HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2512-5637CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 15, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
4:30 PM
Agenda Item
26.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.
Public Comment, Presentation
This item is a continuation of Agenda Item Number 1 on the City Council December 10,
2025 agenda. The report for this item can be found here under Agenda Item Number 1
here: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18178
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.
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: December 15, 2025
Report #:2512-5637
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.
BACKGROUND
This item is a continuation of Agenda Item Number 1 on the City Council December 10, 2025
agenda.
The report for this item can be found here under Agenda Item Number 1 here:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18178
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.
APPROVED BY:
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official
From:Alan Lee
To:Council, City; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick
Subject:Comment on Grade Separations
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 11:13:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Alan Lee, a Palo Alto resident in Charleston Meadow. I’m writing to urge you to
select the Underpass alternative for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road grade
separations. I understand that the underpass option may require property acquisition, and I do
not minimize the burden that places on the affected owners. But I believe the underpass is the
more equitable and responsible choice because it limits permanent harms to a smaller footprint
—with clear compensation—rather than imposing corridor-wide impacts that will reduce
quality of life and property values for far more households, without compensation. In short,
the hybrid shifts impacts onto nearby residents without a compensation mechanism.
At the December 10 City Council meeting, I appreciated Council Member Lythcott-Haims’
emphasis on taking property impacts seriously and investigating them carefully. I support that
approach, and I ask that the City require a rigorous, transparent comparison of property and
neighborhood impacts between an underpass and any option that elevates rail. This should
include an independent, appraisal-style assessment, clear mitigation commitments, and a
straightforward plan to minimize and fairly compensate any impact on homes.
Also at that meeting, Council Member Burt raised the importance of traffic flow, and I agree:
the underpass is the better option. It offers the most direct path to eliminating train-delay
bottlenecks while preserving neighborhood character, and it should be advanced as the Locally
Preferred Alternative. Thank you for your consideration and for making a decision that will
shape Palo Alto for generations.
Respectfully,
Alan Lee
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:indices.comment79@icloud.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade separation for Charleston/Meadow
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 11:03:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I live near the intersections of Charleston/Meadow and Alma and cross the intersection multiple times each day. I
also experience the backlog of traffic that occurs on Charleston and Meadow due to train crossings.
I understand each proposed solution has competing pros/cons. I believe the Hybrid design should be further
examined further, but I also believe some resources should be dedicated to reviewing new alternatives that currently
are or will soon to be made available due to technology or other safety advancements.
Regarding the preference for the Hybrid design, these are residential areas. The over-engineered, highway-like
underpass design not only is woefully out of place, it causes confusion, reduces traffic route options, makes bicycle
and pedestrian travel non-linear, displaces residents, and costs more.
I also know that it has been many years since this project began. Though it is difficult to step back due to our sunk
cost fallacies, sometimes advancements occur that create new possibilities. So much of the traffic problems could be
improved through simpler means of better traffic light controls. There must be ways to use machine learning to both
look at traffic/train patterns and integrate real-time data (after 2 or 3 trains come in a row, prioritize the backup!!).
And there must be other ways to create greater safety and ease of travel for bicyclists and pedestrians.
I urge the council to not get stuck in their thinking of the work that has already been done and continue to
investigate ways to appropriately use our city’s resources and create balanced solutions.
Thank you!
From:Jian Ma
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation Feedback Before Monday December 15
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 11:03:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi:
I strongly oppose option #1, the hybrid design. The elevated track will cause train noises to
spread much further. My house is currently not far from the track. But the noise level is
currently OK because the other properties in front of us shielded us from the noise greatly. A
raised track will eliminate this barrier, and will make the noise level heard at our house way
worse.
I actually think option #2, the underpass design, might be the better choice, not only than
option #1, but also than those plans before these two, those viaducts etc. The underpass is
simple and straightforward. It reduces the car noise to the neighborhood while maintaining or
reducing the train track noise.
Again, strongly oppose option #1, the hybrid/raised track., and prefer option #2, the
underpass.
--
Jian Ma
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sonia Santana
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade separation
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 7:22:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I believe that the hybrid design is better, the shallower tunnel under the tracks maybe unsafe or taken over by the
persons without a home.
Sonia Santana
4101 Park Blvd
From:hermesmh1@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting underpass design for Grade Separation plan
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 10:54:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to strongly support the underpass design for the Grade
Separation project. This option would result in the least noise impact for
Palo Alto residents living near the tracks. It also provides separate access
for bicycles and pedestrians at Charleston and Meadow, significantly
improving safety for these users.
By contrast, the hybrid design would increase noise levels. Elevating the
tracks 17–19 feet above ground would allow train noise to travel much
farther, while frequent train passings would create ongoing vibrations
affecting nearby structures. Visually, the elevated tracks would be intrusive
and resemble dense urban infrastructure, detracting from the character and
beauty of Palo Alto. Such changes would make our city less desirable and
could negatively impact property values.
For the long-term benefit of the City of Palo Alto and its residents, I
respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the underpass design for the Grade
Separation project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mona He
From:Reed Watson
To:Council, City
Cc:Janice Zhang
Subject:Comment on Grade Separation
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 9:23:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council Members-
My wife and I live near the Meadow / Alma / Caltrain crossing. Since moving to the Ventura
neighborhood several years ago we have periodically followed the grade separation
conversation. We both commend the city council for expediting decision making and
narrowing the options down to two.
Having reviewed both options thoroughly we want to indicate our strong preference that the
city invest in the long term future of the community (e.g. 50 - 100 years) and select the
'underpass' option. These are the reasons for the underpass option:
This will allow pedestrians and cyclists (which include a lot of middle and high school
students) to seamlessly and safely cross Alma in multiple locations
It will help reduce car congestion on Alma - the north / south traffic on Alma at
Meadow and Charleston in the morning and afternoon during weekdays is extremely
bad
The construction of a 17-19 foot earthen berm for the hybrid option involves erecting a
physical barrier that will literally divide Palo Alto rather than bring Palo Alto together
The additional expense of the 'underpass' option while appearing considerable is
negligible relative to the city's budget when amortized to match the period the benefit
will be recognized for (e.g. $400M over 50 years is $8M per year, over 100 years is
$4M year) - it seems a project that will bring the city more together vs. building a berm
that divides the city will be worth it
I imagine that the construction of the underpass option will be far more disruptive to us than
the hybrid option but it is worth it for the long term future of the Palo Alto community. You
all may be more informed on these options than us, so I would please ask you to please take a
50 to 100 year view for this significant infrastructure project and do what is right for the long
term success of the community.
Thanks,
Reed
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Lee Langhammer law
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Charleston Rail Crossing Issue
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 8:55:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lee Langhammer law <leelanghammer@yahoo.com>
Date: December 14, 2025 at 8:02:07 PM PST
To: citycouncil@paloalto.gov
Subject: Charleston Rail Crossing Issue
Dear City Council members,
I’m writing to express our deep aversion to the hybrid rail crossing proposal and
our unquestioned support for the underpass option - if indeed there is no
conceivable way to tunnel the whole thing across Palo Alto- which is the only and
best long-term solution for the benefit of the whole city.
To impose the hybrid solution that requires a 17-19/20 ft elevation above the
current track level is unthinkable for south Palo Alto. How would you like to live
with a looming machine towering over your neighborhood and destroying the
livability we have paid so dearly for? None of our neighbors want to urbanize our
peaceful ambiance by having a permanent transit highway hovering over back
yards where kids play, families barbeque, and many tend to their gardens and
flowers.
No to the hybrid and any and all manner of a raised rail!!! We have repeatedly
voiced our concerns against all raised rail options over many years of
deliberation, whether it be the earlier notion of the viaduct and now the hybrid
which has somehow reached or nearly reached the height of the viaduct. While
some have become cynical in believing Council doesn’t listen, please prove them
wrong and listen to our pleas and act accordingly.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you.
Lee and Wing Law
4253 Park Blvd
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
From:Kang, Junchao
To:Council, City
Cc:Reckdahl, Keith
Subject:Supporting the Underpass Design for Charleston/Meadow Grade Separation
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 8:42:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to formally express my strong support for the Underpass Design, being
considered for the grade separation project at the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive
crossings.
The Underpass Design, which keeps the rail tracks at their current elevation and depresses
Charleston/Meadow by 22-29 feet, is the superior option for our community for two key
reasons:
1. Improved Community Connectivity and Aesthetics: By keeping the tracks at ground
level, this design avoids the significant visual barrier of a 17-19 foot elevated earthen
berm, as proposed in the Hybrid Design. This is crucial for maintaining the cohesive
feel and visual appeal of the neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor.
2. Enhanced Safety and Accessibility for All Users: I particularly appreciate the inclusion
of separated bike and pedestrian access in a shallower tunnel under the tracks and Alma.
This dedicated route ensures that non-motorized users are protected from vehicle traffic
and have a comfortable, well-designed path for crossing the corridor.
The Hybrid Design, with its high earthen berm, presents concerns regarding noise, visual
impact, and long-term effects on property values and neighborhood character that the
Underpass Design successfully mitigates.
I encourage the decision-makers to select the Underpass Design, as it best aligns with the
goals of effective traffic flow, safety, and community integration.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my input.
Sincerely,
Junchao Kang
3932 Park Blvd, Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Michelle Chen
To:Council, City
Cc:"Max Rayner"
Subject:Grade separation
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 7:22:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello Palo Alto City Council,
We live in the Charleston/Meadow neighborhood of Palo Alto and received the flyer about grade separation. We
prefer option 2 of the underpass design to keep the noise level down.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Michelle
Sent from my iPhone
From:Maija McDonald
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation Opinions
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 6:58:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I know many changes are ahead with the Charleston/Meadow grade crossings.
And, I very much appreciate the time and thought the Council has put into this issue to date.
On Monday you have an important decision to make.
I would like to request that you pursue the Underpass design.
Keeping the railroad tracks at the same level they are now will help keep local neighborhoods and Palo Alto
together.
I believe pursuing the Underpass design is the best choice for our community.
Thank you,
Maija McDonald
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:ladoris cordell
To:Council, City
Cc:Deborah Ju; Florence Keller
Subject:LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CHARLESTON UNDERPASS RAILROAD CROSSING
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 6:02:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
14 December 2025
Palo Alto City Council
Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Support for the Charleston Underpass Option
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers:
We are longtime residents of South Palo Alto who write in support of
selection of the Underpass Option for the Charleston Railroad Crossing.
Our reasons for supporting this option are thoroughly expressed in our
neighbor/friend Deborah Ju’s well-reasoned and informed letter to you.
We are especially opposed to the Hybrid design because it fails entirely
to address the egregious traffic logjam on Charleston Road. The design
also increases noise pollution created by the trains, and its unsightly
berms will serve to divide our South Palo Alto community.
We are stunned and disappointed to learn that our previous emails to
the Council in support of the Underpass Option will not be considered
by the Council. This makes no sense and is brazenly undemocratic.
That the time and effort that residents like us have put into researching
and writing our Council members about this issue are now considered
irrelevant simply because the Council membership has changed, is
outrageous. What kind of thinking is it that concludes new Council
members would not benefit from the information we residents have
provided to former City Council members about this issue? How is this
educated decision-making? It clearly isn’t.
We understand that there is a small subset of residents whose property
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
will be affected by the Charleston Underpass solution under the rarely
invoked process of eminent domain. While this is surely unfortunate,
eminent domain requires that those homeowners be compensated so
that they will be able to purchase comparable properties in Palo Alto.
These affected homeowners must also be assured that their property
taxes will remain at their current rate. The loss of the relatively small
number of properties to eminent domain pales when compared to the
positive impact that the Charleston Underpass Option will have on the
lives of thousands of residents in South Palo Alto.
Finally, please know that those of us who are directly affected by the
Charleston railroad crossing decision that you will make are voters who
will be closely watching for objective, educated, and informed decision-
making. As your constituents, we demand nothing less.
Sincerely,
LaDoris H. Cordell and Florence O. Keller
4124 Wilkie Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
ladoris@judgecordell.com
fkeller@trialanalysisgroup.com
Cc: Deborah Ju
LaDoris Hazzard Cordell
LaDoris@judgecordell.com
twitter.com/judgecordell
JudgeCordell.com
From:venkata manthina
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation Charleston/Meadow
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 5:31:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for approving the proposed underpass design. This
project represents an important investment in public safety, accessibility, and long-term
mobility for our community.
The underpass design provides a safe, reliable way for people of all ages to cross without
conflict with traffic. It improves connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, supports sustainable
transportation goals, and helps reduce congestion and delays for all users of the corridor.
Compared to alternatives, the underpass offers a durable, forward-looking solution that will
serve Palo Alto residents for decades.
I appreciate the extensive planning and community input that has gone into refining the
design. Moving forward with approval will allow the City to maintain momentum, manage
costs responsibly, and deliver the safety and mobility improvements our community needs.
Thank you for your leadership and for considering my perspective. I respectfully urge you to
approve the underpass design at the upcoming council meeting.
Sincerely,
Venkata Manthina and Devaki Rani
4144 Park Blvd, Palo Alto
216-333-3344
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:December 15, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #26: Rail Grade Separations
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 4:38:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
DECEMBER 15, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #26: RAIL GRADE SEPARATIONS
The public letters in this meeting's agenda packet for thisagenda item include only those public letters that wereincluded in the agenda packet for the December 10, 2025meeting, but omit letters received after that agenda packet wasdistributed.
Reproduced below is the letter I sent you for the December 10,2025 meeting regarding rail grade separations that you receivedbefore the start of that meeting.
The third paragraph of that letter has a typographical errorthat uses 2021 as the year of the letter instead of 2025. However, the letter itself has the correct year.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DECENBER 10, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #1: RAIL ROAD GRADE SEPARATION ALTERNATIVES
None of the proposed railroad grade separation alternativeswill remove the intrusive train horn noise that comes from thefreight trains. Although the Caltrain horn noise is at a lowerdecibel level, it can also be heard over long distances at thetime the first and last Caltrain is sounding its horn whenthere is little ambient sound.
I urge you to direct staff to propose a method to measure thetrain horn noise as I have previously suggested to the Councilin my November 10, 2021 letter to you.
One possible solution that was discussed in the past was tohave a short line freight operator whose horn noise localgovernment could more effectively influence.
The main reason to have grade separations for motorizedvehicles is for commuter traffic into and out of Palo Alto.
Those motorized vehicle commuters could commute on the train,telecommute, or use some other means of transportation.
It is still possible to have grade crossings that only
crossing gates.Otherwise, the only crossings should be separate crossings forpedestrians and bicycles.
In an ideal world all bicyclists would share the crossing withpedestrians, but there are enough bicyclists that insist ontaking the road that make pedestrian travel on the samecrossing as bicyclists dangerous for pedestrians.
Those crossings should not permit any motorized bicycles, skateboards or similar devices, but could still allow motorizedwheel chairs for disabled individuals.
Train Horn Noise
The only comment received in reply to the Palo Alto DailyPost November 12, 2025 article "City wants to silence trainhorns near crossings" was from a train conductor who saidfreight train noise can wake the dead:
Maximillian says:
As a formerly trained freight conductor, noise decibel output for any train horn, by Federal
Railroad Administration guidelines, start at a mandated minimum of 96 decibels, to 110
decibels maximum. From what I’ve read so far, no municipality on the SF Peninsula has ever
measured or reported the decibel range of the passenger-carrying electric Caltrain
locomotives, or the Union Pacific freight locomotives. There is a huge audible difference
between the two. And I know with some certainty, as compared to the quieter Caltrain horn,
the UP freight locomotive horn can wake the dead when sounded.
(https://padailypost.com/2025/11/12/city-wants-to-silence-train-horns-near-crossings/).
I have offered a way to measure that sound and request that youdirect staff to propose how to implement a method ofdocumenting the sound from train horns.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.Herb Borock
NOVEMBER 10, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #7: QUIET ZONE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE
If and when four-quadrant gates are implemented at streetscrossing the Caltrain tracks, there will still be noise fromtrain horns along the Caltrain right-of-way, as discussed inthe email messages forwarded below from two years ago that Ihad previously forwarded to you.
One of the responses I received to my request for informationtwo years ago was that Caltrain protocols replaced horns withvisual message systems when passing through stations.
However, those visual message systems are useful only topassengers waiting to board a train, but horns have anotherpurpose, namely, to warn people at the station that they risk
pushed into the path of an oncoming train.
The sounding of train horns between stations and while passingthrough stations are determined by both: (1) FRA Regulations,Caltrain Protocols, and UPRR Protocols; and (2) the behavior ofindividual train operators.
I believe it would be helpful to document the extent to whichtrain horns are used, when they are used, and by whom they areused to enable you to determine whether action is required tomodify that behavior that is independent of any benefitobtained should you decide to implement four-quadrant gates toeliminate train horn noise at street crossings of Caltrain.
Establishing a system similar to a shot-spotter system shouldprovide you the information you would need to determine whataction you may need to take to reduce the noise from thoseother sources.
The loudness of train horns at those locations, especially whenthe ambient sound is low, may result in residents complainingthat they still hear train horns after you implement four-quadrant gate for noise reduction.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:Brian Cooper
To:Council, City
Subject:GRADE CROSSING
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 4:25:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I support the UNDERPASS option.
Brian Cooper
Mobile: 650-207-4540
brcooper411@gmail.com
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:LISA MARCACCI
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation at Charleston and Meadow
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 3:11:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
My husband and I are residents of Park Blvd in Palo Alto. We strongly prefer the
Underpass design for the proposed rail improvements.
Our primary objection is to the Berm/Hybrid design, which would place a 17 to 19-
foot earthen berm directly behind our property. The prospect of a substantial wall
significantly behind our home is highly concerning. This structure would not only be
an unwelcome eyesore ("visually discouraging") but would also substantially
decrease the amount of time our backyard receives sunlight.
The presence of an elevated railway is a significant concern even without train
movements. When trains are running, the noise and visual intrusion will be
substantial, directly affecting the quality of life and property values for all residents
living along the tracks, and potentially those several blocks away. We believe this
outcome is inequitable for South Palo Alto residents.
Beyond the direct impact on our home, the construction timeline is a critical factor.
Building the extensive berm infrastructure may take significantly longer than
constructing an underpass. Also, unlike the underpass alternative, the berm/hybrid is
not projected to provide long-term traffic flow benefits. Furthermore, the construction
disruption required for the Berm/Hybrid option would cause a major and prolonged
inconvenience for traffic on Alma Street, impacting all of Palo Alto, not just those
immediately adjacent to the construction.
We also understand that a phased construction approach, completing one
intersection at a time due to funding constraints, is a possibility. The Underpass
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
design is better suited for this phased implementation, whereas a large continuous
berm would likely require simultaneous construction across the corridor,
complicating funding and execution.
Therefore, our first preference is the Underpass with Direct Access design. If this
option cannot be immediately selected, we urge the city to advance both the
Underpass and Berm/Hybrid possibilities to a 15% preliminary design stage. Making
an informed decision requires knowing the actual costs, identifying exactly which
homes would need to be acquired, and understanding the proposed compensation for
affected homeowners. Proceeding without this detailed information may result in
decisions that are not in the best interest of the Palo Alto community.
We appreciate all the work the council and rail committee has done over the past few
years. This has been something that has hung over our head for so many years. We
have signed petitions, taken petitions around our neighborhood, met with neighbors
and council persons over the years, and attended so many council meetings. I hope
that we can make the kind of decision that will make a difference for the future of
Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Lisa & Jeff Marcacci
From:Ann/Rex Garr
To:Council, City
Subject:Trains
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 1:44:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am definitely in favor of the Underpass option for the crossing at Charleston Rd. It makes
sense for the heavy traffic that flows along Charleston much of the day.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ann Garr
353 Whitclem Dr.
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Anna Hempstead
To:Council, City
Subject:Please consider: regarding grade separation planning
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 1:37:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council Members,
Regarding grade separation plans in South Palo Alto: The underpass design at the Charleston Grade is the only
choice leading to good traffic flow, preserving the integrity in our neighborhoods, and also preserving quality of life,
and safety.
The hybrid plan would be visually ugly, more noisy, demoralizing for our neighbors, potentially create more safety
problems, do nothing to address traffic flow, and will degrade the quality of life for our neighborhoods. Please do
not inflict this terrible plan on our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Annie Hempstead MD
From:Agha Rizvi
To:Council, City
Subject:Feedback On Planned modification of Charlseton-Alma Intersection
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 12:38:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
We live at 225 Whitclem Dr.
We prefer keeping Alma and the train tracks undisturbed, and lowering Charleston.
Reasoning:
1) Better aesthetics for the intersection
2) The trains will continue to speed past without speed change or increased energy to go up a
ramp. This will keep their noise levels low, like they currently are. Trains rising to go past the
intersections will invariably make their passing through the intersection slightly longer and
more laborious, therefore will cause noise level increase. Multiplying that by the number of
trains passing, that is a measurable impact.
We may lose the Park Blvd.-Charleston intersection, in one or both options. It would be nice
to be able to keep it, but with turn protection. As it is today, turning right from Park onto W.
Charleston to go towards the tracks is difficult due to stopped cars that are blocking the
intersection.
Thank You,
Meg.
Virus-free.www.avast.com
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Dave Att Yahoo
To:Council, City
Subject:TRAIN UNDERPASS@CHARLSTON
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:28:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
We are writing to urge you to support the Underpass option for the Charleson Road Rail crossing. We strongly
oppose the Hybrid option which would elevate the track 17-19 feet above the current roadway.
An elevated track on a berm looming 17-19 feet above the roadway would be extremely unsightly and would not be
compatible with a residential neighborhood in a green community. Palo Alto would be embarrassed and ashamed by
such a structure and future generations will wonder how in the world a City full of smart engineers let this happen. It
does not escape our notice that such an ugly structure is not being considered in North Palo Alto but only in South
Palo Alto. We hope you will agree that South Palo Alto deserves equal aesthetic consideration.
Traffic backups on Charleston are horrendous, especially during commute hours. If we are going to do a rail
separation project, it should, at a minimum, improve these backups. The Underpass option would GREATLY
IMPROVE traffic flow on Charleston and the Hybrid option will not improve it at all. This alone should make your
decision to support the Underpass option simple.
We also have noise concerns about the elevated track option. Raising the track by 17-19 feet would increase the
noise from the train significantly for families living in two story homes like ours.
Our neighborhood has been involved in the long process of meetings about rail crossing since the XCAP meetings in
2019. Many of us attended dozens of meetings in person and by zoom, read and analyzed complex reports, wrote
many letters and made many oral comments. We had assumed that those letters and oral comments would be before
you as you consider this topic now and were very frustrated to learn that they are not. We understand that many City
Council members are new and were not present at earlier rail crossing hearings. That is not a reason for starting with
a "clean slate" but rather that is a strong reason why inclusion of public documents from those hearings is necessary.
If those letters and comments were before you, you would see a consistent record of strong opposition to an elevated
rail solution on Charleston from many, many residents in our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
David Stritmatter
363 Whitclem Drive
Palo Alto
From:Richard Lee
To:Council, City
Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Rich Lee; Tracy Lee
Subject:Grade Separation Comment for Charleston/Meadow
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:22:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
My family and I have been residents of Charleston Meadow for the past 20 years and our
house sits right behind the train tracks. The Grade Separation options directly impact the
quality of our daily lives by introducing safety, noise and privacy concerns. We have raised
these concerns to previous council members over the years.
Of the two alternatives that are currently being considered for Charleston/Meadow, we are
strongly against the Hybrid design which will elevate the tracks 17-19 feet above ground. It
would introduce constant trembling of our windows, noise from the trains, and invasion of our
privacy. This option would not be acceptable to us as long-time residents of Charleston
Meadow.
The Underpass design which keeps the tracks at their current elevation would have less
disruption to the quality of our daily lives. If we are to move forward with the grade separation
at Charleston/Meadow crossings, the underpass option would be the only acceptable option.
Sincerely,
Richard and Tracy Lee
4115 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA. 94306
(408)656-1810
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:g
To:Reckdahl, Keith
Cc:Council, City
Subject:REVISED COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. Thank you for the flyer in my mailbox. Many years ago, as was reported in the
local newspaper, the freight train company BLOCKED trenching the railroad tracks. My personal opinion: why
bother to spend money at taxpayers" ex...
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 10:55:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Rene Ho
To:Council, City
Subject:Railroad tracts
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 10:40:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to urge you to support the Underpass option for the Charleson Road Rail crossing. I am strongly
opposed to the Hybrid option which would elevate the track 17-19 feet above the current roadway. This will
divide the city even more than it is now and Palo Alto as a city, not just Charleston Meadows, will lose a lot of its
wonderful character. If you look at the elevated tracks or roads in other cities, this result is clear
Rene Ho
374 Whitclem Dr
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Lee Vien
To:Council, City
Subject:4097 Park Blvd Residents- Grade separation
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 10:03:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto Railroad Committee,
My family and I live at 4097 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94306. We purchased our home in
August 2021 to allow our children to enroll in the Palo Alto School District. My daughter
started kindergarten at Hoover Elementary School and is now in 3rd grade. My son is in 1st
grade at Hoover. They both participate in after-school programs at Cubberley Community
Center. We are very active in the Hoover school community. We made significant sacrifices to
purchase our home in Palo Alto without realizing the Meadow grade separation plans. If the
underpass design is chosen, it would significantly impact our family, especially our young
children. I understand the underpass design would require the taking of our home. The
emotional, psychological, and financial impact of the underpass design on our lives would be
immense. Please consider the impact this design would have if the underpass is chosen.
Thank you,
Vien family
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Audrey Lund
To:Council, City
Subject:Charleston project
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 8:50:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear council
I have been living at 285 west Charleston road for 3 years now. As a new owner I acquired this property at a prime
value and certainly paying prime taxes to live here. The underpass alternative would partially take some of my
driveway and my mature trees as well as our privacy or worse, It is a challenge to live on Charleston road as it is a
very busy street with lots of traffic, constant noise from the train. If you ask me it is not a very appealing location
but by adding such an invasive project the quality of life would get worst.
More people would be tempted to use Charleston to drive through Alma instead of using another alternative like San
Antonio which is much more equipped to support heavy traffic. Years of construction and higher taxes is also not
favorable. We live here.
Charleston is a neighborhood street not a free way !
By expanding this intersection you will encourage more cars to drive there and in a way you will redirect more cars
our direction rather than to larger underpasses already existing.
The underpass would be too impactful therefore should be eliminated.
Let’s explore the hybrids.
Audrey Lund.
From:Robert Martinson
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation - Underpass - YES!
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 8:33:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I am a 24-year resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood and live on Park Blvd.
between the Charleston and Meadow crossings.
The only choice that is supported by data is the Underpass. Making this choice is a wise
investment that improves the community's quality of life. The alternatives only result in
degradation of the traffic problem over time (as your studies show) and degrades the
neighborhood feel in the neighborhoods surrounding the Charleston and Meadow crossings.
Proceeding with any option other than the Underpass will incur additional costs and waste and
ultimately will require additional work in the future to resolve.
Let's not be the Palo Alto community that chose poorly. Choose the best option, the
Underpass!
Respectfully,
Robert Martinson
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Wendy Akers-Ghose
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 7:20:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Councilmembers,
Please consider selecting the underpass with direct access ramp for the following reasons:
VISUAL
Visualize driving down 101.
Notice the sound walls that are 10-16 feet in height.
Visualize driving along Alma. As you reach Meadow and Charleston there is a wall which extends half-mile to one
mile in length.
The proposed hybrid design will be 17 – 19 feet in height with a berm wide enough for two train tracks.
The wall will create a visual and a structural barrier:
17 – 19 feet - height of solid berm
15 feet - height of the train
5 – 8 feet - approximate height of electrical wires above the train
37 – 42 feet - Approximate height of visual impact
The hybrid berm will create both a visual and a structural barrier in South Palo Alto.
TRAFFIC FLOW
In addition, the hybrid design does not improve traffic flow long term. The underpass design is the only grade
separation design that significantly improves traffic flow both when built and through 2040 for both the Charleston
and Meadow crossings (from staff report).
REQUEST/QUESTION
It would be helpful if staff could create a rendering of the hybrid design showing the hybrid wall on Alma, at the
halfway point between Charleston and Meadow, from the perspective of a person standing on the sidewalk.
Is it still necessary with grade separation to have two lanes in each direction on Charleston between Alma and El
Camino Real? Is it possible to eliminate one or two lanes? Could this reduce or eliminate property acquisitions?
Please consider selecting the underpass design (with the direct access ramp) as it will improve the traffic flow long
term and eliminate building a barrier in South Palo Alto.
Thank you,
Wendy
From:Marilyn Gillespie
To:Council, City
Subject:Support For The Underpass Option For The Charleston Road Rail Crossing
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 8:53:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to join with my many south Palo Alto neighbors and friends who oppose the
Hybrid Option which would elevate the tracks 17-19 feet above the current roadway making
the area unsightly and noisy. Together with other residents of south Palo Alto I have
written letters and attended meetings over the years strongly communicating our feelings
about how putting an elevated option would negatively impact the serenity of the
neighborhoods surrounding it.
As a longtime resident of the Charleston-Meadows neighborhood (over 45 years) and as a
former employee of the Palo Alto City Library for 39 years, I have seen many changes that the
city has undergone over the years. I have watched how the City Council members have
methodically and carefully looked at how their decisions might impact not only the
current generation but those that follow. I appreciate the dedication that the community and
many of its leaders have made to ensure that the values of this city and its residents as well as
its users are recognized. City leaders have scrutinized how residents as well as visitors will
benefit from these careful decisions. I hope and trust that you, the City Council of today, will
not hastily set aside these values.
I urge you to carefully consider your next steps. Do we truly want to negatively impact our
green community with an unsightly and noisy elevated track?
Thank You.
Marilyn Gillespie
384 Whitclem Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Deborah Ju
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation- Please Rule Out Elevated Tracks for Charleston Crossing
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 7:34:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
We are writing to urge you to support the Underpass option for the Charleson Road Rail
crossing. We strongly oppose the Hybrid option which would elevate the track 17-19 feet
above the current roadway.
An elevated track on a berm looming 17-19 feet above the roadway would be extremely
unsightly and would not be compatible with a residential neighborhood in a green
community. Palo Alto would be embarrassed and ashamed by such a structure and future
generations will wonder how in the world a City full of smart engineers let this happen. It does
not escape our notice that such an ugly structure is not being considered in North Palo Alto but
only in South Palo Alto. We hope you will agree that South Palo Alto deserves equal aesthetic
consideration.
Traffic backups on Charleston are horrendous, especially during commute hours. If we are
going to do a rail separation project, it should, at a minimum, improve these backups. The
Underpass option would GREATLY IMPROVE traffic flow on Charleston and the Hybrid
option will not improve it at all. This alone should make your decision to support the
Underpass option simple.
We also have noise concerns about the elevated track option. Raising the track by 17-19 feet
would increase the noise from the train significantly for families living in two story homes like
ours.
Our neighborhood has been involved in the long process of meetings about rail crossing since
the XCAP meetings in 2019. Many of us attended dozens of meetings in person and by zoom,
read and analyzed complex reports, wrote many letters and made many oral comments. We
had assumed that those letters and oral comments would be before you as you consider this
topic now and were very frustrated to learn that they are not. We understand that many City
Council members are new and were not present at earlier rail crossing hearings. That is not a
reason for starting with a "clean slate" but rather that is a strong reason why inclusion of
public documents from those hearings is necessary. If those letters and comments were before
you, you would see a consistent record of strong opposition to an elevated rail solution on
Charleston from many, many residents in our neighborhood.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Sincerely,
Deborah and Werner Ju
371 Whitclem Drive
Palo Alto
From:henry huang
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade separation
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 5:15:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The underpass should be the only choice going forward.
Please just make a decision and move forward asap. I can’t bear with the noise (horns) of the
Caltrain. It has been long over over due. No point in keeping designing and refining. There is
no perfect solution. Just do it, please!!!
Henry
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Pradeep Solanki
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Grade Separation at Charleston/Meadow
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 3:42:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council:
I know preliminary designs for the Rail Grade Separation are being discussed this Wednesday.
I wanted to provide my input as a resident of Charleston Meadows ( I live on Wilkie Way).
Our neighborhood ( my self and family included) is strongly in favor of the underpass design
because it is the only grade separation design that will improve traffic flow. We dont want to
spend millions of dollars on the hybrid option, because the berm will degrade the
neighborhood and will make traffic worse.
At this point, the Caltrain service is not forecasted to increase frequency any time soon. This
status quo of not building any of the two option works just as well.
Please kindly choose the underpass option. It even has a shorter construction time and is in
line with the three underpasses in north palo alto.
Thank you for your consideration.
Pradeep
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:g
To:Council, City
Subject:This is a copy of the flyer received in my mailbox.
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 3:41:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:g
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Charleston R/R grade separation
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 2:52:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: g <a8010203040@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 13, 2025, 2:46 PM
Subject: Charleston R/R grade separation
To: reckdahl@yahoo.com <reckdahl@yahoo.com>
Thank you for the flyer in my mailbox.
Many years ago, as was reported in the local newspaper, the freight train company
roadblocked trenching the railroad tracks.
The city council dragged their feet. One member of that city council had a public quote "for
the public benefit" and went on to become someone on Santa Clara's political branch.
My personal opinion: why bother to spend money at taxpayers expense for individuals
traveling through. The vehicles traveling from Arastradero could make a right turn on El
Camino and go to San Antonio, or make a left turn and go to Page Mill without any disruption
to home owners near the R/R tracks.
El Camino has three (3) lanes of traffic in each direction that have been narrowed to
accommodate bicyclists. District four (4) of Caltrans made that decision.
Happy New Year.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert Neff
To:Council, City
Subject:Hybrid Option best for S. Palo Alto Grade Separation
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 12:52:01 PM
Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am a resident of south Palo Alto, near Alma and Loma Verde, about ½ mile from the
Meadow at-grade crossing. I typically have used the Charleston and Meadow crossings
twice daily for 28 years. As an interested resident, I have attended many(!) grade
separation meetings, and also serve on PABAC, which recommended the Hybrid option.
I support the Hybrid option over the Underpass.
I find the Underpass shoehorns a complicated expressway interchange into our
neighborhood grid.
Why sacrifice any existing property and basic street connectivity to make Alma more like a
45 mph expressway?
The earlier estimated cost is at least $300M more for the Underpass design, and I think that
funding difference would fall entirely on our city. I think the city can find much better
transportation or other uses for $300M, if that much additional money can be raised.
I find the Underpass design too big for the space, fitting an auto-centric flow serving best
not local neighbors, but folks driving from Mountain View to Downtown and Stanford. It
cuts up the street grid, making walks that should be short, like Ventura school to Alma
Plaza, significantly longer. Bikes are separated in the underpass, but there is no bike
connection on the east side (So basic! After years!), and a longer and complicated one on
the other. Convenient connections on Park Blvd are lost. My wife’s signal controlled left
turn onto Alma would require driving through the Circles neighborhood to get to Charleston
instead of just using Meadow.
I prefer the Hybrid because it maintains the existing street network connections that make it
easy to connect across the tracks and from S. Palo Alto to Alma. It has intuitive and short
connections when crossing the corridor to access Alma Plaza, to access Park Blvd directly,
and to directly access the sidewalks on all corners. The updates shown in the new plans
could improve bike and ped facilities crossing Alma. It is cost effective. Construction
should not be as disruptive, with fewer and shorter full closures across the tracks during
construction.
Thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto. I encourage you will make a decision to
move the process forward.
Robert Neff
On Emerson near Loma Verde.
-- -- Robert Neffrobert@neffs.net
From:Paul B Goldstein
To:Council, City
Subject:December 15th City Council Meeting - Item 26 ***CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE ***
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 8:45:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers,
I urge you to proceed to 15% design on the hybrid options for Charleston and Meadow, and to
remove the underpass options from further consideration. Palo Alto has a longstanding
commitment to making our community more bike and pedestrian friendly. The hybrid option
is clearly the one that works best for bikes and pedestrians. The only thing in favor of the
underpass option is the Level-of-Service (LOS) analysis. As those who follow such things
know, LOS is what got us into the automobile-centric development that we currently have.
Yes, the underpass will allow cars to move faster: a vote for the underpass is a vote for
improving automobile traffic.
If Palo Alto is serious about supporting a bikeable, walkable community, and increasing the
number of people who walk and bike, the hybrid design is the one to move forward, and it is
high time to make a decision.
I am a member of PABAC, but I am writing as an individual.
Sincerely,
Paul Goldstein
Emerson Street
From:Dawson Bone
To:Council, City
Subject:Dangerous Road Design
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 2:24:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good morning,
I am writing to express my concern of a dangerous road design on Arastradero Road between
Clemo Ave and Cherry Oaks Plaza.
On the west side of this road there is a concrete barrier to serve as protection for the bike lane.
While this does improve safety for cyclists, the design of this barrier seems illogical and
unsafe to motor vehicle traffic.
The barrier only spans two blocks and constantly has motorists hitting it throughout the night
due to there being no reflectors or paint curb markings to indicate its presence. On top of this
there are large rocks/boulders places on the large concrete islands separating the street parking
from the road.
Due to the lack of warning devices, the barrier only lasting just two blocks, and the design.
This has led to a severe accident on the night of December 11th at the Arastradero Road &
Coulombe Drive intersection. Luckily the driver only had minor injuries, but this could have
been extremely unsafe for other drivers on the road or pedestrians in the area. This was caused
by the confusing road design where the front passenger side tire of the vehicle hit the curb,
followed by hitting the rock, causing the vehicle to flip over entrapping the driver inside.
Please see the pictures attached to this email to fully understand what I am talking about.
I strongly urge for this section of road to have warning devices added and for the curbs/barrier
to be painted. I also highly recommend looking at redesigning this section of road or simply
not using it in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Dawson Bone
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Paul B Goldstein
To:Council, City
Subject:December 15th City Council Meeting - Item 26
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 9:16:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Honorable Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers,
I urge you to proceed to 15% design on the hybrid options for Charleston and Meadow, and to remove the underpass
options from further consideration. Palo Alto has a longstanding commitment to making our community more bike
and pedestrian friendly. The underpass option is clearly the one that works best for bikes and pedestrians. The only
thing in favor of the underpass option is the Level-of-Service (LOS) analysis. As those who follow such things
know, LOS is what got us into the automobile-centric development that we currently have. Yes, the underpass will
allow cars to move faster: a vote for the underpass is a vote for improving automobile traffic.
If Palo Alto is serious about supporting a bikeable, walkable community, and increasing the number of people who
walk and bike, the hybrid design is the one to move forward, and it is high time to make a decision.
I am a member of PABAC, but I am writing as an individual.
Sincerely,
Paul Goldstein
Emerson Street
From:Keri Wagner
To:Council, City
Cc:Keri Wagner; Palo Alto City Manager
Subject:Rail Grade separation options for Charleston and East Meadow
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 5:41:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to go forward with the underpass options for both the Charleston and
East Meadow rail grade separation projects. You should choose the option with the
most positive effects on traffic and the neighborhoods, and that option is clearly the
underpass option. The underpass option is the only option that will ease traffic
congestion. The underpass option is the only option which will not degrade the
neighboring properties visually. In addition, the Charleston underpass option with
direct access (no roundabout) preserves traffic movements and minimizes property
impacts.
I attended the community meetings this fall to update myself on the options
available. To refresh my memory yesterday, I checked the renderings on the City
website. The rendering shown for the hybrid option at Meadow incorrectly shows
the hybrid option at Charleston. The rendering for the hybrid option at Charleston
shows correctly. Most problematically, there is no rendering shown for the
Charleston underpass/direct access option. So I wonder if people advocating for the
hybrid have seen the superior design of the underpass/direct access option, which
offers improved traffic flow, fewer property conflicts, and no visual blight for the
surrounding neighbors.
My neighborhood, Charleston Meadows, deserves the same considerations as other
parts of Palo Alto when you select the rail grade separation option to bring forward.
We have been vocal about the blight that an elevated rail line would create in our
neighborhood. There is not a single underpass in South Palo Alto, nor is there a
single grade-separated bike or pedestrian crossing. I am so pleased that Council is
moving forward with a separated ped/bike crossing at El Verano! In the interest of
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
equity, please choose the options that would most benefit Palo Alto residents AND
the Charleston Meadows neighborhood. The options most beneficial to all of Palo
Alto is the underpass option for Meadow and the underpass option with direct
access for Charleston.
Thank you for your work on behalf of our City, I very much appreciate the time you
give to this City.
Keri Wagner
311 Edlee Ave
Palo Alto
From:
To:Council, City
Subject:Train crossing public input
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 4:25:06 PM
Thank you for the hard work you have been doing to decide on improvements to the rail crossings in Palo Alto.
Since our preferred options of a tunnel with housing or a car-free cross-town bicycle path on top or a trench to lower
the train tracks is not under consideration, our family would just like to express our unanimous preference for
whatever options do NOT raise the tracks.
Even if raising tracks is cheaper in the short run, those kinds of raised tracks are like giant walls that have a way of
physically and psychologically dividing communities, and we strongly request that the council choose an option to
avoid that. Additionally, the noise from the trains already carries across town as it is—with more trains, elevated, the
problem will get much worse. I’m truly sorry for the neighbors impacted by such a choice, but in the long run, an
elevated track is negatively impactful to the whole community as well. (If you’re that worried about the properties
near the tracks, I wish a serious tunnel option were ever on the table, with the major benefits to biking, and
economic benefits of so much more housing right on transit corridors or a recovered throughway for non-motorized
transit offsetting the weighed costs.)
Thanks,
From:Ron BakerTo:Council, CityCc:PWDSubject:ANOTHER ACCIDENT ON ARASTRADERO RD. DUE TO TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE AND ROAD DESIGN HAZARDDate:Friday, December 12, 2025 12:28:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Last night there was another accident on Arastradero Road at Coulombe in Palo Alto. Once again, it was clearly caused by the poor design of the bulb outs that have been the cause of numerous other accidents on Arastradero between Briones Park and Cherry Oaks Place.
This time, a car made a right turn at Coulombe onto Arastradero, striking the large rock in the bulb out, causing the vehicle to flip, fortunately only slightly injuring the driver, and causing no other damage. I note there have been several similar accidents in the last two months, and many over the last 5 years, due to the design of the “traffic calming” design in this stretch of road.
Here’s a photo of the accident. Please contact me if you want a tour of this stretch of road, and information that can help you understand the problem. I’ve lived on the corner of Arastradero Rd and Cherry Oaks for 25 years and this stretch of road went from very few minor rear end type accidents for 20 years, to 5 years of life threatening accidents and serious auto damage since the changes to the road.
Somebody is going to sue the city for this hazardous design, and they will likely get punitive damages because you have knowledge of the increase in accidents and are doing NOTHING about it. And since there are speeding cars here on weekends, one of these poorly placed rocks is going to cause a car to go airborne and though a fence into a neighboring yard, or strike a pedestrian. A piece of of an auto has already crashed though two neighbors' fenced, though fortunately no third party was injured. I do note that in late 2000 one nieghor was nearly struck by a flying tire wheel that broke loose from a car on Arastradero after it hit an obstacle in the bulb-out. Feel free to contact me for further information or other neighbors names with information on this problem.
Ron Bakerrabaker.pa@gmail.com
From:Marilyn Gillespie
To:Council, City
Subject:Viaduct Rail Crossing Option - South Palo Alto
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 9:33:52 AM
Attachments:City Council Letter June 19 2023.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter that was written in 2023 stating my strong opposition to the
Viaduct Option for South Palo Alto. My feelings have not changed at all since the writing of
my letter 2023. I truly hope and trust that you will listen to the voices of those who will be
severely impacted now and in the future if an elevated berm were to be constructed in our
neighborhood.
Thank You.
Marilyn Gillespie
384 Whitclem Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
June 19, 2023
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Re: Viaduct Rail Crossing Option for Charleston Road
I am writing to express deep concern that both my husband and I share regarding the fact that the
Viaduct Rail Crossing Option is now being reconsidered for South Palo Alto. We were most relieved
when the Viaduct Option was removed from consideration several years ago after much study,
discussion, debate, letter writing, etc. Now all the time and energy put forth by so many are seemingly
being set aside/ignored.
We strongly favor the Trench Option. This is the least visually offensive. The elevated method would
raise the neighborhood noise level as well as being an incredibly unattractive eyesore for current
residents/visitors and for future generations.
As longtime residents of the Charleston-Meadows neighborhood (over 50 years) and as former career
employees of the City of Palo Alto (Fire Department and Library Department), both my husband and I
have seen the many changes that the city has undergone over the years. We have seen how the City
Council members have methodically and carefully looked at how their decisions might impact not only
the current generation but those that follow. We appreciate the dedication that the community and
many of its leaders have made to ensure that the values of this city and its residents as well as its users
are acknowledged. City leaders have scrutinized how residents/visitors will benefit from these careful
decisions.
One of the values that we presumably all hold dear is that the residents of Palo Alto can live in a safe,
green environment filled with cultural and educational enhancements and one where people can enjoy a
sensory pleasing environment as well. Do you really want a huge, ugly, concrete (noisy) viaduct towering
over our beautiful city?
Your charge now is to determine how you might best provide not only for today but for the future. And,
this decision should be one that looks at continuing to do whatever you can to ensure that the residents
and users of this city will benefit from the values we all share.
So, as you reconsider the options for the Meadow/Charleston crossing, please focus on the values we
share today and the benefits for the future. An aesthetically pleasing environment and one where the
noise level is manageable for a neighborhood must be strongly considered as the highest priority. So,
therefore, once again, we urge you to remove the Viaduct Rail Crossing from consideration.
Thank You
Marilyn and Robert Gillespie 384 Whitclem Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306
From:steven weinstein
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Crossing - flaw in underpass - major home impact
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 8:56:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I live at 96 Churchill. The current plan has the underpass going under at my home. It would
then cut off access to my garage in any way.
So I would consider this major impact rather than minor impact.
Perhaps you can think about shifting the roadway a bit closer to the paly football feet in the
planning stage.
thanks,
steve weinstein
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:David Ephron
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail / Meadow and Charleston Crossings
Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 8:38:45 PM
Members of the City Council -
Although I was unable to attend the city council meeting on December 10, I would like to add
my voice once again to the chorus of city residents who strongly oppose the elevated hybrid
option. Elevating the tracks would severely impact a very large part of the neighborhood. It
would be very expensive, and it won’t solve the traffic problem.
I would also like to point out that there was a petition several years ago against elevating the
tracks signed by *hundreds* of south Palo Alto residents. The XCAP final report from 2021
also noted that "neighborhood opposition to the above ground solutions — the hybrid and
the viaduct – was vociferous and near unanimous.” I suggest that the City Council review
the full record of opposition to the elevated option going all the way back to the beginning of
this long process rather than rely on just the handful of recently received comments. There
have been so many meetings over so many years – most people assume that they have
registered their opinion already or are fatigued. I personally have spoken with at least 100
friends and neighbors in South Palo Alto over the past decade about the rail options and every
one of them strongly opposes elevating the tracks.
Sincerely,
David Ephron
259 Whitclem Court
Palo Alto, CA
From:Tony Carrasco
To:mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Caltrain grade separations - Viaduct still the best approach, lowered and complicated roadways are worse
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 10:12:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mike.
I agree with each of your points described here. Unfortunately Council is going down a path that will inconvenience future residents not to
mention massive inconveniences which have not been evaluated.
As an architect, a past Planning Commission member and a past member of the ARB , the feel of the intersections proposed are not intuitive and
do not conform with our Comprehensive plan "Pedestrian Priorities" policies
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 9:20 PM mike.forster via ReconnectPaloAlto <reconnectpaloalto@googlegroups.com> wrote:
December 10, 2025
Subject: Caltrain grade separations - Viaduct is still the best approach; lowered and complicated roadways are worse
Dear City Council members:
My analysis showing the significant advantages of a viaduct approach is located at
https://link.cumulusglobal.com/u/ff8d9feb/bFx9DlHW8BGtusHHhnsoMg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmikeforster.net%2Fcaltrain%2Fpalo-
alto-caltrain-viaducts-a-better-approach-and-showcase-opportunity%2F
It is still the case that a citywide viaduct or viaduct(s) plus berm(s) in the simplest, least disruptive, and most enabling approach, rather
than the 15 percent designs presented.
In my career as an engineer, the simplest approach that satisfied the functional requirements was the best approach always or nearly so.
In this case, the Churchill plan is absurdly convoluted. At Charleson, the Alma underpass and the Charleson underpass seems very
complex. I found it difficult to determine if: 1) this was a double-decker under pass with one underneath the other; or 2) if these met at
a signal underground. Either way, this is much more complex than necessary.
As the staff presentation indicates, these plans require many small to large acquisitions and property value reductions for many
properties along Alma and side streets.
A viaduct or viaduct(s) plus berm(s) avoids all of these complexities and likely avoids all or nearly all property acquisitions. It is
possible that the viaduct approach could be constructed entirely within the Caltrain right-of-way. Modern modular construction
technologies might make a viaduct approach much quicker and less expensive to construct.
A viaduct approach also enables much simpler and less expensive approaches for future cross-town projects, such as pedestrian/bike
crossings with signals rather than underpasses, and roadway crossings such as Quarry Road to Alma.
A late alternative configuration not included in the attached analysis could include a two-track viaduct for Caltrain (and High-Speed
Rail) on the east side next to Alma, and a grade-level third track on the west side behind the homes along Park Blvd., for infrequent
heavy freight and Caltrain maintenance.
I strongly recommend that the Council reconsider the viaduct approach rather than the 15 percent designs currently under study.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for your attention.
Mike Forster, Evergreen Park
mike@mikeforster.net
www.mikeforster.net
650 464 9425
Links contained in this email have been replaced by Cumulus Global Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be
analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected,
you will see a warning.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReconnectPaloAlto" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reconnectpaloalto+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://link.cumulusglobal.com/u/0e00f1be/spl8DlHW8BGO_MHHhnsoMg?
u=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Freconnectpaloalto%2F043501dc6a5d%2524ca52f790%25245ef8e6b0%2524%2540alumni.usc.edu
--
Tony Carrasco
CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES
www.carrascoarchitects.com/
1885 El Camino Real, Palo Alto CA 94306
tony@carrasco.com
From:mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu
To:Council, City
Subject:Caltrain grade separations - Viaduct still the best approach, lowered and complicated roadways are worse
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 9:21:44 PM
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
December 10, 2025
Subject: Caltrain grade separations - Viaduct is still the best approach; lowered
and complicated roadways are worse
Dear City Council members:
My analysis showing the significant advantages of a viaduct approach is
located at https://mikeforster.net/caltrain/palo-alto-caltrain-viaducts-a-better-
approach-and-showcase-opportunity/
It is still the case that a citywide viaduct or viaduct(s) plus berm(s) in the
simplest, least disruptive, and most enabling approach, rather than the 15
percent designs presented.
In my career as an engineer, the simplest approach that satisfied the functional
requirements was the best approach always or nearly so.
In this case, the Churchill plan is absurdly convoluted. At Charleson, the Alma
underpass and the Charleson underpass seems very complex. I found it difficult
to determine if: 1) this was a double-decker under pass with one underneath the
other; or 2) if these met at a signal underground. Either way, this is much more
complex than necessary.
As the staff presentation indicates, these plans require many small to large
acquisitions and property value reductions for many properties along Alma and
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
side streets.
A viaduct or viaduct(s) plus berm(s) avoids all of these complexities and likely
avoids all or nearly all property acquisitions. It is possible that the viaduct
approach could be constructed entirely within the Caltrain right-of-way.
Modern modular construction technologies might make a viaduct approach
much quicker and less expensive to construct.
A viaduct approach also enables much simpler and less expensive approaches
for future cross-town projects, such as pedestrian/bike crossings with signals
rather than underpasses, and roadway crossings such as Quarry Road to Alma.
A late alternative configuration not included in the attached analysis could
include a two-track viaduct for Caltrain (and High-Speed Rail) on the east side
next to Alma, and a grade-level third track on the west side behind the homes
along Park Blvd., for infrequent heavy freight and Caltrain maintenance.
I strongly recommend that the Council reconsider the viaduct approach rather
than the 15 percent designs currently under study.
Thank you for your attention.
Mike Forster, Evergreen Park
mike@mikeforster.net
www.mikeforster.net
650 464 9425
From:joshorenberg@gmail.com
To:city.council@menlopark.gov; Council, City
Cc:ria.lo@paloatlo.gov; Eggleston, Brad; dprice@palodailypost.com; gssheyner@psweekly.com; Bhatia, Ripon
Subject:Quiet Zone Success
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 6:28:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and Mayor Combs,
Today construction of the quiet zone medians at the Alma St / Palo Alto Avenue train intersection completed. On behalf of hundreds of citizens in North Palo
Alto and South Menlo Park I want to thank you and city staff for making this quiet zone possible.
The multi-jurisdictional process has been challenging but the outcome is worth the wait. Now hundreds of citizens, their children, and pets will have peaceful
quiet during the day and restful sleep at night.
We want to thank all city staff for their role. We appreciate Ripon Bhatia and Palo Alto Office of Transportation for regular project progress reports.
Bottom line: Palo Alto and Menlo Park neighborhoods will be happier and healthier in 2026!!!
PS We would like to get a photo with Ripon Bhatia before construction fully completes. Is this possible?
Josh Orenberg on behalf of hundreds of local citizens
101 Alma, Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis
To:Council, City
Subject:Charleston grade separation
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 5:15:00 PM
Attachments:image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks.
i
I will be speaking tonight in favor of continuing to study and improve both alternatives as I don't believe that the information we have so far
about costs and construction impacts (timeframe and beyond) are sufficiently advanced to make a key decision.
One of the motivations for the underpass design was to avoid significant work on the railroad right-of-way, which the hybrid will require.
There are extremely short work windows and most of the work will happen at night. Neighbors up and down Park will be subject to YEARS
(3-5?) of heavy construction including pile driving. The time frame for an underpass will likely be much, much shorter.
Ultimately, the question is whether we want to leave what is a 20th century intersection in place - one that does not function well today and
one that will attract enough additional traffic that it is unlikely to be better in the future and may even be worse than today - or to build the
type of intersection that jurisdictions all over the world are adopting as they rethink highly inefficient designs that are unsafe for vulnerable
road users. The underpass solution would use what Viriginia, in their innovative design program, is calling a bowtie solution.
I still don't think the design is at its best - bicycle clearance levels are more than required heights, which makes ramps steeper and less useful.
The design should incorporate traffic calming on Charleston from Alma to Wilkie Way. It should include an extension of the off-road bicycle
path all the way to Carlson and consider pathways into Mitchell Park that allow cyclists to avoid biking on Charleston at all.
It is an unfortunate consequence of our current process that people are responding as if every detail of the plans was set in stone - they really
are not.
In any case, please don't eliminate the underpass alternative or make a decision on a version of the underpass at this stage. It is new and not
how we have done things in the past - but we can do better than the current unsafe and poorly performing intersection.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Elizabeth Alexis
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:December 10, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #1: Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 3:46:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
DECENBER 10, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #1: RAIL ROAD GRADE SEPARATION ALTERNATIVES
None of the proposed railroad grade separation alternativeswill remove the intrusive train horn noise that comes from thefreight trains. Although the Caltrain horn noise is at a lowerdecibel level, it can also be heard over long distances at thetime the first and last Caltrain is sounding its horn whenthere is little ambient sound.
I urge you to direct staff to propose a method to measure thetrain horn noise as I have previously suggested to the Councilin my November 10, 2021 letter to you.
One possible solution that was discussed in the past was tohave a short line freight operator whose horn noise localgovernment could more effectively influence.
The main reason to have grade separations for motorizedvehicles is for commuter traffic into and out of Palo Alto.
Those motorized vehicle commuters could commute on the train,telecommute, or use some other means of transportation.
It is still possible to have grade crossings that onlyemergency vehicles could use by remotely controlling thecrossing gates.
Otherwise, the only crossings should be separate crossings forpedestrians and bicycles.
In an ideal world all bicyclists would share the crossing withpedestrians, but there are enough bicyclists that insist ontaking the road that make pedestrian travel on the samecrossing as bicyclists dangerous for pedestrians.
Those crossings should not permit any motorized bicycles, skateboards or similar devices, but could still allow motorizedwheel chairs for disabled individuals.
Train Horn Noise
The only comment received in reply to the Palo Alto Daily PostNovember 12, 2025 article "City wants to silence train hornsnear crossings" was from a train conductor who said freighttrain noise can wake the dead:
Maximillian says:
As a formerly trained freight conductor, noise decibel output for any train horn, by Federal
Railroad Administration guidelines, start at a mandated minimum of 96 decibels, to 110
decibels maximum. From what I’ve read so far, no municipality on the SF Peninsula has ever
measured or reported the decibel range of the passenger-carrying electric Caltrain
locomotives, or the Union Pacific freight locomotives. There is a huge audible difference
between the two. And I know with some certainty, as compared to the quieter Caltrain horn,
the UP freight locomotive horn can wake the dead when sounded.
(https://padailypost.com/2025/11/12/city-wants-to-silence-train-horns-near-crossings/).
I have offered a way to measure that sound and request that youdirect staff to propose how to implement a method ofdocumenting the sound from train horns.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
NOVEMBER 10, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA ITEM #7: QUIET ZONE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE
If and when four-quadrant gates are implemented at streetscrossing the Caltrain tracks, there will still be noise fromtrain horns along the Caltrain right-of-way, as discussed inthe email messages forwarded below from two years ago that Ihad previously forwarded to you.
One of the responses I received to my request for informationtwo years ago was that Caltrain protocols replaced horns withvisual message systems when passing through stations.
However, those visual message systems are useful only topassengers waiting to board a train, but horns have anotherpurpose, namely, to warn people at the station that they riskserious injury and possibly death if they fall, jump, or arepushed into the path of an oncoming train.
The sounding of train horns between stations and while passingthrough stations are determined by both: (1) FRA Regulations,Caltrain Protocols, and UPRR Protocols; and (2) the behavior ofindividual train operators.
I believe it would be helpful to document the extent to whichtrain horns are used, when they are used, and by whom they areused to enable you to determine whether action is required tomodify that behavior that is independent of any benefitobtained should you decide to implement four-quadrant gates toeliminate train horn noise at street crossings of Caltrain.
Establishing a system similar to a shot-spotter system shouldprovide you the information you would need to determine whataction you may need to take to reduce the noise from thoseother sources.
The loudness of train horns at those locations, especially whenthe ambient sound is low, may result in residents complainingthat they still hear train horns after you implement four-quadrant gate for noise reduction.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:Peggy E. Kraft
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade separation
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 12:59:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
City Council Members,
Please consider only the HYBRID grade separation option for Charleston and East Meadow. The hybrid option
takes less property and is less disruptive to our neighborhoods.
Approve HYBRID plans for BOTH East Meadow and Charleston at the same time. Do not just do an option at
Charleston road alone. With both roads grade separated it would disperse the traffic more evenly between the two
roads and keep our neighborhoods safer and quieter. If there is only a grade separation at Charleston the traffic
would increase there and overwhelm the neighborhood.
Please DO NOT consider any option that has a roundabout on Charleston road. Please NO ROUNDABOUT.
Also, if we do not have enough money for both Charleston and East Meadow grade separation please DO NOT DO
ANY PLANS. Traffic and train ridership projections are much lower than when the project began so instead of
disrupting our south Palo Alto neighborhoods please leave them as they are and increase other safety features at
each intersection.
Thank you,
Peggy
From:Bill Filler
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Seperation (Charleston Rd)
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 12:41:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of South Palo Alto and I am writing about the Grade Separation plans
for Charleston Road. I have several points that I would like to make:
-If we have to have grade separation at Charleston please choose the plan that takes
the least amount of property which I believe is: the Hybrid Plan WITHOUT THE
ROUNDABOUT.
- If there is not enough money for the projects and you can only do one I recommend
East Meadow as it would have less impact on properties and it would encourage
drivers to use other alternative routes such as Oregon expressway and San Antonio
road thus having less impact on our residential neighborhoods. If you choose
Charleston it will greatly increase traffic there and drivers will not consider other
options so too much traffic would flow through there impacting a quiet residential
neighborhood more than if it were at East Meadow.
-Consider dropping the grade separation plans completely. Projections for train
ridership and car traffic are much lower than when you first began the project. Traffic
at Charleston is only high twice a day during school/commute hours. The rest of the
day there is very little traffic. Charleston road is a quiet neighborhood that should not
be used as a freeway to get mostly non residents of Palo Alto to and from their jobs.
They can access other locations such as Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road.
-Safety concerns can be addressed without grade separation. There are very
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
and bicyclists. Spend money on upgrading the crossings.
-Palo Alto has plans to put in a pedestrian/bicycle underpass crossing on Alma in
South Palo Alto that will increase safety and take people away from using the railroad
crossings.
Please consider dropping all of the plans for grade separation. Other cities are not
going forward with any grade separation plans at this time because of money issues.
We don’t have enough money either. Please do not choose just one location at
Charleston. It will attract too much traffic and ruin a peaceful residential neighborhood
with schools, parks and homes.
Thank you,
Bill
From:Linda Xu
To:Council, City; Transportation
Subject:Our opinions about the Grade Separation on Charleston/Meadow
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 9:07:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear city council members and transportation committee members:
We are the house owners on Charleston Rd. As we know, the purpose of the Grade
Separation Funding (Measure B allocation) is to increase safety and reduce congestion in all
three Palo Alto crossings on Caltrain corridor. But now it has only enough funding to one
crossing. Since the funding of this project can’t reach its goal, the city should stop this
project. If the city really wants to continue this project, it should not be the crossing
on Charleston Rd. Currently, Charleston Rd is already a very busy street. If doing grade
separation only in this crossing, it will push a lot more cars into this street which will make the
traffic flow a lot worse and unsafe. Therefore, if the city really wants to go forward, please
choose other crossing but not Charleston. All this money is from the tax payers, and it should
be used reasonably. Also, please choose Hybrid instead of underpass if you really
want to move forward because the cost of Hybrid is the lowest and it does not require home
acquisitions. The reason why we elected you is because we believe you can protect the
benefits of our Palo Alto citizens. We and our neighborhood have been suffered with the
uncertainty of this project and Underpass option for a few years. Please stop this project
and protect our benefit!
Thank you!
Linda and Eric
From:John D Melnychuk
To:Council, City; Ed@edlauing.com; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Reckdahl, Keith;
Stone, Greer
Subject:Grade Separation, Palo Alto December 10th,
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 2:50:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Subject: Request for Correction and Completion of the Technical Record for Grade-Separation
Alternatives Prior to CEQA Review
December 10, 2025
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl,
and Stone.
I send this long letter because residents were afforded only ONE minute to comment on Grade
Separation options at the most recent Rail Committee meeting. This isn’t reasonable since grade
separation is likely to be the most complex, most costly, most disruptive and most consequential
capital project in the city’s history.
I respectfully request that this letter be included in the CEQA administrative record for upcoming
grade-separation decisions. I am a long-time Palo Alto resident who lives near the rail corridor. I
am not an attorney. I have followed this process closely and am increasingly worried that certain
omissions and assumptions in the current technical record—particularly from the XCAP and
Kimley-Horn phases—could expose the City to avoidable CEQA vulnerabilities and potential legal
challenges from adversely affected residents and businesses.
My goal is to be helpful to the city. I acknowledge that there is great complexity in planning major
transportation infrastructure. My concerns are that incomplete or prematurely narrowed analyses
could create issues later that would be far more costly for the city to remedy, and lead to
avoidable harms to residents, businesses and the operations of our beloved city.
1. Concern Regarding Incomplete Evaluation of Trench and Tunnel Alternatives
The public record suggests that trenching and tunneling alternatives may have been ruled out
prematurely due to limited or constrained instructions given to the consultants. Because CEQA
requires agencies to conduct a “good faith”, “meaningful”, and comparative” consideration of
all feasible alternatives before rejecting them,[1] I am concerned that the current elimination of
trench and tunnel options may not have met this standard.
CEQA case law seems to tell us that alternatives cannot be excluded because an agency’s initial
analysis was incomplete or narrowly framed. For example, Save Our Peninsula Committee v.
Monterey County held that an EIR must contain “sufficient detail to enable meaningful evaluation
of alternatives” and cannot dismiss alternatives based on unexamined assumptions.[2] Similarly,
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California held that agencies
may not rely on “unsupported or conclusory” findings to eliminate alternatives.[3]
I am not advocating a specific alternative; I am simply concerned that unless trench and tunnel
options are re-evaluated with full information now, the city could later face claims that feasible
alternatives were not fairly considered. The negative impacts to the city, economic operations due
to construction disruption and harm to neighbors, during construction and after are not explained
in a way that helps residents comprehend the hugeness of the project, the process we would all
live through when building any option to grade separate, and the foreseeable effects on neighbors
and neighborhoods. Plans to mitigate harms to residents, businesses, neighborhoods and the city
itself have not been explained because the potential harms and trade-offs have not been
adequately studied and reported to residents in plain language. Visual depictions are improving,
but they do not convey what will happen in a way that is easy for non-engineer residents to grasp.
The engineering proposals talk only about construction methods, timelines, dollars, but they
don’t describe much of anything about effects on residents and businesses or
neighborhoods. We need to understand better what the effects of any of the alternatives are on
people as much as we need to know how many dollars and how much time it will take to achieve
grade separation via any strategy.
2. Cost Comparisons Need to Include Human-Impact, Economic, and Neighborhood Effects
The current cost evaluations for the Hybrid, Viaduct, and Underpass alternatives at Churchill
Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road appear to describe harms only as full or partial
seizure by eminent domain, and they appear to not to include substantial categories of real and
harmful impact experienced by residents and the city, such as:
Property-value losses during and after construction
Noise, vibration, and health impacts, especially for households directly adjacent to the
right-of-way
Shadowing, privacy loss, and visual impacts from elevated structures
Four to seven years of construction noise and traffic disruption
Long-term cut-through traffic burdens
Degradation of neighborhood character that may persist permanently
Quality of life degradation during and after construction for neighbors of the railway.
Cost from paralyzing effects of 4 to 7 years construction on the rail corridor and on
Alma Street.
Impact on our environment and daily life from installation and operation of Shoofly
tracks for 4 to 7 years. Kimley Horn study tells us only “shoofly tracks will operate,’
but this does not adequately inform Council or residents of what that really means to
qualify of life during construction.
Impact on our health from continual noise of construction and operation of Caltrain
on shoofly tracks on Alma Street. No mitigation or compensatory plans have been
offered.
Who pays for the soft costs of loss of quality of life during construction and from
permanent negative changes? It should not be nearest neighbors of the railway.
Under CEQA, economic and social effects must be discussed whenever they contribute to
or result from a physical environmental change, including noise, air-quality impacts, traffic
effects, and loss of neighborhood character.[4]
If these factors are omitted from alternatives comparison, the city may unintentionally understate
the full cost of certain alternatives—while overstating the cost of dismissed ones (such as trench
or tunnel alternatives). CEQA requires a balanced, non-misleading, and comparative
evaluation.[5]
3. Concern Regarding Public Comments Suggesting Possible “Prejudgment”
A resident reported that during a one-on-one conversation, a Council member serving on the Rail
Committee stated that residents who are bothered by train noise “should have no expectation of
assistance from the city because they should have bought elsewhere—the railway has been there
for 150 years.”
I understand that one comment does not reflect City policy. However, CEQA expressly prohibits
public agencies from committing to a project or showing prejudgment before environmental
review is complete.[6] However the comment is troubling because it suggests that human factors,
and negative effects on resident living near the railway will not receive ANY consideration. This
comment makes me wonder if that is part of the reason that our city has not yet installed safer for
travelers and better for neighbors Quiet Zones when Atherton did so nearly a decade ago?
Courts have invalidated CEQA decisions where an agency’s actions or statements appeared to
pre-decide an outcome. For example:
In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, the Court held that a city violated CEQA by taking
actions that “effectively committed” it to a project before CEQA review was complete.[7]
In Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin, the court emphasized that decisionmakers
must maintain an “open mind” and avoid statements suggesting fixed outcomes before EIR
completion.[8]
I am not alleging wrongdoing at all. I am only noting that public comments suggesting residents
“should have bought elsewhere” may create the appearance of prejudgment, which could be
avoidably problematic if cited in a CEQA challenge.
4. Request for Corrective Action Before Environmental Review Moves Forward
To help ensure a defensible CEQA process and reduce future conflict, I respectfully ask the city to
take the following steps:
1. Reevaluate trench and tunnel alternatives
Reassess trench and tunnel options using complete engineering, environmental, and cost
information so that all feasible alternatives are evaluated in accordance with CEQA.
2. Update cost and impact comparisons
Update all cost comparisons to include:
Losses in residential property value, both temporary and long-term.
Economic costs borne by residents, including health impacts linked to noise and
vibration.
Quality-of-life impacts, such as privacy loss, shadowing, traffic burdens, and
neighborhood character changes.
Costs to the City, including reduced property-tax revenues and increased demands for
mitigation or services.
3. Evaluate human-impact effects holistically
Include noise, vibration, health, mobility, safety, shadowing, privacy, and visual impacts consistent
with CEQA’s requirement to analyze the full range of environmental consequences.
4. Develop and publish clear City policies
Document how the city will evaluate and mitigate human impacts so that CEQA review is
transparent, and residents understand that decisions are not predetermined.
5. Assess potential litigation risk from impacted residents
Formally assess:
Monetary exposure from claims asserted by impacted homeowners and businesses,
The likelihood of challenge based on incomplete alternatives analysis or unmitigated
impacts.
Dollar-value estimates of cumulative economic and health burdens on residents; and
CEQA litigation risk associated with incomplete, narrow, or prematurely closed
alternatives analysis.
Consider the option to establish Quiet Zones via Quad Gates and save $1 billion
dollars and avoid scarring the City with the terrible solutions available that are worse
than the problems it proposes to solve. What else could we do with $1 Billion that
would be most beneficial to the city and all residents?
CEQA case law establishes that projects with incomplete impacts analysis or unsupported
elimination of alternatives have been overturned repeatedly, creating major delay and cost
exposure for agencies.[9]
My hope is that by identifying these vulnerabilities early, the city can avoid the costly disputes that
have affected other rail-related projects in California.
I offer these comments respectfully, as a resident who wants Palo Alto to succeed and to protect
both the city and its communities during this significant planning effort. Thank you for your service
and for your commitment to completing this process in a thorough, transparent, and legally sound
manner that protects quality of life for residents, especially those living near the railway.
Sincerely yours,
John Melnychuk
Resident, Fairmeadow.
(650) 906-5656
From:Rahul Parulekar
To:Council, City; Transportation
Cc:Girija Narlikar; Rahul Parulekar; Mallika Parulekar; Sharad Parulekar
Subject:Charleston Railway Grade Project: NO to both Underpass Options. YES to Hybrid Option (only if Meadow and
Churchill are also included; if not scrap the Charleston project)
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 7:10:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Madam/Sir,
Our family of 4 are residents of 257 Ely Place (Walnut Grove) and we are writing to you about
the Charleston Road railway grade project.
We are writing to let you know we endorse further study of only the Hybrid option at
Charleston. But only if you also include Churchill and Meadow intersections as
originally planned. If not, then we would rather you cancel the Charleston project in
entirety.
Here are our supporting arguments:
1) Do nothing unless Churchill and Meadow are also included as was originally intended. The
additional tax increase on us all resulting from Measure B was intended to provide
grade separation across the county. Palo Alto is receiving 50% of the funds, so at least 2 of
our 4 intersections should be part of the plan. Anything less violates the very intent of the
Measure and is patently unfair to the residents of South Palo Alto. So if this is not possible,
please cancel the Charleston project.
2) Hybrid - Assuming Churchill and Meadow are also being considered, this is the best option
because it has the least negative traffic impact for our neighborhood and no detours for the
drivers. None of my neighbors' homes are being torn down. It is also the cheapest option and
saves more than $300MM for the city.
3) Underpass (Roundabout) - This is the worst option. Our neighbors lose their homes. This
option is going to cost the city more than $300MM compared to the Hybrid option. It will
have massive traffic consequences for our neighborhood. All the following traffic will end up
being pushed down towards Mumford/Carlson to make a U-turn at the roundabout.
- traffic headed south on Alma trying to make a right on W.Charleston
- traffic headed east on W Charleston trying to make a left on Alma
- traffic headed north on Alma trying to make a left on W. Charleston.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
on the seniors and kids in our neighborhood as they deal with the huge upsurge in traffic at the
Charleston-Mumford intersection because of this roundabout. Charleston is already a major
conduit to 101; additionally Hoover School and Mitchell Place complex coming online will
further exacerbate this mess at Mumford even before the roundabout is built.
The Underpass (Direct Access Ramp) creates the same mess at Mumford, so it is not a viable
option either.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that if the project includes Churchill, Charleston
and Meadow as originally planned, we endorse the Hybrid option. If not, we endorse
cancelling the Charleston project in entirety.
Best Regards,
Rahul, Girija, Mallika, Sharad
From:Roland Lebrun
To:Clerk, City
Cc:Council, City
Subject:December 10 City Council Special Meeting public comment presentation
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 4:11:21 PM
Attachments:Meadow & Charleston viaduct alternative.pptx
Meadow & Charleston viaduct alternative.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council,
Please find attached my presentation for tomorrow evening's City Council Special Meeting
Thank You
Roland Lebrun
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Meadow & Charleston
Viaduct Alternative
A 21st Century solution to a Century-long problem
Executive Summary
•Launching gantry (viaduct equivalent of a Tunnel Boring Machine)
•No shooflies
•No lengthy road closures (intermittent overnight closures only)
•No impacts on Caltrain operations (off-peak single-tracking only)
•NO LENGHTY IMPACTS ON ALMA (gantry erection video)
•NO IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES
•CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CALTRAIN ROW
•Passing track option (second viaduct) at a later date
Final product with the A412
(Alma) in the foreground
Recommendation
•Eliminate ALL Meadow and Charleston Underpass alternatives
•Advance Meadow and Charleston Hybrids to 15% design
•Advance combined Meadow and Charleston viaduct to 15% design
Overnight segment installation when
crossing artery (overnight road closure)
Gantry erection
(temporary impact on Alma)
From:Patrice Banal
To:Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Lythcott-
Haims, Julie
Subject:Grade Separation Charleston AND Meadow-hybrid only
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 3:07:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council members, planning department, and Rail Committee members,
thank you for working to vet the remaining grade separation options at
Charleston AND Meadow Intersections.
1. Please endorse moving the hybrid option for BOTH Charleston
AND Meadow, which will not require any aggressive property takes,
minimizes partial property impacts, and is the most economical option,
to move ahead with the 15% engineering study
2. The Roundabout option should be eliminated, as it still involves
unneeded FULL-property takes and is disjointed and over-engineered.
3. The Direct Access Ramp should also be eliminated, as the U-turn
component will move congestion from Charleston-Alma to Charleston
and Mumford. While the rail committee and planning have assured us
that the U-turn would be restricted to passenger vehicles only and
involve no street widening or partial property takes, this maneuver is still
too unwieldy and dangerous.
The traffic studies do not reflect the reality of trying to cross Charleston
at Mumford during rush hour in the am and pm, regardless of
crosswalks. And traffic on Charleston will increase dramatically if
a Grade Separation plan does not address East Meadow at the same
time. The DAR plan puts the very citizens we should be protecting at
risk.
We are a school route for Gunn, Fletcher, JLS, Briones, Fairmeadow,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
and Hoover, and a mixed-family neighborhood of elderly and young
families, including Stevenson House and Mitchell Place, plus avid
bicyclists and pedestrians.
However, we are also a DIRECT CONDUIT to 101-REFLECTED BY
THE SPEED AND CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC AT Charleston at
Mumford.
Drivers will not yield to anyone, making this plan hazardous for all.
It is a capacity issue. Grade separation was meant to improve flow and
reduce congestion. The Direct Access Ramp at Charleston Road will
not achieve this and should be eliminated from future study.
Finally, I oppose any plan that involves reducingthe grade separation focus from Charleston AND Meadow-this was notthe intention of Measure B- 2016. This additional tax, generating $650million, was meant to provide grade-separation relief across the county.Palo Alto will receive 50% of the funding, so at least two of our fourintersections, Charleston and Meadow, should be included inany grade separation plan. Any fewer would violate the intent ofMeasure B.
4. If we cannot do it right, the final grade-separation option is to do nothing and putthe vote before the entire city.
Please endorse further study of the hybrid option ONLY if it includes bothCharleston AND Meadow.
Thank you,
Patrice Fester
Charleston Road
From:Debbie Mukamal
To:Council, City
Cc:Promiserani; Henigin, Linda
Subject:Public comment for Dec 10 mtg on Rail Crossings
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 3:05:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council:
I am writing as you are embarking on decisions related to our city's rail crossings. In particular, I am
writing to implore you to make swift decisions that prioritize safety concerns and the urgent need to
address the rail crossings as the most lethal means of suicide affecting vulnerable people in Palo Alto.
As one of the co-organizers of TrackWatch, I am aware and grateful to the City Council and City staff who
are working to address our grade crossings, including intermediate solutions like LIDAR technology.
While TrackWatch and the new technologies are effective measures, they are not foolproof (and
TrackWatch does not cover tracks 24/7 when vulnerability exists at the tracks). The longer-term, more
durable solutions you are considering get us much closer to comprehensive safety, and should be acted
upon today. Please don't delay in making decisions. For instance, now that the City Council has already
decided upon the route for the Churchill crossing please start right away on the planned tunnel. We need
to demonstrate to our young people that we prioritize our community members' health and safety.
We have already had too many suicides at the tracks in the last several years and in 2025 in particular.
We can't afford to wait another day.
Many thanks for your consideration and your leadership.
Debbie Mukamal
co-organizer, TrackWatch Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:promiserani
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Please expedite grade crossings
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 2:54:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I neglected to add a couple of points here in my previous message:
- Please consider that with the underpass/flow options, Alma, lacking any stop signs, becomes
a way for cars to speed through at very high speeds. What would be mitigated by grade
separation might be lost if the high speed autoway becomes a potential new means for youth in
crisis. It is also going to be difficult for bikes and might result in unsafe behaviors in this more
complicated system. For these reasons, I urge you to vote for the hybrid option.
- As Palo Alto continues to contend with our climate goals, we should be prioritizing walking,
biking, and using public transit (including the trains) over automobile traffic. The underpass
option with no stoplights, seems to show that we value car traffic over other renewable and
reduced energy options, and demonstrate to youth that their safety and convenience while
walking or biking to school is less important than that of adults in vehicles. Please give serious
consideration to the future of what we want Palo Alto to demonstrate to our children and to the
world.
The most important thing, again, is to act quickly to help keep our kids safe.
thank you
Prerana Jayakumar
Midtown
On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 1:35 PM promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
I am writing to ask you to quickly move forward with the grade crossings, approving them
right away, and getting started on the planned tunnel at Churchill Rd. Our children's safety
depends on these crossings being safe and free from access to the tracks and it is vital that
we do this as soon as possible before there are further tragic consequences. We have the
opportunity to show our youth we care, and to do so in a responsible and prompt manner.
For this reason, I also urge you to reject the more costly plans (ie, choose the hybrid options
at Charleson/Meadow over the flow choice) so that we save money, move more quickly to
have these measures in place as soon as possible, and create a system kids will find easy to
use.
While local efforts such as Trackwatch and mental health supports are underway, in addition
to planned Lidar and related systems at the crossings, they are terribly insufficient, because
they cannot cover the tracks all the time or everywhere, nor are they 100% guaranteed.
Grade separation is the only thing that will be guaranteed means restriction, and should be
the first line, in addition to all the other supports, which will help build our youth's mental
health over a longer period.
I urge you to act swiftly and decisively to protect the health of our community.
Prerana Jayakumar
Midtown
From:promiserani
To:Council, City
Subject:Please expedite grade crossings
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 1:36:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I am writing to ask you to quickly move forward with the grade crossings, approving them
right away, and getting started on the planned tunnel at Churchill Rd. Our children's safety
depends on these crossings being safe and free from access to the tracks and it is vital that we
do this as soon as possible before there are further tragic consequences. We have the
opportunity to show our youth we care, and to do so in a responsible and prompt manner.
For this reason, I also urge you to reject the more costly plans (ie, choose the hybrid options at
Charleson/Meadow over the flow choice) so that we save money, move more quickly to have
these measures in place as soon as possible, and create a system kids will find easy to use.
While local efforts such as Trackwatch and mental health supports are underway, in addition
to planned Lidar and related systems at the crossings, they are terribly insufficient, because
they cannot cover the tracks all the time or everywhere, nor are they 100% guaranteed. Grade
separation is the only thing that will be guaranteed means restriction, and should be the first
line, in addition to all the other supports, which will help build our youth's mental health over
a longer period.
I urge you to act swiftly and decisively to protect the health of our community.
Prerana Jayakumar
Midtown
From:Irene Lloyd
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 8:02:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My choice is TUNNEL.
Don't try to "save" my doing anything else, we will all have to live with the bad choice
for decades!
IreneL
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert Martinson
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Grade Separation designs
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 7:11:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I am a 24-year resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood and live on Park Blvd.
between the Charleston and Meadow crossings.
I have concerns that the proposed Hybrid design DOES NOT create a good or equitable
solution for South Palo Alto.
The only design that I believe will meet the goals of 1) improving the traffic flow 2) being
equitable for South Palo Alto where North Palo Alto already has 2 underpass crossings and 3)
at the lowest cost and timeline is the UNDERPASS design.
I ask that you support the UNDERPASS design.
Respectfully,
Robert Martinson
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Stephanie Martinson
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation Design
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 7:10:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Please consider further analysis of the underpass design for Charleston/Meadows for the
following reasons:
1. The underpass design is the only grade separation design that significantly improves
traffic flow. (Please review the data presented on traffic flow times provided by the
consultant). The hybrid design spends hundreds of millions of dollars but doesn't
improve traffic flow. Considering that the Quiet Zone will silence train horns, we
would be better off doing nothing than building the hybrid.
2. The hybrid's 20-foot berm will degrade the neighborhood. Considering that north
Palo Alto has three underpasses, why would Palo Alto City subject south Palo Alto
residents to ugly elevated tracks? This is a significant matter of fairness and
equitability.
3. Between improved traffic and potentially shorter construction time, the underpass
design has much more upside than the hybrid. It is worthwhile to spend some time
improving the underpass's drawbacks (like property acquisitions).
Thank you for this consideration,
Stephanie Martinson
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robin Tu
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; me@lythcott-haims.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims,
Julie; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject:Quiet Zones
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 5:50:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is: Robin Tu
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and City Councilors:
Thank you for your hard work for our City. Please budget for Quiet Zones via Quad Gates as
soon as possible. (If you want to say more perhaps say this)
Consultants tell us that the level crossings will be safer for travelers and much quieter for
residents. The new electric trains are noisier, not quieter as promised. Atherton took action to
protect its residents in 2016. The noise levels now exceed WHO and OSHA standards and
they have long violated Palo Alto's own municipal noise code.
Borrow the money to get it done, if that's necessary and find reimbursement from Measure B
or other sources.
Thank you for working to make Palo Alto safer and healthier by taking timely action to reduce
harmful noise pollution.
Sincerely yours,
Robin Tu
Palo Alto Resident.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Leena Joshi
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Grade Separation at Charleston/Meadow
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 2:45:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council:
I know preliminary designs for the Rail Grade Separation are being discussed this Wednesday.
I wanted to provide my input as a resident of Charleston Meadows ( I live on Wilkie Way).
Our neighborhood ( my self and family included) is strongly in favor of the underpass design
because it is the only grade separation design that will improve traffic flow. We dont want to
spend millions of dollars on the hybrid option, because the berm will degrade the
neighborhood and will make traffic worse.
Please kindly choose the underpass option. It even has a shorter construction time and is in
line with the three underpasses in north palo alto.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leena Joshi
4083915616
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:John D Melnychuk
To:Council, City
Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Reckdahl, Keith;
Stone, Greer
Subject:Quiet Zones via Quad Gates - fund as an urgent priority in this budget cycle, please.
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 2:25:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing, ViceMayor Veenker, Councilors Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims,
Reckdahl and, Stone.
Dear Mayor Lauing, ViceMayor Veenker and Councilmembers,
Thank you for voting to create Quiet Zones by installing quad-gates at our long-
troublesome rail crossings. We’re genuinely thrilled that these upgrades will make
travel safer for everyone—and that nearby residents may finally enjoy something long
thought mythical in our neighborhoods: quiet. Current noise levels exceed WHO,
OSHA, and even Palo Alto’s own municipal guidelines, so relief can’t come soon
enough.
We’re grateful for the City’s rapid coordination with Caltrain and VTA after the recent
tragic trespass fatality. It’s encouraging to see large agencies move quickly and
cooperatively—proof that red tape can be cut when safety is on the line.
Now, we respectfully ask that you commit funds in this budget cycle to actually install
the quad-gates. We understand budgets are never easy puzzles to solve, but this
investment in public health and safety is overdue and well worth prioritizing—
borrowed funds or not. Measure B reimbursement may even soften the blow.
Atherton residents have benefited from these protections since 2016. We’d love to
join them in the blissful club of communities that sleep through the night.
And since costs only go in one direction—up—there’s truly no time like the present.
Sincerely,
John Melnychuk,
Quiet Zones Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
(650) 906-5656
Palo Alto Municipal Code
Noise: 9.10
9.10.010 Declaration of policy.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Palo Alto require protection from excessive, unnecessary
and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community. It is the
intention of the city council to control the adverse effect of such noise sources on the
citizen under any condition of use, especially those conditions of use which have the
most severe impact upon any person.
(Ord. 4634 § 2 (part), 2000)
9.10.070 Exception permits.
If the applicant can show to the city manager or his designee that a diligent
investigation of available noise abatement techniques indicates that immediate
compliance with the requirements of this chapter would be impractical or
unreasonable, a permit to allow exception from the provisions contained in all or a
portion of this chapter may be issued, with appropriate conditions to minimize the
public detriment caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short
duration as possible up to six months, but renewable upon a showing of good cause,
and shall be conditioned by a schedule for compliance and details of methods
therefor in appropriate cases. Any person aggrieved with the decision of the city
manager or his designee may appeal to the city council pursuant to Section
16.40.080 of this code.
(Ord. 4634 § 2 (part), 2000)
9.10.080 Violations.
Any person who violates Section 9.10.060(e) or 9.10.060(f) shall be guilty of an
infraction. Any person who violates any of the other provisions of this chapter shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Ord. 4634 § 2 (part), 2000)
City of Palo Alto
Grade Separation Project
Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road
City Council MeetingDecember 15, 2025
Funded by:
Integrated
Project Team
Ripon Bhatia
Senior Engineer
Ria Hutabarat Lo
Chief Transportation Official
Jill Gibson
Edgar Torres
Whitney DiGiantommaso
Navi Dhaliwal
Provide additional information requested by City Council
December 10 Special Meeting
Action: Determine which alternatives to advance to 15%
Meeting Purpose
3
4-Step Model
4
1.Trip Generation
(pop & jobs by zone)
2. Trip Distribution
(gravity model)
3. Mode Split
(by trip type, income etc.)
4. Route Assignment
(based on travel times)
•Best case: Transportation models are forecasts
-Models identify likely delay & simulate outcomes under assumed & forecasted conditions
-All inputs are estimates, outputs are never 100% precise
-Models are not deterministic; do not reflect macro changes, behavior change, random perturbation
-Most accurate for expansion of business as usual
•Critical perspective: Model assumptions have known flaws
-Water paradigm (flows, capacity, gravity)
-Do not account for policy & human choice
-Do not account for many elements of induced travel demand
-Predict & provide; may be a self-fulfilling prophecy
-Typical prescription is capacity expansion
Understanding Accuracy of Models
5
Induced Travel Demand & Induced Investment
6
S1
Travel
time
(cost)
Q, Traffic Flow
(veh/hour)
Q1
T1
D1
Q2
T2
S2
T1b
D3
Q3
T3
•Density (higher land use density esp. around transit)
•Diversity (mix of land uses, more housing in a job-rich city)
•Design (walkable urban design)
•Destinations (high quality transit serving regional destinations)
•Demand management (info, paid parking, transit passes etc.)
What Other Choices Shape Demand?
7
1.Overall Network Delay
•Total time cars are stopped while
traveling through network
2.Approach Delay and
Movement Queues
•Delay: Average time cars stopped at
intersection per approach (e.g.,
northbound)
•Queue: Average distance cars stopped
at an intersection per movement
Traffic Analysis Information
8
Traffic Network for
Meadow/Charleston
3.Travel Times
•Vehicles: Calculated time that considers distance of travel path and average delay at
signalized intersections along path
•Bicycles: Calculated time that considers distance of path, average delay at signalized
intersections, and average travel speed per mode
Traffic Analysis Information
9
Year 2025 2040
Configuration Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB3
Underpass
with DAR3 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB3
Underpass
with DAR3
AM
Per Vehicle1 1.5 min 1 min 0.5 min 0.5 min 3 min 1.5 min 0.5 min 0.5 min
Total2 115 hrs 75 hrs 30 hrs 30 hrs 230 hrs 110 hrs 45 hrs 45 hrs
PM
Per Vehicle1 3 min 1 min 0.5 min 0.5 min 6 min 2.5 min 0.5 min 0.5 min
Total2 230 hrs 95 hrs 30 hrs 35 hrs 470 hrs 200 hrs 45 hrs 45 hrs
1.Rounded to nearest half minute
2.Rounded to nearest 5 hours
3.Assumes Meadow Drive is the underpass alternative
RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
1. Overall Network Delay – Meadow & Charleston
10
2. Approach Delays (Seconds) – Meadow
11
Alma Street at Meadow Drive
Year 2025 2040
Configuration Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1
AM
Intersection 41.7 D 34.6 C 9.9 A 10.5 B 50.3 D 40.4 D 11.0 B 12.9 B
Northbound 48.4 D 30.6 C ******65.1 E 32.5 C ******
Southbound 32.8 C 29.4 C 10.4 B 11.7 B 35.1 D 37.5 D 13.0 B 14.1 B
Eastbound 20.4 C 47.0 D 11.3 B 11.2 B 20.6 C 60.7 E 13.4 B 14.5 B
Westbound 62.9 E 47.1 D 6.6 A 7.0 A 66.1 E 50.6 D 7.3 A 7.6 A
PM
Intersection 62.6 E 37.9 D 9.8 A 10.2 B 81.4 F 49.8 D 12.9 B 12.5 B
Northbound 33.5 C 38.4 D ******36.5 D 29.4 C ******
Southbound 91.2 F 33.4 C 11.1 B 11.2 B 135.6 F 58.4 E 13.2 B 14.3 B
Eastbound 22.8 C 45.7 D 9.7 A 10.9 B 23.3 C 65.0 E 15.4 B 13.2 B
Westbound 73.4 E 45.4 D 7.1 A 7.2 A 97.3 F 55.4 E 8.6 A 7.5 A
1.Meadow Drive is the Underpass Alternative - Lower Intersection
*** Movements not allowed at intersection approach
RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
2. Average Queues (Feet) – Meadow
12
Alma Street at Meadow Drive
Year 2025 2040
Configuration
Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1Existing/
Hybrid Underpass
PM
EBL EBLT*200 160 30 35 320 195 40 40
EBTR 105 125 120 155
WBL 185 130 270 170
WBTR WBTR*130 120 25 30 140 135 40 40
NBL 165 115 190 135
NBTR 355 200 455 210
SBL SBLR*80 70 125 140 90 120 155 165
SBT 175 165 205 210
SBR 100 95 110 210
1.Meadow Drive is the Underpass Alternative
* Movements associated with lower intersection
Rounded up to nearest 5 feet
Bold = exceeding available storage length
RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
2. Average Queues (Feet) – Meadow
13
Alma Street at Meadow Drive
Year 2025 2040
Configuration
Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1Existing/
Hybrid Underpass
PM
EBL EBLT*125 140 30 30 385 185 35 35
EBTR 95 110 130 155
WBL 325 135 835 210
WBTR WBTR*325 135 30 25 835 210 45 35
NBL 90 110 110 95
NBTR 220 280 270 205
SBL SBLR*200 105 125 125 255 180 155 155
SBT 495 325 595 495
SBR 95 80 100 80
1.Meadow Drive is the Underpass Alternative
* Movements associated with lower intersection
Rounded up to nearest 5 feet
Bold = exceeding available storage length
RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
2. Approach Delays (Seconds) – Charleston
14
Alma Street at Charleston Road
Year 2025 2040
Configuration Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1
AM
Intersection 57.2 E 41.8 D 13.5 B 12.3 B 81.9 F 50.4 D 16.5 B 14.9 B
Northbound 73.3 E 39.7 D 13.0 B 11.8 B 118.5 F 45.2 D 16.8 B 14.2 B
Southbound 51.1 D 38.1 D 11.8 B 10.7 B 58.5 E 45.2 D 13.3 B 12.6 B
Eastbound 13.7 B 47.5 D ******12.7 B 68.7 E ******
Westbound 74.3 E 47.8 D 20.4 C 19.3 B 86.8 F 51.6 D 22.9 C 23.5 C
PM
Intersection 106.4 F 52.9 D 12.4 B 12.4 B 108.5 F 101.3 F 14.6 B 15.2 B
Northbound 48.4 D 47.9 D 11.3 B 11.7 B 55.0 D 75.2 E 12.1 B 12.9 B
Southbound 216.2 F 59.1 E 11.0 B 10.9 B 227.2 F 161.9 F 12.3 B 12.3 B
Eastbound 13.2 B 52.1 D ******12.6 B 54.5 D ******
Westbound 77.9 E 46.7 D 19.2 B 18.4 B 93.7 F 62.7 E 27.2 C 28.5 C
1.Results for Upper Alma and Charleston intersection
*** Movements not allowed at intersection approach
RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
2. Average Queues (Feet) – Charleston
15
Alma Street at Charleston Road
Year 2025 2040
Configuration
Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1Existing/
Hybrid Underpass
AM
EBLT 150 190 240 330
EBTR 150 195 250 345
WBLT WBLR*125 100 115 100 155 115 130 135
WBTR 140 120 245 125
NBL 295 190 1,890 260
NBTR NBTR*415 330 80 140 610 415 105 230
SBL SBL*95 80 80 75 125 115 95 95
SBT SBT*225 215 45 45 260 280 55 55
SBR 75 75 100 110
1.Meadow Drive is the Underpass Alternative
* Movements associated with upper intersection
Rounded up to nearest 5 feet
Bold = exceeding available storage length
RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
2. Average Queues (Feet) – Charleston
16
Alma Street at Charleston Road
Year 2025 2040
Configuration
Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB1
Underpass
with DAR1Existing/
Hybrid Underpass
PM
EBLT 150 195 285 275
EBTR 150 200 305 295
WBLT WBLR*175 120 145 145 235 170 195 200
WBTR 200 140 245 200
NBL 105 120 140 195
NBTR NBTR*205 185 50 105 250 270 55 120
SBL SBL*115 95 70 70 120 105 10 80
SBT SBT*1,420 390 110 110 1,560 1,350 135 135
SBR 95 65 85 85
1.Meadow Drive is the Underpass Alternative
* Movements associated with upper intersection
Rounded up to the nearest 5 feet
Bold = exceeding available storage length
RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
3. Vehicle Travel Times (Seconds)
Meadow Drive Redirected Movements
17
Year 2025 2040
Configuration Existing Hybrid Underpass Existing Hybrid Underpass
AM
Northbound to Eastbound 65 60 130 80 55 130
Northbound to Westbound 185 120 130 240 135 135
PM
Northbound to Eastbound 55 60 140 55 55 140
Northbound to Westbound 130 110 140 135 110 145
1.Assumes Charleston Road is the underpass alternative
2.Travel Times rounded up to the nearest 5 seconds
UNDERPASSUNDERPASS
18
Meadow Drive: Underpass
Northbound Alma Street to
East/Westbound Meadow Drive via Ramp
PARK BLVD
ALMA STALMA ST
PARK BLVD
3. Vehicle Travel Times (Seconds)
Charleston Road Redirected Movements
19
Year 2025 Scenarios 2040 Scenarios
Configuration Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB2
Underpass
with DAR2 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB2
Underpass
with DAR2
A
M
Eastbound to Northbound 60 95 135 135 60 115 135 145
Northbound to Westbound 200 90 135 70 95 95 150 75
Southbound to Westbound 65 60 165 155 65 65 180 165
P
M
Eastbound to Northbound 60 100 135 135 60 105 145 145
Northbound to Westbound 120 140 125 65 135 210 130 70
Southbound to Westbound 225 85 160 155 230 180 165 165
1.Assumes Meadow Drive is the underpass alternative
2.RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
3.Travel Times rounded up to the nearest 5 seconds
20
CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PARK BLVD
ALMA ST
GR
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
MUMFORD PL
EL
Y
P
L
Wilkie Way
UNDERPASS
Charleston Road:
Underpass with Roundabout
Eastbound Charleston Road (at Wilkie Way)
toNorthbound Alma Street (at Lindero Drive)
21
CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PARK BLVD
ALMA ST
GR
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
MUMFORD PL
EL
Y
P
L
Wilkie Way
UNDERPASS
Charleston Road:
Underpass with Roundabout
Northbound Alma Street (at Ely Place) to
Westbound Charleston Road (at Wilkie Way)
CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PARK BLVD
ALMA ST
GR
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
A
Y
MUMFORD PL
EL
Y
P
L
Wilkie Way
UNDERPASS
Charleston Road:
Underpass with Roundabout
Southbound Alma Street (at Lindero Drive) to
Westbound Charleston Road (at Wilkie Way)
3. Bicycle Travel Times (Seconds)
Meadow Drive
23
Year 2025 2040
Configuration Existing Hybrid Underpass Existing Hybrid Underpass
AM
Southbound to Eastbound 120 130 130 115 140 130
Southbound to Northbound 135 155 195 130 165 195
Westbound to Northbound 105 100 150 110 100 150
PM
Southbound to Eastbound 115 125 130 110 140 130
Southbound to Northbound 135 155 195 130 165 195
Westbound to Northbound 115 100 145 125 105 150
1.Assumes Charleston Road is the underpass alternative
2.RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
3.Travel Times rounded up to the nearest 5 seconds
UNDERPASSUNDERPASS
24
Meadow Drive: Underpass
Southbound Park Boulevard (at Maclane St)
to Eastbound Meadow Drive (at Emerson St)
PARK BLVD
ALMA STALMA ST
PARK BLVD
UNDERPASSUNDERPASS
25
Meadow Drive: Underpass
Southbound Park Boulevard (at Maclane St)
to Northbound Alma Street (at Alma Village)
PARK BLVD
ALMA STALMA ST
PARK BLVD
UNDERPASSUNDERPASS
26
Meadow Drive: Underpass
Westbound Meadow Drive (at Emerson St) to
Northbound Park Boulevard (at Maclane St)
ALMA STALMA ST
PARK BLVD
PARK BLVD
3. Bicycle Travel Times (Seconds)
Charleston Road
27
Year 2025 2040
Configuration Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB2
Underpass
with DAR2 Existing Hybrid Underpass
with RAB2
Underpass
with DAR2
AM
Southbound to Eastbound 100 110 95 95 110 125 95 95
Southbound to Northbound 125 135 125 125 135 150 125 125
Westbound to Northbound 110 95 95 95 115 95 95 95
PM
Southbound to Eastbound 95 105 95 95 165 130 95 95
Southbound to Northbound 120 130 125 125 185 155 125 125
Westbound to Northbound 110 95 95 95 120 100 95 95
1.Assumes Meadow Drive is the underpass alternative
2.RAB = Roundabout | DAR = Direct Access Ramp
3.Travel Times rounded up to the nearest 5 seconds
ALMA ST
UNDERPASS
Charleston Road:
Underpass with Roundabout or DAR
Southbound Park Blvd (at Carolina Ln) to
Eastbound Charleston Road (at Wright Pl)
CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
ALMA ST
UNDERPASS
Charleston Road:
Underpass with Roundabout or DAR
Southbound Park Blvd (at Carolina Ln)
to Northbound Alma St (at Lindero Dr)
CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
ALMA ST ALMA ST
UNDERPASS
Charleston Road:
Underpass with Roundabout or DAR
Westbound Charleston Rd (at Wright Pl)
To Northbound Park Blvd (at Carolina Ln)
CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
ALMA ST ALMA ST
PARK BLVD
Churchill Avenue
1.Configuration
•Advance Partial Underpass (LPA)
2.Partial Underpass Landscape Strip
•With OR Without
3.Seale Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing
•Seale Avenue Ramp OR Alma Street Ramp
•Rail Committee recommended to eliminate the Seale Avenue Ramp
City Council Motion – Churchill Avenue
31
City Council to identify which alternatives to advance to 15% design in preparation for
environmental review
City Council Motion – Meadow & Charleston
32
City Council to identify which alternatives to advance to 15% design in preparation for
environmental review
Meadow Drive
•Hybrid OR Underpass OR Both
Charleston Road
•Hybrid OR Underpass OR Both
•Underpass
•Roundabout OR Direct Access Ramp
Thank You