Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-12-15 City Council Emails
DOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 12/15/2025 Document dates: 12/8/2025 - 12/15/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Sahana Mysore To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer Subject:Downtown Palo Alto public safety and hygiene Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 11:19:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing as a Palo Alto resident to express growing concern about conditions in downtown, which have deteriorated in recent months and are now affecting basic public safety, sanitation, and access to shared civic spaces. I want to be very specific about what I and my family are experiencing, because these are not abstract concerns. On multiple occasions recently, I have observed feces (human or otherwise) on downtown sidewalks, especially on side streets like Kipling. This presents an obvious public health issue and is deeply distressing in what should be a safe, walkable area for residents, workers, and visitors. Just today, I was at the downtown Starbucks where six transients had taken shelter from the cold inside the store. All other customers were clustered together in one corner, waiting uncomfortably for their drinks. This was not an isolated or benign situation; it reflected a loss of normal access to a public-facing business and an atmosphere that felt tense and unsafe. More troubling still, very recently, we (me, 7 months pregnant, and my 4yr old) had to step over multiple individuals sleeping directly in front of the downtown library entrance in order to enter. Our public libraries should be some of the most welcoming and accessible civic spaces in our city, especially so for kids and families. Navigating around people sleeping at the entrance and on the sidewalks felt unsafe and totally unacceptable. In addition, I recently drove past the Opportunity Center while exiting Town & Country and saw a group of residents openly smoking from pipes outside the facility. I have no idea what substances were being used, but the visibility of this activity—so close to a major shopping area—was alarming and gave the strong impression of a lack of any supervision or oversight. Encounters like this contribute to the growing feeling that there is little accountability around behavior, even in and around city-supported facilities. Beyond these individual incidents, there appears to have been a significant spike in the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report 11 on Waverley, etc.). Equally concerning is that the behavior I am observing feels more aggressive, erratic, and intimidating than in the past. It's not just about discomfort; it is about residents feeling genuinely unsafe walking downtown, especially women, children, and elderly people. I want to be clear that I recognize homelessness is a complex issue and that many individuals are struggling with serious challenges, including here in Palo Alto. Compassion and services matter. However, compassion must coexist with enforcement of basic standards of public safety, sanitation, and lawful use of shared spaces. Right now, it feels as though that balance has been lost. I am asking the City Council to urgently address: + Sanitation and health conditions in downtown public spaces + Enforcement of laws regarding blocking entrances, sleeping in front of public buildings, and aggressive or intimidating behavior + Oversight and accountability at city-supported facilities and surrounding areas + Whether current policies are unintentionally concentrating unsheltered individuals in the downtown core without adequate supervision, services, or enforcement Downtown Palo Alto should not feel unsafe for families, children, or pregnant women. Right now, it does. I appreciate your sincere efforts around services for the homeless, including the recent work to establish temporary housing and management RV encampments. However, I hope the Council will also take swift, concrete action to restore safety, cleanliness, and accessibility to our downtown for everyone. Sincerely, Sahana Mysore Palo Alto Resident and Taxpayer 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:Lili Zhang To:Council, City Subject:Request for Recognition Letter in Support of Shen Yun Performing Arts Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 8:02:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I hope you are doing well. I'm writing to respectfully request your support in issuing a recognition letter to honor Shen Yun Performing Arts for its upcoming performances in Northern California. The world-renowned Shen Yun Performing Arts will return to Northern California (https://shenyun.com/ca) from December 24, 2025, to March 29, 2026, presenting 20 performances in six cities—San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Folsom, Modesto, and Fresno—as part of its 2026 world tour. Over the years, audiences across Northern California have praised Shen Yun’s artistry and mission, often sharing how the performances leave them both inspired and uplifted. This year, in particular, such recognition carries extraordinary significance. Founded in New York in 2006 by artists who practice Falun Dafa—a meditation practice banned in China but freely followed worldwide—Shen Yun seeks to revive 5,000 years of divinely inspired traditional Chinese culture and values, much of which has been suppressed under communist rule. Many of its founding artists fled persecution by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and rebuilt their artistic careers here in the United States. In just 19 years, Shen Yun has grown from one to eight touring companies, performing in more than 200 cities annually and becoming a global cultural phenomenon. Unfortunately, the CCP continues to block Shen Yun from performing in China and has increased efforts to interfere with its performances abroad, including through media influence, online disinformation, and legal intimidation here in the U.S. Additional background information and supporting details are available here: https://issuu.com/faluninfo/docs/an_update_from_shen_yun_for_local_officials Your recognition would highlight Shen Yun’s exceptional efforts to preserve traditional Chinese culture and its important role in enriching the cultural life of Northern California communities. It would also demonstrate a firm commitment to artistic freedom, cultural diversity, and the universal values of liberty and expression, especially as Shen Yun continues This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report to face escalating transnational repression from the CCP. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 480-332-9816 or lilizhang.first@gmail.com. Best regards, Lili On behalf of the San Francisco Falun Buddha Study Association Shen Yun’s Northern California Presenter 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 #5: Appointment of Interim City Attorney Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 5:14:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. DECEMBER 15, 2025 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #5: APPOINTING CAIO ARELLANO AS INTERIM CITYATTORNEY I urge you to remove this item from your Consent Agenda andrefer the item of appointment of an Interim City Attorney tothe Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee. Neither the Human Resources Director who reports to the CityManager, or Council Member Greer Stone who happens to be Chairof the Council CAO Committee have been authorized by the CityCouncil or the CAO Committee to recommend the appointment of anInterim City Attorney. The "City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook" says "TheCAO Committee meets on an as-needed basis schedule to addressissues that Council has referred to the Committee related toCouncil's four direct appointees: the City Manager, CityAttorney, City Clerk and City Auditor." For example, the Council referred to the CAO Committee thesubject of recruitment for a new City Attorney, and the CAOCommittee delegated to the CAO Chair the task of determiningthe interview process for that position. The City Council has never referred the subject of Appointingan Interim City Attorney to the CAO Committee, so thatCommittee could not authorize the Committee Chair to act for iton that subject. For example, after former City Attorney Ariel Calonne announcedhis decision to leave, the City Council on August 4, 2003 metin Closed Session to consider Public Employee PerformanceEvaluation of the four CAOs including Calonne, and also toconsider the Public Employee Appointment of an Interim CityAttorney. When that Closed Session ended, Mayor Dena Mossar announcedthat "the Council voted unanimously that upon resignation ofthe City Attorney, to appoint Wynne Furth as the Interim CityAttorney, and the Mayor to appoint two or more Council Membersto negotiate with Wynee Furth the terms of her contract." Until such time as the CAO Committee makes a recommendationabout the appointment of an Interim City Attorney and the CityCouncil acts on that recommendation, the Chief Assistant CityAttorney will exercise his essential duty to "Act in theabsence of the City Attorney" as set forth in the JobDescription of the Chief Assistant City Attorney's Essential Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock 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:STEVE GILBERT To:Council, City Cc:STEVE Subject:RV FIRE Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 11:21:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i So tonight at approximately 10:00 pm we had a RV fire on Colorado Street directly across from the skateboard park. I was outside after the fire had already engulfed the RV the fire department seemed to be a little slow in engaging the RV that additional time may have allowed for the utility wires to get scorched and now the cable and internet is down for an indefinite period of time. I just reported the other day that one of the RVs had a bucket underneath there vehicle and was leaking fluids into the drainage ditch. In the past I reported one of the RVs had its gray water tank leaking into the drainage ditch ( which were told goes to the Bay ) and as good citizens were supposed to be conscientious of what we utilize in the streets and driveways as to not pollute the environment. Not exactly following suit here, ??? Another time before there was one of the occupants of the RV drinking with members from some of the other RVs at the park and they were urinating into the sidewalk medium ivy ( kind of nice for children and women to see) On a separate occasion I had a crazy woman living in one of the RVs that attempted to spit on me while I was walking my dog. These folks dump their garbage at the park, leave personal items outside, double park in the street and consume parking space during park activitys, causing excessive amounts of cars everywhere. One of the gentleman that owned an RV out there had a quad desert runner and he also had an F-350, newer trucks like that run $80K plus Apparently not exactly poor. On a occasion before that there was a family living in a very large RV that was out there for months and the man had a brand new car I didn't own a brand new car until I was in my mid fifties I'm just wondering is this the quality of life that we pay for with ever climbing property taxes, almost to a point where if you're not an absorbent income you can't afford to live here. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report And how long are we going to wait till we have a serious incident take place although this was a serious incident that took place tonight. I think it would be nice of the city to divulge the ultimate cost of this between the fire department, the No doubt damage to the asphalt, the mature tree that may or may not even survive, the salvage removal, and the administrative costs, and of course the power lines that were damaged and took out the internet and cable. Why can't there be a designated lot where the RVs can park and be in a responsible zoned area that could easily be monitored. We're in the heart of silicon valley you got to tell me that the best solution we have is allowing people to live at the park. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer From:Ash B To:Lauing, Ed; City Mgr; Riley Cooke; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric Subject:RV FIRE Greer Park Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 11:02:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Ed, City Council, City Manager- There was a RV fire today at one of the RVs and a tree burnt down at Greer park. The electric and cable lines are fried. There are a swarm of cops and fire trucks. Not sure if anyone was hurt but I'm sure there was significant damage around the area. Who is taking responsibility for this mishap? Why are tax paying law abiding local residents exposed to the hazards of unsupervised and unregulated permanent RVs parked on city streets? Someone needs to be accountable and penalized for wasting tax payer dollars and putting lives at risk. What action is going to be taken to make sure this doesn't happen again? Do we need to take this to court to get an answer? Riley, pls cover the story. Ash On Oct 27, 2025, at 9:44 AM, Ash B <ashtradebiz@yahoo.com> wrote: Thank you Ed. This is a major concern. I will take pictures next time. Appreciate your attention. Ash On Oct 27, 2025, at 9:29 AM, Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Ash, I talked with the Assistant Chief about this. He sent officers out Saturday. They ticketed one vehicle for parking too close to a fire hydrant. At the time they went, there were no large propane tanks outside the RVs. The police are stepping up patrols in that area which is certainly needed. I will be announcing the ad hoc council committee early this week that will dig into this problem and will articulate solutions to the council as a whole. Ed Lauing Mayor Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 <image001.png> From: Ash B <ashtradebiz@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2025 10:45 AM To: McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; gavin.newsom@gov.ca.gov; governor@governor.ca.gov Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Riley Cooke <rcooke@embarcaderomedia.org>; STEVE GILBERT <sjgilbert99@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Ongoing Concerns Regarding RV Parking and Safety near Greer Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. And now.... we have more RVs parked there and some trailers with large propane tanks right outside. Not only the plea for child safety around kids crossing the roads during the games have fallen on deaf ears. Now there is an explosion and fire hazard with propane tanks. The inaction you all have showed is appalling. This is what "Democrats"do. They love "talking" about issues. Intelligent data points, eloquent speeches, appear empathetic but TOTAL INACTION. So so frustrating. No strong leadership That's why they keep losing. I regret being a democrat. Even the laws on the books don't get implemented. I am copying the governor's office. I know he is trying to be a little more centrist and hopefully will wake up the well paid beaureacrats of Palo Alto to do something about the dire situation. Thank you Ash On Aug 14, 2025, at 7:06 PM, Ash B <ashtradebiz@yahoo.com> wrote: Thank you Melissa. Appreciate your detailed response but I don't see any action taken in this matter. Is it possible to access records on the citations and towing records from the PA SPD? It's very frustrating to know that no action is taken and we need to continue to deliberate on this forever. What stops the RVs from taking over all the streets in the city? I'm sure there is something that can be done legally. I will write to the office of Gavin Newsom on this matter. Thank you On Aug 14, 2025, at 2:56 PM, McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your continued correspondence and for sharing your concerns regarding the RVs parked near Greer Park. I am responding on behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada. First and foremost, I want to acknowledge your frustration and concern—particularly regarding the safety and environmental impacts you’ve observed along Colorado Avenue and West Bayshore. The issues you raise around traffic safety, oil spills, unauthorized use of cones to block off street parking, and accumulated debris are all serious matters, and I want to assure you that there are not being taken lightly. The Palo Alto Police Department’s Special Problems Detail (SPD), has been monitoring this area. As you may know, SPD is responsible for addressing quality-of-life concerns related to vehicle dwellings and unhoused individuals. Officers have issued citations where appropriate and towed vehicles when legally permissible and logistically feasible. However, enforcement is often constrained by legal limitations, safety considerations when individuals are living in the vehicles, and the availability of appropriate towing and storage options. Finally, I want to acknowledge your sentiment about civic participation and accountability. We welcome your engagement in public meetings and policy discussions. As Councilmember Lu mentioned, the City Council Policy and Services Committee will be discussing policy options related to oversized vehicle parking and homelessness impacts at its special meeting on August 25. This will be an important opportunity for community members like yourself to share input and hear directly from City staff and elected officials about proposed strategies. While the challenges are complex, your feedback is important to informing balanced, lawful, and humane responses to these ongoing issues. Best regards, Melissa <image001.png>Melissa McDonough, MPP Assistant to the City Manager pronouns: she/her 650.329.2533 (desk) | 650.586.1557 (mobile) Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov <image002.png> 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:Jim Cowie To:Council, City Subject:El Dorado Ave Bike Tunnel Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 5:34:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council members, I write as a resident of El Dorado Avenue, 2 blocks from Alma. I support your idea for putting a bike tunnel under the train tracks at El Dorado. However, I strongly urge you to go with the option that puts the mouth of the tunnel on El Dorado, and blocking off the end of El Dorado at Alma. The other option, a traffic light on Alma, would be dangerous, especially for children, discourage the use of the tunnel (cyclists would have to wait for the light, and undoubtedly some would try to scoot across against a red - again, dangerous given the speeds on Alma), somewhat defeating its purpose, and would also interrupt traffic on Alma. We recognize that blocking off the end of El Dorado to vehicle traffic at Alma would force us to choose another route to/from Alma, but we are willing to make that tradeoff because of the safety benefit to cyclists using the tunnel. Thank you for your consideration. Jim Cowie This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast 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:upcomingsales@friendspaloaltolib.org To:Council, City Subject:December 2025 Members" Early Book Sale - Friends of the Palo Alto Library Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 11:54:06 AM BOOK SALE NEWSLETTER THIS WEEKEND AT CUBBERLEY Visit our web site CUBBERLEY USED BOOK SALES Saturday December 13 Main Room Members' Early Sale 9am - 11am Main Room General Sale 11am - 4pm Bargain Room 9:30am - 4pm Children's Room 10am - 4pm Popup Music Sale 10am - 2pm (outside Main Room) Sunday December 14 All Rooms 1pm - 4pm FEATURED IN DECEMBER Graphic Novels & Comic Books Cooking Computers Art 4000 Middlefield Road Palo Alto NE corner of the Cubberley Community Center (650) 213-8755 www.fopal.org Maps and Directions More information on the sales Donate your used books, DVDs, &c ALL NET PROCEEDS GO TO HELP PALO ALTO LIBRARIES Main Room In our Main Room, prices are way below what used book stores charge. Hardcover books start at $3 and softcover books start at only $2. NO NUMBERS WILL BE ISSUED FOR NON-MEMBERS FOR THIS SALE. IF YOU ARE NOT A FOPAL MEMBER SIMPLY SHOW UP AT 11AM. Please note that due to crowding during the first two hours of the Book Sale, no strollers, rolling carts, etc. can be brought into the Main Room. This is for the safety of shoppers and volunteers alike. By 12:30 or so, the crowd thins out and shoppers are welcome to bring these items into the sale. Children's Book Sale The Children's Room is located in the portable next to the soccer field near Greendell School. It is entirely filled with children's books and toys. You'll find picture books, school age fiction and non-fiction, fiction for teens, award winners, non-English titles, CDs and DVDs, and books for parents and teachers, many for 50 cents or $1. Strollers are welcome in the Children's Room at any time. Bargain Books in H-2 The Bargain Room is located in Rooms H-2 and H-3 of the Cubberley main campus, between our Main Room and Middlefield Road. On Saturday, paperbacks are $1, hardcovers are $2, and children's books are 50 cents each. The room also contains many records, the room opens at 1 pm and all prices are half off. Or, save even more on Sunday by buying green FOPAL reusable bags from us for $4/ea (or bring your own grocery-size reusable bag) and stuffing them with any items in the room for $5/bag. Fill four bags at $5/bag and fill a fifth bag FREE! Library News The Library (all branches) will close early at 5pm on Wednesday, December 24, and remain closed all day Thursday December 25 for the Christmas holiday. Mitchell Park and Rinconada branches will reopen on Friday December 26 at 10am. Downtown, College Park, and Children's Library will remain closed through Thursday January 1. Mitchell Park and Rinconada branches will close early again at 5pm on Wednesday, December 31, and remain closed all day Thursday January 1 for the New Year's holiday. The Library (all branches) will reopen on Friday January 2 at 10am. You could find out about these sorts of things in a slightly more timely manner by subscribing to the Library's mailing list. Like us, they send one or two messages per month, more usually one. There is also the Library's events calendar that has a lot besides when the Library is closed. You can find out about other things they want you to know from the Palo Alto City Library Blogs page. Or you can subscribe to them with an RSS reader. -Frank McConnell Dear Supporters In order to ensure the Library's ongoing ability to enhance its lending collection and to offer all the wonderful programs and events that enrich our community, FOPAL's annual grants to the Library are essential, and even more so in this time of fiscal uncertainty. As part of our annual appeal, please help us maintain the successful partnership between the local community and the library with a usually tax-deductible gift, at <https://fopal.org/donate-now>. The only way you can donate to the Library is through a gift to the Friends of the Palo Alto Library. If your employer has a matching gift program, please know that as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization we are generally eligible for such matching gifts. If you are interested in donating stock, please email <membership@fopal.org>. Thank you for your support! -Henry Yu, President, and the Board of Directors. Computer Section A massive donation filled our shelves! Look for a red cart holding books on Ruby/Rails, and a collection of books on designing, testing, and coding embedded systems. Our usual shelf of Linux/Unix admin books has spread to a second shelf, look for it below. And our shelf of Web Design and Cloud books also has an overflow shelf below. The AI/NLP shelf has several new additions, too. Sysadmins, don't overlook the security/hacking shelf in the far upper left; and at the opposite corner, the shelf of "All Other Languages" moved to shoe-top level to make room, but it's there, still alphabetical by Language from APL to Smalltalk. -David Cortesi Children's Room The holidays are upon us, and we still have boxes of beautiful books for Hanukkah and Christmas. You can't beat our prices anywhere, so help us clear out the boxes and complete your holiday shopping list. Featured in School-age Fiction this month, just in time: several gift-quality, beautifully illustrated classics--The Adventures of Pinocchio; A City of Wonder and A Kingdom Far and Clear, both written by Mark Helprin and illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg; The Wizard of Oz; and The Swiss Family Robinson. Also in the classics section you'll find a boxed set of The Black Stallion and a complete boxed set of The Chronicles of Narnia. For fantasy lovers there is a wonderfully illustrated Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and a complete boxed set of the Harry Potter series in paperback. Look on the Giftables shelves for lots of award winning hardback picture books, especially Caldecott medal winners and honor books, as well as many other favorite classic picture books. Our Dr. Seuss shelves have never been so loaded with full-size, gift-quality Seuss books, all titles. Nearby are DVDs galore, including holiday movies for family viewing over the school break. We have an abundance of beginning readers, as well as books for any new parents out there. Check out our Activities section for gifts and entertainment for the whole family. We have bags of Playmobil toys with a variety of themes. You'll find loads of board games, some in their original shrink-wrapping. Look through our jigsaw puzzle shelves for two puzzles with a Pokemon theme, as well as a Harry Potter lenticular puzzle. Choose from scads of stocking-stuffers including CDs (create your own playlists) and joke books. And don't miss our ever-overflowing graphic novels section, where almost all books are three dollars or less! In the World Languages section, the Spanish and Italian shelves are very well stocked, including some lovely holiday books. There are many books in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean as well. Non-fiction boasts a very eclectic collection this month--some interesting "Art" books and a chance to fill in your National Geographic hardbound single subject collection from a large selection being offered at half-price (50 cents each!). Under the front windows are loads of board books, pop-ups, and flap books for the youngest "readers," and if you're a fan of Eric Carle (and who doesn't love those bright colors and charming animals!), we have many of his books including a boxed dozen of little Eric Carle books, just right for small hands. You'll find them on the wooden bookshelf behind the round table. Holiday shopping in the Children's Room is rewarding, unhurried, easy on the budget, and parking is abundant and free. -Carolyn Davidson Children's Vintage It's the December sale and that means holiday books! Both Hanukah and Christmas, both religious and secular. Little kids' books are on the red cart, and older kids' books are above the vintage games. Many different editions of A Christmas Carol by Dickens! Vintage games and toys fill three shelves this month, including a handmade red wooden train, special holiday puzzle books and paper nativity scenes to put together. Even Snoopy gets in on the act with cut-out Peanuts character decorations. And if you're already tired of the holiday hype or want something special to give to someone special, we have a half shelf of Oz books by L. Frank Baum: one in delicate condition but with beautiful color plates by John R. Neil, eight paperback white versions and other miscellaneous editions. Shelf pictures are available for all of these items at www.fopalbooks.com. And you can find even more children's vintage books at our eBay store. -Lisa Heitman Politics With the season of giving quickly approaching, you may be wondering what to give to teenaged people, friends, family, and even teachers you appreciate this year. Thankfully, FOPAL has everything you need. Stop by the Politics section of the main room to pick up an elusive book by Jimmy Carter. Or select a book explaining how politics impact the very person you're planning on giving the book to. Although the possibilities are endless, the best place to start is the shelves. Politics are everywhere, and although sometimes not easy to understand, are crucial to people today. Get your dear ones started this holiday season, here in the Politics section of the Main Room. -Emma Chen Poetry December's gift is not the tree, But hearts unwrapped in harmony. Yet what is this we have in store: A shelf of poems all about war. But if this topic makes you sad, Try Berkeley poet Vinograd. And raise a glass to Christmas then For peace on earth, good will towards men. https://fopalbooks.com/poetry.html -Mandy MacCalla Puzzles and Games Just in time for Christmas gifts and gatherings, along with full shelves we have 10 puzzles still in their original wrappers, 4 lovely wood puzzles, 2 Jiggy/Anthropology art puzzle gift boxes and for the first time ever, 14 puzzles of 1500, 2000, and yes--5,000 pieces. In Games, old favorites like Clue, Monopoly, Scrabble, Pento, Boggle, Apples to Apples, and Yahtzee are featured. Get here early for the Chinese Mahjong set! -Vicky Evans Home & Crafts 'Tis the season - we have several holiday gift ideas for you! On the top shelf the Craft books include jewelry designing, watercoloring, and Japanese paper sculpting among other titles. Across the way are wintery knitting resources for scarves, hats, and bags. You'll find origami birds to create and coloring books for drawing. This month we have a bundle of books on floral design for all your festive table decorating. Look for a slew of sewing, crocheting, needlepoint, and embroidery guides. For that perfect handmade gift we feature the five-volume collection, Quilting Lovers' Favorites from Better Homes and Gardens. On the Beauty shelf try Terms of Adornment: The Ultimate Guide to Accessories. For that stylish person in your life, look in Fashion for Isaac Mizrahi's autobiography, the biography of Diana Vreeland, as well as Elsa Schiaparelli by Palmer White. For all those holiday parties, How to Get Dressed might come in handy. Need a few holiday decorating ideas? New Home titles include: Christmas with Martha Stewart Living and The Best of Martha Stewart Living: Handmade Christmas. For a more modern take on entertaining try Real Simple: Celebrations. Hard to get organized? We feature several titles for organizing your home, and for storage once the decorations come down. Dreaming of far away places for your home inspiration? Regional styles come from Sweden, England, France, and Greece, and range from farmhouses to the seaside. eShelf photos can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Antiques & Collections In the month of December it's all about our childhood past. One favorite title is The Collector's Guide to 20th Century Toys. Another is The Collector's Encyclopedia of Toys & Dolls. We also display several books on model trains including Lionel: A Century of Timeless Toy Trains. We received a gift from the Museum of American Heritage of several books on the history of the typewriter. New this month is Fabergé Eggs, a beautiful oversized showcase of these amazing jeweled objects. In case you missed it, the book on Nutcrackers is still available for this holiday season. eShelf photo can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Sociology/Anthropology The 683 books in the Sociology/Anthropology section range from foundational texts on social behavior, class systems, and political change to contemporary works on gender, race, labor, and social movements. Many volumes are academic--thick reference works, theory syntheses, and university-press publications--while others offer accessible insights into human culture, identity, belief systems, and the structures that shape society. Together, the books of this section reflect a deep intellectual curiosity about how people live, organize, believe, adapt, and create meaning across time. For example, a well-known Kindred American history, following a modern Black woman pulled into the era of slavery. Butler uses fiction to probe race, power, trauma, and memory--making it a staple in discussions of identity, social structure, and generational impact. Another work--New Power by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms--examines how influence has shifted in the digital age. Instead of centralized authority and tightly controlled institutions ("old power"), power now spreads through networks, participation, and collective movement. The authors explore social media activism, online communities, and the reshaping of politics and business, illustrating how modern power operates more like a current than a currency. It's a thoughtful, accessible read for anyone studying contemporary culture, social influence, or modern leadership. Judaica Browse the Judaica section for books on the Jewish religion and culture including editions of the Torah and other basic texts, Kabbalah, Jewish history, the Holocaust, memoirs, Israel, Jewish Women, the Jewish American Experience and other related subjects. Special this month - Shiksa: The Gentile Woman in the Jewish World Rock 'n' roll Jews The Fugu Plan: the untold story of the Japanese and the Jews during World War II Thirteen Days in September: Carter, Begin, and Sadat at Camp David Tablets Shattered: The End of an American Jewish Century and the Future of Jewish Life Love Your Neighbor and Yourself: A Jewish Approach to Modern Personal Ethics Most fiction with Jewish themes will be found in Modern Literature/Classics or Current Fiction. Books entirely in Hebrew are shelved in the European Languages section. Shelf photos at <https://fopalbooks.com/judaica.html> -Charlotte Epstein, Judaica Section Manager Music CDs Once again the CD section will be offering SEALED - still in original Manufacturer's shrink wrap - CDs for sale at the December sale. These items will be priced at a fraction (1/4 to 1/3) of similar items on Amazon or eBay. Come check it out for possible Christmas gifts. Make it look as if you bought someone something new, not used, for "used" prices. -John, the CD Guy Curious Books Curious Books presents for December a varied selection of small books suitable for stocking stuffers. Poetry, humor, and non-fiction on varied topics, are all available in the small size. We also have larger books from decades past, coloring books, pet books, and plenty of books for all sorts of readers. -Donya White Humor In the run up to the holidays there's a gift for everyone in this month's year end Humor sale. On the top shelf we have our largest ever offering of cartoon books, 45 in all. This includes 16 titles from the New Yorker Cartoon series, three of which are the Complete Cartoons and one of which is still sealed and therefore in perfect condition. On the second shelf we have a bumper collection of P. G. Wodehouse, 16 in all, four of which are collections in tomes. Sharing the shelf in the same vein we have several Monty Python books, John Cleese's very funny autobiography, and other examples of British humor. Rounding out the shelf from this side of the pond we have seven books by Sedaris, all in very good condition. Happy Holidays from the Humor Department. -Nigel Jones Self Help/Personal Growth There are 4 full shelves of 'Popular on Amazon' books. Featured are: The Almanack of Naval Ravikant: A Guide to Wealth & Happiness; 10-25-Motivating Young People (2024); Book of Awakening (20th anniversary ed.); Visual Intelligence, Mind Mapping. There's still copies of The Prism (2025). Within the 4 shelves of 'New Arrivals' is a sub-section with 28 new Addiction books. Browsing is great fun, yet sometimes you want to find a specific book. To make that easier for you, each month after the sale, I go through the 'New Arrivals' and move books that I can into the sub-sections. Be sure to check out those 2 bays! The New Year is coming and you will find Workbooks (some with a matching book) and Journals to foster Your Personal Growth. Peace to All and Joyful Browsing, -Marnie Music Pop Up Sale A ton of new releases will be featured in our Music Pop Up Sale this month. Please plan to stop by our tables outside of the Main Room Entrance starting at 10am. -George Chaltas, Music Sales Mitchell Park Store We've ramped up for the holidays and tried to have the best and most interesting selection of books for your last minute shopping particularly if you are unable to make the December sale. For those of you who missed "Snowbabies" we are selling them at $4.00 and they are going fast. We also have a selection of Stocking Stuffers priced at $2.00 each. Most are small books that are perfect for a stocking. Remember we are open whenever Mitchell Park Library is open and that includes up to 5:00 pm on Christmas Eve! Happy Holidays and Happy Shopping from all the Library Stores, Mitchell Park, Rinconada & Downtown. -Suzanne Little SF&F and Comics In Science Fiction and Fantasy, standouts include hardcover boxed sets of The Lord of the Rings and a fat omnibus collection of Le Guin's Earthsea stories, with illustrations by Charles Vess. Over in the Horror/About SF bookcase, look for a mini-collection of works by Colin Wilson, including copies of his Lovecraftian "Space Vampires" under multiple titles and multiple volumes of his paranormal investigations. In Graphic Novels, Comics, and Manga, lots of Marvel and DC superhero volumes, and several issues of the long-running British "2000AD" weekly magazine-size comics (probably best known in the US for the Judge Dredd character.) Shelf pictures at fopalbooks.com. -Rich McAllister History Books make great presents? It's not too late to buy some history books in good to very good condition for the amateur or professional historians on your list! History had a number of donations this month. If you or your friends enjoyed Burns' American Revolution, check the US History shelf for books about that era and some of the people involved. For the professional historian or anyone interested in early English history, there's a complete set of The Lisle Letters, in very good condition. There's also a collection of small volumes - great stocking stuffers! - on the red cart. Note: there were so many donations this past month in US and European history that some of the shelves have been rearranged. -Lin McAllister Nature As we close out 2025, we should start reflecting on what we want 2026 to look like. Maybe it's starting a vegetable garden, or getting into birdwatching or visiting more parks or adopting a pet. You can find all these subjects in the nature section, which is filled to the brim this month. For anyone looking for holiday gifts, Audubon field guides and laminated pamphlets make great stocking stuffers. And no matter what section you visit, physical media matters more than ever. No electricity, no data centers, no subscription needed. They can't take your books, CDs and DVDs away from you. -Serena Bramble Donations We accept donations on Monday through Saturday from 3-5 pm in the Main Room, with extended hours on Saturday so that we are open for donations from 1-5 pm that day. But we close to donations in the week before the sale so that we can prepare the Main Room for the sale, which means that we are closed for donations from Sunday December 7 through Sunday December 14. Please hold your donations until Monday December 15. We will also be closed on Thursday December 25 and Thursday January 1 for the Christmas and New Years holidays. Please read our donation guidelines before you bring materials to us. Also look at that page if you need to bring us a donation larger than six boxes or outside our usual donation times, it has information on scheduling appointments and requesting a pickup. Suggestions? We're always eager to hear your suggestions for ways to improve our book sale. Please email us at suggestions@friendspaloaltolib.org. This notice comes to you from the non-profit organization Friends of the Palo Alto Library. No trees were felled in the making of this e-mail. Visit our web site. Become a member by joining online. Be sure to receive your own free copy of this e-mail notice so that you'll know about all special upcoming books sales. To sign up, just e-mail us. We carefully protect the privacy of your e-mail address. We will not share your e-mail address with any other organization and we will not use it for any purpose other than to send you these notices. If you do not wish to receive these e-mail notices in the future, please reply with the words "Remove Me" in the first line of the text. 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:Benjamin David Goldberg To:Stump, Molly Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 1:48:59 PM Attachments:image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The account she blocked members of our community on is her official city council woman instagram. Her personal instagram is jlythcotthaims. The image below julieforpaloalto instagram has councilmeber as her title in the name. People were blocked on her council member instagram and that is illegal On Tuesday, December 9, 2025, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Goldberg – Please be advised that Ms. Lythcott-Haims did not engage in any unlawful activity with respect to managing access to her Instagram account. Last year the Supreme Court held that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, and therefore can be held liable for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics, only when (1) they have the power to speak on behalf of the government and (2) are actually exercising that power. Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). Under Lindke, it is clear that Lythcott-Haims’ Instagram account is a personal account and that she retains discretion to determine content and access to the site. Regards, Molly Stump MOLLY S. STUMP This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast City Attorney Office of the City Attorney (650) 329 - 2171 | Molly.Stump@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Benjamin David Goldberg <goldbergbenjamindavid@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:00 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I am writing to formally raise concerns regarding recent actions by Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims and to request that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next City Hall meeting. 1. Blocking a Community Member Online After Political Disagreement A Palo Alto resident recently reported being blocked by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims on social media after expressing disagreement about her visit to a local school. As established in multiple federal court rulings, elected officials may not block constituents from public-facing social media accounts in retaliation for political criticism or disagreement. This raises serious First Amendment concerns, and I believe the City must address this publicly. I am requesting that the Board review this incident and require accountability for any improper blocking of community members. Residents deserve equal access to their representatives, even—and especially—when they disagree. Julie must take immediate action and unblock members of our community on her official julieforpaloalto instagram account. 2. Clarification Regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ Visit to a School Campus I also request clarification regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ recent appearance at a Palo Alto elementary school. My understanding was that she had stepped away from school-related assignments, and many parents were surprised to learn she was addressing students. Parents deserve transparency regarding: • The purpose of her visit, • In what official or unofficial capacity she attended, • Who authorized the visit, and • Whether this complies with the promises she made after her recent scandal came out. Given the concerns raised by families, many parents do not feel comfortable with her returning to school grounds. 3. Request for Public Discussion at the Next City Hall Meeting Because this issue involves parental trust, children’s school environments, and constitutional rights, it is essential that it be discussed openly. I respectfully request that the Board formally address this matter at the next City Hall meeting and provide the community with a clear explanation of the City’s stance and next steps. Thank you for your attention and for ensuring that Palo Alto’s elected officials uphold both legal obligations and community expectations. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ben From:JACQUELINE ADAMS To:Council, City Subject:Scholastic interview request with deadline Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 1:24:05 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 a writer working on assignment for Scholastic’s SCIENCE WORLD, a classroom magazine read by students in grades 6-10. The article I’m researching will focus on the debate over the health and environmental effects of artificial turf. We’d like to explain both sides of the issue to our young readers, and we’re hoping to include the experience of a community that is in the process of choosing between artificial turf and natural grass. I understand that you’re facing this decision with El Camino Park. I’m hoping that you’d be willing to tell my young readers about the pros and the cons that you’re weighing about both artificial turf and natural grass. Would it be possible to schedule a brief interview with one or more of you? We could talk over Zoom, the telephone, or another way that’s convenient for you. Because I’m on deadline, we would need to talk by December 29, but of course sooner would be better. Please let me know whether or not you’ll be able to help. Thanks very much for your time. I hope that I can hear back from you soon. Sincerely, Jacqueline Adams Jacqueline Adams Freelance Writer New Middletown, Ohio USA +1 724-510-6659 jac.adams@comcast.net www.jacqueline-adams.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Jacob Ozeran To:Council, City Cc:Shree Dharasker Subject:340 Portage Ave File 23143 Conceptual Plan Review Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 9:05:04 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: City of Palo Alto Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the mailed notice of the 11/17/2025 City of Palo Alto (City) council meeting and agenda packet to discuss a conceptual affordable housing project on land to be dedicated to the City and associated with the Sobrato Development Agreement at 340 Portage Ave, received on November 10, 2025, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water has a flood control easement on Matadero Creek that flows through the proposed development. In accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, any construction on or adjacent to Valley Water right of way will need an encroachment permit. 2. It should be noted that according to the 2023 Environmental Impact Report (EIR), any project that exceeds 75 units, as indicated in the current project notification, will require either an addendum to the EIR or a supplemental EIR document. Please ensure that the appropriate environmental review documentation is prepared and submitted as the project advances. We also request to be notified of any updates or new developments related to the EIR and the project’s environmental review process. 3. In addition, the conceptual plans show a proposed bridge crossing over Matadero Creek. Construction of the bridge will require the acquisition of building rights and an encroachment permit from Valley Water. 4. The proposed site is in FEMA Zone X (1 % Annual Discharge Flood Contained in Structure). 5. Valley Water records indicate that 2 active wells are located on the subject property. If the wells will continue to be used following permitted activity, they must be protected so that they do not become lost or damaged during completion of permitted activity. If the wells will not be used following permitted activity, they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water. Valley Water records indicate that 9 properly destroyed wells are located on the subject property. Because the wells are considered properly destroyed, no action is necessary to protect them or to bring them into compliance with the Valley Water Well Ordinance. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, it is always possible that a well exists that is not in Valley Water’s records. If previously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development, they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registered with Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please call Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. Please feel free to reach out if there are any questions or further clarification is needed. Thank you, JACOB OZERAN Pronouns: He/Him Engineering Intern Office of Community Projects Review JOzeran@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-XXXX Cell. (559) 289-1559 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 www.valleywater.org Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection From:Nancy Krop To:Council, City Cc:board@pausd.org; council@paloaltopta.org; advocacy@paloaltopta.org Subject:2100 Geng Road Housing Application Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:40:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, As you consider the 2100 Geng Road housing application, please keep the safety of the children who will be walking and biking to and from our schools at the forefront of discussions. Children don’t commute to and from school just at the school start and end times. There are student activities before and after school - sports practices and games, music (orchestra, band, jazz, wind ensemble, choir, etc.) rehearsals and concerts, theater rehearsals and shows, numerous club meetings, dances, etc. The safety of those children, walking and biking to and from school, must be a key component of any development plan. Thank you Nancy Krop Palo Alto resident Sent from my iPhone From:Ira Wygant To:Lauing, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:Please keep the synthetic turf at El Camino Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 11:18:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Mayor Lauing, I have lived in Palo Alto and neighboring cities since 1999, when I moved here to attend Stanford. Now I live in the Palo Verde neighborhood and have two kids who attend Hoover Elementary. I play soccer, as do my two kids. I want the City to keep the turf field at El Camino. I play soccer there with the Palo Alto Adult Soccer League, and my son plays there with the Stanford Strikers. Turf fields like Mayfield and El Camino are in much better condition than grass fields such as those at JLS. Furthermore, turf fields are essential for playing in the rainy season. Without access to turf fields, we would struggle with finding childcare during canceled practices or long commutes to turf fields in neighboring cities. Accessible sporting venues are critical to our community's health. We need to care for our environment, but eliminating highly utilized fields built with modern technology is not the best use of our city's resources to protect it. Kind regards, Ira Wygant Palo Alto Resident and Engineer This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report 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:carl van wey To:Council, City Cc:carl.vanwey@gmail.com; carl.vanwey@comcast.net; bethfrz@gmail.com Subject:parking on Lincoln ave Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 6:45:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Please pass on to the appropriate departments, that parking on both sides of Lincoln ave, between University and Hamilton, should be restricted to one side only. This portion of Lincoln ave. is much narrower than other portions of Lincoln and does not provide sufficient room for 2 opposing vehicles to pass through safely without temporarily pausing behind a parked car, if any space exists. With heavy traffic on University and Lincoln, people are driving on the wrong side of Lincoln to make any progress, which of course is very dangerous. It also creates a traffic jam at Lincoln and University when cars turning south onto Lincoln from University are unable to proceed due to cars unable to pass side by side on Lincoln due to limited street width. Thank you for your consideration, Carl Van Wey, MD Elizabeth Fraze, MD 1425 University ave 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:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:December 10, 2025 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting, Agenda Item #2: 2200-2400 Geng Road [24PLN-00356][24PLN-00357] Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 4:40:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. DECEMBER 10, 2025 PLANNING AND TRANSPORATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ITEM #2: 2200-2400 GENG ROAD [24PLN--00356][24PLN-00357] I urge you to not consider this agenda item, because theArchitectural Review Board (ARB) meeting of October 16, 2025 onthis application occurred before the application was deemedcomplete on October 23, 2025. If staff wanted the ARB to consider the proposed project beforean application was filed, the staff should have processed theproposed project as a Preliminary ARB application. Although the streamlined review process may exempt you fromconsidering the impact of the Airport Influence Area and thenoise from aircraft operating next to and over the proposedproject, all of the negative environmental impacts from theairport should have been disclosed by staff to the applicant,because the proximity of the airport use may negatively affectthe financial viability of the project. The failure of staff to notify the applicant of the extent towhich that the effects the airport use might have on thefinancial viability of the project could make the City liablefor extensive damages should the applicant conclude thatstaff's decision to keep the applicant in the dark about howthe airport's negative effect on the project was the cause ofthe applicant being unable to market the condominiums he wantsto build. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock 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:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:December 10, 2025 Council Appomted Officer Committee (CAO) Meeting, Agenda Item #1: CAO Evaluation Process Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 2:11:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. DECEMBER 10, 2025 COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICER (CAO) COMMITTEEMEETING AGEGNDA ITEM #1: CAO EVALUATION PROCESSS The recommendation regarding the Council appointed OfficerPerformance Evaluation Process omits from the proposed scheduleat what time the CAO Committee and the City Council know whatthey and each Council Appointed Officer have agreed to aboutthe Goals and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) they will beusing to evaluate each CAO. Those agreed on Goals and KPIs should be available before theCity Council and CAO Committee go into Closed Session toevaluate each Council Appointed Officer. Prior to going into Closed Session, the public is given anopportunity to speak to the Council and CAO Committee abouteach CAOs performance. Therefore, the agreed to Goals and KPIs for each CAO should beincluded in the Agenda Packet for the Closed Session meetingand available at the meeting, so that the press and public cancomment on each CAOs performance with remarks relevant to thecriteria that the Council and CAO Committee are using toevaluate the CAOs. The Timeline for the Evaluation Process should include the datewhen the the Goals and KPIs will be made pubicly available toenable the press and public to participate meaningfully in theOpen Session period before the Council and CAO Committee usethose evaluation criteria to make their evaluations. I continue to be concerned that the method of individualCouncil Member interviews with the consultant Dan Rich mayviolate the prohibition on Dan Rich helping the Council and CAOCommittee take an action outside of a publicly noticed meetingrequired by the Ralph M. Brown Act, which was the way hehabitually acted when he was Mountain View City Manager and metwith each Council Member individually prior to an agendizedmeeting and told Council Members whether their proposed actionswould pass or fail based on his knowledge obtained fromindividual members, and also told the individual proponents ofactions how they should amend their proposls to ensure theywould get a majority vote in a properly schedule meeting. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock. From:Aditya Sethuraman To:Council, City Subject:Urging you to keep the Synthetic Turf Fields in Palo Alto going Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 2:08:42 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 City Council, I am a Palo Alto resident and homeowner, living in the Greenmeadow neighborhood near Cubberley and parent of 2 youth soccer players at Palo Alto Soccer Club, and I am writing to urge you to maintain, and where possible, improve synthetic turf fields in our city rather than removing them or reducing their footprint. I was notified that the Council is considering eliminating some of the turf fields and I just wonder what my kids will do for their soccer training if that happens Our family relies on fields like El Camino Park, Mayfield, and Cubberley for practices, games, and camps throughout the year. Without turf, many of these activities would be cancelled or pushed outside Palo Alto, which would hurt us directly - not to mention several other families. Already the cubberley grass fields are fenced up - if the turf is eliminated where will our kids play soccer? I am not going to pretend to know what better alternatives exist for a plan forward - but I can tell you that removing these turf fields without adequate replacements is going to make it really really tough for us to continue supporting our kids' soccer plans As a parent, what matters most is that children in Palo Alto have safe, reliable, nearby places to play. Synthetic turf has been crucial in delivering that, especially during winter and in the face of limited land and water resources. Please keep it as a core part of the city’s field strategy and avoid actions that would reduce field capacity without a realistic and funded replacement plan. Thank you for your service to the community and for considering the needs of families like ours in this important decision. With warm regards, --Aditya Sethuraman Greenmeadow Neighborhood This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Parent of PASC players - Arjun (10) and Vikram (7) From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:We Must Extend the ACA Tax Credits Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 1:04:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. HEALTH CARE Should Congress postpone other legislative business until it acts to extend the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for millions? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Dear City, As we head into another week of votes in Washington, Congress still hasn’t charted a clear path forward on extending the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans. Even if Speaker Johnson won’t take the steps needed to keep families insured, I’m working across the aisle to get the job done. My bipartisan Fix It Act has gained six more cosponsors since my last update—including Bay Area Rep. Ro Khanna. It remains the only bipartisan plan to extend the ACA tax credits for two years and fully pay for it. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently analyzed every proposal on the table and found ours was the only one that saves taxpayers money—$90 billion over the next decade. I’ll keep building this coalition because there’s no shortage of ideas on how to move forward. Whatever the final solution looks like, I will keep fighting for it to be paid for and deficit- reducing. If you’d like to learn more about Fix It and the work we’re doing, you can listen to my recent conversation with Julie Mason on Sirius XM’s POTUS. Pressure Creating Results Cities across the country rely on the Continuum of Care (CoC) program to fund permanent supportive housing—helping people at highest risk of homelessness stay housed with the services they need. Recently, the Trump Administration announced plans to cut billions from CoC’s permanent supportive housing funds. I pushed back immediately—leading a coalition of 32 colleagues to demand answers and highlight the severe consequences these cuts would have. Gutting a proven program and adding new barriers to housing support would have put more than 2,300 people in our community—and 170,000 Americans nationwide—at risk of homelessness. After significant pressure from us and the states, local governments and non profits that filed lawsuits challenging the rule, we just received word that the Administration has reversed course. This is a victory for common sense and for the thousands of families who rely on CoC to stay safe and stable—including neighbors like Kaytana, a young mother who recently moved into an apartment with the help of CoC funds. Today, she can breathe easier knowing her housing isn’t suddenly in jeopardy. Video Photo Finish This holiday season, too many of our neighbors are facing food insecurity—from delayed SNAP/CalFresh benefits to the lingering impacts of the government shutdown. That’s why the work of organizations like Martha’s Kitchen matters more than ever. I stopped by this Thanksgiving to help prepare hot meals for families across San José, and I encourage you to lend a hand if you’re able. Our community is strongest when we show up for the people who show up for our neighbors. Learn how you can volunteer with Martha’s Kitchen here. It’s an honor to represent you, and I look forward to connecting again soon. Onward, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:We Must Extend the ACA Tax Credits Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 1:03:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. HEALTH CARE Should Congress postpone other legislative business until it acts to extend the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for millions? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Dear Council,, As we head into another week of votes in Washington, Congress still hasn’t charted a clear path forward on extending the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans. Even if Speaker Johnson won’t take the steps needed to keep families insured, I’m working across the aisle to get the job done. My bipartisan Fix It Act has gained six more cosponsors since my last update—including Bay Area Rep. Ro Khanna. It remains the only bipartisan plan to extend the ACA tax credits for two years and fully pay for it. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently analyzed every proposal on the table and found ours was the only one that saves taxpayers money—$90 billion over the next decade. I’ll keep building this coalition because there’s no shortage of ideas on how to move forward. Whatever the final solution looks like, I will keep fighting for it to be paid for and deficit- reducing. If you’d like to learn more about Fix It and the work we’re doing, you can listen to my recent conversation with Julie Mason on Sirius XM’s POTUS. Pressure Creating Results Cities across the country rely on the Continuum of Care (CoC) program to fund permanent supportive housing—helping people at highest risk of homelessness stay housed with the services they need. Recently, the Trump Administration announced plans to cut billions from CoC’s permanent supportive housing funds. I pushed back immediately—leading a coalition of 32 colleagues to demand answers and highlight the severe consequences these cuts would have. Gutting a proven program and adding new barriers to housing support would have put more than 2,300 people in our community—and 170,000 Americans nationwide—at risk of homelessness. After significant pressure from us and the states, local governments and non profits that filed lawsuits challenging the rule, we just received word that the Administration has reversed course. This is a victory for common sense and for the thousands of families who rely on CoC to stay safe and stable—including neighbors like Kaytana, a young mother who recently moved into an apartment with the help of CoC funds. Today, she can breathe easier knowing her housing isn’t suddenly in jeopardy. Video Photo Finish This holiday season, too many of our neighbors are facing food insecurity—from delayed SNAP/CalFresh benefits to the lingering impacts of the government shutdown. That’s why the work of organizations like Martha’s Kitchen matters more than ever. I stopped by this Thanksgiving to help prepare hot meals for families across San José, and I encourage you to lend a hand if you’re able. Our community is strongest when we show up for the people who show up for our neighbors. Learn how you can volunteer with Martha’s Kitchen here. It’s an honor to represent you, and I look forward to connecting again soon. Onward, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. 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:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:We Must Extend the ACA Tax Credits Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 11:59:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. HEALTH CARE Should Congress postpone other legislative business until it acts to extend the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for millions? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Dear City, As we head into another week of votes in Washington, Congress still hasn’t charted a clear path forward on extending the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans. Even if Speaker Johnson won’t take the steps needed to keep families insured, I’m working across the aisle to get the job done. My bipartisan Fix It Act has gained six more cosponsors since my last update—including Bay Area Rep. Ro Khanna. It remains the only bipartisan plan to extend the ACA tax credits for two years and fully pay for it. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently analyzed every proposal on the table and found ours was the only one that saves taxpayers money—$90 billion over the next decade. I’ll keep building this coalition because there’s no shortage of ideas on how to move forward. Whatever the final solution looks like, I will keep fighting for it to be paid for and deficit- reducing. If you’d like to learn more about Fix It and the work we’re doing, you can listen to my recent conversation with Julie Mason on Sirius XM’s POTUS. Pressure Creating Results Cities across the country rely on the Continuum of Care (CoC) program to fund permanent supportive housing—helping people at highest risk of homelessness stay housed with the services they need. Recently, the Trump Administration announced plans to cut billions from CoC’s permanent supportive housing funds. I pushed back immediately—leading a coalition of 32 colleagues to demand answers and highlight the severe consequences these cuts would have. Gutting a proven program and adding new barriers to housing support would have put more than 2,300 people in our community—and 170,000 Americans nationwide—at risk of homelessness. After significant pressure from us and the states, local governments and non profits that filed lawsuits challenging the rule, we just received word that the Administration has reversed course. This is a victory for common sense and for the thousands of families who rely on CoC to stay safe and stable—including neighbors like Kaytana, a young mother who recently moved into an apartment with the help of CoC funds. Today, she can breathe easier knowing her housing isn’t suddenly in jeopardy. Video Photo Finish This holiday season, too many of our neighbors are facing food insecurity—from delayed SNAP/CalFresh benefits to the lingering impacts of the government shutdown. That’s why the work of organizations like Martha’s Kitchen matters more than ever. I stopped by this Thanksgiving to help prepare hot meals for families across San José, and I encourage you to lend a hand if you’re able. Our community is strongest when we show up for the people who show up for our neighbors. Learn how you can volunteer with Martha’s Kitchen here. It’s an honor to represent you, and I look forward to connecting again soon. Onward, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:We Must Extend the ACA Tax Credits Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 11:56:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. HEALTH CARE Should Congress postpone other legislative business until it acts to extend the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for millions? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Dear Council,, As we head into another week of votes in Washington, Congress still hasn’t charted a clear path forward on extending the ACA tax credits that keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans. Even if Speaker Johnson won’t take the steps needed to keep families insured, I’m working across the aisle to get the job done. My bipartisan Fix It Act has gained six more cosponsors since my last update—including Bay Area Rep. Ro Khanna. It remains the only bipartisan plan to extend the ACA tax credits for two years and fully pay for it. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently analyzed every proposal on the table and found ours was the only one that saves taxpayers money—$90 billion over the next decade. I’ll keep building this coalition because there’s no shortage of ideas on how to move forward. Whatever the final solution looks like, I will keep fighting for it to be paid for and deficit- reducing. If you’d like to learn more about Fix It and the work we’re doing, you can listen to my recent conversation with Julie Mason on Sirius XM’s POTUS. Pressure Creating Results Cities across the country rely on the Continuum of Care (CoC) program to fund permanent supportive housing—helping people at highest risk of homelessness stay housed with the services they need. Recently, the Trump Administration announced plans to cut billions from CoC’s permanent supportive housing funds. I pushed back immediately—leading a coalition of 32 colleagues to demand answers and highlight the severe consequences these cuts would have. Gutting a proven program and adding new barriers to housing support would have put more than 2,300 people in our community—and 170,000 Americans nationwide—at risk of homelessness. After significant pressure from us and the states, local governments and non profits that filed lawsuits challenging the rule, we just received word that the Administration has reversed course. This is a victory for common sense and for the thousands of families who rely on CoC to stay safe and stable—including neighbors like Kaytana, a young mother who recently moved into an apartment with the help of CoC funds. Today, she can breathe easier knowing her housing isn’t suddenly in jeopardy. Video Photo Finish This holiday season, too many of our neighbors are facing food insecurity—from delayed SNAP/CalFresh benefits to the lingering impacts of the government shutdown. That’s why the work of organizations like Martha’s Kitchen matters more than ever. I stopped by this Thanksgiving to help prepare hot meals for families across San José, and I encourage you to lend a hand if you’re able. Our community is strongest when we show up for the people who show up for our neighbors. Learn how you can volunteer with Martha’s Kitchen here. It’s an honor to represent you, and I look forward to connecting again soon. Onward, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. 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:Aram James To:Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc:Human Relations Commission; Council, City Subject:Hundreds of Santa Clara County families face displacement - San José Spotlight Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 6:15:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://sanjosespotlight.com/hundreds-of-santa-clara-county-families-face-displacement/ 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:Jen Hong To:Council, City Subject:Impact of Parking Fee Increases on Stanford Healthcare Workers Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 11:59:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto Council Members, I am writing this as a healthcare worker at Stanford Health to express deep concern about the continued rise in parking fees at Stanford University-owned lots used by Stanford Health staff. Although Stanford Health relies on these parking spaces, Stanford Health has no control over the price increases, and the impacts on employees have become significant and unsustainable. In 2023, the parking permit cost $133. As of December 2025, it has increased to $155. This is a 16.5% increase in just two years. At this rate, I am paying $1,860 per year simply to park at my workplace. And that is only if Stanford University does not keep raising the price. For many of us, we are literally paying to work. I purchased one of the most expensive permits, Permit A, because as someone who works late- shifts, it is the only permit that still offers an available spot. Staff who work evenings and on- call shifts face a particularly difficult situation. While Stanford Health has made some efforts to support transportation, such as offering carpool incentives and free transit options, these programs are often not feasible for everyone. Many employees commute 40+ miles each way. In my case, I often take on-call shifts and may not leave work until midnight or later. On-call staff must be able to arrive within 30 minutes, often at unpredictable hours. Under these conditions, public transportation, carpooling, and alternative commuting programs are frequently impractical. I respectfully urge the Palo Alto City Council to work with Stanford University and Stanford Health to address this serious matter. Possible solutions could include limiting annual fee increases and providing more parking spots. Essential workers should not have to bear rising and uncontrollable costs simply to arrive at their jobs on time. This is a serious matter affecting the people who truly care for this community every day. Please take action to support a fair and practical solution. Best, Jen Hong This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report 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:Arika Miller Subject:You’re Invited: City Council Reorganization Meeting Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 6:48:24 PM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good evening, The Town of Los Altos Hills invites you to join us for the City Council Reorganization Meeting, which will take place on Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 6 PM, in the Council Chambers at 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022. Please feel free to share this invitation with your elected officials. We look forward to seeing you there. This message needs your attention The subject has non-English characters. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Kind regards, Arika Birdsong-Miller, CMC City Clerk Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 P: 650-823-0055 | F: 650-941-3160 E: amiller@losaltoshills.ca.gov Stay Informed Sign up to take Town Surveys! From:Stump, Molly To:Benjamin David Goldberg; Council, City Subject:RE: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 5:45:12 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Dear Mr. Goldberg – Please be advised that Ms. Lythcott-Haims did not engage in any unlawful activity with respect to managing access to her Instagram account. Last year the Supreme Court held that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, and therefore can be held liable for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics, only when (1) they have the power to speak on behalf of the government and (2) are actually exercising that power. Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). Under Lindke, it is clear that Lythcott-Haims’ Instagram account is a personal account and that she retains discretion to determine content and access to the site. Regards, Molly Stump MOLLY S. STUMP City Attorney Office of the City Attorney (650) 329 - 2171 | Molly.Stump@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Benjamin David Goldberg <goldbergbenjamindavid@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:00 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I am writing to formally raise concerns regarding recent actions by Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims and to request that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next City Hall meeting. 1. Blocking a Community Member Online After Political Disagreement A Palo Alto res This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. i Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Hello, I am writing to formally raise concerns regarding recent actions by Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims and to request that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next City Hall meeting. 1. Blocking a Community Member Online After Political Disagreement A Palo Alto resident recently reported being blocked by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims on social media after expressing disagreement about her visit to a local school. As established in multiple federal court rulings, elected officials may not block constituents from public-facing social media accounts in retaliation for political criticism or disagreement. This raises serious First Amendment concerns, and I believe the City must address this publicly. I am requesting that the Board review this incident and require accountability for any improper blocking of community members. Residents deserve equal access to their representatives, even—and especially—when they disagree. Julie must take immediate action and unblock members of our community on her official julieforpaloalto instagram account. 2. Clarification Regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ Visit to a School Campus I also request clarification regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ recent appearance at a Palo Alto elementary school. My understanding was that she had stepped away from school- related assignments, and many parents were surprised to learn she was addressing students. Parents deserve transparency regarding: • The purpose of her visit, • In what official or unofficial capacity she attended, • Who authorized the visit, and • Whether this complies with the promises she made after her recent scandal came out. Given the concerns raised by families, many parents do not feel comfortable with Powered by Mimecast 3. Request for Public Discussion at the Next City Hall Meeting Because this issue involves parental trust, children’s school environments, and constitutional rights, it is essential that it be discussed openly. I respectfully request that the Board formally address this matter at the next City Hall meeting and provide the community with a clear explanation of the City’s stance and next steps. Thank you for your attention and for ensuring that Palo Alto’s elected officials uphold both legal obligations and community expectations. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ben 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:Star Teachout To:Switzer, Steven Cc:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; John King; Council, City Subject:3606 ECR Driveway already exists Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 4:08:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Steven, I assume you already know this, but there is probably no need for an encroachment permit for 3606 ECR as there is already a well-placed driveway/curb cut at approximately the middle of the el Camino Real frontage for this project. It would require an amendment to widen it, but it is well placed--does not interfere with the bus stop closer to Matadero, and there is also a break in the bike lane striping (and no white bollards), as if anticipating this project having a front driveway. I would imagine this is a positive for the developers. This also addresses the ARB comments about breaking up the continuous, visual mass from Matadero to Kendall of the current design. Since the ARB meeting was the first I attended, were you aware of the existing driveway, and has it gotten discussed in any presentations/analyses so far? If so, what might be the objections to using this placement (per my 8 December email below)? Thanks for helping me understand the parameters of this project, Star Teachout ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Record of other emails on this matter... 8 December email: Hello Steven, I apologize if I am late to evaluating the 3606 El Camino Real development project. In response to your 4 Dec 2025 reply, it would be helpful if you would offer the statutes/codes/standards which support your claims that a driveway on ECR would not be allowed due to city standards and state regulations related to bike lanes. In the best possible world, we would be able to develop properties for increased housing with the support of our community. Towards that aim, providing information educates all of us with hopefully the least amount of community strife, especially with the complexities of Builder’s Remedy. To be clear, I am not asking for any of the following: - The item 5 list is not presupposing they be conditions of approval, rather, asking what legal mitigations the city can undertake after the project is approved [to prevent traffic hazards] - CEQA compliance - Reduced density - Typical zoning compliance - Anything that (I think) makes the project infeasible. Did the City of Palo Alto refuse to allow a driveway onto ECR? If so, please provide a link to that discussion or notes. Was a County of Santa Clara encroachment permit denied, and if so appealed? If so, could you provide me with the dates related to that process? I have found nothing in the codes listed below that prevent adding a driveway onto el Camino Real, even through a bike lane. As previously mentioned, there will be driveways/egress from both 3150 and 3400 el camino real developments. Nor have I seen any requirement for even a traffic study, unless the city were asking the applicant for that [no information I could find on such a request]. Considering the potential for extreme disruption and associated safety hazards for pedestrians, cyclists, and even drivers along Matadero and Kendall, this seems like an essential route to pursue. 1. AB 3177 [supports land dedication for adding a service lane in the development plan on both Matadero and Kendall, constricted/safe routes to schools roadways to prevent harm to pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers] AB 3177 does allow cities to impose such a land dedication requirement in the following limited instances: • When a housing development both (i) is not located in a transit priority area and (ii) has a linear street frontage of 500 feet or more; • Where the city makes a finding that the land dedication requirement is necessary to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including pedestrians, cyclists, and children; or • To construct public improvements, including, but not limited to, sidewalk and sewer improvements. 2. Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM): https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-project-development-procedures-manual-pdpm 3. Chap 17: Encroachments and Utilities: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/pdpm-chapter17-a11y.pdf 4. Chapter 500 - Specific Encroachment Permits: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/encroachment-permits/epm-chapters-all-ada- a11y.pdf Thank you for clarifying anything I may have misinterpreted in these documents, Star Teachout +++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 Dec email to ARB: sent separately after the ARB public meeting. +++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 Dec email exchange with Palo Alto planner Switzer: On Dec 4, 2025, at 9:16 AM, Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Star, Having the two driveways into the garage enter onto El Camino Real would be in conflict with our standards. Driveways are meant to be on cross streets rather than entering onto a freeway like El Camino Real. Further, Caltrans recently added bike lanes along that stretch of El Camino Real. Changing those bike lanes would be unlikely to occur. Since this is a Builder’s Remedy project, it is afforded a lot of protections from compliance with zoning standards. The items you listed in #5 are unlikely to be conditions of approval for the project because of this Follow the link to read more information on “Builder’s Remedy” and Housing Elements. <image001.png>Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov <image002.png> From: Star Teachout <teachout@sonic.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 6:10 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: 3606 ECR questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you for the prompt reply. My highest priority questions are 3 and 5, the ones you did not answer. I assume the city has some oversight on the arterial roads and traffic those experience. ++++++++++++++++++ 3 December email: On Dec 3, 2025, at 5:18 PM, Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Star, My answers are below in bold. Due to the nature of a builder’s remedy project, there are numerous state law constraints on what the City can impose on a project. <image001.png>Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov <image002.png> From: Star Teachout <teachout@sonic.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 1:58 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: 3606 ECR questions Hello Steven, I mistakenly arrived this morning to voice some concerns about the 3606 ECR development. Since I have a few more hours, if you have time could you please share any answers to the following questions? Incidentally, although losing the Fish Market has been a significant impact on our south PA neighborhood (and probably McDonalds for many too), looking over the 3150 ECR development I am struck at what a great plan it is. The 3606 seemed to want to copy many parts of it, but it is poorly executed and in my opinion the wrong building (scale) in the wrong place. 1. RM30/RM40 heights violated: Since 3606 el Camino Real qualifies as a Builders’ Remedy project, does that mean the RM-30 and RM-40 portions of the development are allowed to exceed the city’s 30 and 40 ft height limits, despite there being residential properties across the street? Seven stories along el Camino may be fine, but extending those 7 stories into the neighborhood (T-configuration/footprint), eclipsing the sky view of the nearby apartments and houses is extreme. Were renters notified of this development? The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 21, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 19, 2025, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. The project site is also located within the El Camino Real Focus Area that allows a maximum height of 85 feet. The RM-30 and RM- 40 lots are part of that focus area. 2. Minimal Underground Parking: The height of the development is definitely out of scale for apartments surrounding this proposal. Unlike Creekside (3400 ECR) and the Fish Market/McDonald’s site (3150 ECR) which have mostly underground parking, can the city of PA require mostly underground parking for this project too? Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City is further limited to only enforcing those objective standards that exist in a zone district or land use designation that allows the density requested. Further, the project applicant is also able to utilize incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law when demonstrating compliance with the enforceable standards. This allows the applicant to deviate from certain standards. The City cannot require underground parking. 3. No Entrance/Exits on ECR: Unlike the aforementioned projects, why are there no exits from this development onto el Camino Real (as per 3400 and 3150 ECR)? It is unbelievable that this project would subject the neighborhoods to this much traffic for those avoiding ECR traffic, especially with the No Right Turn on Red rule at Matadero. Kendall (curvy and narrow) and Matadero (no bike lanes, parking on sides allowed, major route to schools) are not designed for this volume. As you know, Barron Park is landlocked on 2 sides so all traffic short- cutting through the neighborhood streets coming from Creekside and 3606 (as currently proposed) will travel down 3 streets—Whitsell, Kendall, Barron--through this sidewalk-less neighborhood. There are also issues with the Matadero driveway passing between 2 smaller apartment buildings, posing some dangers for those living there. 4. Parking: Why should a developer be allowed to not provide parking for all its residents but be allowed to lease parking?!! Plans indicate 321 residential units and the required parking spaces in the El Camino Real Focus Area are 1 space per 1 unit. The project is proposing 391 spaces and compliant with the zoning code. 5. Protections: What with all the proposed developments happening between Page Mill and Los Robles, does the city have some authority to enact any of the following: a. Retain the driveways on both Matadero and Kendall for service vehicles (garbage, deliveries, EMS), but disconnect them from the residential parking. b. If (a) is not possible, impose a R turn driveway exit only from 3606 ECR on the Matadero side (ie, no L turn) and a L turn only (ie, no R turn exit) onto Kendal to protect the neighborhoods from all the cut through traffic? This would probably require a short bike lane/sidewalk on Kendall between ECR and Whitsell to protect children enroute to school. c. If (a) is not possible, could the city (with neighborhood approval) make Whitsell a cul-de-sac at Matadero to prevent both 3400 and 3606 ECR development traffic from using it as a short cut, thus protecting pedestrians and cyclists. This adds some traffic to Kendall and Josina, but really only from the few houses on the first block of Whitsell. d. Install speed bumps on Kendall, Whitsell, Barron, and Josina as needed. e. Enact No Right Turn between 8:30 and 9:30 am Mon-Fri on Matadero and Kendall. f. Remove the ECR cross-lane access at Kendall, which is already dangerous, and make Barron a fully-signaled intersection (not just a signaled cross-walk when pushed). g. Barron Ave is extremely restricted between ECR and Whitsell— narrow, tree-lined. Perhaps it too needs a no turns between 8:30 - 9:30 am? H. Matadero is already impacted by traffic and the No R on Red law at ECR. What with the many large proposed developments, could the city remove this restriction at Matadero? [12/8/25: Negotiate with the county/state] i. All of these larger developments do not provide for all the potential parking needed, even 3150 which is a pretty stellar development. Where are all the approximate 300 drivers going to park when ECR no longer allows it? Some people may not use cars, but from my experience as a cyclist, even my able-bodied, clever neighbors still hop in their cars to travel 1 mile! [12/8/25: Parking permit program] The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(d) states that a city cannot deny such a project or impose conditions of approval that would render it infeasible unless it makes specified findings. In order to be eligible for AB 130 a project must comply with Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21080.66. This section offers a statutory exemption for certain housing development projects from CEQA requirements, aiming to speed up the approval process. In addition, the project is considered a “builder’s remedy project” as defined in the recently adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1893. Accordingly, the project may not be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project is further afforded numerous protections as detailed in the staff report. Thanks for any useful input to guide our city into healthy development which considers both the needs of future and current residents. Star Teachout 3550 Whitsell Avenue From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 3:33:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank You! 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:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Dave Price Subject:Budget, Mr Reckdahl"s question about high administrative costs & revenue shortfalls Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 11:42:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor, Mr Reckdahl and other Council Members Given the recent concerns about PA's $27,000,000 budget for consultants and the plan for two studies to develop Best Practices for Consultants instead of simply relying on common sense management supervision, allow me to share my experiences with your Business Registry consultant. One hopes this single real-world example of another poorly supervised consultant helps City Council and its Finance Committee, the City Manager and new City Chief Financial Officer ensure we get better results for our $27,000,000 and that you will finally consider taxpaying residents "stakeholders" who might shed some light on Best Practices without regard to months of study. In short, start providing oversight on how staff MANAGES their consultants, including CHECKING their work / their deliverables before inflicting them on us and wasting OUR time and OUR money. Regards, Jo Ann Mandinach ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 5:53 PM Subject: High Administrative Costs and Revenue Shortfalls To: <letters@padailypost.com> This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Your 12/8 p 1 article reported that some council members questioned why the administrative costs associated with the city's business tax were so high. I can answer that having gotten at least 4 increasingly threatening dunning letters from PA's Fremont-based consultant HdL Companies saying they'd "heard" I was operating a PA-based business and dire consequences would befall me if I didn't pay my business license tax immediately, I returned each form scrawling NON-OPERATIONAL across the page. I followed up with emails EACH time saying my business had been non-operational for years and that neither their USPS-mailed forms nor their website allowed me to say that. No response. I called HdL multiple times at the number shown on the forms and web site. No response. No voice mail. I persisted at various times of day until I FINALLY reached someone at HdL who said, "Yup. I see your emails" and who finally deleted me from future USPS dunning letters I'd copied the City Manager on one email. Only then did HdL bother to write a long CYA email. I responded that while my problem had been fixed a month ago I hoped they'd fixed their forms so others didn't have to jump through the same number of hoops I did. No response. How much did it cost to send all those dunning letters through the US mail and to develop a flawed web site vs the cost of a staff review to discover the problem and/or actually fixing the problem. This taxpayer also wonders A) why PA still retains HdL, B) if HdL's commission for "tracking down businesses that haven't paid..." rewards their sloppiness and C) if PA's much-heralded study of Best Practices for Consultants will include the common sense practice of instructing staff to review their consultants' work before inflecting it on the general public since HdL is hardly unique in releasing untested surveys and flawed findings based on erroneous assumptions like Stanford Shopping Center is located downtown. Jo Ann Mandinach 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:Annette Ross To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Palo Alto Daily Post Subject:Budget Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 7:47:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Weekly, Vol. XLVII, Number 9, December 5, 2025, page 8: headline: “City faces deepening deficits amid sales tax slump”, followed by an article explaining why Palo Alto faces deficits. The article was preceded by this quote from Pat Burt on page 6: “I think we want to just put the cards on the table for everyone that this has really jumped”. Daily Post, December 8, 2025: front page, above the fold: City collects extra $112 million. What’s the status of City finances? Perhaps the City Manager can include an answer in the report he gives at each CC meeting. Also, Council-member Reckdahl asked why the costs to administer the business tax collection are as high as they are ($600k). The given answer is that the contractor, HdL Companies, is tracking down businesses that haven’t paid. Presumably the unpaid amount far exceeds $600,000. Please confirm. This amount of money might be better spent on the deficits in public safety. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Justin Harper To:Council, City Subject:Action Item 4 Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 8:35:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Sadly due to medical emergency I was not able to come and oppose in person so this will maybe be too late but for what it’s worth here is an extended version of my speech. My name is Justin Harper, and I am living in an RV here. I pay taxes, I vote in your elections, and until the housing costs in this tech paradise made it impossible, I rented a place just like anyone else in this room. But now, my home on wheels is what keeps my family warm and safe. It’s not a lifestyle, it’s survival. And tonight, as you sit comfortably in your seats, I need you to hear what your proposed bans and restrictions will do to lives like mine. Let’s be real about what’s happening. Over the past two years, homelessness in Palo Alto has doubled. That’s over 400 of us without stable roofs, and many of us like me are living in vehicles. We’re not transients from out of town many of us have been in this county for over a decade. We’re teachers, nurses, tech workers laid off in the latest round of cuts, and retirees on fixed incomes. We work alongside you, shop in your stores, and send our kids to your schools. Living in our trailers and RVs aren’t a choice they’re the only barrier between us and the true despair of tents or worse. This isn’t a compassionate approach it’s a slow eviction notice. To do this around the holidays to a community with a already high suicide rate which grows during what most see as times of joy, our depressing holiday season will be filled with even more despair and sadness if these bans pass. And where do you expect us to go? Menlo Park’s overnight ban has already pushed dozens across the border into Palo Alto. Mountain View bans oversized vehicles on 90% of its streets and its designated safe parking streets are mostly full, with about 101 spots total across the city, at capacity for months. We’re not choosing Palo Alto because it’s easy we’re here because your neighbors have slammed every door shut. Your bans will just create a funnel more RVs spilling into East Palo Alto and other towns some of us will move into cars or tents in Palo Alto all can cause, exposure, and isolation from jobs and services. Council members, if you truly want to solve this homelessness crisis, not just hide it, evidence shows that enforcement first fails. Studies across 100 cities show criminalization laws like these increase unsheltered rates by at least 2%, displacing without reducing totals. In San This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Francisco, a similar RV ban led to a 37% vehicle surge via spillover, with families losing documents and ties to caseworkers. Sweeps raise mortality by 15–25% from overdoses and exposure, per JAMA research. It severs us from the very help you promise: how can LifeMoves reach us if we’re scattered and terrified of tickets, tows, and more? Infrastructure first works. Safe parking programs with case management transition 30–65% to housing, San Diego’s Jewish Family Service program housed 65% of participants in under a year, serving 512 people in 2023 alone. Santa Barbara’s New Beginnings has placed over 1,000 in permanent homes since 2004 through 200+ managed spots. These aren’t BandAids they’re bridges, built on Housing First principles that slash re-homelessness by 41–59%. I beg you: Suspend Phase 1 enforcement. Fund infrastructure. Because if you pass this, you’re not just banning trailers you’re banning hope. You’re telling working families like mine that our lives don’t fit your vision of Palo Alto. But we do belong here. Thank you, Justin Harper P.S. Sorry I know this sounds more aggressive than any other time I have spoken. But everyone of us are already scrambling canceling holidays we could have spent with people that might show us some care and allow us to forget being homeless and even if just for a moment remember what it is to be a normal person for a day or two. From:Benji Han To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:I vote for turf Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 7:25:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, My name is Benji and I am a 6th grader at Keys School in Palo Alto. I have been playing soccer at the Palo Alto Soccer Club since I was 6 years old. I think choosing turf fields instead of grass fields is the better option. I prefer turf because it has a smooth quality, durable for all weather, unlike grass. For instance, a soccer ball always slides perfectly on turf with no bumps whatsoever. On the other hand, grass is usually muddy or scratchy. Grass is usually not in good condition and can lead to many injuries. For example, I have tripped over many bumps in grass and usually get a burn or some sort of wound. The mud doesn’t help either, providing a slippery and sinky hole in the field. Secondly, turf needs less maintenance. While grass needs mowing, watering, fertilizing, and weeding, turf eliminates all of those, saving significant money. Some opponents say that turf has environmental issues, which isn’t wrong. However, these issues don’t affect people’s everyday life activities, e.g. running, soccer, or football. Overall, turf provides better quality for sports, and saves money. This shows why picking turf over grass is a better option. Thank you for considering my opinion. Best Regards, Benji 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:Graham Pruss To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment for Palo Alto City Council Meeting 12/8/25, Agenda item #4 Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 7:07:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Mayor Lauing and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, My name is Dr. Graham J. Pruss, I serve as Executive Director of the National Vehicle Residency Coalition (NVRC). We are a national organization that supports communities in developing lawful, humane responses to people who rely on cars, vans, trailers, and RVs for shelter. I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed “Adoption of Emergency and Regular Ordinances Prohibiting Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording” (Agenda Item #4). In Palo Alto, as in many West Coast cities, rising housing costs have pushed residents into vehicles when traditional housing is no longer attainable. For many, a trailer or rented RV is not a nuisance or an abandoned object; it is the only remaining space where they can sleep, store belongings, care for family, and maintain ties to work, school, and medical care. These are long-term community members who have lost housing, not their connection to this city. Measures that criminalize trailers and rented RVs will not create housing or reduce homelessness. Instead, they will expand the role of law enforcement in managing poverty, increasing citations, arrests for minor infractions, and displacement. When a person’s only shelter is towed or impounded, the impact is devastating: they lose medications, documents, work tools, and the limited stability they have managed to build. When that shelter is a vehicle used as a home, any seizure also raises serious constitutional questions that courts across the country are increasingly scrutinizing. People with disabilities, chronic health conditions, undocumented immigration status, and limited mobility are especially at risk. Many use vehicles because they cannot safely navigate congregate shelters or because available programs are incompatible with their medical needs, assistive devices, service animals, or work schedules. Displacing these residents through parking bans does not move them into safer conditions; it often forces them into more precarious and dangerous environments. The staff report suggests that Palo Alto may invest millions of dollars in signage and related enforcement to implement these prohibitions. Redirecting those resources toward legal, well- managed parking options and shelter access would do far more to address residents’ concerns This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report rights of people who have nowhere else to go. Structured, voluntary safe-parking programs, clear pathways to services, and designated areas with sanitation and trash collection protect both neighborhoods and residents without relying on constant enforcement. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to reject Agenda Item #4 and instead engage with vehicle residents, local advocates, and technical assistance providers like the NVRC to develop solutions that are constitutional, effective, and humane. Thank you for your attention and for your service to the community. Sincerely, Graham J. Pruss, PhD Executive Director National Vehicle Residency Coalition (NVRC) To learn more about our research & work, please visit: Keeping Clean: A Qualitative Analysis of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Among Residents of Recreational Vehicles in Seattle, WA (2024) Homes without homes: An ethno-archaeology of vehicle residency in public parking (2023) Housing and service needs among residents of oversized vehicles (2022) Displaced: Why more people are living in cars and RVs (2021) The “punitive push” on mobile homes (2020) Without parking, those who live in vehicles have nowhere to go (2019) Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. 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:Brianna (Brie) Mendoza To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment for City Council Meeting 12/8 Concerning Detached Trailer and RV Lease Ordinance Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 5:43:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good evening, Please find the public comment below concerning agenda item # 4 "Adoption of Emergency and Regular Ordinances Prohibiting Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording and a Resolution Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule Imposing Penalties; CEQA status – not a project." Public Comment: My name is Brie Mendoza, and I’m the Clinical Supervising Attorney at the Unhoused Advocacy Clinic at Santa Clara Law. I’m speaking in objection to the ordinances that would make unlawful unattached trailers and rented RVs. I speak on my own behalf from direct experience working with unhoused Santa Clara County residents and following my own experience as a previously unhoused person. I understand the City faces real challenges, but I urge the Council to remember what they already know: we are not discussing “parking problems,” we are discussing people and their lives. For many, RVs and trailers are the only shelter left in one of the nation’s most unaffordable housing markets. Studies show 73% of unhoused people in Palo Alto live in their vehicles, and county data shows 83% lived in Santa Clara County before losing housing, with 70% here more than a decade. These are our long-time neighbors trying to survive. Banning trailers and rented RVs would increase unnecessary police contact, which as research shows, further destabilizes people through custody cycles for de minimis arrests. It would lead to increased tows of people’s homes, raising serious Fourth Amendment concerns since any tow without an individualized assessment risks violating constitutional protections that demand high scrutiny when someone’s home, including an RV or trailer, is searched or seized. This burden would fall hardest on disabled residents, who studies show make up about 73% of the county’s unhoused population. Many RV and trailer residents have built stable, self-sufficient households—cooking meals, caring for family, supporting neighbors, and contributing to the city. These are basic acts of living that housed residents perform without punishment. Their plea is simply to preserve the stability they’ve created. Blanket bans without meaningful or adequate alternative erase that stability and merely push people into other neighborhoods or cities. I urge the Council to center the lives of those with lived experience and invest the estimated $4 million to be spent on signage that would seek to punish people with no options in real shelter and safe-parking solutions instead. I urge the council to vote no on agenda item #4 "Adoption of Emergency and Regular Ordinances Prohibiting Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording." ___________________________ Brie Mendoza (she/her) Clinical Supervising Attorney, Unhoused Advocacy Clinic Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center Santa Clara University School of Law 408-288-7030 brianna.mendoza@scu.edu http://law.scu.edu/kgaclc Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient), or if you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including any attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. December 2025 View this email in your browser. In this Issue Coming Up Message from our Co-presidents 2026 Elections Prep: Voter Services Information Session Year-end Fundraising Campaign - double your gift! Advocacy Report Reparations Advocacy Interest Group Voter Resources for Special Runoff Election LWVPA Updates, Board Meeting Highlights, Involvement Opportunities Sign up for Legislative Interviews From:LWV Palo Alto VOTER To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA December VOTER: annual luncheon | county assessor run-off | prepping for 2026 Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 5:30:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Events & Activities Coming up! DECEMBER 2025 12/8: Runoff ballots for County Assessor mailed by Registrar of Voters (ROV) 12/11: Winter Luncheon - Lucie Stern Ctr, 12pm - Community Room 12/30: Runoff Election for Santa Clara County Assessor JANUARY 2026 1/23 & 24: informal coffees on LWV’s Voter Services Work and How to Help 1/27: Board Meeting tbd: Housing Committee meeting FEBRUARY 2026 2/6: Program Planning meeting for 2026-27 MESSAGE FROM OUR CO-PRESIDENTS We are living through a time of extraordinary change, and our democracy continues to face significant stress. What can we do right now to fight for our democracy? Attend the League’s Coffee & Voter Services Information session in January 2026! The League is valued in the community because it brings nonpartisan information about candidates and issues to the public so everyone can be an informed voter. Join us for two informal coffees to learn the League's plans for the 2026 June primaries and the November midterm elections - your choice of Friday, 1/23 at 4 pm or Saturday 1/24 at 10 am, 305 Emerson Street, Palo Alto. Be part of our team–help run a zoom candidate forum, analyze pros and cons on the ballot, or help Vote 411 compile essential candidate information for voters. Some tasks are small— collecting and sorting questions at a forum. Some take a bit more time–contacting candidates to schedule the forums. We will have an activity which will fit your schedule. Click here to register for one of the sessions. Our Winter Luncheon will feature Dr. Didi Kuo, Professor, Stanford University, speaking on why strong political parties are essential to Democracy. Buy a lunch or bring your own bag lunch on December 11, 12-1:30 at Lucie Stern Community Center. As the year winds down and we reflect on the League's many accomplishments, we are deeply grateful for the commitment of our members and volunteers. Your time, your energy, your financial support and your dedication enable the League of Women Voters to work steadfastly to defend democracy and empower voters. The League’s mission has never felt more urgent, we are committed to work alongside all of you to meet the challenges of this moment. Wishing everyone a peaceful, restorative, and joyful holiday season. - Lisa Ratner & Hannah Lu, Co-presidents 2026 Elections PrepCoffee & Voter Services InformationSession Kick off 2026 with learning about the League's Voter Services Work and How to Help. Your League is starting to prepare for the 2026 June primaries and November midterm elections, and we need A LOT of volunteers. Join us for one of two informal coffees where you can learn about Voter Services plans, and big and small ways you can pitch in to help! There are many roles, such as coordinating with the candidates, managing Zoom, being a timer, and work on the pros/cons of ballot measures. Something for everyone! You can help! Pick the date that works for you: Friday, 1/23 at 4 pm (305 Emerson Street) or Saturday, 1/24 at 10 am (305 Emerson Street) Register Here End-of-Year Campaign: Your Gift Goes Twice as Far! As we gear up for an exciting 2026, the League is already laying the groundwork for our programs and advocacy—and we need your support to make it happen. Our board has created a generous $10,000 matching fund, doubling every donation made to our year-end campaign. Please visit our website today to make a gift or send a check to our Palo Alto office. Questions about giving? Reach out to Mary Nemerov, Fundraising Chair. Advocacy Report - Lisa Ratner, Advocacy Chair/Co-president LOCAL: Our Housing and Transportation Committee held a joint zoom meeting on Nov. 17 with LWV Los Altos/Mountain View Area’s Housing Committee to hear Robert Cain, Principal Planner for the City of Palo Alto, describe Phase 1 (Existing Conditions) of the San Antonio Rd. Area Plan. The plan is scheduled for completion in 2028. Slides for this presentation. Attendees expressed great concern that bike and pedestrian safety on San Antonio Road be addressed before allowing increased housing. San Antonio Road is one of Palo Alto’s most dangerous roads for cyclists, due to high traffic and lack of protected bike lanes. Our H&T committee will continue to monitor this Area Plan. STATE: LWVC’s 2025 Advocacy Wrap-Up summarizes its work in the state legislature. The League: won a landmark victory for public financing of elections by securing placement of the California Fair Elections Act on the Nov. 2026 ballot stopped dangerous voter ID mandates, assaults on vote by mail, and efforts to gut anti- corruption laws. Read the summary of state advocacy on voting rights, housing, climate, criminal justice, immigration, reproductive rights, and education. Urge Governor Newsom to Grant Clemency for All Death Sentences. Take Action: Send a message to Governor Gavin Newsom urging him to commute every death sentence in California. The League of Women Voters opposes the death penalty and supports criminal justice policies that respect human dignity, protect human rights, and reduce injustice. There are currently 565 people on California’s death row – the largest death row in the nation. Governor Newsom has the authority to commute every death sentence in California. Join the League in urging the Governor to use his executive authority to grant universal clemency, changing every death sentence in California to life in prison without possibility of parole. With this historic step he will save lives and move California forward in confronting the injustices of the death penalty. Send a message to Governor Newsom here. Apply to be a Legislative Analyst Interested in how the League takes action in the state legislature? Apply to be a legislative analyst. Guided by the League’s nonpartisan positions on government, social policy, and natural resources, our Advocacy Team reviews bills in the California Legislature and ballot measures headed to voters, and helps to determine when the League should take action. If you have some practical expertise in K-14 and Higher Education, Open Government, Campaign Finance, Voting Rights, Housing, Criminal Justice, Health Care, and Immigration, please fill out this form. NATIONAL: LWV condemned Trump’s claims that lawmakers’ dissent equals ‘seditious behavior’, stating “The President’s suggestion that lawmakers should face death for upholding the rule of law is not political rhetoric–it’s an authoritarian threat that shatters every democratic norm. No leader in a functioning democracy invokes death as punishment for dissent. Doing so endangers our institutions, our public servants, and the foundations of democratic governance.” LWV Texas opposed the Supreme Court’s grant of Texas’ request to stay a 3-judge panel’s ruling blocking a map redrawn at President Trump’s demand as illegal racial gerrymander. The decision “signals a dangerous tolerance for authoritarian tactics in how political power is drawn.” LWV Minnesota opposed recent ICE deployment in Minneapolis & St. Paul, stating “the rule of law, due process, and fair administration of justice must be upheld for every person. These principles are threatened when federal enforcement tactics intimidate communities, suppress civic participation or deter individuals from accessing essential public services...or exercising their constitutional rights.” Follow LWV press releases. NEW CALIFORNIA LEAGUE INTEREST GROUP: Reparations Advocacy Interest Group The state League is excited to announce the formation of a new Advocacy Interest Group: the Reparations Advocacy Interest Group (RAIG). This effort is emerging from the hard work of the Oakland League’s Reparations Task Force - which you may have heard from over the past year. The formation of a statewide interest group will create a space for League members across California to come together to learn, discuss, and explore advocacy opportunities related to reparations efforts at both the state and local levels. The Purpose of the Reparations Advocacy Interest Group (IG) is to: Educate League members on the history, recommendations, and recent legislation related to reparations. Invite members to attend forums, webinars, exhibits, lectures, etc. which shed light on reparations. Share resources and analysis across the state. Create space for thoughtful discussion on how reparations align with League values of equity, justice, and democracy. Make recommendations for action on bills where League positions support engagement. Join Us! Membership in the Reparations Advocacy IG is open to all California League members. To add your name to the interest group listserv and join the conversation now, please email sjorgensen@lwvc.org and ask her to add your email address to the listserv. Please include your full name and your local League. Voter Resources Special Runoff Election: December 30 12/30/25 Special Runoff Election Resources from the ROV | County of Santa Clara In November we voted for a replacement for the retiring County Assessor, selecting one from a field of four candidates. Unfortunately, none of the candidates gained over 50% of the votes cast. That forced a 2-person run-off to be held within 60 days. The two who got the most votes in the November election are Neysa Fligor and Rishi Kumar. Ballots will be mailed on December 8th to all registered voters in Santa Clara County and must be returned by 8:00 PM Tuesday, December 30th. In the case of US Mail, they must be Postmarked by 8:00 PM Tuesday (see point 7 in our article "Don't be Rejected") We recommend completing and returning your ballot ASAP, since none of us want any more items on our to-do lists at this time of year. It won’t take long - the ballot only has one question. Return your ballot at any Drop Box, or by US Mail, or in-person at a vote center. Find your vote center for the locations of drop-boxes and vote centers near you. drop boxes and US Mail are available as soon as you receive your ballot some in-person Vote Centers will be open December 20-30th more Vote Centers open December 27-30th What does the County Assessor Do? The Assessor’s role is unique—it’s an elected position, but the state-mandated work itself is technical and primarily focused on administrative operations, not policymaking like many other elected offices. The Assessor has the responsibility to lead a team of about 250 people who: locate all taxable property in the County identify property ownership establish a value for all property subject to local property taxation list the value of all property on the assessment roll apply all legal exemptions. Contrary to popular opinion, the Santa Clara County Assessor does not: set property tax rates, establish property tax laws, set rules by which property is appraised, compute property tax bills or collect property taxes. If you need more information about the Assessor’s role or about the candidates, please refer to these non-partisan resources*: LWV Candidate Forum Video – LWV Santa Clara County hosted a candidate forum for County Assessor for the Nov 4 election County Assessor Office Overview – Summary of the Responsibilities of the County Assessor County Assessment Information Booklet– Additional information about the role of the County Assessor Credit: League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale * Note: VOTE411 is not available for this runoff election LWVPA Updates & Events LWVPA November/December 2025 Board Meeting Highlights: Motions Approved: Minutes of the October board meeting and ratification of the Nov. 6 letter to City Council re: 600 University. The Board will next meet on January 27, 7 pm at the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. All members are welcome to join the meeting by emailing contact@lwvpaloalto.org. Julie Cardillo, Secretary Want to make change for good? Volunteer with the League! Sign up for 2026 Legislative Interviews Seeking volunteer leaders who want to save democracy and make it work! You bring the interest, we provide the training! Participate in one of our annual interviews with local state legislators. These occur during the months of January and February and offer a unique volunteer opportunity. You and a small group of fellow Leaguers will meet directly with your State Senator or Assembly Member, either in-person or via Zoom. The meetings will pose prepared questions on issues that priorities and about major issues the legislature will be dealing with in 2026. This is a great opportunity to learn what they are thinking, the headwinds they may be facing, and to let them know what is important to us. It’s also critical to let elected representatives at every level of government know that our League, and Leagues throughout the state, are paying attention. Our legislative interviews will be coordinated by co-presidents Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu. If you are interested in participating, please email hannahlu00@gmail.com. Come join our fabulous team of volunteers - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. Events & Activities CATCH UP ON PAST EVENTS - video recordings await you! 10.7: 2025 Santa Clara County Assessor Candidates Forum 10.4: Fall Kick-off speaker, ERIK JENSEN on the Rule of Law 10.2: LWVPA Water Symposium 9.9: County League forum on Executive Power, with Stanford Law Professor PAMELA KARLAN and Santa Clara University Law Professor DAVID SLOSS. 8.17: District 16 Congressional Representative, REP. SAM LICCARDO Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. 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) From:RBcom To:Council, City Subject:Reduce RV parking on streets Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 2:14:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing today to encourage the Council to take action to reduce the number of RVs parking on city streets. These RVs are taking advantage of the leniency of the City, which apparently isn’t even enforcing its current regulations, to the detriment of residents and businesses whom the local government is supposedly representing. As one small recent example, someone apparently from one of these encampments dumped a junk bike on my property which we now have to dispose of. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. L. Blume, Corina Way, Palo Alto. From:Star Teachout To:Switzer, Steven Cc:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; John King; Council, City Subject:3606 ECR Driveway support documents Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 12:54:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Steven, I apologize if I am late to evaluating the 3606 El Camino Real development project. In response to your 4 Dec 2025 reply, it would be helpful if you would offer the statutes/codes/standards which support your claims that a driveway on ECR would not be allowed due to city standards and state regulations related to bike lanes. In the best possible world, we would be able to develop properties for increased housing with the support of our community. Towards that aim, providing information educates all of us with hopefully the least amount of community strife, especially with the complexities of Builder’s Remedy. To be clear, I am not asking for any of the following: - The item 5 list is not presupposing they be conditions of approval, rather, asking what legal mitigations the city can undertake after the project is approved [to prevent traffic hazards] - CEQA compliance - Reduced density - Typical zoning compliance - Anything that (I think) makes the project infeasible. Driveway on El Camino Real Did the City of Palo Alto refuse to allow a driveway onto ECR? If so, please provide a link to that discussion or notes. Was a County of Santa Clara encroachment permit denied, and if so appealed? If so, could you provide me with the dates related to that process? I have found nothing in the codes listed below that prevent adding a driveway onto el Camino Real, even through a bike lane. As previously mentioned, there will be driveways/egress from both 3150 and 3400 el camino real developments. Nor have I seen any requirement for even a traffic study, unless the city were asking the applicant for that [no information I could find on such a request]. Considering the potential for extreme disruption and associated safety hazards for pedestrians, cyclists, and even drivers along Matadero and Kendall, this seems like an essential route to pursue. 1. AB 3177 [supports land dedication for adding a service lane in the development plan on both Matadero and Kendall, constricted/safe routes to schools roadways to prevent harm to pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers] AB 3177 does allow cities to impose such a land dedication requirement in the following limited instances: • When a housing development both (i) is not located in a transit priority area and (ii) has a linear street frontage of 500 feet or more; • Where the city makes a finding that the land dedication requirement is necessary to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including pedestrians, cyclists, and children; or • To construct public improvements, including, but not limited to, sidewalk and sewer improvements. 2. Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM): https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-project-development-procedures-manual-pdpm 3. Chap 17: Encroachments and Utilities: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/pdpm-chapter17-a11y.pdf 4. Chapter 500 - Specific Encroachment Permits: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/encroachment-permits/epm-chapters-all-ada- a11y.pdf Thank you for clarifying anything I may have misinterpreted in these documents, Star Teachout On Dec 4, 2025, at 9:16 AM, Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Star, Having the two driveways into the garage enter onto El Camino Real would be in conflict with our standards. Driveways are meant to be on cross streets rather than entering onto a freeway like El Camino Real. Further, Caltrans recently added bike lanes along that stretch of El Camino Real. Changing those bike lanes would be unlikely to occur. Since this is a Builder’s Remedy project, it is afforded a lot of protections from compliance with zoning standards. The items you listed in #5 are unlikely to be conditions of approval for the project because of this Follow the link to read more information on “Builder’s Remedy” and Housing Elements. <image001.png>Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov <image002.png> From: Star Teachout <teachout@sonic.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 6:10 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: 3606 ECR questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you for the prompt reply. My highest priority questions are 3 and 5, the ones you did not answer. I assume the city has some oversight on the arterial roads and traffic those experience. On Dec 3, 2025, at 5:18 PM, Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Star, My answers are below in bold. Due to the nature of a builder’s remedy project, there are numerous state law constraints on what the City can impose on a project. <image001.png>Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov <image002.png> From: Star Teachout <teachout@sonic.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 1:58 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: 3606 ECR questions Hello Steven, I mistakenly arrived this morning to voice some concerns about the 3606 ECR development. Since I have a few more hours, if you have time could you please share any answers to the following questions? Incidentally, although losing the Fish Market has been a significant impact on our south PA neighborhood (and probably McDonalds for many too), looking over the 3150 ECR development I am struck at what a great plan it is. The 3606 seemed to want to copy many parts of it, but it is poorly executed and in my opinion the wrong building (scale) in the wrong place. 1. RM30/RM40 heights violated: Since 3606 el Camino Real qualifies as a Builders’ Remedy project, does that mean the RM-30 and RM-40 portions of the development are allowed to exceed the city’s 30 and 40 ft height limits, despite there being residential properties across the street? Seven stories along el Camino may be fine, but extending those 7 stories into the neighborhood (T-configuration/footprint), eclipsing the sky view of the nearby apartments and houses is extreme. Were renters notified of this development? The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 21, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 19, 2025, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. The project site is also located within the El Camino Real Focus Area that allows a maximum height of 85 feet. The RM-30 and RM- 40 lots are part of that focus area. 2. Minimal Underground Parking: The height of the development is definitely out of scale for apartments surrounding this proposal. Unlike Creekside (3400 ECR) and the Fish Market/McDonald’s site (3150 ECR) which have mostly underground parking, can the city of PA require mostly underground parking for this project too? Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City is further limited to only enforcing those objective standards that exist in a zone district or land use designation that allows the density requested. Further, the project applicant is also able to utilize incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law when demonstrating compliance with the enforceable standards. This allows the applicant to deviate from certain standards. The City cannot require underground parking. 3. No Entrance/Exits on ECR: Unlike the aforementioned projects, why are there no exits from this development onto el Camino Real (as per 3400 and 3150 ECR)? It is unbelievable that this project would subject the neighborhoods to this much traffic for those avoiding ECR traffic, especially with the No Right Turn on Red rule at Matadero. Kendall (curvy and narrow) and Matadero (no bike lanes, parking on sides allowed, major route to schools) are not designed for this volume. As you know, Barron Park is landlocked on 2 sides so all traffic short- cutting through the neighborhood streets coming from Creekside and 3606 (as currently proposed) will travel down 3 streets—Whitsell, Kendall, Barron--through this sidewalk-less neighborhood. There are also issues with the Matadero driveway passing between 2 smaller apartment buildings, posing some dangers for those living there. 4. Parking: Why should a developer be allowed to not provide parking for all its residents but be allowed to lease parking?!! Plans indicate 321 residential units and the required parking spaces in the El Camino Real Focus Area are 1 space per 1 unit. The project is proposing 391 spaces and compliant with the zoning code. 5. Protections: What with all the proposed developments happening between Page Mill and Los Robles, does the city have some authority to enact any of the following: a. Retain the driveways on both Matadero and Kendall for service vehicles (garbage, deliveries, EMS), but disconnect them from the residential parking. b. If (a) is not possible, impose a R turn driveway exit only from 3606 ECR on the Matadero side (ie, no L turn) and a L turn only (ie, no R turn exit) onto Kendal to protect the neighborhoods from all the cut through traffic? This would probably require a short bike lane/sidewalk on Kendall between ECR and Whitsell to protect children enroute to school. c. If (a) is not possible, could the city (with neighborhood approval) make Whitsell a cul-de-sac at Matadero to prevent both 3400 and 3606 ECR development traffic from using it as a short cut, thus protecting pedestrians and cyclists. This adds some traffic to Kendall and Josina, but really only from the few houses on the first block of Whitsell. d. Install speed bumps on Kendall, Whitsell, Barron, and Josina as needed. e. Enact No Right Turn between 8:30 and 9:30 am Mon-Fri on Matadero and Kendall. f. Remove the ECR cross-lane access at Kendall, which is already dangerous, and make Barron a fully-signaled intersection (not just a signaled cross-walk when pushed). g. Barron Ave is extremely restricted between ECR and Whitsell— narrow, tree-lined. Perhaps it too needs a no turns between 8:30 - 9:30 am? H. Matadero is already impacted by traffic and the No R on Red law at ECR. What with the many large proposed developments, could the city remove this restriction at Matadero? [12/8/25: Negotiate with the county/state] i. All of these larger developments do not provide for all the potential parking needed, even 3150 which is a pretty stellar development. Where are all the approximate 300 drivers going to park when ECR no longer allows it? Some people may not use cars, but from my experience as a cyclist, even my able-bodied, clever neighbors still hop in their cars to travel 1 mile! [12/8/25: Parking permit program] The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(d) states that a city cannot deny such a project or impose conditions of approval that would render it infeasible unless it makes specified findings. In order to be eligible for AB 130 a project must comply with Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21080.66. This section offers a statutory exemption for certain housing development projects from CEQA requirements, aiming to speed up the approval process. In addition, the project is considered a “builder’s remedy project” as defined in the recently adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1893. Accordingly, the project may not be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project is further afforded numerous protections as detailed in the staff report. Thanks for any useful input to guide our city into healthy development which considers both the needs of future and current residents. Star Teachout 3550 Whitsell Avenue