HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-10 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, September 10, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
6:00 PM
Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the
option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety
while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to
participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if
attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and
minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)
Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900-6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Commission and available for
inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing
in your subject line.
Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as
present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten
(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not
to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all
combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and
Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once
received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold
strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices
are not accepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage
of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:
Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Discussion of the Urban Land Institute Initiative with Palo Alto, Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA), and Stanford related to the Palo Alto Transit Center and Designation of a
Representative(s) to participate on behalf of the Commission in the Urban Land Institute
Initiative
3.San Antonio Road Area Plan: Provide Feedback on Existing Conditions Analysis and Land
Use and Mobility Priorities. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Provide Feedback on Conceptual Design
Alternatives
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to
Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov.
2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference
meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based
meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1-669-900-6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: September 10, 2025
Report #: 2509-5157
TITLE
Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
This document includes the following items:
Upcoming PTC Agenda Items
PTC Meeting Schedule
PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
Commissioners are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to
notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the
availability of a PTC quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for
quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for
the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff.
Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-
of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
UPCOMING PTC ITEMS
September 24, 2025
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 5
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project
4075 El Camino Way
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2025 PTC Schedule & Assignments
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
Planning & Transportation Commission
2025 Meeting Schedule
9
0
2
6
2025 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
1/15/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Special
1/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
2/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
2/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Templeton
3/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
3/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
4/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
4/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
5/14/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
5/28/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
6/11/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
6/25/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
7/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
7/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James, Ji
8/13/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
8/27/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
9/6/2025 10:00 AM Hybrid Special Retreat
9/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman
9/24/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled
12/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
12/31/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled
2025 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Bryna Chang
Bart Hechtman
Allen Akin
Doria Summa
Doria Summa
Cari Templeton
Bart Hechtman
Forest Peterson
Cari Templeton
Kevin Ji
Bryna Chang
Todd James
July August September October November December
Council
Summer Break
Allen Akin
Forest Peterson
Kevin Ji
Bryna Chang
Todd James
Allen Akin
Forest Peterson
Cari Templeton
Bart Hechtman
Kevin Ji
Item 1
Attachment A - 2025 PTC
Schedule & Assignments
Packet Pg. 7
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 2
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: September 10, 2025
Report #: 2509-5154
TITLE
Discussion of the Urban Land Institute Initiative with Palo Alto, Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA), and Stanford related to the Palo Alto Transit Center and Designation of a
Representative(s) to participate on behalf of the Commission in the Urban Land Institute
Initiative
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission receive an update about
the Urban Land Institute initiative with Palo Alto and partners related to the Palo Alto Transit
Center (PATC) and also for the PTC to recommend a representative(s) to participate in
stakeholder group interviews with the Urban Land Institute the week of October 19, 2025.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The City is partnering with Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Stanford University, and the
Urban Land Institute (ULI) to obtain advice and recommendations from ULI on long-term
development and planning issues associated with the Palo Alto Transit Center (See below for
list of questions). ULI will bring a group of panelists to group interview a wide variety of
individuals in Palo Alto to develop recommendations for the Palo Alto Transit Center. The
stakeholder group interviews will take place the week of October 19, 2025, and ULI will make a
presentation of findings at the end of their engagement. The PTC should choose the
individual(s) they would like to represent the PTC at the stakeholder interviews on October 21,
2025. This effort is being organized through the partners listed above based on the work of the
VTA Mobility Hub Ad Hoc Committee.
The Mobility Hub Ad Hoc Committee is looking at ways to transform the second most active
train station in the Caltrain corridor into an active transit-friendly hub that enhances visitor
experience, supports community engagement, and ensures long-term sustainability.
The station is already recognized as a regional intermodal hub (with VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit,
Stanford’s Marguerite bus system, and other transportation links found there). The train station
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 8
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 2
building is a historic building and ideas for the transit center include adding attractions, lighting,
and improved circulation. The ULI effort will be an opportunity for discussion around longer-
term interests for the site.
The ULI initiative will ask participants to discuss a series of questions including:
Proposed ULI Advisory Services Panel Scope Questions
1. What existing or future uses, onsite features, or amenities would make the PATC a more
inviting gateway for both Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford, and draw in new transit
users?
2. What could be done to make the transit center more accessible to a variety of non-
vehicular commuters, and increase capacity throughput?
3. What are successful models of mixed-use transit centers of similar context (suburban,
close to downtown, gateway location, etc.), how were the improvements funded, and
what are some of the key ingredients to that success?
4. What mix of uses would be the most feasible? How does density play into this equation?
5. What are phasing and financing options that should be considered for the different
aspects of the station’s revitalization? What are steps we can take short-, medium-, and
long-term to advance the vision?
This PTC discussion will inform the PTC representative(s) about interests that the PTC would like
elevated during the stakeholder interviews in October on behalf of the PTC.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This effort with ULI has a total cost of $135,000, split between the three parties (Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority, Stanford University, and the City of Palo Alto). No additional
resources are needed for this discussion with the PTC.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The ULI Initiative will engage local stakeholders in this process. Also, members of the public can
also engage with the Mobility Hub Ad Hoc Committee at the regular Ad Hoc Committee
meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not a project.
AUTHOR:
Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 9
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 5
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: September 10, 2025
Report #: 2506-4804
TITLE
San Antonio Road Area Plan: Provide Feedback on Existing Conditions Analysis and Land Use
and Mobility Priorities. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission review the draft San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing Conditions Analysis Summary Report and provide preliminary feedback
to staff on considerations discussed in this report in order to inform City Council decisions on
the project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The draft Existing Conditions Analysis Summary Report (Attachment A) presents the key
findings determined by observations and study of the existing conditions of the Plan Area and
how, combined with existing regulations, they create opportunities and challenges to
development. These findings are summarized in the Executive Summary of Attachment A.
This meeting is an opportunity for the Planning and Transportation Commission to review the
information presented in Attachment A and provide preliminary feedback on key project
considerations and approaches critical for the next phase of the project — development of the
multiple land use and transportation alternatives.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the San Antonio Road Area Plan (Area Plan) is to develop an integrated land use
and transportation approach to guide new development in the 275.3-acre Plan Area along and
adjacent to San Antonio Road. The Area Plan objectives include increased housing production,
transportation and mobility improvements, open space, commercial and retail nodes,
infrastructure, and sustainability measures. The creation of this Area Plan implements policies
and programs of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing
Element). The Area Plan will establish policies, development standards, design guidelines, and
the public infrastructure necessary to accelerate the envisioned growth and development. The
Area Plan builds on other planning efforts, including the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the 2022
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 10
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 5
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the Housing Element, the 2025 Safe Streets for All (SS4A)
Safety Action Plan, and the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update (currently
in process).
BACKGROUND
The City Council designated the Bayshore Alma San Antonio (BASA) Area as a Priority
Development Area (PDA) on September 18, 2023.1 PDAs are locally created to support regional
goes set forth by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), as described in Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area outlines the
Bay Area’s Regional Growth Framework, Regional Transportation Plan, and Sustainable
Community Strategies through 2050 and beyond. Key goals of PDAs include encouraging and
guiding growth around transit and connecting housing to jobs and areas of interest.
The approximately 275.3-acre San Antonio Road Area Plan project boundary includes a majority
of the larger BASA PDA boundary and has 53 identified Housing Element Opportunity Sites that
account for roughly 1,500 housing units per standards set in the Housing Element. The Area
Plan will also be impacted by existing and proposed development in the surrounding area,
including across the border in Mountain View. Currently, the Plan Area prioritizes vehicle traffic
and lacks sufficient pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit options, which, combined with
speeds exceeding the posted limit raise safety concerns. In order to meet the goals of
increasing housing production and improving multi-modal connections (as well as the City’s
sustainability goals) an overarching integrated land use/circulation approach is necessary, with
a key goal of creating easy and safe connect.
The Area Plan budget was approved by the Council in March 2025, and work began in April
2025. Phase one of the Area Plan includes analysis of the area through literature and regulatory
review, site visits, collection of new data, stakeholder interviews, workshops, surveys, and
other technical studies to determine the area’s existing conditions, strengths, and challenges.
Staff convened both a Community Advisory Group (CAG) made up of area residents and
stakeholders and a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) made up of City Staff and subject matter
experts on August 19 and August 21, 2025, respectively. The Existing Conditions Analysis
Summary Report will be presented to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee on
September 9, 2025; Planning and Transportation Commission on September 10, 2025;
Architectural Review Board on September 18, 2025; and the City/School Transportation Safety
Committee on September 25, 2025; before going to the City Council (scheduled for October 6,
2025). A Community Survey is being conducted in the month of October, and the first
Community Workshop will be held on October 23, 2025.
ANALYSIS
1 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13026
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 11
Item No. 3. Page 3 of 5
The Existing Conditions Report is a crucial deliverable in the first phase of the project.
Preliminary findings, included in Attachment A, are based on technical analysis, regulatory
review, and literature review, including existing City and regional planning documents.
The report (Attachment A) considers the following topic areas:
Land Use: Including a review of the existing built environment, applicable State laws,
zoning regulations in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, land use designations in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and amenities such as schools, parks, community centers, and
retail in and around the Plan Area.
Housing, Growth, and Displacement: Including a review of existing housing stock,
pipeline development projects, City planning documents, and housing affordability.
Transportation: Including a review of the automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and mass
transit networks in and proximate to the Plan Area, as well as safety concerns related to
those networks.
Market Analysis: Including a review of the Plan Area’s housing market, retail market,
and employment market.
Hazards, Public Safety, and Historic Resources: Including an examination of flooding,
geologic, and fire hazards, emergency response, and historic context of the built
environment.
Parks, Open Spaces, and Public Facilities: Including a review of the existing amenities
within and adjacent to the Plan Area.
Air Quality, Noise, and Vibration: Including a review of the existing conditions and local
and regional thresholds for impacts.
Infrastructure: Including a review of City owned utility facilities in the Plan Area.
Climate and Resilience: Including a review of local and regional policies and data.
Direction Requested
Based on the key findings identified in the draft Existing Conditions Analysis Summary Report
(Attachment A), there are several notable assets and opportunities identified for consideration
in developing the Area Plan. Staff believes that updating land use designations, development
standards, and improving active transportation routes and connections to the San Antonio
Caltrain Station are key to the Plan’s success. In order to develop complete neighborhoods, the
Area Plan will also address open space/parks, retail, transit, and utilities. Staff seeks
Commission feedback on the following topics:
1. Opportunities and challenges within the Plan Area which warrant further consideration.
2. Preferred location for housing, open space, and retail.
3. Willingness to increase housing density/height and office space allowances.
4. Use of special setbacks for mobility improvements.
Next Steps
Staff convened the first meetings of both the Community Advisory Group (CAG), made up of
area residents and stakeholders, and a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), made up of City Staff
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 12
Item No. 3. Page 4 of 5
and subject matter experts, on August 19 and August 21, 2025, respectively. Following this
week’s discussion of the Existing Conditions Analysis Summary Report with the Pedestrian and
Bicycle Advisory Committee on September 9, 2025, and Planning and Transportation
Commission on September 10, 2025, additional discussions will occur with Architectural Review
Board on September 18, 2025, and the City/School Transportation Safety Committee on
September 25, 2025; before going to the City Council (scheduled for October 6, 2025).
A Community Survey is being conducted in the month of October, and the first community
workshop is scheduled for October 23, 2025. The discussion with the community will include
exercises that will identify community needs in the Plan Area and the types of improvements
most desired by the public. The community survey running during the month of October will
allow additional feedback on specific questions from community members who are unable to
attend the workshop.
The direction received from the City Council, and feedback from advisory bodies and the
community will inform the scope of the land use and mobility alternatives. These alternatives
will be shared with the community and the advisory bodies in the first half of 2026 and are
planned for review by City Council in June 2026, before work on the final plan elements and the
environmental review begin.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Several of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan policies relate directly to the Area Plan. Policies
L-1.10, L-2.2, L-2.3, L-2.4, L-2.6, L-2.11, L-2.12, and L-3.4 relate to growth management,
sustainable communities, and neighborhood character. Policies L-4.5, L-4.16, and L-5.4 relate to
commercial centers and employment districts. Policies L-6.6 and L-6.7 relate to the design of
buildings and public space. Policies L-8.6, L-9.3, L-9.6, and L-9.7 relate to parks, streets, and
public spaces. Additionally, the 2023-2031 Housing Element includes Program 6.6(C) calling for
the City to prepare an area plan for the San Antonio Road Corridor and increase housing
opportunities. The Housing Element also identifies 53 Housing Opportunity Sites within the Plan
Area and emphasizes increasing housing in close proximity to the San Antonio Caltrain Station.
The City has also adopted a Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in 2019, which was updated it in
2025, as a local alternative to encourage multi-family and mixed-use residential development.
HIP currently covers significant parts of the Plan Area.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The Area Plan budget was approved by the Council in March 2025, with an amount not to
exceed $1,979,902. There are no additional costs associated with this action item.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Community Engagement is the key to the success of this planning effort. The project team has
created a robust community engagement strategy, which includes a dedicated webpage, social
media and email announcements, formation of the Community Advisory Group (CAG) and
Technical Advisory Group (TAG), stakeholder interviews, community workshops, surveys,
meetings with the City Council and advisory commissions, committees, and boards, and pop-
ups including tabling at City events and Farmers Markets.
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 13
Item No. 3. Page 5 of 5
The first CAG meeting was held on August 19, 2025, and the first TAG meeting on August 21,
2025. The first survey will be conducted in October, and the first community workshop will be
held on October 23, 2025, at the Cubberley Community Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions recommended in this report are exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262: A project
involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions that has not been
approved, adopted, or funded would not have significant impact on the environment. The City
will prepare an environmental analysis for the San Antonio Road Area Plan when more project
specifics have been identified.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: San Antonio Road Area Plan Existing Conditions Analysis Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Attachment B: San Antonio Road Area Plan Map
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Robert Cain, Senior Planner
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 14
SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 DRAFT
San Antonio Road Area Plan
Existing Conditions Analysis
Summary Report
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 15
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
About the Project .............................................................................................................. 1
How This Document Is Organized ..................................................................................... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3
Location and Context ........................................................................................................ 3
Existing Uses and Character .............................................................................................. 3
Housing Market Conditions............................................................................................... 4
Housing Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 4
Housing Affordability ........................................................................................................ 5
Existing Employment and Businesses ................................................................................ 5
Climate Resilience and Environmental Hazards ................................................................ 6
Potential Impacts on Services from Population Growth .................................................... 6
I. LAND USE AND ZONING ............................................................................................ 7
Existing Uses and Built Character ...................................................................................... 7
Regulatory Context and City Initiatives ............................................................................. 8
Pipeline Projects ............................................................................................................... 9
Outdoor Space and Placemaking Opportunities ............................................................. 10
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 11
2. HOUSING, GROWTH AND DISPLACEMENT RISK ....................................................... 13
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 13
Existing Housing Characteristics ...................................................................................... 13
Residential Displacement Risk ........................................................................................ 14
Housing Need and Policy ................................................................................................ 16
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 19
3. TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY .......................................................................... 20
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20
Road Network ................................................................................................................. 20
Bicycle Network .............................................................................................................. 23
Pedestrian Network ........................................................................................................ 25
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 16
Transit Services ............................................................................................................... 26
Safety .............................................................................................................................. 26
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 28
4. MARKET AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 30
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 30
Housing Market Conditions............................................................................................. 31
Retail Market Conditions and Trends .............................................................................. 32
Employment Profile and Trends ...................................................................................... 33
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 34
5. HAZARDS, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ........................................... 36
Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 36
Public Safety ................................................................................................................... 37
Historic Resources .......................................................................................................... 38
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 38
6. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC FACILITIES .......................................................... 39
Schools............................................................................................................................ 39
Parks and Recreational Facilities ..................................................................................... 40
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 40
7. NOISE AND AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................... 41
Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................ 41
Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 42
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 42
8. INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................... 43
Storm Drain Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 43
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 44
Domestic and Recycled Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 44
Natural Gas and Electricity Infrastructure ....................................................................... 45
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 45
9. CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE ....................................................................................... 46
Policies Regarding Climate Hazard Planning ................................................................... 46
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 17
Baseline Conditions and Projections ............................................................................... 46
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 48
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Plan Area And Surrounding Context .................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Crash Severity In The Plan Area, 2015-2024 ...................................................... 3
Figure 3. Plan Area Zoning, Hip And Focus Area Boundaries ............................................ 4
Figure 4. Open Space Access In The Plan Area ................................................................. 5
Figure 1.1. Existing Uses, Built Form And Character Areas ............................................... 7
Figure 1.2. Zoning, Focus Areas And Hip Boundaries ....................................................... 8
Figure 1.3. Plan Area Pipeline Projects ............................................................................. 9
Figure 1.4. Open Space Access ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 1.5. Critical Areas Of Safety And Mobility Focus .................................................. 10
Figure 1.6. Development Opportunities ......................................................................... 12
Figure 2.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups .................................................................... 13
Figure 2.2. Household Income, 2019-2023 ..................................................................... 15
Figure 2.3. 5th And 6th Cycle Rhna Goals And Progress, 2025 ....................................... 17
Figure 3.1. Roadway Classification ................................................................................. 20
Figure 3.2. Pm Peak Hour Traffic Volumes By Intersection............................................. 21
Figure 3.3. Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................... 23
Figure 3.4. Bicycle Level Of Traffic Stress ....................................................................... 24
Figure 3.5. Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.6. Crash Severity ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups .................................................................... 30
Figure 4.2. Household Types, 2019-2023 ....................................................................... 30
Figure 5.1. Fema Special Flood Hazard Area In The Plan Area ........................................ 36
Figure 6.1. School Districts In The Plan Area .................................................................. 39
Figure 8.1. 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan Priority Projects ........................................... 43
Figure 9.1. Slr Exposure Projections ............................................................................... 47
Figure 9.2. Existing And Projected Groundwater Depth ................................................. 47
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 18
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Plan Area Pipeline Projects .................................................................................... 9
Table 2.1. Housing Units by Building Type .............................................................................. 14
Table 2.2. Housing Element Units from Opportunity Sites (after RHNA Credits for Entitled Units and
ADUs) ........................................................................................................................... 17
Table 3.1. Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Speed Surveys ...................................................... 22
Table 4.1. Permitted Housing Units by Building Type, 2018-2024 ................................................ 31
Table 4.2. Percent Change in Employment in Plan Area, 2012-2022. ............................................ 33
Table 9.1. Summary of Hazard Projections ............................................................................. 46
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 19
1
INTRODUCTION
This is a draft report summarizing the existing conditions within and around the boundaries of the San Antonio
Road Area Plan. Please note that some sections of this analysis are in progress as of the publication of this draft,
and analysis will continue as part of the Area Plan’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
About the Project
The San Antonio Road Area Plan (Area Plan) is a multi-year initiative by the City of Palo Alto to reimagine land use,
transportation, and community development for an area of 275 acres encompassing the roadway and private
properties on both sides of San Antonio Road, one of the City’s and region’s key transportation corridors. This
area, referred to in this document as the Plan Area, is located along the south-eastern edge of Palo Alto, adjacent
to its boundary with Mountain View, and covers most of the Bayshore Alma San Antonio (BASA) Priority
Development Area (PDA) boundary.
Initiated in March 2025, the Area Plan will have five phases and is anticipated to be completed by 2028. It will
build on recent City efforts including the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which established “Focus Areas” for the
Plan Area, the Housing Incentive Program (HIP), the 2025 Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update (in progress). The Area Plan will include a land use program;
development standards; policies for transportation, housing, and environmental sustainability among other
topics; implementation recommendations; and financing strategies. Community input will be critical to shaping
the Area Plan outcomes. The project includes robust engagement including community workshops, pop-up
events, surveys, advisory groups, and public meetings. Key goals of the Area Plan include:
• Create a more livable community. Promote compact, mixed-use development with housing options at all
income levels, local businesses, and well-designed public spaces.
• Improve mobility and safety. Enhance streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit connections for easier and
safer travel and crossings, and improved access to the San Antonio Caltrain Station.
• Support sustainability. Integrate green infrastructure, reduce emissions, and ensure resilience to climate
change.
• Enhance economic vitality. Attract new businesses and strengthen Palo Alto’s economy while preserving
cherished local establishments and community character.
San Antonio Road is an important regional arterial connecting US-101 (Bayshore Freeway) in the east to Alma
Street/Central Expressway in the west, and beyond to El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway. It serves as an
important truck route and facilitates access to key employment centers. Within the Plan Area, major crossings
along San Antonio Road include US-101, East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Alma Street/Central
Expressway. The San Antonio Station of the Caltrain commuter rail line is located near the south-western corner
of the Plan Area. Adjacent to the Plan Area are residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto and Mountain View.
At present, the Plan Area has a mix of industrial, office, service commercial, and residential uses, with some
properties transforming from commercial or industrial uses to residential and mixed use. There are only a few
retail stores and no parks or other community spaces. While there are several community amenities in the
vicinity, including parks, schools, grocery stores, and institutions (refer Figure 1); access to these destinations is
difficult at present because of inadequate pedestrian and bicycle safety and connectivity. Substantial placemaking
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 20
2
efforts, including urban design, public realm, and safety improvements such as Complete Streets, are required to
provide safer, more convenient transportation options. These improvements can enhance the attractiveness of
the Plan Area for current and future residents, and help meet the City’s housing, sustainability, and mobility goals.
Figure 1. Plan Area and Surrounding Context
How This Document Is Organized
This Summary Report presents key findings from analysis carried out by the project team to assess existing
conditions within the Plan Area. Serving as an introduction to the project, it offers a concise overview of current
conditions and key findings, organized by topic. For the purposes of this document, true cardinal directions are
not used, but rather descriptors consistent with northbound/southbound as used for Highway 101: San Francisco
is north, San Jose is south, and the San Francisco Bay is east.
Source: Raimi + Associates, Google Earth
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 21
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Location and Context
San Antonio Road is an important transportation corridor for Palo Alto and the surrounding region. The Area Plan
includes approximately 275 acres on either side of a 1.8-mile segment of San Antonio Road. Located along the
boundary of Palo Alto and Mountain View, the Plan Area is influenced by development trends and movement
patterns in both cities. Connections to US-101 (Bayshore Freeway), Alma Street/Central Expressway, and
proximity to the San Antonio Caltrain station influence the area as well.
Existing Uses and Character
The Plan Area has a diverse mix of industrial, office,
service commercial, and residential uses; and some
properties are starting to transform from
commercial or industrial uses to mixed-use. At
present, the built character varies across the Plan
Area, and the land use pattern is fragmented. The
Plan Area itself lacks community spaces such as
parks, and has only a few retail establishments, but
in its vicinity, there are a number of community
destinations such as parks, schools, grocery stores,
institutions, and other uses. Connectivity to these
amenities is, however, limited at present because of
inadequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Substantial placemaking efforts, including urban
design, public realm, and safety improvements such
as Complete Streets, are required to provide safer,
more convenient transportation options. These
improvements can help meet the City’s housing,
mobility, and sustainability goals, and enhance the
accessibility and usability of the Plan Area for
current and future residents.
Mobility
The current condition of San Antonio Road
prioritizes vehicles and is less accommodating for
pedestrians and cyclists. Limited bicycle
infrastructure, known gaps in the pedestrian
network, such as the absence of continuous
sidewalks and unprotected crossings, as well as the
lack of shade, restrict bicycle and pedestrian travel
to major neighborhood destinations. Transit is
Figure 2. Crash Severity in the Plan Area, 2015-2024 Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo
l
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 22
4
available within the Plan Area; however, bus service is limited and there is poor connectivity to the San Antonio
Caltrain Station, despite its proximity. Comprehensive improvements to ensure multimodal connectivity and
safety may be necessary to provide sustainable travel options for Plan Area residents, workers, and visitors as its
population increases. These improvements will be designed to reduce traffic congestion as mixed-use
development increases.
Safety is one of the key issues that need to be addressed in the Plan Area. Vehicle speeds along San Antonio Road
often exceed posted limits, associated with a significant share of collisions. Figure 2 shows key locations and
severity of collisions within the Plan Area. Investments in street, bicycle, and sidewalk infrastructure will improve
safety and strengthen connections both within the Plan Area, to San Antonio Caltrain Station, and to other
destinations in Palo Alto and Mountain View.
Housing Market Conditions
Although few housing projects have been built in the
Plan Area since the 1990s, it has attracted
development interest in recent years, and several
pipeline projects could yield up to 750 housing units
if completed as proposed. This would be a significant
increase over the 802 residential units that currently
exist in the Plan Area. There is strong demand for
housing in Palo Alto, and the Plan Area may attract
mid-rise multifamily projects, which align with the
City’s regulatory and policy priorities for higher-
density development. As the area evolves,
development standards will be needed to guide
compatibility between adjacent uses, and transitions
in built form and scale. Because all pipeline projects
are located on privately owned land, they remain
subject to market volatility and other development
uncertainties. Successful implementation may
depend on targeted incentives that encourage the
provision of community amenities as part of private
development.
Housing Initiatives
The City of Palo Alto’s 2023–2031 Housing Element
identifies 53 opportunity sites in the Plan Area,
representing 1,559 new housing units, and
designated the GM- and ROLM-zoned districts as
Focus Areas to stimulate housing production. In
addition, the City’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) applies to a portion of the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 3.
Together, these initiatives have already expanded development capacity along San Antonio Road. Given strong
demand for housing in Palo Alto, and the available housing development opportunities within the Plan Area, the
area is well-positioned to capture demand for additional housing units associated with projected household and
employment growth.
Figure 3. Plan Area Zoning, HIP and Focus Area Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 23
5
Housing Affordability
The Plan Area currently contains about 250 deed-restricted affordable housing units across four properties, as
well as a small number of “naturally affordable” rental housing units (that have lower rents than City averages but
are not deed-restricted). While homeowners and residents of deed-restricted units face lower displacement risk,
renters in market-rate units may be more vulnerable to displacement as the Plan Area redevelops. With many
sites identified for future housing, the Plan Area is well positioned to support lower-income households through
inclusionary requirements, affordable housing fees, and, when funding is available, new or preserved deed-
restricted affordable housing projects. The addition of housing in the Plan Area that is affordable at a range of
income levels can help meet the needs of current and future residents and workers in Palo Alto.
Existing Employment and
Businesses
According to U.S. Census data, as of 2022, the Plan
Area accounted for about four percent of the City’s
total jobs, but nearly 40 percent of its jobs in the
Manufacturing sector. Small office and light
industrial spaces, particularly near Commercial
Street and Industrial Avenue, provide flexible,
relatively affordable options for local businesses. As
these spaces redevelop for housing or higher-
intensity employment uses, existing small-scale
businesses may be at risk of displacement, especially
given the limited supply of comparable spaces
elsewhere in Palo Alto.
Community Amenities
The Plan Area includes some religious institutions
and community spaces, including the Oshman
Family Jewish Community Center, and is adjacent to
the Cubberley Community Center and Baylands
Nature Preserve. However, the Plan Area itself has
no parks or open spaces and is limited in retail nodes
or other “third places” for community gathering. As
the Plan Area adds more residents, such spaces will
need to be included. A portion of the Plan Area is
also “park deficient” by being more than a 10-
minute walk away from an open space nearby, as
shown in Figure 4.
While there are limited retail uses within the Plan Area at present, there are a few valued local businesses. Retail
offerings in the vicinity, including on El Camino Real and Mountain View’s San Antonio Center, can meet many
day-to-day shopping needs. As the Plan Area redevelops, it is more likely to serve as a secondary retail location
Figure 4. Open Space Access in the Plan Area
Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo Alto GIS
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 24
6
that is better suited to neighborhood-serving restaurants, coffee shops, drugstores, and personal services. Retail
demand is projected to grow gradually and may require a larger resident base before supporting significant new
retail amenities, such as a new grocery store. The Area Plan will need to incorporate a vision and policies to
encourage concentration of future retail at key locations with high visibility and access, such as the intersections
of San Antonio Road with Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road.
Climate Resilience and Environmental Hazards
The Plan Area has some susceptibility to environmental challenges, including flooding, sea-level rise, urban heat
events, and ground liquefication from seismic events. The portion of the Plan Area east of East Charleston Road is
subject to a one percent annual chance flood and sea-level rise, while the rest of it faces a 0.2 percent annual
chance of flooding. New development will need to meet base flood elevation standards and incorporate resilience
measures. Air quality is another concern, particularly near US-101 and during regional wildfire events.
Potential Impacts on Services from Population Growth
Growth will place additional demands on public services and infrastructure. Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
may require more staff, new equipment, and fire station upgrades. Overall school enrollment is down across all
three school districts that service the Plan Area (Palo Alto Unified School District, Mountain View-Whisman School
District, and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District), indicating their capacity to absorb new
students. The City owns and provides stormwater, wastewater, domestic water, recycled water, natural gas, and
electrical utilities. Additional development could require upgrades to all these utilities, including installation of
larger water mains to produce necessary fire flow and service levels.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 25
7
I. LAND USE AND ZONING
Existing Uses and Built Character
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan assigns a mix of residential and non-residential land use designations
to the Plan Area. The San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor is an important employment center and has a variety
of light industrial, research, and office
uses. Within the Plan Area, these uses are
concentrated mainly east of East
Charleston Road, transitioning to a mix of
commercial and residential uses west of
East Charleston, with some research and
office uses west of Middlefield Road.
Residential units within the Plan Area are
primarily low-rise multifamily buildings.
Existing building heights in the Plan Area
are predominantly one to two stories,
with a few buildings exceeding four
stories, such as those in the Taube Koret
Campus, and two hotels along San
Antonio Road. Floor Area Ratios (FARs)
range from 0.5 to 1.0, with a few buildings
such as the AC Hotel reaching a higher
FAR of 2.8. A built form analysis of the
Plan Area identified distinct character
areas, each with a unique mix of uses and
built form characteristics, as shown in
Figure 1.1. Across the Plan Area, parcel
sizes, building types, and development
patterns vary considerably, with little
consistency in setbacks, building
orientation, or scale transitions. By
contrast, the character areas are more
cohesive, with similar parcel sizes,
building scale and land uses.
Several developments along San Antonio
Road, such as the Greenhouse
Community, were designed to be inward
facing, with limited interaction between
building edges and adjacent streets or
sidewalks. Such inactive frontages
discourage pedestrian activity and
placemaking and may need to be
addressed as part of future development.
Figure 1.1. Existing Uses, Built Form and Character Areas
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 26
8
Regulatory Context and City Initiatives
Zoning districts within the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 1.2, allow a mix of residential, commercial, office, and
light industrial uses. Development standards regulate the scale and form of buildings in each district. Most zoning
districts in the Plan Area allow multifamily housing at various densities. The Plan Area also has a few Planned
Communities with site-specific development standards.
Recent regulatory changes have
focused on encouraging more housing
City-wide, and the Plan Area in
particular. The City’s 2023-2031
Housing Element identified 53 housing
opportunity sites within the Plan Area,
with a combined capacity for 1,559 new
housing units at various income levels.
It also designated the GM and ROLM
zoning districts —areas that allow
manufacturing, office, and research
uses—within and adjoining the Plan
Area as “Focus Areas”, allowing
housing. The City’s Housing Incentive
Program (HIP) that applies to a section
of the Plan Area east of Middlefield
Road, was also expanded to include the
GM and ROLM Focus Areas, as well as
multifamily residential zoning districts
(RM-20, RM-30, and RM-40). In
addition, Program 6.6C of the 2023-
2031 Housing Element directs the City
to prepare a plan for the San Antonio
Road corridor, including the GM and
ROLM Focus Areas.
These initiatives aim to promote
multifamily housing through
development incentives such as
increased density, higher Floor Area
Ratios (FARs), and reduced parking
requirements.
In addition, a 24-foot Special Setback
applies to portions of Charleston Road,
Middlefield Road, and San Antonio
Road. Originally designated for future
road widening, this setback presents an
opportunity for public realm
improvements as part of future
development.
Figure 1.2. Zoning, Focus Areas and HIP Boundaries
Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo Alto GIS
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 27
9
Pipeline Projects
The Plan Area has attracted recent
development activity and there are
several projects at various stages of
proposal review and entitlement.
These include mid-rise residential and
mixed-use projects located along San
Antonio Road between East Charleston
Road and Middlefield Road (in the HIP
district), and along Fabian Way.
Figure 1.3 shows the large number of
2023-2031 Housing Element sites in
the Plan Area, along with key projects
currently in the development pipeline
(also listed in Table 1.1). In total, these
could yield more than 750 housing
units should all the development occur
as proposed. To be feasible in Palo
Alto’s housing market, future
development is anticipated to be larger
and taller than what exists currently; as
indicated by recent development
proposals that typically feature five- to
seven-story residential and mixed-use
buildings with FARs of 3.0 or more, and
parking ratios of fewer than two
parking spaces per unit.
Pipeline Project Lot Area Density, No. of Units FAR, Height Pkg Ratio Commercial Status
1. 3950 Fabian Way 1.51 ac None (school project) 0.5, 2 stories 0.12 None (school) Entitled
2. 3997 Fabian way 2.16 ac 135 du/ac, 295 units 3.19, 7 stories 1 to 1.5 None Pending approval
3. 824 San Antonio Rd. 0.45 ac 56 du/ac, 28 units 1.99, 4 stories 0.57 2,948 sf Entitled
4. 800,808 San Antonio Rd. 0.88 ac 85 du/ac, 75 units 3.0, 5 stories 1.97 None Entitled
5. 788 San Antonio Rd. 0.99 ac 169 du/ac, 168 units 3.31, 8 stories 0.43 None Building Permits
Issued
6. 762 San Antonio Rd. 1.78 ac 112 du/ac, 197 units 3.33, 7 stories 1.24 None Pending approval
Figure 1.3. Plan Area Pipeline Projects
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates
Table 1.1. Plan Area Pipeline Projects
Source: City of Palo Alto
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 28
10
Outdoor Space and Placemaking Opportunities
Palo Alto has approximately 4,000 acres of open space (outdoor space), including the Baylands Nature Preserve,
larger regional parks such as Mitchell Park (21 acres), smaller neighborhood parks such as Ramos Park (4 acres),
community gardens, and other types of parks and recreation amenities. However, the Plan Area itself has no
parks or other spaces for recreation or community gathering within it. Figure 1.4 shows parks and open spaces in
the vicinity of the Plan Area, and pedestrian “walksheds” around each for 5-minute (approximately ¼ mile) and
10-minute (approximately ½ mile) walk distances. While most parts are within a 10-minute walkshed to
neighboring parks, a significant portion is “park deficient” with inadequate access, meaning no parks are located
within a 10-minute walking distance. Creating new open spaces, such as parks, as part of future development will
be a key focus of the Area Plan. Placemaking and public realm improvements will also be important not only to
improve safety and connectivity, but also to create distinct character districts along San Antonio Road that relate
to the existing uses and functions of each segment. Figure 1.5 highlights potential focus areas for urban design
improvements, as well as key streets and intersections where multimodal safety and connectivity improvements
will be most critical.
Figure 1.4. Outdoor Space Access Figure 1.5. Critical Areas of Safety and Mobility Focus
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 29
11
Key Findings and Conclusions
Key findings from the existing conditions analysis are summarized below.
DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES
• Location and Access. San Antonio Road is an important transportation corridor for Palo Alto and the
surrounding region. The Plan Area has good auto access from US-101, and being located adjacent to the San
Antonio Caltrain station offers the potential for enhanced transit connectivity if pedestrian and bicycle
access to the station is improved. Located along the boundary between Palo Alto and Mountain View, the
Plan Area is influenced by development trends and movement patterns in both cities and benefits from
employment opportunities, as well as access to community and open space amenities, in both cities.
• Existing Uses and Built Character. The Plan Area has a diverse mix of industrial, office, service commercial,
and residential uses. While land use and built form patterns are currently fragmented, and San Antonio Road
functions primarily as a circulation corridor; the Plan Area has distinct “character areas” with the potential to
evolve into mixed-use neighborhoods. Several properties in the Plan Area are already transitioning from
commercial and industrial uses to residential and mixed-use development.
• Development Trends. The Plan Area has attracted development interest in recent years and has several
proposed projects in the pipeline that could produce more than 750 housing units, should all these projects
be built as proposed.
• Housing Initiatives. The City of Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element identified 53 opportunity sites in the
Plan Area, designated the GM- and ROLM-zoned districts within the Plan Area as Focus Areas, and directed
the City through Program 6.6C to develop a plan for this area to stimulate housing production. Additionally,
the City’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) applies to a portion of the Plan Area. These housing-focused
initiatives substantially increase the development capacity along San Antonio Road.
SITE CHALLENGES
• Inconsistent Character. Inconsistent land uses and built character in the Plan Area that exist currently are
not supportive of the Plan Area’s envisioned transition to a mixed-use area with additional housing.
Substantial placemaking efforts, along with urban design and public realm improvements, may be needed to
support future development and population growth.
• Inadequate Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities. The current condition of streets and sidewalks is not
friendly or accommodating for pedestrians and bicyclists, and transit connectivity is inadequate.
Comprehensive improvements are needed to ensure multimodal connectivity and safety to serve future
residents, workers and visitors, and to meet the City’s mobility, sustainability, and housing goals.
• Limited Community Amenities. The Plan Area itself has no parks, open spaces, or other “third places” for
community gathering. A portion of the Plan Area is also “park deficient” by being more than a 10-minute
walk (half a mile) from nearby open spaces. Additionally, the Plan Area has no defined retail nodes or similar
community destinations. Creating such “third places” may be considered as part of the Area Plan.
• Compatibility in Built Form and Uses. As the area transforms over time, incompatibility between adjacent
land uses, as well as building height and massing transitions, must be addressed through updated
development standards.
• Market Conditions. All pipeline projects are located on privately-owned properties and subject to housing
market volatility and other development uncertainties. Successful implementation will require development
incentives to encourage the provision of community amenities in private development projects.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 30
12
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The Plan Area’s characteristics and anticipated projects indicate a valuable opportunity to guide large-scale
development in targeted locations within the Plan Area. Future development can be leveraged to create mixed-
use neighborhoods with safe and convenient access to transportation, employment, community services, and
recreation. To achieve this, placemaking
will be an important design tool, and will
likely include a combination of
streetscape improvements to promote
safety and walkability, as well as design
enhancements to create a distinct
identity for this neighborhood with a
strong sense of place. Figure 1.6 maps
key development opportunities within
the Plan Area by identifying areas with
the highest probability of transformation
— the potential “opportunity areas”
with projects that are in the
development pipeline, Housing Element
opportunity sites, and areas eligible for
the Housing Incentive Program (HIP).
An example of a potential opportunity
area is the E Charleston Commercial/
Industrial character area (area around
Commercial Street and Industrial
Avenue), which has good visibility and
auto access from East Charleston and
San Antonio Roads, and includes several
small-scale office and light industrial
uses. It also has a large concentration of
Housing Element sites within it, signaling
an increase in population in the coming
years. However, this area is also “park
deficient.” These characteristics suggest
potential priorities to consider as part of
future development: the need for
connectivity improvements, measures
to prevent displacement of
neighborhood-serving uses, and an
opportunity to create a new open
space, potentially coupled with
neighborhood-serving retail and
amenities.
Figure 1.6. Development Opportunities
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 31
13
2. HOUSING, GROWTH AND DISPLACEMENT
RISK
Introduction
This section looks at current housing characteristics, potential
residential displacement risks, and relevant City housing
policies impacting the Area Plan. The findings of these analyses
will help inform the City of Palo Alto’s efforts to increase
affordable and market-rate housing production in the Plan
Area, preserve existing affordable housing (including both
deed-restricted affordable housing as well as market-rate
housing that is not deed-restricted yet relatively affordable),
and protect households vulnerable to displacement.
Data and findings in this section describe conditions within the
“Plan Area Census Block Groups,” a set of Census block groups
with existing housing that encompass the Plan Area, as shown
in Figure 2.1. Since detailed U.S. Census data is only available
for specific predetermined geographies, the selected block
groups best cover the Plan Area while providing sufficient
information for analysis. The analyses only cover the most
recent available Census data since the block group boundaries
differ from previous years.
Existing Housing Characteristics
The Plan Area has approximately 750 existing housing units, most of which are located on San Antonio Road west
of East Charleston Road. This number represents approximately three percent of the City’s total housing stock.
These include two large concentrations of housing—Greenhouse Community (228 units) and Palo Alto Gardens
(156 units)—that together make up just under half of the Plan Area’s existing housing. Three condominium
communities, each with between 30 and 50 housing units, and a cluster of small apartment buildings (totaling
approximately 40 units) on Byron Street are also located on or just off San Antonio Road. Housing along Alma
Street contributes approximately 100 units to the Plan Area’s total, mostly as attached single-family housing units
(as defined by the U.S. Census, whose classifications of housing types may differ from other sources such as the
California Building Code and Palo Alto Municipal Code).
HOUSING TYPES
The Plan Area’s housing mix includes a significantly higher share of multifamily and attached single-family housing
than in Palo Alto overall. These attached housing products provide housing comparably more affordable than
detached single-family homes. As shown in Table 2.1, 39 percent of the Plan Area’s housing units are attached
single-family homes (such as townhomes), compared to six percent Citywide. Small multifamily buildings with
fewer than 20 housing units account for 54 percent of all housing in the Plan Area, compared to 16 percent
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Figure 1.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 32
14
Citywide. The majority of housing in the Plan Area consists of two- to three-story buildings dating to the 1970s, as
most of the Plan Area was built-out from the 1950s through the 1980s. With two exceptions, the development of
new housing projects largely ceased in the Plan Area after 1990. Based on recent zoning changes and recent
patterns of redevelopment of industrial and commercial uses, the Plan Area is now positioned to accommodate
significant new mid-rise housing development.
Table 2.1. Housing Units by Building Type
Plan Area Palo Alto Mountain View
Units by Building Type Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Single-Family (Detached) 4 0% 16,298 56% 10,516 27%
Single-Family (Attached) 312 39% 1,671 6% 5,378 14%
Multiple Units (2 Units) 0 0% 330 1% 694 2%
Multiple Units (2-19 Units) 430 54% 4,794 16% 8,607 22%
Multiple Units (20+ Units) 56 7% 5,911 20% 12,340 32%
Mobile Home 0 0% 100 0% 1,235 3%
Total
(% may not sum due to rounding) 802 100% 29,104 100% 38,770 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Plan Area has 252 deed-restricted affordable housing units that constitute over 30 percent of the Plan Area’s
existing housing and equate to 15 percent of Palo Alto’s total deed-restricted affordable housing inventory. Of the
Plan Area’s 252 affordable units, 80 consist of senior housing for residents 65 and older.
Residential Displacement Risk
Maintaining household income diversity and affordability in the Plan Area requires not only strategies to produce
and preserve affordable housing, but also to protect lower-income residents from potential displacement risks.
Variables such as household tenure, income, and education help determine households’ displacement risk. The
U.S. Census data representing the “Plan Area Census Block Groups” (Figure 2.1) was used for this analysis, and the
conclusions drawn from the data were compared to findings from the Urban Displacement Project, a research
project affiliated with the University of California at Berkeley, which models displacement risk at the Census tract
level.
HOUSING TENURE
The Plan Area Census Block Groups include 766 renter-occupied housing units, 364 of which were built before
1960 and may be relatively affordable due to their age. Renter households do not constitute a relatively high
share of occupied housing units in the Plan Area Census Block Groups, at 42.6 percent of occupied housing units,
compared to 45.8 percent Citywide. However, the Plan Area’s more than 350 households occupy older rental
housing units that may be relatively more affordable. Unlike ownership housing with fixed-rate mortgages and
limited allowable property tax increases, renter households in Palo Alto are vulnerable to significant rent
increases. Palo Alto lacks a rent control program, although some limits under the State’s California Tenant
Protection Act apply to all cities which lack local rent control regulations. The Act limits annual rent increases for
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 33
15
most rental housing units to five percent plus the change in the regional Consumer Price Index, or 10 percent
total (whichever is lower).
HOUSING COST BURDEN
Cost-burdened households (those paying more than 30 percent of total household income toward housing
expenses) are especially concentrated among lower-income renter households in Palo Alto. Although
corresponding data is not available for the Plan Area, the 2023-2031 Housing Element indicated that 17 percent
of the City’s renters and 15 percent of its homeowners were defined as cost-burdened as of 2018, and renters
were more likely to experience cost burdens compared to homeowners. Nearly 65 percent of Palo Alto’s
extremely low-income renter households were cost-burdened, with 42 percent paying more than half their
income toward housing expenses. As shown in Figure 2.2, nearly 30 percent of households living in the Plan Area
Census Block Groups earn household incomes of less than $100,000 per year and 13 percent of households earn
less than $50,000 per year. Although some of these households may be served by existing deed-restricted
affordable housing in the Plan Area, there are only 250 deed-restricted units in the Plan Area and approximately
525 households earning less than $100,000 in the Block Groups. For reference, a single-person household earning
$111,700 qualifies as low-income based on Santa Clara County’s area median income limits used for affordable
housing development.
Figure 2.2. Household Income, 2019-2023
HOUSEHOLD INCOME TRENDS
Median household income in the Plan Area Census Block Groups is $200,001, which is lower than that for Palo
Alto as a whole ($220,408) but higher than that for Mountain View ($179,917). Between 2011 and 2021, median
household incomes rose at a faster rate in Palo Alto (81 percent) and Mountain View (85 percent) than the
regional increase of 74 percent for Santa Clara County and 77 percent for San Mateo County. Increasing
household incomes in Palo Alto are driven by growth of very high-income households and declines in lower- and
middle-income households—leading to increased displacement risk as lower-income households compete for
housing with higher-income households. The number of these high-income households grew by 33 percent from
2000 to 2022 during a period when total households only grew by three percent. At the same time, households
earning $60,000 to $100,000 declined by 66 percent, the largest loss among income groups.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Plan Area
(Block
Groups)
Palo Alto Mountain
View
Santa
Clara
County
San Mateo
County
Per
c
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
More than $200,000
$100,000-$199,999
$50,000 - $99,999
Less than $50,000
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 34
16
URBAN DISPLACEMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS
The Urban Displacement Project is a research lab and collaborative of four universities—including the University
of California at Berkeley—that estimates displacement risk at the Census tract level. The Urban Displacement
Project did not identify displacement risk for very low-income and low-income residents for any of the Census
tracts in the Plan Area. However, this analysis does not address past exclusion, which is a form of displacement
that impacts low-income renters’ ability to afford to live in a community. High housing costs, high household
incomes, and high levels of educational attainment in Palo Alto make it especially difficult for lower-income
households to afford market-rate rents and sales prices. The U.S. Census data that informs the Urban
Displacement Project is also focused on housed residents and therefore does not account for unhoused residents
in the Plan Area subject to displacement if, for example, regulatory changes force people living in vehicles to
relocate. Furthermore, regardless of aggregated data findings, the risk of displacement can remain a concern at
the level of the individual resident or household.
NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) refers to unsubsidized market-rate (and often rental) housing that
is especially affordable to lower-income residents based on 30 percent of their annual household incomes. The
relatively lower rents found in NOAH units are usually related to building age, condition, or location. NOAH
properties are a means for lower-income residents to be able to live in otherwise unaffordable communities.
Although the Plan Area’s overall diversity of housing types provides relative affordability compared to single-
family homes, few unsubsidized properties affordable to lower-income residents exist in the Plan Area overall.
However, approximately 40 units of multifamily rental housing on Byron Street potentially represent NOAH
properties. The Plan Area also includes two examples of preservation of long-term affordability: Ferne
Apartments, built in 1963, was converted into deed-restricted affordable housing in 1981 and is currently
managed by the nonprofit Alta Housing. MidPen Housing acquired Palo Alto Gardens in 1999 after residents
organized to protect the property from significant rent increases as market-rate property.
Housing Need and Policy
RHNA PROGRESS
The City of Palo Alto’s housing production goals are identified through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), a State-wide process which breaks down housing production goals into income categories for eight-year
cycles. The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element plans for the production of 6,086 housing units between 2023 and
2031. The distribution of units across income groups reflects adopted City policy regarding Palo Alto’s overall
housing needs during the current RHNA cycle. Palo Alto succeeded in meeting its previous RHNA cycle’s
production goal in the above moderate-income category but fell short of production goals for all other lower-
income groups. During the fifth RHNA cycle covering 2015 to 2023, the estimated need was highest for housing
affordable to very low-income households. However, only 100 units meeting these affordability needs were
proposed and approved, permitted, or built. Similarly, low- and moderate-income housing production fell short of
the fifth cycle RHNA goals. Palo Alto’s current RHNA goals consist primarily of housing affordable to above
moderate-income households and very low-income households.
The likely housing need by affordability level based on the mix of jobs and occupations found in Palo Alto closely
aligns with current RHNA goals—reinforcing the need to produce housing that is affordable at a variety of income
levels. The Plan Area also includes a significant share of jobs paying wages that would likely require deed-
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 35
17
restricted affordable housing for the worker household to reside in Palo Alto. For example, within the Plan Area
itself, U.S. Census data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data set indicates that
approximately 16 percent of “primary” jobs (i.e., the highest-paying job held by a worker) in 2022 paid less than
$40,000 annually.
Figure 2.3. 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA Goals and Progress, 2025
ROLE OF PLAN AREA IN MEETING HOUSING GOALS
The Plan Area was allocated 25 percent of the Citywide Opportunity Sites inventory capacity in the current RHNA
cycle, while the area currently includes just 2.8 percent of Citywide housing units. Table 2.2 shows the 2023-2031
Housing Element sites inventory by income category. The Opportunity Sites inventory anticipates further housing
production through redevelopment of existing older commercial and light industrial buildings, and most
designated sites are concentrated east of Middlefield Road and west of US-101. No sites are located west of
Middlefield Road, where many of the Plan Area’s existing housing units are located.
Table 2.2. Housing Element Units from Opportunity Sites (after RHNA Credits for Entitled Units and ADUs)
Lower-Income
(0-80% AMI)
Moderate-Income
(80-120% AMI)
Above Moderate-Income
(120%+ AMI) All Units
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Plan Area 614 25% 332 33% 613 23% 1,559 26%
Other 1,838 75% 681 67% 2,008 77% 4,527 74%
Total 2,452 100% 1,013 100% 2,621 100% 6,086 100%
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 36
18
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PLAN AREA
The City of Palo Alto has existing tools and policies for affordable housing production, the preservation of
affordable housing, and protection of tenants. Tools focused on affordable housing production are most relevant
to the Plan Area, given the number of sites identified as future Housing Opportunity Sites. The following are most
relevant to the Plan Area:
• The City of Palo Alto’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) provides incentives for housing development in the
Plan Area that are coupled with contributions to affordable housing production.
• The City also ensures that the overall supply of housing in the Plan Area will be sustained through its “no net
loss” policy in which future redevelopment of existing housing stock must include at least as many units as
are proposed for demolition.
• Other requirements linking affordable housing production or revenue contributions to new development
will be especially relevant for ensuring the Plan Area remains a mixed-income community.
• The City must consider the tradeoffs between immediately delivering affordable housing units in the Plan
Area via an emphasis on inclusionary requirements (currently in place for ownership housing developments
and via the HIP) versus providing fee resources (including via current impact fees applied to rental housing
developments) for City contributions to more deeply affordable 100 percent affordable projects.
• The Plan Area presents opportunities to leverage the City’s existing affordable housing resources to support
the development of 100 percent affordable housing projects if the City can acquire sites or partner with
developers seeking master plan development agreements for large properties.
• The Plan Area’s ability to compete for outside affordable housing funding varies by location. The California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
define the Plan Area as representing “highest resource” and “high resource” areas. This designation
improves the Plan Area’s ability to score and compete for critical funding sources such as Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other State resources. However, most large, underutilized sites best
positioned for cost-efficient housing development in the Plan Area are located outside the half-mile radius
of robust transit access at the Caltrain station, which reduces the area’s ability to compete for funding
sources tied to transit and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
• The City’s support for the Homekey Palo Alto project (at 1237 North San Antonio Road), currently under
construction, helps achieve the City’s homelessness services and alternative housing program goals. The
project is an example of leveraging City funds to provide diverse housing options in the Plan Area.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 37
19
Key Findings and Conclusions
The findings of these analyses will help inform the City of Palo Alto’s efforts to increase affordable and market-
rate housing production in the Plan Area, preserve existing affordable housing, and protect households vulnerable
to displacement. Key conclusions are summarized below.
• Few new housing projects have been built in the Plan Area since the 1980s. Housing in the Plan Area largely
consists of two- to three-story condominium and rental multifamily buildings built from the 1950s through
the 1980s, except for assisted living housing built at the Taube Koret Campus in 2010 and affordable housing
units at the Alta Torre senior affordable housing project. The Plan Area’s 802 housing units constitute
approximately 2.8 percent of Palo Alto’s 29,104 units.
• The Plan Area’s existing housing helps in meeting Palo Alto’s affordable housing needs, with approximately
250 deed-restricted affordable housing units at four properties.
• A limited quantity of relatively affordable market-rate rental housing—known as “naturally-occurring
affordable housing,” or “NOAH”—exists within the Plan Area at properties along Byron Street. NOAH units
can potentially represent future opportunities for conversion to deed-restricted affordable housing as part
of a strategy to preserve existing relatively affordable housing. An example of this occurred in the Plan Area
at Palo Alto Gardens in 1999.
• Although modeling by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project does not indicate a significant risk of
displacement for low-income renter households in and near the Plan Area, City tenant protection policies
can play a role in supporting the nearly 40 percent of households that are renters in and near the Plan Area.
• The addition of housing in the Plan Area that is affordable to households with diverse income levels can help
meet the needs of workers at jobs in Palo Alto and the Plan Area itself. Wages associated with the industry
sector mix of jobs in Palo Alto suggest that 35 percent of worker households may qualify as low- or very low-
income and would benefit from deed-restricted affordable housing in the City. This share is similar to the
assigned RHNA targets the City is seeking to achieve as part of its current Housing Element of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
• Within the Plan Area, U.S. Census data indicates that approximately 16 percent of “primary” jobs (i.e., the
highest-paying job held by a worker) in 2022 paid less than $40,000 annually.
• Given the number and magnitude of sites identified as future Housing Opportunity Sites within it, the Plan
Area is especially well-positioned to expand its role in meeting the housing needs of lower-income
households. This can be achieved through application of inclusionary housing policies and affordable
housing fee payments in conjunction with future housing development, and through production of deed-
restricted 100 percent affordable housing developments.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 38
20
3. TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
Introduction
The transportation network studied for the Plan Area consists of roadways, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities,
and transit facilities, as well as the suggested walk and roll routes from the City’s Safe Routes to School Program.
Road Network
Roads within the Plan Area and its
vicinity can be categorized into three
classifications: arterial, collector, and
local, shown in Figure 3.1. Posted speed
limits within the Plan Area range from
25 to 45 miles per hour (mph). The Plan
Area includes a network of designated
truck routes including US-101
(Bayshore Freeway), San Antonio Road,
Alma Street, Fabian Way, and East and
West Bayshore Roads. San Antonio
Road is classified as a critical east-west
arterial and truck route providing
access to key employment centers, and
has a speed limit of 35 mph. There are
six signalized intersections within the
Plan Area, and major crossings include
Alma Street, Middlefield Road, East
Charleston Road, and US-101. From
Alma Street to East Charleston Road,
the roadway features a divided four-
lane cross-section, that transitions to a
three-lane undivided cross-section east
of East Charleston Road, and narrows
to a two-lane cross-section as it
approaches and crosses US-101.
TRAFFIC COUNTS
Vehicle, truck, bicyclist, and pedestrian
counts were collected at 25
intersections for the weekday AM
(7:00–10:00 AM) and PM (4:00–7:00
PM) peak periods. The data was
collected on three separate weekdays:
Thursday May 15, Wednesday May 21,
Figure 3.1. Roadway Classification
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 39
21
and Tuesday May 27, 2025. It is worth noting that one of the count days (May 15, 2026) coincided with Bike-to-
Work Day, which may have influenced bicyclist volumes. For each intersection, the peak hour was determined
based on the highest observed total vehicle volume within the respective time window. PM peak hour volumes
were higher at each intersection. Figure 3.2 summarizes PM peak hour volumes at each intersection.
Figure 3.2. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes by Intersection
Source: Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 40
22
TRAFFIC SPEEDS
Table 3.1 shows Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data collected over a 72-hour period along San Antonio Road
between Alma Street and Casey Avenue, including vehicle speeds and volumes. The highest observed 85th
percentile speed was on the segment between East Charleston Road and US-101, indicating an increase as
vehicles approach the highway. The lowest speeds are recorded on the segment between Bayshore Road and
Casey Avenue, aligned with the change in cross-section to two undivided lanes in this segment. A notable
percentage of high-speed vehicles was observed along San Antonio Road. On the segment between East
Charleston Road and US-101, around one-third of vehicles exceed 40 mph where the posted speed limit is 35
mph. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes remain within a similar range along Alma Street to US-101, with
eastbound volumes ranging from 10,410 to 11,916 and generally higher westbound volumes between 11,559 and
17,593.
Table 3.1. Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Speed Surveys
Roadway Segment
85th Percentile Speed
(mph) Vehicles > 40mph (%) ADT
Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound
San Antonio Road between East
Charleston Road and US-101
44 43 35 33 11,779 17,593
San Antonio Road between Middlefield
Road and East Charleston Road
35 38 5 10 10,410 11,559
San Antonio Road between Alma Street
and Middlefield Road
40 40 17 15 11,916 17,368
San Antonio Road between Bayshore
Road and Casey Avenue
29 28 0 0 1,390 1,511
Source: Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 41
23
Bicycle Network
The City of Palo Alto has developed a
robust bike network with a mix of
bicycle boulevards, bike lanes,
separated bikeways, and trails; but
the Plan Area lacks a fully connected
bicycle network.
There are currently no continuous
bicycle facilities on San Antonio
Road. A bike route is present
between Middlefield Road and
Charleston Road. Fabian Way has a
bike lane from East Bayshore Road,
which discontinues near the
intersection with East Charleston
Road. The only continuous north-
south bikeways are found on East
Charleston Road, which includes
both standard and buffered bike
lanes on both sides of the roadway.
Middlefield Road provides a short
segment of bike lane south of San
Antonio Road on the west side of the
roadway.
The pedestrian and bicycle bridge
that crosses US-101 provides a
grade-separated facility that enables
uninterrupted crossing for people
walking, biking, and rolling across the
highway barrier. Overall, the limited
presence of bike facilities, combined
with high vehicle speeds and
volumes, contributes to conditions
that are not conducive to bicycle
travel. Figure 3.3 illustrates the
existing bicycle facilities.
Figure 3.3. Existing Bicycle Facilities
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 42
24
BICYCLE LEVEL OF COMFORT
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is an evaluation that quantifies the amount of discomfort that people feel
when bicycling based on attributes such as vehicle speed, vehicle volume, number of lanes, bicycle lane blockage,
presence of on-street parking, and ease of intersection crossing. There are four LTS ratings (LTS 1 through LTS 4).
The higher the LTS, the higher the
expected discomfort for the rider
traveling along the facility. Figure 3.4
illustrates the Segment Bicycle LTS
analysis from the City of Palo Alto’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (BPTP) Update (in progress).
Based on the BPTP Update, the Plan
Area exhibits generally high levels of
bicycle traffic stress. While most
minor streets are classified as LTS 1
(low traffic stress), most major
corridors are rated LTS 3 or LTS 4. The
most stressful segments in the Plan
Area are located along Alma Street
and San Antonio Road (both LTS 4),
Middlefield Road, East Charleston
Road, Fabian Way, and Bayshore
Road (all LTS 3).
Among the intersections in the Plan
Area, six are signalized and are
assigned LTS 1, as traffic signals
provide dedicated crossing time for
cyclists. The other low-stress
intersections are typically along
residential streets with lower speeds
and minimal vehicular activity. Many
high-stress intersections are found
along Alma Street, San Antonio Road,
Middlefield Road, East Charleston
Road, and Fabian Way, consistent
with the high-stress classifications of
these corridors. San Antonio Road
features 12 intersections in the Plan
Area, of which five are rated LTS 4
and one is rated LTS 3.
Figure 3.4. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 43
25
MAJOR BARRIERS
The BPTP Update identified three
primary linear barriers within and
connecting to the Plan Area: US-101,
the Caltrain rail corridor, and the
waterway near Fabian Way and
Bayshore Road. The most critical
connectivity gap lies between Adobe
Creek and Embarcadero Road
pedestrian and bicycle bridges, which
limits access to the Adobe Creek Loop
Trail and adjacent destinations. Within
the Plan Area, the San Antonio
Caltrain Station provides a pedestrian
and bicycle crossing over the rail
corridor, improving connectivity
across this barrier. Barriers near
transit also occur at San Antonio Road,
where the absence of continuous
sidewalks along certain segments
limits direct pedestrian and bicyclist
access to transit.
Pedestrian
Network
Figure 3.5 shows pedestrian facilities
in the Plan Area. Sidewalks are largely
continuous, with most streets in the
Plan Area providing sidewalks
approximately four to five feet wide
on both sides of the roadway. While
this width meets minimum standards
in many residential contexts, it may be
inadequate for higher pedestrian
volumes, accessibility needs, or areas
with high levels of adjacent traffic. In
some areas, sidewalks are separated
from the roadway by landscaped strips
and tree coverage, which help buffer pedestrians from vehicle traffic. However, notable gaps exist in certain
locations. The Plan Area’s six signalized intersections are equipped with standard marked crosswalks, ADA ramps,
and pedestrian-activated countdown signal heads, with each intersection providing at least one crosswalk and
corresponding pedestrian signal. The Plan Area features pedestrian safety treatments such as mid-block crossings,
a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) and refuge islands. Within the Plan Area, San Antonio Road does not
provide continuous pedestrian or bicycle crossings over US-101.
Figure 3.5. Pedestrian Facilities
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 44
26
Transit Services
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus services within Palo Alto. Key features of
existing transit services in the Plan Area include:
• There are currently five bus stops located along San Antonio Road, four bus stops along Fabian Way, and
two bus stops along East Charleston Road. None of the associated services are classified as high frequency.
• VTA Route 21 travels twice an hour from the Stanford Shopping Center to the Santa Clara Transit Center via
the Mountain View Transit Center. The route runs along San Antonio Road between Alma Street and
Middlefield Road, with stops at Middlefield Road and at Nita Road and San Antonio Court.
• VTA Route 288 is a school-day-only tripper route with one daily service to and from Gunn High School. It
operates along East Charleston Road and Fabian Way, before continuing west on Meadow Drive and
Arastradero Road toward Gunn High School.
• ACE Orange Route provides four daily commuter shuttle service between Meadow Drive and Meadow Circle,
east of the Plan Area, and the Great America ACE/Amtrak Station, including stops at Fabian Way and East
Meadow Drive, Fabian Way and East Charleston Road, and San Antonio Road and Casey Avenue within the
Plan Area.
• MVgo Routes D and C operate along San Antonio Road, connecting Mountain View employment centers
with Caltrain and light rail stations. However, these routes do not stop within Palo Alto.
• Palo Alto Link, an on-demand rideshare service, also provides point-to-point service to popular destinations
throughout the City.
• Located just outside the Plan Area boundary, the San Antonio Caltrain Station, a regional commuter rail
system operated by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board, provides service at 15- or 30-minute headways
(depending on peak or off-peak times) between San Francisco and San Jose, with additional service as far as
Gilroy. Caltrain recently completed electrification of its right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose,
improving service frequency and speeds. A large portion of the plan area is located within a half mile walk,
and the entire plan area is within a 2-mile bicycle ride, of San Antonio Caltrain station.
• Future plans for California’s High-Speed Rail include a proposed four-track segment through Palo Alto for
high-speed train service alongside Caltrain.
Safety
An assessment of reported crashes was conducted using the latest 10 years of the University of California,
Berkeley's Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data (2015 to 2024). A total of 143 crashes occurred in
the Plan Area over the past 10 years, including two fatal and three severe injury crashes. One fatal crash occurred
at the intersection of Commercial Street and Charleston Road, and another near the intersection of San Antonio
Road and Nita Avenue. Throughout the 10-year review period, a total of five pedestrian and 15 bicycle crashes
were reported in the Plan Area. Among the pedestrian crashes, one crash was fatal, and one resulted in a severe
injury. For bicycle-involved crashes, one crash resulted in a severe injury, and 11 crashes involved visible injuries.
No bicycle crashes were fatal.
Most collisions occurred along key access points and intersections along San Antonio Road including Charleston
Street, Middlefield Road, and Alma Street. Approximately 30 percent of the reported crashes occurred along
Fabian Way. Primary collision factors among fatal crashes were unsafe speeds and pedestrian right-of-way
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 45
27
violations. For severe injury crashes, the leading factors were unsafe speed, driving or cycling under the influence
(DUI), and traffic signal and sign violations.
HIGH-INJURY LOCATIONS
The Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action
Plan identified a High-Injury Network (HIN)
composed of corridors with a
disproportionate share of fatalities and
severe injuries between 2018 and 2022.
These corridors were prioritized for safety
interventions as part of the City’s
commitment to Vision Zero and the Safe
System Approach. The SS4A Safety Action
Plan includes San Antonio Road from Alma
Street to East Charleston Road, Middlefield
Road from San Antonio Road to Lytton
Avenue, and East Charleston Road from San
Antonio Road to Los Palos Avenue.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS
The local Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Partnership between the City, the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Palo
Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC) works to reduce
risk to students in routes to and from school
and encourages more families to choose
alternatives to driving solo more often.
Within the Plan Area, the Palo Alto SRTS
program has identified suggested walking
routes on San Antonio Road and Middlefield
Road, while Fabian Way and East Charleston
Road include segments designated for both
walking and biking. Greendell School, a
public PAUSD site, is located near these
suggested routes and is included in the City’s
SRTS Walk and Roll Map program. Other
private schools in the Plan Area are located
near suggested corridors; however, these
schools are not formally evaluated by the SRTS program. Private institutions may choose to reference existing
Walk and Roll Maps and develop their own recommended routes.
PARKING
Both on-street and off-street parking is permitted throughout the Plan Area. San Antonio Road has a total of 145
on-street parking spaces, Fabian Way has 135 total spaces, and most residential streets also allow on-street
parking. In the Plan Area, bicycle parking appears to be insufficient overall, with limited availability near public
Figure 3.6. Crash Severity
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 46
28
spaces, intersections, and key pedestrian corridors. The distribution of bicycle racks is concentrated in the eastern
portion of the corridor near dense commercial areas, while significant gaps exist along the western segment of
San Antonio Road.
Key Findings and Conclusions
Key findings, challenges and opportunities for transportation and mobility are identified in the following list.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS
• The Plan Area includes key destinations within a walking, biking or rolling distance, such as Ramos Park,
Cubberley Community Center, San Antonio Caltrain Station, and nine public and private schools.
• Existing bicycle facilities are limited along San Antonio Road, with only a short bike route present between
Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road.
• Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis identifies segments on San Antonio Road, Alma Street, and
Middlefield Road that are particularly uncomfortable and have the highest LTS rating of 4.
• There are gaps in the existing pedestrian network where the absence of continuous sidewalks limits direct
access to key destinations. Existing pedestrian facilities are present along most segments of San Antonio
Road, but key gaps exist near the Bayshore Freeway interchange and between Nita Avenue and Alma Street.
TRANSIT SERVICES
• VTA Route 21 provides public transit access at 30-minute headways along a short segment of San Antonio
Road between Alma Street and Middlefield Road, with the highest weekday ridership activity observed at
the Middlefield Road stop. No other active bus routes currently operate within the Plan Area.
• A large portion of the plan area is also within a half-mile walk, and the entire plan area is within a 2-mile
bicycle ride, of San Antonio Caltrain station, which provides regional transit access between San Francisco
and San Jose.
SAFETY
• The City’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program identifies suggested walking routes on San Antonio and
Middlefield Roads, and shared walking/biking routes on Fabian Way and Charleston Road. Public schools like
Greendell are formally included, while private schools may reference the City’s Walk and Roll Maps to
develop their own routes.
• Vehicle volumes are highest at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road with 3,741 cars
observed between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM and 4,391 observed between 4:55 PM and 5:55 PM. A total of 88
trucks were counted at this location during the weekday AM peak hour and 40 trucks were counted during
the weekday PM peak hour, or 2.3 percent and 0.9 percent respectively.
• Truck volumes are generally higher during the morning and are consistently higher near US-101 ramps,
where trucks made up 95 of the 2,411 vehicles, or 3.9 percent of the vehicle traffic at that location during
the weekday AM peak hour (which occurred between 8:05 AM and 9:05 AM).
• Speed surveys show that 85th percentile speeds exceed the posted 35 mph limit on multiple segments of
San Antonio Road, particularly between East Charleston Road and US-101, where nearly one-third of
vehicles travel above 40 mph.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 47
29
• San Antonio Road has a total of 145 on-street parking spaces. Bicycle parking is limited and unevenly
distributed, particularly along the western portion of San Antonio Road.
• Over the last 10 years, 143 crashes were reported in the Plan Area, including two fatal and three severe
injury crashes. 14 percent of reported crashes involved pedestrians or bicyclists. The most common primary
collision factor was unsafe speed, accounting for 34 percent of the reported crashes and many of the fatal
and severe injury crashes.
• The City of Palo Alto’s Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan (2025) identifies San Antonio Road, from Alma
Street to East Charleston Road, as part of the City’s High Injury Network based on its crash history and
collision severity.
• The City of Palo Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update (in progress) and City of Palo Alto
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) propose redesigning San Antonio Road as part of the San
Antonio Road Area Plan to accommodate anticipated housing growth along and near the corridor as well as
continued development and improvement of the San Antonio Caltrain Station as an important
transportation node for the City.
• City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update (in progress) recommends the
following improvements:
o Class I shared use path along San Antonio Road from East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard,
o Class IV separated bikeways on San Antonio Road between Alma Street and East Charleston Road, on
Charleston Road within City limits, and on Alma Street from Meadow Drive to San Antonio Avenue,
o Class IIb buffered bikeway on Fabian Way from Meadow Drive to East Charleston Road, and
o Class IIIb bicycle boulevard on Mackay Drive, continuing along Shasta Drive and Nelson Drive.
The existing conditions assessment for the San Antonio Road corridor identifies several critical challenges that
limit safe and equitable multimodal access to key destinations. The issues include the lack of continuous and
protected bicycle infrastructure along San Antonio Road, which is classified as high stress (LTS 4) and creates a
major barrier to travel. Sidewalk gaps, minimal landscaping buffers, and long crossings and block lengths further
hinder pedestrian comfort and accessibility. Driver speeding is prevalent, with 85th percentile speeds exceeding
posted limits on multiple segments, and crash data reveal a history of severe and fatal collisions involving
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Transit service is minimal, with only two active VTA routes (route 21 and
ACE Orange Mountain View Shuttle) and no operating school or shuttle services. Finally, the shortage and poor
distribution of public bike parking undermines the potential for short local bike trips and first/last mile
connectivity.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 48
30
4. MARKET AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Introduction
The primary relevant local market for the Plan Area includes
the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View, with the regional
area consisting of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County.
Figure 4.1 shows the census block groups used for the Plan
Area analysis of demographic and household trends. Since
detailed U.S. Census data is only available for specific
predetermined geographies, the selected block groups best
cover the Plan Area while providing information for analysis.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
The Plan Area Census Block Groups have a higher presence of
families with children, slightly lower median household
income, and a more diverse population than Palo Alto.
• Population. As of 2021, the Plan Area Census Block
Groups had 4,975 people (7 percent of Palo Alto’s
population), in 1,798 households (7 percent of Palo
Alto’s households).
• Median Household Income. The Plan Area Census Block
Groups’ median income of $200,001 is lower than that of
Palo Alto ($220,408) and higher than Mountain View
($179,917). Median household income in Palo Alto
increased by 81 percent from 2011 to 2021, driven by increases in high-income households, and losses of
middle- and lower-income households.
• Household Characteristics. Average household sizes in Mountain View and Palo Alto are much smaller than
in Santa Clara County and San Mateo County overall. Figure 4.2 shows details of household types.
• Race and Ethnicity. Palo Alto and Mountain View are less racially and ethnically diverse than Santa Clara
County and San Mateo County overall. Compared to Palo Alto, the ratio of Non-Hispanic Black residents to
the total population is higher for the Plan Area at 11 percent, compared to 2 percent for the City.
38%33%27%33%31%
37%35%
27%
37%38%
17%25%
33%
22%24%
9%7%13%8%8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Plan Area
Census
Block
Groups
Palo Alto Mountain
View
Santa Clara
County
San Mateo
County
Per
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Other Non-Family Household
Householder Living Alone
Families without Children
Families with Children
Figure 4.2. Household Types,
2019-2023
Source: U.S. Census, American
Community Survey, 5-year Estimate,
2019-2023; Strategic Economics, 2025.
Figure 4.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 49
31
Housing Market Conditions
EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Analysis of the Plan Area’s existing housing supply including Key Findings is described in Section 2, “Housing,
Growth, and Displacement Risk” of this report.
HOUSING MARKET POTENTIAL AND TRENDS
Palo Alto home sales prices are significantly higher than those for neighboring cities and the County. In 2025, the
median single-family home value in Palo Alto was $3.69 million, 76 percent higher than Mountain View ($2.09
million), 94 percent higher than Santa Clara County ($1.73 million), and 99 percent higher than San Mateo County
($1.61 million). Between 2015 and 2025, single-family home values increased by 43 percent in Palo Alto and 62
percent in Mountain View. Condominiums are relatively more affordable but still significantly more expensive
than surrounding areas. Palo Alto’s average effective rents per square foot increased by nearly 18 percent from
2015 to 2025, similar to Mountain View. High absorption and low vacancy rates for multifamily rental housing in
Palo Alto and Mountain View indicate strong demand for this product type. Recent developments have been
trending towards multifamily housing as well, as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Permitted Housing Units by Building Type, 2018-2024
Number Percent
Single- Family ADU Multi-family Total Single- Family ADU Multi-family
Local Market Area 813 825 5,177 6,815 12% 12% 76%
Palo Alto 15 574 363 952 2% 60% 38%
Mountain View 798 251 4,814 5,863 14% 4% 82%
Regional Market Area 8,533 10,393 46,233 65,159 13% 16% 71%
Santa Clara County 7,209 7,294 36,611 51,114 14% 14% 72%
San Mateo County 1,324 3,099 9,622 14,045 9% 22% 69%
Notes: “ADU”s are accessory dwelling units, which are accessory to a single-family home or other residential structure.
14 manufactured units were also permitted in Santa Clara County during this period.
Source. California Department of Housing and Community Development Annual Progress Reports, Table A2, 2018-2024; Strategic Economics, 2025.
The Plan Area benefits from a variety of indicators that suggest strong ongoing demand for new housing: high-
performing housing markets in Palo Alto and Mountain View, demographic trends suggesting demand from senior
and working-age adult households; and recent developer interest, with pipeline projects potentially adding 750
new housing units to the Plan Area. Regional forecasts anticipate housing growth translating to an average of 974
housing units per year for Palo Alto and Mountain View combined. Given this strong demand, available
development opportunities, and its access to jobs, the Plan Area is well-positioned to capture projected demand
for additional housing units.
The Plan Area is most likely to attract development of mid-rise multifamily rental housing products, which are
most compatible with the Plan Area’s existing built environment of light industrial sites positioned for
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 50
32
redevelopment, patterns of development in nearby areas of Mountain View at similar sites, and the City of Palo
Alto’s regulatory and policy priorities focused on promoting higher-density development in the Plan Area.
Developers interviewed shared that ideal sites for cost-efficient mid-rise housing development are rectangular or
square, allow multiple access points, are at least one to two acres in size, are relatively underutilized (typically
vacant or with light industrial uses), and located near existing or future transportation access and retail amenities.
Retail Market Conditions and Trends
EXISTING RETAIL
The Plan Area currently has a small retail inventory consisting of approximately 69,000 square feet of retail space
concentrated around the intersections of San Antonio Road at East Charleston Road and Middlefield Road. This
includes 38,000 square feet of automobile-oriented retail and one car dealership (28,000 square feet) that is
currently for sale. Other uses include small stores and quick-serve restaurants. The Plan Area is within the service
radius of regional retail centers such as Stanford Shopping Center and Town & Country Village in Palo Alto, San
Antonio Center in Mountain View, and retail centers near El Camino Real. Other retail centers in the vicinity
include the Rengstorff Center and two grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping centers along Middlefield Road
in Palo Alto and Mountain View. The Plan Area is reasonably well covered by the trade areas of existing food
stores, including two supermarkets (Joya Supermarket and Piazza’s Fine Foods), a specialty food store
(Crossroads), Costco in Mountain View, and multiple grocery stores west of the Plan Area at and near San Antonio
Center. These existing retail uses can serve the Plan Area’s near-term needs. The eastern portion of the Plan Area
has lower access to grocery stores than other parts.
The City of Palo Alto has a policy priority to preserve existing retail, which is enacted through the Retail
Preservation Ordinance (RPO). The RPO generally requires replacement of existing ground floor retail. However,
specific requirements vary by location in the City and project type. Under State Law, the RPO does not apply at
sites included in Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element sites inventory, and the replacement requirement is
limited to 1,500 square feet for housing projects with densities of 30 or more dwelling units per acre.
RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL AND TRENDS
The analysis for potential retail development in the Plan Area is based on current market conditions and
competitive retail supply in the surrounding trade area, interviews with local retail brokers, and examining
pipeline projects. As the Plan Area adds more households, it is best positioned to attract neighborhood-serving
retail that typically has a service radius of one to three miles. These can include dining, personal services, and
potentially future grocery stores and drug stores, with each new household generating a demand for
approximately 34 square feet of new retail space. Local retail brokers interviewed noted that the most desirable
retail locations in the Plan Area are at the intersections of Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road, and East
Charleston Road and San Antonio Road, due to visibility from large quantities of through traffic and accessibility
from existing residents and new residents at proposed housing projects.
Future retail development in the Plan Area is anticipated to follow recent trends in the area, that consist of small
quantities of ground floor retail in mixed-use development projects or expansions and modernizations of existing
major shopping centers.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 51
33
Employment Profile and Trends
EMPLOYMENT IN THE PLAN AREA
Most jobs in the Plan Area today are in the manufacturing sector, accounting for 43 percent of total Plan Area
employment, with Maxar as a major employer. As of 2022, the Plan Area had 40 percent of Palo Alto’s
Manufacturing sector jobs, and 36 percent of the City’s construction jobs. Between 2012 to 2022, the Plan Area
lost a large number of manufacturing jobs and gained jobs in other sectors, with health care as the largest sector.
Employment trends are shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Percent Change in Employment in Plan Area, 2012-2022.
Industry 2012 2022 Change (Number) Change (%)
Manufacturing 3,788 2,043 -1745 -46%
Other 764 722 -42 -5%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services 481 640 159 33%
Health Care and Social Assistance 184 564 380 207%
Retail Trade 184 360 176 96%
Construction 209 315 106 51%
Information 130 52 -78 -60%
Total 5,740 4,696 -1044 -18%
Source. U.S. Census, LEHD OnTheMap, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2025.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Jobs in the Plan Area today include a larger share of opportunities for workers with lower levels of educational
attainment compared to jobs in Palo Alto overall. The Information and Professional, Scientific and Technical
Services industry sectors are associated with very high average wages, but also high education, training, and skill
requirements. In contrast, the Manufacturing and Construction industry sectors typically include a larger share of
middle-skill, middle-wage jobs. Development of new housing in the Plan Area is likely to primarily occur at
properties with these types of existing employment, such as the small office and light industrial spaces near
Commercial Street and Industrial Avenue.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 52
34
Key Findings and Conclusions
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS FINDINGS
• Robust demand for a variety of housing products exists in the Plan Area and surrounding market area, as
indicated by relatively high sales prices for ownership housing, relatively high achievable rents, and low
residential vacancy rates.
• Given strong demand for housing in Palo Alto and the available housing development opportunities
within the Plan Area, the area is well-positioned to capture demand for additional housing units
associated with projected household and employment growth, as forecasted by the Association of Bay
Area Governments for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.
• Despite demand for a range of housing products in Palo Alto—including lower-density ownership housing
such as luxury townhomes—the Plan Area is most likely to attract development of mid-rise multifamily
housing products. These products are most compatible with the City of Palo Alto’s regulatory and policy
priorities focused on promoting higher density development in the Plan Area.
• Recent housing development proposals in the Plan Area demonstrate developer interest in mid-rise,
relatively higher-density housing products. Housing development proposals in and near the Plan Area
primarily consist of buildings that are most often seven to eight stories tall and with densities ranging
from 110 to 170 dwelling units per acre.
• The likelihood and timing of housing development on specific sites in the Plan Area will depend on site
characteristics, existing uses, and location. Ideal sites for cost-efficient mid-rise housing development are
rectangular or square, allow multiple access points, are at least one to two acres in size, are relatively
underutilized (typically vacant or with light industrial uses), and located near existing or future
transportation access and retail amenities. Developers can assemble smaller sites to create a site with
these characteristics, but parcel assembly takes time and adds development risk.
• Improvements to local amenities, the pedestrian environment, and multimodal transportation options
can support the attractiveness of the Plan Area for future residents and potentially accelerate housing
development activity.
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS FINDINGS
• Existing retail offerings (with “retail” inclusive of shopping, dining, services, and entertainment) are
limited within the Plan Area. However, much of the area is located within a half mile of existing
neighborhood and community shopping centers that can meet many day-to-day shopping needs for
existing residents and residents of any early future housing developments.
• The best performing retail locations near the Plan Area are primarily closer to El Camino Real, with retail
brokers noting that the Plan Area itself is more likely to serve as a secondary retail location that is better
suited to supporting neighborhood-serving retail—such as dining, personal services, and potentially
future grocery stores and drug stores—rather than major regional shopping destinations. The San
Antonio Center adjacent to the Plan Area functions as a larger regional retail center that can serve
current and future households in the Plan Area.
• Over time, additions of new residents in the Plan Area will generate demand for additional local retail
space to accommodate dining, services, and day-to-day shopping needs. The total magnitude of
supportable retail space will vary depending on the projected buildout of housing units in the Plan Area.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 53
35
• Given the likely incremental process of housing development in the Plan Area, retail demand is likely to grow
gradually and take time to achieve a critical mass of residents to support significant new retail amenities
such as a new grocery store. Existing nearby retail amenities will largely meet demand from early residential
growth, and early retail opportunities within the Plan Area will primarily consist of dining and personal
services.
• New retail space is likely to best perform in Plan Area locations that are near areas of future housing growth,
visible and readily accessible from higher-traffic streets, and allow for a concentration of retail tenants. Real
estate brokers interviewed for this study noted that the intersection of Middlefield Road and San Antonio
Road is likely to be a desirable retail location within the Plan Area due to visibility from large quantities of
pass-through traffic and accessibility from existing residents and new residents at proposed housing projects
to the east. Locations along East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road near the intersection of these
streets also benefit from visibility and access.
• Given the gradual pace of housing buildout to achieve a critical mass of residents to support larger
quantities of new retail space, the San Antonio Road Area Plan will need to incorporate a vision and policies
to ensure development of retail space at preferred future retail concentrations.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FINDINGS
• Although the Plan Area constitutes a relatively small share of jobs in Palo Alto overall, the area includes a
notable concentration of manufacturing jobs. The U.S. Census estimates that the Plan Area included
approximately 4.3 percent of jobs in Palo Alto as of 2022, but nearly 40 percent of jobs classified in the
Manufacturing industry sector. The Plan Area includes major employers such as Maxar along Fabian Way
and a limited quantity of Google offices east of US-101.
• The diverse small office and light industrial spaces in the Plan Area—especially near Commercial Street and
Industrial Avenue—accommodate a wide variety of small businesses seeking flexible and relatively
affordable space within Palo Alto. Tenant lease data indicates that at least two thirds of businesses in the
Plan Area have 50 or fewer employees.
• Redevelopment of existing smaller light industrial and flex buildings in the Plan Area for housing and other
uses creates a displacement risk for businesses in these spaces. Relocation within Palo Alto and even
neighboring communities is challenging due to the limited and declining inventory of similar spaces due to
their redevelopment for higher-intensity employment and housing uses.
• The addition of housing in the Plan Area that is affordable to households with diverse income levels can help
meet the needs of workers at jobs in Palo Alto and the Plan Area itself. Analysis of wages associated with the
industry sector mix of jobs in Palo Alto found that 35 percent of worker households may qualify as low- or
very low-income and likely require deed-restricted affordable housing to be able to live in Palo Alto. Within
the Plan Area itself, U.S. Census data indicates that approximately 16 percent of “primary” jobs (i.e., the
highest-paying job held by a worker) in 2022 paid less than $40,000 annually.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 54
36
5. HAZARDS, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND HISTORIC
RESOURCES
Note: Some of the topics discussed in this section (such as sea level rise) overlap with topics discussed in Sections 8
and 9. Since these topics are relevant for each of these subject areas, they have been included in each section.
Hazards
Environmental hazards studied as part of the
analysis to date include sea level rise and
wildfire. The study of seismic hazards and soil
and groundwater contamination is currently
in process, and additional content will be
provided when the studies are completed.
SEA LEVEL RISE
A portion of the Plan Area is located in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zone AE, a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) designation with a one percent
(100-year flood) or greater annual chance of
flooding in any given year. Within the Plan
Area, the AE Zone covers a large area
generally from East Charleston Road to the
San Francisco Bay, shown in Figure 5.1. The
remainder of the Plan Area is located in SFHA
Zone X, with a 0.2% (500-year event) annual
chance of flood. The City of Palo Alto
completed a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment in 2022 which documents
potential sea level rise (SLR) hazards to City
and community assets from increments
between 12 to 84 inches of SLR. Portions of
the Plan Area north and east of East
Charleston Road are predicted to be
inundated under a 36-inch SLR scenario
during an average tide. Areas north of the
Plan Area could experience overtopping by
Bay waters.
WILDFIRE
The Plan Area is not located in a Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (FHSZ) as defined by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, David J Powers & Associates, 2025.
Figure 5.1. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area in the Plan Area
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 55
37
SEISMIC HAZARDS
As detailed in the 2024 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Bay Area is located in a
geologically active area. The impact of an earthquake on buildings and infrastructure largely depends on ground
shaking, the distance from the earthquake’s source, and the potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction generally
occurs in soft, unconsolidated sedimentary soils with a shallow water table. The City of Palo Alto’s Safety Element
identifies areas near the Bay and along creeks as having very high liquefaction susceptibility levels, and the entire
Plan Area has at least a moderate liquefaction susceptibility level. Additional analysis of the seismic hazard within
the Plan Area is underway.
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
The portion of the Plan Area between East Charleston Road and US-101 has long been a light industrial and
manufacturing area, which increases the possibility of soil and/or groundwater contamination. Sites with known
or suspected contamination could require remediation prior to any new development. The California Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has identified seven properties within the Plan Area with known or suspected
contamination issues. The following addresses within the Plan Area are listed on the DTSC EnviroStor tool: 821
San Antonio Road, 844 East Charleston Road, 899 East Charleston Road, 3825 Fabian Way, 3839 Fabian Way, 890
Commercial Street, and 936 Industrial Avenue. 1275 North San Antonio Road (a City-owned parcel) is the site of
the former Los Altos Treatment Plant, and required some remediation efforts prior to developing the HomeKey
project. Additional analysis of these sites and the Plan Area is underway.
Public Safety
Police and fire services are essential components of a well-functioning and resilient community. Growth within
the Plan Area may increase calls for service and place additional demands on personnel, equipment, and
emergency access.
POLICE
Law enforcement protection services in Palo Alto are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) that
employs a total of 141 positions (2025). The 2030 Comprehensive Plan EIR found that the existing police station is
inadequate to accommodate growth under the General Plan. The PAPD is currently constructing a new Public
Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman Avenue which will serve as the new headquarters of the Police Department,
911 Emergency Dispatch Center, the Emergency Operations Center, the Office of Emergency Services, and the
administration needs of the Fire Department. The new PSB building is scheduled to open in Fall 2025. With the
new police station, police services are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate current and future needs of
the City.
FIRE
The Palo Alto Fire Department’s (PAFD’s) service area covers the jurisdictional boundaries of Palo Alto in addition
to some of the unincorporated land surrounding the City limit, much of which is occupied by Stanford University.
The PAFD staffs six full-time fire stations (Stations 1 through 6) and one seasonal fire station (Station 8), located
strategically throughout the City. In addition to the PAFD’s primary service area, the City has entered into mutual
aid and automatic aid agreements with the City of Mountain View, the City of Menlo Park, CAL FIRE, the Santa
Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD), and the Woodside Fire Protection District. The City has set a service goal
at responding to all fire emergencies in 8 minutes or less 90% of the time. For medical emergencies, the goal is 8
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 56
38
minutes or less 90% of the time and ambulance response, 12 minutes or less 90% of the time. Emergency medical
services (EMS) in the PAFD service area are expected to increase incrementally with both the increase in
population and the aging of the population. To meet increased demand, the PAFD is launching a new EMS
ambulance program to enhance staffing and resource availability for the increase in EMS ambulance transports
during peak hours. The City is also in the process of replacing Fire Station 4, the closest station to the Plan Area,
which is estimated to be completed in 2027.
Historic Resources
The City’s Historic Preservation Program began in 1979, with subsequent Local Inventory updates in 2001 and
2023. Any individual or group may propose designating a historic structure, site, or district to the Inventory
according to the procedure found in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 16.49.040).
Properties nominated for designation are recommended by the Historic Resources Board and decided upon by
the City Council. In addition to the City’s Historic Inventory, there are number of Palo Alto properties and four
historic districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including the Greenmeadow
Historic District immediately adjacent to the Plan Area. The California Office of Historic Preservation recognizes
the Greenmeadow Historic district, as well as Native American shell mounds in the vicinity and two sites in the
Plan Area: 844 East Charleston Road as the site where Dr. Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
invented the first integrated circuit that could be produced commercially in 1959 and the Secundino Robles
Adobe Site north-east of the San Antonio Road and Alma Street intersection. As of this report, there are no
properties located within the Plan Area listed on the NRHP or on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Most existing
structures within the Plan Area were constructed between approximately 1940 and 1980. Evaluation of the
properties in the Plan Area for significant historical, archeological, and/or architectural value is in process.
Key Findings and Conclusions
The following environmental issues would need to be addressed as part of future development in the Plan Area.
Please note that some sections of this analysis are in progress as of the publication of this draft report, and
analysis will continue as part of the Area Plan’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
• A large area within the Plan Area is designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
• Adapting to sea level rise would need to be addressed in the areas east of East Charleston Road.
• Increased demand for EMS services may require increased EMS staffing and/or new apparatus and fire
station improvements to support new development.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 57
39
6. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES
Schools
The Plan Area is served by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Mountain View-Whisman School District
(MVWSD), and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District, as shown in Figure 6.1. The PAUSD operates
13 elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools (including Middle College at Foothill College)
within their service area. There is available capacity for more students at all PAUSD schools. Projections forecast a
decline in enrollment district-wide across a 10-year period based upon historical enrollment trends and projected
new development.
The MVWSD operates one
preschool, nine K-5 elementary
schools, and two 6-8 middle
schools. There is capacity for
additional enrollment in all the
MVWSD schools.
The Mountain View-Los Altos Union
High School District operates two
high schools within its boundaries.
The portions of the Plan Area
within the district’s boundaries are
served by Los Altos High School,
which is also currently enrolled at
below its capacity.
Figure 6.1. School Districts in the Plan Area
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, David J Powers & Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 58
40
Parks and Recreational Facilities
The City of Palo Alto owns and operates 32 parks and four open space preserves. There are also a variety of other
facilities in Palo Alto and the vicinity which are not City-owned and which serve some of the same demand for
City-owned and operated facilities. These include PAUSD-owned land used for recreation, Stanford University
open space and recreation lands, privately owned recreational facilities, land managed by conservation groups,
and State and regional parks in the vicinity of Palo Alto. There are also open space preserves that serve larger
service areas and contain a broad range of facilities, including picnic grounds, hiking and biking trails, wildlife
watching and camping.
In addition, the City of Palo Alto Recreation Services Division offers youth and adult sports, teen and middle
school activities, after-school programs, a variety of classes for all ages, and a wide range of special events.
Recreation facilities include the Cubberley, Lucie Stern, and Mitchell Park Community Centers; the Children’s
Theater and Community Theater; Rinconada Pool; Junior Museum and Zoo; Baylands Golf Course; Art Center;
Baylands Nature Interpretive Center; and the Skateboard Park at Greer Park.
The nearest parks and open spaces to the Plan Area include Henry W. Seale Park, Ramos Park, Mitchell Park,
Monroe Park, Del Medio Park (Mountain View), Wyandotte Park (Mountain View), Thaddeus Park (Mountain
View), Monta Loma School Field (Mountain View), Heritage Park (Mountain View), Baylands Nature Preserve,
Shoreline at Mountain View Park (Mountain View). Under Comprehensive Plan Policy C-28, the City’s desired
ratios are two acres of neighborhood parks plus two acres of district parks per 1,000 residents (four acres total)
and a parkland dedication requirement of five acres of neighborhood park, district park, recreational facilities, and
open space for every 1,000 residents.
The City of Palo Alto operates five community libraries, all of which were renovated between 2006 and 2015 and
are considered to be in good condition. The Mitchell Park library is nearest to the Plan Area.
Key Findings and Conclusions
In terms of parks and public facilities, the Plan Area would need to consider the following as part of future
development:
• Overall school enrollment is down across all three school districts that service the Plan Area (Palo Alto
Unified School District, Mountain View-Whisman School District and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High
School District).
• The City has a policy to reach two acres of neighborhood parks plus two acres of district parks per 1,000
residents (four acres total per 1,000 residents) and a parkland dedication requirement of five acres of
neighborhood park, district park, recreational facilities, and open space for every 1,000 residents.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 59
41
7. NOISE AND AIR QUALITY
Noise and Vibration
The analysis for noise and vibration for the Plan Area includes a description of the fundamentals of environmental
noise and ground-borne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses the existing noise
environment. It also identifies constraints for potential noise-sensitive uses and provides guidance to attain noise
and land use compatibility. A noise measurement survey was completed to establish existing noise levels from
substantial sources in the Plan Area, including both long- and short-term measurements at several locations.
SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Primary sources of noise in the Plan Area include:
• Major ground transportation corridors such as US-101, Central Expressway/Alma Street, San Antonio Road,
and Middlefield Road.
• Minor ground transportation corridors, such as small arterial roadways and collector streets, produce noise
levels that contribute to ambient conditions on a localized basis.
• The Union Pacific Railroad, located west of Central Expressway/Alma Street, provides a thoroughfare for
freight and passenger (Caltrain) trains that produce noise and vibration during pass-by events.
• Palo Alto Airport lies approximately 1.7 miles north-east of the Plan Area, and Moffett Federal Airfield lies
approximately 2.2 miles south-east of the Plan Area, producing intermittent noise due to aircraft overflights.
• Noise sources located on private property such as mechanical equipment, including fans, blowers, chillers,
compressors, boilers, pumps, and air conditioning systems that may run continuously, and other intermittent
sources of noise, including emergency generators, horns, and loading activities.
Sensitive land uses within and around the Plan Area include residences, hotels, religious institutions, schools,
medical facilities, and libraries. Residential development is sensitive to community noise, both outdoors and
indoors. Single-family residential development, schools, libraries, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of
worship are considered the most noise-sensitive land uses. High-density/mixed-use residential, commercial, and
industrial development is considered less noise-sensitive because uses are primarily indoors and can be mitigated
with building design and construction.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• Locate sensitive land uses in noise and vibration environments that are compatible with the proposed uses.
The possibility of sensitive development encroaching on existing noise sources could result in some land use
conflicts, requiring careful consideration during the planning process.
• Ensure that new noise-generating land uses do not substantially increase ambient noise levels at adjacent
sensitive land uses.
• Ensure that increase in traffic does not substantially increase ambient noise levels at sensitive land uses.
• Mitigate construction noise and construction vibration to the extent possible to not adversely affect
adjacent sensitive land uses.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 60
42
Air Quality
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) publishes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Air Quality Guidelines and provides tools and recommendations to develop plans that are consistent with Clean
Air Plan goals. Air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis for the Plan Area found the following
issues:
• Meeting Ambient Air Quality Standards. The region is considered to be in non-attainment for the criteria
air pollutants ozone (O3) and particulate matter (respirable particulate matter [PM10] and fine particulate
matter [PM2.5]). Criteria air pollutant levels have generally decreased over the last 25 years, as regional
emissions of pollutants and precursor pollutants have decreased. An increase in episodes of wildfire smoke
in recent years, however, has caused spikes in the number of days that air quality standards have been
exceeded. While overall trends for air pollutants remain downward over the last 25 years, the trend in
annual PM2.5 concentrations has only slightly decreased; however, the levels are at or below standards. A
large number of exceedances occurred in the years 2017 through 2020 due to episodes of wildfire smoke.
• Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The Plan Area is less burdened with TACs than 50 percent of the State (a
CalEnviroScreen range of 5 to 50 percentile). The Air District considers 70 percentile or higher as
overburdened. While efforts to control TAC emissions have been quite effective, some areas are still
exposed to levels that exceed the Air District’s recommended thresholds. Common sources of TAC exposure
include large volumes of truck traffic, construction activity, diesel generators, and gasoline stations. Air
monitoring data published by the Air District for benzene shows dramatic decreases in ambient
concentrations at all Bay Area stations.
Conclusions
For the Plan Area to grow while maintaining air quality, the following challenges will need to be resolved:
• Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that land
use plans demonstrate the growth in vehicle travel (measured as trips or VMT) at a lower rate than the
population growth rate. This could be accomplished through land uses and policies that encourage non-
motorized travel and shorter commute distances.
• Compliance with Clean Air Plan Measures and Air District Recommendations. Planned land uses will need
to be in conformity with Clean Air Plan measures, including periodic updates by the Air District to ensure
progress in attaining and maintaining ambient air quality standards.
• Reducing Unhealthy Exposure to TAC and Air Pollutants. The effects of TACs on the public is typically
evaluated through health risk assessments (HRAs) that predict excess cancer risk, non-cancer health hazards,
and exposure to PM2.5. The Plan Area is affected by a large number of TAC sources. The primary sources
that drive overall exposures are busy roadways, diesel locomotives using Caltrain, and stationary sources
permitted by the Air District. The Air District provides screening tools to assess the risks that these sources
pose to the Area. Refined modeling can be conducted at a project level to further assess these impacts and
predict future exposures as controls to reduce TACs become more effective.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 61
43
8. INFRASTRUCTURE
Note: Some of the topics discussed in this section (such as sea level rise) overlap with topics discussed in Sections 5
and 9. Since these topics are relevant for each of these subject areas, they have been included in each section.
Storm Drain Infrastructure
Storm drainage facilities in and around the Plan Area are owned and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. Per the
2015 City of Palo Alto Storm Drain Master Plan, the Plan Area is located within the Adobe Creek Watershed and
surface water drains north towards Adobe Creek and towards the San Francisco Bay. Local stormwater
infrastructure is located in the rights-of-way of San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road, Fabian Way, and along
Adobe Creek, which runs on the north side of the Plan Area. The Master Plan found that portions of the storm
drain system are currently under
capacity, and identified high priority
system upgrades for East and West
Bayshore Road, East Meadow Drive,
East Meadow Circle, East Charleston
Road and Adobe Creek, and Fabian
Way, as shown in Figure 8.1.
FLOODING
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM) indicate a range of flood hazard
risk levels for parcels within the Plan
Area. As discussed in Section 5, the
Plan Area between East Charleston
Road and the San Francisco Bay falls
within Zone AE, a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) subject to inundation by a
one percent annual chance flood,
known as the base flood with an
elevation of 10.5. The rest of the Plan
Area falls within Flood Zone X with a
lower probability of flooding. The Plan
Area periodically experiences flooding
during large storm events at the area
bound by East Bayshore Road and
Adobe Creek, West Bayshore Road
and Adobe Creek, East Meadow Circle
and Fabian Drive upstream of the
Adobe Pump Station. The flooding
experienced is generally due to flap
gates unable to open when the water
level in the creek exceeds the height
of the gate at the outfall. In 2024
Public Works Engineering completed Source: City of Palo Alto’s 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan, Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015.
Figure 8.1. 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan Priority Projects
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 62
44
the necessary improvements along East Meadow Circle and East Meadow Drive and eliminated the flooding
potential that would otherwise occur when the gravity fed line was unable to discharge into the creek. Public
Works Engineering is working on a separate construction contract to install two small pump stations and storm
drainpipe upgrades on both East and West Bayshore Road to eliminate the street flooding that occurs near Adobe
Creek. These projects will be completed by December 2026.
Future development projects should anticipate implementation measures to protect from flooding and sea level
rise, and to reduce impact on existing drainage infrastructure.
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The City of Palo Alto owns and maintains the wastewater system. Local wastewater is collected and conveyed to
sewer mains on all public roads and public utility easements on private property, with the trunk main located at
the north-east side of the Plan Area. All wastewater is then conveyed to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant for treatment and discharge or reuse as recycled water. The 2004 Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan – Capacity Assessment by MWH Americas evaluated the capacity of the existing wastewater system
and identified areas with limited capacities and need for system improvements and rehabilitation. According to
the 2023 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, all the identified projects have been completed. The City is planning
to complete a new Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Study which will include an updated capacity assessment and
recommendations for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Future development projects should anticipate
implementing system upgrades that align with identified deficiencies in the future Master Plan Study.
Additionally, there are several sewer mains within the Plan Area smaller than eight inches that should be replaced
with larger pipe sizes as part of future development.
Domestic and Recycled Water Infrastructure
The City of Palo Alto owns and maintains the water distribution system. The Plan Area is adequately served, with
water mains in the rights-of-way of Fabian Drive, San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, Alma
Street, and East and West Bayshore Road. Future development with a change in land use should anticipate
implementing system upgrades, with review on a project-by-project basis. Some of the smaller existing water
mains may need to be upsized to meet localized fire flow requirements, depending on actual building heights,
locations, densities, and construction types.
Currently, only the areas east of US-101 and Greer Park are serviced with recycled water. The City has also
identified future expansions of the recycled water distribution system within City extents but outside of the Plan
Area. Given the proximity of the Plan Area to the existing recycled water system, the City may consider expanding
the recycled water distribution system within the Plan Area to offset future water demand and usage. New
recycled water pipelines would need to be extended across US-101 to serve the majority of the Plan Area.
Distribution pipelines would also need to be built within the street rights-of-way to serve individual properties,
and new buildings in the Plan Area would need to be dual plumbed for both domestic and recycled water use.
Further study is required to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the existing recycled water distribution system
into the Plan Area.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 63
45
Natural Gas and Electricity Infrastructure
The City of Palo Alto provides natural gas and electricity. Multiple gas mains serve the Plan Area that are located
within the rights-of-way of every public street as well as on several private roads and properties. With current
policies encouraging new development to be designed as “all electric,” the demand for natural gas is expected to
decrease. Existing electrical and fiber optic lines adequately serve the Plan Area. Existing electrical utilities consist
of both underground and overhead lines. It should be anticipated that existing overhead electrical lines will be
converted to underground lines in conjunction with future development. It should also be anticipated that future
development will increase electrical demand. Undergrounding existing overhead electrical lines could represent
an opportunity to upgrade the network in anticipation of potential increases in electrical demand.
Key Findings and Conclusions
• The City of Palo Alto owns and provides stormwater, wastewater, domestic water, recycled water, natural
gas, and electrical utilities.
• Stormwater. Stormwater drains north towards Adobe Creek and the San Francisco Bay via catch basins and
pipes in public rights-of-way. The Adobe Pump Station is located within the Plan Area, and outfalls into
Adobe Creek. The 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan identified seven high priority improvement projects in the
vicinity of the Plan Area to alleviate flooding caused by large storm events. Two of these projects are
complete, three are under construction and two others will be completed by 2032.
• Flooding. The portion of Plan Area that falls within FEMA Flood Zone AE is subject to inundation by a one
percent annual chance flood, also known as the base flood with an elevation of 10.5. The remaining portion
of the Plan Area that falls within FEMA Flood Zone X, has a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. Future
developments in the Plan Area will have to account for the base flood elevation and implement measures to
protect new buildings from flooding and sea level rise in accordance with Building Codes. For example,
under FEMA regulations, basement levels are not permitted beneath residential buildings within FEMA Flood
Zones.
• Wastewater. Local wastewater is collected and conveyed via sewer mains in public rights-of-way and public
utility easements on private property, then conveyed to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
for treatment and discharged into the San Francisco Bay, or reused as reclaimed water. According to the
2023 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, all improvement projects identified in the 2004 Wastewater Master
Plan have been completed. Future development projects should anticipate implementing system upgrades
that align with identified deficiencies in any future Master Plan studies.
• Domestic Water. The area is served by water mains in all public rights-of-way and public utility easements
on private property. Some smaller water mains may need to be upsized with future development in order to
meet localized fire flow requirements.
• Recycled Water. The only recycled water line in the vicinity of the Plan Area runs along East Bayshore Road.
Given its proximity to existing lines, the City may consider expanding the recycled water distribution system
within the Plan Area to offset future water demand and usage.
• Natural Gas. With current policies encouraging the transition of new developments to be designed as “all
electric,” a decrease in demand for natural gas is expected.
• Electricity. Existing electrical utilities consist of both underground and overhead lines. In conjunction with
future development and anticipated increase in demand for electricity, there can be opportunities to
underground existing overhead electrical lines when upgrading the electrical network.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 64
46
Source: Cal-Adapt, Raimi + Associates
9. CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE
Note: Some of the topics discussed in this section (such as sea level rise) overlap with topics discussed in Sections 5
and 8. Since these topics relevant for each of these subject areas, they have been included in each section.
Policies Regarding Climate Hazard Planning
Hazards related to climate change studied for the Plan Area include sea level rise (SLR), shallow groundwater rise,
flooding, changes to precipitation and drought, extreme heat, and wildfire. Plan Area-specific information
regarding impacts from climate change is referenced from the Santa Clara County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
and Palo Alto Annex (2024), the Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, and data from Cal-Adapt.
The Safety Element of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan addresses natural and human-caused hazards. It
contains a Natural Hazards policy framework that includes general safety measures and measures to address
flood and fire risk. In 2023-24, Santa Clara County led the update of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan (SCC MJHMP) with 15 participating jurisdictions and three special districts. As a
participating jurisdiction, Palo Alto adopted its own Annex to the SCC MJHMP with more City-specific information.
The ratings in the Annex are from an emergency management lens so they do not consider how climate change
will increase the probability and impacts of each hazard in the future. Rather, it considers climate change as a
hazard on its own. The City of Palo Alto’s 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) aims to reduce
carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. Though the
S/CAP’s main purpose is climate action (greenhouse gas mitigation) one of its “Key Issues” is “Climate Adaptation
and Sea Level Rise”. The S/CAP has two goals and eight actions related to climate adaptation, and also has goals
and associated actions to “minimize the impacts of wildland fire hazards,” but they are not as directly relevant to
the Plan Area because it is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Future development in the Plan Area will also be affected by new SLR planning processes. SB 272 (2023) requires
that all local governments in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) adopt a subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan that complies with the requirements of the BCDC Regional
Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) by January 2034. Palo Alto is in BCDC’s jurisdiction and can adopt a plan on its
own or be part of a plan with other entities.
Baseline Conditions and Projections
Climate projections from the Cal-Adapt database and other reports completed by the City are summarized in
Table 9.1.
Table 9.1. Summary of Hazard Projections
Climate Hazard Trend
Sea level rise More areas potentially exposed to inundation and flooding
Shallow groundwater rise Higher groundwater levels and more areas where groundwater comes above the
surface of the ground (emergent groundwater)
Flooding Flooding may exceed mapped FEMA floodplains
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 65
47
SEA LEVEL RISE
The Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East
Charleston Road may only experience temporary
flooding during a 100-year storm tide under
current conditions and for up to 24 inches of SLR.
However, the SLR Vulnerability Assessment found
that the average high tide with 36 inches of SLR is
a tipping point when many areas of the City
become vulnerable to permanent inundation
(Figure 9.1). With SLR at 36 inches and above, and
without further shoreline protections, the
Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East
Charleston Road may experience permanent
inundation with the average high tide, and the
extent of temporary flooding will extend further
inland.
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER RISE
Currently, the existing depth of groundwater
surface within the Plan Area ranges from more
than 10 feet farthest away from the Bay (inland
from Mackay Drive), to less than zero feet in the
area that is part of the Baylands Nature Preserve
(Figure 9.2). However, groundwater within the
Plan Area is projected to rise as SLR occurs. In
general, areas close to the Bay shoreline (and
former wetland areas) are more likely to
experience emergent groundwater flooding. The
area of emergent groundwater expands inland
with higher SLR scenarios.
LIQUEFACTION
Elevation of the groundwater table can affect
liquefaction hazards during large earthquakes.
Nearly all the Plan Area has only “Moderate”
liquefaction susceptibility. However, a portion of
the Plan Area across US-101 close to tidal marshes
has “Very High” susceptibility.
Precipitation and drought Longer dry spells and more extreme storms
Extreme heat Higher average and maximum temperatures, more heatwaves with longer duration,
more warm nights
Wildfire More wildfire smoke
Figure 9.1. SLR Exposure Projections
Source: City of Palo Alto SLR Vulnerability Assessment, 2024; Raimi + Associates, 2025.
Figure 9.2. Existing and Projected Groundwater Depth
Source: City of Palo Alto SLR Vulnerability Assessment, 2024; Raimi + Associates, 2025.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 66
48
FLOODING
As mentioned previously in Sections 5 and 8 of this report, portions of the Plan Area are in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone AE, which designates a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) with a one
percent or greater annual chance of flooding. Within the Plan Area, the AE Flood Zone covers a large area
generally from Middlefield Road to the Bay. The remainder of the Plan Area is designated as Flood Zone X, which
falls inside the 500-year flood zone.
Key Findings and Conclusions
• The Plan Area is projected to experience varying degrees of flooding from Sea Level Rise (SLR). Temporary
flooding may occur under existing conditions and up to 24 inches of SLR. However, 36 inches of SLR is a
tipping point at which permanent flooding could occur in the Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East
Charleston Road.
• The Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East Charleston Road is within FEMA Flood Zone AE, which
means it could be flooded by a one percent chance annual flood event. The rest of the Plan Area is within
FEMA Flood Zone X, which means it is at moderate-to-low flood risk.
• Groundwater is projected to rise as sea levels rise. An increase of 36 inches of SLR is the point at which
groundwater may begin emerging above the ground surface in the Plan Area.
• All available indicators of extreme heat (e.g., average daily temperatures, duration of heat waves) are
projected to increase in the Plan Area.
• The Plan Area is not directly in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, but it may experience more wildfire smoke in the
future, due to an increased likelihood and severity of wildfires in other parts of the City and region.
Item 3
Attachment A - San Antonio
Road Area Plan Existing
Conditions Analysis
Summary Report,
September 4, 2025 Draft
Packet Pg. 67
Item 3
Attachment B - San Antonio Road
Area Plan Map
Packet Pg. 68
Item No. 4. Page 1 of 17
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Chief Transportation Official
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: September 10, 2025
Report #: 2507-4946
TITLE
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Provide Feedback on Conceptual Design Alternatives
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) review and provide initial
feedback on eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and Alternatives
Analysis (Attachment B) for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project for grade
separated bicycle and pedestrian rail crossings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Project) to
assess ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in the southern
portion of the City (south of Oregon Expressway). This Project will identify locations and
develop 15% conceptual designs for two new grade-separated crossings.
This Staff Report presents eight potential Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) and
an Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) that compares those alternatives for community review
and feedback. The eight alternatives include the following:
A. Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel
B. Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
C. Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
D. Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel
E. Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
F. Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel
G. Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel
H. Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Staff recommends the PTC review and provide initial feedback on these alternatives and the
analysis of these alternatives. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 69
Item No. 4. Page 2 of 17
community engagement and technical design work will also be needed once locations and basic
design concepts have been selected.
This Project aligns with Council approved plans including the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and
2025 Safe Streets for All Action Plan. The Project has also been undertaken in consultation with
ongoing efforts including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), San Antonio
Road Area Plan, and Cubberley Community Center Master Plan. This Project is critical to
improving active transportation to and from the neighborhoods that will receive new housing
growth and amenities, allowing more comfortable access by all to reach these areas.
City Staff will return to PTC in November 2025 with a request to select two preferred
conceptual design alternatives to recommend to Council. In late 2025, Council will then select
the preferred alternative, considering input from community members, boards, commissions,
committees, and stakeholders.
BACKGROUND
In July 2012, Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012 BPTP)1 to
guide investments in non-motorized transportation facilities and related programs in the City.
The 2012 BPTP identified the 1.3-mile distance between the California Avenue Bike/Pedestrian
Tunnel and Meadow Drive as the longest stretch of track barrier in Palo Alto and recommended
a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street in
the vicinity of Matadero Creek/Park Boulevard or between Margarita Avenue and Loma Verde
Avenue.
On January 22, 2013, Council approved the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (2013)2 which
identified a need for additional grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings, particularly in
the southern portion of the City. This need was reiterated in November 2017, when Council
adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan3. The Comprehensive Plan includes program T1.19.3 to
"increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings across Alma Street and the
Caltrain corridor, particularly south of Oregon Expressway."
On June 19, 2023, Council authorized staff to undertake the BPTP Update4. On June 2, 2025,
Council reviewed, provided input, and expressed general support for the plan’s draft
1 City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Adopted July 2012;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/bicycle-pedestrian-transportation-
plan_adopted-july-2012.pdf
2 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, Approved January 22, 2013;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-
projects/parc-130122-final-report.pdf
3 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, Adopted November 13, 2017, Amended December 19, 2022;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-development-services/3.-comprehensive-
plan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf
4 City Council, June 19, 2023; Consent Calendar Item #34;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1170
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 70
Item No. 4. Page 3 of 17
framework and many projects.5 On June 2, 2025, Council also adopted the Safe Streets and
Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan6 which includes, “Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian
Crossings Along the Caltrain Corridor” as one of many strategies to help eliminate
transportation fatalities and serious injuries by 2035.
On April 15, 2024, Council also adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element7, which provided a
framework for accommodating 6,086 new housing units by 2031 to meet State requirements.
Maintaining quality of life while accommodating growth, reinforces the need for convenient
and high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that address everyday trips and free up
roadway capacity.
Finally, in addition to the above City plans, in 2018, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) adopted the Countywide Bike Plan (CBP) which identified the Caltrain tracks in
southern Palo Alto as a key barrier to bicycle movement in the County. The VTA CBP identified
crossing locations between Oregon Expressway and Meadow Drive as Priority Across Barrier
Connections (ABC) due to the long distance between crossings of major barriers and
inadequate roadway crossings; and identified San Antonio Road across the Caltrain corridor as
an Unconstructed On-Street Cross County Bicycle Corridor (CCBC) and Priority CCBC.8
On September 9, 2024, Council approved a professional services contract (C25191297) with
Kittelson & Associates to provide professional services to support concept design for
pedestrian/bicycle crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto.9 The project scope,
which is being undertaken collaboratively with City staff, includes:
• Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions;
• Community Outreach and Engagement;
• Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria;
• Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives;
• Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives;
• Identification of two Locally Preferred Locations and Concepts;
• 15% Design of the Locally Preferred Alternatives for new Grade-Separated
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossings, plus context-sensitive pedestrian and bicycle
enhancements that link to the existing or planned transportation networks;
• Development of an Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy; and
5 City Council, June 2, 2025; Study Session Item #3;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16122
6 City of Palo Alto Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, Adopted June 2, 2025;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/ss4a-safety-action-plan/palo-alto-
safety-action-plan_final_june_2025.pdf
7 City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Adopted April 15, 2024, Certified August 20, 2024;
https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element.pdf
8 Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan, May 2018; https://www.vta.org/projects/santa-clara-countywide-bike-plan-
update-2018 pp. 32, 27, 61.
9 City Council, September 9, 2024; Consent Calendar Item #7;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14393
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 71
Item No. 4. Page 4 of 17
• Securing funding for future project phases, including preliminary engineering,
environmental documentation, final design, and construction.
ANALYSIS
The following tasks have been undertaken so far:
• Background Review and Analysis of Existing Conditions
• Community Outreach and Engagement Plan
• Development of Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
• Development of Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
• Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives
The Existing Conditions Report and Draft Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Memorandum
were presented to PTC on May 14, 2025.10 The Community Outreach and Engagement Plan and
associated efforts are described in the section on Stakeholder Engagement below. Efforts
related to design priorities and evaluation criteria, preliminary conceptual alternatives and
initial assessment of conceptual alternatives are described in the sections below.
Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design priorities and evaluation criteria provide metrics to guide the development, assessment,
and comparison of preliminary design alternatives. Based on Council approved plans, such as
the Comprehensive Plan, 2012 BPTP, and Rail Corridor Study, the Project team prepared draft
design priorities and evaluation criteria for community feedback during the first phase of
engagement. The Project team has provided a memorandum on Updated Design Priorities and
Evaluation Criteria, which considers and incorporates community feedback and is available on
the project webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings).11
Updated design priorities include:
• Improve Mobility: Prioritize locations and designs that integrate with surrounding
networks, provide access to critical destinations, serve the most users, and
accommodate current and future transportation needs.
• Enhance User Experience: Design facilities guided by the prioritization of the most
vulnerable populations,12 and create safe, well-lit spaces that are comfortable to access
and utilize.
10 Planning and Transportation Commission, May 14, 2025; Study Session Item #4;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16526
11 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Memorandum, July 23,
2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-
railroad-crossings/spa-bike-ped-connectivity_updated-design-priorities-and-evaluation-criteria_2025-07-23.pdf
12 Vulnerable populations are groups or communities at a higher risk of experiencing negative health, social, or
economic outcomes due to various factors. These factors can be related to social, economic, political, environmental, or individual circumstances. Examples include children, older adults, people with disabilities, low-
income individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 72
Item No. 4. Page 5 of 17
• Maximize Ease of Construction: Minimize potential for disruption during construction
and complexity of design, while ensuring that construction costs and maintenance costs
are feasible to implement given reasonably expected project funding.
• Enhance Visual Appeal: Ensure that newly constructed facilities enhance the sense of
community by incorporating public art, public spaces, and attractive structures.
• Minimize Community Impacts: Limit potential impacts on existing neighborhoods,
including the amount of space needed (parking spaces, roads, and buildings are
minimally affected) and impacts on the environment.
Evaluation criteria are presented in Table 1, with updated criteria and descriptions shown in
bold text.
Table 1: Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Improve
Mobility
Neighborhood
accessibility
Walk and bike access within 5-, 10-, and 15-minutes of each crossing
location. Information will be presented as an isochrone map of walk
and bike sheds overlaid with key destinations such as schools and
parks.2
Demand# Projected number of users (people walking and biking) on a daily
basis and during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This analysis will
account for future population growth and land use development.
Facility width and
capacity#
Width of facility and ability of rail crossing to accommodate people
walking and biking, including people with mobility devices (e.g.,
wheelchairs), cargo bikes, and bike trailers.
Enhance User
Experience
Crossing length# Total length of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the
crossing distance of the tunnel/bridge and ramp structures.
Crossing elevation
and ramp grade#
Total change in elevation of the crossing facility. This analysis
considers the ramp grades and distance below/above grade
required for the tunnel/bridge structure.
Pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort
Extent to which existing pedestrian and bicycle network would
provide low-stress access to and through the rail crossing(s). This
analysis considers the existing network and the types of
improvements (e.g., new or upgraded facilities) required to provide
comfortable on-street connections to and through the new crossing.
Personal security Alignment of rail crossing facility (e.g., directness of the crossing,
number of turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis considers
access control to direct people to designated entrances and exits, as
well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for natural
observation of people within the crossing, reducing opportunities
for criminal activities and other unwanted behaviors.
Maximize Ease
of
Construction
Utility impacts Level of disruption to existing and planned utilities, extent of
relocations required.
Construction cost# Rough order of magnitude of project construction cost, including cost
of the tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required to
provide low-stress on-street connections.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 73
Item No. 4. Page 6 of 17
Design Priority Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Construction
duration
Anticipated duration of construction, level of disruption and level of
coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade Separation
Project expected during the construction period.
Operations and
maintenance cost
Magnitude of projected annual cost of operations and maintenance
(e.g., flooding, landscaping).
Enhance Visual
Appeal
Public space and
green infrastructure
Potential to create new public spaces and implement green
infrastructure.
Minimize
Community
Impacts
Environmental
impacts
Extent to which crossing impacts the environment - impervious areas,
creeks/drainage, sea level rise, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and
existing parkland.
Parcel impacts# Number of parcels needed, all or in part, to construct crossing and
approach facilities.
Traffic, parking, and
driveway impacts
Extent to which rail crossings affect existing vehicle circulation,
vehicle parking, and access to existing driveways.
Notes:
1 Criteria marked with an “#” are quantitative and a specific value will be presented. Criteria without a “#” are qualitative and will be scored
using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance.
2 An isochrone map of a walk or bike shed represents areas accessible within the same amount of time from a specific point.
Bold text indicates language that has been added or updated.
Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
The Project team identified eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives (Attachment A) to
achieve the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved direction:
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel: Alternative A would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad
tracks and provide a connection between El Dorado Avenue and Park Boulevard. The
intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic
signal and dual ramps and stairways extending along the landscaping strip between the
railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. A ramp would be constructed through
an existing surface parking lot, connecting to existing bike facilities on Park Boulevard.
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel: Alternative B would construct a tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue and Margarita
Avenue. The tunnel would connect a center-running two-way bike/ped ramp on Loma
Verde Avenue to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue.
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative C would construct a tunnel
underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Loma Verde Avenue
and Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Loma Verde Avenue would be
reconfigured with a new traffic signal and a stairway would be constructed to provide
direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the landscaping strip between
the railroad tracks and Alma Street in both directions. The tunnel would connect to the
intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue potentially using a combination of
switchback ramps and stairs.
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel: Alternative D would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad
tracks and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and Park Boulevard. The
intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a T-intersection and a
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 74
Item No. 4. Page 7 of 17
ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south
direction on the east side of Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90
degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks and connect to the
intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving ramp and
stairs.
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal: Alternative E would construct a tunnel
underneath the railroad tracks and provide a connection between Lindero Drive and
Park Boulevard. The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a
signalized T-intersection. A ramp would be constructed in the landscaping strip and
extend in the north-south direction on the west side of Alma Street. The ramp would
meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad tracks
and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of
a curving ramp and stairs.
F. Ely Pl Tunnel: Alternative F would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad tracks and
provide a connection between Ely Place and Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive. An
enhanced pedestrian crosswalk, such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, would be installed
at the intersection of Alma Street/Ely Place. A pathway and ramp would extend in the
north-south direction along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street. The
path would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and connect to the
intersection of Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive using a combination of a curving ramp
and stairs.
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel: Alternative G would construct a tunnel underneath the railroad
tracks and provide a connection between Ferne Avenue in Palo Alto and Del Medio
Avenue in Mountain View. The intersection of Alma Street/Ferne Avenue would be
reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A ramp would extend north-south along the
landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street. The path would turn 90 degrees to
cross under the railroad tracks and then turn back another 90 degrees to connect into
Mountain View. Further coordination is needed to refine designs in Mountain View.
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements: Alternative H would install a center-running two-
way separated bike lane along San Antonio Road from Nita Avenue in Palo Alto to
Mountain View. Protected bike lanes would be installed on San Antonio Avenue and the
existing sidewalk/shared use path on the west side of Alma Street would be widened
and improved to enhance the existing connection for people walking and biking along
San Antonio Avenue to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and tunnel at Mayfield Avenue.
Further coordination is needed to refine designs in Mountain View.
Please note that these alternatives are high-level, preliminary concepts. Each of the above
alternatives has right-of-way implications that would also need to be addressed once the list is
narrowed down. Importantly, no decision has yet been made by the City to acquire any
property. Before that decision can be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired
first be appraised. If the City continues to consider the acquisition of property after completion
of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will contact the owner and make a formal
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 75
Item No. 4. Page 8 of 17
written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount determined by the City to be just
compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an appraisal approved by
the City. Without authority from the City Council, Staff has no authority to commit to the
acquisition of any property that might be impacted by the conceptual design alternatives
presented in this analysis.
Additionally, each of the above alternatives would also be contingent upon the City obtaining
relevant permits or permissions from other involved agencies such as Caltrain, the City of
Mountain View, the County of Santa Clara, and Valley Water.
Figure 1 shows the locations of the eight preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives. Figure 2
shows the basic concept designs of all eight Conceptual Design Alternatives on a single page for
ease of comparison. See Attachment A for a full set of concept designs with supporting imagery
for all Conceptual Design Alternatives.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 76
Item No. 4. Page 9 of 17
Figure 1: Locations of Crossing Alternatives
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 77
Item No. 4. Page 10 of 17
Figure 2: Overview of All Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives
The identification of the above conceptual alternatives included development of a
comprehensive list of potential alternatives and an initial screening process. Over 25 potential
design alternatives considering crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignments) and
facility types (e.g., bridge or tunnel) were included as part of the initial screening process. As
with all transportation projects, the identification of alternatives for this Project involved
consideration and balancing of diverse and sometimes competing needs in the allocation of
public right-of-way and resources. The initial screening criteria aligned with Project goals and
design priorities and aimed to systematically identify less feasible or reasonable alternatives.
There were three primary reasons why an alternative was eliminated from further
consideration:
1. The alternative did not satisfy the Project goals and design priorities;
2. The alternative was determined to be not practical or feasible from a technical,
environmental and/or economic standpoint; or
3. The alternative substantially duplicated another alternative and offered little advantage
to similar alternative(s).
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 78
Item No. 4. Page 11 of 17
Transportation projects are inherently complex. Each of the eight alternatives included above
were developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines and standards, including the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain Corridor Crossings
Delivery Guide (August 2024), Caltrain Design Criteria (January 2024), Caltrain Standards for
Design and Maintenance of Structures (January 2024), American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and
informed by the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
While specific requirements and guidance were used to ensure that the alternatives were all
technically feasible, the alternatives are still very fluid and subject to refinement. For example,
ramp alignments, grades and/or tunnel widths could be altered somewhat to design or
property concerns. Design variations are described in more detail in the Alternatives Analysis
(Attachment B). Additional community engagement and technical design work will be needed
once locations and basic design concepts have been selected.
Refinement and selection of designs will also involve collaboration with multiple agencies with
authority and interest in this Project, including the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB)
(owner and operator of Caltrain), City of Mountain View, County of Santa Clara, Valley Water,
Caltrans, and others. The City will need to continue to work with these agencies as we advance
through the design process to secure permits and meet their needs.
Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives
The Alternatives Analysis (Attachment B) evaluates and scores each of the eight preliminary
Conceptual Design Alternatives using the design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in
the previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional
judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignments with community values,
and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these
evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred
alternatives.
The Project team completed a technical evaluation of the alternatives, considering each of the
crossing options and the corresponding community connections. An overview of the
assessment for each alternative is presented below. Table 2 present a summary of the results
from the alternatives evaluation used to assess the degree to which the alternative aligns with
each of the selected evaluation criteria. Additional information is presented in the Alternatives
Analysis (Attachment B).
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 79
Item No. 4. Page 12 of 17
Table 1: Evaluation Criteria Results Summary
Evaluation Criteria
A. E
l
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
B. L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
C. L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
wit
h
A
l
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
D. L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
E. L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
Alm
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
F. E
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
G. F
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
H. S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
Enh
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation & Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bike Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveways
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on community
input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment with community values
and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the
process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Neighborhood Accessibility. Alternatives A, B, and C provide the greatest increase in
accessibility and would close the largest gap in distance between crossings. Alternative D and E
would provide the lowest reduction to travel times to crossings.
Demand. Alternatives A, B, C, G, and H are estimated to attract the greatest number of bike and
pedestrian users. Alternatives D, E, and F are expected to attract the fewest users.
Facility Width and Capacity. Facility width and capacity would be similar across alternatives,
with the exception of Alternative H, which would construct a narrower 10-foot wide two-way
separated bike lane compared to the 20-foot wide tunnel and 12-foot wide ramps proposed for
other alternatives.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 80
Item No. 4. Page 13 of 17
Crossing Length. Alternative H would utilize existing crossings and would not reduce the
distance to cross relative to existing conditions. Alternative A would have the shortest crossing
length but would require some out of direction travel along the crossing alignment, while
Alternative B would have the longest crossing length but would provide the most direct
connections to the existing bike network.
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade. Alternatives would perform the same with respect to
crossing elevation and ramp grade. Alternatives A through G propose ramps constructed with a
7% slope. Alternative H would enhance connections to the existing tunnel at the San Antonio
Caltrain Station near Mayfield Drive, which is constructed at the same depth and with similar
ramping as the other alternatives.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort. Alternative B would provide the greatest level of pedestrian
and bicyclist comfort to and through the tunnel, as it would create a low-stress connection
across Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and would provide the most direct and comfortable
connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Personal Security. While all alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design
practices, Alternative B would rank the highest, providing the greatest level of visibility and
opportunities for natural surveillance because of the shorter and more direct tunnels and use of
the existing bridge structure. Alternative F and G would be least desirable as a result of the
number of 90-degree turns and ramp access locations in less active areas.
Utility Impacts. Alternative H would have the least impact on utilities, except for the overhead
lighting in the center median on San Antonio Road. Alternatives B and D would have the
greatest potential impact, requiring relocation of existing utilities within the roadway to outside
of the proposed tunnel limits.
Construction Cost. Alternatives B and D are projected to be the most expensive to build, while
Alternative H would have the lowest estimated construction cost.
Construction Duration. Alternatives A, B, and C are anticipated to have the shortest
construction duration and earliest possible construction start time since they are outside
proposed construction limits (subject to change) for the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Alternatives G and H are also anticipated to have shorter construction durations and start times
but require additional coordination with the City of Mountain View and other agencies that
may extend overall durations.
Operations and Maintenance Cost. Alternatives B and D would be anticipated to have the
highest operations and maintenance costs, while Alternative H would have the lowest
operations and maintenance costs.
Public Space and Green Infrastructure. Alternatives D and E provide more opportunities for
landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas. Alternatives C and F would have
the least potential to improve existing public space or provide new green infrastructure.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 81
Item No. 4. Page 14 of 17
Environmental Impacts. Alternative H would have a minimal potential impact on the
environment as it would not require tunneling, would not result in substantial increases in
impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have
no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Parcel Impacts. Alternatives A, G, and H are anticipated to impact (either fully or partially) the
fewest number of parcels, while Alternative D, E, and F are projected to fully impact one parcel.
Alternatives B and C are estimated to impact two parcels.
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts. Alternatives D and H would have the least potential to
increase vehicle delays, reduce parking availability, or affect driveway access compared to other
alternatives.
Next Steps
Preliminary Conceptual Design Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis are being shared with the
community for review and feedback in Phase 2 of engagement, occurring through fall 2025.
Feedback received during Phase 2 of engagement will result in the refinement and selection of
two preferred alternatives that will be carried forward for 15 percent design (conceptual
design).
City Council is the final decision maker for this Project. The Project is expected to return to PTC
in November 2025 with a request to select two preferred conceptual design alternatives to
recommend to Council. Council will then select the preferred alternatives in late 2025 with
consideration of input from community members, boards, commissions, committees and
stakeholders.
A public draft report with a funding and implementation plan for two preferred alternatives will
be shared for community feedback in Spring 2026, and a final report will be shared in Summer
2026 for community review and Council review and potential adoption.
After identification and completion of conceptual design, Staff will pursue subsequent phase as
directed by Council including:
• Securing Caltrain Service Agreement to Advance Project
• Seeking Grants and Funding
• Undertaking Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation
• Completing Final Design
• Obtaining Other Inter-Agency Agreements and Permits
• Securing Right of Way Acquisition or Easements
• Completing Construction
• Transitioning Completed Project Facilities to Palo Alto
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 82
Item No. 4. Page 15 of 17
This Project involves Caltrain and the City will need to align with Caltrain’s corridor crossings
strategy and Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide.13 The City expects that Caltrain will lead efforts
for preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, and construction.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
On September 9, 2024, Council approved the professional services contract (C25191297) with
Kittelson & Associates for a not-to-exceed amount of $499,491 for the Project for a term of
two-years. Sufficient funding for anticipated expenses is available in the FY 2026 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation project (PL- 04010) in the Capital Improvement
Fund.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement for this Project includes four phases:
• Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed
• Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025) – Underway
• Phase 3 Community Engagement: Review Public Draft Report (Spring 2026)
• Phase 4 Community Engagement: Council Adopt Final Report (Summer 2026)
Phase 1 Community Engagement: Establish Design Priorities (Spring 2025) – Completed
Stakeholder engagement during the first engagement phase14 is available on the project
webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings) and includes the following elements.
• Project Webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings) with regular updates on upcoming
meetings/events and Project materials.
• Project Fact Sheet shared with community members during in-person meetings/events.
• Small Group Discussions held virtually from November through December 2024
including representatives of the City Schools Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC),
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Caltrain, Palo Alto Unified School
District, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition (SVBC), and Stanford University. Participants also shared a list of criteria and
priorities for evaluating alternatives and emphasized the need for easy, well-lit,
accessible, safe crossings that are suitable for all ages and reduce the long distances
between crossings today. Participants also encouraged the team to consider a network
perspective addressing how to get to/from crossing points.
• Community Workshop held at Mitchell Park Community Center on April 2, 2025, from
6:00-7:30 p.m. and attended by approximately 50 community members. Community
members prioritized crossings that improved mobility and emphasized their general
13 https://www.caltrain.com/caltrain-corridor-crossings-delivery-guide
14 South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary Report, July 29, 2025;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroad-
crossings/spa_bike-ped-connectivity_phase-1-engagement-report_final_7.29.25.pdf
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 83
Item No. 4. Page 16 of 17
support for the project and interest in fast completion. A crossing around Matadero
Creek (El Dorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue) was the most popular location
amongst attendees, followed by locations between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
• Online Survey from April 1, 2025, to May 22, 2025, was made available on the Project
webpage. The City promoted the survey during in-person meetings/events, Weekly City
Manager Updates, PaloAltoConnect Blog, social media posts, UpLift Local eNewsletter,
and emails to Neighborhood Associations in south Palo Alto, public and private schools,
Stanford University, and community stakeholders in Mountain View with a request to
promote the online survey through email, newsletters, and/or other means. The survey
gathered more than 700 responses, offering insight into how those typically travel
around south Palo Alto and preferences regarding new bike and pedestrian rail
crossings.
• Pop-Up Events at California Ave Third Thursday (April 17, 2025), Earth Day Festival (April
27, 2025), and Bike to Work Day (May 15, 2025).
• Mailers sent to more than 1,500 business, community organization and residential
property addresses in the vicinity of the Project.
• Emails to Principals, PTA Team Presidents, and Traffic Safety Representatives (TSRs) of
all public schools in the southern portion of the City, as well as private schools,
Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in south Palo Alto, in addition to several
public and private schools, Neighborhood Associations, and businesses in nearby
Mountain View to inform them about the Project, share ways to get involved and
provide feedback, promote the online survey, and asked community partners to help
spread the word with their networks by via a communications toolkit.
• Presentations at meetings with the PABAC,15 PTC,16 Rail Committee,17 City/School
Transportation Safety Committee (CSTCS),18 and Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC)19 in May 2025. In addition, Alternative H was discussed at a joint meeting of
PABAC and Mountain View Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee on August 28, 2024.
• Additional Collaboration included interagency discussions as reflected in unscheduled
matching funds for the San Antonio Class IV Bikeway (US-15) in the City of Mountain
View Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2023-24 through 2027-28.
Phase 2 Community Engagement: Feedback on Alternatives (Fall 2025) – Underway
15 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, May 6, 2025; Discussion Item #7.a.;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac-meetings-
2025/2025-05-06_pabac-agenda-packet_final.pdf
16 Planning and Transportation Commission, May 14, 2025; Study Session Item #4;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16526
17 Rail Committee, May 20, 2025; Study Session Item #2;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17205
18 City/School Transportation Safety Committee, May 22, 2025; https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Office-
of-Transportation/May-2025-CitySchool-Transportation-Safety-Committee-Meeting
19 Parks and Recreation Commission, May 27, 2025; Business Items Item #5;
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16896
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 84
Item No. 4. Page 17 of 17
Phase 2 is currently in progress. During Phase 2 of engagement, the City is presenting the initial
eight alternatives and completed alternatives analysis with the community for review and
feedback. Feedback received during Phase 2 of engagement will be considered in the
refinement and selection of two preferred alternatives to be carried forward for 15 percent
conceptual design. A summary of Phase 2 outreach and engagement activities is provided
below:
• Project Webpage (paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings)
• Project Fact Sheet for the webpage and in-person meetings/events.
• Community Workshop at Mitchell Park Community Center (El Palo Alto Room) on
September 9, 2025, from 7:30-9:00 pm.
• Online Survey from August 15, 2025, through September 12, 2025, available on the
Project webpage.
• Pop-Up Events at community-wide events.
• Presentations at meetings with the PABAC, Rail Committee, PTC, and Council in Quarter
4 in 2025.
Phase 3 Community Engagement Review Public Draft Report (Spring 2026)
The Public Draft Report will include a funding and implementation plan for two preferred
alternatives that will be shared for feedback as part of Phase 3 of engagement in Spring 2026.
Phase 4 Community Engagement Council Adopt Final Report (Summer 2026)
The Final Report will be shared in Summer 2026 in Phase 4 for community review and Council
review and potential adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This study session is not a project as defined by California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) because it does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may
result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines section
15378(b)(4).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Conceptual Design Alternatives
Attachment B: Alternatives Analysis
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Charlie Coles, Senior Transportation Planner
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 85
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 86
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 87
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 88
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 89
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 90
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 91
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 92
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 93
Item 4
Attachment A - Conceptual
Design Alternatives
Packet Pg. 94
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Alternatives Analysis
September 2, 2025 Project# 30555
To: Charlie Coles, City of Palo Alto
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RE: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis
Introduction
The City of Palo Alto is conducting the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Project) to assess
ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in the southern portion of the City.
goals, this Project will identify locations and design concepts where two new grade-separated bicycle and
pedestrian crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto (south of Oregon Expressway) may be
constructed.
This Alternatives Analysis presents an assessment of eight conceptual design alternatives for community
review and feedback that builds on the analysis of existing conditions, incorporates feedback from the
community gathered during the first phase of engagement for this Project, and is consistent with the
Project goals and design priorities in support of Council approved plans and direction. Eight conceptual
design alternatives presented and discussed further in this analysis include the following:
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Figure 1 shows the locations of the eight alternatives evaluated in this Alternatives Analysis. The concept
design, description, and assessment of each alternative is presented in the following sections.
Over 25 potential design alternatives considering crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignments)
and facility types (e.g., bridge or tunnel) were included as part of the initial screening process. Alternatives
that would involve minor variations or shifts in alignment were not considered as part of the initial
screening, since minor changes in alignment would not meaningfully affect the performance of an
alternative. Attachment A describes the process used to develop and identify eight conceptual design
alternatives through the initial screening process.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 95
September 2, 2025 Page 2
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 1: Locations of Crossing Alternatives
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 96
September 2, 2025 Page 3
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Alternatives A, C, E, F, and G propose new at-grade crossings of Alma Street with a tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks, while Alternatives B and D propose tunnels underneath Alma Street and the railroad tracks.
Alternative H is a bridge/tunnel combination, utilizing the existing overpass structure on San Antonio
Road to provide a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks for bicycles. Alternative H will also
include enhancements to the existing at-grade crossing of Alma Street at San Antonio Avenue to provide
improved connection to the existing bike/ped tunnel underneath the railroad tracks at the San Antonio
Caltrain Station at Mayfield Avenue in Mountain View.
Alternatives A, B, C, and H appear to have the most potential to move forward based on initial input from
the community and prior Council approved plans and direction. However, in an effort to present a range
of potentially feasible options and confirm preferred locations and designs, the City developed eight
conceptual design alternatives for analysis, review and feedback from the community.
All conceptual design alternatives has been developed in accordance with applicable design guidelines
and standards, including the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrain Engineering Standards, Caltrain
Corridor Crossings Delivery Guide dated August 2024, Caltrain Design Criteria, 4th Edition dated January
2024, Caltrain Standards for Design and Maintenance of Structures Revised January 2024, American
Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards, guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and informed by
the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
Design concepts presented in this analysis are preliminary and intended for discussion purposes
only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement,
technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed once locations and basic design
concepts have been decided.
These conceptual design alternatives were developed with the intent of getting input from the community
to inform key design elements, such as the location and alignment of the tunnel and ramps/stairs,
treatment at Alma Street (tunnel or signal), as well as general design characteristics, including
ramp/tunnel widths and grades. These potential design variations are described in more detail for each
alternative in the following sections. Community feedback on the alternatives and design variations is
being gathered during the next phase of engagement. This input will be considered in selection of the
locally preferred alternatives to carry forward to 15 percent concept design.
While identifying and developing 15 percent concept designs for two preferred railroad crossing options
is the primary aim of the Project, an additional purpose is to identify the surface street improvements that
would be paired with each crossing to make walking and biking easier and more comfortable. The specific
bicycle and pedestrian network enhancements will be developed for each of the two alternatives in the
next phase of this Project and constructed in combination with each crossing to provide high comfort
connections to existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project
phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement (see Table 1).
Design priorities are organized in order of importance based on community feedback, with the highest
design priority (Improve Mobility) listed first. A High (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values, and a Low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 97
September 2, 2025 Page 4
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 1: Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design
Priority
Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Improve
Mobility
Neighborhood
accessibility
Walk and bike access within 5- 10- and 15-minutes of each
crossing location. Information will be presented as an isochrone
map of walk and bike sheds overlaid with key destinations such as
schools and parks2.
Demand#
Projected number of users (people walking and biking) on a daily
basis and during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This analysis will
account for future population growth and land use development.
Facility width and
capacity#
Width of facility and ability of rail crossing to accommodate
people walking and biking, including people with mobility devices
(e.g., wheelchairs), cargo bikes, and bike trailers.
Enhance User
Experience
Crossing length# Total length of the crossing facility. This analysis considers the
crossing distance of the tunnel/bridge and ramp structures.
Crossing elevation
and ramp grade#
Total change in elevation of the crossing facility. This analysis
considers the ramp grades and distance below/above grade
required for the tunnel/bridge structure.
Pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort
Extent to which existing pedestrian and bicycle network would
provide low-stress access to and through the rail crossing(s). This
analysis considers the existing network and the types of
improvements (e.g., new or upgraded facilities) required to provide
comfortable on-street connections to and through the new
crossing.
Personal security
Alignment of rail crossing facility (e.g., directness of the crossing,
number of turns) and approaches with Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) best practices. This analysis
considers access control to direct people to designated entrances
and exits, as well as maximizing visibility and sightlines to allow for
natural observation of people within the crossing, reducing
opportunities for criminal activities and other unwanted behaviors.
Maximize Ease
of Construction
Utility impacts Level of disruption to existing and planned utilities, extent of
relocations required.
Construction cost#
Rough order of magnitude of project construction cost, including
cost of the tunnel/bridge and new or upgraded facilities required
to provide low-stress on-street connections.
Construction
duration
Anticipated duration of construction, level of disruption and level
of coordination with the Meadow/Charleston Rail Grade
Separation Project expected during the construction period.
Operations and
maintenance cost
Magnitude of projected annual cost of operations and
maintenance (e.g., flooding, landscaping).
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 98
September 2, 2025 Page 5
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Design
Priority
Evaluation Criteria1 Description
Enhance Visual
Appeal
Public space and
green infrastructure
Potential to create new public spaces and implement green
infrastructure.
Minimize
Community
Impacts
Environmental
impacts
Extent to which crossing impacts the environment - impervious
areas, creeks/drainage, sea level rise, wetlands, sensitive habitats,
and existing parkland.
Parcel impacts# Number of parcels needed, all or in part, to construct crossing and
approach facilities.
Traffic, parking, and
driveway impacts
Extent to which rail crossings affect existing vehicle circulation,
vehicle parking, and access to existing driveways.
Notes:
1 nd will be scored using a scale
of high, medium, and low, for its performance.
2 An isochrone map of a walk or bike shed represents areas accessible within the same amount of time from a specific point.
The results of these evaluations are one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally
preferred alternatives. The evaluation criteria and scoring methodology is included as Attachment B. The
accessibility analysis maps are included as Attachment C.
Importantly, no decision has yet been made by the City to acquire any property. Before that decision can
be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to
consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will
contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount
determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an
appraisal approved by the City. Without authority from the City Council, Staff has no authority to commit
to the acquisition of any property that might be impacted by the conceptual design alternatives
presented in this analysis.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 99
September 2, 2025 Page 6
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Description. Alternative A would construct a 110 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 200 feet long. The total crossing would be 490 feet
long and would be the shortest of the eight crossings.
The intersection of Alma Street/El Dorado Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal and
high visibility crosswalks. A stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with
ramps extending along the landscaping strip between Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street in both
directions. Alma Street would be reconfigured to provide a widened sidewalk and bulbouts at the
intersection. Construction of the stairway and ramps would require the shifting of travel lanes on Alma
Street. The ramp on the west side would connect to Park Boulevard through an existing surface parking
lot. This alternative would require partial acquisition of the surface parking lot on Park Boulevard, resulting
in the removal of about 40 off-street parking spaces.
Alternative A is located approximately 2,450 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue
and 4,475 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with the
Alternatives B and C at Loma Verde Avenue would provide the greatest increase in access for people
walking and biking and would result in the following estimated weekday trips1:
AM Peak Hour 220 peak hour trips (70 walking and 150 biking trips)
Daily 2,600 daily trips (800 walking and 1,800 biking trips)
This alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park Boulevard and would
provide an enhanced bike connection on El Dorado Avenue between Alma Street and existing bicycle
routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct for people walking as stairs would
provide a shorter and more direct path from El Dorado Avenue and the ramp connection to Park
Boulevard would be relatively straight. Some out of direction travel would be required for bicyclists
accessing the ramps along Alma Street with 90 degree turns potentially limiting visibility and creating
increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking.
Alternative A involves constructing a short tunnel beneath only the Caltrain corridor, with generally
favorable site conditions for staging and access. On the east side, the design would require narrowing
Alma Street to accommodate the tunnel and associated ramps. On the west side, an open parking lot
would provide space for staging and for the proposed meandering pathway connection. This
configuration avoids the need to grade separate Alma Street, substantially reducing the complexity of
traffic handling, utility relocations, and construction phasing. The tunnel box would likely be bore-and-
jacked beneath the tracks to minimize impacts to rail operations, allowing work to proceed with minimal
disruption to train service.
1 For reference, based on counts collected in April 2025 there were about 1,800 daily pedestrian and
bicycle trips and 300 peak hour pedestrian and bicycle trips observed on the California Avenue underpass;
around 600 daily bicycle trips and 170 peak hour bicycle trips were observed crossing the railroad tracks
at Meadow Drive; and around 400 daily bicycle trips and 100 peak hour bicycle trips were observed
crossing the railroad tracks at Charleston Road. Pedestrian counts were not collected at Meadow Drive or
Charleston Road.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 100
September 2, 2025 Page 7
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
The straightforward nature of the construction, combined with the absence of major constraints or
overlapping work zones, positions this alternative as having the lowest anticipated cost and an
approximate construction duration of 18 months one of the shortest among the tunnel options
considered. While the design includes two ramps along Alma Street, these do not introduce significant
additional complexity compared to other alternatives.
Alternative A will likely have moderate utility impacts as there is an existing sewer line and overhead lines
within the proximity of the proposed crossing alignment. Alternative A proposes to tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks and would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level. A partial right-of-way
acquisition from the private parking lot near Park Boulevard would remove several stalls and require
reconfiguration to accommodate the meandering pathway to the new tunnel crossing. Alternative A
would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to result in
substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and
would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland. There is an opportunity to provide green
infrastructure and new open space as part of the stair/ramp design at El Dorado Avenue and as part of the
ramp design through the surface parking lot connecting to Park Boulevard.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative A,
including:
Traffic control. A traffic signal would be required to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings of
Alma Street to access the new tunnel. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a
traffic signal. This design variation would require people walking or biking to activate the device
before crossing, which may reduce potential delay impacts to vehicle traffic.
Ramp configuration, east side. One ramp, instead of two, could be constructed on Alma Street at
El Dorado Avenue. This variation would reduce construction costs. However, it would also limit
connectivity for people biking or rolling. Other variations to ramp configurations could be
considered, including reconfiguring the ramp to make a 90-degree turn below grade to meet the
top of the stairs at-grade, reducing the crossing length for bicyclists.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramps on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16
or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking
and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may
require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle
traffic.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp through the surface parking lot could be increased from
12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation would increase the extent of parcel acquisition
and increase the number of parking spaces impacted.
Evaluation. Table 2 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (dark green) indicating strong alignment to low (dark orange) indicating weak alignment.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 101
September 2, 2025 Page 8
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 2: Alternative A. El Dorado Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative A
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 102
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
9
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 103
September 2, 2025 Page 10
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Description. Alternative B would construct a 220 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath Alma
Street and the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east
side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 250 feet long. The total crossing would
be 650 feet long. While it would be the longest of the eight crossings it provides a relatively direct path
with minimal out-of-direction travel.
The tunnel would connect a center-running two-way bike/ped ramp on Loma Verde Avenue to the
intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Avenue using a combination of switchback ramps and stairs. It is
anticipated that this alternative would require the acquisition of two parcels on Park Boulevard.
Construction of the center-running ramp on Loma Verde Avenue would require the reconfiguration of
Loma Verde Avenue to remove about 10 spaces of existing on-street parking and require right-in/right-
out driveway operations for the four parcels adjacent to the ramp. Construction of the ramp connecting to
Park Boulevard would require the removal of about two existing on-street parking spaces on Park
Boulevard.
Alternative B is located approximately 3,900 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue
and 3,000 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with
Alternative A at El Dorado Avenue and Alternative C also at Loma Verde Avenue would provide the
greatest increase in access and would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 230 peak hour trips (70 walking trips and 160 biking trips)
Daily 2,470 daily trips (740 walking trips and 1,720 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park
Boulevard and Margarita Avenue and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Loma Verde
Avenue from the tunnel entrance to the existing bicycle routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment
on Loma Verde Avenue would be relatively direct with switchbacks limiting visibility and creating
increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking on the ramp to the Park
Boulevard/Margarita Avenue intersection. Stairs would provide a more direct path enabling pedestrians to
avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing, including at the entry/exit to Park Boulevard.
Alternative B involves constructing a long tunnel beneath both the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street, with
the alignment positioned generally in the center of Loma Verde Avenue. The portion of the tunnel
beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method to minimize
impacts to rail operations. Outside of the Caltrain corridor, the tunnel would be constructed using open-
cut methods to be more cost effective. This configuration introduces significant construction complexity
due to the need to grade separate Alma Street while maintaining traffic along the corridor during
construction. Doing so would likely require staged construction, temporary traffic shifts, and more
intricate traffic handling measures compared to alternatives that avoid grade separating Alma Street. The
longer tunnel length also increases the amount of excavation, structural concrete, and associated
construction activities relative to shorter tunnel options.
Alternative B would have a substantial impact on existing utilities, as the proposed tunnel would cross
Alma Street and be located within the middle of Loma Verde Avenue. Existing utilities within both
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 104
September 2, 2025 Page 11
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
roadways would need to be relocated outside of the proposed tunnel limits. While the tunnel would pass
underneath the railroad tracks, it would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.
Staging areas for Alternative B are more constrained than at other sites, further complicating construction
sequencing and equipment access. The combination of longer structure length, traffic management
requirements, major utility relocations, and limited staging areas is anticipated to result in higher
construction costs and an approximate construction duration of 24 months longer than alternatives that
avoid grade separating Alma Street.
Alternative B would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland. There is an opportunity to provide
green infrastructure and new open space as part of the ramp/stair design connecting to Park Boulevard.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative B, including:
Ramp alignment, east side. The ramp that is currently proposed to run down the middle of Loma
Verde Avenue could be realigned to the north or south side of the street. This variation would
increase potential driveway impacts, limiting access to the two parcels on the ramp side.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp on Loma Verde Avenue could be increased from 12 feet
to 15.5 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking
and biking. This design variation would require the reconfiguration of Loma Verde Avenue to
provide one-way travel for vehicles and increase potential impacts to traffic and driveway access.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, east side. The ramp slope could be reduced, and the
ramp lengthened to connect directly to the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue/Emerson Street.
This design variation would require a larger ramp structure, increasing the cost of construction.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would increase the number of parcels required, which would also
increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Increase ramp slope and decrease length, west side. The ramp slope could be increased and the
ramp shortened with tighter switchbacks, resulting in decreased visibility around corners and
increasing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking while reducing the extent of
parcel acquisition required from two parcels to one.
Evaluation. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 105
September 2, 2025 Page 12
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 3: Alternative B. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative B
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 106
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
1
3
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 107
September 2, 2025 Page 14
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Description. Alternative C would construct a 110 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 250 feet long. The total crossing would be 540 feet
long.
The intersection of Alma Street/Loma Verde Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A
stairway would be constructed to provide direct access to the tunnel with ramps extending along the
landscaping strip between Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street in both directions. Alma Street would be
reconfigured to provide a widened sidewalk and bulbouts at the intersection. Construction of the stairway
and ramps would require the shifting of travel lanes on Alma Street. Similar to Alternative B, the tunnel
would connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Margarita Ave using a combination of switchback
ramps and stairs. Alternative C would require the acquisition of two parcels and removal of two existing
on-street parking spaces on Park Boulevard.
Alternative C is located approximately 3,900 feet from the nearest northern crossing at California Avenue
and 3,000 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Meadow Drive. This alternative, along with
Alternative A and Alternative B would provide the greatest increase in access and would result in the
following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 230 peak hour trips (70 walking trips and 160 biking trips)
Daily 2,460 daily trips (740 walking trips and 1,720 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike routes on Park
Boulevard and Margarita Avenue and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Loma Verde
Avenue from the tunnel entrance to the existing bicycle routes on Bryant Street. The proposed alignment
at Loma Verde Avenue would be relatively indirect for people biking as bicyclists would need to cross at
the signal and travel out-of-direction to access the ramps, which would require one U-turn and one 90
degree turn, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential
for conflicts between people walking and biking. Stairs would provide a more direct path enabling
pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing, including at the entry/exit to Park
Boulevard and Loma Verde Avenue.
Alternative C is located in the same general area as Alternative B, but avoids the need to grade separate
Alma Street. On the east side, this would require slightly narrowing Alma Street to accommodate the
parallel ramp connections. On the west side, the design includes a meandering structure pathway that will
require parcel acquisitions to accommodate tying into the surrounding network.
The tunnel portion beneath the Caltrain corridor would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack
method to minimize impacts to rail operations. Alternative C would have a minimal potential impact on
utilities, except for overhead lines near Alma Street. The tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks
and would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level. Because the alignment does not
pass beneath Alma Street, the overall structure length and construction complexity are reduced compared
to the full Alma grade separation option. The absence of significant traffic staging along Alma Street also
limits potential disruption to local travel. Overall, Alternative C is expected to have lower construction
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 108
September 2, 2025 Page 15
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
costs and shorter durations than options requiring Alma Street grade separation, with an approximate
construction duration of 18 months.
Alternative C would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative C,
including:
Traffic control. A traffic signal would be required to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings of
Alma Street to access the new tunnel. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a
traffic signal. This design variation would require people walking or biking to activate the device
before crossing, which may reduce potential delay impacts to vehicle traffic.
Ramp configuration, east side. One ramp, instead of two, could be constructed on Alma Street at
Loma Verde Avenue. This variation would reduce construction costs. However, it would also limit
connectivity for people biking.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramps on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16
or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking
and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may
require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to traffic.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would increase the number of parcels required, which would also
increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Increase ramp slope and decrease length, west side. The ramp slope could be increased and the
ramp shortened with tighter switchbacks, resulting in decreased visibility around corners and
increasing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking while reducing the extent of
parcel acquisition required from two parcels to one.
Evaluation. Table 4 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 109
September 2, 2025 Page 16
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 4: Alternative C. Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative C
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 110
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
1
7
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 111
September 2, 2025 Page 18
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
D. Lindero Dr Tunnel
Description. Alternative D would construct a 160 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath Alma
Street and the railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east
side would be 180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 230 feet long. The total crossing would
be 570 feet long.
The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a T-intersection and a ramp would be
constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the east side of Alma
Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the railroad
tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a curving
ramp and stairs. This alternative is anticipated to require the acquisition of one parcel on Park Boulevard
and would reconfigure/extend the existing driveway on Lindero Drive at the northeast corner of the Alma
Street/Lindero Drive intersection. It may require the removal of one existing on-street parking space on
Park Boulevard.
Alternative D is located approximately 850 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Meadow Drive and
850 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Charleston Road. This alternative would provide a limited
increase in access for people walking and biking as it is located immediately between the existing
crossings at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The alternative would primarily attract bicycle trips that
would use the lower stress crossing compared to crossing at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
Alternative D would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour about 50 peak hour trips (<10 walking trips and 40 biking trips)
Daily 570 daily trips (100 walking trips and 470 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to existing bike roures on Park
Boulevard and would provide an enhanced bike connection on Lindero Drive from the ramp entrance to
the existing bicycle routes on Starr King Circle, Redwood Circle, and Bryant Street. This alternative would
also enhance connections to and through Robles Park. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct,
though it does include one 90 degree turn, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance,
and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. Stairs would provide a
more direct path to Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of
the crossing.
Alternative D involves constructing a long tunnel beneath both the Caltrain corridor and Alma Street, with
the alignment positioned to connect to Lindero Drive. On the east side, this configuration would require
grade separating Alma Street, introducing significant construction complexity due to the need to maintain
traffic along the corridor during construction. On the west side, the design includes a meandering
pathway connection that would require a parcel acquisition to tie into the surrounding network.
The portion of the tunnel beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack
method to minimize impacts to rail operations. Outside of the Caltrain corridor, the tunnel would be
constructed using open-cut methods to be more cost effective. Alternative D would have a significant
impact on existing utilities, as the proposed tunnel would cross Alma Street. Existing utilities within both
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 112
September 2, 2025 Page 19
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
roadways would need to be relocated outside of the proposed tunnel limits. While the tunnel would pass
underneath the railroad tracks, it would not encroach on Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.
In June 2024, Council advanced the Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) and
Underpass Alternative for the Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road with
2 Alternative D overlaps with areas
proposed for construction (subject to change) for rail grade separation, specifically the Hybrid Alternative
(including a mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close
coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction
sequencing. This coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two
projects interface. In addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would
need to be sequenced to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located
in the same physical area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project
would be directly dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would
extend the overall delivery time for this crossing.
The combination of longer structure length, the need for Alma Street grade separation, major utility
relocations, parcel acquisition requirements, constrained staging areas, and potential coordination with
the Rail Grade Separation Project is anticipated to result in higher construction costs, potentially longer
construction start time and an approximate construction duration of 24 months longer than alternatives
that avoid grade separating Alma Street.
Alternative D would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative D,
including:
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or
20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and may require
the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard could be increased from
12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation may increase the number of parcels required,
which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving opportunities for natural surveillance and reducing potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation would likely increase the number of parcels
required, which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/Rail-Grade-Separation
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 113
September 2, 2025 Page 20
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Evaluation. Table 5 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Table 5: Alternative D. Lindero Dr Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative D
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 114
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
2
1
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 115
September 2, 2025 Page 22
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Description. Alternative E would construct a 100 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 230 feet long. The total crossing would be 510 feet
long and would be the second shortest crossing distance of the eight alternatives.
The intersection of Alma Street/Lindero Drive would be realigned to a signalized T-intersection. A ramp
would be constructed in the landscaping strip and extend in the north-south direction on the west side of
Alma Street. The ramp would meet the tunnel and turn 90 degrees to cross under Alma Street and the
railroad tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard at Robles Park using a combination of a
curving ramp and stairs. This alternative would require the acquisition of one parcel on Park Boulevard
and would reconfigure/extend the existing driveway on Lindero Drive at the northeast corner of the Alma
Street/Lindero Drive intersection. It may require the removal of one existing on-street parking space on
Park Boulevard.
Alternative E is located approximately 850 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Meadow Drive and
850 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Charleston Road. This alternative would provide a limited
increase in access for people walking and biking as it is located immediately between the existing
crossings at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The alternative would primarily attract bicycle trips that
would use the lower stress crossing. Alternative E would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour about 50 peak hour trips (<10 walking trips and 40 biking trips)
Daily 570 daily trips (100 walking trips and 470 biking trips)
Similar to Alternative D, this conceptual design alternative would provide a direct connection to the
existing bike route on Park Boulevard and would enhance connections to and through Robles Park. This
alternative would also provide an enhanced bike connection on Lindero Drive from the signalized
intersection at Alma Street to the existing bicycle routes on Starr King Circle, Redwood Circle, and Bryant
Street. The proposed alignment would be fairly direct, though it does include one 90-degree turn, limiting
visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. On the east side of the railroad, stairs would provide a more direct path to
Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing.
Alternative E involves tunneling beneath the Caltrain corridor, which would likely be constructed using a
bore-and-jack method to minimize impacts to rail operations. This alternative would have a minimal
potential impact on utilities and right-of-way, as no major underground utilities are located within the
proposed crossing alignment. Overhead lines near Alma Street would require relocation based on
available information. The tunnel would pass underneath the railroad tracks and would not encroach on
Caltrain right-of-way at the surface level.
Alternative E overlaps with areas proposed for construction (subject to change) for the Rail Grade
Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, specifically the Hybrid Alternative (including a
mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close coordination to
address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This
coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two projects interface. In
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 116
September 2, 2025 Page 23
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would need to be sequenced
to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located in the same physical
area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project would be directly
dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would extend the overall
delivery time for this crossing.
Overall, Alternative E is expected to have lower construction costs and shorter durations than options
requiring Alma Street grade separation, with an approximate construction duration of 18 months.
Alternative E would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive
habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative E, including:
Ramp configuration, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be reconfigured to extend from the
intersection to the south. This design variation would change the alignment and location of the
tunnel to connect south of Robles Park and would impact one different parcel along Park
Boulevard.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to
16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people
walking and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and
may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to
vehicle traffic.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard could be increased from
12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between
people walking and biking. This design variation may increase the number of parcels required,
which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and
biking. This design variation would increase the number of parcels required, which would also
increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure and open space.
Evaluation. Table 6 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 117
September 2, 2025 Page 24
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 6: Alternative E. Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative E
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 118
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
2
5
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 119
September 2, 2025 Page 26
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
F. Ely Pl Tunnel
Description. Alternative F would construct an 85 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the
railroad tracks. Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be
180 feet long. The ramp on the west side would be 300 feet long. The total crossing would be 565 feet
long.
A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon would be installed at the intersection of Alma Street/Ely Place. A pathway and
ramp would extend in the north-south direction along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma
Street, within Caltrain right-of-way. The alignment would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad
tracks and connect to the intersection of Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive using a combination of a curving
ramp and stairs that would pass through one existing property and may impact one parking space.
Alternative F is located approximately 750 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Charleston Road and
3,600 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Mayfield Drive. This alternative would provide limited
access improvements for walking and biking as it is located adjacent to the existing Charleston Road
crossing. The alternative would result in the following estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 50 peak hour trips (10 walking trips and 40 biking trips)
Daily 680 daily trips (50 walking trips and 630 biking trips)
This alternative would enhance the bike connection on Ely Place to existing bike routes on Duncan Place
and Carlson Court/Carlson Circle, on Whitclem Drive to existing routes on Wilkie Way, and on Park
Boulevard to existing routes on Park Boulevard north of Charleston Road. The proposed alignment would
include one 90-degree turn and tight switchbacks on the ramp abutting Adobe Creek, limiting visibility
and opportunities for natural surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people
walking and biking. On the east side of the railroad, stairs would provide a more direct path to Whitclem
Drive/Park Boulevard enabling pedestrians to avoid mixing with bicyclists for a portion of the crossing.
Alternative F proposes a short tunnel beneath the Caltrain corridor, with limited available right-of-way for
the required parallel ramp connection to Alma Street. Due to the constrained site conditions, the ramp
structure would need to be located within Caltrain right-of-way. This would require obtaining a variance
from the Caltrain Board, a process that introduces additional coordination requirements and approval
uncertainty, as there is no guarantee that the variance would be granted. The outcome and timing of this
process could affect both the overall cost and the construction schedule.
The tunnel portion beneath the Caltrain tracks would likely be constructed using a bore-and-jack method
to minimize impacts to rail operations. This conceptual design alternative would have a minimal potential
impact on utilities, with the exception of an existing gas line along Alma Street. The tunnel would pass
underneath the railroad tracks but would require a ramp structure within the Caltrain right-of-way to
connect at Alma Street. In addition, a full acquisition would be required on Park Boulevard to
accommodate the new tunnel approach pathway. While the alignment does not pass beneath Alma
Street, its proximity to the corridor still requires careful coordination to manage potential traffic and utility
impacts during construction.
Alternative F overlaps with areas proposed for construction (subject to change) for the Rail Grade
Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, specifically the Hybrid Alternative (including a
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 120
September 2, 2025 Page 27
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
mixed wall/column approach) currently under consideration, and would require close coordination to
address potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This
coordination could add cost risk and schedule impacts, depending on how the two projects interface. In
addition, if the Hybrid Alternative advances, construction of this alternative would need to be sequenced
to follow completion of the Meadow-Charleston project. Both projects are located in the same physical
area, making concurrent construction not feasible. As a result, the start of this Project would be directly
dependent on the Meadow-Charleston schedule, and any delays to that project would extend the overall
delivery time for this crossing.
If the Caltrain variance is approved, the approximate construction duration for this alternative would be 18
months.
Alternative F would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not substantially impact creeks or drainage, or
sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative F, including:
Crossing alignment. The pedestrian crossing could be relocated to the north side of the Alma
Street/Ely Place intersection and relocated to tie in at Whitclem Drive/Park Boulevard. This design
variation may require additional parcel acquisitions on Park Boulevard.
Ramp configuration, east side. The ramp on Alma Street could be reconfigured to extend from the
intersection to the north. This design variation would change the alignment and location of the
tunnel and ramps to connect within 500 feet of the intersection of Alma Street/Charleston Road,
which would likely reduce the benefits to accessibility resulting in lower estimated demand.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to
16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for conflicts between people
walking and biking. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and
may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to
vehicle traffic. This design variation would continue to impact Caltrain right-of-way.
Shift ramp, east side. The path and ramp on the east side of Alma Street could be shifted to the
north to avoid encroaching on Caltrain right-of-way. This design variation would require
reconfiguration of Alma Street and would require the removal of vehicle travel lanes.
Increase ramp width, west side. The ramp connecting to Park Boulevard/Whitclem Drive could be
increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide. This design variation may increase the number of
parcels required, which would also increase opportunities to provide green infrastructure.
Decrease ramp slope and increase length, west side. The ramp slope could be reduced and the
ramp lengthened to provide looser switchbacks, resulting in increased visibility around corners,
improving personal security and reducing potential for conflicts. This design variation would
increase the number of parcels required.
Evaluation. Table 7 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 121
September 2, 2025 Page 28
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 7: Alternative F. Ely Pl Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative F
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 122
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
2
9
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 123
September 2, 2025 Page 30
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
G. Ferne Ave Tunnel
Description. This alternative would require further coordination with Mountain View as the majority of
the Project would be constructed within Mountain View. For purposes of the analysis, assumptions were
made about specific design elements, including ramp configuration and alignment. These are described in
this section and are subject to change pending community input and coordination on design elements
within Mountain View.
Alternative G would construct an 85 foot long and 20 foot wide tunnel underneath the railroad tracks.
Both ramps would be 12 feet wide with a 7% slope. The ramp on the east side would be 180 feet long.
The ramp on the west side would be 280 feet long. The total crossing would be 545 feet long.
The intersection of Alma Street/Ferne Avenue would be reconfigured with a new traffic signal. A ramp
would extend north-south along the landscaping strip on the west side of Alma Street, within Caltrain
right-of-way. The alignment would turn 90 degrees to cross under the railroad tracks and then turn back
another 90 degrees to connect Del Medio Avenue via a ramp and path running alongside Caltrain right-
of-way.
Alternative G is located approximately 2,650 feet from the nearest northern crossing at Charleston Road
and 1,950 feet from the nearest southern crossing at Mayfield Drive. This conceptual design alternative
would provide increased access for the areas of Palo Alto immediately north of San Antonio Avenue, as
the tunnel at Mayfield Avenue is not easily accessed from south of San Antonio Avenue and is more likely
to serve trips starting and ending in Mountain View. The alternative would result in the following
estimated weekday trips:
AM Peak Hour 190 peak hour trips (50 walking trips and 140 biking trips)
Daily 2,510 daily trips (460 walking trips and 2,050 biking trips)
This conceptual design alternative would enhance connections on Ferne Avenue to existing bike routes on
Mackay Drive and Shasta Drive and on Del Medio Avenue to existing routes at Miller Avenue. The
proposed alignment would include two 90-degree turns, limiting visibility and opportunities for natural
surveillance, and creating increased potential for conflicts between people walking and biking.
Alternative G proposes an underpass beneath the Caltrain corridor constructed using a bore-and-jack
method to minimize impacts to rail operations. The alternative would also require a ramp structure within
the Caltrain right-of-way to conform at Alma Street. In addition, partial property acquisition was assumed
to be required in Mountain View, to accommodate the ramp structure and the at-grade pathway
connecting to Del Medio Avenue.
Alternative G would have a minimal potential impact on utilities, with the exception of an existing gas line
along Alma Street. Utility conflicts within Caltrain right-of-way or near the tunnel approaches would need
to be addressed during design. Any use of Caltrain property, including the longitudinal ramp segment,
would require additional coordination, including securing variances that must be approved by the Caltrain
Board. This process introduces cost and schedule risk, as approval is not guaranteed and could add
procedural steps and review cycles.
The location falls within the City of Mountain View, requiring additional coordination that may introduce
further permitting steps, review cycles, and staging considerations. Overall, the combination of Caltrain
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 124
September 2, 2025 Page 31
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
variance requirements, property acquisition needs, and multi-jurisdictional review is anticipated to add
complexity compared to tunnel alternatives without these constraints. If Caltrain approvals are secured
and coordination proceeds without significant delays, the approximate construction duration for this
alternative would be 18 months.
Alternative G would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it would not be anticipated to
result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not substantially impact creeks or drainage, or
sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative G,
including:
Traffic control. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon could be installed instead of a traffic signal. This
design variation would require people to activate the device before crossing, which may reduce
delays to vehicle traffic but would be less convenient for people walking and biking.
Alignment. The ramp on Alma Street could be configured to extend from the intersection at Ferne
Avenue to the north or to the south before turning 90 degrees to tunnel underneath the railroad
and turn 90 degrees to the north or south to ramp along the backside of existing parcels in
Mountain View. These design variations would change the alignment and location of the tunnel
and ramps, which would impact different properties and would change impacts to parking.
Shift ramp and construct additional crosswalk, east side. The ramp on the east side of Alma Street
could be shifted to the north and a new crosswalk installed on the north side of the intersection
to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movements on both sides of the intersection. This design
variation would require additional path construction which would increase construction cost.
Shift ramp, east side. The path and ramp on the east side of Alma Street could be shifted to the
north to avoid encroaching on Caltrain right-of-way. This design variation would require
reconfiguration of Alma Street and removal of vehicle travel lanes.
Increase ramp width, east side. The ramp width on Alma Street could be increased from 12 feet to
16 or 20 feet wide. This design variation would require further reconfiguration of Alma Street and
may require the narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes.
Increase ramp and path width, west side. The ramp and path width on the west side of the
railroad could be increased from 12 feet to 16 or 20 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize
potential for conflicts between people walking and biking. This design variation would require
additional right-of-way, increasing potential impacts to existing vehicle parking.
Evaluation. Table 8 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 125
September 2, 2025 Page 32
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 8: Alternative G. Ferne Ave Tunnel Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative G
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 126
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
3
3
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 127
September 2, 2025 Page 34
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Description. This alternative would require further coordination with Mountain View as the Project
extends into Mountain View. For purposes of the analysis, assumptions were made about specific design
elements, such as the connection at California Street/San Antonio Road. These are described in this
section and are subject to change pending community input and coordination on design elements within
Mountain View.
Alternative H would install a 10-foot-wide center-running two-way separated bike lane along San Antonio
Road connecting from Nita Avenue to California Street in Mountain View. Installation would not impact
lane number and would be accomplished by reducing travel lane widths on San Antonio Road to two 10.5
foot wide lanes and one 11 foot wide lane in each direction. This alternative would also enhance the
existing connection for people walking and biking along San Antonio Avenue to the San Antonio Caltrain
Station and tunnel at Mayfield Avenue by installing a Class II bicycle facility on San Antonio Avenue with
crossbike markings3 at the intersection of Alma Street/San Antonio Avenue and widening and improving
the existing sidewalk/shared use path on the west side of Alma Street, between San Antonio Avenue and
Mayfield Avenue.
Alternative H would modify existing crossings at San Antonio Road and at Mayfield Drive and would not
construct a new tunnel crossing as in the other alternatives. The alternative would improve conditions for
people biking by creating a dedicated crossing of the train tracks along San Antonio Road and by creating
bike crossings across San Antonio Road. The alternative would result in an estimated 190 AM peak hour
and 2,640 daily bicycle trips. The estimate only included bike trips that travel along San Antonio Road to
cross train tracks. Pedestrian trips were not included as pedestrians would cross via the existing tunnel.
Alternative H proposes the most straightforward construction methods given all improvements are at the
roadway surface and additional grade separations are not proposed. As a result, there are minimal
potential impacts to utilities as no major above- or under-ground utilities are located within the proposed
crossing alignment. The alternative proposes to enhance the existing sidewalk on/along Alma Street and
may impact Caltrain right-of-way. In general, the overall construction duration is anticipated to be
approximately 12 months. Since this alternative does not involve new subsurface structures or significant
structural modification, it is assumed that no seismic upgrades would be required, consistent with
standard practice.
Alternative H would not require tunneling and therefore would have a minimal potential impact on the
environment. It would not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not
impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or
parkland.
Design Variations. There are several design variations that may be considered for Alternative H,
including:
Increase bike lane width. The width of the proposed center-running two-way separated bike lane
could be increased from 10 feet to 12 feet wide to increase capacity and minimize potential for
3 Crossbike markings are a paint treatment that uses green paint to make a crosswalk-like stripes at
intersections to illustrate where there is potential conflict between people biking and motor vehicle.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 128
September 2, 2025 Page 35
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
conflicts between people biking in opposite directions. This design variation would require further
reconfiguration of San Antonio Road and would require the narrowing or removal of vehicle
travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.
Install shared use path. The width of the proposed center-running two-way separated bike lane
could be increased from 10-feet to 12- or 14-feet wide to increase provide sufficient space for a
shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. This design variation would require further
reconfiguration of San Antonio Road and would require the narrowing or removal of vehicle
travel lanes, increasing potential impacts to vehicle traffic.
Evaluation. Table 9 presents the results of the analysis, evaluating the degree to which the alternative
aligns with the design priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria. Results are presented using a
scale of high (black) indicating strong alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Table 9: Alternative H. San Antonio Bridge Enhancements Results
Evaluation Criteria Alternative H
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking and Driveway Impacts
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 129
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
5
P
a
g
e
3
6
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Kitt
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 130
September 2, 2025 Page 37
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Evaluation Summary
The team completed a technical evaluation of the alternatives, considering each of the crossing options
and the corresponding community connections. Table 10 present the results of this Alternatives Analysis
used to evaluate the degree to which the preliminary conceptual design alternatives align with the design
priorities and each of the selected evaluation criteria, using a scale of high (black) indicating strong
alignment to low (light gray) indicating weak alignment.
Table 10: Evaluation Criteria Results Summary
Evaluation Criteria A. E
l
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
B. L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
C. L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
Alm
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
D.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
E. L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
A
l
m
a
St S
i
g
n
a
l
F. E
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
G.
F
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
H.
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
Enh
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation & Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bike Comfort
Personal Security
Utility Impacts
Construction Cost
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Public Space
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveways
Notes: Alternatives are scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria developed in the previous project phase based on
community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement. A high (most desirable) score indicates stronger alignment
with community values and a low (least desirable) score indicates weaker alignment. Note that the results of these evaluations are
one of several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
High (most desirable) Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 131
September 2, 2025 Page 38
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Neighborhood Accessibility. Alternatives A, B, and C provide the greatest increase in accessibility and
would close the largest gap in distance between crossings. Alternative D and E would provide the lowest
reduction to travel times to crossings.
Demand. Alternatives A, B, C, G and H are estimated to attract the greatest number of bike and
pedestrian users. Alternatives D, E, and F are expected to attract the fewest users.
Facility Width and Capacity. Facility width and capacity would be similar across alternatives, with the
exception of Alternative H, which would construct a narrower 10 foot wide two-way separated bike lane
compared to the 20 foot wide tunnel and 12 foot wide ramps proposed for other alternatives.
Crossing Length. Alternative H would utilize existing crossings and would not reduce the distance to
cross relative to existing conditions. Alternative A would have the shortest crossing length but would
require some out of direction travel along the crossing alignment, while Alternative B would have the
longest crossing length but would provide the most direct connections to the existing bike network.
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade. Alternatives would perform the same with respect to crossing
elevation and ramp grade. Alternatives A through G propose ramps constructed with a 7% slope.
Alternative H would enhance connections to the existing tunnel at the San Antonio Caltrain Station near
Mayfield Drive, which is constructed at the same depth and with similar ramping as the other alternatives.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort. Alternative B would provide the greatest level of pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort to and through the tunnel, as it would create a low-stress connection across Alma Street
and the Caltrain tracks and would provide the most direct and comfortable connections to existing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.
Personal Security. While all alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices, Alternative B
would rank the highest, providing the greatest level of visibility and opportunities for natural surveillance
because of the shorter and more direct tunnels and use of the existing bridge structure. Alternative F and
G would be least desirable as a result of the number of 90-degree turns and ramp access locations in less
active areas.
Utility Impacts. Alternative H would have the least impact on utilities, except for the overhead lighting in
the center median on San Antonio Road. Alternatives B and D would have the greatest potential impact,
requiring relocation of existing utilities within the roadway to outside of the proposed tunnel limits.
Construction Cost. Alternatives B and D are projected to be the most expensive to build, while
Alternative H would have the lowest estimated construction cost.
Construction Duration. Alternatives A, B, and C are anticipated to have the shortest construction
duration and earliest possible construction start time since they are outside proposed construction limits
(subject to change) for the Rail Grade Separation Project. Alternatives G and H are also anticipated to have
shorter construction durations and start times but require additional coordination with the City of
Mountain View and other agencies that may extend overall durations.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 132
September 2, 2025 Page 39
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Alternatives Analysis
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Operations and Maintenance Cost. Alternatives B and D would be anticipated to have the highest
operations and maintenance costs, while Alternative H would have the lowest operations and
maintenance costs.
Public Space and Green Infrastructure. Alternatives D and E provide more opportunities for
landscaping, benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas. Alternatives C and F would have the least
potential to improve existing public space or provide new green infrastructure.
Environmental Impacts. Alternative H would have a minimal potential impact on the environment as it
would not require tunneling, would not result in substantial increases in impervious areas, would not
impact creeks or drainage, or sensitive habitats, and would have no impact on existing wetlands or
parkland.
Parcel Impacts. Alternatives A, G and H are anticipated to impact (either fully or partially) the fewest
number of parcels, while Alternative D, E, and F are projected to fully impact one parcel. Alternatives B and
C are estimated to impact two parcels.
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts. Alternatives D and H would have the least potential to increase
vehicle delays, reduce parking availability, or affect driveway access compared to other alternatives.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 133
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A. INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
ATTACHMENT C. ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS MAPS
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 134
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A. INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 135
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
September 2, 2025
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY
ATTACHMENT A ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT &
INITIAL SCREENING MEMORANDUM
ways to improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the rail corridor in the southern portion of the City.
To improve bicycle and pedestrian connec
goals, this Project will identify locations and design concepts where two new grade-separated bicycle and
pedestrian crossings of the Caltrain corridor in south Palo Alto (south of Oregon Expressway) may be
constructed.
This memorandum describes the process used to develop and identify the eight crossing design concept
in southern Palo Alto for further development and evaluation as part of this Project.
The alternatives identification and initial screening process consisted of the following three steps:
1. Identify comprehensive list of potential crossing locations and designs
2. Apply initial screening criteria
3. Select eight alternatives for evaluation and feedback
Each step is discussed further in the following sections.
Step 1:Identify Potential Crossing Locations and Designs
The first step in the development of eight alternatives was identifying the full range of crossing
alignments and potential design options. A total of 27 potential design alternatives were identified. These
alternatives consider crossing opportunity locations (or facility alignment) and facility type (e.g., bridge or
tunnel). Designs that would involve minor variations or shifts in alignment were not considered as part of
the initial screening, since minor changes in alignment would not meaningfully affect their performance.
The list of potential crossing locations and designs that were considered during initial screening are
presented in Table 1.
Step 2:Apply Initial Screening
The purpose of the initial screening is to narrow down the list of potential crossing locations and designs.
The criteria for the initial screening aligns with the Project goals and objectives and community values,
and is intended to systematically and objectively identify reasonable alternatives by screening out
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 136
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Development & Initial Screening Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
unreasonable alternatives. There are three primary reasons why an alternative might be eliminated from
further consideration:
1. The alternative does not satisfy the Project goals and design priorities in support of Council
approved plans and direction
2. The alternative is determined to be not practical or feasible from a technical, environmental,
and/or economic standpoint
3. The alternative substantially duplicates another alternative and offers little to no advantage and it
has impacts and/or costs that are similar to or greater than that of the similar alternative(s)
Crossing locations and designs that were determined to not satisfy the Project and design priorities are
not carried forward for further refinement and analysis. For example, overpasses (i.e., bridges) were
removed from consideration as these structures require long and high spans to clear the Caltrain
catenary system (i.e., overhead wires) making them costly and not as attractive or comfortable to use as a
pedestrian or cyclist. The results of the initial screening are presented in Table 1 below.
Step 3: Select Alternatives for Evaluation
Table 2 lists the crossing locations and designs identified in the initial screening process (Step 2) above,
describes potential design variations, and identifies the alternatives selected for further evaluation based
on the Project goals, design priorities, and Council approved plans and direction. Eight preliminary
conceptual design alternatives were selected for further development and evaluation as part of the
Alternatives Analysis and are listed below:
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma St Signal
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
Design concepts presented in the Alternatives Analysis are preliminary and intended for discussion
purposes only. All concepts are flexible and subject to refinement. Additional community engagement,
technical design work, and agency coordination will be needed once locations and basic design concepts
have been decided.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 137
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
M
e
m
o
Kit
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
P
a
g
e
3
Table 1: Potential Crossing Locations and Design Options
Crossing Location
Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes
Col
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
Col
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Tun
n
e
l
No
Wi
d
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
s
l
o
p
i
n
g
e
x
i
t
r
a
m
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
n
e
l
stru
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
e
e
p
e
r
a
n
d
l
o
n
g
e
r
r
a
m
p
a
n
d
t
u
n
n
e
l
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
Tun
n
e
l
Yes
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
City
-Ow
n
e
d
Sub
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
i
n
/
n
e
a
r
City
-
o
w
n
e
d
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
u
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
u
e
t
o
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
m
o
v
i
n
g
/
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
ele
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
e
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
gro
w
t
h
,
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
City
-Ow
n
e
d
Sub
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
Tun
n
e
l
No
Lim
i
t
e
d
r
i
g
h
t
-of-wa
y
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
i
n
/
n
e
a
r
City
-own
e
d
Alm
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
sub
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
u
e
t
o
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
m
o
v
i
n
g
/
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
e
to p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
,
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
Ma
t
a
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
City
-Ow
n
e
d
Sub
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
Tun
n
e
l
No
Ins
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
r
i
g
h
t
-of-wa
y
a
l
o
n
g
Ma
t
a
d
e
r
o
C
ree
k
.
W
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
u
n
n
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
imp
a
c
t
s
t
o
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
.
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
pat
h
w
a
y
i
n
/
n
e
a
r
C
i
t
y
-
o
w
n
e
d
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
u
b
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
u
e
t
o
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
mo
v
i
n
g
/
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
e
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
,
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
El C
a
r
m
e
l
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 138
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
M
e
m
o
Kit
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
P
a
g
e
4
Crossing Location
Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes
El C
a
r
m
e
l
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
No
Con
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
n
e
a
r
M
a
t
a
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
.
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
Yes
El V
e
r
a
n
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
C
u
r
t
n
e
r
A
v
e
-
Ven
t
u
r
a
A
v
e
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
El V
e
r
a
n
o
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
C
u
r
t
n
e
r
A
v
e
-
Ven
t
u
r
a
A
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
No
Con
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
n
a
r
r
o
w
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
d
t
h
o
f
E
l
V
e
r
a
n
o
a
n
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
spa
c
i
n
g
o
n
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
W M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
No
Con
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
a
b
i
k
e
/
p
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
h
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
wit
h
the
Rail
Grad
e
Sep
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
t
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
o
a
d
.
Lin
d
e
r
o
D
r
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
R
o
b
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
)
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
Lin
d
e
r
o
D
r
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
R
o
b
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
)
Tun
n
e
l
Yes
W
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
No
Con
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
a
b
i
k
e
/
p
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
h
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
wit
h
the
Rai
l
G
r
a
d
e
Sep
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
t
M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
o
a
d
.
Ely
P
l
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
E
dlee
A
v
e
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
Ely
P
l
Wh
i
t
c
l
e
m
D
r
Tun
n
e
l
Yes
Ad
o
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
Par
k
B
l
v
d
/
W
h
i
t
c
l
e
m
D
r
-
Mo
n
r
o
e
D
r
Tun
n
e
l
No
Ins
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
r
i
g
h
t
-of-wa
y
a
l
o
n
g
Ado
b
e
C
ree
k
.
W
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
u
n
n
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
to e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 139
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
M
e
m
o
Kit
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
P
a
g
e
5
Crossing Location
Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Carried
Forward?
(Yes, No)
Notes
Gre
e
n
m
e
a
d
o
w
W
a
y
Mo
n
r
o
e
Dr
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
Gre
e
n
m
e
a
d
o
w
W
a
y
Mo
n
r
o
e
D
r
Tun
n
e
l
No
Lac
k
o
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
and
l
imi
t
e
d
righ
t
-of-wa
y
tha
t
wo
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
He
m
l
o
c
k
C
t
De
l
M
e
d
i
o
A
v
e
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
He
m
l
o
c
k
C
t
De
l
M
e
d
i
o
A
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
No
Lac
k
o
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
r
i
g
h
t
-of-wa
y
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
A
v
e
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
Bri
d
g
e
No
Bri
d
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
n
g
and
h
i
g
h
spa
n
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
rail
r
o
a
d
tra
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
c
a
t
e
n
a
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
use
a
s
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
.
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
A
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
Yes
Enh
a
n
c
e
b
i
k
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
exist
i
n
g
t
u
n
n
e
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
n
e
a
r
b
y
at S
a
n
Ant
o
n
i
o
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Roa
d
Bri
d
g
e
Yes
Con
s
i
d
e
r
u
s
e
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 140
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
M
e
m
o
Kit
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
P
a
g
e
6
Table 2: Selected Alternatives for Evaluation
Crossing Location
Facility Type
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Description
Alternative
Selected for
Evaluation?
(Yes, No)
East Side
West Side
El D
o
r
a
d
o
Par
k
B
l
v
d
Tun
n
e
l
Tw
o
r
a
m
p
s
a
l
o
n
g
we
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
thr
o
u
g
h
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
.
Yes
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Cen
t
e
r
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
r
a
m
p
a
l
o
n
g
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
.
No
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
W
B
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
a
n
d
c
u
r
b
l
a
n
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
.
No
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
A
l
m
a
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
.
No
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
B
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
.
No
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Cen
t
e
r
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
r
a
m
p
a
l
o
n
g
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
i
r
c
a
s
e
.
Yes
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
W
B
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
wit
h
c
u
r
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
i
r
c
a
s
e
.
No
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
we
s
t
side
o
f
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
i
r
c
a
s
e
.
No
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Tw
o
r
a
m
p
s
a
l
o
n
g
we
s
t
sid
e
o
f
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
i
r
c
a
s
e
.
Yes
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
B
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
i
r
c
a
s
e
.
No
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Par
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ave
Bri
d
g
e
Trip
l
e
h
e
l
i
x
r
a
m
p
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
t
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
/
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
con
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
r
i
p
l
e
h
e
l
i
x
r
a
m
p
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
t
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
.
No
Lin
d
e
r
o
D
r
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
Par
k
)
Tun
n
e
l
Cen
t
e
r
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
c
u
r
v
e
d
r
a
m
p
a
l
o
n
g
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
Blv
d
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
c
u
r
v
e
s
.
Yes
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 141
Sou
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
M
e
m
o
Kit
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
P
a
g
e
7
CrossingLocation
FacilityType
(Bridge,
Tunnel)
Description
Alternative
Selectedfor
Evaluation?
(Yes, No)
East Side
West Side
Lin
d
e
r
o
D
r
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
Par
k
)
Tun
n
e
l
Ho
o
k
e
d
r
a
m
p
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
eas
t
cor
n
e
r
o
f
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
Dr/
A
l
m
a
S
t
con
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
m
i
d
b
l
o
c
k
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
c
u
r
v
e
s
.
No
Lin
d
e
r
o
D
r
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
Par
k
)
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
B
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
Rob
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
m
i
d
b
l
o
c
k
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
c
u
r
v
e
s
.
No
Lin
d
e
r
o
D
r
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
Par
k
)
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
B
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
f
r
o
m
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
to
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
i
l
w
i
t
h
t
i
g
h
t
c
u
r
v
e
s
.
No
Lin
d
e
r
o
D
r
Par
k
B
l
v
d
(
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
Par
k
)
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
B
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
f
r
o
m
n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
Lin
d
e
r
o
S
t
/
A
l
m
a
S
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
a
t
R
o
b
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
i
l
wit
h
t
i
g
h
t
c
u
r
v
e
s
.
Yes
Ely
P
l
a
c
e
Wh
i
t
c
l
e
m
D
r
i
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
m
a
S
t
ree
t
SB
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
a
c
r
o
s
s
f
r
o
m
E
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
con
n
e
c
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
r
n
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
a
t
W
h
i
t
c
l
e
m
D
r
Yes
Ely
P
l
a
c
e
Edle
e A
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
Str
a
i
g
h
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
E
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
E
d
l
e
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
No
Fer
n
e
A
v
e
Del
M
e
d
i
o
A
v
e
Tun
n
e
l
Ram
p
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
m
a
S
t
S
B
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
a
c
r
o
s
s
f
r
o
m
F
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
a
n
d
con
n
e
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
t
u
n
n
e
l
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
o
n
D
e
l
M
e
d
i
o
A
v
e
i
n
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
Yes
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
R
d
/
N
i
t
a
Ave
&
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Ave
/
A
l
m
a
S
t
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Rd/
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
&
Ma
y
f
i
e
l
d
D
r
/
T
u
n
n
e
l
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
Brid
g
e
&
Tun
n
e
l
Cen
t
e
r
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
f
r
o
m
N
i
t
a
A
v
e
t
o
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
w
i
t
h
str
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
A
v
e
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
tun
n
e
l
a
t
M
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
a
t
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Yes
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 142
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 143
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2025
SOUTH PALO ALTO BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY
ATTACHMENT B EVALUATION CRITERIA &ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Alternatives were scored using design priorities and evaluation criteria in Table 1 developed in the
previous project phase based on community input, engineering expertise, and professional judgement.
Design priorities and evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the degree to which each crossing design
alternative aligns with community values. The Updated Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Memorandum, available online on the project webpage (www.paloalto.gov/BikePedCrossings), provides
additional background on how the design priorities and evaluation criteria were selected.
Table 1: Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria
Design Priorities Criteria
Improve Mobility
Enhances bike and pedestrian access between
key destinations.
Neighborhood Accessibility
Demand
Facility Width and Capacity
Enhance User Experience
Prioritizes spaces that are comfortable for
people of all ages and abilities.
Crossing Length
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort
Personal Security
Maximize East of Construction
Limits costs (time and money) and prioritizes
designs that are feasible to implement.
Utility Impacts
Construction Costs
Construction Duration
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Enhance Visual Appeal
Enhances the sense of community with spaces
and structures that are visually appealing.
Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Minimize Community Impacts
Limits potential impacts on existing
neighborhoods and the natural environment.
Environmental Impacts
Parcel Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts
The following section describes how each criterion was scored. The results of these evaluations are one of
several considerations in the process of seeking locally preferred alternatives.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 144
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
IMPROVE MOBILITY
Design Priority: Prioritize locations and designs that integrate with surrounding networks, provide access
to critical destinations, serve the most users, and accommodate current and future transportation needs.
NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESSIBILITY
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that reduce existing barriers to crossing the train tracks by shortening
the distance to the closest rail crossing for walking and biking.
Process: Alternatives were evaluated to identify the degree to which they reduce travel time and increase
the area that can be accessed within a 5, 10, or 15 minute walk or bike trip from a rail crossing. For each
alternative, the proposed crossing was added to the transportation network and the accessibility analysis
was re-run to observe how travel times for walking and biking changed compared to existing conditions.1
More details on the accessibility analysis and results under the existing conditions can be found in the
Existing Conditions Report available online on the project webpage. Note that the bike accessibility
analysis varies slightly from the Existing Conditions Report, as the baseline analysis for existing conditions
was updated to allow cyclists to use high-stress intersections. This change was made to reflect the use of
crossing guards at some locations and assumed new crossings would be paired with enhancements at
signalized intersections providing better bike accessibility.
Results for each alternative are shown in Attachment C. Scores were assigned by visually comparing the
alternatives to identify the degree to which each crossing reduces walking and biking travel times to a
crossing. For reference, Figure 1 showed the walking accessibility results for a high and low performing
crossing. Thin lines indicated walk or bike access area under existing conditions, and thick lines indicated
locations where a new crossing reduces travel time to a rail crossing. Table 2 illustrates how the
Neighborhood Accessibility criterion was scored.
1 The analysis assumed one crossing would be built and did not assess how accessibility might change
under a combination of buildout scenarios.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 145
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Figure 1: Walking Access for Alternative A (Left) and Alternative D (Right)
Table 2: Scoring Neighborhood Accessibility
Change in Neighborhood Accessibility Score
Substantial decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing High (most desirable)
Decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing
Limited decrease in travel time walking and biking to a crossing
Isolated reduction in travel time walking and biking to a crossing
No reduction in travel time (high overlap with existing crossing Low (least desirable)
DEMAND
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that are expected to attract more walking and biking trips.
Process: The analysis estimated weekday daily and weekday peak hour (morning commute) walking and
biking trips for each alternative. The future year of 2031 was selected for analysis to be consistent with the
adopted Housing Element and to account for future land use and population growth. Trips were
estimated using a six-step calculation process that factored for planned growth and captured both route
shift (existing walk and bike trips shifting from existing crossings to proposed alternatives) and mode shift
(existing driving trips changing to walk or bike trips) as a result of a more comfortable or shorter route.
Step 1 Create Existing Origin-Destination Trip Matrix
The existing origin-destination (O-D) trip matrix was created using trip data from the travel data company
Replica.2 The trip data represented trips for a typical weekday in Spring 2023. Trips were filtered to include
2 Replica is a transportation data company that models travel patterns based on multiple data sources,
including data collected by vehicles, land use and Census data, and public transportation data sets. More
information about Replica can be found at Appendix C of the Existing Conditions Report at
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/South-Palo-Alto-BikePed-
Connectivity.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 146
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
trips that (1) started, ended, or passed through the City of Palo Alto and Stanford (2) had a distance of 5-
miles or shorter, and (3) were completed by walking, biking, driving, rider in personal vehicle, taxi, or ride-
hail. The 5-mile trip limit was used to exclude trips that were unlikely to change from driving due to their
length.
Step 2 Grow Trip Matrix to Represent 2031 Scenario
The existing O-D matrix was then adjusted to account for planned land use and population growth in Palo
Alto as captured in the VTA Model.3 Trip data for all modes combined was extracted for the years of 2015
(existing conditions year for the Housing Element) and 2031, respectively. An annualized growth rate was
calculated for each O-D pair using the following formula and applied to 2023 trips volumes from Step 1.4
Step 3 Identify Walk and Bike Routes
For each O-D pair, a script was used to identify the preferred walking and biking route under existing
conditions and when each alternative was made available. Walking routes were routed based on the
shortest travel path. Biking routes were calculated based on a combination of trip length and the stress
level for using different roads (i.e., if there were two similar length routes, the route would reflect the
more comfortable route). Figure 2 illustrated an example O-D where the availability of Alternative B. Loma
Verde Ave Tunnel for walking resulted in a 0.6 miles shorter walking route compared to the existing
conditions.
For each alternative, the O-D matrix from Step 2 was reduced to include only trip patterns where an
improved route became available for walking or biking and the corresponding change in trip length. The
change in trip length for walking was based on the length of the route. The change in the length of the
biking trip used a weighted trip length that considered the stress of routes (i.e., if a new crossing created a
route that was equal in length but more comfortable, the weighted length would reflect a reduction in
length).
3 The refined version of the VTA model by the City of Palo Alto was used to incorporate land use and
population from the Housing Element.
4 Individual growth rates for each O-D. It was found that a small fraction of O-D pairs were calculated as
having unrealistic rates due to small sample sizes in the model data. These pairs were capped at a 200%
growth in trips.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 147
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Step 4 Estimate Rerouted Walking and Biking Trips
If an alternative provided an improved route for trips that were already being complete by walking or
biking, the trip was assumed to shift to the new alternative. Table 4 and Table 5 provided the final
estimates at the end of the section reported the total shifted walk and bike trips under each alternative for
the year 2031.
Step 5 Estimate Mode Shift from Driving
If an alternative provided an improved route for trips that were driving trips under existing conditions
(including driver, passenger, or taxi and ride-hail passenger), the trips were evaluated based on their trip
lengths under existing conditions and under each alternative to determine potential for trips to change
mode. The model assumed increasing share of driving trips as distance increased and given the same
distance change, a higher percentage of mode shift would occur for shorter trips (e.g., the share of driving
trips would increase by about 20 percent when distance increased from one to two miles while it would
increase by less than 5 percent when distance increased from four to five miles). To calculate potential
mode shift, an equation was fit to the mode share for driving trips in the replica data, comparing trip
length to percent of trip driving. Figure 3 showed the trip data and fitted curve.
Line Description Distance
Existing Conditions 2.0 miles
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 1.4 miles
Figure 2: Example Walking Route Evaluation
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 148
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Figure 3: Percent Mode Share by Distance
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from Replica Fall 2023 Weekday Trips that start, end, or pass through Palo Alto.
For each O-D pair, the possibility to shift from driving to walking and to biking, respectively, was
estimated based on the ratio of walk to bike mode share by distance for existing trips. The evaluation was
done in tandem to avoid double counting the same driving trip as both new walk and bike trips.
Table 3 provides an illustrative example for a single O-D pair. In this example, there were projected to be
50 person-trips between an O-D pair, and the proposed crossing would reduce the trip distance from 1.5
miles to 0.5 miles. Using the mode-choice equation, 70 percent (~35 trips) of the total 50 trips were
driving trips under existing conditions and 40 percent (~20 trips) of the total 50 trips would be driving
trips with the proposed crossing. Therefore, the delta, 30 percent (~15 trips) of the total 50 trips would be
converted to walk or bike trips. At 0.5 miles, it was observed that 75 percent of walking and biking trips
were walking and 25 percent were biking. Therefore, after rounding to the nearest whole number, the 15
shifted trips were estimated to result in 11 walking trips (75% x 15 trips) and 4 biking trips (25% x 15 trips).
Table 3 Example Mode Shift Calculation
Metrics Values
Trip Demand between O-D Pair 50 trips
Existing Distance (Miles)1.5
% Existing Trips Driving (Trip Counts)70% (35)
Alternative Distance (Miles)0.5
% Alternative Trips Driving (Trip Counts)40% (20)
% of Trips Shifted to Walk and Bike Trips (Trip Counts)-30% (-15)
% of Driving Trips Shifted to Walk Trip (Trip Counts)75% (11)
% of Driving Trips Shifted to Bike Trip (Trip Counts)25% (4)
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. numbers are representative of process for single O-D pair for all day travel.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Trip Distance (miles)
Drive Mode Share
Fitted Equation
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 149
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Step 6 Final Matrix and Score Assignment
Total estimated demand of each alternative was calculated as the sum of estimated route shift and
estimated mode shift, for walk and bike trips, respectively. The final estimates for each alternative are
provided in Table 4 and Table 5. Note that the estimates for San Antonio Bridge Enhancements
(Alternative H) did not include trips for walking, as the alternative would not create a new crossing;
however, the estimate for the alternative did include bike trips that were shifted by the addition of a new
lower-stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.
Table 4: Estimated Weekday Trips by Crossing, Future Year 2031
Weekday Total 2031 Shifted Mode Change Total Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Total
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel 560 1,620 240 180 800 1,800 2,600
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 550 1,550 190 170 740 1,720 2,460
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with
Alma St Signal 550 1,550 190 170 740 1,720 2,460
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel 90 450 10 20 100 470 570
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma
St Signal 90 450 10 20 100 470 570
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel 50 560 - 70 50 630 680
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel 390 1,700 70 350 460 2,050 2,510
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements1 NA 2,100 NA 540 NA 2,640 2,640
1. Estimate does not include trips for walking, as alternative does not create a new crossing. Estimate includes bike
trips that are improved by adding a new lower stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.
Table 5: Estimated Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips by Crossing, Future Year 2031
Weekday AM Peak Hour Total 2031 Shifted Mode Change Total Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Total
Alternative A: El Dorado Ave Tunnel 60 140 10 10 70 150 220
Alternative B: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel 60 140 10 20 70 160 230
Alternative C: Loma Verde Ave Tunnel with
Alma St Signal 60 140 10 20 70 160 230
Alternative D: Lindero Dr Tunnel - 40 - - - 40 40
Alternative E: Lindero Dr Tunnel with Alma
St Signal - 40 - - - 40 40
Alternative F: Ely Pl Tunnel 10 40 - - 10 40 50
Alternative G: Ferne Ave Tunnel 50 110 - 30 50 140 190
Alternative H: San Antonio Bridge
Enhancements1 NA 150 NA 40 NA 190 190
1. Estimate does not include trips for walking, as alternative does not create a new crossing. Estimate includes bike
trips that are improved by adding a new lower stress biking facility along San Antonio Road.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 150
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
A High score was assigned to crossings with the highest daily estimated use. A Low score was assigned to
crossing with the lowest daily estimated use. Other crossings were scored relative to the highest and
lowest demand proportionally based on estimated use. Table 6 illustrates how the Demand criterion was
scored.
Table 6: Scoring Demand
Estimated Daily Walk/Bike Demand Score
2,600 or more daily trips High (most desirable)
2,000 to 2,599 daily trips
1,500 to 1,999 daily trips
1,000 to 1,499 daily trips
1,000 or less daily trips Low (least desirable)
As shown in the demand estimates presented in Table 4 and Table 5., Alternative A, B, C, G, and H have
higher estimated demand, and are projected to have more than 2,400 weekday daily trips and more than
190 weekday AM peak hour trips. As a comparison, there were around 1,800 daily pedestrian and bicycle
trips and 300 peak hour pedestrian and bicycle trips observed at the California Avenue underpass in April
2025.5 Alternatives D, E, and F would generate lower demand of fewer than 800 weekday daily trips and
around 50 weekday AM peak hour trips. As a comparison, there were around 600 daily trips and 170 peak
hour trips observed crossing the railroad tracks at Meadow Drive, and around 400 daily trips and 100 peak
hour trips observed crossing the railroad tracks at Charleston Road.
FACILITY WIDTH AND CAPACITY
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that maintain a wider cross-section that allows for more comfortable
and efficient travel for people walking and biking across the crossing.
Process: Alternatives were evaluated based on the minimum cross-section of the ramps shown in the
concept designs. Tunnels would be 20 feet wide per standards documented in Caltrain Design Criteria
3.1.2 Pedestrian Underpass. In addition, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities published by
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 2012 recommended
wider pathways (11 to 14 feet) for shared use paths expected to serve a high percentage of pedestrians
(30 percent or more of the total volume) or high user volumes (more than 300 peak hour users). The
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide identifies a
preferred width of 11 feet and minimum width of 8 feet for shared use paths with low volumes (50 peak
hour cyclists) and a preferred width of 15 feet and minimum width of 11 feet for shared use paths with
5 Observed counts at existing crossings were collected over a 12-hour period between 7am and 7pm on
Thursday, April 24, 2025. The daily demand would be slightly higher than the 12-hour counts. Pedestrian
counts at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road were collected for the same time period on Thursday, May
16, 2024.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 151
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
medium volumes (up to 400 peak hour cyclists). For reference, the Embarcadero Bike Path varies from
eight feet to 12 feet wide and the US 101 Bike/Ped Overpass is 12 feet wide.
As shown in Table 4 and Table 5,, no alternatives were projected to serve more than 300 peak hour
walk/bike trips in 2031. Regarding pedestrian percentage, three alternatives (Alternative A, B, and C) met
the 30 percent threshold. All three alternatives had a minimum ramp cross-section of 12 feet and met the
AASHTO and NACTO recommendation.
A High score was assigned to crossings with a minimum ramp cross-section of 12 feet or more. This ramp
cross-section width would allow bidirectional travel by people walking and biking with minimal potential
for conflict between users. A Low score was assigned to crossings with a minimum ramp cross-section of
9.9 feet or less. At less than 10 feet wide there would be potential for conflict between users and would
likely need to require people biking to walk through the crossing. Table 7 illustrates how the Facility Width
and Capacity criterion was scored.
Table 7: Scoring Facility Width and Capacity
Facility Width and Capacity Score
12 or more High (most desirable)
11 1
Less than Low (least desirable)
ENHANCE USER EXPERIENCE
Design Priority: Design facilities guided by the prioritization of the most vulnerable populations6, and
create safe, well-lit spaces that are comfortable to access and utilize.
CROSSING LENGTH
Criterial Goal: Crossing length considered both the length of the new crossing itself and the degree of
which it would allow direct routes (i.e., a short route that would require a lot of out-of-direction travel was
not considered a short crossing). The goal of this criterion was to prioritize alternatives that provide more
direct connections between the transportation network on either side of rail and to discourage designs
that included hairpin turns or other features that would increase the amount of out of direction travel a
person may be required to complete.
Process: The criterion was evaluated qualitatively by referencing the concept designs. A High score was
assigned to alternatives that provide a direct crossing, similar to the California Avenue Underpass which
6 Vulnerable populations are groups or communities at a higher risk of experiencing negative health,
social, or economic outcomes due to various factors. These factors can be related to social, economic,
political, environmental, or individual circumstances. Examples include children, older adults, people with
disabilities, low-income individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 152
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
draws a straight line between California Avenue on either side of the train tracks. A Low score was
assigned to alternatives that generate substantial out-of-direction travel, similar to the crossing by the
underpass at the San Antonio Caltrain Station where ramps for the crossing run parallel to the train tracks.
The evaluation was conducted based on the alignment of ramps and length of the crossing and did not
consider the potential for more direct paths using stairs, as stairs are not accessible for all users, including
people biking and people in wheelchairs or using other wheeled mobility devices. Table 8 illustrates how
the Crossing Length criterion was scored.
Table 8: Scoring Crossing Length
Crossing Length and Path of Travel Score
Direct route that connects to crossing locations High (most desirable)
Direct route with limited potential out of direction travel for specific routes
Limited out-of-direction travel for most routes
Substantial out-of-direction travel for some routes
Includes substantial out-of-direction travel for most routes Low (least desirable)
CROSSING ELEVATION AND RAMP GRADE
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that provide lower ramp grades that increase user comfort,
encouraging all ages and abilities.
Process: A High score was assigned to alternatives that provide ramping at 4.9% or lower. A Low score
was assigned to alternatives with ramp grades in excess of 8.33%. Alternatives A through G propose
ramps at 7% grade and score Medium under this criteria. For reference, ramps at the Homer Avenue
Tunnel are around 5 percent, ramps at the Palo Alto Caltrain Station are between 7 and 8 percent, and
ramps at the California Avenue Tunnel are around 9 percent. Table 9 illustrates how the Crossing Elevation
and Ramp Grade criterion was scored.
Table 9: Scoring Elevation and Ramp Grade
Crossing Elevation and Ramp Grade Character Score
All ramping is 4.9% or lower High (most desirable)
Ramping is between 5 and 6.9% grade
Ramping is primarily at 7%
Ramping is between 7 and 8.33%
Grade exceeds 8.33% Low (least desirable)
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST COMFORT
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with design characteristics that create a more comfortable walking
and biking experience by (1) reducing potential for conflicts between people walking and biking on the
alternative and (2) creating seamless connections to the larger transportation network.
Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated for potential to reduce or eliminate conflicts and
provide low-stress connections to the existing network. The factors evaluated were:
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 153
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Grade separated intersections. Alternatives that tunnel underneath Alma Street were assigned a
higher score, because they would provide a more seamless and lower-stress connection across by
removing potential conflicts at the intersection with Alma Street.
Ninety (90)-degree turns. Alternatives that would require a 90-degree turn into the tunnel were
assigned a lower score as turns increase potential for conflicts between people traveling in
opposite directions. Turns may also reduce visibility and line of sight, making it difficult to see
people ahead and difficult to judge distances and react.
Ramp access locations. Higher scores were assigned to ramp access locations near existing low-
stress bicycle routes and pedestrian crossings.
A High score was assigned to alternatives identified as having the least potential for conflict and greatest
comfort for people walking and biking, and for alternatives that could be accessed via more direct and
low-stress routes. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with the greatest potential for conflict and/or
features likely to make use and access more uncomfortable. Table 10 illustrates how the Pedestrian and
Bicyclist criterion was scored.
Table 10: Scoring Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort
Pedestrian and Bicycle Comfort Score
More comfortable High (most desirable)
Less comfortable Low (least desirable)
PERSONAL SECURITY
Criteria Goal: All alternatives were designed with consideration for Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and relevant safety standards and design practices and meet
the basic standards for personal security. However, some alternatives provided relatively more visibility
and connectivity. The goal of this criterion was to prioritize alternatives that would increase pedestrian
and bicyclist security by providing good visibility and access points at high-traffic locations.
Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated for visibility at crossing and connectivity of access
points based on the conceptual design layouts.7 The factors evaluated were:
Ninety (90)-degree turns at tunnels. Unobstructed and well-lit tunnel entrances and exits allow
users to see ahead and offer natural surveillance, which allows nearby observers to monitor
Alternatives that would
require a 90-degree turn into the tunnel were assigned a lower score as turns may limit visibility
and natural surveillance, therefore, lowering personal security.
7 Further treatments, such as security cameras, lighting, skylights, emergency phones, can be used to
increase visibility and sightlines. This evaluation did not consider these mitigating factors.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 154
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Ramp access locations. Higher scores were assigned to ramp access locations in areas where
people naturally pass by, which provide more opportunities for natural surveillance. For example,
Alternative A would lead to a parking lot and the crossing itself would also have higher demand
(2,600 total pedestrian and bike trips), as shown in Table 4. Ramp access locations at isolated or
less-traveled paths would have less activity to support natural surveillance. For example, the
tunnel entrance of Alternative F would be between two residential parcels and therefore
pedestrians on Park Boulevard and Whitclem Drive may not be able to directly see activities in the
tunnel. In addition, Alternative F would also have the second to lowest demand among all
alternatives (680 total pedestrian and bike trips), which may limit natural surveillance.
A High score was assigned to unobstructed and well-connected alternatives with more opportunities for
natural surveillance. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with sightline obstructions and less
opportunities for natural surveillance. Table 11 illustrates how the Personal Security criterion was scored.
Table 11: Scoring Personal Security
Personal Security Character Score
Higher visibility, connectivity, and opportunities for natural surveillance High (most desirable)
Lower visibility, connectivity, and opportunities for natural surveillance Low (least desirable)
MAXIMIZE EASE OF CONSTRUCTION
Design Priority: Minimize potential for disruption during construction and complexity of design, while
ensuring that construction costs and maintenance costs would be feasible to implement given reasonably
expected project funding.
UTILITY IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would minimize potential conflicts with existing utilities to reduce
construction risk, cost, and schedule delays. Alternatives that avoid major utility corridors or require
minimal relocation were preferred, as utility conflicts could introduce significant complexity and require
extensive coordination with utility owners.
Process: Each alternative was qualitatively evaluated based on site observations and general utility
information available at each location. A High score was assigned to alternatives that largely avoid known
utility corridors and are expected to require minimal utility relocations. A Low score was assigned to
alternatives that intersect with major utility lines (transmission) or are located in dense utility zones where
significant relocations would likely be required. Intermediate scores were assigned to alternatives with
minor or localized conflicts.
For this analysis, conventional utilities such as gas, water, sewer, telephone, fiber optic, electrical
distribution/transmission were the focus based on site investigations and limited available information at
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 155
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
this stage. Items such as street lighting were not considered, as they fall outside the conventional utility
definition and represent comparatively minor relocations relative to moving more significant
distribution/transmission lines. Table 12 illustrates how the Utility Impacts criterion was scored.
Table 12: Scoring Utility Impacts
Utility Impacts Score
Lower potential for utility impacts High (most desirable)
Higher potential for utility impacts Low (least desirable)
CONSTRUCTION COST
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would be cost-effective to construct. Alternatives that minimized
the need for complex structural features, extensive utility relocation, or right-of-way acquisition would be
preferred, provided that they would still meet Project objectives and accessibility requirements.
Process: At this early feasibility stage, detailed construction cost estimates are not yet reliable because
the concepts are schematic and subject to change as the design advances. These concepts have been
developed specifically to help narrow down a preferred alternative location within the broader
evaluation not to define exact scope or quantities. Providing dollar figures or even ranges at this stage
could create a false sense of precision and misrepresent the true variability of costs. Instead, the
evaluation uses a qualitative, side-by-side comparison based on the key cost drivers for each alternative.
This approach ensures that differences in the relative costs are captured in a consistent and defensible
way without overstating accuracy at this stage of the planning process.
The evaluation considered factors such as the overall footprint for each alternative, anticipated site
impacts, and general staging and traffic handling needs during construction. Parcel acquisition
In general, tunnels
passing underneath only the railroad tracks are shorter estimated at 85 to 110 feet in length depending
on the crossing location and ramp configurations. Structure costs for these shorter tunnels are expected
to be similar regardless of the alternative, with construction likely achieved by jacking the tunnel box
beneath the tracks to minimize disruption to train operations.
Longer tunnels passing underneath both Alma Street and the railroad tracks are estimated at 160 to 220
feet in length. Because of the increased length, structure costs will be higher. In addition, potential staged
construction in Alma Street and adjacent local streets would add to the overall construction cost.
Alternatives that require use of Caltrain right-of-way will also carry added cost implications. Any such use
will require additional coordination with Caltrain, including obtaining variances that must be approved by
the Caltrain Board. These requirements introduce additional permitting steps, review cycles, and potential
design modifications, which can increase both the complexity and cost of the alternative.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 156
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Several of the evaluated alternatives are also located within areas proposed for construction as part of the
Rail Grade Separation Project at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road8. In June 2024, Council advanced the
Hybrid Alternative (including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass Alternative for Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road
Alternatives D, E, and F are located within proposed construction limits (subject to change) for rail grade
separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road and would require close coordination to address
potential changes in site conditions, available staging areas, and construction sequencing. This
coordination could add cost and schedule risks, depending on how the two projects interface.
For both shorter and longer tunnel options and those overlapping with rail grade separation at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road the overall cost will also be influenced by factors such as the number and
geometry of ramps, presence of existing underground utilities, subsurface soil conditions, and the
These cost considerations are preliminary planning-level assumptions intended for relative comparison
only and will be refined as design advances and more detailed engineering, utility coordination, and
staging plans are developed.
A High score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have lower estimated construction
costs. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have higher estimated
construction costs. Table 13 illustrates how the Construction Costs criterion was scored.
Table 13: Scoring Construction Costs
Construction Costs Score
Lower estimated construction costs High (most desirable)
Higher estimated construction costs Low (least desirable)
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Criteria Goal: Minimize overall construction duration to reduce disruptions to the surrounding
community, minimize adverse effects on nearby transportation corridors/systems, and reduce project
delivery risks. Alternatives that allowed for more streamlined construction coordination, staging, and
fewer complex construction elements were preferred.
Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively based on the relative complexity of construction
activities, including construction coordination, structural components, staging requirements, and potential
constraints related to site access or active transportation detours. A High score was assigned to
alternatives expected to have shorter construction durations and sooner construction start dates. This
would include alternatives with shorter tunnel lengths, fewer ramps and stairs, fewer utility conflicts, fewer
8 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/Rail-Grade-Separation
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 157
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
right-of-way conflicts, and more streamlined construction coordination with other projects and/or
agencies. A Low score was assigned to alternatives with prolonged construction activities and construction
start dates. This would include alternatives with longer tunnels (grade separating Alma Street and the
Caltrain corridor), known overhead/underground utility impacts, right-of-way impacts, and known factors
that could influence construction start date. Mid-range scores were assigned to alternatives with
moderate construction durations and start times.
Most alternatives, with the exception of Alternative H, would require similar construction activities given
they involve grade separating the Caltrain corridor. The approximate construction duration to complete
these activities is assumed to be about 18 months. For alternatives that also grade separate Alma Street,
construction becomes far more involved due to the need to navigate more utilities within Alma Street and
maintain traffic along the corridor during construction. These alternatives scoring lower under this
criterion would likely require approximately 24 months to complete.
Alternatives G and H extend into City of Mountain View right-of-way, requiring additional coordination
that may introduce further permitting steps, review cycles, and staging considerations, potentially
extending the overall duration.
As discussed earlier, Alternatives D, E, and F are located within proposed construction limits (subject to
change) for rail grade separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for the Hybrid Alternative
(including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston
and would require close coordination to address potential changes in site conditions, available staging
areas, and construction sequencing. This coordination could extend construction duration and start time,
depending on how the two projects interface. If the Hybrid Alternative is advanced, any bike/pedestrian
undercrossing construction at these locations would need to wait until Meadow/Charleston construction
is completed, given the overlap in work areas. This dependency could delay the start of construction and
extend overall delivery time for these alternatives. These durations are preliminary planning-level
assumptions intended for relative comparison only and will be refined as design advances and more
detailed staging, permitting, and phasing plans are developed.
A High score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have shorter anticipated construction
durations and earlier start dates. A Low score was assigned to alternatives that would be expected to have
longer anticipated construction duration and later start date. Table 14 illustrates how the Construction
Costs criterion was scored.
Table 14: Scoring Construction Duration
Construction Duration Score
Shorter anticipated construction duration and start date High (most desirable)
Longer anticipated construction duration and start date Low (least desirable)
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 158
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would minimize long-term operations and maintenance needs
for the City. Designs with a smaller physical footprint and fewer infrastructure elements requiring ongoing
upkeep such as the tunnel, ramp structures, at-grade pathways, traffic signals/pedestrian hybrid
beacons were preferred, as they would naturally reduce long-term maintenance responsibilities and
associated costs.
Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively by reviewing key design features likely to influence
operations and maintenance responsibilities. A High score was assigned to alternatives with low
anticipated maintenance demands, such as common roadway at-grade features. A Low score was
assigned to alternatives with high anticipated operations and maintenance demands, such as structures,
pump stations, and traffic signals or pedestrian hybrid beacons. Table 15 illustrates how the Operations
and Maintenance Cost criterion was scored.
Table 15: Scoring Operations and Maintenance Cost
Operations and Maintenance Costs Score
Relatively lower anticipated operations and maintenance costs High (most desirable)
Low to moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs
Moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs
High to moderate anticipated operations and maintenance costs
Relatively higher anticipated operations and maintenance costs Low (least desirable)
ENHANCE VISUAL APPEAL
Design Priority: Ensure that newly constructed facilities would enhance the sense of community by
incorporating public art, public spaces, and attractive structures.
PUBLIC SPACE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with greater potential to improve existing public space or provide
new public space and green infrastructure.
Process: A High score was assigned to alternatives that created the most opportunities for landscaping,
benches, and bio-retention in new plaza areas and enhanced connections to existing public space. A Low
score was assigned to alternatives with constrained site plan that would limit opportunities to create new
public spaces and implement green infrastructure. Table 16 illustrates how the Public Space and Green
Infrastructure criterion was scored.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 159
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Table 16: Scoring Public Space and Green Infrastructure
Public Space and Green Infrastructure Impact Score
Directly connects to park or other public space High (most desirable)
Improves visual appeal of local context
Neutral effects on local context
Potential limited opportunities to create public space and green infrastructure
Limited opportunities to create public space and green infrastructure Low (least desirable)
MINIMIZE COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Design Priority: Limit potential adverse effects on existing neighborhoods, including the amount of space
needed (parking spaces, roads, and buildings are minimally affected) and adverse effects on the
environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives that would avoid or reduce environmental impacts to the built and
natural environment.
Process: Alternatives were evaluated to identify the degree to which an alternative would avoid or reduce
adverse effects to both the built and natural environments, as well as what level of environmental
compliance may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and potentially
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if federal funding is used for the Project. With the exception
of Alternative H, which would not build a new tunnel, each alternative would result in a similar level of
impacts under CEQA and NEPA for a variety of environmental topics based on the environmental setting
and characteristics of each alternative. Such environmental topics included but were not limited to
geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and
hazardous materials. Regarding biological resources, none of the alternatives would impact creeks, and
any tree removal would be replaced pursuant to City policy). As such, these topics would not help to
differentiate the alternatives and were not evaluated.
Pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, and based on the environmental setting and characteristics of each
alternative, The primary environmental impact considered for the evaluation of each alternative includes
short-term construction impacts to residential uses (i.e., air quality, noise, vibration, and traffic which is
discussed under Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts).
A High score was assigned to alternatives that did not require tunneling adjacent to residences and thus
would require less environmental review pursuant to CEQA, likely in the form of a Categorical Exemption.
A Low score was assigned to alternatives requiring tunneling adjacent to residences, which would not
likely qualify for a CEQA Categorical Exemption and instead may require an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Table 17 illustrates how the Environmental Impacts criterion was scored.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 160
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Table 17: Scoring Environmental Impacts
Environmental Impact Score
Lower level of environmental impacts and required environmental compliance High (most desirable)
Higher level of environmental impacts and required environmental compliance Low (least desirable)
PARCEL IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Minimize adverse effects on private property or publicly owned parcels not currently
dedicated to transportation use. Alternatives that would fit within existing public right-of-way or affect
only publicly owned land designated for transportation purposes were preferred, as they would help
avoid displacing existing uses, reduce property acquisition costs, and minimize community disruption.
Process: This criterion was evaluated qualitatively using the conceptual design layouts and assessing
whether alternatives directly affect private property and buildings within parcels. A High score was
assigned to alternatives that did not require full or partial parcel acquisition. A Low score was assigned to
alternatives requiring full or partial acquisition of two or more parcels. Table 18 illustrates how the Parcel
Impacts criterion was scored.
Table 18: Scoring Parcel Impacts
Parcel Impact Score
No parcel impact High (most desirable)
Partial parcel impact (no impact on existing buildings)
Full parcel impact on 1 parcel
Full parcel impacts on 2 parcels
Full parcel impact on more than 2 parcels Low (least desirable)
The concept design alternatives are very high-level and schematic, developed solely to help narrow down
preferred rail crossing locations and basic conceptual designs. They are intended for decision-making
purposes only and represent conceptual, planning-level designs that will be refined and are subject to
change during subsequent design phases. Throughout the evaluation, an emphasis was placed on
avoiding and minimizing potential adverse effects to private property wherever feasible. Any potential
parcel impacts identified are preliminary and will be subject to further study and refinement.
Importantly, no decision has yet been made by the City to acquire any property. Before that decision can
be made, the law requires that properties to be acquired first be appraised. If the City continues to
consider the acquisition of property after completion of an appraisal, then representatives of the City will
contact the owner and make a formal written offer to purchase. The offer will be for an amount
determined by the City to be just compensation and in no event will be less than the value reported in an
appraisal approved by the City. Without authority from the City Council, staff has no authority to commit
the City to the acquisition of any property that might be affected by the bicycle and pedestrian grade
separation alternatives.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 161
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project Alternatives Analysis Attachment B
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
TRAFFIC, PARKING, AND DRIVEWAY IMPACTS
Criteria Goal: Prioritize alternatives with less potential to increase vehicle delay, modify existing driveway
access, and reduce the amount of on- and off-street parking.
Process: The criterion was evaluated qualitatively by referencing the conceptual design layouts.
Potential for vehicle delay considered how alternatives would impact motor vehicle travel on Alma Street.
Under existing conditions, there is no intersection delay for vehicles traveling on Alma Street at the
proposed crossing locations (one-way stop controlled crossing for Alternatives A through G), except
Alternative H which has an existing signal. Specifically, the scoring made the following considerations
(ranked from highest to lowest weight):
Traffic control delays were given higher weight in consideration as new intersection controls would
introduce delays to all drivers traveling on Alma Street, while changes in driveway access and
reductions in on- and off-street parking would affect fewer people. 9
o Alternatives B, D, and H would not install new signals or PHBs and, therefore, would not
introduce traffic control delay.
o Alternative F proposed installing a pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) which would
introduce some vehicle delays, as drivers would need to stop when a pedestrian or
bicyclist activated the crossing signal.
o All other conceptual design alternatives proposed installing new signals and would
introduce higher delays as drivers traveling along Alma Street would need to stop for red
lights.
A High score was assigned to alternatives that would not change existing driveway access or reduce
parking and had less potential to result in increases in vehicle delay. A Low score was assigned to
alternatives that would affect existing driveway access and parking and could result in increased vehicle
delays.
Table 19: Scoring Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts
Traffic, Parking, and Driveway Impacts Score
No changes to existing traffic control, driveway access, or parking High (most desirable)
Some reconfigurations of driveways and/or loss of parking
Most potential to increase traffic delay, change driveway access and/or reduce
parking
Low (least desirable)
9 Signal treatments, such as signal timing optimization, pre-detection, and adaptive phases, can be used
to reduce vehicle delays at signalized intersections. This evaluation did not consider these mitigating
factors.
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 162
September 2, 2025
South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Alternatives Analysis Attachments
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C. ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS MAPS
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 163
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 164
A.
E
l
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 165
B.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 166
C.
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
A
l
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 167
D.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 168
E.
L
i
n
d
e
r
o
D
r
T
u
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
A
l
m
a
S
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 169
F. E
l
y
P
l
T
u
n
n
e
l
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 170
G.
F
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 171
H.
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
No
N
e
w
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
C
r
e
a
t
e
d
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 172
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 173
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 174
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 175
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 176
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 177
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 178
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 179
Item 4
Attachment B - Alternatives
Analysis
Packet Pg. 180