HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-10 City Council Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
6:00 PM
Amended Agenda
Amended agenda items appear below in RED
Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Remote Call In Teleconference
Location:
Huntsville Marriott NASA Space Center
5 Tranquility Base
Huntsville, Alabama 35805
Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by
teleconference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the
meeting is located at the end of the agenda. 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.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238)
Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to
three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken
until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public
comments can be submitted in advance to city.council@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to
the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which
agenda item you are referencing in your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to city.clerk@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.
1 December 10, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Council 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
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Report of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Report of Officials, Unfinished
Business and Council Matters.
1.Review and Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to proceed with 15%
design and Prepare CEQA and NEPA Documentation for the Grade Separations at
Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings; CEQA status – CEQA
and NEPA will be conducted on this project as part of the upcoming scope of work. Staff
Presentation
On December 10, 2025, Council will receive staff presentation(s) and Public Testimony;
this item continued to the December 15, 2025 City Council meeting is for, as needed,
Council discussion, deliberation and action – No Public Testimony will be heard on
December 15, 2025.
ADJOURNMENT
OTHER INFORMATION
Standing Committee Meetings this week
Policy & Services Committee December 9, 2025
Council Appointed Officers Committee December 10, 2025
City Schools Liaison Committee December 11, 2025
Climate Action & Sustainability Committee December 12, 2025
Climate Action & Sustainability Committee December 13, 2025
Public Comment Letters
Schedule of Meetings
2 December 10, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
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 city.council@PaloAlto.gov.
2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a computer or smart phone will be
accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, 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. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
◦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.
4.Spoken public comments for agendized items 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 Council. 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: 362-027-238 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.
3 December 10, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an
elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a
license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution
exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the
last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and
planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid
procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or
is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A
“participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding
involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the
decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform
Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources
of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a
“party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a
Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the
campaign contribution before making your comments.
4 December 10, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: December 10, 2025
Report #:2506-4895
TITLE
Review and Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to proceed with 15% design and
Prepare CEQA and NEPA Documentation for the Grade Separations at Churchill Avenue,
Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings; CEQA status – CEQA and NEPA will be
conducted on this project as part of the upcoming scope of work.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council reviews and formally selects the Locally Preferred Alternatives
(LPA) to proceed with 15% design for the grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road Crossings.
Of the two options presented for the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue under the
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass Alternative, the Rail Committee unanimously recommended
advancing the Alma Street Ramp option and eliminating the Seale Avenue ramp option from
further consideration to the City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In coordination with City staff, Caltrain has refined the conceptual designs for the partial
underpass alternative at Churchill Avenue, as well as the hybrid and underpass alternatives for
the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road grade separation projects. Additionally, Caltrain has
developed preliminary design concepts for the bike/ped crossing at Seale Avenue as part of the
Churchill Avenue grade separation.
These updates reflect direction from the City Council to reduce right-of-way impacts and
improve mobility as part of the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation
phase of the City of Palo Alto’s Grade Separation Project. An initial review of the revised
concepts was presented at the Rail Committee meeting on September 16, 2025. Two
community engagement workshops were also held on September 30, 2025, with more than 300
comments from community members considered to further refine the conceptual designs. The
Rail Committee reviewed updated materials on November 18, 2025 and recommended that, for
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 5 of 109
the Seale Avenue Undercrossing, City Council consider advancing the Alma Street Ramp option
and eliminate the Seale Avenue ramp option from further consideration. The Rail Committee
also recommended that City Council review both Hybrid and Underpass alternatives at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road and to select a Locally Preferred Alternative to advance to the 15%
design phase. Previously, Council selected the partial underpass as the locally preferred
alternative at Churchill Avenue.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s rail corridor planning efforts commenced in 2010 with the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study, which was adopted by Council on January 22, 2013 (Staff Report # 3410 1). From
November 4, 2013, the City developed preliminary grade separation alternatives as part of the
Connecting Palo Alto project, which explored multiple options for the four at-grade rail crossing
locations of Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue. This
work resulted in a Rail Corridor Circulation Study and initial screening of ideas for various
alternatives that was reviewed by the Council on May 29, 2018 (Staff Report # 9284 2). In April
2018, in-depth analysis of engineering options continued, with review by the Rail Committee
and Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee (XCAP). The XCAP completed its review and
presented recommendation to Council on March 23, 2021 (Staff Report 11797)3.
Since 2022, staff have secured grants from the Federal Rail Administration (FRA), California
State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Measure B program, and have continued to develop grade separation alternatives. In
consultation with the community, Rail Committee and Council, the City has refined project
alternatives for rail crossings at Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Churchill Avenue, while
the Palo Alto Avenue crossing was put on hold.
On June 10, 2024 (Staff Report # 2402-2957 4) and June 18, 2024 (Staff Report # 2406-3169 5),
Council selected the following alternatives to advance into the Conceptual Development phase
in preparation for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation:
• For Churchill Avenue, the Council selected the Partial Underpass as the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) with vehicle crossing at Churchill Avenue and pedestrian/bicycle
1 City Council, January 22, 2013; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 3410
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-
cmrs/year-archive/2013/railcorridor1_22.pdf
2 City Council, May 29, 2018; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 9284
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=2136
3 City Council, March 23, 2021; Item 1, Study Session Item, SR# 9284
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=2236
4 City Council, June 10, 2024; Item 13, Action Item, SR# 2402-2957
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82879
5 City Council, June 18, 2024; Item AA3, Action Item, SR# 2406-3169
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82944
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 6 of 109
crossing at Seale Avenue / Peers Park. Additionally, the Council identified the
Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill (aka Closure Alternative) as the backup
alternative if needed in the future for this location. (As directed by Council, the backup
alternative will not advance to preliminary engineering at this time.)
•For Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, the Council identified the Hybrid Underpass
and Underpass as the two alternatives to advance to Conceptual Design with
refinements to minimize right-of-way impacts and improve mobility at each location.
The preferred alternative for each location will advance to 35% Design. Constructability
concerns may require the City to implement grade separations in these two locations in
a coordinated manner.
Caltrain is leading the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase and
the City collaborates with Caltrain for project design and acts as the project sponsor. The City
has successfully secured $6 million in FRA Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) program funds
towards completing Preliminary Engineering (35%) and Environmental Documentation for
grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. In addition, on
December 9, 2024 (Staff Report # 2408-3322 6), City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement
with VTA for $14 million in Measure B Caltrain Grade Separation funding for this phase.
City Council also directed staff to refine the project concepts with a focus on minimizing
property impacts and enhancing mobility. To facilitate durable decision-making and expedited
refinement of the alternatives, the Project is divided into two steps:
•Preliminary Engineering Alternatives Design Refinements (15% Design), which is
anticipated to progress through Summer-2026; and
•Preliminary Engineering (35% Design) and Environmental Documentation under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), which is anticipated to conclude in Fall 2027.
Design refinement also includes estimation of project costs and evaluation of constructability
issues to support the selection of an LPA at each location, prior to progressing with 35% design
plans and environmental documents.
In consultation with City, Caltrain refined the alternatives for review by the Rail Committee on
September 16, 2025. The following refined alternatives were developed to minimize private
property impacts while maintaining and/or improving the traffic circulation and enhancing
pedestrian and bicycle crossings were shared at this meeting:
•Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass Alternative including the following elements that
have been further developed since June 2024 (as displayed in Attachment A):
o One northbound vehicular lane on the upper portion of Alma Street, which
6 City Council , December 9, 2024; Item 12, Consent Item, SR# 2408-3 322
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83126&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 7 of 109
connects to Churchill Avenue east of Alma Street. This represents a reduction
from the previously proposed 2-lane configuration.
o One northbound combined lane (northbound through and northbound left turn)
that is depressed approximately 22.5 to 29 feet below the current roadway
depending upon construction methods and bridge design, that connects with
Churchill Avenue for motor vehicles only.
o Seale Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle crossing to provide active transportation
access across the tracks 1,800-feet (four blocks) south of Churchill Avenue. This
crossing has two variants:
Seale Option 1: Seale Avenue Ramp
Seale Option 2: Alma Street Ramp
• Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Crossings include the following elements (as
displayed in Attachment B and C for Meadow and Charleston respectively):
o Hybrid Underpass at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, where the railway
tracks are elevated by 17 -19 ft and the roadway is depressed 4-6 ft.
o Underpass at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, where the tracks remain at
their existing elevation and Charleston Road or Meadow Drive is depressed 22.5
to 29 ft depending upon construction techniques and bridge design. The
Charleston Road Underpass has two variants:
Charleston Underpass Option 1: 1-lane Roundabout where drivers
traveling from northbound Alma Street to westbound Charleston turn
right and make a u-turn at a new roundabout 630 feet east of the
interchange to travel westbound on Charleston Road.
Charleston Underpass Option 2: Direct Access Ramp where drivers
traveling from northbound Alma Street to westbound Charleston turn left
at a new lower-level traffic signalized intersection connecting with the
depressed portion of Charleston Road.
o Combination: Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive and Underpass Alternative at
Charleston Road.
ANALYSIS
Staff conducted community engagement to gather feedback on the refined concept
alternatives. In addition to in-person meetings, community members were invited to submit
comments via the project website. Staff also conducted outreach to the Palo Alto Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PABAC) Grade Separation Ad Hoc Group and Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) staff to provide project updates and collect their input.
The project received a total of approximately 335 comments through community meetings,
email submissions, and project website. All feedback comments were compiled in a
spreadsheet for review. The following themes were identified from the comments:
• Property Impacts
• Traffic Impacts
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 8 of 109
• Cost and Funding
• Safety for Students and Access to Schools
• Active Transportation
• Construction Impacts
• Aesthetics and Visual Impacts
• Equitable Engagement
The top themes identified via community engagement for each alternative are described below:
Churchill Avenue
• Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass
o Active Transportation: Respondents suggested prioritizing walkability, bikeability
and school access by providing landscaped buffers, and direct, accessible routes for
pedestrians and cyclists, especially to schools. Respondents also requested ADA-
compliant ramps, improved lighting, and high visibility crossings to enhance safe,
convenient travel for all users.
o Traffic Speed and Volume: Respondents desired design measures to discourage
speeding and increased traffic volumes on Alma Street, including lane reductions
and new or adjusted traffic signals to improve safety and access. Some community
members expressed concern that widening Alma may increase traffic volumes, while
others noted that changes to this major corridor could affect walkability.
o Access to Schools: Respondents desired expressed a desire for direct school routes.
Respondents expressed concern that longer or more complex paths may lead
students to use roadways with cars such as Alma.
• Seale Avenue Ramp
o Active Transportation: Respondents suggested green markings where the bike ramp
meets Seale, raised crosswalks, ADA compliant slopes and lighting. Respondents also
asked to keep bikes and pedestrians separated and to slow cyclists on ramps.
o Parking and Traffic Impact: Respondents expressed concern about parking impacts
on Seale as well as implications of the ramp on route choices to and from Alma for
abutting residents in terms of potential detours, one-way movements and U turns.
o Property Access: Respondents expressed concern about loss of on-street parking for
residents, driveway maneuvering space, and requested information on the number
of dwellings affected—not just parcels (since this street has many multi-dwelling
parcels); and ripple effects on visitors, deliveries, and seniors/ADA access along
Seale.
• Alma Street Ramp
o Active Transportation: Respondents asked for clarification on how the Alma Ramp
would work for bicyclists and pedestrians including level of visibility at conflict
points, lighting, ADA grades, mirrors, and overall comfort.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 9 of 109
o Traffic Impact: Respondents expressed concern about intersection operations such
as the ability to make turns to and from Alma Street
o Safety for Students: Respondents were concerned that students may dislike tunnels,
and that unsafe facilities could push families toward driving—increasing traffic
volume and safety concerns; they also requested attention to lighting and
consideration of student travel patterns.
Meadow Drive
• Hybrid
o Construction Impacts: Respondents requested more information on construction
impacts for residents along Alma Street including duration and extent of night work
and detours, and mitigation planned to address construction impacts.
o Aesthetics and Visual Impact: Respondents expressed concern about a new retaining
wall including visual quality, height, and design treatment.
o Active Transportation: Some respondents favored this option based on a preference
for direct routes for bike and pedestrian facilities and routes but requested more
specifics on lane width, buffers, crossing treatments, and how grades and turns
affect comfort.
• Underpass
o Active Transportation: Some respondents favored this option based on a preference
for more protected bicycle and pedestrian routes.
o Traffic Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about inconvenience and delays to
motorists, particularly regarding lane configuration, turn restrictions, and detours
that impact traffic on surrounding streets.
o Property Impacts: Respondents requested information on the number of dwellings
affected by property impacts, and not just the number of parcels.
o Construction Impacts: Respondents were concerned about construction impacts
such as road closures, noise, and disruptions to daily life, and they requested
information on the duration of construction impacts.
Charleston Road
• Hybrid
o Property Impacts: Respondents generally expressed a preference for this option
relative to the Underpass due to the lower level of potential property acquisitions.
o Cost and Funding: Many respondents noted that this option has lower construction
costs.
o Traffic Impacts: Respondents also noted that this option minimizes traffic
disruptions and preserves neighborhood circulation.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 10 of 109
o Active Transportation: Some respondents expressed support for the direct routes for
the bike and pedestrian facilities and routes but requested more specifics on lane
width, buffers, crossing treatments, and how grades/turns affect comfort.
• Underpass – Roundabout
o Traffic Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about the circulation of traffic
including increased traffic volume and lower convenience for motorists associated
with circuitous maneuvers through the intersection.
o Active Transportation: Respondents requested additional information on bicycle and
pedestrian routes, including connectivity, facility design, usability and comfort.
o Property Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about property impacts and
requested more detailed information on the number of dwellings affected and size
of partial acquisitions needed (in terms of a percentage of property footprint).
• Underpass – Direct Access Ramp
o Construction Impacts: Respondents expressed concern about construction duration,
road closures, noise, and disruption to daily life.
o Active Transportation: Respondents expressed an interest in safe, direct, and
accessible bicycle and pedestrian routes.
Refinements to Alternatives
Based on community input and technical analysis, the project team clarified active
transportation routes and design elements such as the height of walls or tracks. Updated
alternative plans are provided in
• Attachment A for Churchill Avenue Crossing (including the Seale Avenue pedestrian and
bicycle crossing),
• Attachment B for Meadow Drive Crossing (Hybrid and Underpass alternatives), and
• Attachment C for Charleston Road Crossing (Hybrid and Underpass alternatives).
In response to questions from community members, the team also developed additional
renderings (including a Hybrid variant for Charleston and Meadow with columns). A traffic
study was also conducted and is included in Attachment D and initial estimates of potential
property impacts are included in Attachment E. Updates to construction costs, more precise
data on potential property impacts, and additional details on construction impacts will be
addressed during the 15% design phase. Furthermore, detailed review of individual property
title reports will occur during the 35% design phase and environmental documentation phase.
The updates to the preliminary designs reflect direction from the City Council to reduce right-
of-way impacts and improve mobility that would inform Council further into the decision
making for selection of Locally Preferred Alternative at each crossing.
Rail Committee Review and Recommendation
An initial review of the revised alternatives was presented at the Rail Committee meeting on
September 16, 2025. Public outreach workshops were also held on September 30, 2025, with
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 11 of 109
strong community participation. The project received more than 300 comments from
community members. These comments were compiled and used to further refine the
alternatives.
Rail Committee then reviewed updated materials on November 18, 2025. For Seale Avenue
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing, Rail Committee recommended that City Council consider
advancing the Alma Street Ramp option and eliminate the Seale Avenue ramp option from
further consideration.
For the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings, Rail Committee also recommended that
City Council review alternatives and select a Locally Preferred Alternative to advance to 15%
design. Council has previously selected the partial underpass alternative at Churchill Avenue
crossing as the locally preferred alternative.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The action requested—advancing the selected grade separation alternatives to the 15% design
as part of the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase—is fully
funded with $20 million in secured external funds. These funds consist of a $6 million Federal
Rail Administration (FRA) Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant and a $14 million Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B Grade Separation Funding Cooperative
Agreement, which Council approved on December 9, 2024.
Appropriations for this work are included in the FY 2026 Adopted Capital Budget, with future
costs programmed in the FY 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as capital projects PL-
24000 (Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) and PL-24001 (Churchill Avenue Rail Grade
Separation and Safety Improvements). The secured $20 million is programmed to cover the
costs of this 15% design phase as well as the subsequent 35% Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation phase. Therefore, this item has no new fiscal impact.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Rail Committee meetings and City Council sessions are open to the public, offering
community members an opportunity to share comments directly with Committee and staff.
Regular project updates are presented during these meetings.
Since the last presentation to Rail Committee, staff has hosted two outreach meetings on
September 30, 2025—one focused on Churchill Avenue (including the Seale Avenue crossing)
and the other on Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings—to gather community input
and feedback. Updated plans, renderings, meeting materials, and videos are available on the
project website. Community members were also invited to provide additional feedback through
comment forms at the meetings and on the project website.
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 12 of 109
Staff also engaged and conducted meetings with the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee’s (PABAC) Rail Grade Separation Subcommittee on October 10, 2025, as well as
PAUSD staff on October 16, 2025, to gather further input. PABAC will also review the project at
its special meeting on December 2, 2025, for a formal recommendation to Council.
To reach a wide cross section and help spread awareness of these engagement opportunities,
staff also used social media, onsite signage, digital ads, and other communication channels.
Meeting invitations were also sent to a range of stakeholders, including neighborhood groups,
business associations, the school district, Stanford University, and various City committees
Continued progress on refining and narrowing project alternatives will provide greater certainty
for property owners throughout this multi-year planning process. For example, staff were
recently approached by a property owner potentially impacted by a design alternative who
expressed interest in selling their property to the City. However, the City is not yet able to use
project funds for property acquisition at this stage in project development. Such an action
would require approval from both Council and funding partners.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase of the grade separation
project includes environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The environmental review is
anticipated to begin in fall of 2026.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Attachment D – Traffic Study Memorandum (LINK)
Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 13 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 14 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 15 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 16 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 17 of 109
1445 ALMA
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
1415 ALMA
1433 ALMA
1435 ALMA
1437 ALMA
106 KELLOGG
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
1.
7
±
F
T
0.3± FT
1425 ALMA
1427 ALMA
1429 ALMA
1431 ALMA
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 18 of 109
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 19 of 109
102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
1525 ALMA
1541 ALMA
1543 ALMA
1545 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
1551 ALMA 1555 ALMA 109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1635 ALMA
1645 ALMA
1647 ALMA
1649 ALMA
1651 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
F
T
M
A
X
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 20 of 109
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL106 KELLOGG
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
5.1
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
1.5
±
F
T
3.5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 21 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 22 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 23 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 24 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 25 of 109
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL106 KELLOGG
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
5.1
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
1.5
±
F
T
3.5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 26 of 109
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 27 of 109
102 CHURCHILL
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1.7
±
F
T
2.9
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 28 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 29 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 30 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 31 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 32 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 33 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 34 of 109
1.
1
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
3.
9
±
F
T
0.
9
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
151 SEALE 143 SEALE 135 SEALE 125 SEALE
127 SEALE
129 SEALE
119 SEALE
121 SEALE
123 SEALE
109 SEALE
113 SEALE
103 SEALE
105 SEALE
107 SEALE
152 SEALE 150 SEALE 134 SEALE
136 SEALE
126 SEALE
128 SEALE
130 SEALE
120 SEALE 110 SEALE
112 SEALE
114 SEALE
102 SEALE
104 SEALE
106 SEALE
Feet
0 15 30
NO
R
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 35 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 36 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 37 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 38 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 39 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 40 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 41 of 109
Item 1
Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 42 of 109
1685 MARIPOSA
1677 MARIPOSA
1851 ALMA
2.
7
±
F
T
7.
1
±
F
T
3.
0
±
F
T
8.3± FT
103 SEALE AVE
105 SEALE AVE
107 SEALE AVE
3,250± SF
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 43 of 109
Item 1Attachment B - Meadow Drive CrossingPlans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 44 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing
Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 45 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and
Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 46 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and
Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 47 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 48 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 49 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow
Drive Crossing Plans and
Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 50 of 109
4101 PARK
24.7± FT
22
.
4
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 51 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 52 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 53 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 54 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 55 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 56 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 57 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 58 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 59 of 109
Item 1
Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 60 of 109
4097 PARK
150 W MEADOW
2.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 61 of 109
3553 ALMA
171 E MEADOW
48 ROOSEVELT
46 ROOSEVELT
44 ROOSEVELT
5.1± FT
9.9± FT
9.6± FT
3.9± FT
1.3± FT
1.3± FT
2.3± FT
8.9± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment B - Meadow Drive Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 62 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 63 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 64 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 65 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 66 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 67 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 68 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C -
Charleston Road Crossing
Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 69 of 109
4201 PARK
4195 PARK
33.7± FT
38
.
1
±
F
T
29.2± FT
30
.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 70 of 109
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston RoadCrossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 71 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 72 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 73 of 109
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 74 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 75 of 109
3781 STARR KING
3783 STARR KING
256 E CHARLESTON
242 E CHARLESTON
15.0
±
F
T
36
.
7
±
F
T
13.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 76 of 109
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 77 of 109
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 78 of 109
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 79 of 109
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston RoadCrossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 80 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 81 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 82 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 83 of 109
Item 1
Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 84 of 109
1.0± FT
4.0± FT
3785 STARR KING
3787 STARR KING
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 85 of 109
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 86 of 109
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 87 of 109
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment C - Charleston Road Crossing Plans and Renderings
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 88 of 109
Attachment D: Draft Traffic Analysis Memorandum Link
Item 1
Attachment D - Traffic Study
Memorandum (LINK)
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 89 of 109
1445 ALMA
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
1415 ALMA
1433 ALMA
1435 ALMA
1437 ALMA
106 KELLOGG
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
1.
7
±
F
T
0.3± FT
1425 ALMA
1427 ALMA
1429 ALMA
1431 ALMA
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 90 of 109
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 91 of 109
102 CHURCHILL
2.
5
±
F
T
1525 ALMA
1541 ALMA
1543 ALMA
1545 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
1551 ALMA 1555 ALMA 109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1635 ALMA
1645 ALMA
1647 ALMA
1649 ALMA
1651 ALMA
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
±
F
T
2.
5
F
T
M
A
X
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 92 of 109
105 CHURCHILL 102 CHURCHILL106 KELLOGG
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
103 KELLOGG
5.1
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
1.5
±
F
T
3.5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 93 of 109
96 CHURCHILL
85 CHURCHILL
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
1.8± FT
8.7± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 94 of 109
102 CHURCHILL
96 CHURCHILL
1.8± FT
109 COLERIDGE
102 COLERIDGE
1.7
±
F
T
2.9
±
F
T
1.7
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 95 of 109
1.
1
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
4
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
3.
9
±
F
T
0.
9
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
1.
5
±
F
T
151 SEALE 143 SEALE 135 SEALE 125 SEALE
127 SEALE
129 SEALE
119 SEALE
121 SEALE
123 SEALE
109 SEALE
113 SEALE
103 SEALE
105 SEALE
107 SEALE
152 SEALE 150 SEALE 134 SEALE
136 SEALE
126 SEALE
128 SEALE
130 SEALE
120 SEALE 110 SEALE
112 SEALE
114 SEALE
102 SEALE
104 SEALE
106 SEALE
Feet
0 15 30
NO
R
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 96 of 109
1685 MARIPOSA
1677 MARIPOSA
1851 ALMA
2.
7
±
F
T
7.
1
±
F
T
3.
0
±
F
T
8.3± FT
103 SEALE AVE
105 SEALE AVE
107 SEALE AVE
3,250± SF
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 97 of 109
4101 PARK
24.7± FT
22
.
4
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 98 of 109
4097 PARK
150 W MEADOW
2.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 99 of 109
3553 ALMA
171 E MEADOW
48 ROOSEVELT
46 ROOSEVELT
44 ROOSEVELT
5.1± FT
9.9± FT
9.6± FT
3.9± FT
1.3± FT
1.3± FT
2.3± FT
8.9± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 100 of 109
4201 PARK
4195 PARK
33.7± FT
38
.
1
±
F
T
29.2± FT
30
.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 101 of 109
3781 STARR KING
3783 STARR KING
256 E CHARLESTON
242 E CHARLESTON
15.0
±
F
T
36
.
7
±
F
T
13.2± FT
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 102 of 109
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 103 of 109
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 104 of 109
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 105 of 109
1.0± FT
4.0± FT
3785 STARR KING
3787 STARR KING
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 106 of 109
3711 STARR KING
3709 STARR KING
3707 STARR KING
3705 STARR KING
3703 STARR KING
3701 STARR KING
126 E CHARLESTON
102 E CHARLESTON 110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
46.6± FT
35
.
1
±
F
T
39.
4
±
F
T
29
.
6
±
F
T
20.2
±
F
T
16.0± FT
19.8
±
F
T
17.2± FT
18.4± FT
19.7±
F
T
11.0± FT
0.9± FT
3.2± FT
20.
9
±
F
T
11
.
7
±
F
T
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 107 of 109
250 W CHARLESTON
240 W CHARLESTON
220 W CHARLESTON
4195 PARK
4201 RUTHELMA
285 CHARLESTON
275 CHARLESTON
265 CHARLESTON
4200 PARK 4201 PARK
2.
4
9
±
F
T
12
.
7
4
±
F
T
12
.
5
8
±
F
T
1.
5
8
±
F
T
9.
1
5
±
F
T
12
.
0
7
±
F
T
10
.
4
5
±
F
T
1.
2
6
±
F
T
8.
0
3
±
F
T
12
.
5
3
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40NO
R
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 104 Packet Pg. 108 of 109
110 E CHARLESTON
153 LUNDY
145 LUNDY 137 LUNDY 129 LUNDY
109 ELY
12
.
0
±
F
T
11
.
9
±
F
T
10
.
7
±
F
T
9.
1
±
F
T
7.
2
±
F
T
4.
5
±
F
T
Feet
0 20 40
NOR
T
H
Item 1Attachment E - Potential Property Impacts
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 105 Packet Pg. 109 of 109