, brass, bronze, lead and zinc and products such as pipe and shell casings.
STEEL CANS & LIDS: Steel containers including bi-metal cans made mostly of steel. Includes food cans, empty steel paint cans, empty steel aerosol cans for hazardous products, and all (empty or full) steel aerosol cans with non-toxic contents.
APPLIANCES: Intact or parts of predominantly ferrous metal (iron or steel that is magnetic or stainless steel), analog appliances such as toasters, stoves, refrigerators, washers and dryers, and hot water heaters. May be enamel coated in any color. If it contains a significant plastic or electronic portion (a microwave, for example), it goes in the electronics material type.
OTHER FERROUS METAL: Items at least 75% ferrous metal (iron or steel that is magnetic or stainless steel), but not cans & lids or appliances. Includes items like coat hangers, stainless steel cookware, bed frames, pipe, beams, rebar, security bars, small car parts and other ferrous scrap.
OTHER COMPOSITE METAL: Items predominately metal, made of both ferrous and non-ferrous metal and/or with more than 25% non-metal materials, such as certain motors, insulated wire and other products that are not appliances.
COMPOST
PLANT TRIMMINGS: Prunings and cuttings from bushes, shrubs and trees, and non-woody plant materials including grass clippings, sod, leaves, dead flowers, weeds, loose or rolled tobacco (without filters but including any rolling paper), cork, hemp rope and other plant material. Includes all plant types, and branches, trunks and stumps of any size.
EDIBLE FOOD SCRAPS: The components of food that, in a particular food supply chain, are intended to be consumed by humans. What is considered edible varies among users (e.g., chicken feet are Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 169 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
consumed in some food supply chains but not others), changes over time, and is influenced by a range of variables.
INEDIBLE FOOD SCRAPS: The components of food not included in the edible food (skins, pits, bones, eggshells, coffee grounds, tea bags, etc.)
OTHER COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS: Includes bagasse foodware and disposable wood utensils, wood stirrers, toothpicks, wood popsicle sticks. candles, compostable packaging peanuts, hair, finger nails, etc.
DIAPERS: Diapers made from a combination of fibers, synthetic and/or natural, primarily for single use.
Includes disposable baby diapers, adult protective undergarments, feminine hygiene products.
Includes diaper and any contents, including human feces not in diapers, etc.
ANIMAL FECES & LITTER: Any non-human animal feces and litter such as cat feces and kitty litter, dog poop, bird droppings, and horse manure and soiled bedding. Includes soiled paper and other litter materials. Also includes animal carcasses not resulting from food storage or preparation.
OTHER ORGANIC: Predominantly organic items that are mixed with non-organic materials and cannot easily be separated for composting.
HAZARDOUS
ELECTRONICS: All types of products which include one or more integrated circuits, circuit boards, or “chips” and/or have a visual display greater than (or equal to) four inches on the diagonal. Generally includes anything that can be programmed. Includes televisions, computer monitors, CPUs and computer peripherals, fax machines, stereo equipment, VCRs, some games and toys. Does NOT include items powered by electricity (“plug or battery”) if electronic circuitry or a video display are not present, for example non-robotic vacuum cleaners. Note that there may be products intended for the same use of which some will be electronic waste and some will not – for example, coffeemakers (some just plug in and are switched on manually and some contain chips/boards because they have on/off/grind etc. features which can be programmed).
PAINT: Latex paint, alkyd paint, oil-based paint, architectural paint, automotive and specialty (traffic marking) paint NOT packaged under pressure.
BATTERIES: All chemistries, including alkaline batteries, Ni-Cd, Ni-MH, Lithium, Lithium-ion, and small sealed lead acid (SSLA) batteries often used in battery backup units.
NON-EMPTY AEROSOL CANS: All non-empty pressurized containers which hold a consumer product characterized as a hazardous waste (paint/pesticides/cleaners). Includes spray paint, bug sprays, hair spray, oven cleaners, waterproofing sprays. Does NOT include cooking oil, deodorant, room/air freshener, starch, or compressed air (keyboard cleaner).
MERCURY LAMPS: All tubes and bulbs with intentionally added mercury, includes fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescents, High Intensity Discharge (HID) bulbs, sodium vapor lamps, and neon signs.
Does NOT include incandescent or halogen tubes or bulbs.
PESTICIDES: Includes pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and wood preservatives NOT packaged under pressure.
CLEANING PRODUCTS: (except aerosols) Consumer products intended for cleaning NOT packaged under pressure includes ammonia, bleach, “green” cleaners, waxes and polishes.
MOTOR OIL: Lubricating oil, either used or unused, primarily used in vehicles or internal combustion engines.
OIL & FUEL FILTERS: Metal and plastic filters for oil and fuel used in vehicles or other types of equipment.
UNTREATED MEDICAL WASTE: Materials used in medical processes, including tubing, surgical tray liners, exam table liners, latex gloves, bandages, and any materials in red biohazard bags. Also includes needles, syringes, and lancets.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 170 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
TREATED MEDICAL WASTE: Medical waste that has been processed in order to change its physical, chemical, or biological character or composition, or to remove or reduce its harmful properties or characteristics, as defined in Section 25123.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Bags of treated medical waste may appear shrunken from sterilization.
BLUE WRAP: A blue wrap made from polypropylene (# 5 plastic) and used for wrapping surgical instruments for sterilization.
MEDICINE: All medicine intended for human or veterinary use, including prescription and nonprescription (over-the-counter) drugs as well as vitamins and nutritional products.
COLD PACKS: Re-usable liquid or gel packs commonly used to keep food cool in portable coolers, or as a cold compress to alleviate the pain of minor injuries. Packs may be either flexible or rigid.
OTHER HAZARDOUS: Items and materials not fitting into any of the other hazardous categories but which meet California’s hazardous waste characteristic descriptions for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Includes lab chemicals, solvents (paint thinner, nail polish & nail polish remover), mercury thermometers & thermostats, adhesives, glues, fuel, non-empty and pressurized gas canisters and cylinders, antifreeze, asbestos containing material, ammunition, writing and printing ink, hair dye. Does NOT typically include cosmetics or personal care products. Does NOT include empty containers 5 gallons in size and smaller which previously contained a hazardous material.
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
CLEAN WOOD: Unpainted, untreated, new or demolition dimensional lumber (milled lumber commonly used in construction), pallets and crates (whole or broken), packaging panelboard and sawdust.
Includes wood with small amounts of paint (such as 2 x 4s with painted ends), nails and other contaminants.
CLEAN ENGINEERED WOOD: means unpainted new or demolition scrap from sheeted goods such as plywood, particleboard, wafer board, oriented strand board, and other residual materials used for sheathing and related construction uses. May contain nails or other trace contaminants.
PAINTED WOOD: Painted, stained, varnished or shellacked lumber and wood products from construction or demolition, and assembled items with minimal fasteners or glue.
TREATED WOOD: Wood treated with a chemical preservative for protection against pests and environmental conditions. Includes dimensional lumber treated with creosote, arsenic, chromium, copper, or pentachlorophenol – typically identified by “staple marks” by which chemical was injected into the wood, a characteristic green or dark brown color, and/or presence of obvious crystals. Does NOT include painted or stained wood.
INERTS: Concrete (building foundations, sidewalk paving and cinder blocks), cement mix, asphalt, brick, clay roofing, ceramic or porcelain (toilets, sinks, tile and some dishware), rock, gravel, soil and sand with minimal organic contamination. Includes concrete containing steel mesh and/or reinforcement bars (rebar).
CLEAN GYPSUM: Calcium sulfate dehydrate sandwiched between layers of kraft-type paper. Includes unpainted and untreated, new or old, broken or whole sheets of drywall, sheetrock, wallboard, plasterboard (without plaster), gypboard or gyproc. Excludes exterior or roof paneling that is gypsum sandwiched between fiberglass-reinforced coatings.
PAINTED GYPSUM: Used or demolition gypsum drywall that has been painted, treated or plastered.
Includes exterior paneling that is gypsum sandwiched between fiberglass-reinforced coatings.
ROOFING: Asphalt shingles, built-up roof membranes, other asphaltic roofing membranes, single-ply roofing membranes, roof paneling that is gypsum sandwiched between fiberglass-reinforced coatings, contaminated wood shingles, contaminated clay roofing, and contaminated metal roofing (if clean put in respective wood, inerts, or metal category), etc.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 171 of 342
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
C&D GLASS: Includes glass used for construction purposes, like window panes, sliding doors, and architectural glass.
CARPET: Flooring applications of various natural (e.g., wool) or synthetic (e.g., nylon) fibers typically bonded to some type of backing material. Includes other soft floor coverings such as synthetic turf.
Also includes carpet padding, commonly made of urethane foam, but could be felt from jute, hair, or other synthetic materials, such as recycled carpet fibers, and coated with latex or other resin.
FIBERGLASS INSULATION: Fiberglass building and mechanical insulation, batts, or rigid.
OTHER C&D: materials commonly used in residential and commercial construction that cannot be put in any other type. This type may include items from different types combined, which would be very hard to separate. Examples include Includes wood with significant metal, concrete, drywall, or other contaminants, such as substantial glue or binders in plywood, particleboard, wafer board or oriented strand board.
OTHER MATERIALS
MATTRESSES: Mattresses, box springs and platforms, but not frames. Includes futons, foam and contour mattresses, and infant and pet beds.
FURNITURE: Mixed-material furniture such as upholstered chairs and couches. Furniture made purely of one material, such as plastic or metal, would be categorized as that material.
TIRES & RUBBER: Vehicle (including scooters, bicycles, lawn mowers, etc.) tires and tubes of all types.
Finished products and scrap made of natural or synthetic rubber, such as bath mats, rubber hoses, rubber bands and foam rubber.
TEXTILES & LEATHER: Items made of thread, yarn, fabric, or cloth from natural or synthetic materials such as cotton, wool, silk, nylon, rayon or polyester. Includes clothes, fabric trimmings, curtains, drapes, and linens. Also includes real and synthetic leather shoes, handbags, belts, scraps, etc. Does not include mattresses, furniture or carpet & upholstery.
NON-METAL APPLIANCES: Multi-material electric analog (not digital, no chips) appliances, primarily plastic, such as old toasters, power tools, curling irons, light fixtures, clocks and dial telephones FINES: Mixed inert (soil, sand, grit, ash) and non-inert (small bits of wood and other organics) materials smaller than 2” in diameter, sometimes from a sorting line or sweepings.
OTHER MATERIALS: All remaining, generally multi-material composite or indistinct items not elsewhere defined. Examples include whole filtered cigarettes and cigarette butts, dryer lint, and personal care products (shampoo, cosmetics, soaps, toothpaste, etc.).
EDIBLE RECOVERABLE FOOD: Food the appears to be in good non-spoiled condition maybe slightly bruised or ill-formed such as unpackaged fruit and vegetables; packaged fruits and vegetables which do not appear spoiled which may or may not be past sell-by date; frozen foods which appear to not be spoiled but may or may not be past their sell-by date; prepared food which appears to be edible not spoiled or rotten.
REUSABLE MATERIALS: Furniture, appliances, carpet, rugs, and other bulky items and household goods that are unbroken and suitable for reuse.
Docusign Envelope ID: B0AC5F33-A10B-86DF-836E-CC9CBEB6BDE4 Item 9
Attachment A - Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc.,
Contract #C27197334
Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 172 of 342
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #:2607-6560
TITLE
Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract C21181846 with CAD Masters, Inc. in the Amount of $420,000 for a total not to exceed $2,370,000 for Continued Support of Utility Engineering Systems and Applications through August 2, 2029 (a total of 8 years); CEQA Status:
Not a Project Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C21181846 with CAD Masters, Inc., extending the term of the contract through August 2, 2029, and increasing the contract authority by an additional $420,000, for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $2,370,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Utilities Department requests approval of Amendment No. 2 to extend the existing professional services agreement with CAD Masters, Inc. through August 2, 2029, under a reduced scope of work. CAD Masters developed several of the City's custom utility applications and engineering workflows, including Service Order Generation (SOGEN), DWG Generation (DWGGEN), and Electrical Equipment Maintenance (EEM), and possesses extensive institutional knowledge of the City's utility engineering systems, software architecture, and business processes. Transitioning these services to another consultant would require significant time, cost, and operational risk.
Due to the ongoing transition from Autodesk AutoCAD Map 3D Enterprise (AME) to Esri ArcGIS Pro, the scope of services has significantly decreased. However, continued support remains critical for AutoCAD Civil 3D design work and for maintaining the SOGEN system, which is essential for daily utility operations and development services.
Extending the existing relationship avoids operational risk, ensures continuity during a major system transition, and reflects prudent fiscal management by reducing the scope of work and annual contract authority from $390,000 to $140,000.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 173 of 342
BACKGROUND
Since 2009, CAD Masters, Inc. has provided professional services to the Utilities Department to support CAD systems, custom applications, and engineering workflows. Since the original 2009 agreement, the City Council approved a five-year extension in 2011, followed by new five-year agreements in 2016 and 2021.1 The 2021 agreement was originally scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026. Amendment No. 1 subsequently extended the agreement by six months, through December 31, 2026, without increasing the contract amount.
The annual authorization has varied under the successive agreements: $300,000 annually under the 2011 extension, $500,000 annually under the 2016 agreement, and $390,000 annually under the current 2021 agreement. Actual expenditures under the current agreement have averaged approximately $120,000 annually over the past five years, with expenditures reaching approximately $148,000 in one year, reflecting the City’s use of these services on an as-needed basis.
The City’s technology environment has evolved significantly, particularly with the migration to Esri ArcGIS Pro that is currently underway. As a result, Utilities reevaluated its long-term consulting needs and determined that a significantly reduced scope of services is sufficient to support ongoing operations during the transition. Based on anticipated migration and workflow-replacement activities, Utilities determined that an annual authorization of $140,000 over the proposed extension period would provide sufficient capacity while remaining substantially below the $390,000 annual authorization under the current agreement.
ANALYSIS
Technology Transition and Reduced Scope
The City is currently transitioning from Autodesk AutoCAD Map 3D Enterprise (AME) to Esri ArcGIS Pro as the primary platform for utility mapping and asset management. The migration is expected to be substantially completed by the end of February 2027. Following the migration, staff will begin using ArcGIS Pro for day-to-day operations, while Utilities and IT continue supporting user adoption, workflow refinement, and post-implementation support.
During the extension period, staff plans to actively pursue a replacement for SOGEN and transition the custom workflows currently supported by CAD Masters to more standard applications. Staff will reassess its reliance on CAD Masters each year. By the end of the second year, staff expects to issue an RFP for qualified consultants to provide ongoing support for these applications and other systems, such as AutoCAD Civil 3D. The extension period will provide continuity during the transition and allow time to complete a competitive procurement before the amendment expires.
1 City Council, May 17, 2021, Agenda Item No. 5, Staff Report No. 12082:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2258&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 174 of 342
As a result, a substantial portion of CAD Masters’ previous scope, particularly AME-related support, is no longer required. Future service needs are expected to be significantly reduced.
While the scope has been substantially reduced from previous contract terms, CAD Masters will continue providing support for critical utility engineering applications, including SOGEN, AutoCAD Civil 3D, ArcGIS Pro, Oracle databases, data integration, and related engineering workflows. IT Department will support Utilities in identifying and implementing a long-term replacement for SOGEN within the Esri ecosystem.
Ongoing Critical Support Needs
1. AutoCAD Civil 3D Design Support
Utilities Engineering continues to use AutoCAD Civil 3D for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, including pipeline replacement and rehabilitation. CAD Masters’ familiarity with City standards enables efficient support without additional onboarding or training.
2. Service Order Generation (SOGEN) System
CAD Masters developed the custom SOGEN system to support the City's utility operations.
SOGEN is a tool used to generate and track service orders, support maintenance and repairs, and coordinate work between Engineering and Operations.
SOGEN also supports the WGW Development Services program by tracking utility-related work tied to private development permits and coordinating field operations. Disruption to SOGEN would impact operations, development coordination, customer service, and revenue.
Rationale for Amendment of Current Contract
Staff recommends amending the current contract rather than issuing a new RFP because the remaining services involve support of custom utility applications, specialized engineering workflows, and systems that are to be reviewed for standardization and scalability with current day best practices during this extension period. Conducting a competitive procurement at this time would provide limited value while increasing operational risk while system transition for GIS is ongoing and review of long term replacement of legacy systems is active.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed amendment increases the contract authority by $420,000. Funding for the first year is available through Water Fund Capital Improvement Program Project WS-02014 (WGW Utility GIS Data), resulting in a revised not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,370,000 through August 2, 2029. Funding for any future years is subject to City Council approval through the annual budget process.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 175 of 342
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
This item involves internal coordination between Utilities Engineering, Operations, Development Services, and IT.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not a project under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C21181846 APPROVED BY:
Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 176 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C21181846
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
CAD MASTERS, INC.
This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C21181846 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of August 3, 2026 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CAD MASTERS, INC., a California corporation, located at 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 182, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (“CONSULTANT ”).
CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the development, support, and maintenance ofthe City’s Enterprise Geographical Information System (GIS) asset management database (the “Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide these services in connection with the Project, as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to update the software products and services provided under the Contract to reflect current practices, increase compensation by Four Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($420,000), from One Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000) to a new total not-to-exceed amount of Two Million Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($2,370,000), increase the current rates as set forth in Exhibit C-1, and extend the term through August 2, 2029.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C21181846 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated July 1, 2021, as amended by:
Amendment No. 1, dated June 1, 2026
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through August 2, 2029, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.” SECTION 3. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 177 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed Two Million Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($2,370,000). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.” SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, AMENDED, REPLACES
PREVIOUS
c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS d. Exhibit “C-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES”, AMENDED, REPLACES
PREVIOUS
SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 178 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney or designee
CAD MASTERS, INC.
By:______________________________
Name:___________________________
Title:____________________________
Attachments:
Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS Exhibit “C-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Drew Burgasser
Vice-President
Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 179 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICESAMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (DATA ENGINES AND EXISTING APPLICATIONS):
Database Engines:
• Oracle
• Microsoft SQL Server
• Microsoft Access (for maintenance of legacy applications) Primary Software Applications:
• Autodesk AutoCAD Civil 3D
• Autodesk Utility Design (AUD)
• ArcGIS / ArcGIS Pro
Custom Applications:
• Electric data model (Oracle)
• WGW Service Order Generation (SOGEN)
• Electric Equipment and Maintenance data model (Oracle) front-end application (EEM) Electric Autodesk Utility Design (AUD)
• Document Management System (DMS)
• Drawing Generation (DWGGEN) for creating AutoCAD and AUD entities from GIS Map Locator (custom Google Maps interface on top of AutoCAD) • FME workspaces for import from and export to SAP, ESRI SHP, DWG, and Excel • Transformer Purchasing DB data export SAP data import and export SCOPE OF WORK (including but not limited to the following items):
1. User Support and Maintenance of Existing Applications and Workflows
1.1 SQL Server Database Administrator (DBA)
• Install and configure Oracle software
• Configure and monitor data backups
• Troubleshoot performance issues
1.2 Service Order Generation
• Write, configure, and monitor Service Order Generation (SOGEN) software • Provide programming and support for mobile SOGEN
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 180 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
1.3 Automated Utility Design
• Install and configure software and upgrades, provide training, and troubleshoot problems; assist IT when necessary
• Provide customization services for import/export to SAP and report generation • Write, configure, and monitor software to update material catalog prices from SAP • Write, configure, and monitor software to output work order data to Excel
1.4 Electric Equipment Management (EEM) Database
• Write, configure, and monitor database (Oracle) and front-end application (EEM) for electric equipment maintenance
2. Data Synchronization, Import, and Export
• Configure and support FME workspaces for export to ESRI SHP, AutoCAD DWG, Excel, and ArcGIS maps
• Write, configure, and monitor software to import SAP utility meter data (installation numbers)
• Configure and support FME workspaces to import SAP consumption data (via a middleware Excel file) for any desired utility
3. GIS and Engineering Drawing Support
• Provide technical support for ArcGIS and ArcGIS Pro for WGW Engineering and Operations users
• Assist with creation and maintenance of WGW utility system maps in ArcGIS Pro for engineering analysis, operations planning, and paper map production • Configure and assist with ArcGIS queries, map layers, and attribute searches to support user workflows
• Assist with creation and maintenance of AutoCAD Civil 3D drawings to support WGW Engineering design and construction drawing development • Provide support for data exchange between GIS, AutoCAD Civil 3D, and other engineering systems used by WGW Engineering
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 181 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (“NTP”) from the CITY.
Milestones Completion
Number of Days/Weeks (as specified
below)
from NTP
Scope Category 1: User Support & Maintenance
of Existing Applications & Workflows
Services to be provided on an ongoing
basis as directed by City
Scope Category 2: Data Synchronization, Import,
and Export
Services to be provided on an ongoing
basis as directed by City
Scope Category 3: Application Development,
Data Integration, and GIS Enhancements
Services to be provided on an ongoing
basis as directed by City
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 182 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT C
COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for the Services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement), based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), shall not exceed the amount(s) stated in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.
TASK DESCRIPTIONS
Estimated
Annual
Budget:
3 Year
Contract
Total:
Category 1 – User Support & Maintenance of Existing Applications & Workflows
$70,000 $210,000
Task 1.1 – Oracle Database Administration
Install and configure Oracle software; configure and monitor backups; and troubleshoot database performance issues.
Task 1.2 – Service Order Generation (SOGEN)
Write, configure, and monitor SOGEN software; provide programming and support for mobile SOGEN.
Task 1.3 – Automated Utility Design Support (SAP / Reporting / Data Automation)
Install and configure software and upgrades; provide training and troubleshooting; assist IT as needed; develop customizations for SAP integration including material catalog price updates and work order data export to Excel.
Task 1.4 – Electric Equipment Management (EEM) Database Write, configure, and monitor Oracle database and front-end application for electric equipment maintenance.
Task 1.5 – ArcGIS and Engineering Application Support
Provide technical support for ArcGIS and ArcGIS Pro; assist with map creation and maintenance; support queries, layers, and attribute workflows; and support AutoCAD Civil 3D drawings and data exchange with GIS and other systems.
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 183 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Category 2 – Data Synchronization, Import and Export $30,000 $90,000 Task 2.1 – FME Data Export Workflows
Configure and support FME workspaces for exporting data to ESRI SHP, AutoCAD DWG, Excel, and ArcGIS formats.
Task 2.2 – SAP Utility Meter Data Import
Write, configure, and monitor software to import SAP utility meter data (installation numbers).
Task 2.3 – SAP Consumption Data Import
Configure and support FME workspaces to import SAP consumption data via middleware (Excel or similar formats) for any utility.
Category 3 – Application Development, Data Integration, and GIS Enhancements $40,000 $120,000
Task 3.1 – Application and Workflow Development
Develop new applications, scripts, and workflows to support utility engineering, operations, and data management needs.
Task 3.2 – Data Integration and Expansion
Incorporate new datasets and expand existing data structures within GIS and related systems to support engineering analysis, operations planning, and reporting.
Task 3.3 – GIS Data Access and Usability Enhancements
Enhance access to GIS data through improvements to map layers, queries, attribute structures, and integration with other engineering systems.
Total: $140,000 $420,000
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder.
Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are:
NONE up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $0.00.
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 184 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay Area, including transportation and meals, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost.
All requests for reimbursement of expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, shall be accompanied by appropriate backup documentation and information.
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 185 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT C-1
SCHEDULE OF RATES
AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows:
Junior Engineer: $ 175 per hour
Project Engineer: $ 210 per hour
Senior Engineer: $ 240 per hour
Docusign Envelope ID: 74CF9C41-1ED4-8A42-8238-AB605FE11D49 Item 10
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to Contract No.
C21181846
Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 186 of 342
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #:2607-6599
TITLE
Approval of Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C20176877 with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers to Extend the Contract Term Through June 30, 2027 for the Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (SD-21000), West Bayshore Road Pump Station (SD-20000), and West Bayshore Trunk Line Improvements (SD-23000) Projects; CEQA Status - Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C20176877 with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. This amendment extends the Contract term through June 30, 2027, with no changes to the contract scope or not-to-exceed amount for the Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (SD-21000), West Bayshore Road Pump Station (SD-20000), and West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements (SD-23000) projects.
BACKGROUND
The Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station, West Bayshore Road Pump Station, and West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements projects are three of the highest-priority storm drain projects identified in the City's 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan. Design contract C20176877 was awarded to Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (Schaaf & Wheeler) on June 15, 2020.1 The original contract had a four-year term that extended to May 30, 2024. Due to the time required to secure easements within private properties and obtain project entitlement and building permit approvals, the contract was extended to November 30, 2024 by Amendment No. 1.2 Amendment No. 2 updated the contract rate schedule and extended the 1 City Council, June 15, 2020; Agenda Item #2; SR # 100992 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=80673&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for Professional Services C20176877 Amendment No.1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/staff-reports-all/2027/c20176877-schaaf-wheeleramend-1_final-contract-signed-03-08-2024-2607-6599.pdf Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 187 of 342
term to February 28, 2026.5
Due to delays in bidding, Amendment No. 3 extended the contract term to August 28, 2026.6
ANALYSIS
Amendment No. 4 (Attachment A) extends the contract term through June 30, 2027. The project is currently under construction and requires the expertise of Schaaf & Wheeler to provide construction administration support. Construction administration includes responding to requests for information, field visits, and project close-out and documentation including the preparation of as-built drawings. The construction of the project was scheduled to be completed by August 19, 2026. Due to risks associated with ground water dewatering and its impact to existing utilities including a PG&E gas transmission line, the project’s completion has been delayed. Staff and Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers agreed to amend the contract to extend the term through June 30, 2027, with no changes to scope or fee.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This contract amendment is for a time extension only and has no direct funding impact. Funding for this contract is appropriated in projects SD-21000, SD-20000, and SD-23000.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff have presented to and will continue to notify and update the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee on the progress of the three projects. Extensive public outreach has been conducted as part of the construction phase to keep the community informed throughout the process, including flyers sent to adjacent residences and businesses, notices posted online on Nextdoor and the City's website and changeable electronic message boards placed in the field and later replaced by project signs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) under Section 15301(d) of the CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Contract C20176877, Amendment No.4
APPROVED BY:
Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer
5 5
City Council, December 02, 2024; Agenda Item # 13; SR # 2410-3606 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83114&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=c5954d65 -6e89-4d24-95f2-4ec785fa1eb4
6 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for Professional Services C20176877 Amendment No. 3 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/staff-reports-all/2027/c20176877-schaff-wheeleramendment-3-final-2607-6599.pdf Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 188 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. C20176877
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C20176877 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of August 26, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, a California Corporation, located at 4699 Old Ironsides Drive (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties provide engineering design, analysis, planning and construction management support in connection with the Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station and West Bayshore Road Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvement Project, as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term of the contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C20176877 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated June 15, 2020, as amended by:
Amendment No.1, dated March 11, 2024
Amendment No.2, dated November 24, 2024
Amendment No. 3 dated February 16, 2026
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The Term of the Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2027, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
Docusign Envelope ID: B46375EB-6D48-8B73-8065-E894259DD7DA Item 11
Attachment A - Schaaf &
Wheeler Consulting Civil
Engineers, Contract
C20176877, Amendment
No.4
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 189 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
a. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 4”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
Docusign Envelope ID: B46375EB-6D48-8B73-8065-E894259DD7DA Item 11
Attachment A - Schaaf &
Wheeler Consulting Civil
Engineers, Contract
C20176877, Amendment
No.4
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 190 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or designee
SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING
CIVIL ENGINEERS
Officer 1
By:
Name: Charles D. Anderson
Title: President
Officer 2
By:
Name: Glen Anderson
Title: Vice President
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 4”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
Docusign Envelope ID: B46375EB-6D48-8B73-8065-E894259DD7DA Item 11
Attachment A - Schaaf &
Wheeler Consulting Civil
Engineers, Contract
C20176877, Amendment
No.4
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 191 of 342
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 4
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CONSULTANT shallperformtheServicestocomplete eachmilestonewithinthenumberofweeks specified below. The time to complete eachmilestonemay be increased ordecreasedbymutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. The order for Construction Administration Services, TaskH-1,H-2 and H-3may be changed at City’s discretion. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the Notice To Proceed (“NTP”).
Task/Milestones Completion Date(s)
A. Preliminary Design Completed
B. Final Design Completed
C. Cost Estimate Completed
D. Meetings Completed
E. Work Product Submittal Completed
F. Construction Documents Completed
G. Regulatory & City Permits Completed
H. Construction Administration Services
H-1 Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station June 30, 2027 H-2 West Bayshore Road Pump Station Improvement June 30, 2027 H-3 West Bayshore Trunk Line Improvement June 30, 2027
Docusign Envelope ID: B46375EB-6D48-8B73-8065-E894259DD7DA Item 11
Attachment A - Schaaf &
Wheeler Consulting Civil
Engineers, Contract
C20176877, Amendment
No.4
Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 192 of 342
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #: 2607-6561
TITLE
706 Cowper Street [26PLN-00144]. Council Preliminary Review for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map Amendment to Allow an Approximately 400 Square Foot Commercial Addition to a Category 1 Historic Resource in the Multiple-Family Residential Land Use Designation. CEQA Status: Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council acknowledge and accept staff response to the Preliminary Review application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to allow a minor expansion of commercial floor area in a residential land use designation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant requests a Preliminary Review application to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site from Multiple-Family Residential to a designation that permits office use. This, in turn, would facilitate an approximately 400 square foot expansion to an existing office use permitted under a 1970s Planned Community (PC) ordinance (Attachment D). The project includes a new two-story addition, seismic and historic rehabilitation of an existing Category 1 historic structure. A project of this minor nature would normally be approved at a staff level pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section
18.76.020(b)(3)(E). This prescreening is required, however, in accordance with PAMC Section
18.79.030(A), because staff identified the need to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Due to the minor nature of the subject application, this item is placed on the consent calendar as an efficient approach authorized pursuant to PAMC 18.79.050(a), which gives the City Council broad discretion in the manner in which to conduct the review. Receipt and review of the Preliminary Review application on the consent calendar paves the way for the applicant to file a formal application. If desired, individual Councilmembers could provide feedback under Councilmember comments or when approving the consent calendar. If three or more Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 193 of 342
Councilmembers are interested in pulling the item from the consent calendar for discussion, staff will be prepared to support that discussion on the same evening.
After this Preliminary Review has been received, the applicant may file a formal application to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map. Such amendments require Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation, followed by Council’s action by ordinance decision as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.80.
BACKGROUND
Known as the T.B. Downing House, the subject property at 706 Cowper Street is currently listed as a Category 1 (“Exceptional Building”) on Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. The building is also listed on the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C3 (Architecture). The three-story-over-basement building was originally constructed in 1894 as a single-family residence and designed in the Queen Anne style by architect and builder W. Matlock Campbell.
Since its construction, the property has undergone a series of alterations over the years, though these modifications have not affected the integrity of the historic structure’s eligibility for any of the registers on which it is listed. In 1901, a detached residential structure was added to the property, followed by a detached garage in 1924. Both structures were later demolished.
Between 1949 and 1975, portions of the original front porch were enclosed, and minor additions were made to the east façade. A 1973 fire heavily damaged the third floor, prompting substantial repairs and interior reconstruction in 1977, along with roof reframing. At that time the property was rezoned to PC-3007 (Attachment D) to allow for the conversion from residential to office use. In 1978, major alterations included additions to the rear, enclosure of the southeast wraparound porch, construction of new upper-story volumes and decks, exterior stairs, basement excavation, and landscaping changes. The building was subsequently reroofed in 1978 and 2001. Other alterations of unknown dates include demolition of a detached rear dwelling, filling of the entrance transom, and installation of skylights.
Project Description
The project includes an approximately 400-square-foot, two-story L-shaped rear and side addition that would provide additional workspace for the existing office use. The addition is located within areas of the rear and side elevations that were substantially altered in 1978, minimizing impacts to the historic street-facing facades. The project also includes interior reconfiguration that would likely trigger required seismic rehabilitation due to structural modifications; two ADA-accessible parking spaces with EV charging infrastructure; an ADAaccessible rear entrance; two ADA-compliant bathrooms; and a publicly accessible front-yard open space featuring a garden with native plant species and interpretive signage. Routine maintenance and repair of historic wood and window components would occur, including paint removal and repainting, sash repair and reglazing, repairs to frames and operating hardware, Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 194 of 342
and repair of exterior wood elements such as porch railings, columns, decking, ceilings, siding, cornices, and window and door casings and surrounds.
Surrounding Uses
The property is located on a rectangular parcel at the southeast corner of Cowper Street and Forest Avenue in Palo Alto’s University South neighborhood. Surrounding uses include the twostory boutique hotel Cowper Inn (Category 3 historic resource) to the north, a one-story medical office to the east, a one-story medical office across Downing Lane to the south, and a two-story, 12-unit residential building to the west.
ANALYSIS
Staff will prepare a thorough analysis of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan compliance upon submittal of a formal application, if filed. The preliminary review below summarizes the conceptual plans and identifies key policy considerations.
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Multiple-Family Residential, which allows residential densities of 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre, with lower densities encouraged adjacent to single-family residential areas. Although the PC zoning specifically allows the existing office land use that has operated since the 1970’s, this use is not consistent with the site’s land use designation. Due to the proposed expansion of the established office use, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is also required as part of a formal application. It is anticipated that any future Comprehensive Plan amendment would be narrowly focused on minor expansions of existing commercial uses with planned community ordinance approves thereby limiting the scope of the amendment’s applicability.
Aside from the land use designation, several Comprehensive Plan policies and goals support the project, including:
• Policy L-7.1 encourages the public and private upkeep and preservation of resources with historic merit.
• Policy L-7.9 specifically allows compatible nonconforming uses to continue for the life of historic buildings, recognizing that continued use can support the long-term preservation and maintenance of historic resources.
• Policy L-7.10 supports the preservation of significant historic resources while allowing them to be adapted to contemporary needs consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
• Policy C-1.7 encourages public access to privately owned open spaces and facilities for community meetings and events.
The project would still retain the existing historic resource while allowing modifications to accommodate the existing use and meet contemporary needs. The proposed seismic and historic rehabilitation would improve the safety of the structure, bring it more into Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 195 of 342
conformance with ADA and green building code requirements for accessibility and efficiency, and restore some of the original historic features. The project would also provide a new privately owned public open space, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement for increased public access to open spaces.
While the project is largely consistent with the overall goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required to formally align the existing land use and allow the expansion of office floor area on the property.
Zoning Compliance
The existing Planned Community (PC-3007) allows professional and general office uses and requires six on-site parking and eight secured bicycle spaces. Further, PC-3007 requires that “the building be restored, maintained, and preserved as much as possible to its original appearance insofar as architectural features are concerned.” Although no changes to the land use is proposed, the following items would need to be addressed as development standards under a new Planned Community.
• The existing 11 parking spaces would be reduced to 9 spaces, including two EV spaces. • The floor area for the site would increase by approximately 400 square feet. • A historic preservation covenant would be requested to ensure future development complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
PAMC Section 18.76.020 provides for Architectural Review of minor changes to previously approved Planned Community Districts. Based on an initial review of the conceptual plans, it appears the proposed changes are eligible for administrative approval. The conceptual design also appears generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation by locating the addition on the secondary rear and side elevations and limiting changes to the building’s primary street facing facades. This approach minimizes the visual impact of the addition and helps preserve the building’s historic character. The formal project would still be required to demonstrate compliance with the Standards as part of the review process.
Under PAMC Section 18.76.020 a “minor” change must be of little visual significance, not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, and not alter the character of the structure.1 Based on the conceptual plans, the proposed addition appears consistent with these criteria, subject to review of the formal project plans. 1 PAMC Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(E): the term "minor" means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed for the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for Architectural Review approval of a major project, Site and Design approval, Planned Community District approval, or other applicable approval is required.
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 196 of 342
Existing Rear Elevation (South): Proposed Rear Elevation (South):
Existing Side Elevation (East):
Proposed Side Elevation (East):
Historic Resource
706 Cowper Street is listed as a Category 1 (“Exceptional Building”) historic resource on the City’s Historic Inventory. Category 1 resources are buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious works by notable architects, or outstanding examples of architectural development, and are subject to historic preservation project review. The property is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Despite the property being a listed historic resource, Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 197 of 342
it is not currently eligible to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
The property is located outside the boundaries of the Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and the ordinance establishing the Planned Community (PC) zoning district did not authorize the use of transferable development rights on the site.
The proposed adaptive reuse would involve interior alterations in addition to exterior work.
Although the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance primarily addresses exterior alterations, both the interior and exterior work would be evaluated under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to ensure the property’s character-defining features and historic significance are preserved. The 1973 National Register nomination noted that, “The interior was divided into five apartments many years ago, but the original elaborate woodwork and fixtures have remained,” indicating a history of interior alterations. Potential contributing features include the staircase, interior doors and trim, ceiling medallions, interior window frames, and possibly the front ground-floor room arrangements. These features would need to be evaluated as part of the formal application review.
Seismic Rehabilitation
The subject property is not listed on the City’s Seismic List. However, California Building Code Section 503.11 requires, in part, that where work exceeds 50 percent of the building area and involves substantial structural alterations, the lateral load-resisting system of the altered building must satisfy current building code requirements. As a listed historic resource, the property is also subject to the California Historical Building Code (CHBC), which provides alternative approaches to building code requirements associated with the preservation and rehabilitation of qualified historic buildings. The CHBC allows structural and seismic upgrades to be designed based on the actual properties of historic materials and sound engineering principles and professional judgment, rather than prescriptive code requirements. This flexibility can facilitate greater retention of historic fabric while addressing necessary structural improvements.
The applicant has not yet conducted a structural analysis of the building at this preliminary stage. A formal application would provide an opportunity for the required structural and seismic evaluation to be completed.
Public Benefit
Planned Community applications are typically associated with some form of public benefit.
While the proposed work is relatively minor and preservation of the Category 1 historic resource provides an intrinsic benefit to the city, the owner is also interested in creating a publicly accessible open space at the corner of Cowper Street and Homer Avenue. A city walking tour in June included 12 other privately owned public open spaces, termed POPOS by local artist Lisa Van Dusen.3 As part of a formal application, the owner has indicated an interest 3 The Walking Tour of Palo Alto’s Privately Owned Public Open Spaces was supported in part by the ArtLift Grants Program through the City of Palo Alto Public Art Program. More information about this event is available online:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Community-Services/Walking-Tour-of-Palo-Alto%E2%80%99sPrivately-Owned-Public-Open-Spaces Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 198 of 342
in memorializing this benefit to include a management and maintenance plan that would address responsibilities related to access, maintenance, litter and other measures associated with the publicly accessible space. Public access to the property in the manner described by the applicant is not currently a planned community benefit associated with the current PC ordinance.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Preliminary Review are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. If accepted on the consent calendar, the Council is acknowledging the applicant’s intent to file a Comprehensive Plan amendment to advance the conceptual project. If a formal application is submitted, additional analysis would be required to evaluate the proposed public space and potential impacts to historic resources.
Although the City’s historic preservation regulations primarily address exterior alterations, the proposed interior work is relevant to the property’s National Register listing. If sufficiently extensive, the alterations could affect the property’s ability to convey its historic significance and jeopardize its continued National Register status. The interior alterations would therefore be evaluated for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and designed to retain significant historic spaces and features to the greatest extent feasible.
Should the Comprehensive Plan amendment ultimately not be adopted, the project may still proceed with rehabilitation and other improvements. However, the scope would need to change to remove floor area addition.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Processing of this prescreening and any future formal application are funded by applicant fees.
Any formal application would also be subject to impact fees to address impacts of the proposed development on public services and infrastructure. Any work related to a citywide POPOS initiative is currently unfunded and would advance only as available resources allow.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post and postcard mailing occurred on September 18, 2026, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Preliminary Review process is not considered a project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore not subject to environmental review. . A review in accordance with CEQA would be initiated with the formal filing of a development application.
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 199 of 342
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Applicant’s Description Letter
Attachment C: Project Plans
Attachment D: Planned Community Zoning Ordinance (PC-3007) APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 200 of 342
Downing_House
Waverley Surgery_Center
Select Physical Therapy
Cedar Terraces_Condominium
Rose Lane Apts.
Cowper_Inn
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
10 75
52.3' 0'
200.0'
200.0'
90.0'
150.0'
110.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
15 50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
150.0'
100.0'
150.0'
100.0'
150.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
90.0'
150.0'
90.0'
200.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
200.0'
0.0'
200.0'
50.0'
200.0'
130.0'
50.0'
130.0'
75.0'
134.0'
75.0'
134.0'
75.0'
134.0'
75.0'
134.0'
50.0'
134.0'
50.0'
134.0'
50.0'
134.0'
50.0'
134.0'
50.0'
134.0'
50.0'
134.0'
100.0'
84.0 1
'
00.0'
84.0'
100.0'
50.0'
100.0'
50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
200.0'
100.0'
100.0'
25.0'
100.0'
125.0'
100.0'
25.0'
50.0'
150.0'
150.0'
125.0'
50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50.0'
200.0'
50.0'
50.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
200.0'
00.0'
200.0'
100.0'
50.0'
150.0'
50.0'
150.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
130.0'
143.0'
100.0'
140.0'
200.0'
140.0'
200.0'
140.0'
100.0'
250.0'
50 200.0'
200.0'
50.0'
200.0'
200.0'
50.0'
200.0
43.0' 50.0'
150.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
150.0'
60.0'
200.0
59.0' 51.0'
51.0' 59.0'
150.0'
150.0'
150.0'
150.0'
55.0'
12 459
611
701
725
745
425
430
446
455
483
501
532
5 457
48 -
1 427-453
411-419
724-732
734-740
711
705
460
735
630
423
421
706
720
744
475
469
454
400
43 4
7 35
439
441
443
445
447
449
457
455
451
453
663
669
675
681
536
534
544
610
550
432
434
436
COWPER STREET
FOREST AVENUE
FOREST AVENUE
COWPER STREET
HOMER AVENUE
DOWNING LANE
PC-3007
RM-40
PC-2130
PK
RM
G
PKG
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
Legend
Project Site
0' 87'
Attachment A
Location Map
706 Cowper Street
CITY OF PALO ALTO
I N C O R P O R A T E D
CAL I FORN I A
P a l o A l t o
T h e C i t y o f
A P R I L 1 6
1 8 9 4
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sswitze, 2026-08-19 17:22:37
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb)
Item 12
Attachment A - Location
Map
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 201 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln RENDERING: PROPOSED LANDSCPE w/EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DOWNING HOUSE
OFFICE REMODEL/ADDITION
SAMSARA
628 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto CA 94301
COUNCIL PRE-SCREENING
(Submittal)
OWNER
ARCHITECT
Michael A. Chacon
135 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 202 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln NORTH
PROJECT ZONING/LOCATION
Project Location:
The project is located in the 'Downtown Commercial (CD) District with a PC overlay, and fronted by public strees on three sides: Cowper Street to the north, Forest Avenue to the west and Downing Lane to the south.
Ordinance:
Zoned CD-C(P).
Required Setbacks: per PC-3007
Maximum Site Coverage: per PC-3007
Maximum Bldg Ht: per PC-3007
Maximum Floor Area: per PC-3007
This project proposes a modest rear and side L-shaped addition to an existing Category 1 Queen Anne Victorian in Palo Alto (built in 1894), rehabilitating the property for continued office use while preserving its historic character as a designated local landmark. The new floor area provides code‑compliant, functional workspace that allows the building to remain viable in contemporary professional use, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Historic Context
The existing building is a late‑19th‑century wood‑frame Queen Anne Victorian, a style noted in Palo Alto materials for its complex roof forms, asymmetrical massing, and prominent corner elements. As a Category 1 resource, the property is recognized as having the highest level of historic significance locally, and exterior changes are subject to review by the Historic Resources Board.
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 203 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln
DESIGN APPROACH
The addition is located on the rear and secondary side elevations, with limited visibility from the public way, to maintain the primacy of the historic street‑facing facades. Massing, ridge heights, and roof forms are calibrated to remain subordinate to the original Queen Anne volume while echoing its proportions and general vertical emphasis. The cladding, trim, and foundation treatment are drawn from the same family of painted wood materials as the landmark structure, but detailing, fenestration groupings, and glazing patterns are intentionally simplified to clearly differentiate the new work as a product of its own time, consistent with Standards 9 and 10.
Preservation of Historic Fabric
Work on the historic portion of the building is limited to repair and selective replacement in kind of deteriorated elements, following the hierarchy of preserving existing materials wherever feasible. Character‑defining features of the Queen Anne, including its primary roof forms, corner massing, and street‑facing ornament, are retained and remain visually dominant when viewed from the public realm.
COMMINUTY BENEFIT AND PUBLIC VALUE
In addition to preservation and adaptive reuse, the project provides a package of community benefits centered on public access, sustainability, and landscape education. These benefits include public access to a parklet area, installation of EV charging infrastructure, use of highefficiency building systems, and creation of a garden area planted with indigenous species and accompanied by interpretive signage. The parklet will provide a publicly accessible outdoor amenity associated with the site, while the EV charging and efficient building systems will support cleaner transportation and improved environmental performance. The indigenous garden, envisioned as a small educational landscape similar in spirit to Gambrel Gardens, will offer informational signage about the plantings and their ecological value, extending the project’s benefit beyond the property itself.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the addition is designed to be compatible yet clearly differentiated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, maintaining the landmark Queen Anne as the primary historic artifact on the site. By pairing carefully calibrated new construction with community‑oriented benefits and long‑term stewardship, the project supports the continued viability of a significant historic resource while contributing to the broader community goals identified in local policy documents.
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 204 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln (E) NORTH ELEV
NORTH ELEV RENDER
NORTH (COWPER ST PUBLIC VIEWING CORRIDOR) EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 205 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln (E) EAST ELEV
EAST ELEV RENDER
EAST EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 206 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln (E) WEST ELEV
WEST ELEV RENDER
WEST (FOREST AVE ST PUBLIC VIEWING CORRIDOR) EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 207 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln (E) SOUTH ELEV
SOUTH ELEV RENDER
SOUTH (DOWNING LN) EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 208 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln
KEY PHOTO PLAN
The Downing House shares diverse architectural styles and uses at the Forest/Cowper intersection:
from a 13-story apartment complex, to a mixed-use 3-story building to a historic bed-andbreakfast built in 1896.
Public viewing corridors of the Downing House will remain virtually untouched as no additional square footage is being proposed on either of these elevations.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
PROJ NORTH
PROJECT SITE
706 COWPER STREET
COWPER STREET ELEVATION (NEXT PAGE)
FOREST AVENUE ELEVATION (NEXT PAGE)
A
B
C F
E
D
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 209 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln
ADDITION
720 COWPER STREET 706 COWPER STREET 720 DRIVEWAY
ADDITION
(N) TRASH ENCLOSURE
706 COWPER STREET 454 FOREST AVENUE DOWNING ALLEY
The Downing House shares diverse architectural styles and uses at the Forest/Cowper intersection: from a 13-story apartment complex, to a mixed-use 3-story building to a historic bread-and-breakfast inn built in 1896.
Public viewing corridors of the Downing House will remain virtually untouched as no additional square footage is being proposed on either of these elevations.
STREET ELEVATION
A
B
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s Description
Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 210 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln A
720 COWPER STREET
B
454 FOREST AVENUE
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 211 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln C
705 COWPER STREET
C
711 COWPER STREET
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 212 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D
457-481 FOREST AVENUE
E
483 COWPER STREET
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 213 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln E
501 FOREST AVENUE
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 214 of 342
D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln D:\MAC Project\DOWNING HOUSE\1c. Design\1c.4 Plng Reqts & Approval\PRESCREENING SUBMITTAL\C2_706COWPER_PLAN.pln The Nickel Gap profile is self-gapping, creating
a consistent nickel-sized space between each
board.
Smooth Finish Woodgrain Finish
NICKEL GAP
Nominal
Size
Actual
Thickness
Actual
Width Reveal Boards Per
Square
1 x 4 11/16" 3-1/2" 3-3/32" 24
1 x 6 11/16" 5-1/2" 5-3/32" 15
1 x 8 11/16" 7-1/4" 6-13/16" 11
1 x 10 11/16" 9-1/4" 8-13/16" 9
Available in 16-foot lengths
19 TRUEXGTERIOR NICKEL GAP SIDING
YOSEMITE TAN AGGREGATE
BASALT COBBLESTONE
GEVENA BLACK COBBLE BORDER
BASALT SCULPTED SLAB BENCH
MARVIN DIVIDED LITE WINDOW
PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Item 12
Attachment B - Applicant’s
Description Letter
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 215 of 342
If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email [email protected]
Project Plans
In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Councilmembers for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources.
Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “706 Cowper Street” and click the address link
3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/CurrentPlanning/Projects/706-Cowper-Street Item 12
Attachment C - Project
Plans
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 216 of 342
Item 12
Attachment D - Planned
Community Zoning
Ordinance (PC 3007)
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 217 of 342
Item 12
Attachment D - Planned
Community Zoning
Ordinance (PC 3007)
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 218 of 342
Item 12
Attachment D - Planned
Community Zoning
Ordinance (PC 3007)
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 219 of 342
Item 12
Attachment D - Planned
Community Zoning
Ordinance (PC 3007)
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 220 of 342
Item 12
Attachment D - Planned
Community Zoning
Ordinance (PC 3007)
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 221 of 342
Item 12
Attachment D - Planned
Community Zoning
Ordinance (PC 3007)
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 222 of 342
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #:2609-6723
TITLE
QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 Park/340 Portage: Final Map and Street Naming [26PLN-00009]: Request for a Final Map to Subdivide One Existing 3.92-Acre Parcel for Condominium Purposes, Consistent with the Approved Development Agreement, and to Name the New Private Streets.
Zone District: PC 5597. CEQA Status: Council Adopted Resolution 10123 Certifying the EIR for the Project on September 12, 2023 (SCH # 2021120444).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Approve Phase 2 of the final subdivision map (Attachment B), consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, for the previously approved project at 3200 Park Boulevard, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.16 and the Subdivision Map Act; and
2. Approve the private street names Gondolier Lane, Snow Peak Lane, Bohemian Court, and Calico Court recommended by the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) for the four new private streets as shown on the Final Map.
BACKGROUND
In September 2023, Council approved the Development Agreement between the City and Sobrato Organization, subsequently amending the site’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation; rezoning the site into five Planned Community Zone Districts based on the boundaries of the resulting parcels set forth in the Vesting Tentative Map; and approving the Vesting Tentative Map in accordance with Record of Land Use Action 2023-03 (Attachment A).
Final Map Application and Process
The Final Map is the second of a two-part subdivision mapping process; the first part is approval of a Tentative Map or Vesting Tentative Map. As detailed in the November 17, 2025, staff report to Council, and in the approved Development Agreement, the Final Map for this project is to be completed in two phases. On April 21, 2025, Sobrato Organization filed phase one of the Final Map application, which Council approved on November 17, 2025. The first phase included merging and subdividing 11 existing parcels (including one grant deed) totaling 14.65 Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 223 of 342
acres to create five resulting parcels, consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement. This second phase of the Final Map includes the condominium subdivision of the recently created Townhome Parcel as well as delineation of the streets internal to the townhome parcel.
The Final Map is the official, legal document that is recorded with the County that establishes the property lines, streets, and easements within the subdivision. The Final Map must be prepared under the direction of a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and be based on a survey. Approval of a Final Map is ministerial if the Final Map is in substantial compliance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and the subdivider has satisfied the conditions of approval attached to the tentative map. While many cities delegate approval of the Final Map to the City Engineer, under PAMC Section 21.16.240, the Palo Alto City Council is responsible for the approval.
ANALYSIS
The Final Map is the document containing the statements, acknowledgements, and agreements from the property owner, surveyor, City officials and beneficiaries that the Final Map is in conformance with all applicable regulations and the approved Vesting Tentative Map. The proposed subdivision includes private streets and related easements for vehicular access between parcels and utility easements.
In accordance with City’s Street Naming policy (Resolution 5739) and Condition of Approval 5 in Section 7 of the approved Record of Land Use Action for the project (Attachment A), the Palo Alto Street Naming Committee selected, and the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) board voted on proposed street names for the new private streets. The Street Naming Committee recommended the names Gondolier, Snow Peak, Bohemian, and Calico as they are all brand names used by the Bayside Canning Company, the historic cannery that previously operated on the site. PAHA concurred with the proposed street name. The proposed street names for the project site are Gondolier Lane, Snow Peak Lane, Bohemian Court, and Calico Court. These recommended names are now forwarded to Council for approval, as reflected on the Final Map.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Fees for processing of the Final Map have been paid by Dividend Housing, the applicant, in accordance with the adopted municipal fee schedule. This month Dividend purchased the subject parcel for this condominium subdivision from Sobrato Organization. In accordance with the property purchase agreements, Dividend shall be responsible for payment of the associated development impact fees at final occupancy for each respective townhome. Impact fees associated with the townhome development are currently estimated at $883,115.71 in addition to the public art in-lieu fees that will be collected for the townhomes. This shall be assessed pro rata at the time of delivery of the individual townhomes if delivery for occupancy is phased. In addition, at the time of occupancy of the townhomes, payment of the $5 million public benefits fee shall be paid in accordance with the Development Agreement and may be used toward the Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 224 of 342
proposed improvement of the City dedication parcel. Similar to the impact fees, the $5 million shall be paid pro-rata if occupancy of the townhomes is phased. The impact fees do not include park fees, parkland dedication fees, housing impact fees, nor housing in-lieu fees. Those fees are addressed through the dedication of a 3.25-acre parcel to the City and the $5 million to be paid at the time of occupancy of the townhomes.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing to be published in a local paper at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 4, 2026, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. At the time of this staff report, staff has not received any public comments on the final map or street naming.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project was previously evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Council certified the Environmental Impact Report for this project, making overriding considerations, on September 12, 2023, through adoption of Resolution 10123. The proposed action to record the Final Map is ministerial if the map is found to be in substantial conformance with the previously approved Vesting Tentative Map. That said, the recordation of the Final Map and authorization to complete the necessary documents for conveyance of the property is consistent with the approved Development Agreement and associated EIR.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Approved Record of Land Use Action for the Vesting Tentative Map Attachment B: Final Map
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 225 of 342
!
""
#
$%&
!
!
$"&
'
(
$
)*
+(
,
+
#+
$
+
!
++
$
++
-#$
!
#
+
.
/
!$
+
'##!
!
0
*)1
**2
34567869:6;<<8=6>?8
>@A4B?CDEFGHIJFKDELMNDONFDPQIJFKIDRSTJNUV
77;@W6X
Y6W6C@79648Z[;669648<>@97;6=64\?W6]C
4^
4X_\6`
7
4Xa6b8Z964X9648<]C
446X
>@99A4?8
c6d@4?4[<e?\8@;?Bc6W?6f<
4Xg6\8?4[a648
8?W6`
7f?8=hbB678?@4\<9
i?4[8=6
j@CC@f?4[j?4X?4[\<X686;9?4
8?@4\<
4XX6BC
;
8?@4\k
5h>al3mnoZ>pqc3_mYn
Zn 34ZA[A\8r<sstDuvMFDwvxMSJyMFJDSzGHvHJSvHEHvvH{FDM|QtDuvMFDUz 77C?6X
j@;
Y6W6C@79648Z[;669648<>@97;6=64\?W6]C
4Z964X9648<]C
446X>@99A4?8
c6d@4?4[<
e?\8@;?Bc6W?6f<
4X
g6\8?4[a648
8?W6`
7f?8=hbB678?@4\8@
CC@f8=6X6W6C@79648@j}
8@f4=@96\<B@4W6;\?@4@j<\j@jZA8@9@8?W656;W?B6\57 B68@c6\6
;B=
4XY6W6C@79648
_\6<
4X>@4\8;AB8?@4@j
46f\?4[C6~\8@;
<8f@~^6W6C]
;i?4[q
;
[6na=6
C\@
CC@f\r <r
\j@j6b?\8?4[cY\7
B6
4X <}}\j@j6b?\8?4[@jj?B6\7
B68@;69
?4
88=6\?86na=67;@6B8
?4BCAX6\9@X?j?B
8?@4\8@<?4BCAX?4[7
;8?
CX69@C?8?@4@j<8=6j@;96;>
446;
oA?CX?4[<f=?B=?\
6C?[?:C6j@;8=6>
C?j@;4?
c6[?\86;@je?\8@;?Bc6\@A;B6\na=67;@6B8f@ACX
C\@?4BCAX6X6X?B
8?@4
@jC
4X\
4XjA4X\8@8=6>?8
j@;
4
jj@;X
:C6=@A\?4[X6W6C@79648
\f6CC
\C
4Xj@;
7
;i@;
@8=6;7A:C?B@764\7
B6A\6
X
B648`
8 X6;@>;66in
on a=67;@6B8\?86B@4\?\8\@j6C6W646b?\8?4[7
;B6C\C@B
86X
8~ ]@;8
[6
ZW64A6<~rZ\=58;668< ~r]
;io@AC6W
;X<
4X}^
9:6;8Z]m5~~<
~}<~ ~ <
4X~~
4X~}8@8
C?4[ nr
B;6\nhb?\8?4[A\6\?4BCAX6r <r\j
@jc6\6
;B=
4XY6W6C@79648_\6\< <}}\j@j@jj?B6A\6<}<\j@jZA8@9@8?W656;W?B6A\6<
4X
77;@b?9
86C
<\j@jW
B
48;68
?C\7
B6n
>n 34ZA[A\8<>@A4B?CB@4XAB86X
7;6\B;664?4[;6W?6f@j8=67;@7@\6X
C6[?\C
8?W6
B8?@4\?4
BB@;X
4B6f?8=]Z`>n}n
Yn 343B8@:6;<
4X3B8@:6;<]C
44?4[
4Xa;
4\7@;8
8?@4
>@99?\\?@4=6CX\8AX
\6\\?@4\8@7;@W?X6j66X:
Bi
4X
CC@fj@;7A:C?BB@99648@48=6
7;@7@\6X7;@6B8n34m@W69:6;<a=6]C
44?4[
4Xa;
4\7@;8
8?@4>@99?\\?@4
;6B@9964X6X8=
88=6
77C?B
48\A:9?88=67;@7@\6X7C
4\8@8=6Z;B=?86B8A;
Cc6W?6fo@
;X
j@;;6W?6f:
\6X@48=6B@4B678A
CX6\?[4
4X7;@7@\6X7;@6B8?4
BB@;X
4B6f?8=8=6]C
446X
>@99A4?8
c6d@4?4[7;@B6\\?4n@j8=6B@X6n
hn
@CC@f?4[\8
jj;6W?6f<8=6e?\8@;?B
Cc6\@A;B6\o@
;Xeco;6W?6f6X8=67;@6B8
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 ¡¢ Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 226 of 342
! "#$$#%&'()*+,,+'-*./0123)4/5&/%6*./748.&*/8*94+$1/5&/%2#+4-:712; <
<
=>
? "#$$#%&'(*./012+'-7123)4/5&/%6*./@$+''&'(+'-A4+')B#4*+*&#'C#DD&))&#' EFGH<
<
=>
I J
KL
>
KLG
G>
<
M>
N
OP
G
Q
R
FSO
<
>
TU
P
V
P
F
<WS
O
P>L
G>
X
Y
T>
PWZT
[
P
P
P
\
L J
]
PN
OP
L<
G
KL
\
T>
PG
Q
R
FS\
J
]
]^
]
]
PU
P
>
P
G>
\
FT
Q
RO
Z F
>L
K
^
T
Q
RO
KWGFZJ_ W_VZTJ_
W_FOQTWVZW`
`G
W
a>
OEGWaOHG
W
bDB+8*1/B#4*:cdb1e;,#4*./fgg@#4*+(/75/'9/A#%'.#D/@4#h/8**#B4#5&-/+'+))/))D/'*
M>
P
>
P
ON
WZT<
>
>L<
i
KL>P
_L
O!
WZTXWO<
>L
O
!
WZT<
=>
>
<
!
WZT
G
G>
PL
T>
_
KL
>L
TQRO OP
>
P
P
T
PP
E
TH
L
F
T
>
WSLOT
Q
RO
KWGFZJ_ OTGIZFWGFRTOQTWVZW`!Z_NZ_?K
F
P
>
<!
PO>
T<
M>
G
^O
G
G
]O
G
jDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 klmnopqrqstukvtwjxyz{|}~~~rz}{r|j{ Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 227 of 342
!"#$%&&'
'()
'
'*&
*+
*%,--.
(,/.&-0)1
'
)
')2*%&3,.)4.*)
5)6-0&%&
'
1&3.,
78)
5)&7())0
,*&,0&,-.,
'9
(.:
()6-,*
/
.
*;
0&<:
0&6&
*'=7,
,
;0&.&1,
*&'
:
&'>
?@
ABACDEFG
HIJK
LLMNO
PNQJKRMRSTRUJRVWNXLMRKRYUIORZP
Y[XRYVXRYJ
YVZP
YYRV
WNXXTYIJ
\R]NYIY^IY
__NMV
Y_R`IJKJKRaRORPNLXRYJ[^MRRXRYJbJKRLMNLNURVLMNcR_J
_NXLPIRU`IJKJKR]NYIY^_NVRdeKRLMNcR_J_NXLPIRU`IJKJKR_NYJRfJgh URVVRUI^Y_MIJRMI
i
U
NTJPIYRVTYVRMQIYVIY^jkdeKRLMNcR_JIUYNJPN_
JRV`IJKIY
_NNMVIY
JRV
MR
LP
Y
MR
deKR
LMNLNURVLMNcR_JIU_NYUIUJRYJ`IJKJKRWNXLMRKRYUIORZP
YbhRPN`IU
Y
Y
P
UIUNQJKR
LLPI_
hPR^N
PU
YVLNPI_IRUl
mnopqrstunsrvstwqnrxyxzv {n|p}n~zyswz}zvn}wnzvtnswz}zn mnopqrst
?A@
FFFA
A
FF
eKRLMNcR_JLMNLNURUJN
VV
YR`LThPI_L
M
YV XTPJIgQ
XIP
MRUIVRYJI
P TURUi
JN`YKNXRU
YV
Y
QQNMV
hPRKNTUIY^LMNcR_Jk
NYJKRLMNLNURVWIJ
VRVI_
JINYL
M_RPdeKRUR
TURU
MR_NYUIUJRYJ`IJKJKRXTPJIgQ
XIP
MRUIVRYJI
PP
YVTURVRUI^Y
JINYb`KI_K
RY_NTM
^RUKI^KVRYUIJ
MRUIVRYJI
PTURU`IJKIY
dXIPRUNQJM
YUIJd[UL
MJNQJKRYR^NJI
JRV
aRORPNLXRYJ[^MRRXRYJbYNY_NYQNMXIY^TURU
`IJKIYRfIUJIY^UJMT_JTMRU`NTPVhR
PPN`RVJN
MRX
IYdeKRLMNcR_JIY_PTVRU
WNXLMRKRYUIOR
ZP
Y
YVUR
L[XRYVXRYJJN_K
Y^RJKR
P
YVTURVRUI^Y
JINYNQJKMRRNQJKRL
M_RPUJN
_NXXRM_I
PURMOI_RUdeKIU`NTPV
PI^YJKR
RfIUJIY^TURU`IJK
Y
LLMNLMI
JRTYVRMP
IY^
_NXLMRKRYUIORLP
YP
YVTURVRUI^Y
JINYJK
J
IU_NYUIUJRYJ`IJKJKRP
YVTURVRUI^Y
JINYNQ
UTMMNTYVIY^
MR
Ud
stwvzstwmnootxzvxt
3).
(;">#IXIJQTJTMRTMh
YVRORPNLXRYJ
JN_TMMRYJP
VRORPNLRVP
YVU`IJKIYJKRTMh
Y
URMOI_R
MR
deKRhNTYV
M
NQJKRTMh
Y
URMOI_R
MR
IUNJKRM`IURYN`Y
UJKRTMh
Y
^MN`JKhNTYV
M
d\RJ
IYTYVRORPNLRVP
YV
`RUJNQNNJKIPPfLMRUU`
YVTYILRMN
RMM
UNLRYUL
_Rb`IJK
PPN`
Y_RUX
VR
eKRLMNcR_JIUPN_
JRVNY_TMMRYJP
VRORPNLRV
P
YVU`IJKIYJKRTMh
YURMOI_R
MR
d
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 ¡¢£¤£¥¦§¨¦©ª«¬®¯°±²³´µ°°³¶¤¬¯³¤²®³²¶´µ·±´¸±¶ Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 228 of 342
!
"#$%&'()*+,-.
/
/
/
!
0
1
2
/
/
"#$%&'()*+34
!
5
6
!
7
8
9
:
;
5
<
6
9
=8
60
2/
8
90
!
<!
"#$%&'()*+>-7
!
!
!
/
1
2
?
@
/
!
;
1
2@
!
;
;
0
!!
/
"#$%&'()*+**-
!
ABCDEBCDFBGHIGEHJKGCLBMCGCENBDOBPQCRLREQR
!
S
1
2T
!
S
!
!
S
0
/0
!
0
@0S
!
0
0
!
!
S
0!
6
U
!
"#$%&'()V+3-W
/
!
0
;
0
/
1
2
X
0
/
<
?XY
/
!
2
"#$%&' ()V+Z- :
!
0
@
T
<!
1
2
[
/
2
"#$%&'()V+**-7
!
!
!
0
@
@0
T
!
1
2!
!
//!
!
/
@
2
8
;@
[
!
!
\/
]
^DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 _`abcdefeghi_jhk^lmnopqrstuvwrruxfnquoftputxv^woysvzsx Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 229 of 342
!"#$%&'()*+,-
.
/
0
.
0
1
.
2
.
3
0
0
4
0
!"#$%&'(5*+,6
2
0
!"#$%&'()*7,-
1
0
3
.
8
1
8
1
0
19
60
9/
0
8
!"#$%&'(5*:,;<
=
1
0
1
>
/
6
2
?@ABCDEAFGHIFDJIHIGAJGKHG@G@ALHGMNIODJHJP
QCRHJSJFASJRTDJUSVSJFATWAAGIG@ALHGMNI
/XY
0
!"#$%&'(5*Z,[
1
0
3
1
\
8
0
3
.
]
1
1
0
3
3
8
]
2
0
^
_
!"#$%&'(5*`,9
]
0]
3
.
8
2
\
^
]
\
2
_
X
\
aDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 bcdefghihjklbmknaopqrstuvwxyzuux{iqtxriwsxw{yazr|vy}v{ Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 230 of 342
!"#$%%&
%
%'!"
'%
%(#
)'
'%%&#
*%+
'"
'
,
"
%'
'%,&' ,
'" '
(
-&
!
#((',"+
,
#
!' '
.
(&
(.#
)'
(/
%&
"%
%'!(%(
.
#
)'
"%(%&
%$''$'0%&
$
%."
!% %#
)'
-&'"(%'""$
'%
''
(
.
(%
%(+(%
%%
(+
!',
%"
"$
(
..''%#
)'
%$% $
/
1&
%('%'(#
'$
'"
#
! #
)'
"%/
1&#
#( #
*%
$!(.%&
(
.
#
)'
"%(
("'
%($
&.
%&$$
'
"#
)'
%-
%&
.%&
('%'
%
$$
% '
%'.
#
"%%&2'%
.
#
,"'#
)/1&
#
#( #
)'
"'
(-'%&%&3'(%'
%'(
'(%&
.
%''#
% %,(
..''%%
$%%& $
/1&%-&$#
"&
(
'%'
"#
)'
%(
##
%
(%(
(-""
(
#
)'
.
&
'%'
%&
%-
" %
,!'(',"%%&#
,"'/
41
%
(' %'
"(%
%(
(,%&
#
,"'-
(
'
&,
&
$'%'(/
5 !'
$
'%
'%'
((' -
")(+
&
"%&
(%
%%
(+,&(
%&
6789:;:8<;=6;>?@7@;8A6BC:9D69EF6G;:H8I
%
(#
%
%'/
1&#
*%'$#
!(%&(%
%
'
&%J.J-
%&
&'$#
! (%
%#"
%'
"
(#
%'.%&#
,"'(' -
").
$%&
#
'!
%#
#
%
/1&#
*%'
((%&
(' -
")
"
"2
$'K
",
#
!' '
#
,"'
($%%
""-.
J.%..%'!
(' -
")-' %&/1&"
-
")'
#
%&&
(
L889:9G?86<8E;@MNOI69E6EE:;:@96B>B69;:9D
%&'%
'
!"#$%%&
%
(# (%%&(%
%#
!' (
$
'!'%'
# (%
'
!'
$%/
PQQRKS
'
-..'+$$
'
"
$
"%'J.
$'"
(' %'
" !"#$%(%
#
!' '$#
!$%(%&
%'$#
!,'
"
# (%
'
%'!'%
(
"" .
'%&
TUVTWXYZ[Y\Z]^_`_YabWacad\e^Xf
geXfdhZe\X\^ZfWYXf/
PQQi5
!' .
'"'%'(%&
%
(
##
%,'
"'
-
")'
/
1&#
*%'"
(
- '
% %-J-
,'
""
%
"'
-'%&%&%
'"%'(
%"' '%&5
"j"%k'
"
5 (%
'
1
(#
%
%'5"
'$#
!(
3'(%'
'%'(,
'
,'
"(#
(
%&('%/
PlQj""- !"#$%#
*%(
(&
" $
#
)'
$
% ,
%&#
*%+-'%&
%%&
(.J(%
%
#
)'
+('(%%-'%&%&(%
,"'(&
#
)'
"
%'(/j( $(%
% #
)'
$
((!
%'$+#
)'
S
'
$%(.
-(%
%'(&
"
(/
1&#
*%#
!' (
S
'
#
)'
('%/j
1mn#"
'(
S
'
.
%&#
#( ..'
((
'(
S
'
%
%
'#
%'
,
o/j
.%.%&1mn#"
&
(,
#
#
'((%'"",'
!'- ,
%&
2';pN<q?69<>@?;6;:@9r:H:<:@9s
tQu5
(
!
#
%%K
"
%
1 (+(
&
(
%'!
)(
%&
('
'.'
%
%
(+#
,"'
#
'!
%#
#
%
+
'"
'
"
(
#%
(
##
!
(#
%.
!"#$%
!'-#
((
('
1&#
*%'"
(%&
$!
".($
#
%% %
('
$
%&
%'(('(%%
-'%&%&%
#
%%'
'
#"
(
""%
(%,
$! '
A:;=;=8q?88;8G=9:G6B769v6BN<?8wv:?8789;<
xDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 yz{|}~y xx Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 231 of 342
!"#$%&'()%&*+,-&$./'
0
12
3
0
2
4!55
2
2
67897:;<=>?>=@
1
0!
0
12
3
A
0
5
1
5
A
42B
12
A
2CD
0E
0
F
2
0
G22!3
FD
D
A
G
H8:I<J=@K
2
2
2
5
5
L
5 25
0
0
42B
L12
10
!
0
2
0
L
!
2
2
5 25
0
0
CD
0
E
12200
K
E
2
L
42B2
A10
1220
2
M
A0
122
2
02
12B
A0
2
0
FK
20N
0M
G
OPQRPQ9S=@TUVW78XVYZU:[:\QP]PVR:QRY8UV7VQZRV[P9Q^ZU:Z@
:>Y7V:ZV[:QPQZV7Q:I[VQ[V8]87RV7:QRRV[P7:_IVVQ`P78Q;VQZ]878YY\W:QZ[^`P[PZ87[^ :QRZUV9VQV7:IY8;;\QPZa^
_>W7V[V7`V[^7V[WVYZ[:QRPQZV97:ZV[VbP[ZPQ9Q:Z\7:I]V:Z\7V[ZU:ZY8QZ7P_\ZVW8[PZP`VIa Z8ZUV[PZV:QRZUVUP[Z87PYYU:7:YZV7PQYI\RPQ9UP[Z87PY7V[8\7YV[8]ZUV:7V:cUVQ 7VIV`:QZ^
Y>P[Y8Q[P[ZVQZcPZUZUVY8QZVbZJ_:[VRRV[P9QY7PZV7P:8]ZUV:WWIPY:_IVd8QVRP[Z7PYZ^ R>W78`PRV[U:7;8QP8\[Z7:Q[PZP8Q[PQ[Y:IV^;:[[:QRYU:7:YZV7Z8:RX:YVQZI:QR\[V[:QR I:QR\[VRV[P9Q:ZP8Q[^
V>VQU:QYV[IP`PQ9Y8QRPZP8Q[8QZUV[PZVeP]PZPQYI\RV[7V[PRVQZP:I\[V[f:QRPQ:RX:YVQZ 7V[PRVQZP:I:7V:[>
ghijklminopqnlrqpqoirospohtpruprvwxyinz{qi|
42
B
A0
5
5 2
00
A
1
A
L2
2D
M
2
A
2}2~
2A2
B
DL50
A
2
22
5
01
2
5
5 0
!
0
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 232 of 342
!
"
#
$
%
$
&
"
'
'
(
)
*
&
&
'
&
&
+
,
!
-
++
$
.
"
+
&+
+
)
*
'
"
+
+
)
+
*
&
'
'
&
&
,
"
&
"
-
+
!
/
0
'
12342356789:;4;<2532<=>:25:?;<@:;@2ABC?D2@EFC<235:25:BC?D2@EF23@;5G?@;4 H?@;G2?D<?34?IIG=IG2?@;A=3<@GCA@2=3@;A:32BC;<F?3423A=GI=G?@235@;J@CG;<FA=D=G<F?34 =@:;G4;@?2D<@:?@?G;A=HI?@2KD;L2@:?34;3:?3A;@:;<CGG=C34235?G;?M
NOPQRSTPUVWXUSYXWXVPYVZWVO[WY\WY]^_`PUabXPc
"
d
d
-
&
&
&
,
&
'
"
-
&
12342356e89:;4;<2532<>C3A@2=3?DF?DD=L235>=G;?<;?34<?>;@E=>I;4;<@G2?3?34 fghihjklmnooghnpqrmstgqgpuosmkjkvkplwlxnlwyrrsmllxkfygjqgpuzwpkhkwwnmisrkmnlgspw{k|u| A=3};32;3@};:2AD;?AA;<<@=IG=I;G@E?34C@2D2@2;<F?IIG=IG2?@;?GG?35;H;3@?34?H=C3@=> =I;3<I?A;?3423@;5G?@;4<253?5;F2>?IID2A?KD;F;@AM~M
NOPQRSTPUVWXUSYXWXVPYVZWVO[WY\WY]^`PUabXPc
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 233 of 342
!
"
#
$%
%
!
%
!
##
#
#
&
#%
'()*()+,-./0123)*45361*14(+)57862181)943)*1)03)514901:;(2*()+*14(+)3)* <=>>?@@A?BC<BD>E<>FGG@AG@<F=H=A=IH><=HJ>K?BL=<AB>EFBC?=<M<NH>=A=IHHO=HB=G@FL=<LFME P1+(7)32()*(+1)7;4*P7;+09P14(493)9623)98391P(325363:217Q6P7R(*()+*14(P3:2103:(9399039 53):1366P76P(3912S83()93()1*T
UVWXYZ[W\]^_\Z`_^_]W`]a^]Vb^`c^`defgW\hi_Wj
$
"
#
$
#
k
%
##
#%
#
#
%
'()*()+,l./016P7m159()57P67P3914*14(+)6P()5(62149039350(1R14;493()3:(2(9S() 3P134P12391*971)1P+S1QQ(5(1)5Sno391P57)41PR39(7)n:;(2*()+8391P(324n23)*4536()+n3)*4(91 623))()+T
UVWXYZ[W\]^_\Z`_^_]W`]a^]Vb^`c^`depgW\hi_Wj
qrsttuvwsrtxyz{|{|x}z{~vxxrzwzr
x
s{zur{|xvuxt{yzs{z~{|xvxzvxxr{
k
%
"
%
#
&
#%
k
%
%
#
#
!
k
#k
%
k
k
#
!
¡UVh]]VWXYZXZ_Wc¢hX^_`Z]\Z`_^_]W`]a^]VhXX£^\hg£WdW`WYh£h`c_XW\^¤^\X£h`_h__XW\^¤^Wc ^`¥W\]^Z`pf¦f j
§z{|svu¨su{|xvuuxwsutzs{xwx
zs{z¨xst{zursrw}urtzswu{zurus
#
#
k
©
ªDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 «¬®¯°±²±³´µ«¶´·ª¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂþ¾ÁIJº½Á»²À¼ÁÀÄÂªÃ»Å¿ÂÆ¿Ä Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 234 of 342
!"
#
#
$
!
!%&'((&)*)+,-./0,120/3)1).(/4(&)20/2/+)*+56*,3,+,/.,+./(7/.+,+().(8,(& '229,7'69)-).)0'9'.*+2)7,4,729'.+
:
#
;
<
=
>
"
?
;
#
#
;
#
;
!
!%&'((&)+,(),+./(2&@+,7'99@+5,('69)4/0(&)(@2)/4*)3)9/21).(A
"
$
#
B#
;
#
#
C
?
;D
;
;
#
#
?
;
E
F##
=
!"
#
;
!G
B
;
C
H
GI
J
;
G
#
#
"
>
H
"
!
!%&'((&)+,(),+./(2&@+,7'99@+5,('69)4/0(&)20/2/+)**).+,(@/4*)3)9/21).(A
"
$
# K ##
E
=
K
C
;;
;
#!L
#
#
C
##
;$
!"
B#
?
;D
;M
>BN
E=JG
!"
$
E=JG
E=JG
;
!"
#
#
#
!
L!%&'((&)*)+,-./4(&)+56*,3,+,/./0(&)20/2/+)*,120/3)1).(+'0)9,O)9@(/7'5+)+56+('.(,'9 ).3,0/.1).('9*'1'-)/0+56+('.(,'99@'.*'3/,*'69@,.P50)4,+&/08,9*9,4)/0(&),0&'6,('(A
G
MI
QR N
$
;
#
;
!:
#
;
#
#
;
;
;
;
#
!"
#
?
;
C
;
D
!"
$
$
!S
;
##
!
TDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 UVWXYZ[\[]^_U`^aTbcdefghijklmhhkn\dgke\jfkjnlTmeoilpin Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 235 of 342
!
"
"
#
$%&'()*&+,-)./01),+
.2&2&(3).2'.4/3+%&
/,%322.&2
$%&+)1,31.
,3)1)5&632,317.2&2
10 ,%&
003,3)1)58./,395
83/
%).2317
10 '
(:-)./01),31,()0.+&1&-%
;
(0).28
,&(3
/2
<//1&-2,(.+,.(&2
2-&//
28)0353+
,3)12,),%&&632,317+
11&(
4.3/0317-)./0(&=.3(&
+)8'/3
1+&-3,%+.((&1,4.3/0317>7(&&14.3/0317>
1053(&+)0&(&=.3(&8&1,2>4(317317,%&
&632,31723,&31,)+)15)(8
1+&-3,%+.((&1,+)0&(&=.3(&8&1,2
$%&'()*&+,-
2&?
/.
,&0
2'
(,
)5
1@1?3()18&1,
/A8'
+,B&')(,CDEFG H
10,%&
1 /
232+)1+/.0&0,%
,,%&
'()*&+,-)./0%
?&
/&22,%
12371353+
1,38'
+,(&/
,&0,)%
;
(02
10%
;
(0).28
,&(3
/2
10 ),%&(8&
2.(&2(&/
,&0,)'.4/3+%&
/,%2.+%
2 3(=.
/3,
10,(
12')(,
,3)1
I
J " "JK
"L
"
K
""
K
J
MN""K
K
""
KJ
KJ
L
"L
"M
"
"
O"
"
O
"
"
"L
""
J
M
$%&0&2371)5,%&2.403?323)1-3//1),+)15/3+,-3,%
1 &632,317&
2&8&1,25)(
++&22,%().7%)(
.2&)5,%&'()'&(,
<//&632,3172,(&&,>.,3/3,
10+(&&:&
2&8&1,2-)./0(&8
31 P&-'.4/3+
.,3/3,
&
2&8&1,2-)./04&0&03+
,&0
2 ''()'(3
,&>4(317317,%&23,&31,)+)15)(8
1+&-3,%,%&
QRSTUVWXYZRWX[X\SV]RS^WXV_X`SSaWXYZRWXbXcVX[X\SVdebbRSRa\cffTgc_ZhfR`c``XVVXcVX[X\S -)./04&0&03+
,&05)(,%&'.4/3+4&1&53,,)'()?30&8./,398)0
/
++&224&,-&&1i
(:j)./&?
(0
10i)(,
7&<?&1.&
D@E$AkPl
m<i@nE@i$AkPoAPpAPqD
$%&'()')2&08
'-3,%,%&&6+&',3)1,),%&'(3?
,&2,(&&,-30,%>+)8'/3&2-3,%,%&
&6+&',3)153103172
2(&=.3(&031i<mEE%
',&(
rM
" "
""
""
M
$%&'()')2&0'()*&+,32'
(,)5
0&?&/)'8&1,
7(&&8&1,-3,%,%&E3,
1031+/.0&2
'(&2&(?
,3)1)5
')(,3)1)5,%&&632,317+
11&(
4.3/0317>'
(,3+./
(/
,%&8)13,)(())52>,%&
'()?323)1,)'()?30&I ,)-1%)8&.13,2>
100&03+
,3)1)5
l
+(&2)5'
(:/
10,),%&E3,
$%&
(&
31-%3+%,%&I ,)-1%)8&232'()')2&0,)4&'()?30&032/383,&04
,%&2&,4
+:2
5()8i
(:j)./&?
(0
2-&//
2,%&+
11&(
4.3/0317
10,%&
(&
4&3170&03+
,&0,),%&E3,
A1)(0&(,)'()?30&,%&%).2317.13,2-%3/&2,3//8
31,
31317,%&2&),%&(5&
,.(&2
104&1&53,2
)5,%&0&?&/)'8&1,
7(&&8&1,>,%&'()')2&02,(&&,-30,%4&,-&&1,%&,)-1%)8&.13,2
-)./04&(&0.+&0
$%&'(3?
,&2,(&&,2
/)17,%&'&(38&,&()5,%&0&?&/)'8&1,-3//+)1,31.&
SahXstUc\b_WauRbXcbbRSRa\cf_cWvR\wg+)1232,&1,-3,%,%&31,&1,)5,%&+)0&
xDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 yz{|}~y xx Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 236 of 342
!"#$
%&'()*(*+',-**.()/0.*-.&'.*10&*2'30/.+/+.&'2/0/232+/4'0'5'++ )
.*
55*22*,
.'6'&/57'(
)8/09/0()/6
.'9
)
9'+*0.&'9)*30,-7**)
0,)'
+*0
:7
+/4',
:',)**2+*0.&'3((')7'6'7+1&/7'
7+*()*6/,/09.&'; <30/.+5*0+/+.'0.1/.&.&':)*
,
.')2+*-.&','6'7*(2'0.
9)''2'0.
0,5*2(7
/091/.&.&'*.&'):'0'-/.+*-.&'
,'6'7*(2'0.
9)''2'0.=7
0,,',/5
./*0
0,2
/0.
/0/09.&'2*0/.*))**-+>?@0*),').*
5*2(7
1/.&.&')'A3/)',<-**.()/6
.'+.)''.1/,.&B.&'()*C'5.1*37,'/.&')0'',',.*
+3:+.
0./
77 )',35'.&'032:')*-30/.+=)'2*6/09
0'0./)')*1*-30/.+>*))',35'.&'+/4'
*-.&'30/.+/0
2 00').&
.1*37,)'0,').&'&*3+/09,'6'7*(2'0./0-'
+/:7'?
D
$$
E##"
#!"#E#
!!
E!
%&'()*(*+',)',35./*0/0.&'+.)''.1/,.&1*37,0*.:','.)/2'0.
7.*.&'(3:7/51'7-
)'
*)/0C3)/*3+.**.&')()*(').
/0.&'.'))/.*)
/01&/5&.&'()*(').
/++/.3
.',?%&'()*C'5.
1*37,+./77()*6/,'1/,'+.)''.+
7*09'F.')/*)()/6
.'+.)''.+
0,.&')',35./*0/0()/6
.'
+.)''.1/,.&+1*37,+./77:'+3--/5/'0..*
55*22*,
.'+
-':
583(+(
5'-*)6'&/57'+B-/)'
55'++/0
55*),
05'1/.&
77 ((7/5
:7'-/)'5*,')'A3/)'2'0.+B
+1'77
+.)
+&(/583(?
G
$$
E##
#H! I$#I#I
#E
%&'()*(*+',)',35./*0/0.&'+.)''.1/,.&1/770*.6/*7
.'.&')'A3/)'2'0.+B9*
7+B(*7/5/'+B
*)+(/)/.*-.&'7
1?%&'(3)(*+'*-.&'+.)''.1/,.&/+.*()*6/,'-*)+3--/5/'0.6'&/537 )
5/)537
./*01&/7'
7+*
77*1/09-*)(
)8/09*0+/.'?%&'()*(*+',.*10&*2','6'7*(2'0.
'F5'',+.&'5*,')'A3/)'2'0.+-*)(
)8/09*0+/.'B)'9
),7'++*-.&'1/,.&*-()/6
.'+.)''.+
+')6/09/0,/6/,3
79 )
9'+?@0
,,/./*0B(
)8/095*37,0*.:'()*6/,',
7*09.&'()/6
.'+.)''.+
-*)1&/5&.&''F5'(./*0/+()*6/,',,3'.*5*0-7/5.+1/.&-/)'B.) +&B
0,6'&/537
)5/)537
./*0
'6'0/-.&'<-**.1/,.&/+2
/0.
/0',?
JKL%@MN?LMNO@%@MNJMPQRRSMTQUPMSOKTKUMRVKN%RUQNWNOKS
RUQNNKOLMVVWN@%XSKYMN@NZ?
[\]^^_^`
%&'-*77*1/095*0,/./*0+*-
(()*6
7 ((7
.*.&')'+37./09(
)5'7+
++('5/-/',/0(
)'0.&'+/+
-*77*1/09'
5&?L*0+/+.'0.1/.&.&','-/0/./*0+/0.&'O'6'7*(2'0.Q9)''2'0.B.&'7*.+)'-').* .&'%*10&*2'+=7*.>BaVSbR
)8O',/5
./*0R
)5'7=U*.>B)'2
/0/095
00')
=U*.>BQ+&
:3/7,/09=U*. >B
0,.&'cR
)8a*37'6
),a3/7,/09=U*.c>?
?LMNPMSVQNLKd@%eRUQNJ?L*0+.)35./*0
0,,'6'7*(2'0.+&
775*0-*)2.*.&'
(()*6',
fghijkilmlgknopqrssthuvwxygkzhunothgx{glx|hgm}xuimh|ml~ymllhgojymllknlxlk L/.
*0Q393+.B*0-/7'1/.&.&'R7
00/09O'(
).2'0.Bce
2/7.*0Q6'03'BR
7*
Q7.*BL
7/-*)0/
'F5'(.
+2*,/-/',:
.&'+'5*0,/./*0+*-
(()*6
7?
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32
Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 237 of 342
!"!#$%
&!'
#"&%%'
#
#"
(
#"!'!
#)
'*%
##!#$+,!
%+ !(-
.)+
#"
!"!#$%
'&%#')
/
(
'*!)(
0%
%''%
#"(
#"!'!
#)
0 )*
%
!#'%"
#'*%)%(
#"
$%
'*%
#)) &!''%"
!"!#$%
&!'
1
(%)2
3453,53/
&
"!
!(
'!
#)'
'*%
0%"
6%(')*
%) &!''%"
%0!%7
#"
0
!
'
(
#)'
('!
#
"
!#$'*%
!"!#$%
&!'
%0!%7
#"
(
#)'
('!
#*
)%+'*%
6%('!)&
"!
!%"
'*%
!(
#'+!'!)'*%
%)
#)!!!'
'*%
!(
#''
(
#'
(''*%
##!#$!0!)!
#8
6%('
##%
"!
%('
'
'
!#
0
'*%
6%('&
"!
9:;<9=>?@<9A<BC;DDE9:;><FAGCAD=>A9H9E9<I<=B9JBE9JB<;>IDG=D=ACK:B;>JCA<= <BCDG=LC:<;>K<=HG9>J9<<=<BCDG=LC:<DE;>>CGFA
''%#'!
#
1
(%)2
M
N3
*%%0%
&%#'$
%%&%#')*
$
0%
#'*%'%
&)
'*%
6%('%O!
'!
#
'*!)
6%('
1
(%)2
/5
#'!#$))*
%!#)'
%"!#
((
"
#(%7!'*'*%
0%"
#)%'
#"
)*
%%
&
#%#'
&
!#'
!#%"
#"
%
(%"
)#%(%))
1
(%)2
P
3/Q/Q3/3R
#
!)%
" (!#$%S !&%#')*
%
(
'%"
')!"%
%S !
%")%'
(.)
#
((
"
#(%7!'*5/%('!
#T
+
%
)
#)*
" (%+
)
%
7'
%
" (%"
#
&
(*!#%+
#!&
"%0!(%+
#
(
&!#
'!
#
)
&%+
#
%)!"%#'!
%
'
+
#
!)%%0%&
%'*
#)!O"
0%'*%
(
&!%#'
'
#
!#'
')!"%
'*%
%
'
#%
#
((
"
#(%7!'*5/%('!
#T
+
%
)
#)*
" (%+)
%
7'
%
" (%"
#
&
(*!#%+
#!&
"%0!(%+
#
(
&!#
'!
#
)
&%+
#
%)!"%#'!
%
'
+
#
!)%%0%&
%'*
#%!$*'"
0%'*%
(
&!%#'
'
#
!#'
')!"%
'*%
%
'
#%
1
(%)2
53U
(
0%#
#')*
%
%(
"%"7!'*'*%5!'
)
'*!
"V
'
%#%
!(!
'
"
( &%#''*%P
V)!'%
.!#$)
(%)
'*%%#%
!'
'*%)*/'
%%'
(%
)
%S !
%"
!#
((
"
#(%7!'*'*%)*/'
%%'
(%
"!#
#(%153
"!#
#(%MMT2
1
' 2
T
5
*%
!(
#'
!')) ((%))
)*
%
%)
#)!%
'*%&
!#'%#
#(%
'*%
)*
%"& '!V&
"
'*
)%"%'7%%#
.
%0
"
#"
'
$%0%# %8)*/'
%%'
1
')++
#" 2
Q35
!
'
'*%!))
#(%
!"!#$%
&!')
'*%'
7#*
&%)+'*%
!(
#')*
%'
#'
'*%
"Q
(5
&&!''%%
0
'*%
7!#$!'%&)+'
'*%)
'!)
('!
#
'*%!
%('
##!#$
#"%0%
&%#'/%
0!(%)W
*%
)%
)*
%
&!#!& &
%%'7!"%X'*%"
!0%
!)%)&
%
&!#!& &
T
%%'
''*%$
#"%0%1
'2
*%%#" #!'
!"!#$Y1(
)%)''
3!0%0%# %2%
%"%)!$#%"'
%!&!#
'%
'*%
#$%"
&'*
'!)!#(
&
'!%7!'*'*%
%)'
'*% !"!#$
1
'2
ZDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 [\]^_`abacde[fdgZhijklmnopqrsnnqtbjmqkbplqptrZskuorvot Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 238 of 342
!
""#
!"$%&'(
))*
+,!% *
%*(%"
!%%"!#)#+
-
)
*)
!
!
..
#.
%
.#(%#
/#
%(
!/#
,
%#!(
))*(%
*)( 0(
*1"%%#%
..
#-
)#/%2)
!!!+
! -)#.,!%
-"(
"%#
34#%
! 5
2&
&46
2#(%"#!(%
"%#!0%)+*)%
#/%
,
!!+
.#
%#!#/%7(%!+"
!!
(%
"%
%#-
)
%%/#
)#"
))(%!+0
)/#
!
)
! ,
8 (%
%
(0
)/#
!
(%#
"
).#!%#/!%
(%(%
%
(0
!
%#!
)&+(%
)(%!+
*
) !+
(
))*!#,!
% %#
!
#/%/#
"
%+#
(/#
$"%()+*)
34#% 5
&2&499
%%%,#/*
) !+.
,%((
!"/#
!$
"#!(%
"%#!#
/#
!(%
))
%#!#/
!
(
"!%
#
#
7%
#
,"
!"
)
.,!%0%
..)"
!%(
))(
*,%
!
"#
(%"
)
!
)
((*
!
"#
(%"
)!+!
,#!(%
%!+
.
#1"% "#,.)
!"$%%#(
!
!"
!
)
(((
))**
( #!
"#
(%"
)
!+(0
.,!%(."/"
%#!(
!
!
.
#.#( (#
!
"%#!,
(
(0(
"
(
.,!%!")#(
(#
!(
)
%#!0$" ,#!(%
%
(
//"!% +
#/(#
!
%%!
%#!%#
((
%
%%.
("
* !#()-)($))!#%*7"
34#%
! 5
&2&2&&2
:
%
"#
(%"
)
!
)
((.
#1"% !#()-)(
%
#
$%!; )((%
!%#(
!
!"),%(0%
..)"
!%(
)) ,#!(%
%%
!(%
))
.,!%"#,.)($%%
!%".
% !#()-)(
! %#(
!
!".
#
%#/!
)2)
!!!+!(."%#!
..
#-
)
34#%
! 5
;
49
9
%$!%#
(#/<.,'<
,3!#
,
)"((
%#!#/*
(!((#
(50
)+%!+$%!%*
) !+#
#!%.
#.
%
(
))*
" %#%(,!,
,!"((
%#
/
")%
%("
%
0!#
%#,!,=)+%+)
%!+%
3))2
")(5
&9
2)
!((
*,%% /#
*
) !+.
,%/#
%"
!!
.
")
! %#$!#, -)#.,!%(
)).
#- ")
!#%(#!"-)(%(%#! "
%#$%(%#
"
!
+
.
%%
!(*%$!%(%
! )--!
( !%($))*,
!%
! %#%(
%(/
"%#!
#/%
"%#
#/2
*)":#
8(34#%(
! 5
>
2?
-)#.,!%,.
"%?(0"
!%)
(%,
% !%
,#
!%#/
@ 0;
>0(
))*.
.
#
%#%((
!"#/%
)
% *
) !+.
,%
(((.
%
/
#,%.
*)"
%/(0
(
.
%.
*)"
%"#! %#!(#/
..
#-
)
34#%5
2?A'62&2&
)/#
!
9#-
!,!%# "%#!.
#- (
%
%
.
#1"%
..)"
!%$# (
(%#.
#%(%%/(0 "
%#!(0
(
-
%#!(0#
#%
7
"%#!(,.#( #!
-)#.,!%.
#1"%,
(%!%
%%.
#%(%
%%%,%
-)#.,!%.
#1"%(
..
#- #
"#! %#!
))
..
#- #
$%!!!%
3A5
(
/%
%
%%
%/(0 "
%#!(0
(
-
%#!(#
7
"%#!(
,.#( #!%
2 #1"%
%#!
))
0.
#"
)
,!%(/#
.
#%(%!+%( -)#.,!%/(0
"
%#!(0
(
-
%#!(
! 7
"%#!(
(%/#
%!9#-
!,!%# "%#!
?
BDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 CDEFGHIJIKLMCNLOBPQRSTUVWXYZ[VVY\JRUYSJXTYX\ZB[S]WZ^W\ Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 239 of 342
!"#
$
#!!"
$
$
"$
%&'()*+*,*-./,*0*1(+231+(/(.(*'**+$456789588788:7;489 <*</2
(/31+$,*+*,=
(/31+$3,3()*,*>
2(/31+
++?*2/'/*</1!3=*,10*1(3<**2(/31+
@
ABCDDEFG$()/+/+(3?,3=/<*13(/'/2
(/31()
($
+3'()*<
(*3'()/+13(/2*$()*
<
?*,/3<)
+H*I.1/1J)/2)
3.0 ?,3(*+(()*+*,*-./,*0*1(+&)/+0
((*,/++.HK*2((3()*
L/'3,1/
3<*3'/=/L,32*<.,*+@A*2(/31
&M()*(/0*H
J)/2)K.</2/
L,*=/*J
0.+(H*+3.I)(/+I3=*,1*<H
*2(/31
&&@3(+
1< A
&&L
11/1I
/=/+/31/1
L/1+?*2(/31J/LLH*,*-./,*<(3<*(*,0/1*
+.H+(
1(/
L230?L/
12*J/()()*
??,3=*<?L
1+?,/3,(3()*+2)*<.L/1I3'
./L</1I
/=/+/31
'/1
L&1
,*=/+/31+<.,/1I()*H./L</1I?,32*++0.+(H*
??,3=*<H
L
11/1I$/12L.</1IH.(
13(L/0/(*<(3M0
(*,/
L+$L
1<+2
?/1I
1<)
,<+.,'
2*L32
(/31+&31(
2(
3.,,3K*2(
L
11*,$L
/,*
H3.L<
(L
/,*&
H3.L<N2/(
3'?
L3
L(3&3,I(3+2)*<.L*()/+/1+?*2(/31&
@3(+$$ A
&
#
&3()**>(*1(?*,0/((*<H
L
J$()*??L/2
1(+)
LL/1<*01/'
1<)3L<)
,0L*++
OPQRSOTUSOVRSOTRWXYZS[USOVW\\SZQ]VUQ^_[WTQQV`Ya`bQYOVcOPQdSYaQ^YS\SQa_`]OSQVef\]W^ 1<
I
/1+(
1 2L
/0$
2(/31$3,?,32**</1IH,3.I)(H
()/,<?
,(
I
/1+(()*/1<*01/'/*<
?
,(/*+
1<()*
??L/2
1((3
((
2g$+*(
+/<*3,=3/<$
1 ?*,0/(3,
??,3=
L
.()3,/h*<
)*,*H
'3,()*,3K*2($/12L.</1I@J/()3.(L/0/(
(/31A,*/0H.,+/1I()*/(
'3,/(+
2(.
L
`OOW]YQTVi\QQV`YaZWVOVSYZX]]QaSYaQ\QYVQW\OPQ[SOSb`O/31&)*/( 0 $/1/(++3L*
</+2,*(/31$*L*2((3<*'*1<
1 +.2)
2(/31J/()
((3,1*
+3'/(+3J12)3/2*&@LL?
,2*L+A
&!"
&3+/I1+
,*
??,3=*<
(()/+(/0*&LL+/I1++)
LL231'3,0(3()*
,*-./,*0*1(+3'/(L*&3'()*
L3L(3#.1/2/?
L3<*@/I13<*A
1<+)
LLH*+.HK*2((3
??,3=
LH
()*
/,*2(3,3'L
11/1I&@LL
,2*L+A
&#!#!
!!#&#/(/I
(/31#31/(3,/1I
1<
*?3,(/1I,3I,
0@##A$?,*?
,*<'3,()/+?,3K*2(/1230?L/
12*J/()()*
L/'3,1/
1=/,310*1(
Lj.
L/(
2(@jA$+)
LLH*/123,?3,
(*<H
,*'*,*12*
+231</(/31+3'
??,3=
L&)*
??L/2
1(+)
LL230?L
J/()
LL+?*2/'/*<0/(/I
(/310*
+.,*+/1()*(/0*L/1*+
WXO[SYQaSYOPQ_]WkQZOiVllmno@LL
,2*L+A
&&LL(,
+)
,*
++)
LLH**''*2(/=*L
+2,**1*<',30=/*J
1<23=*,*<
1<0
/1(
/1*</1
13,<*,L
+(
(*(3?,*=*1(J
(*,',30*1(*,/1I/1(3()*I
,H
I*231(
/1*,&33.(<33,+(3,
I*
/+
LL3J*<p?*,0/((*<.1L*++<*+/I1
(*<31()*
??,3=*<?L
1+*(&,
+)
,*
++)
LLH*
0 /1(
/1*</1
0 11*,(3</+23.,
I*/LL*I
L<.0?/1I&@LL
,2*L+A
qrstuvwxyz{|}yxw~{}
&j
&1231'3,0
12*J/()#&
$<*231+(,.2(/31
1<+3.,2*
+*?
,
(/31
,*,*-./,*<'3,
LL,*+/<*1(/
L
1<2300*,2/
L?,3K*2(+J)*,*+(,.2(.,*+@3()*,
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 240 of 342
!
"
#
$
"%
&
!!!"
&
"'
#
"()
*"+),-.+/,.0%1//.+."+
+#
2#
&
#
"3
#
#
4
#
"3
#
#
#
5
&
&# &
6
"3
#
&# "4
&
2#
&
#
"4
3 / 7
#
%/.. #
(*89 98
&:
#
"";&
&#
!!!"3
/# 7
""
7
#
#
"()
"+1/4.+.7/3<1=%1//.404)<=-"3
#
#
&
&
"
& #
!
"
&
4
&
->
#
!!!"
""()
?"3/+>+./,<4.)1<=-"1
#
&#
!
5'
$
#
#
#
$
"3
&
#
"()
"3/+>+./,<4<=-"1
#
&#
#
&
!
&
"=
$&
!
!
#
2#
"3
#
#
#
"*
!
&
"3
#
&#
-@
!
&#
#&
&
8&
A#& B9
!
#
&
"3
!
&
"()
9"3/+>.=4)1+/.+"3
#
!
#
#
2#
"
#
#
!
2#
"<&
2#
"()
"/.%+.+.7/3<1==41)1/841<=-"4#
&
8
A
8
!$
#
#
#
&5!
"4
!$
!
7
;#
4
*"""3
&#
#
(
#
(
(
$
"
2#
&
(
CDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 DEFGHIJKJLMNDOMPCQRSTUVWXYZ[\WWZ]KSVZTKYUZY][C\T^X[_X] Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 241 of 342
!"#$
!%&
'('()*
&%
&)+,(
*
")-.
")/)%'
00 )*'!
%
)1')"%
!"
%')"%
")2.*)3!%'
%)"*!3
')4
%3!//!%
")
*
*.3(
*!55
$3!//.%
'
"!!/$!0)%*0
3)$
%4)'3+)13)0'2!"")*'"!!/*$3!0
")
$
%4
6
78 9:6!";3!4)4")2.*)3!%'
%)"*/.*'(
<)
/
%
/./ !22!."
%3()*
%()
&('$ "
00 %&
"!.%4'()2.
4'(!2'()/
!"#+=
&%
&)/.*'5)
3!!"3!4)4
'(0(!'!*!"
.*'"
'
!%*!23!//!%
4 *3
"4)4
')/*+>)*'"!!/*/.*'(
<)
&"))%3!/0!*'3!%'
%)"2!"0
0)"'! )*
%4
%!0'
!%
5 3#
%42
3!%'
%)"
2 00
3 5)+?
")
/.*'(
<))
'()"
")3
3)
%4'"
*(5
%!%
$!"
'("))")2.*)
")3)0'
3)*@&"))%3!/0!*'$5.)")3
3)$
%45
3#
%42
3!%'
%)"A+B
//.*'/
%
/
(
<)
5.)")3
3)3!%'
%)"
%45
3#
%42
3!%'
%)"+C)
*)")2)"'!CD?EF++
%4
'()G%')"%
E!%'
%)"B.
4)+H1
/0)*!2
00"!0"
')*
&%
&)3
%5)2!.%4
%'()?
%
&
%&
I)"!J
*')
'K!."L.*
%)**B.
4)+H)3'"!%
33!0
)*!2'()*)*
&%
&)3
%5)2!.%4!%'()
MNOP
9Q
6RSTT9997
UR7VTWR
TOQ
;
J!"#*XI)"!;J
*')XJ(
';B!)*;J()")X,!!#
'Y*)3'
!%;
%4(
"43!0
)*3
%5)")-.)*')4
2"!/'()
*')(
.)"$B"))%
*')!2C
!D'!$@FA
Z ;
Z
+@DC
"3)*A
[\]^_`abcdefgh_gffc_gh
+CiLjGEJk>l=DCCjGED,Gkm=$nk>?=$DmookEi?Hm,=pD00
3 %'*(
5)
4<
*)4'(
'
/!*'2!"/*$
00 3
'
!%*$
%4
%2!"/
'
!%
4!3./)%'*")
')4'!C.5
3J!"#*H%&
%))"
%&
3!%4
'
!%*3
%5)2!.%4
''()2!!
%&
%#p
(''0*pXX +3
'
!20
!
'!+!"&Xo)0
"'/)%'*XC.5
3;J!"#*XH%&
%))"
%&;=)"<
3)*Xn!"/*;
%4;
C)"/
'*@DC
"3)*A
+kqH>qGHJDmoBiGoHjGmH=nk>,rH>HqGHJkn=iLoGqG=GkmC>ksHE,=po)<)!0)"*(
2 /
"
t)'()/*)<)*
'('()&.
4)
%)*4)*3"
5)4
%'()m!<)/5)"")<
*
!%!2'()
uvww
9x
6yw
9zQ
w
O{|7O
U
=)3'
!%GG@
')/*F'("!.&(A
%4=)3'
!%q@
')/*D'("!.&(EA+
(''0*pXX +3
'
!20
!
'!+!"&X2
)*X
**)'*X0.5
3X0
%%
%&;
/0;4)<)!0/)%';*)"<
3)*X2
);
/
&"
'
!%X3."")%';0
%%
%&X2!"/*;
%4;&.
4)
%)*X!<)"<
) ;
%4;&.
4)
%)*;2!";'();")<
) ;
!2;*.54
<
*
!%;0"!})3'*+042@DC
"3)*A
+=iLoGqG=GkmG?C>kqH?Hm,DB>HH?Hm,p,()
00 3
%'*(
)1)3.')
=.54
<
*
!%
G/0"!<)/)%'D&"))/)%'
%40"!<
4)
/0"!<)/)%'*)3."
'
)*@L!%4*A2!"
0"!0!*)40.5
3 /0"!<)/)%'*+,rHDB>HH?Hm,=rDjjLHH~HEi,HoC>Gk>,k?DC>HEk>oD,Gkmk> G==iDmEHknDmKCH>?G,=nk>Ekm=,>iE,Gkm$km=G,HDmoknn=G,H+DoqG=k>K;;,()
00 3
%'*(
0"!<
4)
4)'
)4
')/
t)4*'
/0)4
%4*
&%)4)%&
%))"*)*'
/
')2!"
!22;
*
')0.5
3 /0"!<)/)%'* (
3(
5)")<
) )4'!4)')"/
%)'()*)3."
'
/!.%'+@D
0 "3)*A
+CD>EHj?DCXnGmDj?DCp,(
*0"!})3'
**.5})3''!$
%43!%'
%&)%'.0!%'()
00"!<
!2
n
%
/
0 %4")3!"4
'
!%!2
n
%
?
0+,()*.5/
''
$
00"!<
%4")3!"4
'
!%!2'()?
0 *(
5)
%
33!"4
%3)
'('()0"!<
*
!%*!2'()E
2!"%
=.54
<
*
!%?
0D3'
%4C
!D'!
?.%
3 0
E!4),
')=.54
<
*
!%")-.
")/)%'*+D)1
*'
%&
%40"!0!*)40"!0)"'
%)*$
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 242 of 342
!"#$$%&$'($#)*#
+
,
*-
..
//01
2304
//0
/00
3
.
03/
0
56722
/
0
2 8
95:7;<=>?@A;7?<B?CD>CEF<
G
0
0A/
0
301
0
220
1
%-
%
+%H$)
($#)*#
+#%
#$*
$)&$'I
'%
J
$$-!'$)
K3L1
:
/75<
;3L2E0M
@
/
0
22.0
0
K/
NO
P
0.0
0A/
0
301
0
//2
22L
0 /
L2
.0/
%H$)H(
0
L
/2
Q
.
/56722;
0
2 8
5K<?CC<ER?S;C?:><F<
//2
22L
K0
0M;
0.0
@
/
0
.;3L2E0M
.0
22/3L2/01
56722;
0
2 8
T5U?7@>VU7V@CWG7D7<>RV;C?:><F7U0
4;
0
0 X30
/
0;7:GG
/
055
<
/
0
//2
22 //2
L2
3
6 K
=.
//2
8
22L
!$$-$%Y !+#Z%
[\*]*
*]^_--$)H%++%,*]*%$`abcdIef_gdheY\fidbZdjj
RVPB7k<=R?>lCUCVC?7PU?7@>VU7V@>VK<7PP7<>RVRO<=CK<R?:@?7>VKBK<C:5 R<=C?mk>P@>VU7V@k<>P><B>:;?RDC:CV<K7?CK=REVOR??COC?CVGC>VOR?:7<>RV nhjo_hg_f\Ipqr\&bbnI\Y_f_b\qpdjgdheY\fidb_YYfns_j^t6P
8
5?RkU=U?7@>VUF/01
?34U0
4;2
.0
0M/0/
/
0.
U0
4
CQ
1 ;
0
//2
5<
?34U0
4;2
22234
.224F/
2 1
2 1
0/
2 1
40304
22 2
.1
0 Q
1
M/2
0 .
0
21
0 22
00M123
63
.228
/0
0 04.0
Q
4
.
2
0
/
.0
0
2
6.
80
/0
30
56P
8
u5UCR<CG=V>G7PCVU>VCC?K<7<C:CV<F<
40 4/2
2223
.224
$
$*$]*-
*-
+-!'$)e%$#)*#
+\*]*
%Hf#%
-`abcdIYj_hc_Iq\\h
?CD>CEC@7V@ORkV@<RmC>VUCVC?7PGRVOR?:7VGCE><=<=C>V<CV<7V@;k?;RKC nvbc\e\nb\&chd&_jf\Ynfbt^6P
8
5KE;;;F<
/0/
1 2/
22
30L0
0
.2
57042
+#
*$)
++
+'H%
#%
] *-
$)I$
$Z
$
f%
#&%*$
%+q%
-(wIZf&qx
V;@CK4
0 2/
0.0
0
0
04
03
1
57 V
.>
6VR>8
22L
.2
.0
/0y
KE?Gm0
0L
1
0 4
3
0
/
05<
U
0 2;
00
X30
//2
/0
/
0 /2
K0E
0;223;0
1 ;2
6KE;;;85<
//2
0 X30
3L
/
.
VR>
0
.KE;;;
;3L2E0M
@
/
0
.00
1
//01
2/00
3
.
L324/
05<
KE;;;
3223
L/
0
/
A
1 2/
/0y
4.
30
/0
0
30 /2
304
0356P
8
zDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 {|}~ {zz Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 243 of 342
!"#$%&'(!
)
*)
+
!"
##&'
,!
&&
%
"
'
'!-"
#"-
*
-
!"$%&'.
,/"#
-"
*
!
"
'
'!",
!"
(!
)
*)
0&&
'"&,1
23442'
,
$'
&
(,
',#&
,!
&&%"#
56"6
66",,
(
&&-#
'
,
!"
#$%&'
'&$6
(+
-
-$-
!
$,+
'
(
*
**"'
"6%$,
",,",+%$,,
#
"&
'
,+'
,
$'
,(
("+6$,
'
&+
,"'
&+,
-
"#
&&$
789:9;<=>;?@>A<8B=C98?D>;<8BD<>8EF7B8G=;H?<8IDG8>I<9E?E<BH=;H?D>;D89<97>I8E?D8B;9C=J<E? ,'
**
&6
(+-
"
&,,
("+#"6",
,
*"
+
6
**''
&
&&
$'
$
",,!
&&
D>;J>8K<><L9M=<N>JOBC>PC<>FEQ8IDG,
6$'
$
"6
'"+!
#
"
+
6 !"
$
"-
#
4
-"
"-,R
, ,
!"&
(,
',#&
-
"S$"
"
'
'!-"
#"-
02 ,++ +
6 1
/)TU##&'
,!
&&#
56"'"
*'
*
-
S$
&*"6
!6)
#
"5""
!
!"#
#
,"6#"-
"
,
-
"#
&&$
#"5"
-"
,$",
'
-#&
!
!""S$"-"
,
*
5,
6
&
&
$
'#
&
6"!
#
"
02 ,
6 1
4$%-
!"*
&&
(
4 -#"6
6,(
"6
6 *
-04"#
"-%"5",
1*
-4VW
!
#,RR,'5$###
(R#)
'
"
R$#&
6,RRR4VW /
U
-4"#
"-%"*&&
%&"*
&
)
)
#6*
%
U
&,
-#"6
6,(
"6&"
"'
*-
(!'!6
'$-"
,"""5""6
6 !
!"#
X"'
'
-#&",
!
5,
6
4.3!"
##&'
,!
&&"
"
4 -
"
"
'"
(""-"
!
!"
($
""
!"
(
(-
"
'"
*
!"#"-
"
,
-
"#
&&$
#"5"
-"
,$",
!"
&&
,#"'
!"
"
-"
-"
,$",
"
&
6 '!
("
,#"'
*""
!"
(""-"
,!
&&%""Y"'$
"6%
!"
##&'
"
-#
%$&6
(#"-
,,$
'"
02 ,
6 1
Z
U2/TUWT.
!
Z6
,
*
!"
,
&&
*
!""S$"6,
-
"
"
-"
-"
,$",
6#
!",,$
'"
*
''$#
'
#"-
*
!"%$&6
(+
!"
!6)#
"5"",!
&&,$%-
!"
'"
*'
5"*
(
!
&&
!"#"-
"
,
-
"#
&&$
#"5"
-"
,$",""
,
&&"6
''
6
'"
!
!"
##
5"6#&
,
02 ,
6 1
V4!"
##&'
,!
&&",
"
!"#
5"-"
&
(
!""
"#
X"'
*
("+'$%)
)DI8A?AN798J>8K=;HB[\]^H8=;_B;_>:98CBN\QL99`BD<89E<>8B<=>;C=K=<E &&%"6"
"-
"6
'"
!"",$&
(
6'
6
,
*
&&
('
-#&"
*!"
5 '
,
$'
'
5
",
6$
&
&
"
&
,
&&
,+
-
-$-
!""Y
"
&&%"
!"
#
X"'
*
("
02 ,
6 1
aDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 bcdefghihjklbmknaopqrstuvwxyzuux{iqtxriwsxw{yazr|vy}v{ Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 244 of 342
!
"#
#
"$%&
"'
((
)*!#%
"#
#
$
**
#
+
#%
"$
#
$
!
"#$#
*
#%
##%
&,&
#%
"$
$
!
"#$
$(
!
##
-))
)$.
/0/0123450/6738444-0/9/300.%
(()
"#
$
:;<=>:;?@ABC>D@EFAG=HB>DIJKLAMN@AOC@C?;:AP:;;QR>DSL=;ADCMT>@;SCUQI:A=D?
V
"##
))"$
#
$#!
"
")
#$
%
"
!
*#%
,#&%
%#%
(($
)(!
"#
"$
"+
+#
"
*! +)
5,$"'
"
"'
#
"
)$*#%
)'
)
+)
*!#%
+)
5,$"
"!
"#
)4!()
"
9
$
"W&%
%!
+
"#
#
#-X.YZXY
")
#%
"$# #
"#(
"##%
)'$"#%
"$# #
"'
"'
"
"
'
()
"
-))
)$.
Y
/0/0123450/6738444-/40/99/5.##% ") $
"*#%
(V
#
(()
"#$%
))(
'
#
)
$Z+
)#8
&
"'$*
))
!(
!
"#$
"$# #
"#%
( +)
'%#Z*Z&
$
!
"#$
"&%
%#%
4 #
&"$
"
"#
$#
-))
)$.
[\\]^_[\`abcde[a`b`][c
X
9/0/913/0//f1/%
(()
"#$%
))
+
+
#%
K>DCLg:CDNBA:@C@>ADG;HCD?OCDCI;H;D@hgGOiBLCDj;D@>@L;?EklmnA:@CI;op;q;N;C:UT r9
)(!
"#g:CDNBA:@C@>ADG;HCD?OCDCI;H;D@nLCDhgGOiRj@A@T;NC@>NsCU@>ADAs@T; 9
#*)
""
"'
"
9
)(!
"#
$
%
9()
"
")
$!
$
$
"
('
!$#
%
#
"
"$
"')
Z (
"
%
)
#
($##%
$
#
+
!
"
! ! *Xt
%
9()
"
")
$
"
""
)!"
#
"'()
"#
!
"#!
$()
#
"
#
($
##%
(V
#$
#
%
9
""
)
(#$%
))+
$ +!
##
##%
4%
*
"$(#
#
"
0**
)
"
#
"'
"
(#
"'
u
!
"#$!
+
$
"#%
* #
*#%
!
"
! !
#
"
$"#
%
#% '%#%
!
$
$
"
('
!$
"
#
))
!()
!
"#
V
#$
#%
#
"#
%
#%
u
#
"!
+
$ +V
##
)
(
"
)#
$
$$
#*#%
"
@T;P>@vwNs;;NUT;?=L;xgT;AMD;:A:@T;s=@=:;@;DCD@NTCLLB:Ap
*
#
"$
#(
$$
$#
))
/r9
!()
$
$(
#*#%
9()
"
-3#.
ybd`_z{bdzyb`_a|`]}]`]_d
/0/014079030/
X
%
(()
"#$%
))$ +!
#
u
$##
$""
# #
)
#
$
$
"
!
!
#
$
%
#
)
#
$
!
$#+
(
$$
&
#%
"&,
"'
$
*#
(#*#%
u
$#
%
!)
#
"(
!
#&
))+
$$
+
#%
+
)
"'
"$(
#
"
$
"
*#
)) #
)
#
$
$
"
8!
#
$%
+
"
$""
#
"
!
-3#$
"
.
70/2139/
X
%
(()
"#$%
))$ +!
#
!()
#
&
#
Z'
$Z&
$#
&
#
$
""
#
"
(()
#
"
~DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32
~~ Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 245 of 342
!
"
#!!
"
$%
&!!'(
)(
)
%
&!!'(
*
"%
+'
,-./0123-4-56378,.509:.//;5<.67=65-67>?@A2A2BCDBEE
FEFG?HAGIJKAELACMNHOPFG?
QRQSTUVVSWXYSRWUVZRR[VTY\\]SYQV
\\S^$\))
*
_
!+
"
!
!
!%
`
!(!!
%"
!+
(
%
!( )+
a
%
")"
#! )%
)%
!)%
)
#!!
%%
%
!%%
%
%(&(
(!
)
)
!
!
+
a
S&(!
+
a+
(+
(+ !
+
a
"
"
(
%
!
%(&(
%%)%
)
(
$\)))
*
_
!%
&
!&
%
!
)$
%
%
)(
%
)
%
)
)%
(
a)
*$\
*
__
+
+
(
!
(
(&(!
'"
)
a
+
!
%(
!
'!
(
!
'"
'
$\
*
_
"!
!
+
$W+
a
%
""
*
#!
&(
%%
%
#!
"
)
b)
b_!(b_
!"
W
+
%c
+%
4;63;5de776-e6378f-87f6:,;571HNNBg0e-f/-h706;i07fj;i703.,,97,7./ef77123-4637
W
$\
*
_b
"!
!
+
$W^+
a
%
""
)V
^
T^
V
^T^
]*#!
&(
%%
%#!
"
)
b)
b_!(b_
!"
W^
+
%c
.5//;f7i6,:973;5/637G;6:g0e;f707fj;i7k4;63;5dgle776m-e6378f-87f6:,;57-fG;6:H;<36-e T
$\
*
_
+
a
%
""
+
"+
TUT(("
Y
+
#!!
+%
+
$\
*
nDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 opqrstuvuwxyozx{n|}~
v~
v
n Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 246 of 342
!
"#
$!
$
$
%
!
&
#
'(
)
*
'+,
)
+"#
$
#
%
%
%
!
-.-
'+,
)
-.-/
*#
#
!
!
#
!0
&
!
'($$
)
+
%
1
,
+
$#
$2
'+,
)
3456789:;<=4;5>?@:;A=B;C
,(+DE*F*G/HF*I*DE
,
%!
%
#
!
EJ**KLMNOPQRPSTUVWXPYZY[\]^_`a_bcd\ef_gd`hbi\gj_``_bk`^a\g[\l_gmnio^``K p$EK'
,
K0,
,
q)$
%r!
1
%
s
#
" %
t
! u+
vwxyz{|{}~~|{B{{
vzw{=|}|{x{~|
#p,
+
%
+
HE
I
#/
%
1
!
'Hs
sHK
sHu
)'($
$
)
%
,
F
',F)Z``i[\\giog[\dd`_khbgniYUWhdde\a]mg[\
1
!!
%
1
$+
%
F
$H$
%
!%
EK'K$K$)
"'($
)
,(+DEKKEJ-,F*1H*F***D1HD.,
E'$!$#
#2
#$
$
#
$
$
$)!
H
HH#
F#
$
#
%
#
,
E
r
#
$EK$
1
I
$E
KE,
¡
}}x¢w{}vB{{3w|{v|w~£w~{{~vzw{¤'($$
)
EH*,(+DF*G/HF*I*DE,
,
%
'
)
HH
#
#
t
$'%)
H
%
'
%2
t
K
t
)'($$)
¥DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 ¦§¨©ª«¬¬®¯°¦±¯²¥³´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¹¹¼¿µ¸¼¶»·¼»¿½¥¾¶Àº½Áº¿ Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 247 of 342
!"##$"%!#&!'%()(*'(+$#&!'%(
+&,#*- #.#)+-"#+/*#+'0("#&%..#(*)!'%(+/1)!#"'(0)(*&%(+!"-&!'%( +&,#*- '(0+,) 2#'.$ #.#(!#*'(3- 24%1(#")(*&%(!")&!%"/)++!)!#* %(5,##!678/'(!,#6"##9"%!#&!'%(:#$%"!)(*!,#)$$"%;#*$ )(+<=
>?
@
@@
A
@?
@B
@>
>A
B@
@
C
:#0- )!#*6"##772#3%"#
1%"D'(0'(!,'+)"#)&%(!)&!!,#9"%E#&!5'!#"2%"'+!)!FGF GFHI
J
K
@
L@M
ML
@MB
>NOLM>@>M@P@
Q
RSTUVWXXYVVWTSSZU[S\]XYWX^_SS_`ZUaU_YXbcd!' '!4!"#(&,'(0+,) (%!%&&-" 1'!,'(!,#69e%3!,#$"%!#&!#*!"##fg%(!")&!%"+,) 2#"#+$%(+'2 #3%" #(+-"'(0!,)!(%!"#(&,'(0%&&-"+1'!,'(!,#69e%3!,#$"%!#&!#*!"##24 &%(!")&!%"+/g'!4&"#1+%"3'() )(*+&)$#1%"D#"+f5##+,##!6783%" hijklmnkhoijpq
?
=cr)+#.#(!%"3%-(*)!'%($ )(f5%' +:#$%"!)(*st&);)!'%(3%" 2)+#.#(!&%(+!"-&!'%(1'!,'(!,#69e%3)$"%!#&!#*!"##+,) +$#&'34);#"!'&) &-!u+!'!&,$'#"+.)42#(#&#++)"4v'(%"*#"!%);%'*%;#"7#t&);)!'(0'(!%!,# !"##"%%!w%(#f(4;)"')("%.!,'+$"%&#*-"#"#x-'"#+d"2)(y%"#+!"4 )$$"%;) /$ #)+#&) uz{|v}~z7{~{f<
?
F
c9"-('(0:#+!"'&!'%(+f%$"-('(0%"& #)")(&#&-!!'(0%32")(&,#+'+ $#".'!!#*%(g'!4!"##+fg%(!")&!%"+,) %2!)'()9-2 '&6"##9#".'!3"%. d"2)(y%"#+!"4uz{|7}~z7{~{v3%")(41%"D%(9-2 '&6"##+<
@@P
@
@BA
@PA
>
L@?@O>
O@P>@
>@
@A@@>?O>
>
BABPA
>?
O>
>
@A@L
@
@P
>AO
>O@>
K
Q
J
J
K
>
Q
@?
@
@
YXU[WZUaXUXTYWTYXX[TU_RVWTSSXRX^_X]\VZUaTZGVRT]XXYW_]TVT @O@>
LP
A
?
B
>NA
@A
@>
>A
L@
@L
P@O
F>
@
@
@P
>
B
P
O@>
B@
PAAB
@
BG
@>
A
>
B@O
BPPB
@
>@
K
Q
?
M@ ¡¢£¤¥¦§ £¨¢©¥ª¢¥ª«¬ª ¡¥ £¤ª¬¤¥
B
@?L
@B
K
Q@>
@B@
@B@A@>
uz{|7}~z7{~{
@KBQ
>
@>>LL@@O
>>
>BO@ABP
@?
A
@PO@@?LB
®@J@B
@@
K
Q
¯DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 °±²³´µ¶·¶¸¹º°»¹¼¯½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÃÃÆÉ·¿ÂÆÀ·ÅÁÆÅÉǯÈÀÊÄÇËÄÉ Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 248 of 342
!
!
"
##$%&#%
!
##&
! !$
$
"& !$
" '#%
"'
"("$)
%%
!$
"
"!
' !$
" '#$
)
"
"!
!$
!*+!,(
$""'-. !! %&#$
!$
&'
"'
!!
/'$
&
! !$01
$
)"
##
%
$
$
&#
'
!$#1$
##
"
&$
)
$
"& !$
1!&
. !
. !
-
$"!
&&
0
#%'"!--!
$
'%
!$
!
%
!#
!$0$!
&
!"
!!!$!
%
!
!
!
-
$"!
!#
!$0$!
&
!"
##-"
!%
!#
!!$!
2&
&"3 $!
1&
#
#!
)4-)$
$
)
$!!$
$!$
#0
$1$
!$
&&
0
#('"$
)!!%&#
!$
!
$
#
'
#(
'%
2##
#"4
56
5
%
)(
.'
$!$)
!$
"& !$
"
&&#
!
!
!
&
!$
)($
.'
%$!$)
!$
%
"'
"
-
$"!$
"& !$
" '#2,74
&&#
&'
"'
!
!(+ !$
,
!
!
"
##-
"&
"$-#1
!
&
$
&#
%
!1
&'-#$ #
&
! !!
"!
!
%
)'
$
)! '
"1
"!
' !$
(
&'
"'
!!$!#1!
##!'
$ $&
#(
$!
$
#
'
#(+ !$
7
2##
#"4
6
1##
$
))
#!
&
"
0 !$
%
"'
"
&&#
!
##!
"!-
!
$
8
"!
)1%
!
$
#(!&"$#(0$ #"
/'$&%
!"
##-&
%$!!
$!$
!!
#"'
)
'
'
'
!!
&
"
##
!-
#!
"
!-
!
$
"
##-$
$)
!(
!
%
$
!
$
"
""
!
"'
"'
0$0
#
2##
#"4
++9
###
"
&
!
""
##-%
$
!
$
(
!
(1
!$#$:(
&
'
$
)!;"!
)%
!
!$ ",
'
$
)2+ ,
'
!0
"$
4 !$!
$
#
'
#(+ !$
7
0)!
!$
!
!$""
##-
&#
1 $#
'!%
!$ $
$)
!$
&
$
-
! '
!&
&
!
$!$
"1
$" 0
2##
#"4
<=>?@>AB@>C>D>EA
;'$#$
)
%$!""'-%$!!
1!
FF "
## %&#
!!
;'$#$
)+!
"
"
%
-
! $!
1
##!
2##
#"4
7 ##'"!
!6 %&#$
$
!!6
"
%
-
! $!
1
##!
$!$
#$
1
%
!$
-1'
!!$"#$
G8
!!&"8FF
$!
1&
#
#!
)F5&
!%
!"F#
$
),50#&%
!,
+
0$ "F50#&%
!,+
0$ "F6
,;'$#$
)F%&#$
2!"((
4
##
-'$#$
)""
##-
### !
$ (
)
"$"
##
2!"((
4 HDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 IJKLMNOPOQRSITRUHVWXYZ[\]^_`a\\_bPX[_YP^Z_^b`HaYc]`d]b Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 249 of 342
!
"#
"
$
%
&
'
%
(
)*+,-./*01+2
345
4
!
6
7
$8
7
6
9
:
;
6
$$<$
9 =
>'
7
??%%
<@7>
%
>(
'A""
(
4
7
&
'9 ($
B
C
9
"<
7
<
9
$
5
6
D
DE
7
$
'F
$
G<(
7
9
$
5
6
D"
7
$
!
"
'( 3@
'A""
(
H/I01JK-+
$;5AL946&LM$6L:4&#G#:#AN$!#M&&O
$
4$<
G<
"8
P
@"
8<
$
4C
@
7>&
<
Q
"&
O
Q
"
Q
"
@
$
4C
7
&
<
7$
49
'A
(
#9&LNM
9NMGL&LNMNC4$$6N:4ACN6:#&LMR&#M&4&L:#!4$
H0*SS1STU1V1W1XS
$6NY#9&$A4M&: &
<!
<7
<
9
Z[\]^_`abc``de_]a\dafc]f_c`^[]g[hic]^ej_fbfbekeaf_]lme]fcf_neocpf_f`eqrkeaf_]l &
<!
?4
<
<"A
6
9
$
!
s
6
9
$
>5<
tqcfequ\`vwxyzywxe{^epf
<
CLM4A!4$9N:#6$4R#4
"
<
G
$
G<<
|DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 }~ }|| Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 250 of 342
!"#
$%
&
''
$(
)(
$
*+,-./0*11234+5,*264378.*9-0+6:6,;<<62=14+>*?-3;
%@ $
%@
$%
"
%
A%B
&
"
C"
!!"#
'DC"
%%)
C
&E
'
!
&
"
&
%$#'!$%
$
"$
#
%F&
&%&
''D
')$$
''%
GHI)
"(
%
$$
'%%&
''D
')$$C"
&
F &(
$(
)(%
J
$
&"%! %
D
'
%C
%
$(
%
CCC"
&
"
%&!
K)!C"
&
F &(% !"
#
"
%L
$E
%%&F
&
!!"#$!'
%
D
')$
!"#
%
&
!"
')$%"%
$
%C
&M "%
$
'
$(
)(%C"( !
"
!
N
%
$
'
"K
N"(
!"N"
(@
&#
%%
D'
%&$
C"
&
"
$O
&%
AH
B
P
&
!!'
%&
''
(!'
F
&
C
''
%')
PMQ@F&
&"I)
"%
"
(( $
C"(
&
''
R
%
"
'%%
ARB
$
!!"#
'D
)
'
C" F%
"
(%!"
"
"
"$
C
C
'(
!
S
&T
!"(
$D
'
F@
&!!'
%&
''
$(
C
$&'$&
"('%%
&
@
%
)
'@
%CC
"%@(!'
%
$
N
%A
&-/43U-134V4-U8;.+4-6:WV.*1
$
N
%
'
(@
@"!"
$
ND")N&
D
&
"$!
"
N
%
&
$(
C
$
!
"
%
$
&
!!'
K@%
%
$"#
$@
!"(
"
!!"#
'
)
&"
X$
&"D
C"
&"O
@
')$
NAF
&)
'
(
B"
(D)"%
N
&
C"
%
)
'
;++*.3-56YV--6;3U0*6+64302..-U43U-V-36-*V+,-<4+47;+4*3Z&
(
@
%%'
$
%
"
@'
$C $
%)
&
F
&
"
%C
%F
&
[\]^_`abcdefgh_giic_gh
M
jHkGl
HG
@EG
@G
J!!'
%&
''D
$#
%$
&
''
C"(%@
!!'
%@
$
C"(
'$
)(
%"'
$
)D'
k"K% N
"
N
$
%
DC) $
&C''F
N'
KJ
&
!%JmmFFF
C!
'
'
"Nm!
"
(
%m)D'
nk"K%m N
"
Nn
"#
%mE"(%n
$n"(
%
GookLH
EGRokGE
jo
GGp
J#'!"%&
''
C
(
'
"
X
&(%'#%F
&
&N)
$'
%$%
"
D$
&#(D"M"#
%
C
&
U*021-3++4+<-U/q?-.?4-r;3Us24U-<43-6V*.+,-t-?4-r*Vu2=U4?464*3v.*9-0+6:Z
"
)'
"'
A
(%P
&")N&B
$
oA
(%
&")N&B
&
!%JmmFFF
C!
'
'
"NmC
'%m
%%
%m!)D'
m!'
Nn
(!n$#'!(
n
%"#
%mC
'n(
N"
m
)""
n!'
NmC"(%n
$nN)
$'
%m#"#
Fn
$nN)
$'
%n
C"n
&n"#
FnCn%)D$
#
%
n!"O
%
!$C
Q
jo
GGoLJ&
!!'
%&
''T
)
)D$
#
%
wDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 xyz{|}~~xw w Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 251 of 342
!!
"!
#$%%
!!"&
'
#()
*+,-..$%
!
%
!!
!/
0
!! .
"!
1%%1!!"1%
#
#2,3456278
9562:$%;
";'
%
!
8
!6
#$%
"
!'
!
%
6 %
!!"
1%% %3
!
*
"6
2
!
!6
!3$!*
"<
#!!&
=>?@AB@CA@D@?EABF@F>GCE>H?AAIHJ?H?EI@E@?ECE>K@DCLCM@ANOP@GEEHQ>ERSAE@GI?>GC= 1
!
%
#
#62$T
,(.2,$-,4)
4U:$%3
1%
%.
%
1!!1
C?FLMHK>F@CLLMHKC=HVEI@DCLSAE@GI?>GC=GHMM@GE?@AACAEI@Q>ERWNMK@RHMBCAL@MD>EE@F "
%*
"6
#$%2
"!UX(
1!! 1
*Y85
%%.LCMERANMK@RHMC?FEI@CLL=>GC?EJ>==O@M@ALH?A>O=@VHMLCRD@?EHVEI@V@@SA
%'1%%"
%!&
%
#
#*$,44$U+,Z24,6
$:$%
!
%
!!"
*1X2 %(
2
"!UX
!!
"!#
#[,(
9[9(4\3)$
+924,6
$:[
2<
2633%
##
$%
!
!!
!
"!
*T
!
%
!!"
ANOD>EE@FEH]NO=>G^HM_A`?a>?@@M>?abcFFEI@VH==HJ>?a?HE@defghWijckhli]`jmhf^hnn +95-o$T+,
p4[494,5[,(
9[9(
9*$55$
+9+8$T4*$+,6(,
9*-*$46#
+$T4,
o
5(
9[9(o$
5 $-
62,+)4649$*,4*T+U98+,,484,4934
98+,6$
+9
+95qclkcj`Wrst`QffuW`]cjcf`srhnkhli]`jmhfc]]juvcnbw
#[4+$43T9
3549[
944,*$$4649$:$%
!
%
!!!
% !!1
AECE@D@?EA>a?@FC?FA@C=@FOREI@i@HE@GI?>GC=`?a>?@@MHVj@GHMFdefghW]nclgcWs``l ,4)
4U4(9(8+o9($+
4 9[494,53+98+,6934U
$T$T4
9$49$9(2o,2+*4
uxfg`i`uf`QglhQcnj`]ujfwb
y#493,+3T649$24,6
$:2
1X%
"!%. .1
'%
!
%
!!
"
% %2
"!UX(
1X%
%%3
%. .1
#
#5+[
*$
3*259:
!!
%
!!"
!!
%
"!!
'
:1X%
'
"
'"
!
'
'
!'!'1
!!
LM@K@?E>H?BPHOEMC>=@MBGH?EMCGEHMASLCM_>?aBEMNG_MHNE@ABAECa>?aBGH?GM@E@LHNMABGMC?@=>VEAB
!'
!
'
'
!#!!
X
%
!!
%3
2C=Hc=EHSAfMNG_AC?FfMNG_jHNE@uMF>?C?G@BQICLE@Mz{b|}BC?FEI@ ~DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32
~~ Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 252 of 342
!"
#
"
"
$%&&&
''(
) '
*
"
+
',""
'
!
-
./01234562//2../789:19;<:2=<>3?<:46<@424<A24<:B<59>:1<5C934:9/D92:?E5F@ABCDG &H!
+
)
'"
!
"
')"
"
"(
,
"
+I
JIK
*+ '+
L")%MNO
'
*
"
(
!
'
P
&
#
"
'
%
&
&
(
&
J%&&&K
"
#
'
*)
"
+I
''
+%&&&
&* "%
H
+
()
'
(
"
+* '
!
%&&&
'
" '*
-
Q'(
L"'!
+
'
'
'
!"
"
MR%,M&SSTI&MUI,
(
" '
VW9//>4093W:<;<34093XY4E5W2:49846<W/23Z56<<4[
\N]IMHQ&,M^NMI_IN,I, "
('"
+"
+
#
+'
'Q
()
'
)
(
"
)
#
+&
(
N
'&
,
R
"
N
'N
'Q
()
('+
)
!'
"
&* "%
* '
!
(
'
'!
'N'
+
J*
\(
K+
NUTM&&&
"(
!
)Q
"
'
\
NUTM&&&NH
_
*
\+
* +
\Q Q\'+
*_
'
'!
'
"
+
!)"'
"
)
()'
'
L""
)&
(
N
'&,RN
NMR%,M,PMR
"
)
R
"
,!
)N
!
!
!
"
+
)
(
N
)
"
'"
!
"
+
!
*`"'*
"
* '
!
(
,
(
N
)
(
"
+
"
+
'
) *
''
'
!
'
""
!`*-`"'*
N
-
'
"
'')N
N_I,S]IMH&,M^NMI_IN,I&MIMNNT&,N^% a'
+
+
#
'
)
'
"
+
""
"
+
* '
!-
'Q
()
*
N
"
+"
(
+
!
)
(
bDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 cdefghijiklmcnlobpqrstuvwxyz{vvy|jruysjxtyx|zb{s}wz~w| Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 253 of 342
!"
#
$
! %&
'(
)
*(
**+
(*
,
((
&#-
$
! .
/.#
/!%
(
)0
*
)1'+2234567689:5;<5=>?@ABCDE@5>?FA?F<G:5HA8CIJ::KA3L5:ML<5AL><?H>=>LM
+(')
,
*
)(*
'
'
1
(('(N
+
0*
)
!"
#
$
! %&'(
)
*(
**
+
(*
,
((
&.
/. /&OPQ
RS/.TU
!#QV#RR
& #!R
%
WL<5=X5A>?Y<@<MZIJ:A99H>3A?L>M5:[4>5:FL<9A>?L\]<X4=9>?@^_H<`ML< $
a5::bE>?6H4:<?A`J>L:6A3b@5<4?FAFcA3:?LL<AHH<?M>L:ML<5=F5A>?
(*,
(
+
+
*(&'+S,
))*)
+*(
&'+S,
(
R(
d1
(
+
efg
2f
''
)')
)
)
+.d
)%#'*0
)
2
+'V
)*
((''+)2*2
(
R
VV
hDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 ijklmnopoqrsitruhvwxyz{|}~||px{yp~z~hy}} Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 254 of 342
!
"#$%&
$#' ()*
%&#
""+
!
"$'
&
&
*#
!$'
'$%&
,
!
"
*
%&-
*
%&
,.,/0123453678369:;<0=>?=4@64A
,/BCD
E
/@64A75367F16;9G7F2AH:3AACI1;>J7KA39=7L191M17N==9M=4
/
O
/
O
/
/
$&
"
P
,
/,/
##$#&
%&$&
&& %
$&
%
-
,$
(& Q"
%%$%-
%'
,
!
"
*
%&
!$(
#
RDocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 STUVWXYZY[\]S^\_R`abcdefghijkffilZbeicZhdihljRkcmgjngl Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 255 of 342
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 !"#$%&'(')*+!,*- ./0123456789447:(0371(6276:8 91;58<5: Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 256 of 342
!" #$%&'()*+,' -.//01
2
+##34(+)4%* *5,6'$ ..789//.:;<..789 //.:: +##$%='>6? @A 1
2
B
2C
D >+)' :E.FE./.- +##34(+*)G%H*'$BIJK LMM DB
@BN
F//
NO
P@
MF/F" QRL/S:;R9;/"/ TU
VW2
X C
QWX
SU
.//
2
N
TPU
Y
CA
D U
DN
DU NDI
A
ANC
U
CDDDC
APUU
Y
C AD
2
DZTU
W2
[NCQ
W[SPD
A
A"M:MAA B
C."/:"ZR@PUCU
\N
DNIC
CA A
DD
DDA
DNC C
PU
\N
A
DN
D
AD
A A
2
ZDD
AD
C."/:"ZRQSQ"SU
NIC
DNC
D
A
] ^^^_`abcdefghiajgkl`heehmnb_hoabno_fjinopnjf_nofjiboniohpqno_`ag`hjialphma_n_`a bonrag_nognjmf_fnjlnqbonrag_hbbonshethmnb_amfjnomao_npf_fih_anohsnfmlfijfqfghj_aqqag_l nj_`aajsfonjpaj_^ B C."/:"ZRD2A
D
NA
D
D AAC
DUD
CC
AE
\N
D@I
C
AANY
C
@DUI
A
ADAWX
Z TU
PA
Q
SUDI
AU
uvwxwyz{|w}~ww|w}~y~w}~xw
w}~w
y~w}~xwz}~wTU
I
DDUD
DN
DU
CNA
ADCAD2U
Y
CZT
DN
UU
DN
D
A@ UD I
A
2D
APUCUA
DU
A
DDI
CU
DN
Z DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨££¦©¢¦ ¥¡¦¥©§¨ ª¤§«¤© Item 13 Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 257 of 342
!"
#$%$&'()#*'+,-*
.*+/()$01*2(-34/1*4*)%'$()
5$4$)&(26(4/1$')7*
89*-+$&:%(234/1*4*)%'$()
;<=>?<@A>BCD=EB@CD
;<=FGHIJKLMN;OPDQRISJTMPARULPTMVIW
XYZ[
\
Z] [
X
]XY^Z_
X[`Y]_
_aX[^
[^
]Y[
_
XX
bc
^YdeYXfdga
X^
Wh
XX
_]Z
X
X^
a[ ZX[
iY
]^Xa _
]^[
a Z]YZ
ZXYZ
X^]XY_
]
[ XZj^XZaZa] Z_XY Z_
X ]\Z
[
\
ZX
Wk[ l[
XY_
^Y
XY][
X [^
X^X[
]^[
iY
]^X
XY[]
Z]
ZZX
X^]X
_]
Wk_][
]XYZZ_
X]
Z[
]YZ_
XYZ
^]X
Z ]^[
mk]
cna
X^]XY_
X[^
]
[do]XXZ[
]Y _Z
Z
]XYZ
] Wh[
_[ Z_
X
]XZ_
]aXY^
Y
bZ Y ^Y
pq
X
X] Y ^Y
"pq
Xg[^
X^X[
]Y]XYZ[_
X] Z XYZX[^
`
][
^Y
XYiY
]^X[]
][
X
Z_
bWa[
XX[_
]
[
XgWrY]XY^Z_
XX[ZY`[ X^Y
Y[
iY
]^X[Z
][^
]j
XXZ
]a [
Y[_
] [ XWr
X^]XY_
X
iY]ZXYZZ_
XZY^
` YXfd]c
^YdW
`
X]
s[do]X
[
ZXYZZ_ X
tu
_
v
_ZXu
@QwKOTBIJUQOVIJTMPxOLyTw@QKOTBIJUQOVIJ
@BFG;QLwPMNBIVUOPTKLUMzh ZX
Y [
]
[
`
[YX^]"q
_YaX{` Xfoq
_YaX[^
|
][YZ_]ZY
X}^Y] X}Y]Z W
XYZ
]
Xa[
]
ZX[
XY[
]ZY
[
^Y]X]XYZ
X X
]]
XZ
]
[`X[
Y]
X~XZ
ZmY]vY ~ _
bmvg}
_
`
X]
Z]`[iY
]
XYZ
]
X
tu
_
v
_ZXu
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 258 of 342
!"
# $
%&'
"()$&)
*)
'+
)$&
,
-." /
'()$&)
0123 456123 76
2316 7
31
6 621 8 672 98 12
672
7 2645123 76
:2
1: ;3
1 26 3
67 67 <676=2 6>?@ABCDEFGDH>FCD@IJKL CHMIAD@= 17N7 1O 26 3
N7456
269
P;3 123 76
:1 7 1
776 <
Q 9
:23 13 74
269
276123
7< 3
1:7316
16
3:
2R: 8<6<3
1: 9
:
2 7 26 74
67 736
:1 21:6
4
67 672 6
STUVWXYZ[\ Y]^_`\abcd0 273
6
1
6< 637:
1 ef
938
7Q< 7gf
93876
: h1637
6P;3
8P7 917
3:
2P 7:
2 8 :
<6 6 1iIB>jDLFkCJl@mIAno GDBAIm>pq@LIAj>IrJCMI@AEF>sr@Ftuj lCFrJIvMDLJlHDMLF@Aj>rBD>AvEFjCADBvwrIBACMLJIBvAj>ImBCMLJABIrFADHxI@AyJB3 162 7z 71 456 917 763
1: 1: 7
{6:17 167 |672C@HDB}IACD@M AIC>l GIm>~uLB@kJEFMI@F>BqIFAj>kIFCHDBAj> 917 456
6 917
<3
1: 132 6rLkJCMIkDLAj>rBD>AvEFjCADBMAj>}>FI@l FDMCIAD@FiCAj@kBDIl>MLJABI2{74562 617 76
: 91:62
9
=92717 4
<
71
32
17
9
=927
STU
[ZX^][ZYba [ZX`[bd06 96 26
2
7327 3{21
231331P73: 29 78<Q61 76 :6
1 26
76=2 6?@A>BCDEFGDH>FCD@IJKL CHMIAD@FxAI@lBFHDBIMj>DJmvIACD@ Q=9276
:2 11
9
36 140617 9
2 86 9
2 7 976
7:2 1 2 6 9
361456;3
1 26
78 1
2 :86 9
2 7 9876
{ 6 1 Q 21 7 1 1 <Q27 9
3672 61 6 67324
23 73271176
: 9
31N
:
1
2 74
1
<Q :27 9
36 7322
37 6N
2 7421 723
12
318:3
189 7 P
9 7787
8
:
787 9
281 294
<71 21 <6 ;3
1 26
7
331
173:
29 7
9
=927
¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯ª°¦©§¬¨°®¯§±«®²°
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 259 of 342
!"
# $
%&'
"()$&)
*)
'+
)$&
,
-." /
'()$&)
0 1023 0240315
6
06 73
0 25
1 01360582
9:5
01241006; 4
2 3<5 =1; 4
2 <
2 6<15
6213
0 5 51329:5 45 ; 4 2 12 20<
2
0; 4
2 615
640213
05 ;4
2 1321003>21329?@ABCDEFGHIEFJKLGMHNOJPQNRSPHTEJNUVGHEU@JMNWPHJMX:5 45 25 2
1321 3 503>2132<
5=0136YZ 50316
130 0203
[\]^_`abcdef__cgb^_h]\e[i`je^_kge\c`ldm`j_dc`g[ano cj][e`gp 01 25 q;prstuv5 14
305 3 012 509:5012441612 30wx qp2ryz{9|}rztv< 0
YZ<1325 1 4
2 25
2
024<15
23 12065 25
120 Y51 0
2 6<0120 1 0~1 Z5
031925 1325 16
0 2 0<YZ5 139
; 4
2 1 415
6 0 Y Z 12 0Y5; 4
2 3
9 Y
10 20 Y5
73 0512
25 0
4
2 1 21Y5
83300136 24 1
84
p4218
?@AWMIJDGNRNPSNWDK
PGEU?WFPE@JMNWPHJMX:5 45 23
1321; 4
2 003
5 10>2<
5=0136YZ 5yz5015
6
130 0203
25
1 023
0; 4
2 1 45
305 3 012 509:5<213
Y5
2 ;4
2 1<015 1321 6
23 132 05312 30wx
<
15
6 0
0 20 2Y51 30
1 0213
Y5
2 ;4
2 3q1v95
15
230 4025132< 40251321 16 <5
15
35 513220 Y5 23
0
2 ;4
2 6
1 4 0<
2 6< 73
0 25
19w
1 6
23 13212
30<63
0<2523
25 05132<2 0
315132<2520
5132<5 249
Y10 20 Y5 73
0512 25 0 4
2 1
21Y5
83300136 24 1
84
p4218
¡¢ £ £¡¢¤¡¥£
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 260 of 342
!"
# $
%&'
"()$&)
*)
'+
)$&
,
-." /
'()$&)
012345640123478591:;3<=5
012>?3@ABCDEFGH1A@IJH6FEKLJDEFIDM1NGFODCP QRS TUTRSTVU V UVWS
UVQ RTR W TRSTUX
VQYT
T RQ
T XRQ TRSQ RQZ
S[ \X
] Q^Z[\]_V[ `aTZSWR TR
^[`Z_VZ b TRc
d eS
c U^Zbcdec_VURTS Q RU X
YTVQ RURU
USRV UQX
XR RV U Q
U T R UfU QYTRg`Q YT T RQ
XUQ XRQ ThQ RUSR
R UQTXRTT
USRRU
USRVTRQij Uijk\ZXR XRV UURTS QRRTSUh TUWlmR QYTR Rh RT R U
TUR
X g`QXRQ T nSQ YT
T TUST U
XR fRSURVT
SUVWS
UVR
XR VR
X RSXRV Uf SUh XR RU
Q aT UR
VR
X V USUh g`QXRQ T nS X
Q
Z
^Z
_nSUW
RS]
opiVW
hVRS T nSUYTRg`QYT
T RQ
T
hQXRQnSRVTUSTQXR R nSUV RSWQRS QXRQ Tg`QXRqrstuvwxyz{|}~|
}~|}stuvwxsswuvrzRQ
WU
XU UXh UWQYT
T g`QYT
T RQ
SRQTRQUTSRVT
SUQ
Z
nSX
UTSnSUW
RS]
opiVQ
[ RS T URgSUh h R
X WR UUSU
VRSW TU
VTRST QYTRVQh
W UVT U
TV
T UZ
l
d [RTRT Rg
W U TX Rh
WUTSU
RSWUZ
l
d [RTh QjU RQT
WU TX Rg
h
RU
Q
RS TTRSTVU
V
UVWS
UV
Q RTR W TRST
[X
ZXTR
[ TU hQR
TUXRQ T^Z[\]VdecV[`Z_
012>5KE@9DIDA@@IECDILFG<NDJE@M5FKC5FKCDNFGIMFG BIMDE@Gg`QYT T RQ
nS
UX
TRS
V
R
R^_
R
\^\_V Z
h
RU
TRST
[X
¡¢£¤¥¦ §¨©ª«¬®¯°±²³´µ¶·²µ¸¦®±µ¯¦´°µ¸¶·¯¹³¶º¸
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 261 of 342
!"
# $
%&'
"()$&)
*)
'+
)$&
,
-." /
'()$&)
01
234536781
9:5;
<359=
> < <48 <
< 3<4
9
; 95<= 9 8 3<= 49 <538 ?<43453=@4 <434<53453678 48
4 >
48<
45 <A4
34453453= @4 98
5=@4 <;49 <8B4 3 48C346784 45 < 34 3 5<9>5
<DE13@
93
5<4=
5; <8
4
F
4
EGHIJKLMNJIOPNQHRSTUQKVHQIMNHQWSTVIJMLWSQILJXOLRHQTLORSYIWZ[\G]^K _`ab
<;4
b<c
2 E<4
3<543 <
4E
99 <5
;483 4E
8
<4
3 34= @ 8C348
<4 8 4 <8
?<4 38 443453 3; 4=8 :54 <3<54 3
E78
<4
=
4 5
4
8 <
3<54 <
8
<4:54 ?=@ <5>
3d458 ?<54
4<534536
78
<A8;48 301efg9719hiF2=
;= < ;8 1
3<4
9
; 9 <5<= 45 3 434 8> 3453678C3 3 =
;= <
81
< 5<
< <0345326
1;34e 3< =84
3<;48 301efg9hiF9e712
jklmnopqrlstoukp
jvwrlstoukpxnqyzulkp{78
3 48
8 843
>5< _` A|}` =84 <3453;> 5`6}A43~808 484
<>5
<4 < 2<
RHOKWQURIHOLRWI SK\ZSKWQUR S^KLIJWHLR MMHTLWSIQLWHOLWZS43 ; 48 >;<> :5
< 6
=
4< 3< =8
:5
<
<
3453 3; 4
e;
1;34e
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 262 of 342
!"#$
!
!$"%#
& "' $()*)+, %-.
(+/0-) 1) 2.)3 %-+(.4 567
# 8# .* 567
9: (/:*) %
;##<=9
(+:-
%-+1) >*4, !(.4*)+:, ?:.4.*):
:).9.-*) >*4, .).*, # @*.* A.-3*
+)B* */
()*1.4 */
C.1 D ;7C8#&##< >*-.9.- C.1 ;7( E ***<
# F*1.)
>*
) G
H$ #
@*.*=A.-3*I.)J9>*
)=:4
>
:,,
HH= = =
$
K
L MNO
()*)+, ?:.4.*
P
P#
H#H >@
F: @*.* A.-3*
@*.*=A.-3*I.)J9>*
)=:4
6-*). %-+(.4
(-+:.)J
.*- ()*)+, -)> ()*)6-*
():*4
.*- ()*)+, -)> .)J 9 >*
)6-*). %-+(.4
QO RST QOUM
T
V. W:3*:)
V.=W:3*:)I.)J9>*
)=:4
@**4: >*.4
?>
(-+:.)J 6 1*.G
--+)
+)3).-*).
;B<
L
7,.4 >
:,,
HH= = =
$
()
P
P#
# >@
X.2
P
P# !!$& >@ (.4
P!P# $#$H >@
R
K
L L QOU YT
TUZ
B) ?99: .* %-+(.4
/:) [*4
/:)=[*4I.)J9>*
)=:4
,,.,)*) .)J
)):J
.)J 9 >*
)
(-+:.)J 6 1*.G
--+)
+)3).-*).
;B<
(.4*)+:
). >:8,-) ()J
7,.4 >
:,,
HH= = =
$
()
P!P# $#
# >@
X.2
P!P# $
& >@ (.4
P!P# $
$$# >@
R
K
L L QOU YT
TUZ
B) ?99: .* %-+(.4
V*)3* 6*.)
V*)3*=6*.)I.)J9>*
)=:4
):.1 %.:-): >*.4 * 11+.)J
.:1)
.)J 9 >*
)
(-+:.)J 6 1*.G
--+)
+)3).-*).
;B<
(.4*)+:
). 7* (.4*)+: 1*4
7,.4 >
:,, HH=&&=$=
&#
()
P!P# $
$$ >@
X.2
P&P# #$
>@ (.4
P&P# # # >@
R
K
L L QOU YT
TUZ
B) ?99: .* %-+(.4
@*3**.
3 [+
@*3**.=
3[+I.)J9>*
)=:4
):.1 .)J :\
(-+:.)J 6 1*.G
--+)
+)3).-*).
;B<
%-.
%-. 5*, *1 ,+, ) ,.4 *9): )3 .)J
@**4: * )3 @*J: ,.4= >*, ::+) ) 1
*9):G )3*\ J+] >*, ) 1 \2 .9 J+ 3* *J
^+,)., : --:,=
",)G
@*3*
()
P&P# # #' >@
X.2
P
P#
#
&$&
@ %-.
P
P#
#
#$
@ R
K
L L QOU YT
TUZ
B) ?99: .* %-+(.4
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 263 of 342
!
"#
$%&"
'$($ )* +!%%
&,!&$,%
,
-.
,$/
01
213124
4
5
102
6
.
7
$"$(8
%&#,
'
9
&
'
9
&
!
"#
$%&"
'$($ )* +!%%
&,!&$,%
,
-.
,$/
01
213124
4
5
102
6
.
7
$"$(8
%&#,
:;
2
4
250 <
=
50 <
:
4
<50 <
>
?450 <
>
@2>2<
"$A
B
&
"$A
B
&
!
"#
$%&"
'$($ )* +!%%
&,!&$,%
,
-.
,$/
01
213124
4
5
102
6
.
7
$"$(8
%&#,
C
D2
<
02
<
,($
E$$, FG$H,%"
E$IIHIJHKLKMJ)MM)KLN
;
<
DocuSign Envelope ID: E77297D3-ABD0-4DC5-A03B-797ABB58FF32 Item 13
Attachment A - Approved
Record of Land Use Action
for the Vesting Tentative
Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 264 of 342
Project Plans
The Final Map is available to the public online. Hardcopies of the Final Map have been provided to Councilmembers.
Environmental Document
Council certified the Revised Final EIR on September 12, 2025 through adoption of Resolution 10123
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “340 Portage” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans as well as links to the EIR
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/CurrentPlanning/Projects/3200-Park-Boulevard Item 13
Attachment B - Final Map
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 265 of 342
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #:2603-6134
TITLE
Direction to advance the Locally Preferred Alternatives for Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road crossings to 35% design and environmental documentation. CEQA Status – Statutorily Exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the Council direct proceeding with the 35% design phase and preparation of environmental documentation for the selected alternatives at the Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road crossings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item seeks approval to continue design plans for the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue, the Meadow Drive Hybrid, and the Charleston Road Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp (DAR). Approval would enable proceeding with 35% design and environmental documentation. Feedback received from both the Rail Committee and City Council will be considered and incorporated during the early stages of the 35% design phase.
Completion of 15% Design plans established a preliminary project footprint for initiating the environmental process, identified the primary cost and constructability drivers at each crossing, and was used to develop an independent cost estimate and preliminary construction schedule for each delivery scenario. On August 25 and 26, 2026 staff conducted community engagement meetings to share the 15% design plans and total rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) project costs at each crossing.
Community feedback received during these meetings is documented in Attachment D.
At the September 8, 2026 Rail Committee meeting, Committee members reviewed the 15% design concepts, preliminary ROM cost estimates, high-level construction schedules and provided feedback on total program cost relative to identified funding, how the alternatives were narrowed, wall heights, and construction period effects at Meadow Drive, and potential property acquisition by crossings.
Committee members also discussed how future decisions on delivery and phasing would be informed by completion of 35%.
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 266 of 342
Advancing the alternatives into 35% design will provide additional information to support these future decisions by refining project costs, schedules, risks, and funding needs, and by identifying opportunities to phase or sequence implementation in a manner that balances community benefits, constructability, funding availability, and overall program cost. The City is obligated to advance the selected grade separation alternatives through the Preliminary Engineering (end of 35% Design) and Environmental Documentation phase, and this work is fully funded with $20 million in secured external funds.
BACKGROUND
On December 10 and December 15, 2025, Council directed staff to advance the following alternatives into 15% Design, with a focus on enhancing safety and access, establishing a preliminary project footprint for environmental clearance, and minimizing congestion, environmental impacts, and property impacts:
• Churchill Avenue: A Partial Underpass was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative, with a partial crossing for motor vehicles at Churchill Avenue, no landscaping strip along Alma Street, and a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue/Peers Park with a ramp along Alma Street. (Consistent with Council direction from November 29, 2021, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill remains as the backup alternative and is not being advanced into preliminary engineering at this time.)
• Meadow Drive: A Hybrid Underpass was selected as the preferred alternative, with direction to evaluate earthen berm and podium options during 15% Design. The Rail Committee reviewed structural and design considerations for both options on March 10, 2026 and confirmed the earthen berm with a short bridge over Meadow Drive as the basis of design. • Charleston Road: An Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp (DAR) was selected as the preferred alternative.
Caltrain is leading the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase, and the City collaborates with Caltrain on project design and acts as project sponsor.
Since the Rail Committee update on May 12, 2026, staff revised the conceptual plans to develop the 15% Design plans and worked with an independent cost estimator to develop total ROM project costs and preliminary construction schedules for each crossing. Due to the proximity of the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings, multiple delivery scenarios were analyzed to identify potential cost efficiencies, construction sequencing considerations, and opportunities to reduce overall community disruption through coordinated project delivery.
The delivery scenarios evaluated are outlined below:
• Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 267 of 342
Councilmembers have expressed a preference for the Seale Avenue portion of this project to occur in advance of the Churchill Avenue portion. At Seale Avenue, the bicycle and pedestrian crossing includes an east ramp along Alma Street that transitions to a tunnel beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks, terminating in Peers Park and connecting by a west ramp to Castilleja Avenue.
At Churchill Avenue, the roadway would be lowered beneath the existing Caltrain tracks, which would remain at their current elevation. Because the track profile would not change, no track design was required for this location. The 15% Design assumes a hybrid retaining wall system, including deep soil mixing walls and conventional cantilever retaining walls along the ramps, with a concrete box structure for the undercrossing.
Both undercrossings are assumed to be constructed using box jacking, which allows rail operations to continue without a shoofly track.
• Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered concurrently At both crossings, the Caltrain tracks would be raised on an embankment supported by retaining walls, with bridges over the roadways. The track profile would be raised by up to approximately 16 feet at Meadow Drive and approximately 4.5 feet at Charleston Road, beginning near Loma Verde Avenue and extending to near Greenmeadow Way. Meadow Drive would be lowered by approximately 7 feet, and Charleston Road would be lowered by approximately 20.25 feet. At Charleston Road, Alma Street would be raised over the lowered roadway on a new bridge, with turning movements accommodated through upper and lower intersections and a separate multi-use path adjacent to the lowered roadway. Because the two crossings are approximately 0.3 miles apart and both require raising the tracks, this scenario assumes construction of a shoofly track along Alma Street to maintain rail operations through both work areas.
• Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered sequentially as back-to-back projects
Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed first using box jacking, which would allow rail operations to continue without a shoofly track. The Meadow Drive Hybrid would then be constructed as a later, separate project and would require a shoofly track along Alma Street. Construction of the Meadow Drive Hybrid would also raise the track profile over the previously completed Charleston Road Underpass.
• Charleston Road Underpass Only
Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed and the Meadow Drive crossing would remain at grade. This scenario was included based on City Council direction on December 15, 2025.
Shoofly Operations
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 268 of 342
Where the track profile must be raised, such as at Meadow Drive, trains cannot remain on the existing alignment while the permanent improvements are constructed and a temporary shoofly track would be constructed east of the existing tracks along the southbound portion of Alma Street to maintain rail service through the work area. The need for a shoofly varies by delivery scenario.
In the combined delivery scenario, the shoofly track would begin north of Meadow Drive and end south of Charleston Road, ahead of the existing crossover, allowing it to serve both crossings during construction. Based on the current 15% Design, the approach embankment is approximately 55 feet wide, with an estimated 25 feet of clear distance between the shoofly and the new wall. A temporary at-grade crossing would also be installed at Meadow Drive to maintain access during construction.
If Charleston Road is constructed on its own, box jacking would be used and no shoofly would be required.
If Charleston Road and Meadow Drive are delivered sequentially, the shoofly would be deferred to the later Meadow Drive project. After construction is complete, the shoofly would be removed and the Alma Street corridor would be restored.
ANALYSIS
15% Design Phase
The 15% design phase is a preliminary engineering basis that identifies likely structures, a preliminary project footprint, roadway and track relationships, and construction approaches sufficient to support ROM cost estimating, schedule planning, and environmental review. Here, the project team evaluated each crossing based on physical constraints associated with the Caltrain corridor, Alma Street, adjacent neighborhoods, schools, parks and utilities, and the need to maintain rail operations during construction.
The 35% design phase will verify key assumptions and further develop preliminary engineering and environmental analysis. The sections below describe the key considerations at 15% design and next steps for the 35% design phase.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Circulation
15% Design Objective: Evaluate whether each alternative can accommodate safe pedestrian and bicycle movement, and explore methods to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access through the corridor during construction.
15% Design Analysis and Findings: The 15% Design establishes the preliminary pedestrian and bicycle facilities described below.
• Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass: The Churchill Ave concept maintains access across Churchill Avenue with a pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to Caltrain tracks across the lowered Churchill Avenue roadway. The bridge is anticipated to Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 269 of 342
include railings and fencing to separate users from the rail corridor and roadway. • Seale Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing: The Seale Ave concept provides a 16-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle path that descends from Seale Avenue along Alma Street, passes beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and emerges in Peers Park, and ramps up to grade at Castilleja Avenue. The tunnel provides 8 feet of vertical clearance for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass: The Meadow Drive concept would provide a 5-foot bicycle lane in each direction and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of Meadow Drive beneath the rail bridge, reconnecting to existing bicycle facilities at project limits. • Charleston Road Underpass with Direct Access Ramp: The Charleston Road concept includes a vertically separated pedestrian and bicycle path that would run parallel to the lowered Charleston Road as it passes beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks. The path has a minimum clear width of 14 feet through the undercrossing with at least 8 feet of vertical clearance. The concept also includes an approximately 60-foot pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to the rail bridge that would allow for bicycle and pedestrian access across Charleston Road.
Connections to the Surrounding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
The proposed facilities enhance east-west pedestrian and bicycle connections across the Caltrain corridor and connect to existing facilities at project limits. The Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue facilities would connect to the Embarcadero Bike Path and Park Bike Boulevard and support access to Palo Alto High School and adjacent neighborhoods. At Meadow Drive, the reconstructed bicycle lanes and sidewalks would connect to existing and future facilities on East and West Meadow Drive. At Charleston Road, the separated path and pedestrian and bicycle bridge would connect Charleston Road with Alma Street and Park Bike Boulevard. These facilities would support access to nearby schools and neighborhoods destinations. Specific off-site improvements and transitions between the existing and proposed facilities will be refined.
Cost & Risk: The 15% design phase includes permanent pedestrian and bicycle facilities and preliminary construction traffic control. Temporary pedestrian and bicycle routes, accessible detours, barriers, signs, lighting, and other construction-period accommodations have not been fully defined. Temporary and permanent pedestrian/bicycle access elements could affect construction staging, property needs, project cost, and construction duration.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% design phase will focus on refining the pedestrian and bicycle facility alignment, accessibility, connections and transitions to existing facilities, as well as lighting, wayfinding, and other safety features. A traffic study will evaluate permanent and construction-period pedestrian and bicycle operations, including school access, temporary closures, detour routes, and options to maintain a usable crossing or Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 270 of 342
reduce the duration of overlapping closures. The results will inform more detailed construction phasing and sequencing, access plans, environmental analysis, and updated cost and schedule information.
Vehicle Access and Circulation
15% Design Objective: Confirm whether each alternative can accommodate safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle movement, and explore methods to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access during construction. Alma Street is a designated local truck route for its entire length within the City, which shapes geometric requirements at each crossing. 15% Design Analysis and Findings: Passenger vehicles can generally be accommodated within the preliminary roadway geometry. However, much of the available stopping and nighttime headlight sight distance falls below Caltrans criteria, particularly along Alma Street and at roadway low points. Larger vehicles including semi-trailers, fire apparatus, school buses, and City garbage trucks require wider turning paths or operational adjustments at several locations. Recommendations from the analysis include restricting large vehicles from the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp, modifying curb and sidewalk geometry at the upper Alma Street/Charleston Road intersection, installing high visibility pavement markings, green bike lanes, pedestrian and street lighting. These recommendations are preliminary and will continue to be evaluated and refined as the design progresses.
Cost & Risk: The cost estimate developed during the 15% Design phase includes the principal pedestrian, bicycle and roadway facilities, traffic signals, lighting, pavement markings, and preliminary construction traffic control. Further geometric changes could affect retaining walls, bridge elements, utilities, property needs, construction staging, and project cost.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% phase will refine roadway profiles and intersection geometry, update sight-distance and turning analyses, define vehicle restrictions and traffic control measures, and advance pedestrian and bicycle facility design. A traffic study will be completed to evaluate permanent and construction-period operations, including intersection performance, diversion routes, temporary closures, and emergency, school, pedestrian, and bicycle access. The results will inform more detailed construction phasing, detours, access plans, cost estimates, schedule, and environmental analyses.
Utility Identification and Relocation
15% Design Objective: Collect additional information on the existing water, sewer, gas, electrical, and communication lines to establish a preliminary utility base map and evaluate potential conflicts with roadway grading, retaining walls, bridges, and excavation. 15% Design Analysis and Findings: Utility records indicate extensive infrastructure at each crossing. Preliminary concepts for utility relocation include moving utilities into shared Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 271 of 342
trenches or duct banks, rerouting or lowering individual lines, and protecting certain facilities in place. The analysis was limited to approximate horizontal locations and utility depths. Vertical conflicts between utilities were not analyzed during the 15% Design phase.
Cost & Risk: Utility relocation is a significant source of cost and schedule uncertainty. The estimate includes preliminary relocation quantities, but these cost estimates could be impacted by unknown utility depths, nonstandard clearance requirements, utility-owner requirements, and unidentified conflicts. The 24-inch PG&E gas transmission line at Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place; and any required protection or relocation of this line will also result in cost and schedule impacts. Responsibility for relocation costs among the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been determined at this stage of the Project.
Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% Design phase will verify utility locations and depths through subsurface investigation and potholing, develop a detailed utility conflict matrix, and refine relocation and protection plans with utility owners. This work will verify required clearances, as well as preliminary construction sequencing, service interruptions, property or easement needs and cost responsibility to provide greater clarity on costs associated with utilities.
Potential Property Acquisition
15% Design Objective: The 15% Design established a preliminary project footprint and potentially affected parcels using preliminary plans, assessor maps, available right-of-way records, and limited title information and identified potential property impacts to the level of detail needed support environmental review and cost estimation. The design aimed to minimize property impacts while meeting safety, access, constructability, and Caltrain operating requirements.
15% Design Analysis and Findings: Based on available assessor maps, partial Caltrain rightof-way information, and limited title reports, the 15% Design preliminarily identifies five (5) full property acquisitions and 33 additional partial acquisitions of private parcels.
Additional right-of-way from Caltrain may also be required. These findings are preliminary because a complete boundary survey was not available and the exact limits and types of property interests have not been established.
Cost & Risk: Final cost estimates will depend on updated project footprints and estimated extents of permanent acquisition and temporary construction easements. Property constraints may also affect retaining walls, the temporary shoofly, construction staging and access, and therefore construction cost and schedule.
Next Step for 35% Design: Property impacts will continue to be evaluated and refined as design advances. At 15%, the Project identifies the general footprint and potentially affected properties using preliminary plans, assessor maps, available right-of-way records, Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 272 of 342
and limited title information. During the 35% Design, additional survey, title, and engineering information will be used to refine parcel-specific limits, distinguish potential permanent acquisition and easements from temporary construction easements, and evaluate design changes that could avoid or reduce impacts. The 35% findings will provide a more reliable basis for environmental analysis and future coordination with property owners but will not authorize any real estate acquisition or determine that any specific property will be acquired. If the Project moves forward following environmental review and future approvals, some property interests may need to be acquired. Any future acquisition would require confirmation of the Project and right-of-way needs, compliance with applicable acquisition procedures, separate funding, and separate authorization. No construction funding is currently identified or programmed.
Total ROM Project Costs and Preliminary Construction Schedule Cost estimates become more reliable as design advances and assumptions are replaced by verified information. The 15% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is an early-phase estimate. It is intended to document the current level of design, inform delivery planning, test the reasonableness of planning-level figures, and focus design efforts during the next phase. It is not intended to establish a final project budget or serve as the basis for construction funding requests.
Figure 1: Cost Estimate Lifecycle
An independent cost estimator, working separately from the design team, prepared a 15% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and a preliminary construction schedule for the project. The cost estimate was prepared using a design-bid-build procurement assumption for pricing purposes and reflects how a contractor would price the work based on the current level of design. The estimate was developed using the available 15% Design and technical materials prepared for this phase, including the 15% plan sets and supporting technical documentation.
Components of Total ROM Project Cost Ranges
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 273 of 342
The total ROM project cost ranges include the following major cost categories:
• Construction contractor costs, including direct construction costs such as roadway work, utility work, retaining walls and bridges, jacked boxes, dewatering, track work, rail systems, overhead contact system (OCS), lighting, power, and landscaping. • Contractor indirect costs, including contractor supervision, staffing, field office expenses, general and administrative costs, escalation, and contractor fees. • Designer/Engineer of Record costs, including design services needed to advance the project through subsequent design phases.
• Agency costs, including project management, oversight, construction administration, management, and inspection.
• Environmental documentation and permitting, including costs associated with CEQA/NEPA documentation and required permits.
• Trans America Services Inc. (TASI), a third party managing the Caltrain operation as included in the total project cost assumptions.
• Real property and easements, including property acquisition and temporary or permanent easement needs.
• Escalation, reflecting the assumed timing of construction and year-of-expenditure cost basis.
• Project contingency, reflecting uncertainty at the current level of design and the need for refinement as the project advances.
Key Estimate Assumptions
The total ROM project costs were developed using the following key assumptions:
• Costs are developed in 2026 dollars, with escalation applied beginning in 2027 at 5 percent per year using a project midpoint approach
• Total ROM project costs are expressed in year-of-expenditure dollars, meaning they include escalation.
• Craft labor rates reflect current Northern California union agreements. • Work within the Caltrain right-of-way is assumed to occur at night, including in residential areas where night work is assumed to be permissible. • Weekend closures are assumed for temporary rail bridge installation and removal and for track cutovers.
• Productivity inefficiency factors are applied to account for work adjacent to active rail operations.
• Construction is assumed to begin in 2032.
The estimate corresponds to an approximate Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 3 estimate.
The table below summarizes the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction durations for each delivery scenario.
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 274 of 342
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 275 of 342
Table 1: Total ROM Project Cost Range and Preliminary Construction Duration Delivery Scenario Total ROM Project Cost
Range
Preliminary
Construction Duration
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with
bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale
Avenue
$420M – $450M 3-4 Years
Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow
Drive Hybrid delivered concurrently $1B - $1.1B 5 Years Charleston Road Underpass and
Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered
sequentially as back-to-back projects
$ 1.2B -$1.3B 9 Years
Charleston Road Underpass constructed on
its own $480M - $530M 4 Years
Primary Cost Drivers of the 15% Estimate
The 15% total ROM project costs is a tool to support decision-making and is based on the current level of design, supplemented by contractor means-and-methods assumptions and estimating judgement where information was incomplete.
• Design Progression: The 15% estimate includes allowances and contingency for cost elements that are not fully defined at this stage of design. Allowances were included for design, potential real estate and easement needs. Contingency was included for other project-specific risk items. These buffers reflect the preliminary nature of 15% Design and will be updated as the project advances and additional technical work is completed. • Physical Cost Drivers: Major Cost Drivers include retaining walls and bridges, jacked-box structures, shoofly and track work, signal and OCS changes, deep excavation and dewatering, pump stations and drainage, potential ground improvement, and extensive utility relocation.
• Schedule and Market Drivers: Cost and duration are highly dependent on delivery method, sequencing, construction work windows and flagging, weekend shutdowns, night work, productivity next to active rail, anticipated start of construction, escalation, and contractor market conditions.
Key Findings for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Delivery Scenarios:
The Charleston Road and Meadow Drive delivery scenarios have different implications for construction duration, access across the Caltrain corridor, and the timing of construction impacts in the community.
Under the combined delivery scenario, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 60 Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 276 of 342
months. During that period, closure of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings would overlap for approximately 26 months. Based on current design and sequencing assumptions, there would be no open crossing of the Caltrain corridor between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road during that overlap, with the nearest available crossings at Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road.
Staff recognizes this as a significant community impact. Exploring design solutions to reduce or eliminate the overlap is a specific objective of the 35% Design phase, Staff will continue to evaluate sequencing refinements, including whether the roadway bridge over Alma Street can be constructed in advance of the railroad work, as discussed at the May 2026 Rail Committee meeting.
Under separate delivery, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 92 months. This approach would keep at least one crossing open throughout construction, but it would extend the overall period of construction activity compared to the combined delivery scenario. Charleston Road would also remain subject to construction restrictions for approximately 52 months during the later Meadow Drive work. Separate delivery would also be expected to increase overall cost by duplicating scopes of work, including roadway removals and improvements, fencing, signage and striping, landscaping, and trackwork, and by extending indirect costs for both the contractor and the City.
These scenarios illustrate the tradeoffs between reducing the total duration and cost of construction impacts and maintaining at least one available crossing throughout construction. The 35% Design phase will continue to evaluate construction sequencing, access strategies, and opportunities to reduce community impacts during construction.
Risks Associated with Costs
The following items remain undefined at 15% Design and will be further explored as the project advances into 35% Design:
• Utilities: Utility profiles have not yet been developed, so utility depths were estimated using standard assumptions. A 24-inch gas transmission line along Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place with no associated work. Utility relocation cost responsibility between the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been established. • Potential Property Acquisition: Property impacts will be refined as design advances. • Groundwater and dewatering: No groundwater flow rate data was available at 15% Design. Dewatering assumptions were developed from geotechnical groundwater elevations and anticipated excavation depths, and will be refined through additional geotechnical investigation, groundwater monitoring, and pumping tests. • Ground improvement: Deep soil mixing for soil stabilization beneath the jacked boxes at Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road, and beneath the mechanically stabilized earth system at Meadow Drive, may be required but is not included in the current estimate.
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 277 of 342
• Box jacking performance: Limited space for casting and launching the jacked box segments creates a risk that the box could deviate downward during jacking. Additional ground improvement or other mitigation may be required, and a separate contingency is recommended.
• Construction sequencing: Cost and duration are sensitive to whether Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are delivered together or separately, and to the sequencing of roadway and railroad work within each scenario.
• Railroad work windows and flagging: Track access, weekend shutdown availability, and flagging requirements will be determined with Caltrain. Flagging is carried as a separate allowance rather than in the base estimate.
• Escalation and construction start year: Escalation is applied based on an assumed construction start. A later start increases cost. Construction start depends on funding availability.
As the project advances into 35% Design, staff will continue to refine the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction schedules, particularly as key assumptions are confirmed or updated. Future updates will incorporate more detailed information on construction sequencing, rail service requirements, utility conflicts, property needs, permitting requirements, market conditions, and other design refinements that affect project cost and schedule.
Components of Total ROM Project Cost Ranges
The total ROM project cost ranges include the following major cost categories:
• Construction contractor costs, including direct construction costs such as roadway work, utility work, retaining walls and bridges, jacked boxes, dewatering, track work, rail systems, overhead contact system (OCS), lighting, power, and landscaping. • Contractor indirect costs, including contractor supervision, staffing, field office expenses, general and administrative costs, escalation, and contractor fees. • Designer/Engineer of Record costs, including design services needed to advance the project through subsequent design phases.
• Agency costs, including project management, oversight, construction administration, management, and inspection.
• Environmental documentation and permitting, including costs associated with CEQA/NEPA documentation and required permits.
• Trans America Services Inc. (TASI), a third party managing the Caltrain operation as included in the total project cost assumptions.
• Real property and easements, including property acquisition and temporary or permanent easement needs.
• Escalation, reflecting the assumed timing of construction and year-of-expenditure cost Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 278 of 342
basis.
• Project contingency, reflecting uncertainty at the current level of design and the need for refinement as the project advances.
Key Estimate Assumptions
The total ROM project costs were developed using the following key assumptions:
• Costs are developed in 2026 dollars, with escalation applied beginning in 2027 at 5 percent per year using a project midpoint approach
• Total ROM project costs are expressed in year-of-expenditure dollars, meaning they include escalation.
• Craft labor rates reflect current Northern California union agreements. • Work within the Caltrain right-of-way is assumed to occur at night, including in residential areas where night work is assumed to be permissible. • Weekend closures are assumed for temporary rail bridge installation and removal and for track cutovers.
• Productivity inefficiency factors are applied to account for work adjacent to active rail operations.
• Construction is assumed to begin in 2032.
The estimate corresponds to an approximate Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 3 estimate.
The table below summarizes the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction durations for each delivery scenario.
Table 1: Total ROM Project Cost Range and Preliminary Construction Duration Delivery Scenario
Total ROM Project
Cost Range
Preliminary
Construction Duration
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with
bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale
Avenue
$420M – $450M 3-4 Years
Charleston Road Underpass and
Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered
concurrently
$1B - $1.1B 5 Years
Charleston Road Underpass and
Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered
sequentially as back-to-back projects
$ 1.2B -$1.3B 9 Years
Charleston Road Underpass constructed
on its own
$480M - $530M 4 Years
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 279 of 342
Primary Cost Drivers of the 15% Estimate
The 15% total ROM project costs is a tool to support decision-making and is based on the current level of design, supplemented by contractor means-and-methods assumptions and estimating judgement where information was incomplete.
• Design Progression: The 15% estimate includes allowances and contingency for cost elements that are not fully defined at this stage of design. Allowances were included for design, potential real estate and easement needs. Contingency was included for other project-specific risk items. These buffers reflect the preliminary nature of 15% Design and will be updated as the project advances and additional technical work is completed. • Physical Cost Drivers: Major Cost Drivers include retaining walls and bridges, jacked-box structures, shoofly and track work, signal and OCS changes, deep excavation and dewatering, pump stations and drainage, potential ground improvement, and extensive utility relocation.
• Schedule and Market Drivers: Cost and duration are highly dependent on delivery method, sequencing, construction work windows and flagging, weekend shutdowns, night work, productivity next to active rail, anticipated start of construction, escalation, and contractor market conditions.
Key Findings for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Delivery Scenarios:
The Charleston Road and Meadow Drive delivery scenarios have different implications for construction duration, access across the Caltrain corridor, and the timing of construction impacts in the community.
Under the combined delivery scenario, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 60 months. During that period, closure of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings would overlap for approximately 26 months. Based on current design and sequencing assumptions, there would be no open crossing of the Caltrain corridor between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road during that overlap, with the nearest available crossings at Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road.
Staff recognizes this as a significant community impact. Exploring design solutions to reduce or eliminate the overlap is a specific objective of the 35% Design phase, Staff will continue evaluate sequencing refinements, including whether the roadway bridge over Alma Street can be constructed in advance of the railroad work, as discussed at the May 2026 Rail Committee meeting.
Under separate delivery, the preliminary construction schedule is approximately 92 months. This approach would keep at least one crossing open throughout construction, but it would extend the overall period of construction activity compared to the combined delivery scenario. Charleston Road would also remain subject to construction restrictions for approximately 52 months during the later Meadow Drive work. Separate delivery would also be expected to increase overall cost by duplicating scopes of work, including roadway removals and improvements, fencing, signage and Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 280 of 342
striping, landscaping, and trackwork, and by extending indirect costs for both the contractor and the City.
These scenarios illustrate the tradeoffs between reducing the total duration and cost of construction impacts and maintaining at least one available crossing throughout construction. The 35% Design phase will continue to evaluate construction sequencing, access strategies, and opportunities to reduce community impacts during construction.
Risks Associated with Costs
The following items remain undefined at 15% Design and will be further explored as the project advances into 35% Design:
• Utilities: Utility profiles have not yet been developed, so utility depths were estimated using standard assumptions. A 24-inch gas transmission line along Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place with no associated work. Utility relocation cost responsibility between the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been established. • Potential Property Acquisition: Property impacts will be refined as design advances. • Groundwater and dewatering: No groundwater flow rate data was available at 15% Design. Dewatering assumptions were developed from geotechnical groundwater elevations and anticipated excavation depths, and will be refined through additional geotechnical investigation, groundwater monitoring, and pumping tests. • Ground improvement: Deep soil mixing for soil stabilization beneath the jacked boxes at Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road, and beneath the mechanically stabilized earth system at Meadow Drive, may be required but is not included in the current estimate. • Box jacking performance: Limited space for casting and launching the jacked box segments creates a risk that the box could deviate downward during jacking. Additional ground improvement or other mitigation may be required, and a separate contingency is recommended.
• Construction sequencing: Cost and duration are sensitive to whether Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are delivered together or separately, and to the sequencing of roadway and railroad work within each scenario.
• Railroad work windows and flagging: Track access, weekend shutdown availability, and flagging requirements will be determined with Caltrain. Flagging is carried as a separate allowance rather than in the base estimate.
• Escalation and construction start year: Escalation is applied based on an assumed construction start. A later start increases cost. Construction start depends on funding availability.
As the project advances into 35% Design, staff will continue to refine the total ROM project cost Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 281 of 342
ranges and preliminary construction schedules, particularly as key assumptions are confirmed or updated. Future updates will incorporate more detailed information on construction sequencing, rail service requirements, utility conflicts, property needs, permitting requirements, market conditions, and other design refinements that affect project cost and schedule.
Total Program Delivery Cost Estimate
The total program delivery cost for implementing grade separations at Churchill Avenue, including Seale Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road is outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Total ROM Program Delivery Cost Estimates
Program Delivery Scenario Total Program Cost
Churchill Avenue plus Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
concurrently
$1.5 billion to $1.6 billion
Churchill Avenue plus Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
sequentially
$1.7 billion to $1.8 billion
Given the scale of investment that may be required to deliver the full program, future phases of the project will include discussions on delivery and phasing strategies, funding opportunities and strategy, and the timing of implementation. Advancing the alternatives into 35% design will provide additional information to support these future decisions by refining project costs, schedules, risks, and funding needs, and by identifying opportunities to phase or sequence implementation in a manner that balances community benefits, constructability, funding availability, and overall program cost.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
No action with a fiscal impact is requested as part of this staff report.
The City is obligated to advance the selected grade separation alternatives through the Preliminary Engineering (end of 35% Design) and Environmental Documentation phase and this work is fully funded with $20 million in secured external funds. These funds include a $6 million Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant and a $14 million Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B Grade Separation Funding Cooperative Agreement, which Council approved on December 9, 2024.
Appropriations for this work are included in the FY 2027 Adopted Capital Budget, with future costs programmed in the FY 2027 to 2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as capital projects PL24000 (Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) and PL-24001 (Churchill Avenue Rail Grade Separation and Safety Improvements). The secured $20 million is programmed to cover the costs of the 15% Design phase as well as the subsequent 35% Preliminary Engineering and Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 282 of 342
Environmental Documentation phase. Therefore, this item has no new fiscal impact.
The total project cost estimates developed at the 15% Design stage are planning-level estimates intended to support decision-making on project advancement, delivery planning, and funding strategies. They do not establish a final project budget. While preliminary engineering and environmental review are funded, no construction funding has been identified or programmed.
Construction will require additional federal, state, regional, and local funding, and the timing and sequencing of construction will depend on when those funds are secured. Cost estimates and schedules will continue to be refined as design advances and key assumptions are verified. Council will have an opportunity to evaluate options for sequencing subsequent project phases and how to best utilize funds that have not yet been awarded at the end of the 35% Design.
Funding Sources Awarded &
Allocated
Awarded &
Unallocated Unawarded
FRA Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) $6 M - -
VTA Measure B Grade Separation Fund $14 M - $350 M
State Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program
(TIRCP) - $23 M -
City Measure K $9 M - $30 M
Total $432 M
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Rail Committee meetings and City Council sessions are open to the public, offering community members an opportunity to share comments directly with Committee and staff. Regular project updates are presented during these meetings.
Since the last presentation to City Council, staff have hosted two community meetings on Tuesday, August 25 and Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at the Mitchell Park Community Center to gather community input and feedback on 15% Design plans, and the total rough-order-of-magnitude project costs and preliminary construction schedule. Each meeting included a presentation, a question and answer session, and an open house with project staff available for discussion. To reach a wide cross section and help spread awareness of these engagement opportunities, meetings were advertised through mailers to residents and property owners near the project area, on-site signage at the crossings and at area schools, social media, a City blog post, a Palo Alto Weekly advertisement, website updates, and email outreach to neighborhood associations, school and institutional partners, business organizations, and community-based organizations. Language translation services were available.
Comments received have been logged in Attachment D along with responses. A summary of the community meetings, comments received, and responses will be shared with City Council on September 28, 2026, and posted to the project website.
In addition to the community meetings, staff briefed the City School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC) on August 27, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on September 3, Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 283 of 342
2026. The community engagement summary is included in Attachment E. The CSTSC briefing focused on access routes serving Palo Alto High School and other Palo Alto Unified School District schools. The PABAC briefing focused on planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and routes at the crossings and regional connections within Palo Alto.
On September 8, 2026, staff presented the completed 15% Design plans, total ROM project costs, and preliminary construction schedules to the Rail Committee. The Committee provided feedback and passed the recommendation to the City Council for the September 28 meeting, noting that decisions on which crossings to advance beyond 35% Design would follow completion of that phase.
Committee members discussed the total ROM program cost relative to the funding currently identified for design and construction, and how that relationship may inform future decisions on delivery and phasing. Members noted that the City is obligated under its current grants to advance all three crossings through 35% Design, and that decisions on advancing individual crossings beyond that phase would be made when 35% Design and environmental analysis are complete.
Committee members asked staff to explain more clearly to the public how the alternatives were narrowed, including why an underpass at Meadow Drive and a viaduct were not carried forward. Staff confirmed that the current grants do not fund advancing an underpass at Meadow Drive through 15% or 35% Design, and that reconsidering that alternative would require separate funding and schedule.
Committee members also requested more specific information on wall heights and construction period effects at Meadow Drive, and on potential property acquisition by crossing.
Comments received at the meeting are logged in Attachment D. Staff will incorporate Rail Committee feedback, along with City Council feedback received on September 28, 2026, during the early stages of the 35% Design phase.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines in that Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation work is a feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded. The work to be performed in the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase of the grade separation project includes environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The environmental review is anticipated to begin in fall of 2026.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing, 15% Layout Plans
Attachment B: Meadow Drive, Hybrid, 15% Layout Plans
Attachment C: Charleston Road, Underpass with Direct Access Ramp, 15% Layout Plans Attachment D: Community Feedback Tracker - August 25 & 26, 2026 Community Meetings Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 284 of 342
Attachment E: Community Engagement Summary
APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 285 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass
Upper Alma St
Kellogg Ave
Churchill Ave
Coleridge Ave
Churchill Ave
Lower Alma St
LEGEND
Preliminary Project Footprint
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
from the Seale Ave Underpass
Access and Connectivity
NORTH
80 Graphic Scale in Feet
0 160 320
Retaining walls
Connection to
Embarcadero Bike Path
Retaining walls
Bridge for railroad tracks
Bicycle and
pedestrian bridge One northbound through lane to intersection of Lower Alma St and Churchill Ave (west leg)
One-way through traffic
Item 14
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue 15% Concept and Rendering
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 286 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass Rendering Item 14
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue 15% Concept and Rendering
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 287 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Seale Avenue - Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing
Alma St Seale Ave
Tennyson Ave
Rinconda Ave
Park Blvd
LEGEND
Preliminary Project Footprint
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
from the Seale Ave Underpass
Access and Connectivity
NORTH
80 Graphic Scale in Feet
0 160 320
PEERS PARK
Retaining walls
Retaining walls Driveway
access
maintained
Bicycle and pedestrian
connection under Alma
Street and railroad tracks
Bicycle and pedestrian
ramp to/from crossing
Bicycle and pedestrian
ramp to/from crossing
Bicycle and pedestrian connection to
Palo Alto High School from Peers Park
Alma St travel lanes shifted
west to accommodate ramp
Item 14
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue 15% Concept and Rendering
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 288 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Seale Avenue - Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Rendering Item 14 Attachment A - Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue 15% Concept and Rendering
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 289 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Meadow Drive - Hybrid Item 14
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing 15% Concept and
Rendering
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 290 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Meadow Drive - Hybrid Rendering Item 14
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing 15% Concept and
Rendering
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 291 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Charleston Road - Underpass with Direct Access Ramp Item 14 Attachment C - Charleston Road, Underpass with Direct Access Ramp, 15% Layout Plans
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 292 of 342
City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation:
Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by:
Charleston Road - Underpass with Direct Access Ramp Rendering Item 14 Attachment C - Charleston Road, Underpass with Direct Access Ramp, 15% Layout Plans
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 293 of 342
Comment # Comment Project Team Response Comment Source Associated Concepts Community Themes 1 Has projected usage of the Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing been studied? Use by Palo Alto High School students may be limited because California Avenue is nearby and students north of Seale Avenue tend to cross at Embarcadero Road.
Projected usage of the Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing was not forecasted during the 15% Design phase, which focused on confirming safe pedestrian and bicycle accommodation, establishing a preliminary project footprint, and maintaining access during construction. The crossing was directed by City Council in December 2025 as part of the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass alternative to provide a grade separated connection between the neighborhoods east of Alma Street and Peers Park. A traffic study during 35% Design will evaluate permanent and construction period operations, including school, pedestrian, and bicycle access. Staff briefed the Community Safety and Traffic Safety Committee on August 27, 2026 regarding access routes serving Palo Alto High School and other district schools. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
2 How would the project change student and parent traffic on East Meadow Drive, where residents already live with it, or would conditions remain similar to today?
The project team recognizes that East Meadow Drive serves students, families, and nearby residents. As a part of project development, traffic operations and circulation are being evaluated to understand how each concept could affect local travel patterns including school-related traffic. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access 3 If construction temporarily makes a residence uninhabitable, what relocation assistance, comparable housing, and moving-cost support may be available?
Information shown about potential right-of-way needs is for planning purposes only. The project has not received environmental clearance, and is not substantially funded for construction; therefore, is not approved for implementation. Nothing at this stage authorizes or commits to any property acquisition or temporary easement. If the project advances and funding is identified, defined state and federal processes apply, including the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Those processes govern questions about assistance and comparable housing, and they apply only once a project is approved and substantially funded. During 35% Design there will be opportunities for the City and Caltrain to provide additional information to the community on how these processes work. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific
Construction Considerations
Housing Assistance
4 Why does the current cost estimate for the Meadow Drive Hybrid appear higher than the Charleston Road Underpass, and what changed from earlier estimates, when the hybrid was much less expensive?
The earlier figures were planning-level, construction-only estimates that had not been vetted or validated, and they reflected a different set of concepts, including a combined Meadow Drive and Charleston Road underpass option that is not part of the current scope. The 15% figures are total project costs in year-of-expenditure dollars, adding design, agency costs, environmental documentation and permitting, real property and easements, escalation, and contingency, which accounts for much of the apparent increase. The two delivery scenarios also cover different amounts of work. The Meadow Drive Hybrid scenario grade separates both Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, while the Charleston Road Underpass scenario grade separates Charleston Road only. Estimates will continue to be refined as design advances and do not establish a project budget. Community Meeting
Meadow Drive Hybrid; Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Total Project Cost Estimate
5 Would the proposed grade separation concepts improve conditions compared with the existing crossings?
The proposed grade separation concepts are intended to eliminate at-grade conflicts between trains and roadway users, which can improve safety, reduce delays caused by train crossings, and enhance connectivity across the rail corridor. Community Meeting All concepts Design Elements and Development 6 Why are different grade-separation concepts proposed for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive?
City Council selected a different concept at each location in December 2025: an Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp at Charleston Road and a Hybrid Underpass at Meadow Drive. The two sites have different utility, right-of-way, drainage, and construction conditions, and the amount of vertical change needed differs. In the combined delivery scenario, the tracks would be raised about 16 feet at Meadow Drive and about 4.5 feet at Charleston Road, and the roadway would be lowered about 7 feet at Meadow Drive and about [20] feet at Charleston Road. Council also recognized that findings at one crossing do not always transfer to the other. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 7 Kellogg Avenue and Alma Street are already gridlocked from Palo Alto High School and Castilleja traffic, and the project would add further difficulty and gridlock. Consider closing Kellogg Avenue, and possibly Churchill Avenue and Coleridge Avenue, as was done in College Terrace.
A traffic operations analysis has already been completed for the project. It evaluated Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, Alma Street, and adjacent intersections under existing and future conditions, including level of service and queuing, to compare how each concept would affect nearby intersections and local street traffic. Traffic conditions during construction, including access, detours, and operations on surrounding streets, will be evaluated as the design advances. Suggested changes to local streets, such as closures or turn restrictions, would be considered separately from the grade separation design and would require City action and further community input. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Construction Considerations
8 What did the near-term safety improvements presented by Caltrain cost, and how are they being paid for?
The near-term safety improvements presented at the meeting are being delivered by Caltrain separately from the grade separation project and are not funded through the grade separation project. Along the Alma Street corridor at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road, Caltrain has installed delineators, solar markers, pavement markings, and updated striping, and has implemented anti-trespass panel and Rail Sentry safety pilots. Cost and funding details for that work are maintained by Caltrain and can be confirmed with Caltrain staff. The City is separately advancing near-term safety improvements at the Alma Street and Charleston Road crossing through the federal Section 130 program administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans is providing $700,000 for the design phase, the identified improvements were determined to be fully eligible for Section 130 funding, and the City will request additional Section 130 funds for construction once construction documents and an engineer's estimate are complete. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific
Design Elements and Development;
Total Project Cost Estimate
9 Neighbors near Alma Street and Park Boulevard already experience train horn blasts every day at 96 to 110 decibels. How would the project protect them from noise if trains are shifted onto temporary tracks along Alma Street for five to ten years?
Noise, vibration, air quality, traffic, and access are among the topics that will be studied through the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning in fall 2026. A temporary track, called a shoofly, would only be needed where the track profile is raised. It would be removed after construction and the corridor restored. For high-level estimating purposes, the cost estimate assumes work within the Caltrain right-of-way occurs during off-peak periods, with weekend closures for certain activities such as track cutovers. No work windows are approved. Construction work windows, flagging requirements, and weekend shutdown availability will be determined with Caltrain as design advances. Specific noise levels, work hours, and measures have not been established and will come from the environmental review and later design phases. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
10 How is flooding risk being evaluated for the proposed underpasses? Oregon Expressway floods when it rains.
Each underpass would have a stormwater pump station. At the 15% Design level, pumps are sized for a 50-year storm, with a 100-year check to evaluate backup, surcharge, and flooding conditions. Each pump station includes a standby pump so it can keep operating during maintenance or a pump failure. Inlets and catch basins are spaced to capture a 10- year storm while keeping a travel lane clear of water. During 35% Design, the team will confirm that the City's downstream storm drain system can receive the pumped flows, and will further evaluate how the Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue pump stations interact, since the current layout makes them dependent on one another. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
11 How will the proposed design at Charleston Road address the risk of bicyclists traveling in the wrong direction?
The project team is evaluating how all users, including bicyclists, will navigate proposed improvements. Design elements such as signage, markings, and intersection configuration will be reviewed to help minimize confusion and support safe bicycle travel. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
12 Are the renderings shown of the Charleston Road Underpass in the correct orientation?
The rendering of the Charleston Road Underpass is an aerial view looking southeast along the corridor, not a north-up map. From that viewpoint, Alma Street and the tracks appear on the opposite sides from how they would read on a plan view, which can make the orientation look reversed. Renderings are simplified visualizations and may not show every existing feature in exact detail, but the orientation shown is correct for that viewpoint. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 13 What is the length of the temporary tracks, and how would electrified trains be handled on them? The term shoofly is not understood by the public, materials should state plainly that trains would run along Alma Street, reducing it to two lanes, approximately 50 feet from homes.
The temporary track would be approximately 6,500 feet long and would shift approximately 50 feet towards Alma Street. Supporting infrastructure for the rails would cause traffic impacts on Alma Street for 5,500 feet and may extend up to 37 feet into the roadway. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Construction Considerations 14 How do the proposed grade-separation concepts compare with a viaduct alternative in cost, construction duration, property impacts, flooding risk, and tree removal?
A viaduct is not among the concepts being carried through this phase. Alternatives were screened earlier through the Connecting Palo Alto effort and the Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee, and City Council selected the current alternatives in December 2025. Because a viaduct was not advanced, the 15% Design did not develop cost, schedule, property, drainage, or tree information for that option, so a side-by-side comparison is not available. Tree removal, drainage, and property effects for the selected concepts will be developed further during 35% Design and studied in the environmental review. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing;
Meadow Drive Hybrid; Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp
Design Elements and Development;
Total Project Cost Estimate;
Construction Considerations
15 What is the completed length of each grade separation, so that total project cost per mile can be compared across the three locations? Separately, at the Seale Avenue and Peers Park bicycle and pedestrian crossing, has an alignment farther from the northwest edge of the park been considered to avoid removing trees?
Project limits differ at each crossing and are shown on the 15% Design plan exhibits posted on the project website. The estimate was not developed on a cost-per-mile basis. It is a total project cost estimate of the specific work at each location, prepared by an independent cost estimator using the 15% plans and supporting technical documentation, and corresponds to an approximate AACE Class 3 estimate. The amount of structure, utility, drainage, and rail work varies substantially between crossings, so a per-mile figure would not describe those differences. On the Seale Avenue alignment, the ramp rises through private property and the north edge of Peers Park to reach Castilleja Avenue.
Alignment refinements, including tree effects, will be evaluated during 35% Design and in the environmental review. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing
Design Elements and Development;
Total Project Cost Estimate
16 Do the cost estimates include long term operation and maintenance of the pumps required to prevent flooding in the lowered roadway sections?
Cost estimates do not contain operations and maintenance costs. Costs for pump infrastructure are included in the estimate. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific
Design Elements and Development;
Total Project Cost Estimate
17 Where can the public find current Caltrain ridership data and what is the outlook for Caltrain over the next 50 years?
Current ridership reports, bicycle planning documents, and information about bicycle access on Caltrain can be found on Caltrain's official website. Community members may also contact Caltrain directly for the most up-to-date information regarding ridership and bicycle-related programs. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
18 How are long term changes in travel behavior being considered, including remote work, commuting by car one or two days per week, and the growth of ride hailing services, e-bikes, and e-scooters? The previous traffic analysis forecasted future traffic volumes based on historical traffic patterns, input from the City, and planned future developments. Those forecasts were used to compare how each concept would perform under existing and future conditions. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 19 What does the future look like under scenario planning, and will Caltrain fares continue to be subsidized at approximately 70 percent? The grade separation alternatives are developed to accommodate future conditions along the corridor, including increased Caltrain service and longer gate downtimes, so that the crossings continue to function as rail service grows.
Caltrain fares, fare policy, and operating subsidy are set by Caltrain and are outside the scope of this project. Fare information is available on the Caltrain website at caltrain.com. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Total Project Cost Estimate
20 The Charleston Road and Meadow Drive project extents measure 6,500 feet, or 1.23 miles. On that basis the cost per mile, plus long term maintenance, far exceeds comparable viaducts, including high speed rail projects, which have been estimated at approximately $200 million per mile. The assertion that viaducts are much more expensive is disputed. Please cite the sources supporting that assertion.
The estimate is not a cost per mile. It was prepared by an independent cost estimator working separately from the design team, using the 15% plans and supporting technical documentation, and it prices the specific work at Charleston Road and Meadow Drive. That work includes a temporary shoofly track, retaining walls and bridges, jacked box structures, deep excavation and dewatering, pump stations and drainage, signal and overhead contact system changes, extensive utility relocation, and work next to an active electrified railroad. It corresponds to an approximate AACE (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International) Class 3 estimate. Costs are in 2026 dollars, escalated beginning in 2027 at [4] percent per year, with construction assumed to begin in 2032. The project has not prepared a cost comparison with viaduct projects, and no such comparison was developed as part of the 15% Design.
The assumptions, quantities, and unit costs behind the estimate are documented in the Basis of Estimate prepared by the independent cost estimator. Community Meeting
Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp
Design Elements and Development;
Total Project Cost Estimate
21 The design should serve the next 100 years. Build it correctly now and pay the current cost rather than fixing it 20 years from now.
The project team is evaluating how each concept would perform over the long term, including factors such as safety, maintenance, operational efficiency, infrastructure lifespan, and adaptability to future transportation needs. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Total Project Cost Estimate
22 At Meadow Drive, how does raising the track profile benefit the City given the project cost and the effects on adjacent neighborhoods, and why was it selected as the preferred alternative?
At Meadow Drive, the concept raises the tracks by up to about 16 feet and lowers the roadway by about 7 feet, rather than raising the tracks the full height needed for clearance. Visual character, noise, air quality, traffic, and access will be studied in the environmental review under CEQA and NEPA, beginning in fall 2026. Urban design elements have not been designed and will be developed during 35% Design with further community input. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development 23 Grade separation would intentionally restrict access to the rail corridor. How does the project address youth suicide prevention, effects on property values and land use, noise, and pedestrian access? Grade separation removes the at-grade crossings and creates a sealed corridor at these locations, eliminating pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access onto the railroad tracks. That separation is the primary safety benefit of the project, reducing conflicts between trains and people and reducing opportunities for unauthorized access to the corridor. Caltrain is also advancing near-term safety measures along the corridor, including anti-trespass panel and Rail Sentry pilots, separate from the grade separation project. Access across the corridor would be maintained through the grade separated crossings, and dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included at each location. Noise, land use, and pedestrian access will be evaluated through environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning in fall 2026. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
Item 14
Attachment D - Community
Feedback Tracker - August
25 & 26, 2026 Community
Meetings
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 294 of 342
24 What improvements are proposed for northbound Alma Street near Embarcadero Road, where the road currently narrows from two lanes to one?
The grade separation project covers Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. The Churchill Avenue alternative includes the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue using the Alma Street ramp as part of that design. Northbound Alma Street near Embarcadero Road is outside the project limits and is not part of this design work.
The Churchill Avenue bicycle and pedestrian concept does connect to the Embarcadero Bike Path. The 35% Design traffic analysis will evaluate how traffic moves to and from the project area, which can identify effects on nearby streets. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
25 How would the revised Direct Access Ramp affect setbacks along East Charleston Road? Reduced front yards would have an impact on our safety from traffic, environmental exposure, and resale value.
The 15% Design established a preliminary project footprint and identified potential property needs to support environmental review and cost estimating. The design was developed to reduce property impacts while meeting safety, access, constructability, and Caltrain operating requirements. These findings are preliminary. During 35% Design, additional survey, title, and engineering information will refine parcel-specific limits, distinguish permanent needs from temporary construction easements, and evaluate design changes that could avoid or reduce impacts. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 26 Would a U-turn at Charleston Road and Mumford Place include trafficcontrol measures appropriate for a school route? Traffic control at individual intersections and turnarounds has not been established at the 15% Design level. The 35% Design traffic analysis will evaluate intersection performance, turning movements, and emergency, school, pedestrian, and bicycle access. Signal needs and other traffic control measures would be determined through that analysis and in coordination with City Transportation staff. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
27 How would construction impacts on Charleston Road residents be evaluated and mitigated?
Construction effects, including noise, vibration, air quality, traffic, and access, will be studied through the environmental review under CEQA and NEPA, beginning in fall 2026. Construction sequencing and access will continue to be developed as the design advances. Measures to address construction effects would be identified through that work. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Construction Considerations 28 How do the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive concepts compare with the elevated-track and street-underpass design in San Carlos? A comparison with the San Carlos grade separation was not prepared as part of the 15% Design. The Meadow Drive concept uses a similar general approach: the tracks would be raised on an embankment supported by retaining walls with a bridge over the roadway, and the roadway would be lowered to meet the required clearance. At Meadow Drive, the tracks would be raised by up to about 16 feet and the roadway lowered by about 7 feet. The height, wall design, and street layout at any location are shaped by the utilities, right-of-way, drainage, and rail operating conditions at that site. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 29 How high are the tracks elevated in San Carlos relative to cross street grade, and how high can the tracks feasibly be raised at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road?
In the current concepts, the tracks would be raised by up to about 16 feet at Meadow Drive. In the scenario where Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are built together, the tracks at Charleston Road would be raised by about 4.5 feet.
How much the track can be raised is governed by Caltrain design criteria for track grades, the clearance required over the roadway, the corridor length available to return the tracks to existing grade, and effects on adjacent properties.
Track elevations in San Carlos were not reviewed as part of this work. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 30 Would cyclists and e-bike riders, who travel faster than other cyclists and pedestrians, be able to travel with vehicles at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road?
The 15% Design provides separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities at both crossings, including protected bicycle lanes at Meadow Drive and a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the roadway at Charleston Road. Whether riders use those facilities or the roadway, and any restrictions on where e-bikes may operate, are governed by City policy and state law rather than by this project's design. Facility widths, transitions, and how riders traveling at different speeds are separated from people walking will continue to be refined during 35% Design. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
31 Will the eastbound Alma Street–Oregon Expressway slip lane be evaluated for safety and access improvements?
That slip lane is outside the limits of the grade separation project and is not part of this design work. Traffic operations in and around the project area during construction will be evaluated as the design advances, which can identify effects on nearby streets and intersections. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
32 What are the two reasons that Charleston Road and Meadow Drive are not both hybrid concepts with raised track at each location? A short answer is requested.
City Council selected a different concept at each location in December 2025, following alternatives evaluation and community input at each crossing: a Hybrid Underpass at Meadow Drive and an Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp at Charleston Road. The site conditions also differ, including utilities, right-of-way width, drainage, and how much the track profile would need to be raised, which is why the same solution does not apply equally at both crossings. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 33 Would the temporary tracks affect northbound and southbound traffic on Alma Street, and would that effect last the entire nine year construction duration of the combined Charleston Road and Meadow Drive scenario?
The temporary track, called a shoofly, would reduce Alma Street to one lane in each direction where it is in place. Traffic conditions during construction, including the duration and extent of lane reductions on Alma Street, will be analyzed during 35% Design, and construction phasing and sequencing will continue to be refined. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Construction Considerations 34 How would the proposed designs affect potential future Caltrain improvements, including possible undergrounding of the tracks? The project team is coordinating with Caltrain to understand how the proposed concepts may interact with future rail corridor improvements. Future opportunities and constraints will be considered as part of the ongoing planning and evaluation process. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 35 How would the Churchill Avenue concept affect signalized access from Old Palo Alto to southbound Alma Street?
In the current Churchill Avenue concept, part of Alma Street would be lowered along with Churchill Avenue, creating a signalized intersection at the lower level where left and right turns between Churchill Avenue and Alma Street are provided. One outer lane on the north side of Alma Street would remain at its existing elevation and continue to connect with nearby cross streets. How left turns from neighborhood streets onto southbound Alma Street would operate has not been resolved at the 15% Design level and will be evaluated as the design advances. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
36 Could another location for a specialized location provide a signalized southbound connection to Alma Street if access changes occur? Neighborhood access and circulation around Churchill Avenue will continue to be evaluated as the design advances, including where turns are provided and how traffic would redistribute if access changes. A new signalized connection at another location would need to be evaluated for traffic operations, safety, visibility, and cost, and would involve City Transportation staff. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
37 How has the preliminary project cost estimate changed, and what factors could cause future cost increases?
The project cost will continue to be refined as engineering design advances and additional information becomes available. Factors such as design development, construction costs, utility relocations, utility relocations, right-of-way needs, environmental requirements, and market conditions can all affect future project costs. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Total Project Coast Estimate; Construction
Considerations
38 Could the proposed bicycle and pedestrian switchback ramp be redesigned to improve convenience and expected use?
The project team is evaluating bicycle and pedestrian access as part of the design process and is considering community feedback on ramp design, convenience, and usability. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
39 Will the proposed path provide enough space for faster e-bikes to pass pedestrians and people using mobility devices safely? The project team is evaluating bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support safe access and shared use by people with a range of travel speeds and mobility needs. Path widths, accessibility requirements, and user comfort are being considered as part of the design process. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
40 Would a wider sidewalk and a landscape buffer improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort near Alma Street and East Charleston Road?
Sidewalk widths, buffers, and other pedestrian and bicycle details shown in the 15% Design are preliminary and will be advanced during 35% Design. At Churchill Avenue, City Council directed the team in December 2025 to advance the Partial Underpass without a landscaping strip along Alma Street. Available width along Alma Street is constrained by the lowered roadway, retaining walls, utilities, and property limits. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
41 Could the West Meadow Drive crossing prioritize bicycle and pedestrian access if the benefit to automobile traffic is limited? City Council selected the Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass in December 2025 to advance into design, which keeps the crossing open to vehicles as well as people walking and biking. The concept also removed the slip lane to improve bicycle safety and includes protected bicycle lanes. Changing the crossing to bicycle and pedestrian use only would be a change in direction that City Council would need to make. This comment will be included in the community input summary provided to the Rail Committee and City Council. Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
42 What property and setback impacts are anticipated near East Charleston Road and Mumford Place?
Currently there are no permanent property easements or setbacks anticipated near East Charleston Road and Mumford Place. There may be potential temporary construction easements needed for this location. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 43 Where would construction staging occur near East Charleston Road and Mumford Place, and how could it affect nearby properties? Construction staging areas have not been established at the 15% Design level. Staging locations, work hours, haul routes, and setbacks from homes and streets would be developed in later design phases and evaluated in the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning in fall 2026. Community Meeting Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp Construction Considerations 44 How would the Churchill Avenue concept affect traffic, left turns, sight distance, and queuing in Old Palo Alto?
The 15% Design evaluated how far ahead a driver can see and how vehicles turn at each crossing. At Churchill Avenue, nothing structural blocks the view, but the available sight distance generally falls short of Caltrans Highway Design Manual criteria, primarily because the roadway dips down under the tracks. Preliminary recommendations were identified for further study, including visibility, lighting, and intersection control measures. Intersection performance, queuing, left turn movements, and effects on surrounding streets in Old Palo Alto have not been analyzed at this stage and will be evaluated during 35% Design as the geometry is refined. Understood on the note going forward. I will keep the comment answered and apply your direction without restating what changed unless something in it creates a real risk Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
45 Is closure of the Churchill Avenue crossing being considered? The alternatives currently under consideration maintain access across the rail corridor at the Churchill area, including vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle connections. The project team is continuing to evaluate how best to provide safe access for all users. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Construction Considerations
46 How would closing Churchill Avenue affect local connectivity, and what options would preserve crossing access?
The alternatives currently under consideration maintain access across the rail corridor at the Churchill area, including vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle connections. The project team is continuing to evaluate how best to provide safe access for all users. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
47 What protective barriers or other safety features are proposed for the pedestrian bridge near Palo Alto High School?
Comment noted. Barrier heights, railings, fencing, and other safety features for bicycle and pedestrian structures will be developed as the design advances, Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
48 Why is the proposed shoulder near Churchill Avenue longer than at Charleston Road, and could its dimensions be adjusted to provide more lane space?
The project proposes shoulders in the Churchill and Charleston underpasses both are proposed to be 8 feet. The project will continue to evaluate lane widths at these locations to conform with all necessary standards. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
49 How would the project maintain a signalized option for left turns from Old Palo Alto to southbound Alma Street?
Under the Churchill Avenue concept, a signalized intersection would remain at Churchill Avenue and Alma Street at the lowered level, with left and right turns provided between the two streets. How left turns from other Old Palo Alto streets onto southbound Alma Street would operate has not been determined at the 15% Design level. Neighborhood access, turns, and how traffic would redistribute will be evaluated as the design advances. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
50 How would the concept affect left-turn operations, sight distance, and vehicle queuing?
The 15% Design evaluated how far ahead a driver can see and how vehicles turn at each crossing. Available sight distance generally falls short of Caltrans Highway Design Manual criteria, largely because the roadways dip down under the tracks, and at the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp the bridge supports and retaining walls block the view at the corner. Preliminary recommendations were identified for further study, including visibility, lighting, intersection control, and restricting wide vehicles from the Direct Access Ramp. A traffic analysis evaluating intersection operations and vehicle queuing, including left turn movements, under existing and future conditions was presented to City Council in December 2025. Those results will be updated during 35% Design as the geometry and intersection configurations are refined. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
51 How would the project maintain a convenient walking route for families traveling between Southgate and destinations near Churchill Avenue and Walter Hays Elementary School?
Providing safe pedestrian access is an important consideration in the project. The project team is evaluating how each concept would affect walking routes, connectivity, and access to nearby destinations, including schools, parks and neighborhoods. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
52 How would the Seale Avenue concept address conflicts between bicyclists exiting the underpass and vehicles turning from Alma Street?
Conflict points where people on bikes leave the crossing and meet turning vehicles have not been resolved at the 15% Design level. The 35% phase will advance pedestrian and bicycle facility design and update visibility and turning analyses. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
53 Should left-turn movements from Alma Street onto Seale Avenue be restricted or redesigned?
Conflict points where people on bikes leave the crossing and meet turning vehicles have not been resolved at the 15% Design level. The 35% phase will advance pedestrian and bicycle facility design and update visibility and turning analyses. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
54 How will the project explain what people experience today and how conditions would change under each concept?
The project will use visualizations, renderings, maps, and other outreach materials to help people understand current conditions and compare how each concept could affect their daily travel experience, access, safety, and connectivity. Community Meeting Design Elements and Development 55 Could the project cause more Palo Alto High School students to drive via Embarcadero Road, and how would that potential effect be evaluated?
Comment noted for consideration. Potential changes in travel patterns and routes near Palo Alto High School will be considered as the traffic analysis is updated during 35% Design Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
56 How would drivers safely enter or cross traffic where there is no signalized gap?
Traffic operations were analyzed at the study intersections identified for the project, and those results were presented to City Council in December 2025. The unsignalized side street connections along Alma Street in this area were not part of that analysis. Access and turning movements at these locations will be evaluated as the design advances. If that work identifies a need, options such as signal changes, turn restrictions, or other traffic control measures would be evaluated with City Transportation staff. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
Item 14
Attachment D - Community
Feedback Tracker - August
25 & 26, 2026 Community
Meetings
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 295 of 342
57 Should closures or other measures be considered at Kellogg Avenue, Churchill Avenue, and Coleridge Avenue to reduce cut-through traffic?
Changes to traffic on neighborhood streets will be evaluated as the design advances, including how traffic redistributes once the crossing configuration changes and which nearby residential streets drivers may shift to. Street closures and traffic calming measures are City decisions that would involve City Transportation staff and neighborhood input, and are not part of the current design work. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
58 How would the intersection protect bicyclists from conflicts with vehicles turning onto Alma Street?
The project team is evaluating intersection and roadway features that can help reduce conflicts between people bicycling and turning vehicles. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
59 How could the project support a long-term plan to make Alma Street safer and more comfortable for all users?
The project is evaluating opportunities to improve safety, connectivity, and accessibility for everyone who uses Alma Street, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and emergency responders. By reducing conflicts at rail crossings, the project could help support broader long-term community goals for a safer, more connected, and more comfortable transportation corridor. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
60 How would the 15 percent design concepts accommodate emergency response, including access through tunnels and along entrances and ramps?
Emergency access was evaluated as part of the 15% Design. Turns were tested using several vehicle types, including a City fire truck, a school bus, a semi-trailer, and a garbage truck. Passenger vehicles can generally be accommodated within the proposed street layout, while larger vehicles including fire apparatus require wider turning paths or operational adjustments at several locations. Preliminary recommendations include restricting wide vehicles from the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp and modifying curb and sidewalk geometry at the upper Alma Street and Charleston Road intersection. Emergency access will continue to be evaluated as the design advances, for both the completed condition and during construction. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 61 Has the project considered a corridor-wide grade separation solution, such as a rail viaduct, to improve long-term connectivity, creating additional crossing opportunities, and support future growth? A corridor-length viaduct is not among the concepts being carried through this phase. Alternatives were screened earlier through the Connecting Palo Alto effort and the Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee, and City Council selected the current alternatives in December 2025 for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. Project Website Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip;
Seale Ave - Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing;
Meadow Drive Hybrid;
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 62 Why is the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing not included in the project? Palo Alto Avenue was one of four crossings studied under Connecting Palo Alto. City Council directed staff to pause design at that crossing, and the current project covers Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. Project Website Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 63 How does the project address safety concerns related to unauthorized access to the rail corridor?
The project is intended to improve safety by reducing conflicts between trains, vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians at existing crossings. 35% design will continue to incorporate safety features consistent with applicable railroad, roadway, and pedestrian design standards. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 64 How are station access and elevation changes considered when rail or roadway grades are modified?
There are no Caltrain stations within the project limits at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, or Charleston Road, so the alternatives do not change station access or platform elevations. Rail and roadway grade changes are evaluated as part of the engineering design to maintain access, meet applicable design standards, and provide connections between the roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities at each crossing. These elevations will be refined as the design advances. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
65 What is the estimated cost of the Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian crossing?
The Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian crossing is currently included as part of the broader project cost estimate.
Project costs have not yet been finalized but may be refined as project development continues. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing Total Project Cost Estimate
66 How will future decisions regarding project costs, funding, and implementation be made?
Current cost estimates are preliminary and will continue to be refined as design advances. Future decisions regarding implementation will be made by the City Council based on project costs, funding availability, environmental review , and other project considerations. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Total Project Cost Estimate 67 How could the project affect traffic operations on Oregon Expressway, San Antonio Road, and surrounding roadways? Potential traffic impacts, including those during construction, will continue to be evaluated through analysis and coordination with the City. Findings will help identify appropriate traffic management and mitigation measures. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 68 What engineering and design considerations influenced the recommended concept at Charleston Road?
City Council selected the Charleston Road Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp in December 2025 following alternatives screening, technical evaluation, and public input, and directed that the 15% Design phase focus on enhancing safety and access while minimizing congestion, environmental impacts, and property impacts. Reducing potential property impacts was one of several considerations in carrying this concept forward, along with traffic operations, bicycle and pedestrian access, constructability, and cost. The 15% Design advanced that direction by refining the roadway profile, retaining wall and structure configuration, utility relocations, and the Direct Access Ramp layout to fit the improvements within the available corridor. These elements will continue to be refined during 35% Design. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 69 Could alternative bicycle and pedestrian access connections near Churchill Avenue and Kellogg Avenue be considered?
Alternative bicycle and pedestrian connections were evaluated during previous phases of project development. In December 2025, City Council selected the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass without a landscaping strip, together with a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue using the Alma Street ramp, with attention to bicycle safety on the east side. The Seale Avenue crossing is the connection being carried forward as part of the Churchill Avenue alternative.
The current concept reflects engineering constraints, property considerations, grades, and overall project footprint requirements. The Seale Avenue crossing is shown at a preliminary level and will be refined during 35% Design. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Design Elements and Development
70 How will student safety and bicycle/pedestrian access be maintained during construction?
Maintaining safe access for bicyclists, pedestrians, and students will be an important consideration during construction phase planning. Temporary routes and traffic control measures will be developed to support safe travel during construction activities. Community Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
71 Why are different design approaches proposed at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road?
Although the crossings appear similar, each location has unique engineering conditions, railroad operational constraints, and roadway characteristics that influence the recommended design approach. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid
Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
72 How will project benefits and performance improvements be evaluated relative to existing conditions?
A traffic analysis comparing existing and future conditions was presented to City Council in December 2025, evaluating intersection operations and vehicle queuing at the study intersections. Those results, along with engineering evaluations of safety, access, and mobility, are how project performance is compared against current conditions. A traffic analysis of impacts during construction will also be completed during 35%, examining how access, detours, and operations on surrounding streets would be affected while the work is underway. Both the operational and construction period analyses will be updated during 35% Design as the design is refined. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
73 What factors contributed to changes in the project cost estimates? Updated cost estimates include additional information developed through the design process, including construction costs, railroad coordination, risk, and other factors not reflected in earlier planning-level estimates. Community Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Total Project Cost Estimate 74 How could bicycle and pedestrian access change at East Meadow Drive?
The proposed design would remove conflicts with rail operations while providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities intended to improve connectivity and safety for users Community Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
75 What are temporary bypass rail tracks ("shoofly tracks") and how could they be used during construction?
Temporary bypass rail tracks, commonly referred to as shoofly tracks, may be used to maintain rail service while construction activities occur on or near the existing tracks. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 76 Could bicycle and pedestrian improvements be funded or implemented separately from other project elements?
Opportunities for alternative project packaging, sequencing, and funding approaches may continue to be evaluated as the project advances and funding strategies are refined. Community Meeting Not Concept Specific Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access 77 How has the project considered minimizing impacts to mature trees and park resources within Peers Park?
Comment noted. Effects on trees and park resources near the project area will be evaluated as the design advances and through environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning in fall 2026. Community Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing Design Elements and Development
78 How would temporary bypass rail tracks be incorporated into the project area, and how could they affect future roadway
improvements at Charleston Road?
Temporary bypass rail tracks would be used to maintain rail service during construction. Specific track locations and construction staging will continue to be refined as design advances. PABAC Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
79 How will bicycle and pedestrian access and crossing movements be accommodated at Charleston Road during construction and in the completed project?
Bicycle and pedestrian access will continue to be evaluated through future design phases with a focus on maintaining safe access during construction and improving connectivity in the completed project. PABAC Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Construction Considerations
80 How will pedestrian and bicycle detour routes be evaluated and incorporated into future construction planning?
Construction phasing and detour planning will be developed during future design phases and will include consideration of pedestrian and bicycle needs. PABAC Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
81 What is the expected extent and profile of the proposed embankment associated with the Meadow Drive Hybrid concept? The preliminary embankment limits shown in the 15% design are subject to refinement as engineering and environmental review continue. Additional design details will be developed during future project phases. PABAC Meeting Meadow Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development 82 How does the proposed bicycle and pedestrian ramp configuration at Charleston Road support project goals related to walking, bicycling, and multimodal connectivity?
The proposed configuration is intended to maintain bicycle and pedestrian connectivity across the corridor while working within the project design constraints at this location, including the lowered roadway profile, retaining walls, structure, and utilities. The ramp layout also reflects City Council direction to minimize property impacts, which limits the width available for the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Opportunities to refine bicycle and pedestrian access, including path widths, ramp grades, and transitions, will continue to be evaluated during 35% Design. PABAC Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
83 A community member submitted a handout evaluating the project against four criteria: neighborhood protection, design feasibility and budget, the City's capacity to deliver, and holistic regional analysis.
The handout states that protecting residents near the rail corridor should be a prime design criterion rather than mitigation applied after a design is selected, and that available funding should not determine the structure before the City defines the best outcome. It raises concerns about the City's capacity to deliver a program of this scale and requests that the project not advance until each of these issues has a defensible answer.
Comment noted for consideration. The 15% Design phase was directed by City Council in December 2025 with a focus on enhancing safety and access while minimizing congestion, environmental impacts, and property impacts, and the issues raised will continue to be considered as the project advances through 35% Design and environmental review. Community Meeting All concepts Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development; Total
Project Cost Estimate; Construction
Considerations
84 A community member submitted a handout asking the City's position on undergrounding Caltrain and converting the Palo Alto Baylands into parks and nature preserves. The handout raises concerns about rider and pedestrian safety, including platform boarding conditions and an injury the commenter experienced, and states that street level tracks in populated areas present ongoing safety risks that current measures at crossings do not adequately address.
Comment noted. Undergrounding the rail corridor is not among the alternatives City Council selected for this phase, and station platform conditions and Baylands land use are outside the scope of this project. Community Meeting All concepts Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Design Elements and Development
85 A community member presented a slide deck illustrating the Meadow Drive Hybrid at a street level view, including the temporary track along Alma Street during construction and the permanent raised track condition. The recorded presentation states that the technical drawings do not convey what construction and the finished condition would mean for people living beside the corridor, and asks that the Meadow Drive Underpass receive further refinement so it can be compared directly with the Hybrid before the Hybrid alone advances.
The comment proposes a capped 90 to 120 day review of the underpass, subject to written responses from the involved agencies.
City Council selected the Meadow Drive Hybrid in December 2025 following alternatives screening, technical evaluation, and public input. A Meadow Drive underpass was evaluated at a high level for the November and December 2025 Council meetings, including circulation, constructability, and property impacts. The Hybrid was carried forward in part because it reduced potential property impacts and avoided the full acquisitions identified in that evaluation. The current grant funding supports advancing the alternatives Council selected through 15% and 35% Design. An underpass at Meadow Drive is not among those alternatives and is not funded for advancement in this phase. Bringing it to a comparable level of detail would require additional funding and time. City Council could direct that work at a future date using other funding sources. The project team acknowledges the request for information at a street level rather than an aerial view. Staff will provide additional explanation of how the alternatives were narrowed, along with more specific information on the Meadow Drive Hybrid, including wall height and construction duration. Visual character, along with noise, vibration, air quality, traffic, and access, will be studied through environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning in fall 2026.
Urban design elements have not been designed and will be developed during 35% Design with further community input.
This comment, the submitted materials, and the proposed motion will be documented and provided to the Rail Committee and City Council for consideration. Rail Committee Meadow Drive Hybrid Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Construction Considerations
Item 14
Attachment D - Community
Feedback Tracker - August
25 & 26, 2026 Community
Meetings
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 296 of 342
86 A community member stated that the project materials have not explained what the alternatives would mean at a human scale, either during construction or in the permanent condition, and asked how public feedback has changed the proposals or why suggested changes were declined. The comment notes that Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road concepts were visibly improved through that process, questions whether the Meadow Drive Underpass was fairly represented before it was set aside, asks whether box jacking was considered at Meadow Drive, and expresses concern that available budget and schedule are driving the design.
Community input has changed the concepts at several points in the process. Examples include the removal of the roundabout at the Charleston Road crossing and Council direction in December 2025 to advance the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass without a landscaping strip along Alma Street. Staff will continue to report how comments were considered, including where a suggested change was not carried forward and why. A Meadow Drive underpass was evaluated at a high level for the November and December 2025 Council meetings, including circulation, constructability, and property impacts, and the Hybrid was carried forward in part because it reduced potential property impacts. That evaluation was not advanced to a level that assessed specific construction methods, including whether box jacking could be used at Meadow Drive. Doing so would require design work to a comparable level of detail, along with additional funding and time. On budget and schedule: the rough order-of-magnitude figures presented at 15% Design are a planning tool, not a project budget or a construction funding request. The current $20 million funds preliminary engineering and environmental documentation only, and no construction funding has been identified. Construction period effects and permanent effects, including noise, vibration, air quality, traffic, access, and visual character, will be studied through environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning in fall 2026. This comment will be documented and provided to the Rail Committee and City Council as project development continues. Rail Committee Meadow Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development 87 A community member proposed a different delivery approach for the corridor, suggesting that the private sector take over the full alignment and construct a viaduct, which the comment states would avoid temporary tracks, avoid lane reductions on Alma Street, shorten construction duration, and cost less than the current concepts. The comment also stated that relocating passing tracks elsewhere on the Peninsula would remove the need for additional track capacity near Palo Alto, and noted difficulty accessing the meeting transcript and presentation.
A viaduct is not among the concepts being carried through this phase. Corridor concepts were narrowed through the Connecting Palo Alto alternatives screening and subsequent Rail Committee and City Council direction, and Council selected the current alternatives in December 2025. The 15% Design advances those alternatives. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access;
Construction Considerations
88 A community member asked that a rail viaduct be reconsidered, stating that it would avoid the pump stations and lowered roadways associated with the current concepts, avoid conflicts with the 24 inch gas transmission line, remove the need for bicycle and pedestrian ramps by keeping crossings at grade, avoid a long retaining wall through the neighborhood, and avoid the need for a temporary track.
The comment also stated that the 15% cost estimates are substantially higher than earlier figures, and questioned why the City would fund elements that serve Caltrain operations.
The project team recognizes community concerns regarding project cost, stormwater infrastructure, utility relocations, temporary rail operations, construction impacts, property impacts, and long-term community effects. The current concepts include infrastructure such as pump stations, utility relocations, temporary rail facilities where required, and modifications to bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities that are being refined as design advances. These topics will continue to be evaluated through 35% Design and environmental review under CEQA and NEPA. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development; Total
Project Cost Estimate
89 The total ROM project cost estimate is presented in 2026 dollars.
Why were costs not projected forward instead, and does the escalation approach fully account for future inflation? Confirmation was also requested of the assumed construction start date, the combined cost of delivering all three crossings, and the amount of funding secured to date.
The independent cost estimator priced the work using current market conditions in 2026 dollars. Escalation is then applied beginning in 2027 at 5 percent per year to the midpoint of construction. The total ROM project costs presented in Table 1 are expressed in year of expenditure dollars, meaning escalation is already included. Total ROM project costs are presented by delivery scenario rather than as a single combined figure, because cost and duration at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road depend on whether the two crossings are delivered concurrently or sequentially. Table 1 shows the range and preliminary construction duration for each scenario. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Total Project Cost Estimate 90 Requested a high level summary of the community feedback received at the August 2026 community meetings, including input from the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PABAC) and comments related to safe routes to school.
Community input fell into three main areas. The first was the alternatives themselves, including questions about bicycle and pedestrian facilities and roadway configuration, and how the current designs were arrived at. The second was construction period effects, including potential property impacts and the location of the shoofly track. The third was the total ROM project cost estimate and how it was developed. PABAC input focused on the bicycle and pedestrian connection between the west and east sides of the tracks, including the switchback ramp on the west side of Charleston Road. The roll plots shared at the community meetings are posted on the project website, along with the larger format exhibits. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access 91 The staff report identifies five potential full property acquisitions and 33 partial acquisitions at the 15 percent level, but only three appeared on the exhibit, all at Charleston Road. Where are the remaining two? Separately, given community concern about the retaining wall associated with the Meadow Drive Hybrid, a reminder was requested of why the Hybrid was carried forward at Meadow Drive rather than an underpass.
The two additional potential full acquisitions are located on the south side of Charleston Road and are within the preliminary project footprint. Design work is ongoing to determine whether they would be directly impacted, so they are identified as potential and are included within the five reported. Several factors supported carrying the Hybrid forward at Meadow Drive. An underpass at Meadow Drive would require two ramps providing access to and from Alma Street north of the crossing, one of which would come close to the adjacent shopping center. It would also result in substantially greater property impacts, including direct impacts to multifamily residential buildings in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. The Hybrid also responded to direction to improve conditions for bicyclists, particularly students traveling to schools on both sides of the corridor, by providing a more protected crossing at Meadow Drive. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development
92 Was the 15 percent design finding on increased property acquisition needs describing all three crossings or Charleston Road specifically? Charleston Road was selected in part because it carried lower property acquisition needs, so clarification was requested on whether the findings show more property acquisition than was expected entering the phase.
The finding is stated across all three crossings collectively. Future reporting can present property acquisition information by crossing. Property acquisition needs at Charleston Road are lower than under the earlier design, which included a roundabout and other features that drove higher acquisition needs. The Direct Access Ramp (DAR) was developed at the direction of the Rail Committee and City Council to reduce those impacts on the east side. Options on the west side remain more constrained by available right of way. Potential acquisition needs identified at 15 percent are higher than anticipated at the start of the phase, driven largely by utility conflicts and the space available within the corridor. Staff is coordinating with the City's Utilities Department this fall on potential utility rerouting, and property needs will be refined during 35 percent design. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 93 What are the dimensions of the shared use path on the switchback ramp at Charleston Road, given that some bicyclists may choose to remain on the roadway instead? Has a stairway been considered at the ramp locations closest to the tracks? Separately, could the South Palo Alto bikeway undercrossing near Matadero Creek be constructed before construction begins at Meadow Drive or Charleston Road, so that a crossing option is available for people walking and bicycling during construction?
The shared use path is 14 feet wide, with five feet in each direction for bicyclists and four feet for pedestrians. A stairway at the ramp locations closest to the tracks has not been evaluated and has been added to the list of items to study during 35 percent design. A staircase closer to Park Boulevard has been under consideration. The location that works best will be determined through further design, with ramp grades retained for accessibility. The South Palo Alto bikeway undercrossing near Matadero Creek is being planned and pursued for funding concurrently with this project. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
94 Requested that the South Palo Alto bikeway undercrossing near Matadero Creek be shown in the City Council presentation and reflected in the construction period traffic discussion, so that the public and City Council understand that both projects are advancing and that the undercrossing is intended to be in place before construction begins.
The scope of the traffic study includes the bicycle pathway and evaluates how it would function under both conditions.
Preliminary analysis was completed in advance of the December 2025 City Council meeting and can be provided to the Committee again. Staff will reference the South Palo Alto bikeway undercrossing in the City Council presentation and in the discussion of construction period circulation. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
95 What is the preliminary level of service at Charleston Road with the Underpass and Direct Access Ramp, compared with existing conditions and with future projected growth if the project were not built?
Intersection analysis completed in advance of the December 2025 City Council meeting remains part of the public record and can be provided to the Committee again. Results showed improved operations in all conditions compared with existing conditions. In the morning peak at Charleston Road, average delay is approximately 1.5 minutes per vehicle under existing conditions and approximately half a minute with the Underpass and Direct Access Ramp. Under 2040 conditions without the project, delay increases to approximately three minutes per vehicle, compared with approximately half a minute with the project. In the afternoon peak, existing delay is approximately three minutes per vehicle, increasing to approximately six minutes in 2040 without the project, compared with approximately half a minute with the project. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 96 Does the 2040 no build scenario assume a specific number of trains per hour? The adopted Caltrain service vision covers a broad range, so clarification was requested on which assumption was used and whether it reflects the upper limit.
The 2040 analysis is based on the adopted Caltrain service vision. Preliminary review indicates the analysis considered six and eight trains per hour and did not assume high speed rail service. Staff will confirm the specific assumption used and report back to the Committee. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 97 Why does the width of the raised track section at Meadow Drive extend to the edge of Alma Street? Is that driven by a potential future passing track, by maintenance access, or by both? Retaining walls at Meadow Drive are located at or offset from the Caltrain right of way line so that Caltrain can continue to use and maintain its right of way. The width supports maintenance access and preserves the ability to accommodate an additional track in the future if one is pursued. The four track segment previously analyzed and presented to the Rail Committee is located north of Meadow Drive, between Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue. Wall placement and setbacks will be discussed further with Caltrain during 35 percent design. Rail Committee Meadow Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development 98 Raised the relationship between Caltrain's requirement for maintenance access along the raised track section at Meadow Drive and Caltrain's policies supporting grade separations. A comparable raised track section in San Carlos does not include this feature, and the requirement adds cost. This has been raised with Caltrain and a request has been made that it be brought to the Caltrain board to reconcile the design, technical, and operating standards.
The 15 percent design applied current Caltrain standards in order to establish a preliminary project footprint and identify the associated tradeoffs. Along Alma Street the retaining wall is placed close to the right of way line, with a small setback for maintenance. On the west side it is set back approximately 10 feet from the fence line to allow maintenance vehicle access. Electrified rail also carries clearance requirements for safe maintenance of overhead systems. Grade separations built 20 to 30 years ago were designed under different requirements, so direct comparison with those structures has limits. The bridge at Meadow Drive is sized to carry two tracks along with maintenance access and emergency egress for passengers if a train is disabled. Wall placement, setbacks, and where flexibility may exist are appropriate topics for coordination with Caltrain during 35 percent design. Staff will continue that discussion with Caltrain as design advances. Rail Committee Meadow Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development 99 Noted that Caltrain is re-examining the tension between its policy support for grade separations and its right of way access policies. At Middle Avenue in Menlo Park, a change in Caltrain's position on use of the right of way for a bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing significantly increased that project's cost. Caltrain's board is expected to discuss the policy in the coming months and the outcome is not settled.
Design decisions on this project have been driven by technical requirements. At Charleston Road, evaluation of the Direct Access Ramp included limited encroachment into Caltrain right of way, which supported the feasibility of the grade separation at that location. Some flexibility exists at Charleston Road. Meadow Drive will require further discussion with Caltrain on what flexibility may be available from a technical standpoint. Staff will track the Caltrain policy discussion and report back on any outcome that affects the project. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 100
If the maintenance access along the raised track section is required for Caltrain operations and maintenance rather than for the grade separation itself, whose responsibility is it to fund? The traditional division of cost responsibility between Caltrain and cities is less clear in this case.
Cost responsibility for elements associated with Caltrain right of way use is expected to be part of the coordination during 35 percent design. Caltrain has full use of its right of way at this location today. The question to be resolved is the extent to which the grade separation drives the need to relocate the retaining wall to the right of way line so that Caltrain retains that use in the future. Staff will address cost responsibility with Caltrain as part of 35 percent design and report back to the Committee. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Total Project Cost Estimate 101
Noted that the 25th Avenue grade separation in San Mateo was built in anticipation of electrification and does not include a comparable maintenance access area, and that further review of that project may offer lessons on operations and maintenance. Clarification was also requested on the funding available through final design, including whether the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funding is an award or a grant at risk, the amount available from VTA Measure B, and the potential use of City of Palo Alto capital funds.
Staff can review the 25th Avenue grade separation in San Mateo and report back on relevant lessons learned. The TIRCP funding is a state grant with an expiring timeline. Staff is working with the state to extend that timeline. The Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase is fully funded with $20 million in secured external funds.
Amounts identified beyond that phase, including the VTA Measure B grade separation program share and City of Palo Alto capital funds, are planning level figures that will be refined as VTA updates its sales tax projections. Additional Measure B grade separation funding may be available depending on final project cost. No construction funding is currently identified or programmed. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Total Project Cost Estimate Item 14
Attachment D - Community
Feedback Tracker - August
25 & 26, 2026 Community
Meetings
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 297 of 342
102
Given the overall cost of all three crossings, the City should consider intentionally limiting the number of grade separations it advances.
Churchill Avenue has already been deprioritized and could be formally placed on pause. The 15 percent findings indicate that lower property acquisition was a key reason the Hybrid was selected at Meadow Drive, and that advantage now appears reduced, so an underpass at Meadow Drive warrants further examination. If Charleston Road were advanced on its own, the construction duration and cost appear closer to the funding identified to date. Focusing on Charleston Road, together with the South Palo Alto bikeway undercrossing, would reduce staff time and cost while still delivering a grade separation.
More detailed information broken out by individual crossing would support that discussion.
The current grant agreements fund advancement of all three alternatives through 35 percent design and environmental documentation. Decisions on prioritization, sequencing, and construction packaging would be made by City Council following completion of that phase. The 15 percent findings identify higher potential property acquisition needs across all three crossings, driven largely by utility conflicts rather than by conditions at a single crossing. Staff can present property and cost information by crossing in future reporting. Table 1 presents total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction durations for each delivery scenario, including Charleston Road constructed on its own at approximately 48 months. These figures are planning level and will be refined during 35 percent design. Rail Committee All concepts Total Project Cost Estimate 103
If only one crossing can be advanced, or if the crossings are sequenced, why would Charleston Road be first? Clarification was also requested on how realistically the City can partner with county, state, and federal agencies to secure funding at the scale required for all three crossings, and how cities generally approach that level of funding uncertainty.
Completing 35 percent design and environmental documentation is the point at which additional federal and state construction and final design funding sources become available to the project. The current grants fund the work through 35 percent design for all three crossings, with no commitment beyond that point. City Council would decide at that stage whether and how to proceed, including prioritization among crossings. Charleston Road carries the highest traffic volume of the three crossings, which is one factor in prioritization. A full evaluation of prioritization factors would be brought to City Council following completion of 35 percent design. Caltrain is also working with corridor cities on a programmatic corridor funding strategy. Corridor wide approaches of this kind have supported successful funding for grade separation programs in other regions. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 104
Is constructability also a constraint at Meadow Drive relative to Charleston Road?
Meadow Drive presents additional constructability challenges. Alma Street is constrained at that location, larger structures are present on the east side, and utility conflicts along Meadow Drive would affect an underpass. These factors would need to be addressed in any further evaluation of an underpass at that location. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid
Design Elements and Development;
Construction Considerations
105
The Jed Foundation has recommended grade separating all four Palo Alto crossings as a means restriction measure, including Palo Alto Avenue, for which no planning has been undertaken. Concern was raised that a program of that scale would cost approximately $2 billion, is unlikely to be funded, and could take two decades, and that presenting it as a near term option is not realistic. At grade safety measures have been implemented and are combined with crossing guards funded jointly by the City and the school district, and questions have been raised about the long term sustainability of that funding. Grade separation reduces risk at the crossings but does not address station areas, which account for an increasing share of incidents along the corridor. Charleston Road, together with the bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing near Matadero Creek, is anticipated as a likely priority, with a City Council decision expected following completion of 35 percent design.
This project advances the three remaining at grade crossings identified through prior alternatives screening and City Council direction. Palo Alto Avenue is not within the current project scope. Adding a crossing would require City Council action, additional funding, and a separate planning and environmental process. Grade separation eliminates conflicts between trains and roadway users at the crossings themselves. Safety within station areas and along other portions of the corridor is under Caltrain's jurisdiction and is addressed through separate Caltrain programs. Decisions on how many crossings advance into final design and construction would be made by City Council following completion of 35 percent design and environmental documentation, informed by cost, schedule, funding availability, and construction effects. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Total Project Cost Estimate 106
Requested a more thorough understanding of Caltrain's specific rights compared with its inferred rights. Clarification was also requested on vertical clearance at the underpasses, which in earlier work exceeded clearances at existing undercrossings and affected both design and cost. What is the existing clearance at Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero Road, and is the clearance requirement based on concern about vehicles colliding with the bridge structure? Vertical clearance for the underpasses follows Caltrans design requirements, which are 16 and a half feet without a variance and 15 and a half feet with a variance. The 15 percent design used 16 and a half feet in order to establish a conservative preliminary footprint. During 35 percent design, staff will evaluate reducing the clearance to 15 and a half feet with a sacrificial beam. Clearances at the existing Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero Road undercrossings are lower. Those structures were built under earlier standards and different vehicle conditions. Clearance requirements have increased in response to vehicle collisions with rail bridges elsewhere. Because state and federal grant funds are involved, funding agency review requirements also apply and will be reflected in the design. Staff will continue coordination with Caltrain on which requirements are fixed and where flexibility may exist. Rail Committee Not Concept Specific Construction Considerations 107
Requested a clearer understanding of which Caltrain requirements are necessary and which are preferences as the project advances.
Several items were offered for future consideration rather than for decision at this time: potential signals on Alma Street between Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, and what role they might play in these projects or in reducing speeds on Alma Street; and, if Churchill Avenue is placed on indefinite hold, options for improving bicycle and pedestrian crossing in that area, including a bicycle only undercrossing on the north side of California Avenue at lower cost than a new combined facility, with the existing undercrossing retained for pedestrians. The focus on geotechnical and utility risk in the 15 percent work was commended. It was also noted that state growth projections have been revised downward from the forecasts that informed earlier assumptions about future train and vehicle volumes, which changes long term expectations for how many grade separations will be needed along the corridor.
Staff will continue to work with Caltrain during 35 percent design to distinguish requirements from preferences, and will report back on items where flexibility may exist. Signals on Alma Street and a bicycle only undercrossing near California Avenue are outside the scope of the current project. Staff can carry these forward as items for future consideration through the City's separate transportation planning and capital programming processes. Geotechnical and utility investigation will continue during 35 percent design, including subsurface utility exploration beginning in October 2026 and coordination with the City's Utilities Department. Travel demand and rail service assumptions used in the analysis will be reviewed during 35 percent design and environmental documentation as updated regional and state projections become available. Rail Committee
Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development
108
Does the Committee need to give direction so that an underpass at Meadow Drive receives full consideration during 35 percent design? Concern was raised that the alternative discussed by members of the public would not be available for a recommendation after 35 percent design because it was not advanced through 15 percent design.
Clarification was requested on whether that option would remain available at the conclusion of 35 percent design.
The current grant funding supports advancing the alternatives selected by City Council in December 2025 through 15 percent and 35 percent design. An underpass at Meadow Drive is not among those alternatives and is not funded for advancement in this phase. An underpass at Meadow Drive was evaluated at a high level for the November and December 2025 City Council meetings, including circulation, constructability, and property impacts. Advancing it further would require additional funding and time, including design work to a comparable level of detail before a decision could be made. City Council could direct that work at a future date using other funding sources. Staff will provide additional explanation of why the alternatives were narrowed and will provide more specific information on the concerns raised about the Meadow Drive Hybrid, including wall height and construction duration. One clarification on duration:
Charleston Road and Meadow Drive delivered concurrently are estimated at approximately 5 years, and delivered sequentially at approximately 9 years. These are alternative scenarios rather than a combined duration. Rail Committee Meadow Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development 109
Do the property impacts presented cover Charleston Road only, or all three crossings? Are there no full property acquisitions associated with the Meadow Drive Hybrid, and are there full acquisitions associated with the Charleston Road Underpass? Would an underpass at Meadow Drive require full acquisitions, given the multifamily housing and larger buildings at that location?
Potential property impacts have been identified at all three crossings, not just at Charleston Road.
At Meadow Drive, the Hybrid does not include any full acquisitions. It includes two partial acquisitions to accommodate pedestrian facilities on the west side, and full acquisitions were avoided on the east side. The Charleston Road Underpass does include potential full acquisitions. Based on the high level evaluation prepared for City Council in November and December 2025, an underpass at Meadow Drive would require full acquisitions. That alternative was not advanced through 15% Design, so the extent has not been refined. The expectation of fewer property impacts was one reason the Hybrid was carried forward at Meadow Drive, and it remains one of the principal tradeoffs between alternatives at that location. Information shown about potential right of way needs is for planning purposes. No property acquisition is authorized at this stage. Any future acquisition would require project approval, confirmation of right of way needs, compliance with applicable acquisition procedures, separate funding, and separate authorization. Rail Committee Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development
110
The concerns being raised about the Meadow Drive Hybrid are valid, and the Committee has also heard consistently from community members who favor a viaduct, which is not among the alternatives being advanced. Having completed 15 percent design, the decision at Meadow Drive is effectively set for this phase, though a different alternative could be considered in the future. Rather than simply stating that, the project should proactively explain to the public what the reasons for narrowing were, including for the viaduct, and whether those reasons still hold.
Alternatives at each crossing were narrowed through the Connecting Palo Alto screening process, the Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee (XCAP), and successive Rail Committee and City Council direction. Refinement of roadway and track geometry prior to 15 percent design produced the Hybrid at Meadow Drive by identifying a track elevation that avoided full acquisitions and reduced permanent impacts. Staff will provide historical context on how the alternatives were narrowed, including the reasons a viaduct was not carried forward, in materials for the September 28, 2026 City Council meeting and in ongoing public engagement. Construction period effects will be a focus of 35 percent design and environmental documentation. If the information developed during that phase does not adequately address the concerns raised, City Council would have the opportunity to revisit its direction at that time. Rail Committee Meadow Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development 111
Could Alma Street be permanently reduced to one travel lane in each direction between San Antonio Road and East Meadow Drive, with dedicated turn lanes at key intersections and space for bicycle facilities?
The project teams is evaluating opportunities to improve safety, connectivity, and accessibility for all users of the corridor users of the corridor, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The current grade separation concepts focus on improving safety and mobility at rail crossings while maintaining roadway operations and access.
Community input regarding multimodal improvements and Complete Streets elements along Alma Street will be documented and considered as project design advances. Project Website Meadow Drive Hybrid Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access 112
Will bicyclists be permitted to ride within the vehicle travel lanes on Charleston Road rather than use the shared pedestrian and bicycle facilities?
The project team is evaluating how all users, including bicyclists, will navigate proposed improvements at Charleston Road. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shown in 15 percent design are preliminary and will continue to be refined during 35 percent design. The project team is exploring how bicycle movements could be accomodated both within dedicated facilities and along the roadway, while considering safety, accessibility, traffic operations, utility constraints, and connectivity. Any restrictions, requirements, or operational guidance for bicyclists would be determined during future design phases and in coordination with applicable transportation agencies and regulations. Project Website Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access 113
What improvements are planned at the Embarcadero intersection to improve bicycle and pedestrian access for students and residents north of Churchill Avenue?
Improvements at the Embarcadero are being implemented through a separate project. Improvements on the north side are largely complete, with remaining beacon-related electrical components still pending installation. Improvements on the south side are anticipated to occur before implementation of the grade separation project. The project is intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian access and safety for users traveling north of Churchill Avenue CSTC Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
114
What is the anticipated construction sequencing for the Charleston Road, East Meadow Drive, and related crossing projects? Construction sequencing has not been finalized. The City is evaluating whether the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive improvements would be delivered concurrently, sequentially, or as separate projects. Final sequencing will depend on project readiness, available funding, environmental review, and City Council direction. CSTC Meeting Charleston Road Underpass - Direct Access Ramp; Meadow
Drive Hybrid Design Elements and Development
115
Has an implementation priority been established for the planned crossings and roadway improvements?
No final implementation sequence has been established. Charleston Road has been identified as a priority corridor due to its transportation role and traffic volumes; however, decisions regarding implementation order, project packaging, and funding priorities will be determined by City Council as project development progresses. CSTC Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 116
Could the bicycle and pedestrian underpass at Churchill Avenue be advanced ahead of other Churchill-area improvements?
The project team has indicated that advancing bicycle and pedestrian improvements earlier in the implementation process may be considered where feasible. Final project phasing will continue to be evaluated during future design phases based on funding, constructability, access needs, and coordination with related improvements. CSTC Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access
117
What grade is anticipated for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian underpass at Seale Avenue?
The proposed Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian underpass is being designed to meet applicable accessibility requirements, including ADA standards. Specific grades, slopes, and geometric details will continue to be refined during future design phases. CSTC Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing Design Elements and Development
118
What lighting, overhead coverage, and safety features are anticipated for the proposed underpass at Seale Avenue?
Lighting, overhead coverage, visibility treatments, and other safety features have not yet been finalized. These elements will be evaluated and refined during future design phases as the project advances beyond the preliminary 15% Design level. CSTC Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing Design Elements and Development
119
How will the project address soil stability and structural safety near the proposed underpass at Seale Avenue?
Geotechnical investigations and engineering analyses will continue as design advances. Proposed retaining structures, foundation systems, and soil stabilization measures will be designed to meet applicable engineering standards and maintain long-term structural stability and safety. CSTC Meeting Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip, Including Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossing Design Elements and Development
Item 14
Attachment D - Community
Feedback Tracker - August
25 & 26, 2026 Community
Meetings
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 298 of 342
120
What potential impacts could construction have on nearby school activities, including noise and vibration?
Potential construction impacts, including noise, vibration, traffic, air quality, access, and effects on nearby schools and neighborhoods, will be evaluated during environmental review under CEQA and NEPA. Appropriate mitigation measures will be identified and considered as project planning and design progress. CSTC Meeting Not Concept Specific Construction Considerations 121
How will bicycle and pedestrian family dimensions, turning movements, and project risks be further defined as design advances? Facility widths, turning radii, user circulation patterns, utility constraints, and other project risks will continue to be refined during the 35% Design phase. Additional engineering analysis, utility investigations, and stakeholder coordination will provide more detailed information to support future design decisions and project evaluation. PABAC Meeting Not Concept Specific Design Elements and Development 122
Could the Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian crossing be constructed before Churchill Avenue, and how was the proposed tunnel length determined.
The project team has indicated that Seale Avenue may need to be completed before Churchill Avenue can be fully closed in order to maintain bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, particularly for school access. The proposed tunnel length is driven by engineering requirements, including track clearance, tunnel depth, accessibility standards, and the distance needed to safely return users to grade. Opportunities for refinement will continue to be evaluated during future design phases. PABAC Meeting
Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass without Landscape
Strip; Seale Ave - Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Design Elements and Development 123
A community member expressed opposition to the Meadow Drive Hybrid, citing the height of the wall facing the Fairmeadow and Park Boulevard neighborhoods, a minimum of five years of temporary track along Alma Street, reduced lanes on Alma Street, and the resulting congestion, air quality, and noise effects.
The project team recognizes that wall height, construction duration, and conditions along Alma Street are significant concerns for the Fairmeadow and Park Boulevard neighborhoods. City Council selected the Meadow Drive Hybrid in December 2025, and the earthen berm with a short bridge over Meadow Drive was confirmed as the basis of design following the March 2026 Rail Committee study session. Under the 15% Design, the track profile at Meadow Drive would be raised by up to approximately 16 feet and the roadway lowered by approximately 7 feet, with the tracks supported on embankment behind retaining walls. Wall heights, setbacks, and visual character are preliminary at this level of design, and staff will provide more specific information on wall height as design advances. A temporary track, called a shoofly, is required where the track profile is raised. Under the combined delivery scenario it would be built east of the existing tracks along Alma Street, beginning north of Meadow Drive and ending south of Charleston Road, and would reduce Alma Street to one lane in each direction for the duration of construction. The preliminary construction duration is approximately 60 months for combined delivery and approximately 92 months if the two crossings are delivered sequentially. After construction, the shoofly would be removed and the corridor restored. Noise, vibration, air quality, traffic, access, and visual effects will be studied through environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning in fall 2026. Reducing construction period impacts, including the overlap of crossing closures, is a specific objective of the 35% Design phase.
This comment and the linked video will be documented and provided to the Rail Committee and City Council for consideration. Project Website
Item 14
Attachment D - Community
Feedback Tracker - August
25 & 26, 2026 Community
Meetings
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 299 of 342
City of Palo Alto
Grade Separation Project
Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road
Palo Alto Engagement Summary
September 28, 2026
Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 300 of 342
Engagement Informing Council Direction #2
Rail Committee
Total Project Cost Estimate
and schedule; community
meeting feedback
AUGUST 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 OCTOBER
9/8
CSTSC
Safe access routes for
Palo Alto HS & other
PAUSD schools
8/20
Community Meetings
15% design overview; Total Project Cost Estimate
and schedule; community feedback opportunities;
what will continue to be refined
8/25 & 8/26
PABAC
Planned
pedestrian/bike
considerations
9/3
City Council
Concurrence on concepts to
advance into 35% design and
environmental documentation
9/28
2 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 301 of 342
Community Outreach Methods
3 984 Mailers sent to residents/owners
Social Media Blast Promoted project via Palo Alto Weekly 7 Lawn Signs placed
Email blasts to project
website subscriber list
Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 302 of 342
Meeting Format
2 Meetings
68 attendees for both meetings
Comment Input Process
100+ Comments
Comments and responses logged in the
project comment tracker
Community meeting materials posted to
the project website
Community Meeting Recap
4 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 303 of 342
Key Topics Discussed
Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and
School Access
Design Elements
and Development
Total Project
Cost Estimate
Construction
Considerations
5 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 304 of 342
Neighborhood and Residential Effects: Respondents expressed concern about the day-to-day impacts of construction on households near the corridor, including noise, environmental exposure, and what support would be available if a residence could not be occupied during construction. Flooding, Trees, and Environmental Considerations: Respondents asked how flooding risk would be evaluated in lowered roadway sections and whether long term pump operation and maintenance is accounted for.
Respondents also asked that mature trees and park resources, particularly at Peers Park, be protected as the design advances.
Corridor Wide and Long-Term Considerations: Respondents asked the project to consider the corridor as a whole, including the South Palo Alto bicycle and pedestrian crossing, inclusion of the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, compatibility with potential future Caltrain improvements, and long-term rail safety and corridor access. Project Delivery, Funding, and Communication: Respondents raised questions about the City's capacity to deliver a program of this size, whether bicycle and pedestrian elements could be funded separately, and asked for clearer explanation of how conditions would change. Operational questions were also raised regarding emergency response access and Alma Street conditions beyond the crossings.
Additional Topics Heard From Community
6 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 305 of 342
Palo
Alto
High
School
Churchill Ave – Partial Underpass
7 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 306 of 342
Alma Street and Churchill Avenue Intersection: Respondents shared input on turn movements to and from southbound Alma Street, the availability of signalized connections, and how sight distance and queuing at the intersection are being evaluated.
Neighborhood Street Circulation: Respondents shared input on traffic conditions on surrounding neighborhood streets, including cut through traffic near Palo Alto High School and the role Churchill Avenue plays in connecting neighborhoods across the corridor. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access: Respondents shared input on walking and bicycling routes serving Palo Alto High School and Walter Hays Elementary School, including route directness, safety features on the pedestrian bridge, and the possibility that route changes could influence how students and families choose to travel.
Construction Considerations: Respondents raised questions about how bicycle, pedestrian, and student access would be considered during the construction period.
Churchill – Community Key Takeaways
8 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 307 of 342
Seale Ave – Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing
9 West Ramp
to/from
Undercrossing
East Ramp
to/from
Undercrossing
Peers Park
Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 308 of 342
Expected Use and Route Directness: Respondents shared input on how the undercrossing would be used, including its location relative to existing crossings at California Avenue and Embarcadero Road, and how route directness could influence travel choices for nearby households and students. Intersection Conditions at Alma Street: Respondents shared input on the interaction between people bicycling exiting the undercrossing and turning vehicles at Alma Street, including sightlines, separation, and turn movements at the intersection.
Peers Park: Respondents shared input on the alignment of the undercrossing along the northwest edge of Peers Park, including whether an alignment farther from that edge was considered. Total Project Cost Estimate: Respondents asked about the estimated cost of the Seale Avenue bicycle and pedestrian crossing as a distinct element of the project.
Seale – Community Key Takeaways
10 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 309 of 342
11 Meadow Drive – Hybrid
Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 310 of 342
Design Elements and Development: Respondents shared input on why the hybrid configuration is proposed at Meadow Drive, how it differs from the approach at Charleston Road, and how it compares with grade separations elsewhere along the corridor.
Aesthetics and Visual Effects: Respondents shared input on the appearance of the retaining wall along the raised track, including its height, continuity, and how it would be experienced from adjacent streets and homes.
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access: Respondents shared input on walking and bicycling conditions at East Meadow Drive, including how the crossing experience could change, how people traveling at different speeds would share space, and how student and parent travel patterns are being considered.
Construction Considerations: Respondents raised questions about the temporary tracks, including their potential effect on travel along Alma Street and the duration of those conditions.
Meadow – Community Key Takeaways
12 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 311 of 342
13 Charleston Road – Underpass
Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 312 of 342
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and School Access: Respondents shared input on the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including the switchback ramp configuration, path width where people biking and walking share space, directional travel, and sidewalk and buffer conditions near Alma Street. Design Elements and Development: Respondents shared input on the engineering and design considerations that shaped the Charleston Road alternative, including the intersection configuration at Alma Street and how drainage in the lowered roadway is being studied. Potential Property Effects: Respondents asked how close the direct access ramp would come to homes along East Charleston Road, with front yard depth and proximity to traffic raised as concerns. Construction Considerations: Respondents shared input on potential construction staging near East Charleston Road and Mumford Place, and on how potential effects on nearby residents are being considered as the design advances.
Charleston – Community Key Takeaways
14 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 313 of 342
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Schools: Committee members provided input on walking and bicycling routes serving students, including conditions at the Embarcadero Road intersection for students north of Churchill Avenue who are less likely to travel south to the proposed Seale Avenue crossing. Sequencing and Delivery: Committee members provided input on how the crossings would be sequenced, including the relationship between the grade separations and the South Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project and whether the Seale Avenue undercrossing could be advanced ahead of Churchill Avenue.
Seale Avenue Undercrossing Design Elements: Committee members provided input on the design of the undercrossing, including grade and accessibility, the extent of tunnel enclosure, and lighting and safety features to be developed in later design phases. Construction Effects Near Schools: Committee members provided input on construction period conditions adjacent to school property, including ground stability near the field area at Churchill Avenue and potential vibration and noise effects on class time.
CSTSC Feedback
15 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 314 of 342
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Detail: Committee members requested more specific information on how the facilities would function, including path widths, turning radii, and a walkthrough of the route a person would take by direction and by mode.
Charleston Road Access and Connectivity: Committee members expressed concern that the switchback ramp is indirect, lacks a pedestrian stair option, and would likely lead most cyclists to remain in the roadway. Members also asked how cyclists traveling east would cross Charleston Road and noted that the configuration should be tested against adopted City goals for walking, bicycling, and reduced vehicle miles traveled. Alma Street Corridor Treatment: Committee members stated that where the project substantially changes Alma Street, the corridor should be treated as a complete street, with adequate sidewalk width and a buffer separating people walking and bicycling from traffic.
Information Requested Before Advancing: Committee members asked for additional detail ahead of the Council item, including where pedestrian and bicycle detour routes would go during construction, resolution of risks still identified as undefined, drawings showing the extent of the raised track profile at Meadow Drive, and whether the Seale Avenue undercrossing could be delivered ahead of Churchill Avenue.
PABAC Feedback
16 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 315 of 342
Project Scale and Funding Reality: Committee members discussed the gap between the estimated total project cost for all three crossings and the funding currently identified and indicated a likely narrowing of crossing focus.
Meadow Drive Alternative and Public Explanation: Committee members asked the project team to restate why the hybrid was carried forward at Meadow Drive rather than the underpass and requested the wall height profile with greater specificity on where effects occur. Members emphasized that the reasons for narrowing the range of alternatives need to be explained more clearly to the public. Charleston Road Priority and Refinements: Committee members identified Charleston Road as the likely near-term priority given traffic volumes, and discussed preliminary level of service results across existing, project, and future no build conditions.
Right of Way Requirements and Cost Responsibility: Committee members asked why the retaining wall at Meadow Drive extends to the edge of Alma Street.
Rail Committee Feedback
17 Item 14
Attachment E - Community Engagement
Summary
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 316 of 342
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #:2602-6004
TITLE
Monthly Investment Report - August 2026 (Unaudited)
RECOMMENDATION
This is an Information Report. No Council action is required.
ANALYSIS
The City’s Investment Policy (Policy)1 and California Government Code Section 53607 requires that a report of transactions (investments, reinvestment, sold, and exchanged securities) be made available to the Council on a monthly basis. This reporting requirement is separate and distinct from the quarterly investment report submitted under California Government Code Section 53646 that includes portfolio composition, a detailed list of all securities, performance compared to the Policy, overall compliance with the Policy, and the City’s ability to meet expenditure requirements over the next six months.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Investment Portfolio Transaction Ledger - August 2026 APPROVED BY:
Lauren Lai, Administrative Services Director
1 Investment Policy Fiscal Year 2025-2026 (Adopted February 9, 2026):
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/investment-policies/1-39-asdinvestment-policy.pdf Item A
Item A Staff Report
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 317 of 342
Buy
Call RedemptionMaturity
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction
Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 91282CRK9 UNITED STATES
TREASURY 4.37508/31/2031
US GOV Buy 08/31/2026 5,000,000.00 99.656 4.452 -4,982,812.50 0.00 -4,982,812.50 912797UG0 UNITED STATES
TREASURY 09/17/2026
T-BILL Buy 08/06/2026 15,000,000.00 99.577 3.690 -14,936,579.13 0.00 -14,936,579.13 912797UF2 UNITED STATES
TREASURY 09/10/2026
T-BILL Buy 08/06/2026 9,000,000.00 99.649 3.670 -8,968,438.75 0.00 -8,968,438.75 87268UAA5 TMUST 262 A 4.74
03/20/2031
ABS Buy 08/14/2026 1,565,000.00 99.984 4.794 -1,564,748.82 0.00 -1,564,748.82 362011AD0 GMALT 263 A3 4.53
07/20/2029
ABS Buy 08/13/2026 1,245,000.00 99.988 4.580 -1,244,848.73 0.00 -1,244,848.73 --- --- --- Buy 08/11/2026 31,810,000.00 --- 3.894 -31,697,427.93 0.00 -31,697,427.93 CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction
Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 798306WQ5 SAN JUAN CALIF UNI SCH
DIST 1.201 08/01/2026
MUNI Call
Redemption
08/01/2026 -545,000.00 100.000 4.653 545,000.00 0.00 545,000.00 685585FD8 ORCHARD CALIF SCH
DIST 3.125 08/01/2027
MUNI Call
Redemption
08/01/2026 -40,000.00 100.000 3.249 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 54473ENT7 LOS ANGELES CNTY
CALIF PUB WKS FINGAUTH LEASE REV 7.48808/01/2033
MUNI Call
Redemption
08/01/2026 -90,000.00 100.000 5.801 90,000.00 0.00 90,000.00 54438CMS8 LOS ANGELES CALIF
CMNTY COLLEGE DIST7.53 08/01/2029
MUNI Call
Redemption
08/01/2026 -105,000.00 100.000 4.679 105,000.00 0.00 105,000.00 12082SDN1 BURBANK CALIF UNI SCH
DIST 1.367 08/01/2026
MUNI Call
Redemption
08/01/2026 -1,000,000.00 100.000 0.960 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 --- --- MUNI Call
Redemption
08/01/2026 -1,780,000.00 100.000 2.606 1,780,000.00 0.00 1,780,000.00 CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction
Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 880541XY8 TENNESSEE ST 2.116
08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,000,000.00 100.000 1.950 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 87970GPQ4 TEMECULA VY CALIF UNI
SCH DIST 1.051 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -355,000.00 100.000 0.900 355,000.00 0.00 355,000.00 87165FZN7 Synchrony Bank 0.9
08/20/2026
CD Maturity 08/20/2026 -249,000.00 100.000 0.900 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 839278JZ2 SOUTH PASADENA CALIF
UNI SCH DIST 5.008/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -390,000.00 100.000 2.411 390,000.00 0.00 390,000.00 835569GT5 SONOMA CNTY CALIF JR
COLLEGE DIST 2.44708/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -155,000.00 100.000 0.854 155,000.00 0.00 155,000.00 83412PHQ8 SOLANO CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 1.02508/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -750,000.00 100.000 1.025 750,000.00 0.00 750,000.00 83412PGZ9 SOLANO CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 1.02508/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -200,000.00 100.000 0.900 200,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 Palo Alto Monthly Transactions08/01/2026 - 08/31/2026
1 ATTACHMENT
A
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 318 of 342
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction
Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 802498ZA6 SANTA MONICA-MALIBU
UNIFIED SCHOOLFACILITY IMPROV 0.84908/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -215,000.00 100.000 1.210 215,000.00 0.00 215,000.00 802309NY6 SANTA MARIA CALIF JT
UN HIGH SCH DIST 1.50808/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -455,000.00 100.000 4.652 455,000.00 0.00 455,000.00 801686TF3 SANTA CLARITA CALIF
CMNTY COLLEGE DIST1.146 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,250,000.00 100.000 0.750 1,250,000.00 0.00 1,250,000.00 801139AE6 SANTA ANA CALIF
PENSION OBLIG 1.17608/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -175,000.00 100.000 1.240 175,000.00 0.00 175,000.00 799408Z93 SAN RAMON VALLEY
CALIF UNI SCH DIST 1.03408/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -935,000.00 100.000 4.103 935,000.00 0.00 935,000.00 799055QV3 SAN MATEO FOSTER CITY
CALIF SCH DIST 1.79908/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -175,000.00 100.000 0.910 175,000.00 0.00 175,000.00 799055ME5 SAN MATEO FOSTER CITY
CALIF SCH DIST 6.008/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -415,000.00 100.000 2.328 415,000.00 0.00 415,000.00 797508JW9 SAN DIEGUITO CALIF UN
HIGH SCH DIST 1.07408/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -430,000.00 100.000 1.074 430,000.00 0.00 430,000.00 797508HF8 SAN DIEGUITO CALIF UN
HIGH SCH DIST 1.8608/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -435,000.00 100.000 2.099 435,000.00 0.00 435,000.00 797272RN3 SAN DIEGO CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 1.44508/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,980,000.00 100.000 1.210 1,980,000.00 0.00 1,980,000.00 76886PJP9 RIVERSIDE CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 1.12408/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,365,000.00 100.000 1.020 1,365,000.00 0.00 1,365,000.00 757889EG1 REDWOOD CITY CALIF
SCH DIST 2.159 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,095,000.00 100.000 1.751 1,095,000.00 0.00 1,095,000.00 697511FU2 PALOMAR CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 1.03108/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,000,000.00 100.000 1.031 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 697511FD0 PALOMAR CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 1.19908/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -335,000.00 100.000 2.321 335,000.00 0.00 335,000.00 68609TZT8 OREGON ST 0.984
08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -250,000.00 100.000 1.310 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 683050BW7 ONTARIO CALIF WTR REV
1.44 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -600,000.00 100.000 4.403 600,000.00 0.00 600,000.00 56781RKU0 MARIN CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 0.89308/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,000,000.00 100.000 0.893 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 56781RKD8 MARIN CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 0.67908/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -285,000.00 100.000 1.041 285,000.00 0.00 285,000.00 56781RGT8 MARIN CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 3.17208/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -120,000.00 100.000 3.500 120,000.00 0.00 120,000.00 54438CYL0 LOS ANGELES CALIF
CMNTY COLLEGE DIST1.174 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -2,025,000.00 100.000 1.236 2,025,000.00 0.00 2,025,000.00 359819DN6 FULLERTON CALIF SCH
DIST 3.16 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,360,000.00 100.000 2.767 1,360,000.00 0.00 1,360,000.00 3133EAG44 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT
BANKS FUNDING CORP2.63 08/03/2026
AGCY BOND Maturity 08/03/2026 -1,000,000.00 100.000 1.104 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 Palo Alto Monthly Transactions08/01/2026 - 08/31/2026
2 ATTACHMENT
A
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 319 of 342
Sell
Summary
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction
Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 250433UA5 DESERT SANDS CALIF
UNI SCH DIST 1.98208/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -880,000.00 100.000 1.410 880,000.00 0.00 880,000.00 212204LM1 CONTRA COSTA CALIF
CMNTY COLLEGE DIST 1.308/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -1,000,000.00 100.000 0.775 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 15722TJR3 CHABOT-LAS POSITAS
CALIF CMNTY COLLEGEDIST 1.08 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -285,000.00 100.000 0.910 285,000.00 0.00 285,000.00 142665DJ4 CARLSBAD CALIF UNI
SCH DIST 5.234 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -305,000.00 100.000 2.890 305,000.00 0.00 305,000.00 088023PL4 BEVERLY HILLS CALIF UNI
SCH DIST 2.7 08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -920,000.00 100.000 2.681 920,000.00 0.00 920,000.00 02079KAC1 ALPHABET INC 1.998
08/15/2026
CORP Maturity 08/15/2026 -1,000,000.00 100.000 2.228 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 010878AS5 ALAMEDA CNTY CALIF 4.0
08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -290,000.00 100.000 2.168 290,000.00 0.00 290,000.00 --- --- --- Maturity 08/02/2026 -24,679,000.00 100.000 1.715 24,679,000.00 0.00 24,679,000.00 CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction
Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 797272RT0 SAN DIEGO CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 2.11308/01/2031
MUNI Sell 08/04/2026 0.00 91.197 2.150 0.00 0.00 456,073.04 797272QS3 SAN DIEGO CALIF CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 2.40708/01/2027
MUNI Sell 08/04/2026 0.00 98.606 1.021 0.00 0.00 251,496.45 --- --- MUNI Sell 08/04/2026 0.00 --- 1.585 0.00 0.00 707,569.49CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount --- --- --- --- 08/07/2026 5,351,000.00 --- 2.930 -5,238,427.93 0.00 -4,530,858.44 Palo Alto Monthly Transactions08/01/2026 - 08/31/2026
3 ATTACHMENT
A
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 320 of 342
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Report #:2609-6756
TITLE
Conflict of Interest Code 2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice; CEQA Status – Not a Project
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the attached Conflict of Interest Code 2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice. No City Council action is required.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
The Palo Alto Municipal Code1 and the Political Reform Act2 require the City to adopt a list of designated positions and disclosure responsibilities for each position subject to the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Employees. The Conflict of Interest Code lists specific City positions other than those specified in Government Code section 87200 which involve making or participating in making decisions which have a reasonably foreseeable material effect on an economic interest, and to designate for each position the specific types of investments, business positions, interests in real property and sources of income which are reportable based on the scope of the decision-making authority of the position. The City Council adopts the Conflict of Interest Code by resolution.
The Political Reform Act requires the City to review its Conflict of Interest Code every two years, typically in even-numbered years. The City Council most recently reviewed and adopted the Conflict of Interest Code in February 2025. While the City is in compliance with the 2-year requirement, potential updates have been identified and staff recommends proceeding with these updates to stay consistent with the even-numbered year cycle.
In accordance with these requirements, the attached notice must be submitted to the City Council by October 1, 2026. As stated in the notice, code updates have been identified and are 1 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 2.09:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-60594 2 Government Code, Title 9, Chapter 7, Article 3:
https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=&title=9.&part=&c hapter=7.&article=3
Item B
Item B Staff Report
Item B: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 321 of 342
being prepared by staff. Staff anticipates presenting the recommended code updates to Council by the end of calendar year 2026.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There are no significant fiscal/resource impacts related to this item. The costs related to processing/managing the Conflict of Interest Code and Statements of Economic Interest are part of the City Clerk Department budget.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
City Clerk’s Office staff is collaborating with the Human Resources Department, as well as the City Attorney’s Office and all City department heads to identify and review potential updates to the Conflict of Interest Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is for informational purposes only with no action required by the Council and is therefore not a project subject to CEQA review.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item B
Item B Staff Report
Item B: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 322 of 342
www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC Advice: [email protected] (866.275.3772)