HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 255-10City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEP ARTMENT:'CITY MANAGER
DATE: MAY 19,2009 CMR: 255:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Report from the High Speed Rail Committee (HSR) to Support
Caltrain Legislation and Process for Evaluation of Peninsula Cities Consortium
(PCC) Core Message; HSR Committee Report on Recommendations on a Palo Alto
CaltrainlHSR Corridor Study; Review and Council Direction Regarding Draft Peer
, Review of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the High Speed Rail San
Francisco to San Jose Section
RECOMMENDATION
The High Speed Rail Committee (HSR) recommends that the City Council support
legislation securing funding for Caltrain Electrification; and the HSR Committee's
process for evaluating the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) Core message; and review
and comment on the preliminary peer review of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) of the
San Jose to San Francisco segment.
Alternatives Analysis
The Alternatives Analysis is a document that will be used in developing the Project EIR
for the San Jose to San Francisco segment of proposed the High Speed Rail system.
EIR's generally must include alternatives to proposed projects. This analysis will inform
alternatives that will eventually be analyzed in the Draft EIR, which HSRAhas stated
will be released at the end of this year. The staging of information with the separate
release of the Alternatives Analysis provides our community with an ~arlier opportunity
to communicate our values and concerns related to the alternatives before the Draft EIR
is issued and enhance our ability to influence better outcomes for Palo Alto.
While not clearly stated by the HSRA staff, city staff presumes that the Alternatives
Analysis Report (AAR) will be modified based, on comments and incorporated into the
Draft EIR, expected to be issued in late this year or early 2011. Once issued, the Draft
EIR will be circulated and also subject to public comment.
The California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) has extended their deadline for
comments on the Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR) from June 8, 2010 to June 30,
2010. Given this development, the focus of this presentation will be on the draft Peer
Review of the AAR. Staff has retained consultants Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) to
perform the peer review. HMM has been working on analysis of the ARR since it was
CMR255:10 Page 1 of 4
4
, , ,
issued on April 8, 2010. HMM has prepared preliminary findings and has reported them
at two Community meetings (May 18 and May 20) and at the HSR Committee (May 20).
HMM will continue to expand on its analysis throughout June, and will be prepared for a
final presentation to Council the week of June 21, 2010. Attachment A is HMM's
preliminary report which can be summarized as follows:
1. All altematives: aerial viaduct, at grade, U -Trench and TU1111el/Cut and Cover
are feasible from an engineering perspective.
2. The tunnel option daylights south of Oregon Expressway and utilizes a Cut
and Cover trench south to the Mountain View border.
3. Deep tunnel option rules out Palo Alto as a High Speed Rail Station.
4. Tunnel option appears to be excessively deep which is not explained in the
AAR.
5. Cut and Cover costs appear excessively high.
HMM will walk Council through the altemative alignments through Palo Alto as well as
discuss the transitions to Menlo Park! Atherton and Mountain View. HMM will also
discuss engineering parameters specific to certain altematives that may limit vertical
alignments in Palo Alto.
HMM will also discuss key information and explanations that are missing from the AAR.
For example, no explanation is given which explains why the Cut and Cover option is
over twice as expensive as the U-Trench which is essentially the same construction
absent a structural cover. The U-Trench costs $190 million per mile compared to $486
million per mile for the Cut and Cover option.
The report also provides detailed comment .on each of the different altematives to a four
track, grade-separated combined use (CHSRA and Caltrain) Peninsula rail corridor,
between limits of San Francisco and San Jose.
HMM has also analyzed train operations between Caltrain and High Speed Rail. While
the AAR allows for the greatest amount of interoperability between high-speed trains and
Caltrain, as each operator has access to all four tracks, no plan is provided that shows
how the two train systems would actually operate within the corridor.
Because of the community's overwhelming interest in below grade options, they have
been extensively analyzed by HMM and city staff. The HMM report indicates bored
tunnels and cut and cover options have constraints at the creeks, gravity sewers and
storm-water channels and where liquefiable soils were identified at San Francisquito
Creek and between Oregon Expressway and the end of Sub-section 6. Below grade
options also have the additional costs of constructing below ground stations.
The cut and cover tU1111el is currently designed at 20 feet below San Francisquito Creek,
however, HMM believes it is possible to raise this to 5 feet reducing the Palo Alto Station
depth by 15 feet. The bored tunnel design is for one 47 foot tunnel currently set 85 feet
below San Francisquito Creek. HMM believes this can also be raised by 1 diameter
reducing the Palo Alto Station depth by 38 feet. Raising the tunnel below San
CMR255:10 Page 20f4
Francisquito Creek may lower the costs per mile by reducing the amount of excavation
needed for the University Avenue Station.
Legislation
In addition to reviewing the Preliminary Peer Review Analysis, the HSR Committee
recommends that City Council supports possible legislation to address Caltrain funding
for electrification. At Council's May 17, 2010 meeting, a Caltrain representative
discussed Caltrains interest in legislation that would enable Caltrain access to Federal
stimulus dollars currently designated for High Speed Rail to further fund the Caltrain
electrification project. The HSR Committee has taken a position of support of this
concept.
The City has a long standing position supporting Caltrain Electrification which would
greatly improve peninsula commuter service by reducing travel times and the number of
daily trains. Until recently, funding for electrification has been uncertain. Consistently,
other transit projects such as the BART extension to San Jose have taken precedent over
Caltrain. Because Caltrain has made substantial progress in planning for electrification
and has nearly completed the Environmental Review, electrification should be "shovel
ready" before High Speed Rail and meet Federal requirements for stimulus projects.
Peninsula Cities Consortium Core Message
In addition, the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) recently introduced a draft document
titled "Core Message". The Core Message is similar to Palo Alto's Guiding Principles
andt is intended to provide policy direction to the PCC members. The PCC has asked its
member cities to review and comment on the draft prior to its next regular meeting, May
28. The HSR Committee has formed a subcommittee of its members to provide
comments to the PCC and is requesting Council support for this subcommittee review.
Corridor Study
Lastly, the HSR committee discussed the preparation of a Corridor Study for the Caltrain
Right-of-Way. The purpose of this study would be to establish land use and
transportation policy analysis that would reflect community vision and values, which in
tum would better inform future discussions regarding the corridor. Comprehensive policy
analysis would help identify potential opportunities and conflicts as well as enable the
Community to participate on a high level. The HSR Committee requested that staff return
within 30 days with a draft scope of work for the study for more detailed consideration by
the committee.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Peer Review
Attachment 2: Appendix "L" from Alternatives
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.govllibrary.asp?p=9370
Attachment 3: Stakeholder List
CMR 255:10
Analysis link:
Page 3 of4
PREPARED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
James
CMR255:10 Page 4 of 4
California High-Speed Train
Draft Peer Review of the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report for the San
Francisco to San Jose Section,
Report dated April 2010
Prepared by: Hatch Mott MacDonald
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto
Date: May 14, 2010
Attachment 1
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
California High-Speed Train
Peer Review of the Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose ~p,rn l\T
Hatch Mott MacDonald
April 2010
for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes
captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or
rpose.
nsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any
used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is
iss ion in data to us other
3825 Hopyard Road, Suite 240
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................... .
2.0 Peer Review ............................................................................. .
3.0 Summary .............................................................................. .
Appendix .................................................................... .
California High-Speed Train
1.0 Introduction
The report presents feasible construction alternatives to be carried forward
evaluated as part of the California High Speed Rail Authority's
Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement for a
separated combined use (CHSRA and Caltrain) Peninsula rail
San Francisco and San Jose.
The Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR) presents n111rYl<>1el"'l11
grade and below-grade rail alignment for the Peninsula
particular alignment option is location specific.
Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) has performed
design and construction issues pertinent to the
project scope of services review is based exc1usl
CHSRA, and comprises a factual, impartial review
and fairness of the methods used for evaluation of
The City of Palo Alto is designated
existing Caltrain Milepost 29.72 to
County Line, to Milepost 33.61, to the
Subsection 6 is 3.89 miles. Subsection
subsections:
Sub
section
6A
focusing on the
indicated in the
provided by
and the completeness
tives.
from
/Santa Clara
total length of
the following
is indicated within Subsection 6A on the site of the
Alto Station. The limits and location descriptions of each
t with the AAR, Table 3-9. However, as evidenced by the
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
Way plans, the location descriptions are not particularly accurate
~IPage
California High-Speed Train .,_ Hatch Mott r:;:. MacDonald
2.0 Peer Review
The HMM review comments are included in the following Table:
No. Pg AAR
Section
Main Report
1 S-l S.l
3 3-23 3.3.4
3
6
Comment
The report clearly indicates that
another -from aerial to
approximately 3,000 feet of
subsections to share an
Cities and Subsections
expense.
than an at-
to deep bored
.v,-,uu":,, .. ground improvement
ov er the tunnel boring
interface, or a short length
be prov ided to either side of the station,
to allow the TBM to resume.
options, only CHSRA service will be
and freight service will be in another
The ' other' vertical configuration should be
'U C :ULlHCU in terms of costing purposes .
from the report how freight service would operate on the
right of way. Would freight be limited to operating upon
tracks dedicated to Caltrain service? Rail grades and underground
structure ventilation requirements will be dictated by the diesel
locomotives for freight service.
The deep tunnel option should consider any property requirements for
ventilation and egress structures.
It is not clear how the extent of liquefiable soils on the alignment has
been addressed with respect to the trench and cut-and-cover options.
The presence of liquefiable soils can greatly add to the cost of cut and
cover and trench structure options, requiring over-excavation to
remove and replace the soils, ground improvement to modify the in
situ characteristics of the soils, or pile supports for the structures.
21Pa g e
California High-Speed Train
No. Pg AAR
Section
7 4-54 4.3.7
Figure
S 4-54 4.3.7
Figure
9 4-55 -Table
4-63 4-9
10 4-55-
4-63
12 4-55 -Table
4-63 4-9
Comment
, .... Hatch Matt 's:. MacDonald
The figure suggests that no short tunnel segments are constructible in
Subsections 6A and6B. Two northbound off/
indicated in this area have been eliminated due to
constraints. There is no opportunity to transition
at-grade for a northbound train, which mus t
before returning to grade.
The northbound off/ southbound
eliminated due to alignment
alternative location for this ramp
Barron Creek. (Mirroring the
location).
General
cost for CAHSR to
a consistent baseline
should also be considered in the assessment
For below grade options opportunity
development, creating funds from land
This should be considered in the
or text accompanying the Table should indicate which
sections have been adopted as the basis of the cost
in each case.
It is not clear for subsections 6C and 6D, how the open trench option
would be less expensive than the at-grade option.
It is also not clear why the open trench options cost approximately 40%
of the covered trench options. The alignments (vertical profile) will not
be significantly different and the construction methods will be similar.
The covered trench also provides greater flexibility for relocation of
existing tracks during construction. The difference in costs appears
excessive.
Constructability:
It is not clear why the constructability issue related to disruption of
existing railroads is indicated as 'not applicable' for the open trench,
covered . and tunnel All, the
31 P age
California High-Speed Train
No. Pg AAR
Section
13 4-55 -Table
4-63 4-9
14
Comment
open trench and covered trench/ tunnel options will have impacts on
Caltrain service during construction.
Appendix D: Utilities. The table indicates an 8.5 foo t
crossing of the proposed alignment at Matadero
milepost 32.306). This utility impact is not
the open trench and covered trench/ tunnel
Appendix F:Outreach and Scoping (Page
San Carlos Open House on September
of a Hetch Hetchy water pipe
This utility impact is not
and covered trench/ tunnel
Environmental
of options presented could be
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
upon the feasibility of maintaining Caltrain
("""""h,."("+;,,,n Some of the alternatives
right of way, and appear to 'wish' the
no consideration of how Caltrain will
to indicate where each of the cross sections
are being considered on the alignment.
individual cut and cover structure bores, at 25'-6" are considerably
indicated for the double track in tunnel section, which has
width of approximately 20'-0". The reasons for this
inconsistency in spatial requirements should be provided.
The four track cut and cover box, at 123' in width, consumes the entire
existing Caltrain right of way and beyond. It is not clear how this
option can be constructed while Caltrain service is maintained at the
surface.
The two-double track cut and cover box provides the opportunity to
maintain Caltrain service at the surface while one box is constructed.
The surface tracks can then be shifted to allow construction of the
second box. The additional right of way required relative to option
CCB-1 can be reduced by elimination of one of the separating shoring
walls, such that the two boxes share an intermediate shoring wall.
41Page
California High-Speed Train
No. Pg
17 8
AAR
Section
CCB-3
18 12 CCB-T-2
19 13/ S-CCB-2
14 AG-CCB-
2
20 16 TNCH-T-
1
22
Comment
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
The double deck structure configuration appears to permit continued
operation of Caltrain service at grade during r",,,,h.,,
the structure, as shown, is likely to be buoyant.
piling appear to be required to mitigate uplift
pressures.
...... ,Q-n"h is shown as 15'-0",
"~r 'tl"T''"<: on drawing 17, the trench is
should be resolved.
in the trench design for the inclusion of
The depth of the tie down piles will
for the TBM profile.
shown, the TBM must be driven to exacting tolerances to avoid
conflict with the trench support of excavation walls. Due to the size of
the bore, and the minimal clearance (3" per side) this configuration
not be achievable unless the TBM
Per comment on configuration TNCH-T -1, there is an inconsistency
between the trench dimensions and the width of the trench shown.
With a 15'-0" track spacing it is likely that the support of excavation
wall for the trench will conflict with the TBM drive. The profile for the
TBM have to be to avoid the walls.
Per comment on configuration CCB-2, the right of way required to
construct this option can be reduced by elimination of one of the
separating shoring walls, such that the two boxes share an intermediate
wall.
51Page
California High-Speed Train
No . Pg AAR
Section
24 20 RF-
TNCH-1
Comment
trench, the design should consider how Caltrain is
during this construction. With the open-trench concept,
nowhere to divert the existing surface service other
but structure.
There is a considerable asymmetric load on this
from the adjacent berm. The adequacy of the
thickness should be confirmed.
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
Appendix C: Station Cross Sections
25
26
27
28
30
3
3
4
5
STA-8
STA-9
STA-15
STA-8
STA-ll
STA-12
STA-13
9" structure clearance
at a station
This option
is wider,
expensive
~u ,·hir·h alignment cross sections are used to
included for both Rail and Utility Relocations
estimate. It is clear that the estimates do not
identifies the number of noise sensitive receptors for
option (but not the at grade option) which would suggest
that noise mitigation measures will be required, however the cross
sections show no noise barriers (for either at grade or aerial options)
and no costs to be allowed for in the cost estimate.
Subsection 6A: Covered Trench
The unit prices for excavation and backfill, at $6 each per cubic yard
seems very low. Some basis for the unit rates adopted should be
provided.
The covered trench price of $262,492,160 per mile corresponds to a
figure of $49,714 per linear foot. For the proposed width of the four
track structure this figure appears low, particularly as a premium cost
will from in and around an railroad.
61 P age
California High-Speed Train
No. Pg
33
34
AAR
Section
Comment
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
The report should clearly identify what is included within this figure,
and provide a table of principal unit rates used in the such
that the reasonableness of the figures provided can be
impacting existing Caltrain service, yet the
temporary or permanent track relocations.
Subsection 6A: Open Trench
The difference in price between
versus the covered trench at
options, and cross
Report concludes that at-grade, above
City of Palo Alto are feasible to
an evalua of each of these alignments, based upon a
with clearly stated Design Objectives and Evaluation
is indicated upon the Appendix B: Plan and Profile
the alignment is not specific to Palo Alto, as in the case of the
deep tunnel options which continue into the adjacent
n~.;:;~u.v Park and Mountain View jSunnyvale.
has generated a number of comments on the work undertaken,
to the development and review of the alternatives has been clear
However, while the report presents numerous options for the construction of the
alignment in Appendix C: Typical Cross Sections, it is not clear which of the typical
sections have been used in the development of the alignment cost estimates.
Furthermore, the unit rates provided are typically at such a high level, e.g. cut and cover
71Page
California High-Speed Train
tunnel at $262-million per mile, that it is not possible to adequately determine the
reasonableness of the figures adopted.
Hatch Mott
MacDonald
HMM would recommend that the report should explicitly state how the cost figures for
each of the alternatives have been calculated -identifying usage of
sections over defined lengths, and provide a list of unit prices for
elements -support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete,
that the costs can be verified.
Additional comments of a more technical nature are in the
81Page
91Page
Appendix
IOIPage
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ,... Hatch Mott Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmentallmpact Statement
:.till. MacDonald Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section
Technical Review Comment Summary and Resolution
[] Preliminary Sheet
.' •• w_ .-...
Date Submitted: April 1. 2010
Date Returned: Lead Reviewer: Nathan Higgins Discipline: Rail Operations
~ 'Itein-.. ~'-.. ~. 'p:"_''!''..-,0 •• -¥_ . , !,t-.. .c " .. . ._---,---,:, .: .
,Number .' Re';'i.l;w~r " ,poti.~m.!'lnt: BraWing qr Page section .. '. ~lQments .. .' . ,etereni;e pesigri'Basis/A_umptions
. --_.. --, . , ----, . --" ... --------.. -.~---
1 NJH Report S-l S.l Will Caltrain & CAHSR operate on same tracks? HST 125mph Caltrain 110mph
2 NJH Report Figure S-l S.l Palo Alto Station is a "potential" station location
3 NJH Report S-l S.l Assuming 31 ft. elevation change from at-grade to Vertical transitions take 3000 ft. elevated. the transition would require 3800 ft,
4 NJH Report Figure S-2 S.l Subsection 6 carries deep tunnel/trench/at grade/aerial
alternatives
5 NJH Report 1-1 1.2 Mid-peninsula station bein~ considered at Palo Alto
Caltrain operates 90 daily one-
6 NJH Report 3-1 3.1.1 way trains. Baby Bullet express
operate durinq peak hours.
See section 4.1.2 for Freight operations assumptions. Diesel freight trains operate on 7 NJH Report 3-8 3.3.2 Track must be designed to account for freight traffic ie. the corridor Irtlrvp SI.
Some Palo Alto grade separations constructed in 1930's.
8 NJH Report 3-8 3.3.2 May require upgrades to address higher speed vibration
9 NJH Report Table 3-9 3.3.3 4 sub-sections in sub-section 6
mi. 29.72 to 33.61
elevated/at grade/below grade
10 NJH Report Table 3-13 3.3.5 options carried forward in sub-
spc-tion fi
11 NJH Report 4-1 4.1.2 HST a 2-track system with 4
tracks at stations
Caltrain a 2-track system with 4-
12 NJH Report 4-1 4.1.2 track sections to address Baby
Bullet ,
HST Operating Plan and Caltrain service plan have not Shared use corridor with each I
13 NJH Report 4-1 4.1.2 yet been integrated into a single operating plan operator having access to the 4-
track mainline , HST 10 trains per hour each
14 NJH Report 4-1 4.1.2 direction
15 NJH Report 4-1 4.1.2 Caltrain 10 trains per hour each
direction
No cross-overs. Grade
16 NJH Report 4-2 4.1.2 separations will separate rail
crossinq movements
5/14/2010 10f 2 CAHSR_Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report_Comments to Palo Alto.xlsx
It"em' ,,--, c -'. , ,
,Rev:ieweii: .Dptument;· . Dr,awing 'Or Page Section 0,
~ Comments Reference D~sigri ~"si$1 Assumptions Number< ,---. -" .. -. . --'--.
Freight trains to operate on the
17 NJH Report 4-2 4 .1.2 corridor between midnight and
0500hrs
Caltrain platforms to the outside eliminate the need for
pedestrian underpasses to access platform . For shared
freight operations, dearnaces to station infrastructure
18 NJH Report Figure 4-1 & 4-2 4.1.2 will have to be addressed. If there is a need for
high/wide loads to pass the platform, a gauntlet track
may be required.
Deep tunnel property impacts should be confirmed for
the Palo Alto station alternative. Mezzanine/ancillary
19 NJH Report 4-4 4.2.2 facilities/platform configuration may increase the width
of right of way/easement required
With shared use of HST with frei ght and Caltrain
service, superelevation would be designed for slower
traffic with underbalance or tilt train technology
20 NJH Appendix B B-1 enabling higher speeds for HST&/or Caltrain service. HST superelevation 6 inches
This would have the impact of shortening transition
curve (spiral) lengths.
21 NJH Appendix B B-1 Station Platform length = 1380
ft. for intermediate HST
22 NJH Appendix K 17 5 200m (656 ft.) and 400m (1312
---ft.) lona train sets
5/14/2010 2 of 2 CAHSR_Preliminary Altematives Analysis Report_Comments to Palo Alto.xlS)(
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ~HatchMott Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmentallmpact Statement ~1III111. .• MacDonald Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section
Technical Review Comment Summary and Resolution o Preliminary Sheet . ---. -
Date Submitted: May 14, 2010 I
Date Returned: Lead Reviewer: Norman Rhodes Discipline: Fire and Life/Safety
,
ltim~ , , ~ , -'--"'W. " " .~ ...... ::-~ 77 ---. -
.Number Revie.we~ Dotument No:: . Drawirig or Page Section c.ommepts RefeJ'(!nce . , I:' Design Basisl AS$Umptions
-. '~. -, . ------" -.. -
The "Alternatives Development Process" section
describes the objectives and criteria on which the
1 NR 2 selectio~s of route are made. Fire and Life Safety is not
a specific criteria but would be a subsequent input on
the choice of whether an aerial, at-grade or tunnel
option is chosen for Palo AHo
Life safety is mentioned with reference to Technical
Working Groups and ventilation is specifically
mentioned for tunnel and trench options , No information
seems to be given about the impact of, say, a tunnel
choice and the need to provide various technical
systems, including ventilation, evacuation possibilities
2 NR 21 3-21 and so on. In comparison with an at-grade option , a
tunnel alternative would require space for ventilation
buildings and possibly egress paths -some of which
may be partially or wholly underground. These
requirements and issues would be considered at a later
stage of design, so it is not surprising that these are not
elaborated on . Palo Alto need to be made aware of the
subsidiary elements of the choices, perticularly those of
ventilation, that may have an impact on choice.
The tables itemizing the evaluation measures address
the additional cost of tunnel options due to ventilation
and life safety considerations. The tunnel options also
seem to generally be preferred with regard to disruptions
3 NR 4-56 to communities . It would seem self evident that a tunnel
option would be better in this respect -although
ventilation buildings and vent shafts would "interact" with
the community and a consideration of this inteface will
be needed .
- -
1 of 1 from norman rhodes.xlsx ,
Attachment 2
Appendix ilL" from Alternatives Analysis link:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.asp?p=9370
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Council
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DRAFT STAKEHOLDER LIST
City Council HSR Sub-Committee
Planning & Transportation Commission
Parks & Recreation Commission
Architectural Review Board
PA Police Department
PA Fire Department
PA Utilities Department
o substation at Park and Lambert
·0 waterstorage tank at EI Camino Park
Office of the City Arborist
AMR Ambulance
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, HOAs & HOUSING DEVelOPMENTS
800 High Street HOA
Cal-Ventura NA
Charleston Meadows NA
Classic Residence by Hyatt
Downtown North NA
Eden Housing
Evergreen Park NA
Fairmeadow NA
Friends of Alma Plaza
Greenmeadow Community Association
Midtown Residents Association
Monroe Park NA
Old Palo Alto NA
Palo Alto Central Association
Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN)
Southgate NA
Stanford Villa Apartments on Alma
Stanford West Apartments
The Palo Alto Building at 101 Alma
University South NA
Alma Street residences
Park Blvd residences
Caltrain ROW parcels
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Board of Trustees
District Staff
EI Carmelo Elementary School
Escondido Elementary School
Fairmeadow Elementary School
Hoover Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary School
Walter Hayes Elementary School
Attachment 3
JLS Middle School
Palo Alto High School
Palo Alto Council of PTAs
PTA Traffic Safety Committee/ Safe Routes to School Palo Alto
Palo Alto Community Childcare (PACCC and manages the old Ventura School site)
PRIVATE SCHOOLS NEAR CALTRAIN
Castilleja School
Community School of Music & Arts
Montessori School of Los Altos in Palo Alto
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS & LOCAL BUSINESSES
Alma Street Businesses
Bruce Bauer Lumber
California Avenue Area Development Association
California Avenue Farmer's Market/Urban Village Farmer's Market Assn
California Avenue Merchants Association
Fry's Electronics
Macarthur Park Restaurant (Palo Alto Transit Center)
McNellis Partners (Alma Plaza developer)
Midtown Business District
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association
Palo Alto Downtown Farmer's Market
Palo Alto Medical Foundation
. Park Blvd Businesses
Red Cross Office (Palo Alto Transit Center)
Town & County Shopping Center
Sheraton Hotel
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Tri-County Apartment Association
Westin Hotel
Whole Foods
STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND STANFORD ENTITIES
Stanford University, Office of Public Affairs
Stanford University, Department of Land, Buildings & Real Estate
o The Stanford Research Park
o The Stanford Shopping Center
o . Classic Residence by Hyatt
o Stanford Creek and Stanford Hills residential subdivisions
o 2725-2885 Sand Hill Road office buildings
o The Rosewood Sand Hill Hotelf1l
o 300 -550 EI Camino Real (Menlo Park)
o All agricultural leases
Stanford Hospital & Clinics and LPCH
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
Acterra
CANOPY
Committee for Green Foothills
Friends of the Palo Alto Parks
Greenbelt Alliance
League of Conservation Voters
Peninsula Conservation Center
San Francisquito Watershed Council & JPA
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
MEDIA
Midpeninsula Community Media Center
Palo Alto Daily News
Palo Alto Post
Palo Alto Weekly
San Jose Mercury News
FAITH INSTITUTIONS
Ananda Community
Congregation Etz Chayim
Council of Churches of Santa Clara County
Grace Presbyterian Church of Silicon Valley
Jehovah's Witnesses, 429 High Street
Jehovah's Witnesses, 4243 Alma Street
Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life
St. Andrew's United Methodist Church
BICYCLE-RELATED GROUPS
Palo Alto Bicycle Club
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Transportation Committee
Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
VTA Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAe)
Western Wheelers Bicycle Club
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Art Deco Society
Citizens Advocating for Responsible Rail Design (CARRO)
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
TBD (PAGE)
Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCe)
Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA)
Palo Alto Stanford Heritage
Mike Cobb/Sports Field Group
UTrain