Item AA3 Public Comments — Palo Alto City Council, June 18, 2024

From: Deborah Goldeen
To: Council, City
Subject: Seale Ave Underpass
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:06:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

The people objecting to this underpass are same people who shot down the viaduct option a decade ago.

From: Deborah Goldeen
To: Council, City
Subject: Seale Ave Underpass
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 6:56:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

The Cal Ave pedestrian/bike underpass is too crowded all the time. We need a second underpass whether or not Churchill is closed.

From: k jm
To: Council, City; Kat
Subject: The Alternatives from Alma residents POV
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 4:43:00 PM
Attachments: Alternatives Churchill Underpass.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello,
After learning of eminent domain on April 29, 2024, the attached is now corrected.

Regards,
Kathleen Jason-Moreau
Comparison of Alternatives - The table below compares the Churchill alternatives based on criteria specified by the City Council and some suggested by residents (Southgate residents?)

Criterion Closure Underpass
POV – Alma neighbors re
the Partial Underpass

Requires private properties no no YES - Absolutely

Large above-ground
structures no no no

Preserves Traffic Flow no mostly NO

Separates bikes and peds
from traffic yes yes NO

Reduces traffic delay and
congestion no yes NO

Supports Caltrain
operations yes yes ?

Maintains access to
neighborhoods, parks, and
schools
no mostly
NO –will need to drive
side streets to cross

Reduces traffic on
neighborhood streets no yes
NO – Increases traffic on
neighborhood streets

Minimize visual changes yes some NO - absolutely not

Minimize construction
impacts mostly no no
Relative cost medium high More expensive than
closure or ‘do nothing’

Evaluation of the Partial Underpass proposal using the City Council's “adopted criteria” has been prepared, but it is unofficial. https://www.caltrainpaloalto.org/Churchill-alternatives.html

From: Linda Xu
To: Council, City
Subject: Please make a correct decision on the option of grade separation on Charleston/Meadow Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 2:29:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council:

I want to remind all of you that, based on the current housing market price, full acquisition of only two properties in Palo Alto will cost much more than 2 million dollars for Underpass option! Not to mention acquisition of 33 family properties which is a huge budget. Our city should not waste our tax payers' money on it! Besides, Hybrid option costs ~4 million dollars which is only about half of Underpass. It needs a lot short project time without dealing with legal issues caused by acquisition of properties and it provides safer traffic routes for bikes, pedestrians and cars.

Therefore, underpass is not a correct choice! we urge the city council to choose Hybrid option of grade separation on Charleston/Meadow. Thank you!
Linda
From: Shashwat
To: Council, City
Subject: Say NO to Meadow/Charleston Underpass
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:17:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Good morning,
I’m joining my fellow community members in letting our leaders know how much we vehemently oppose the underpass option at Meadow & Charleston.

Our family has been living in Palo Alto for 20 years and on Roosevelt Circle for 15+ years.

We are proud Gunn, JLS, & Fairmeadow alumni who have always felt like the council has done right by the citizens of Palo Alto.

Any discussions of moving forward with the underpass option will change how all of us in the Fairmeadow & Greenmeadow communities view the mayor & city council, especially when there’s an alternative in the hybrid option that costs less and doesn’t involve property acquisitions.

The hybrid model is the one we can all get behind, and I hope you make the right decision by stopping any further advancement of the underpass in tomorrow's meeting.

Thank you!
From: Patrice Banal
To: Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Subject: REJECT CHARLESTON UNDERPASS, SUPPORT HYBRID
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 12:27:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto City Council,
I thank the council, rail committee, XCAP, and the Planning Department for their work over the past seven years.

I am asking the council to keep the goal of Grade Separation focused on moving traffic, not families. Any plan that utilizes Eminent Domain and forced property acquisitions is NOT an option for Palo Alto.

To this point, Please reject the Charleston Underpass with a Roundabout alternative – as it relies on 30 partial and complete property acquisitions, effectively banishing citizens from their homes and communities while causing financial and emotional devastation to impacted families.

The Underpass Option is an unsafe convoluted maze for bikes, pedestrians, and students to navigate. It is exceedingly expensive, environmentally aggressive, and unethically places the burden of progress disproportionately on the citizens in Southern Palo Alto.

Conversely, the Hybrid option offers a safer, less invasive, less expensive, and genuinely equitable grade separation solution that supports a unified city where citizens can rely on ethical governance that does not strip citizens of their property rights, community, or investment.

We currently have, at best, only 5% of the engineering firmed up. Given all the unknowns we face-finances, ridership, Caltrain relations, timelines, physical constraints, additional litigation costs, and knowing that Caltrain will become the Lead Implementing agency on this project, it is in our collective best interest to endorse the least invasive solution. One with no risk of increased property takes.

PRICING:

The Underpass is estimated to cost $850m, while the Hybrid is estimated to cost $480m. Mayor Stone said that he "must do what is best for all 64,000 Palo Altans,"
Considering the pricing differences in the Hybrid and Underpass projects, and the city's financial challenges, moving forward with an option that strips some citizens of their property while burdening all citizens with an extra $400m in debt is fiscally irresponsible for an inferior project.

SAFETY-The Underpass is too hard to navigate, and students will opt to share the road with cars, while the Hybrid solution does not risk lives.

WATER ENVIRONMENTAL/FLOOD ZONES
The Hybrid is safely 12 feet above groundwater levels, while the Underpass is 6 feet BELOW current groundwater levels, causing environmental and safety concerns.

EQUITY—The Hybrid is the most equitable solution for all Palo Altans as it does not require ANY property acquisitions, .

Please endorse the Hybrid option as the preferred grade separation solution for Southern Palo Alto so that more engineering studies can proceed.

Please reject the Charleston Underpass and Roundabout and do not invest any more money or time in this dangerous, expensive engineering nightmare.

Thank you,
Patrice Fester

From: ej taylor
To: Clerk, City
Subject: Charleston Road underpass and roundabout
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 9:32:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

To whom it may concern -
My 80 year old mother’s house is one of the two consistently proposed to be acquired, demolished and turned into a roundabout no one wants and no one even knows how to use.

Instead of enjoying her twilight years, my mother is worried she won’t have a house to live in. A house, that, incidentally, she spent 40 years making a home. And garden she took from a dead lawn to an amazing ecosystem.

It’s filled with fruit trees and a variety of other plant species that she personally planted. Plants that attract various wildlife, pollinators, insects and birds. Such a shame to lose that to a project that will do the opposite.

Sure, this project might take years to get going but how cruel to add this stress and anxiety over a maybe/maybe not eminent domain situation to my mother’s later years.

Not to mention that this mess is lowering our property values - which is starting to feel like it might be an intentional choice.

The underpass and the resulting roundabout are not wanted or needed. Please find another, less destructive solution! ~ ej Taylor
Sent from my iPhone
From: Marisa Reyes
To: Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation; Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject: Grade Separation Meadow/Charleston
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:53:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council Members,
I was born and raised in Palo Alto, and am a Gunn Alumni. I have 3 children - 2 recent Gunn grads, and my youngest just completed his freshman year at Gunn. All my kids rode/ride their bikes across Alma daily to/from school.

I appreciate all the efforts that have gone in over the years to consider different solutions for grade separation, and appreciate that these solutions are thoughtful, optimized designs.

While the grade separation project will not affect my children, I still have concerns about the Underpass solution, which will create a complicated homebound bike route from Gunn, requiring students to maneuver across W. Charleston on a bridge and awkwardly rejoin the bike path. Because of this, I worry that some students will choose to go with the cars on the underpass which is more direct but way more dangerous. I believe the Hybrid solution with a standard 4-way traffic light at Alma and Charleston is simpler, safer, and makes more sense for teens.

Separately, the Underpass design with the redirection of traffic through a traffic circle in order to make turns at Charleston is unnecessarily complicated, and the Meadow intersection is also similarly complicated and restrictive. While it can reduce congestion at those intersections for through traffic, it will simply encourage more speeding and worsen the congestion at other intersections like Oregon and Embarcadero, etc. By grade separating the trains from cars and people, the Hybrid solution should already provide improvement over current and future anticipated congestion.

Finally, the Underpass solution costs substantially more, and impacts 33 families in our neighborhood.

Why would we choose that over the simpler, safer, and less expensive Hybrid solution? I strongly urge the City Council to move forward with the Hybrid solution.

Thank you for your time,
Marisa Reyes
From: Marisa Reyes
To: Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation; Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject: Grade Separation Meadow/Charleston
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:53:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

I appreciate all the efforts that have gone in over the years to consider different solutions for grade separation, and appreciate that these solutions are thoughtful, optimized designs.

Finally, the Underpass solution costs substantially more, and impacts 33 families in our neighborhood.

Why would we choose that over the simpler, safer, and less expensive Hybrid solution? I strongly urge the City Council to move forward with the Hybrid solution.

Thank you for your time,
Marisa Reyes
From: Alan Wachtel
To: Council, City
Subject: Grade separation alternatives (June 18 meeting, agenda item AA3) Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:43:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Members of the Council:

Agenda Item AA3 for your Tuesday, June 18, meeting asks you to select grade separation alternatives to advance to the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation phase.

On May 7, the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), of which I'm a member, adopted by unanimous vote the following recommendation for the Meadow and Charleston crossings:
"PABAC prefers the Hybrid which provides a direct route, shorter grade change than the underpass at significantly lower cost than the Viaduct or Underpass. (Note: We do not know if the cost of moving underground utilities was included in the estimated project cost. Also, we don’t know what the long-term maintenance costs for the pumping station may be.) The Hybrid alternative will require lower levels of local funding, with a substantial portion of capital costs covered by Regional, State and Federal sources. Pedestrians and bicyclists will be safely separated from train traffic and each other with bike lanes. It requires no acquisition of private properties; however, driveway modification may be required. "PABAC does not recommend the underpass, though we recognize this alternative completely separates foot-powered people from six lanes of fast-moving vehicular traffic on Alma Street and is the alternative that reduces motor vehicle delays at Alma. Unfortunately, the underpass also imposes out-of-direction travel and longer grade changes than the hybrid alternative and viaduct require. The committee has a strong preference to minimize out-of- direction travel and longer grade change segments for foot-powered pedestrians, bicyclists and other wheeled devices like wheelchairs and strollers."
The full text of this recommendation, which is not cited in staff reports, was sent to the Council on May 10 by PABAC chair Bruce Arthur, under the subject line "PABAC Recommendations for Rail Crossings." This text includes greater detail about the drawbacks of the underpass alternative. It also recommends beginning design work on a midtown bicycle- pedestrian rail crossing as soon as possible so construction can be completed before work on Charleston and Meadow begins; construction of an alternative bike-pedestrian crossing prior to the start of construction work on Churchill; and an additional south Palo Alto bike-ped crossing in the vicinity of Lindero. Please see that message for more complete information on these subjects.

I urge the Council to advance the hybrid alternative to the next phase of study, as the best option for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
--
Alan Wachtel
Palo Alto
From: David Taylor
To: Clerk, City
Subject: Regarding Charleston Rd development
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:05:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

To whom it may concern,
I hope all is well with you. I’m writing this on behalf of my Mother in Law, an 80 year old lady that has lived on Charleston Rd for over 40 years.

Let’s ask why we need a roundabout
Scenario 1 - Vehicles coming from Mountain View or Downtown Palo Alto on Alma want to head either up or down Charleston Rd towards the 280 or 101.

Solution: 1 or 3 blocks
over they can use the overpass at San
Antonio
Or underpass at Oregon Expressway
Scenario 2 - Vehicles heading up or down Charleston Rd want to turn onto Alma
Solution: Use Middlefield to San Antonio or El Camino to San Antonio
I understand that these solutions may add a small amount to transit time, however, is the cost of building a roundabout and displacing families really worth it?
As technology progresses, we’re only a few years away from cars driving themselves and easily navigating around all kinds of bottlenecks in our road systems. Please ask yourself, if this is to be your legacy, can you live with displacing so many families and spending so much tax payers money on a short term solution to a problem that probably won’t even exist in a few years, that’s if it’s even exists now.

Best Regards,
David Taylor
From: Neeraj Gupta
To: Council, City; Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation
Subject: Proposed Grade Separation Project
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 6:17:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Underpass project at the intersection of Charleston and Alma road, which involves the acquisition of properties that could significantly devalue our community. As a resident of Palo Alto since 2008 and a parent with two children within the PAUSD, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this project could have on our community.

The proposal to acquire properties and implement the Underpass solution raises several concerns that must be addressed. Firstly, the uncertainty surrounding which properties will be acquired creates unnecessary anxiety and disruption for residents. This ambiguity also poses a risk to property values in the affected areas, which is alarming for all homeowners, including myself.

Furthermore, the Underpass solution could severely impact both bike and pedestrian traffic as well as car traffic in our city. Palo Alto prides itself on being a pedestrian and bike-friendly community, and any project that complicates these modes of transportation would be detrimental to our quality of life. Specifically, the Underpass solution is concerning because it may create safety hazards for children, including my daughter, biking home from Gunn High School and could potentially increase traffic congestion in the area.

Instead of pursuing the Underpass solution, I strongly urge the City Council to consider the Hybrid solution, which has been proposed as a viable alternative. Not only is the Hybrid solution $400 million less expensive, but it also offers a simpler and safer approach for both cars and pedestrians. Importantly, this alternative does not involve the acquisition of any homes, thereby avoiding the negative impact on property values and community stability.

I believe that supporting the Hybrid solution aligns with our city’s values and long-term interests. It ensures that we maintain our commitment to sustainable transportation options while also prioritizing the safety and well-being of our community members, especially our children.

In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council reconsider the proposed project at Charleston Road and instead endorse the Hybrid solution. By doing so, we can protect the integrity of our neighborhoods, enhance our transportation infrastructure, and preserve the unique character that makes Palo Alto such a wonderful place to live.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this important matter.

Sincerely,
Neeraj Gupta
3711 Starr King Cir
Palo Alto, CA, 94306
From: Sharmila Sigdel
To: Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation; Council, City
Subject: Please vote for HYBRID option for Charleston/Meadow grade separation Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:38:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am a resident of 50 Roosevelt Circle and I'm writing to strongly support the hybrid option for grade separation at Charleston and Meadow, and to urge you to abandon the underpass option completely. The hybrid option offers a balanced and considerate solution that addresses our community's needs without the severe negative impacts associated with the underpass option.

The underpass option, which involves taking properties and reducing lot sizes, presents significant drawbacks, including loss of property, community disruption, and lasting construction impacts for affected residents and the broader community. Additionally, the underpass option is detrimental to our cherished trees, which we consider our family of ages.

This option would displace families, disrupt established neighborhoods, and harm the natural environment we hold dear. In contrast, the hybrid option does not require the taking of private properties, thereby preserving the integrity and value of residential lots and protecting our beloved trees.

I firmly believe that the hybrid option is the best choice for our city, preserving the interests of our residents while achieving the necessary infrastructure improvements. I urge you to endorse the hybrid option and to completely abandon the underpass option, which poses too great a risk to our community's well-being.

Sincerely,
Sharmila Sigdel
50 Roosevelt Cir, Palo Alto, CA
From: Jordan Fester
To: Patrice Banal; Michael Wessel; Council, City
Subject: Grade Separation at Charleston and Meadows
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:26:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

City Council Members,
My family's multi generational home is the ONLY home I have ever known. It is where I was raised, attended schools from Preschool Family through Gunn, where our neighbors rallied to support us when my Dad passed while I was in kindergarten; it is our safe space and our launch pad.

Now, my family and many of our neighbors on Charleston Road could lose our homes, communities,and financial stability if you vote to move forward with the Charleston Underpass and traffic circle for Grade Separation in Southern Palo Alto.

The Underpass which involves over 30 partial and full property acquisitions is an expensive, divisive, unsafe and over engineered option that does not warrant the time or monetary investment for further studies and should be rejected by the council this week.

The council repeatedly said they did not want to use forced (negotiated) property acquisitions for grade separation, Please stand on your words. Using eminent domain in Southern Palo Alto in the name of progress would never happen in Northern Palo Alto, this is neither equitable nor ethical. The Fair Market Value sales price can NOT truly compensate for all of the economic, social, and emotional losses we will face.

Please approve the Hybrid option as the preferred solution to move forward with and study more in depth. It is a safer, less aggressive, less expensive, and more equitable solution for ALL PALO ALTANS as it does not require any property acquisitions.

As a recent Gunn graduate who bicycled to school daily, I have serious concerns about the unwieldy flow of the bike and ped lanes in the underpass design.They are so steep and severe that they are an unsafe option, and Gunn students will assuredly opt to ride in the road with car traffic rather than use them which ultimately makes the Underpass a dangerous option.

Finally, as a former PAUSD student impacted by the tragic suicides in our communities, I would ask Council members to please refrain from politicizing mental health struggles and teen suicides.Grade separation is necessary, AND so is a comprehensive mental health network for Palo Alto students, this in no way means that citizens that are anti property acquisitions for grade separation are insensitive to teen suicides and to imply this is unethical and bad politics.

Please endorse the Hybrid option as the preferred grade separation solution to move forward for Charleston road.

Please reject any option that would include property acquisitions.

Thank you for your time and efforts.

Jordan A Fester
Gunn 2022
Seattle University 2026

From: David Ndeto
To: Burt, Patrick
Cc: Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation; Council, City; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Grade Separation - Meadow/Charleston property acquisition Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:14:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Councilmember Burt,
Congratulations on your announcement to seek another 4 years on the City Council. Palo Alto needs trusted council members who honor their word and prioritize the best interests of our community.

At the council meeting last week, regarding the grade separation options for Meadow/Charleston, you addressed homeowners “cause for concern” by saying “we don’t have any knowledge yet as to which properties“ would be acquired.

What we have, you continued, “is a conceptual design, a 5% design. It’s really a proof of concept … a worst case scenario”. Authorizing a move forward, you’re asking the community to trust the committee and council with finding the best case scenario.

However, by saying you don’t have any
knowledge yet, you’re really saying every property
owner in the Meadow and Charleston area of South Palo Alto could potentially face future acquisition if the grade separation underpass proposal progresses. That said, no rational property owner would invest in home improvements or renovations without certainty about which properties will be fully or partially acquired. This uncertainty will significantly reduce the overall property values in the area.

If this was not your intention and you do know which houses will be impacted, your statement was merely an attempt to appease a growing angry public while pushing your agenda forward.

So, which is it, Councilmember Burt? Are you a council member who keeps his word, or a typical politician who tells people what they want to hear to advance their agenda? Have you unintentionally misled your constituents, or are you conspiring to lower property values for cheaper acquisitions? All Palo Altans deserve a clear and honest answer.

David Ndeto
242 East Charleston
8086333379
Cheers,
David Ndeto
8086333379
From: Peggy E. Kraft
To: Council, City
Subject: Grade Separation at Charleston Road
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 4:16:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council Members,
I have been able to speak with most of you in person or by Zoom recently and I appreciate your taking the time.

As you know I am against the underpass proposal for grade separation at Charleston road. I am against it because it has a roundabout and it has enhanced bike lanes which will require the city to take at least two homes and 28 partial properties on just the East side of Charleston alone.

I have spoken in favor of the Hybrid plan instead of the Underpass because it does not require the taking of our Palo Alto Residents property. The Hybrid proposal is also flawed so it is my hope that the City Council will have both proposals moved forward for further design assessment in the hopes that you can encourage the engineers to come up with better and less flawed designs.

Regarding the Underpas proposal I have two ideas that I would like you to ask the engineers to consider if this plan is moved forward.

One solution is to keep the Underpass proposal but without the roundabout and the enhanced bike lanes. As the plan is now the underpass leaves Alma at the same grade level but drops Charleston below the train track. With this plan the roundabout is added on East Charleston so that cars traveling on Alma (North or South) can turn onto East Charleston and continue East or go through the roundabout and go West under the tracks. I believe that the engineers should consider one or two variations of the underpass option which I list below. 1) Do not have any stop lights on Alma for people to turn onto East Charleston to then go East or West. This eliminates the roundabout completely. Instead the traffic that wants to turn could continue onto San Antonio to go East or West. This also removes stop lights on Alma and thus allows the North/South traffic on Alma to flow more smoothly and quickly. So with this idea all East/West traffic on Charleston moves smoothly and all North/South traffic on Charleston moves smoothly. The only change is that traffic wanting to turn East or West on Charleston will take San Antonio instead. I have stated previously to all council members that there is never any traffic backed up to go east or west on San Antonio even at rush hour. 2) If they insist on the roundabout then make it a ONE LANE roundabout instead of a two lane. This would also move traffic more smoothly as cars would not be coming into the circle from two lanes and then try to maneuver to where they want to exit the roundabout. Also remove the enhanced bike/pedestrian lane from the design. The street is already properly striped with a bike lane and a sidewalk. There is no need to remove property from 28 Palo Alto residents homes to enhance what is already working and safe.

I hope that you will pass my ideas onto the committee that will do the Preliminary Engineering Review.

Thank you,
Peggy Kraft
Mumford Place
From: Leila Sharif
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Clerk, City; Tanaka, Greg; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: Objection to the Palo Alto Grade Separation Plan Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 2:59:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear council members of Palo Alto city,
I am Leila Sharif, the owner of the house at 3787 Starr King Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Me, my husband, my daughter, my son, and my mother have been living in this house since 2017. My kids went to PAUSD schools (JLS, Terman/fletcher, and Gunn) and I have been volunteering in PAUSD schools for years.

I am a USPS Federal employee in the Mountain View office, which is the closest USPS office to our house.

The grade separation project, as currently planned, will have a significant negative impact on my property especially as our backyard is very narrow. Through this process we will most likely lose all of our backyard which makes living in this home as a family of 5 impossible. We love our backyard. Having moved from Canada, it was important for us to find a home that has diverse and plentiful plants and outdoor areas. We have put lots of effort into upkeep of the backyard. Aside from planting various flowers and succulents throughout the years, our favorite part of the outside area is our beautiful and wonderful mature Mulberry tree. This huge tree is amazing. It blocks off most the sun in the hot summer days and provides amazing shade where we can hangout and have family dinners under. Through this proposal, our lovely tree will die. Our house will be incomplete without this protector tree that overlooks our beautiful house. I am asking the city to reconsider its positions on taking away not just our beautiful land that we have worked years into building but also the beautiful homes of our neighbors that surely are upset by these decisions. Let Palo Alto maintain its beautiful natural history through the landscapes we love and adore.

Thank you for listening to my concerns,
Dr. Leila Sharif-Hassanabadi
pen_spark
From: Leila Sharif
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Clerk, City; Tanaka, Greg; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: Objection to the Palo Alto Grade Separation Plan Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 2:59:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

I am a USPS Federal employee in the Mountain View office, which is the closest USPS office to our house.

Thank you for listening to my concerns,
Dr. Leila Sharif-Hassanabadi
pen_spark
From: Hassan Abolhassani
To: Council, City
Subject: Support for Hybrid solution for Charleston grade separation Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 12:44:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Palo Alto city council,
I am Hassan Abolhassani resident at 3787 Starr King Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306.

I would like to raise my voice in support for Hybrid solution because it is 400M less expensive, simpler for car and bike/pedestrians, less dangerous for kids biking home from Gunn, and does not impact ANY homes.

I am not sure why underpass solution was considered and is under discussion. I hope you hear my voice and others and vote in favor of hybrid solution.

Thank you
Hassan Abolhassani
3787 Starr King Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-338-9015
From: Barbara Ann Hazlett
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Tanaka, Greg
Subject: Churchill Rail Crossing - Support the Partial Underpass Date: Saturday, June 15, 2024 2:42:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:

If the Palo Alto City Council back tracks on its first choice for dealing with the Churchill rail crossing, namely the partial underpass, then its backup position is the closure of Churchill Ave. (one of only three east/west conduits in the north part of Palo Alto). The issue of eminent domain is a difficult one. But let's be absolutely clear about the impact of a closure of Churchill. A Churchill closure would essentially result in eminent domain to the hundreds of residents and homes near and along Embarcadero. As became clear during the years of rail crossing analysis, XCAP and Council meetings, a Churchill closure would result in dumping 10,000 more cars a day onto Embarcadero.

There would be serious impacts to driveways, increase in air and noise pollution and delays in emergency response times, where minutes can make the difference between life and death. And how about the isolation this closure would impose on the Southgate neighborhood? Simply put, where is the fairness, where is the equity of degrading life for hundreds for the benefit of a few? Council has made its decision based on years of debate, input and analysis, now please stick to it.

Best Regards,
Barbara Hazlett
Emerson St.

Palo Alto, CA
From: Philip L Ritter
To: Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City; Transportation; Clerk, City
Subject: grade separations at Charleston and Meadow
Date: Friday, June 14, 2024 11:22:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear council members and involved city officials,

I only recently had a chance to read over the 5/23/24 Rail Meeting document, which does help me in understanding some of the options. We have lived in Palo Alto for 53 years and in Fairmeadow for 42 years, and I have long been a frequent cyclist, commuting to Stanford by bicycle for over 35 years. Of the two sets of options presented for our area, I would greatly favor the hybrid options for several reasons. The underpass options appear to be considerably more expensive. They take away more property (including parts of the historic Fairmeadow and Greenmeadow neighborhoods) impacting many people in our area. And the underground options would be more complex for bicyclists along the heavily traveled route to Gunn high school (we have a grandson who commutes by bike from Loma Verde to Gunn). The underpass options would likely make Alma more like Central Express Way and Charleston more like Embarcadero, two changes that would affect the character and livability of our neighborhood. I would not be opposed to either an aqueduct or underground railroad, two options which appear to be now off the table. Thus, of the remaining options, I would support the hybrid but not the underground options.

Philip Ritte
3618 Bryant St

From: Philip L Ritter
To: Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City; Transportation; Clerk, City
Subject: grade separations at Charleston and Meadow
Date: Friday, June 14, 2024 11:22:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear council members and involved city officials,

Philip Ritte
3618 Bryant St

From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Subject: Caltrain grade separations - A Viaduct is the best approach Date: Friday, June 14, 2024 9:12:23 AM
Attachments: Palo Alto - Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster v5.pdf Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

June 14, 2024

Palo Alto City Council

Attached is an updated presentation advocating that a Viaduct is the best approach for Palo Alto grade separations.

This presentation is also at the Dropbox folder linked below, in case the City email system filters out attachments.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xzlgm834doc5dvw66u07w/h? rlkey=13pmev0m6y8hebi2v4mnud6es&dl=0

Mike Forster, Evergreen Park
420 Stanford Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650 464 0425
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Subject: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Grade Crossings
Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 12:57:36 PM
This Message contains suspicious characteristics and has originated outside your organization.

Hello City Council,
We need to eliminate the rail grade crossings in in Palo Alto. There are no easy solutions.

Each solution will have people upset. For Churchill, there would be no clear path through, just a partial. For Meadow and Charleston, lots of digging and loss of property or homes.

There is one solution that has been discarded and I believe should be discussed again and thoroughly vetted. The elevated track solution would have many positive aspects. Churchill, Meadow and Charles would each have a clear path, no digging or loss of property.

However Caltrain won't allow the elevated tracks on their right-of-way. The solution then is to put above Alma. The downside would be the view for folks on Alma. Cost may also be a factor. I believe the High Speed Project has a lot of elevated tracks. We could use the same design here in Palo alto and this would save engineering costs. What we need is 3D images of what this would look like. Also we would need updates on the cost for this solution.

Thank you,
Gary Lindgren

585 Lincoln Ave.

Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655

Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Chinese proverb

Be Like Costco…do something in a different way

Don’t trust Atoms…they make up everything

Fortune Favors The Brave
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said.

The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small.

So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative.

The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.

It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place.

Amos Tversky

From: Drew Hudacek
To: Council, City
Subject: Hudacek letter re: Churchill Grade Separation
Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 2:20:01 PM
Attachments: 2024 06 10 City Council Letter.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Drew & BreƩe Hudacek 109/109A Coleridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

June 10, 2024

Via Email: [email protected]

Palo Alto City Council
c/o ‐ Oﬃce of the City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Greer Stone, Mayor
Ed Lauing, Vice Mayor
Patrick Burt, Council Member
Julie LythcoƩ‐Haims, Council Member
Lydia Kou, Council Member
Greg Tanaka, Council Member
Vicki Veenker, Council Member

Dear City Council,
My wife and I have owned our home for almost twenty years at the corner of Coleridge and Alma; 109 and 109A. We have recently been made aware of the potenƟal taking of land along Alma associated with the proposed Churchill grade separaƟon alternaƟve. We understand the need for study and the idea of the greater good in public policy decisions.

We went into the recent Rail CommiƩee meeƟng looking to learn and understand what consideraƟons are being weighed. It became clear to us that there is a beƩer alternaƟve.

In our previous communicaƟons, we noted the environmental consideraƟons of building this alternaƟve, the safety aspect, the issue of property rights and maybe most importantly, the fact that the taking of land along Alma reduces possibly the only land in the City of Palo Alto which our housing policy idenƟﬁes as potenƟal for aﬀordable and aƩainable housing. Palo Alto in fact waves discreƟonary design review in this corridor in the hopes that it will speed the creaƟon of more housing at both Aﬀordable and aƩainable levels.

What became clear to us in the last meeƟng, however, is that the Churchill grade separaƟon, as all large projects, solves many exisƟng and future perceived issues and causes many more. Any project of this scale and magnitude will do so. It is part of a three‐grade crossing package including East Meadow and Charleston and has many future chapters including being chosen, being designed, being funded and having the property acquisiƟon completed. These are long and complicated processes and the $500MM budget for the three will certainly balloon by the Ɵme all three are completed if in fact they are built at all.

The reality, however, is that the Churchill crossing and the possibility of grade separaƟng is, by Palo Alto’s own admission, the third of three priority crossings. It is not even clear if it is needed. Add to that the fact that Sunnyvale and Mountain View and others are well ahead of us in line for local funding such as VTA Measure B funds and federal funding. It is impossible to know if this project will ever get funding.

Drew & BreƩe Hudacek 109/109A Coleridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Instead, an alternaƟve exists that solves many problems and causes others but does not require hundreds of millions of dollars or property acquisiƟon. This is of course closing the Churchill Crossing to vehicular traﬃc and leaving it at grade
for bike and ped crossings if desired.

The discussions and materials around the Churchill grade separaƟon that have been prepared to date are confusing at best. Many of the images and renderings do not match the text descripƟons. Many of the members of the design teams and even City representaƟves or consultants have not inspected the site or done much in the way of community outreach of which we are aware. What is clear is that closing the Churchill crossing to vehicular traﬃc is the soluƟon. It saves hundreds of millions of dollars and years if not decades of uncertainty for the community. We encourage you to adopt this as the preferred alternaƟve for the Churhill crossing.

The Churchill grade separaƟon project seems to be an answer to a quesƟon that nobody is asking.

Best,

Drew & BreƩe Hudacek
415.706.0763

From: Andrew Hudacek
To: Council, City
Subject: Hudacek letter re: Churchill Grade Separation
Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 2:18:42 PM
Attachments: 2024 06 10 City Council Letter.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

City Council,
Please find enclosed a letter addressing the decision to study the Churchill Grade Separation.

Please select an alternative to close the existing crossing to vehicular traffic.

Thank you,
Drew & Brette Hudacek
109/109A Coleridge Avenue
415.706.0763
From: Roger Pierno
To: Council, City
Subject: Grade Separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 1:43:18 PM
Attachments: Message to City Council re Caltrain Grade Separation.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Please see my attache PDF with comments on the subject grade separation.

Best regards,
Roger Pierno
College Terrace

Palo Alto City CouncilJune 18, 2024

Palo Alto City Council
June 18, 2024