The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-09-08 Rail Committee Agenda PacketRAIL COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 08, 2026 Community Meeting Room & Hybrid 2:30 PM Rail Committee meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference 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 76, 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/86388142528) Meeting ID: 863 8814 2528 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. In- person general public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional in-person public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. 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. Multiple individuals who wish to speak on the same item may designate a spokesperson. Spokespersons must be representing five or more verified individuals who are present either in person or via zoom. Spokespeople will be allowed up to 10 minutes, at the discretion of the presiding officer. Speaking time may be reduced if the presiding officer reduces the speaking time for individual speakers. 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 types 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 September 08, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas CALL TO ORDER IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. In-person Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional in-person public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. VERBAL UPDATE ON INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES A.Caltrain B.VTA C.City Staff ACTION ITEMS 1.Review Locally Preferred Alternatives for Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings to Advance into 35% Design and Environmental Review. FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. In-person Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional in-person public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT 2 September 08, 2026 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: 863-8814-2528 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 September 08, 2026 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 September 08, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas Rail Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Transportation Meeting Date: September 8, 2026 Report #:2608-6600 TITLE Review Locally Preferred Alternatives for Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings to Advance into 35% Design and Environmental Review. RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking the Rail Committee’s review and input on the completed 15% Design phase, rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates, and preliminary construction schedules for the Palo Alto Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road for the project to advance into 35% Design and Environmental Review. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This staff report presents an update on the 15% Design plans completed for Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue, Meadow Drive Hybrid, and Charleston Road Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp (DAR). Completion of 15% design plans established a preliminary project footprint for initiating the environmental process and identified the preliminary cost and constructability drivers at each crossing. These design plans were used to determine the project footprint, develop an independent cost estimate and establish a preliminary construction schedule for each delivery scenario. On August 25 and 26, 2026 staff conducted community engagement meetings to share the 15% design plans and total rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) project costs at each crossing. Staff seek Rail Committee input before returning to City Council to request approval to advance alternatives to 35% Design and Environmental Review. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto's rail corridor planning efforts began in 2010 with the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study and have advanced through the Connecting Palo Alto alternatives screening, the Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee (XCAP) deliberations, and successive Rail Committee and City Council direction. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 5 of 22 On December 10 and December 15, 2025, Council directed staff to advance the following alternatives into 15% Design, with a focus on enhancing safety and access, establishing a preliminary project footprint for environmental clearance, and minimizing congestion, environmental impacts, and property impacts: Churchill Avenue: A Partial Underpass was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative , with a partial crossing for motor vehicles at Churchill Avenue, no landscaping strip along Alma Street, and a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue/Peers Park with a ramp along Alma Street. (Consistent with Council direction from November 29, 2021, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill remains as the backup alternative and is not being advanced into preliminary engineering at this time.) Meadow Drive: A Hybrid Underpass was selected as the preferred alternative, with direction to evaluate earthen berm and podium options during 15% Design. The Rail Committee reviewed structural and design considerations for both options on March 10, 2026 and confirmed the earthen berm with a short bridge over Meadow Drive as the basis of design. Charleston Road: An Underpass with a Direct Access Ramp was selected as the preferred alternative. ANALYSIS Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 6 of 22 change, no track design was required for this location. The 15% Design assumes a hybrid retaining wall system, including deep soil mixing walls and conventional cantilever retaining walls along the ramps, with a concrete box structure for the undercrossing. Both undercrossings are assumed to be constructed using box jacking, which allows rail operations to continue without a shoofly track. Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered concurrently At both crossings, the Caltrain tracks would be raised on an embankment supported by retaining walls, with bridges over the roadways. The track profile would be raised by up to approximately 16 feet at Meadow Drive and approximately 4.5 feet at Charleston Road, beginning near Loma Verde Avenue and extending to near Greenmeadow Way. Meadow Drive would be lowered by approximately 7 feet, and Charleston Road would be lowered by approximately 20.25 feet. At Charleston Road, Alma Street would be raised over the lowered roadway on a new bridge, with turning movements accommodated through upper and lower intersections and a separate multi-use path adjacent to the lowered roadway. Because the two crossings are approximately 0.3 miles apart and both require raising the tracks, this scenario assumes construction of a shoofly track along Alma Street to maintain rail operations through both work areas. Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass delivered sequentially as back-to-back projects Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed first using box jacking, which would allow rail operations to continue without a shoofly track. The Meadow Drive Hybrid would then be constructed as a later, separate project and would require a shoofly track along Alma Street. Construction of the Meadow Drive Hybrid would also raise the track profile over the previously completed Charleston Road Underpass. Charleston Road Underpass Only Under this scenario, the Charleston Road Underpass would be constructed and the Meadow Drive crossing would remain at grade. This scenario was included based on City Council direction on December 15, 2025. Shoofly Operations Where the track profile must be raised, such as at Meadow Drive, trains cannot remain on the existing alignment while the permanent improvements are constructed and a temporary shoofly track would be constructed east of the existing tracks along the southbound portion of Alma Street to maintain rail service through the work area. The need for a shoofly varies by delivery scenario. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 7 of 22 In the combined delivery scenario, the shoofly track would begin north of Meadow Drive and end south of Charleston Road, ahead of the existing crossover, allowing it to serve both crossings during construction. Based on the current 15% Design, the approach embankment is approximately 55 feet wide, with an estimated 25 feet of clear distance between the shoofly and the new wall. A temporary at-grade crossing would also be installed at Meadow Drive to maintain access during construction. 15% Design Phase Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass: The Churchill Ave concept maintains access across Churchill Avenue with a pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to Caltrain tracks across the lowered Churchill Avenue roadway. The bridge is anticipated to include railings and fencing to separate users from the rail corridor and roadway. Seale Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing: The Seale Ave concept provides a 16-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle path that descends from Seale Avenue along Alma Street, passes beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks, Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 8 of 22 and emerges in Peers Park, and ramps up to grade at Castilleja Avenue. The tunnel provides 8 feet of vertical clearance for bicyclists and pedestrians. Meadow Drive Hybrid Underpass: The Meadow Drive concept would provide a 5- foot bicycle lane in each direction and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of Meadow Drive beneath the rail bridge, reconnecting to existing bicycle facilities at project limits. Charleston Road Underpass with Direct Access Ramp: The Charleston Road concept includes a vertically separated pedestrian and bicycle path that would run parallel to the lowered Charleston Road as it passes beneath Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks. The path has a minimum clear width of 14 feet through the undercrossing with at least 8 feet of vertical clearance. The concept also includes an approximately 60-foot pedestrian and bicycle bridge adjacent to the rail bridge that would allow for bicycle and pedestrian access across Charleston Road. Connections to the Surrounding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: The proposed facilities enhance east-west pedestrian and bicycle connections across the Caltrain corridor and connect to existing facilities at project limits. The Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue facilities would connect to the Embarcadero Bike Path and Park Bike Boulevard and support access to Palo Alto High School and adjacent neighborhoods. At Meadow Drive, the reconstructed bicycle lanes and sidewalks would connect to existing and future facilities on East and West Meadow Drive. At Charleston Road, the separated path and pedestrian and bicycle bridge would connect Charleston Road with Alma Street and Park Bike Boulevard. These facilities would support access to nearby schools and neighborhoods destinations. Specific off-site improvements and transitions between the existing and proposed facilities will be refined. Cost & Risk: The 15% design phase includes permanent pedestrian and bicycle facilities and preliminary construction traffic control. Temporary pedestrian and bicycle routes, accessible detours, barriers, signs, lighting, and other construction-period accommodations have not been fully defined. Temporary and permanent pedestrian/bicycle access elements could affect construction staging, property needs, project cost, and construction duration. Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% design phase will focus on refining the pedestrian and bicycle facility alignment, accessibility, connections and transitions to existing facilities, as well as lighting, wayfinding, and other safety features. A traffic study will evaluate permanent and construction-period pedestrian and bicycle operations, including school access, temporary closures, detour routes, and options to maintain a usable crossing or reduce the duration of overlapping closures. The results will inform Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 9 of 22 more detailed construction phasing and sequencing, access plans, environmental analysis, and updated cost and schedule information. Vehicle Access and Circulation 15% Design Objective: Confirm whether each alternative can accommodate safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle movement, and explore methods to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access during construction. Alma Street is a designated local truck route for its entire length within the City, which shapes geometric requirements at each crossing. 15% Design Analysis and Findings: Passenger vehicles can generally be accommodated within the preliminary roadway geometry. However, much of the available stopping and nighttime headlight sight distance falls below Caltrans criteria, particularly along Alma Street and at roadway low points. Larger vehicles including semi-trailers, fire apparatus, school buses, and City garbage trucks require wider turning paths or operational adjustments at several locations. Recommendations from the analysis include restricting large vehicles from the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp, modifying curb and sidewalk geometry at the upper Alma Street/Charleston Road intersection, installing high visibility pavement markings, green bike lanes, pedestrian and street lighting. These recommendations are preliminary and will continue to be evaluated and refined as the design progresses. Cost & Risk: The cost estimate developed during the 15% Design phase includes the principal pedestrian, bicycle and roadway facilities, traffic signals, lighting, pavement markings, and preliminary construction traffic control. Further geometric changes could affect retaining walls, bridge elements, utilities, property needs, construction staging, and project cost. Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% phase will refine roadway profiles and intersection geometry, update sight-distance and turning analyses, define vehicle restrictions and traffic control measures, and advance pedestrian and bicycle facility design. A traffic study will be completed to evaluate permanent and construction-period operations, including intersection performance, diversion routes, temporary closures, and emergency, school, pedestrian, and bicycle access. The results will inform more detailed construction phasing, detours, access plans, cost estimates, schedule, and environmental analyses. Utility Identification and Relocation 15% Design Objective: Collect additional information on the existing water, sewer, gas, electrical, and communication lines to establish a preliminary utility base map and evaluate potential conflicts with roadway grading, retaining walls, bridges, and excavation. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 10 of 22 15% Design Analysis and Findings: Utility records indicate extensive infrastructure at each crossing. Preliminary concepts for utility relocation include moving utilities into shared trenches or duct banks, rerouting or lowering individual lines, and protecting certain facilities in place. The analysis was limited to approximate horizontal locations and utility depths. Vertical conflicts between utilities were not analyzed during the 15% Design phase. Cost & Risk: Utility relocation is a significant source of cost and schedule uncertainty. The estimate includes preliminary relocation quantities, but these cost estimates could be impacted by unknown utility depths, nonstandard clearance requirements, utility- owner requirements, and unidentified conflicts. The 24-inch PG&E gas transmission line at Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place; and any required protection or relocation of this line will also result in cost and schedule impacts. Responsibility for relocation costs among the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been determined at this stage of the Project. Next Step for 35% Design: The 35% Design phase will verify utility locations and depths through subsurface investigation and potholing, develop a detailed utility conflict matrix, and refine relocation and protection plans with utility owners. This work will verify required clearances, as well as preliminary construction sequencing, service interruptions, property or easement needs and cost responsibility to provide greater clarity on costs associated with utilities. Potential Property Acquisition 15% Design Objective: The 15% Design established a preliminary project footprint and potentially affected parcels using preliminary plans, assessor maps, available right-of- way records, and limited title information and identified potential property impacts to the level of detail needed support environmental review and cost estimation. The design aimed to minimize property impacts while meeting safety, access, constructability, and Caltrain operating requirements. 15% Design Analysis and Findings: Based on available assessor maps, partial Caltrain right-of-way information, and limited title reports, the 15% Design preliminarily identifies five (5) full property acquisitions and 33 additional partial acquisitions of private parcels. Additional right-of-way from Caltrain may also be required. These findings are preliminary because a complete boundary survey was not available and the exact limits and types of property interests have not been established. Cost & Risk: Final cost estimates will depend on updated project footprints and estimated extents of permanent acquisition and temporary construction easements. Property constraints may also affect retaining walls, the temporary shoofly, construction staging and access, and therefore construction cost and schedule. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 11 of 22 Next Step for 35% Design: Property impacts are refined progressively as design advances. During the 35% Design, additional survey, title, and engineering information will be used to refine parcel-specific limits, distinguish potential permanent acquisition and easements from temporary construction easements, and evaluate design changes that could avoid or reduce impacts. The 35% findings will provide a more reliable basis for environmental analysis and future coordination with property owners but will not authorize any real estate acquisition or determine that any specific property will be acquired. Any future acquisition would require conformation of the Project and right of way needs, compliance with applicable acquisition procedures, separate funding and separate authorization. No construction funding is currently identified or programmed. Total ROM Project Costs and Preliminary Construction Schedule Cost estimates become more reliable as design advances and assumptions are replaced by verified information. The 15% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is an early-phase estimate. It is intended to document the current level of design, inform delivery planning, test the reasonableness of planning-level figures, and focus design efforts during the next phase. It is not intended to establish a final project budget or serve as the basis for construction funding requests. Figure 1: Cost Estimate Lifecycle An independent cost estimator, working separately from the design team, prepared a 15% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and a preliminary construction schedule for the project. The cost estimate was prepared using a design-bid-build procurement assumption for pricing purposes and reflects how a contractor would price the work based on the current level of design. The estimate was developed using the available 15% Design and technical materials prepared for this phase, including the 15% plan sets and supporting technical documentation. Components of Total ROM Project Cost Ranges Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 12 of 22 The total ROM project cost ranges include the following major cost categories: Construction contractor costs, including direct construction costs such as roadway work, utility work, retaining walls and bridges, jacked boxes, dewatering, track work, rail systems, overhead contact system (OCS), lighting, power, and landscaping. Contractor indirect costs, including contractor supervision, staffing, field office expenses, general and administrative costs, escalation, and contractor fees. Designer/Engineer of Record costs, including design services needed to advance the project through subsequent design phases. Agency costs, including project management, oversight, construction administration, management, and inspection. Environmental documentation and permitting, including costs associated with CEQA/NEPA documentation and required permits. Trans America Services Inc. (TASI), a third party managing the Caltrain operation as included in the total project cost assumptions. Real property and easements, including property acquisition and temporary or permanent easement needs. Escalation, reflecting the assumed timing of construction and year-of-expenditure cost basis. Project contingency, reflecting uncertainty at the current level of design and the need for refinement as the project advances. Costs are developed in 2026 dollars, with escalation applied beginning in 2027 at 5 percent per year using a project midpoint approach Total ROM project costs are expressed in year-of-expenditure dollars, meaning they include escalation. Craft labor rates reflect current Northern California union agreements. Work within the Caltrain right-of-way is assumed to occur at night, including in residential areas where night work is assumed to be permissible. Weekend closures are assumed for temporary rail bridge installation and removal and for track cutovers. Productivity inefficiency factors are applied to account for work adjacent to active rail operations. Construction is assumed to begin in 2032. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 13 of 22 Table 1: Total ROM Project Cost Range and Preliminary Construction Duration Delivery Scenario Total ROM Project Cost Range Preliminary Construction Duration Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue $420M – $450M 3-4 Years Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered concurrently $1B - $1.1B 5 Years Charleston Road Underpass and Meadow Drive Hybrid delivered sequentially as back-to-back projects $ 1.2B -$1.3B 9 Years Charleston Road Underpass constructed on its own $480M - $530M 4 Years Primary Cost Drivers of the 15% Estimate The 15% total ROM project costs is a tool to support decision-making and is based on the current level of design, supplemented by contractor means-and-methods assumptions and estimating judgement where information was incomplete. Design Progression: The 15% estimate includes allowances and contingency for cost elements that are not fully defined at this stage of design. Allowances were included for design, potential real estate and easement needs. Contingency was included for other project-specific risk items. These buffers reflect the preliminary nature of 15% Design and will be updated as the project advances and additional technical work is completed. Physical Cost Drivers: Major Cost Drivers include retaining walls and bridges, jacked-box structures, shoofly and track work, signal and OCS changes, deep excavation and dewatering, pump stations and drainage, potential ground improvement, and extensive utility relocation. Schedule and Market Drivers: Cost and duration are highly dependent on delivery method, sequencing, construction work windows and flagging, weekend shutdowns, night work, productivity next to active rail, anticipated start of construction, escalation, and contractor market conditions. Key Findings for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Delivery Scenarios: Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 14 of 22 The Charleston Road and Meadow Drive delivery scenarios have different implications for construction duration, access across the Caltrain corridor, and the timing of construction impacts in the community. Utilities: Utility profiles have not yet been developed, so utility depths were estimated using standard assumptions. A 24-inch gas transmission line along Charleston Road is assumed to remain in place with no associated work. Utility relocation cost responsibility between the City, Caltrain, and utility owners has not been established. Potential Property Acquisition: Property impacts will be refined as design advances. Groundwater and dewatering: No groundwater flow rate data was available at 15% Design. Dewatering assumptions were developed from geotechnical groundwater elevations and anticipated excavation depths, and will be refined through additional geotechnical investigation, groundwater monitoring, and pumping tests. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 15 of 22 Ground improvement: Deep soil mixing for soil stabilization beneath the jacked boxes at Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road, and beneath the mechanically stabilized earth system at Meadow Drive, may be required but is not included in the current estimate. Box jacking performance: Limited space for casting and launching the jacked box segments creates a risk that the box could deviate downward during jacking. Additional ground improvement or other mitigation may be required, and a separate contingency is recommended. Construction sequencing: Cost and duration are sensitive to whether Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are delivered together or separately, and to the sequencing of roadway and railroad work within each scenario. Railroad work windows and flagging: Track access, weekend shutdown availability, and flagging requirements will be determined with Caltrain. Flagging is carried as a separate allowance rather than in the base estimate. Escalation and construction start year: Escalation is applied based on an assumed construction start. A later start increases cost. Construction start depends on funding availability. As the project advances into 35% Design, Staff will continue to refine the total ROM project cost ranges and preliminary construction schedules, particularly as key assumptions are confirmed or updated. Future updates will incorporate more detailed information on construction sequencing, rail service requirements, utility conflicts, property needs, permitting requirements, market conditions, and other design refinements that affect project cost and schedule. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT No action with a fiscal impact is requested as part of this staff report. Advancing the selected grade separation alternatives through the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase is fully funded with $20 million in secured external funds. These funds include a $6 million Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) grant and a $14 million Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B Grade Separation Funding Cooperative Agreement, which Council approved on December 9, 2024. Appropriations for this work are included in the FY 2026 Adopted Capital Budget, with future costs programmed in the FY 2026 to 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 the 15% Design phase as well as the subsequent 35% Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase. Therefore, this item has no new fiscal impact. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 16 of 22 The total project cost estimates developed at the 15% Design stage are planning-level estimates intended to support decision-making on project advancement, delivery planning, and funding strategies. They do not establish a final project budget. While preliminary engineering and environmental review are funded, no construction funding has been identified or programmed. Construction will require additional federal, state, regional, and local funding, and the timing and sequencing of construction will depend on when those funds are secured. Cost estimates and schedules will continue to be refined as design advances and key assumptions are verified. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 17 of 22 APPROVED BY: Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 18 of 22 City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation: Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by: Churchill Avenue - Partial Underpass Upper Alma St Ch u r c h i l l A v e Ch u r c h i l l A v e Ke l l o g g A v e Ke l l o g g A v e Co l e r i d g e A v e Co l e r i d g e A v e Ch u r c h i l l A v e Ch u r c h i l l A v e Lower Alma St LEGEND Preliminary Project Footprint Caltrain Right-of-Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes from the Seale Ave Underpass Access and Connectivity NOR T H 80 Graphic Scale in Feet 160 3200 Retaining walls Connection to Embarcadero Bike Path Retaining walls Bridge for railroad tracks Bicycle and pedestrian bridge One northbound through lane to intersection of Lower Alma St and Churchill Ave (west leg) One-way through traffic Item 1 Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing, 15% Layout Plans Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 19 of 22 City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation: Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by: Seale Avenue - Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Alma StAlma St Se a l e A v e Se a l e A v e Te n n y s o n A v e Te n n y s o n A v e Ri n c o n d a A v e Ri n c o n d a A v e Par k B l v d Par k B l v d LEGEND Preliminary Project Footprint Caltrain Right-of-Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes from the Seale Ave Underpass Access and Connectivity NOR T H 80 Graphic Scale in Feet 160 3200 PEERS PARKPEERS PARK Retaining walls Retaining wallsDriveway access maintained Bicycle and pedestrian connection under Alma Street and railroad tracks Bicycle and pedestrian ramp to/from crossing Bicycle and pedestrian ramp to/from crossing Bicycle and pedestrian connection to Palo Alto High School from Peers Park Alma St travel lanes shifted west to accommodate ramp Item 1 Attachment A - Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass with Seale Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing, 15% Layout Plans Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 20 of 22 City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation: Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by: Meadow Drive - Hybrid Item 1 Attachment B - Meadow Drive, Hybrid, 15% Layout Plans Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 21 of 22 City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation: Churchill Avenue | Meadow Drive | Charleston Road Funded by: Charleston Road - Underpass with Direct Access Ramp Item 1 Attachment C - Charleston Road, Underpass with Direct Access Ramp, 15% Layout Plans Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 22 of 22