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 right- of-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 PL- 24000 (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
Churchill AveChurchill Ave
Kellogg AveKellogg Ave
Coleridge AveColeridge Ave
Churchill AveChurchill 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
160 3200
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 StAlma St
Seale AveSeale Ave
Tennyson AveTennyson Ave
Rinconda AveRinconda Ave
Park BlvdPark 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
160 3200
PEERS PARKPEERS 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 Respons e 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 Mee ting 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 R oad 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 Unde rpass - 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 Me eting 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 E lements 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 M eeting 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 R oad Underpass - Direct Access Ramp Design Elements and Development 26 Would a U-turn at Charleston Road and Mumford Place include traffic -
control 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 Charles ton 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. C ommunity 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 Speci fic 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 Ra mp 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 Under pass - 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 Meetin g 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 - D irect 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 Charle ston 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 Developme nt 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 Ac cess 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 - Di rect 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 Dri ve 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 Ro ad 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 Underpas s - 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 Commit tee 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 Committe e 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 concep ts 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 Committ ee 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 Co nstruction 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 Dri ve 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 Commit tee 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 H ybrid 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 Underp ass - 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 Des ign 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 Consider ations 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 OCTOBER1 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
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-asd- investment-policy.pdf
Item A
Item A Staff Report
Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 317 of 342
Buy
Call Redemption
Maturity
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction
Type
Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 91282CRK9 UNITED STATES
TREASURY 4.375
08/31/2031
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 FING
AUTH LEASE REV 7.488
08/01/2033
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 DIST
7.53 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 5.0
08/01/2026
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 2.447
08/01/2026
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 1.025
08/01/2026
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 1.025
08/01/2026
MUNI Maturity 08/01/2026 -200,000.00 100.000 0.900 200,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 Palo Alto Monthly Transactions
08/01/2026 - 08/31/2026
1 ATTACHMENT A
Item A
Attachment A - Investment
Portfolio Transaction
Ledger - August 2026
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 SCHOOL
FACILITY IMPROV 0.849
08/01/2026
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 1.508
08/01/2026
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 DIST
1.146 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 1.176
08/01/2026
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 1.034
08/01/2026
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 1.799
08/01/2026
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 6.0
08/01/2026
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 1.074
08/01/2026
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 1.86
08/01/2026
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 1.445
08/01/2026
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 1.124
08/01/2026
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 1.031
08/01/2026
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 1.199
08/01/2026
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 0.893
08/01/2026
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 0.679
08/01/2026
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 3.172
08/01/2026
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 DIST
1.174 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 CORP
2.63 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 Transactions
08/01/2026 - 08/31/2026
2 ATTACHMENT A
Item A
Attachment A - Investment
Portfolio Transaction
Ledger - August 2026
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 1.982
08/01/2026
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 1.3
08/01/2026
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 COLLEGE
DIST 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 2.113
08/01/2031
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 2.407
08/01/2027
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 0.00 707,569.49 CUSIP 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 Transactions
08/01/2026 - 08/31/2026
3 ATTACHMENT A
Item A
Attachment A - Investment
Portfolio Transaction
Ledger - August 2026
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 Code 1 and the Political Reform Act 2 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)
2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice
Name of Agency:
Mailing Address:
Contact Person: Phone No.
Email: Alternate Email:
Accurate disclosure is essential to monitor whether officials have conflicts of interest and to help ensure public trust in government. The biennial review examines current programs to ensure that the agency’s code includes disclosure by those agency officials who make or participate in making governmental decisions.
This agency has reviewed its conflict of interest code and has determined that (check one BOX):
An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary:
(Check all that apply.)
Include new positions
Revise disclosure categories
Revise the titles of existing positions
Delete titles of positions that have been abolished and/or positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions
Other (describe)
The code is currently under review by the code reviewing body.
No amendment is required. (If your code is over five years old, amendments may be necessary.)
Verification (to be completed if no amendment is required)
This agency’s code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions. The disclosure assigned to those positions accurately requires that all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income that may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by thos e holding designated positions are reported. The code includes all other provisions required by Government Code Section 87302.
__________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of Chief Executive Officer Date
All agencies must complete and return this notice regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this notice no later than October 1, 2026, or by the date specified by your agency, if earlier, to:
(PLACE RETURN ADDRESS OF CODE REVIEWING BODY HERE)
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THIS FORM TO THE FPPC.
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
(650) 329-2571
[email protected]
[email protected]
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Item B
Attachment A - 2026 Local
Biennial Notice
Item B: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 323 of 342
City Council
Supplemental Report
From: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 28, 2026
Item Number: 2
Report #:2609-6809
TITLE
Supplemental Report: Review Applications and Select Candidates to Interview for the Human Relations Commission (HRC), Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and Stormwater Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC) Vacancies; CEQA Status – Not a Project
BACKGROUND
An application received during the HRC Extended Recruitment was inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet. The revised application packet is attached.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: HRC Extended Recruitment Applications - Updated APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 2
Item 2 Supplemental Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 324 of 342
Human Relations Commission Application
Submitted on 16 September 2026, 1:07am
Receipt number 94
Related form version 17
Personal Information
Name Aji Oliyide
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code 94303
Do you have any relatives or members of your household
who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are
currently serving on the City Council, or who are
Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (Fair Political Practices Commission ,
Conflict of Interest, Form 700).
Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:
1. Engage in business with the City;
2. Provide products or services for City projects; or
3. Be affected by decisions of this Board or Commission? No
1 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 325 of 342
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human
Relations Commission?
Other: Commissioner Katie Causey
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.
Personal and Job Experience
Occupation Director of AI Strategy and Operations at Sam's Club Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration. If describing work experience, please include company/employer name and occupation.
I want to thank City Council as this is my second time applying to the Human Relations Commission, and I greatly appreciated the opportunity to interview during my 2025 application. I hold a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Tech and an MBA from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. I also completed MIT Professional Education’s Chief Operating Officer Program in 2025.
Professionally, I am Director of AI Strategy and Operations at Sam’s Club. Previously, I spent 10 years at Google, most recently as a Senior Technical Engineering Program Manager leading work in Cloud and AI, and earlier as an M&A Finance Integration Manager. Prior to Google, I held consulting and management roles at Deloitte and Accenture. My career has given me extensive experience in strategic planning, operations, technology, finance, program management, and cross-functional leadership.
Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
My community involvement has focused on education, youth, the arts, and expanding opportunities for underserved communities. I currently serve on the Board of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (2025–present) and on the Board of Trustees of
TheatreWorks Silicon Valley (2025–present). I previously served as Vice Chair of Global Glimpse (2022–2025), an organization that provides leadership and international learning opportunities for high school students from diverse backgrounds, and on the Board of Directors of San Francisco CASA (2017–2021), which advocates for children and youth in foster care. My volunteer service also includes work with a grassroots organization in Ghana through Globe Aware (2017) and a fundraising trek in Nepal supporting Voluntary Service Overseas (2011).
Application Questions
1. Why are you interested in serving on the Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
Having followed HRC and very familiar with the meetings I recognize the HRC is in a period where there are a majority of new commissioners. Having served extensively on nonprofit boards, including as a Vice Chair, I bring experience helping boards operate effectively—following Rosenberg's Rules keeping 2 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 326 of 342
meetings focused, organized, and productive while ensuring different perspectives on sensitive issues feel heard.
My family has a deep love of Palo Alto, (my mother has resided here as well for 1.5+ year and I have a child in Palo Verde and one entering preschool soon). I understand that the commissioner who recently stepped down played an important role in the HRC’s ongoing discussions about youth mental health and the
experiences of families. As a parent of children in Palo Alto schools, I would bring a valuable firsthand perspective on the needs, challenges, and experiences of families.
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and
describe why you are interested in it.
Archived video meetings are available from the Midpen Media Center .
Like many Palo Altans, I am caring across generations: I have an aging mother and children in our local schools. I was particularly interested in the CEDAW Subcommittee’s recent audit of Palo Alto’s caregiving infrastructure, including childcare and adult care, and the HRC’s listening session on seniors and affordable housing. I am encouraged that the CEDAW work is already informing how the City considers unpaid caregiving and captures the experiences of caregivers in assessing community needs. I would be especially interested in helping translate the Commission’s findings into pragmatic policy recommendations.
For example the two areas highlighted in the senior housing listening session were exploring renter protections for those in their 70s or older who have been longtime residents and exploring what HOA fees could be reduced for seniors in BMR units.
3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and how
would you help in the process?
My goal would be to help ensure effective implementation of the JED report recommendations. As someone with extensive board experience, I am confident I can step into the Commissioner role quickly and contribute from the outset. I understand how effective boards operate, work within established procedures, and keep discussions organized, inclusive, and focused on actionable outcomes. I also bring significant nonprofit experience serving vulnerable young people. For four years, I served on the Board of Directors of San Francisco CASA, which advocates for children and youth in foster care and helps ensure they have consistent, trusted adults in their lives. That experience directly connects to themes in the JED report: creating pathways to trusted adults, helping families navigate systems of support, empowering youth, and ensuring young people's voices meaningfully inform decisions that affect them.
4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the
documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience.
Experience with these documents is not required for
selection.
Human Services Needs Assessment (2024)
Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2017) While I have not yet worked directly with these specific City documents, their focus aligns closely with skills I have developed throughout my professional and nonprofit leadership experience.
My work at Sam’s Club, Google, Deloitte, and Accenture has required me to analyze complex data and policies, identify gaps and priorities, and translate findings into actionable
recommendations. My nonprofit board service has similarly required thoughtful review of community needs, organizational policies, and strategic plans. If appointed, I would bring that analytical and governance experience to understanding the Human Services Needs Assessment, Mandatory Response
Program, and Community Services Element, and to applying them thoughtfully in the HRC’s recommendations to the City Council. 3 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 327 of 342
If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.
Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.
View the Boards and Commissions Handbook.
Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Aji Oliyide
Link to signature
Date Completed 09/16/2026
4 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 328 of 342
Human Relations Commission Application
Submitted on
16 September 2026, 4:12pm
Receipt number
95 Related form version
17 Personal Information
Name
Sunny Dykwel
Cell Phone Number
6504006960
Home Phone Number
Email Address
[email protected]
Are you a Palo Alto resident?
Yes
Address
480 Gary Ct
City
Palo Alto
Postal Code
94306
Do you have any relatives or members of your household
who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are
currently serving on the City Council, or who are
Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (
Fair Political Practices Commission
,
Conflict of Interest
,
Form 700
).
Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:
1. Engage in business with the City;
2. Provide products or services for City projects; or
3. Be affected by decisions of this Board or Commission? No
1 of 3
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 329 of 342
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human
Relations Commission?
Community Group
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk.
Personal and Job Experience
Occupation
Realtor with Compass; Principal-Brokers By Design; Community volunteer
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration. If describing work experience, please include company/employer name and occupation.
SJSU B.S. Degree, Business Admin. Former Commissioner, PA Parks and Recreation; served on PA Parks & Rec Foiundation. 2- term Director, League of Women Voters. 2-term Director, PA Chamber of Commerce. Founding. Director for the PA Downtown Business Improvement District. 2-term Director, PA Family YMCA.
Currently serving PA Neighborhoods Block Preparedness
Emergency Response Team. Board/Steering Committee member, Midtown Residents Assn. CA Dept of Real Estate licensee 30 yrs.
Former Director, Cal Assn of Realtors (CAR) also served as CAR Arbitrator, Served on several committees for PA District Board of Realtors, Southern. Alameda Board, and Silicon Valley Assn of Realtors including Legislative and Professional Standards.
Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
Extensive community involvement includes membership to Palo Alto Rotary Club and other non-proifts. Former Director, Palo Alto-University Rotary Club. Served on PAUSD PTA Council Exec Board and. Paly PTSA Board. While serving on the board of PAUSD All Schools Fund, (ASF), helped merge ASF and Palo Alto Foundation for Education (PAFE) into Partners In Education.
Helped establish Project Safety Net with the City, PAUSD, Stanford Hospital and affiliates and a coalition of organizations focused on youth suicide prevention, adolescent mental issues, improved access to mental health services and community education. Director for Filipino Women's Network supporting women and helping end the cycle of abuse. Worked with Rubicon Childrens Center group homes to raise awareness and funding for abused and neglected children in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.
Application Questions
1. Why are you interested in serving on the Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
I have always dedicated my life to helping others. Serving on the Human Relations. Commission is an extension of the impact I can 2 of 3
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 330 of 342
bring to the position?
bring for the betterment of our community. My breath of work experience related to housing, arbitration, and legislation, as well as my long-history of civic engagement would be helpful on issues and projects that come before the commission. Being a parent of an active PAUSD student and. having lived in Palo Alto for 30 years will also. come in handy.
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and
describe why you are interested in it.
Archived video meetings are available from the
Midpen Media Center
.
At the moment, I am engaged in housing issues for the League and the needs of our unhoused population, which also is a matter of importance to the Commission. Measure J is another issue that I would like to pass in November as Cubberley Community Center provides opportunities for affordable childcare and our treasured community resources and services; it is home to several agencies and art organizations that.help make our community thrive.
3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and how
would you help in the process?
See above.
4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the
documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience.
Experience with these documents is not required for
selection.
Human Services Needs Assessment (2024)
Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2017) I have read the. handbooks and have an understanding of the goals and responsibilities and the work plan of the Human Relations Commission. I am somewhat familiar with the
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Pan, having served on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.
Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.
View the
Boards and Commissions Handbook
.
Yes
Signature
Name of signatory: Sunny Dykwel
Link to signature
Date Completed
09/16/2026
3 of 3
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 331 of 342
Subject: Human Relations Commission Application – Becky Wolf
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am submitting my application for appointment to the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission.
I am applying because I believe I could bring a perspective to the Commission that is not always represented in government decision-making: the perspective of someone who has experienced systems from both sides of the table.
My life has included domestic violence beginning in childhood and continuing into adulthood, a long-term marriage affected by abuse, legal and financial abuse, disability, housing instability, supportive housing, and now homelessness. I have also spent the last year advocating for other people navigating many of those same systems.
Those experiences changed the way I look at public policy.
I have learned that a policy can sound excellent on paper and still fail the person it was created to protect. That is why I care so deeply about bringing policy and lived experience into the same room.
As founder of The Opportunity Center Single Side Tenant Union and as an advocate, I have worked with residents, veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, survivors, and people who are unhoused or housing insecure. I have learned to review public records, Housing Authority materials, voucher requirements, ADA procedures, HAP contracts, CDBG funding, complaint processes, City documents, planning materials, and reports such as SPUR. I am comfortable asking: Who is responsible? Who is monitoring? Where does the funding come from? What protections exist? Were they followed? And what actually happened to the person at the end of the process?
I do not believe accountability has to mean hostility or blame. I believe accountability means making sure that when an organization or government body accepts responsibility for monitoring, funding, protecting, or serving people, that responsibility has meaning.
I also believe deeply that people who rarely enter government meeting rooms deserve representation inside them.
If appointed, I would especially hope to help strengthen the connection between the HRC and Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 332 of 342
Palo Alto residents who are unhoused, living in supportive housing, disabled, elderly, survivors of violence, or otherwise struggling to make themselves heard.
One thing about me is very simple: once I learn that something is wrong, I cannot unknow it. I want to understand why it happened, what can be changed, and how we can keep the next person from falling into the same gap.
I am currently unhoused, while actively working to secure permanent full-time housing again in Palo Alto. I hope my current housing circumstances will not prevent me from serving the community I care so deeply about. In many ways, this experience has made the importance of representation even clearer to me.
I am attaching my application and supporting materials for your consideration. Please let me know if there is any additional information, documentation, or material that would be helpful.
Thank you for considering my application and for the opportunity to participate in Palo Alto civic life.
Warmly,
Becky Wolf
Advocate
Founder, The Opportunity Center Single Side Tenant Union
#Silenc
eIsNotSurvivable
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 333 of 342
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 334 of 342
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 335 of 342
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 336 of 342
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 337 of 342
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 338 of 342
Human Relations Commission Application
Submitted on 15 September 2026, 7:53pm
Receipt number 93
Related form version 17
Personal Information
Name Laal Rezayani
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code 94306
Do you have any relatives or members of your household
who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are
currently serving on the City Council, or who are
Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (Fair Political Practices Commission ,
Conflict of Interest, Form 700).
Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:
1. Engage in business with the City;
2. Provide products or services for City projects; or
3. Be affected by decisions of this Board or Commission? No
1 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 339 of 342
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human
Relations Commission?
City Website
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.
Personal and Job Experience
Occupation Educator/Tutor
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration. If describing work experience, please include company/employer name and occupation.
M.A. in Biology, San José State University; B.A. in biology from UC Berkeley; High School degree from Gunn High School. I have worked as an educator in the Bay Area in both science and English. My experience includes teaching Biology at Terra Nova High School; Biology at Menlo-Atherton High School; English and AP Language at Los Gatos High School; and substitute teaching at Bay Area public schools. I also served as a Graduate Student Assistant and Writing Center tutor at San José State University and currently work as a private tutor. Through these roles, I have worked with students from a wide range of backgrounds, abilities, and educational needs and have developed strong skills in communication, listening, mentoring, and resolving differences constructively.
Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
I have been involved in community service through education, public speaking, and music. I currently volunteer as a tutor, providing academic support to students who need additional educational assistance. I have also been active in Toastmasters and previously served as President of a local Toastmasters club, where I helped organize meetings, support members, and
promote communication and leadership skills. In addition, I perform piano programs for residents of senior and assisted-living communities. These experiences have allowed me to work with people of different ages, backgrounds, and needs and have strengthened my interest in community service and civic engagement.
Application Questions
1. Why are you interested in serving on the Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
I am interested in serving on the Human Relations Commission because I care about building a community in which residents of different backgrounds feel heard, respected, and included. As an educator, I have worked with students and families from a wide range of cultural, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds.
Teaching has required me to listen carefully, communicate across differences, consider multiple perspectives, and work toward 2 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 340 of 342
constructive solutions. I have also been involved in tutoring, Toastmasters leadership, and community music activities. I would bring an educator’s perspective, strong communication skills, curiosity, and a willingness to listen and learn from other members of the Palo Alto community.
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and
describe why you are interested in it.
Archived video meetings are available from the Midpen Media Center .
One issue that recently came before the Human Relations Commission that particularly interests me is mental health and suicide prevention. I am interested in this issue because mental health affects people of all ages and backgrounds, yet many individuals still face stigma, difficulty accessing services, or uncertainty about where to seek help. I believe prevention, early intervention, community education, and greater awareness of available resources can make a meaningful difference. As an educator, I am especially interested in the well-being of young people and in ensuring that students, families, and other community members know that support is available before a situation reaches a crisis point.
3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and how
would you help in the process?
If appointed, I would like to help the Human Relations
Commission strengthen inclusion and ensure that residents who may be vulnerable or underrepresented have opportunities to be heard. I would also like to increase community awareness of resources related to mental health and other human-service needs and support constructive dialogue among people with different backgrounds and perspectives. I would contribute by listening carefully to residents, studying issues objectively, asking thoughtful questions, and helping develop practical
recommendations for the City Council.
4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the
documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience.
Experience with these documents is not required for
selection.
Human Services Needs Assessment (2024)
Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2017) I have not previously worked directly with these specific documents. However, through my academic and professional experience as an educator, I am accustomed to reading complex material, identifying key information, considering evidence, and communicating ideas clearly. I would be interested in becoming familiar with the Human Services Needs Assessment, the
Mandatory Response Program, and the Community Services
Element of the Comprehensive Plan so that I could use them effectively in the Commission’s work. I am comfortable studying unfamiliar material, asking questions when necessary, and considering how policies and community needs relate to one another.
If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.
Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.
View the Boards and Commissions Handbook
.
Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Laal Rezayani
3 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 341 of 342
Link to signature
Date Completed 09/15/2026
4 of 4
Item 2
Supplemental Attachment
A - HRC Extended
Recruitment Applications -
Updated
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 342 of 342