From: Linda Xu
To: Council, City; Transportation
Subject: Our opinions on Grade Separation project
Date: Monday, December 8, 2025 12:24:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear city council members and transportation committee members:
The original goal of Grade Separation Funding (Measure B allocation) is to increase safety and reduce congestion of all three primary Palo Alto crossings on Caltrain corridor. After three years, now it is likely having only enough funding to one crossing.
Since the city has wasted a lot of resources and money on surveys and it is still short of a chunk of funding to fulfill its goal, why can’t the city stop this project? All this money is from us, the tax payers, and it should be used wisely. If you really want to continue, please re-evaluate the priority of which crossing should be moved forward. Also, please remember that Hybrid costs lowest and it does not require home acquisitions while Underpass with Roundabout costs highest and it requires the highest number of house acquisition which is the worst option. We and our neighborhood have been terrified with Underpass/Roundabout for a few years and our houses’ values are diminishing due to the uncertainty of this project. So, please make your decisions on the behalf of Palo Alto citizens, especially the impacted families whom you were elected to protect.
We really hope all council members can honestly speak out your opinions and keep consistence between what you say and what you vote, unlike what occurred in last Dec. meeting.
Thank you!
Linda and Eric
From: Peggy E. Kraft
To: Council, City
Subject: Grade Separation
Date: Monday, December 8, 2025 11:43:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I am a resident of South Palo Alto. I have heard that there may only be enough money for one grade separation option in Palo Alto. I would prefer that if you have limited funds that you do not do grade separation but instead use the money for increased safety measures at each rail crossing at grade. Train usage since the Covid pandemic is significantly reduced from early projections so the number of trains will likely never be high enough to require the grade separation. Many workers are now working at home or working hybrid jobs which has reduced transportation by car and train. Also, the population growth projected when the project first began is much lower now so that also means that we really do not need grade separation because the traffic and train usage will not be increasing enough to warrant such a drastic project in Palo Alto. Please consider not doing any grade separations on Palo Alto and using the money for safety upgrade to the intersections as they exist now.
If you do decide to go forward with a plan for the rail crossing at Charleston road I encourage you to pick the plan with the least taking of property which I believe is the Hybrid Plan WITHOUT the roundabout.
Putting in grade separation at Charleston mainly benefits non resident commuters and would destroy the homes and properties of Palo Alto residents. I live in South Palo Alto and there are only traffic increases twice a day and not for that long. The rest of the day the corridor is wide open.I often use San Antonio road to go east or west and that grade separation corridor can easily handle traffic that wants to go in both directions. Please consider not doing any grade separations but instead upgrading safety at the crossings and continuing to go forward with the plans for pedestrian bike crossings at different locations on Alma.
Thank you,
pKraft
From: Srdjan Petrovic
To: Council, City
Subject: Strong support for Underpass designs for Charleston/Meadow rail crossings.
Date: Monday, December 8, 2025 10:47:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I am greatly against elevating the tracks for Charleston/Meadow crossings. Elevated tracks will ruin the look and feel for the neighbors next to the tracks and beyond.
I live a few blocks away from the tracks so I'm not directly affected, but still I don't want ugly concrete in the middle of my city.
Thanks,
-Srdjan Petrovic
4014 Ben Lomond Dr.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: David Ndeto
To: Council, City
Cc: Bhatia, Ripon; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Charleston/Meadow Grade Separation - Kill the Project Now Date: Sunday, December 7, 2025 12:42:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council,
Regarding the ever-changing Grade Separation project, I urge you to just make the obvious decision and move forward. The city has held the South Palo Alto citizens hostage long enough with concept reversals, consultant changes, and fantastical budget projections.
It has become clear after each successive meeting that cost is rising, while funding for the original proposed scope diminishes. In November 2023, funding "existed" to complete grade separation at three locations. In May of this year (2025), Council Member Burt said there likely isn’t funding for Churchill, and last month (November 2025), he opined there is likely only enough funding to complete Meadow OR Charleston.
This rapid contraction of scope is a direct violation of the spirit and promise of Measure B, the voter-approved sales tax that provided the core funding. County residents did not approve a massive infrastructure tax with the expectation that Palo Alto would address only one crossing; they funded a program to deliver safety and congestion relief across multiple crossings on the Caltrain corridor.
By dedicating Palo Alto's entire 50% Measure B allocation to a single, high-cost option—due solely to the city's drawn-out, inefficient process and ever-rising estimates—the Committee is wasting resources and failing to deliver the corridor-wide relief voters paid for. The result is a failure to meet the mandate for increased safety and reduced congestion at all three primary Palo Alto intersections.
Let’s be honest, the way the City uses consultants, coupled with the process in place to thoroughly vet options, taking into consideration every loud citizen's viewpoint, there was never enough funding for all three. And once again the residents of South Palo Alto are the ones the city wants to punish for the benefit of business and residents in the North.
Since you likely won’t make a singular decision next week, rather vote to kick the can further down the road, the only obvious outcome is to kill the project now. This bloated plan has become financially and ethically indefensible. Use the funding to make the all 3 at-grade crossings safer, and encourage residents to use public transportation or bikes, rather than cater to the traffic complaints of neighboring cities at the expense of our own quality of life.
You are going to hear a lot of the Maple Grove community push for Hybrid these next two This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
weeks, but do not confuse that as a desire for that option, but rather a lesser of two evils. You have terrorized this neighborhood with scare tactics of a roundabout for three years, while diminishing property values. The committee is hellbent on doing something, when the only logical option is to scrap the plan that greatly improves non-Palo Alto citizens, while greatly affecting its taxpayers, all the while lowering the property values of the people you were elected to protect.
David Ndeto
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Clerk, City
Subject: Big bang for the buck
Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 4:34:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,
On November 10th, you unanimously approved Quiet Zones via Quad Gates. Hurrah!
Please now take the next step and vote to include in this budget cycle the $5.1 million required to install the quad gates.
The City of Palo Alto has an annual budget of over $1.1 billion. Spending less than one-half of one percent of that on quad gates would permanently solve a problem for the close to one out of five residents who have been enduring over 1,000 horn blasts per day from passing trains.
There can be no bigger bang for the tax payers’ buck.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
[email protected]
650-325-5151
From: Mar Carpanelli
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Please vote this cycle for our health
Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 3:17:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,
I am a Palo Alto resident and my family and I suffer daily from the harmful effects of noise pollution from rail operations and safety at the level crossings. Thank you for your dedication to improve health and safety in Palo Alto. I am grateful that you unanimously approved Quiet Zones via Quad Gates on November 10th.
Please vote now to include in this budget cycle the estimated $5.1 million dollars it will cost to install these vital safety and health-enhancing upgrades, even if the City must borrow to do it. Further delays will only increase costs and damage our health.
We understand budgets are challenged, but this project merits priority action since it helps protect people who cross the railway, and reduce harmful noise for the estimated 11,000 neighbors of our railway. We also understand that there is a realistic opportunity for Palo Alto to recover much or nearly all of the $5.1 million from funds held in trust by VTA, Caltrain, Measure B, and perhaps other agencies for safety improvements along our rail corridor.
Sincerely,
Maria Carpanelli
4126 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Sylvia Fung
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Cc: QuietZones PaloAlto
Subject: Urgent: budget funding for Quiet Zones.
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 5:37:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
2025-12-04
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,
I am a Palo Alto resident. I/My family are concerned about the harmful effects of noise pollution from rail operations and safety at the level crossings.
Thank you so much for your dedication to optimizing health and safety in Palo Alto.
I am grateful that you unanimously approved Quiet Zones via Quad Gates on November 10th.
Please vote now to include in this budget cycle
the estimated $5.1 million dollars it
will cost to install these vital safety and health-enhancing upgrades, even if the City must borrow to do it. It’s worth it! Further delays will only increase costs and damage our health.
We understand budgets are challenged, but we think this project merits priority action since it helps to protect travelers who cross the railway, and it will help to reduce harmful noise for the estimated (ChatGPT) 11,000 neighbors of our railway. We understand that there is a realistic opportunity for Palo Alto to recover much or nearly all of the $5.1 million from funds held in trust by VTA, Caltrain, Measure B and perhaps other agencies for safety improvements along our rail corridor.
Sincerely,
Ken & Sylvia Fung
3701 Starr King Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-384-5856
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Just a reminder of the health impacts of train horns [thanks to a San Mateo resident]:
— awakening or arousal during sleep with every horn blast, exceeding the WHO nighttime dB guidelines. — repeated startle responses, which raise cortisol, blood pressure, and heart rate and are associated with a higher risk of hypertension.
— significantly reduced quality of life.
— chronic fatigue and stress, which lead to lower focus in job performance, along with more absenteeism. — reduced property values for people within .5 miles of the train horns, and increased perception of businesses as being undesirable places to visit.
Health impacts on people standing at a train station or train crossing:
— sharp startle, discomfort, reflexive ear covering, and brief tinnitus possible. — cumulative stress reaction with each additional horn blast: elevated heart rate, blood pressure spike. — mild hearing dullness lasting minutes to hours.
—the effect on train track workers is proportionately increased.
We need funding for remediation NOW!
Thank you for writing to make your voice heard!
cc: Melinda McGee & John Melnychuk
Coordinators for
[email protected]
650-704-6236
From: Tara Sigdel
To: Council, City; Transportation
Subject: Your attention is requested about the grade separation on charleston/meadow Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 4:19:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
This is regarding the City Council meeting on 12/10/2025 to decide on the grade separation agenda for Charleston/Meadow. We appreciate your time and effort in making the best decision among the available options for these two crossings. In particular, the underpass option has issues with biker safety, property acquisition, and higher cost compared to the hybrid option. The hybrid option might be considered less favorable in terms of its contribution to concrete structures and vehicular speed on Alma. However, in this day and age, we can design something that is both environmentally and aesthetically acceptable, and that vehicular speed should not take priority over biker safety, especially for student bikers who commute to school year- round.
While there is no perfect choice one way or the other, we have faith in our council members in making a decision to choose hybrid option as the final choice.
Tara and Sharmila
Fairmeadow Neighborhood Residents
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Hing Sham
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Quiet zone Palo Alto
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 3:47:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,
I am a Palo Alto resident. I/My family are concerned about the harmful effects of noise pollution from rail operations and safety at the level crossings.
Thank you so much for your dedication to optimizing health and safety in Palo Alto. I am grateful that you unanimously approved Quiet Zones via Quad Gates on November 10th.
Please vote now to include in this budget cycle the estimated $5.1 million dollars it will cost to install these vital safety and health-enhancing upgrades, even if the City must borrow to do it. It’s worth it! Further delays will only increase costs and damage our health.
We understand budgets are challenged, but we think this project merits priority action since it helps to protect travelers who cross the railway, and it will help to reduce harmful noise for the estimated (ChatGPT) 11,000 neighbors of our railway. We understand that there is a realistic opportunity for Palo Alto to recover much or nearly all of the $5.1 million from funds held in trust by VTA, Caltrain, Measure B and perhaps other agencies for safety improvements along our rail corridor.
Sincerely,
Hing Sham
Palo Alto Resident
Sent from Hing's iPad
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Ronald Pyszka
To: Council, City
Subject: December 10 City Council Meeting on Grade Separation Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 12:09:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Charleston/Meadow Grade Separation
To: Members of the Palo Alto City Council
The following are a few thoughts for your consideration in conjunction with the December 10 City Council meeting on grade separation.
Hybrid remains the best option for the Charleston/Meadow crossings. Most importantly, it avoids private property seizures. Even though the majority of the property seizures associated with the Underpass option are partial seizures, they can be quite meaningful to the home owners involved.
The Hybrid option is substantially less expensive the Underpass option. Even if the Churchill crossing is indefinitely postponed, we need to be fiscally responsible in our spending on the Charleston/Meadow crossings.
It is noteworthy that the Hybrid option was the preferred option among those who attended the September 30 outreach meeting.
Increased automobile traffic through the Charleston crossing is one of the purported benefits of the Underpass option. However, traffic on eastbound Charleston already backs up nearly to Alma street as it encounters the Carlson, Nelson, and Middlefield traffic lights. Charleston simply does not have the capacity for substantially increased traffic. Moreover, Charleston has been designated a school corridor with the intent of reducing automobile traffic. Let’s not forget this.
The Direct Access alternative for the Underpass option is still a very preliminary concept that may turn out to be less desirable than it seems at first glance. For instance, since it was first This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
unveiled at the September 30 outreach meeting it has come to light that it will require U-turns at Mumford and possible Ely, resulting in additional property takings.
Thank you very much for your consideration. I hope that you find the above observations helpful in your decision making.
Ronald Pyszka
Walnut Grove resident since 1974
From: Peter Coughlan
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; [email protected]; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Please oh please oh please prioritize funding for quad-gate rail crossings! Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:20:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello wonderful city council!
You’ve heard from me many times over the last 2 decades (including only a few weeks ago) on the issue of grade crossings since I live right on the tracks at the corner of Churchill and Alma! I’m sending this email to add to the voices asking that the council finds a way to keep the quad-gate project in the budget, even during these challenging times (fiscally speaking).
Thanks so much for your service to the community, and for giving us the opportunity to provide input into the process!
Yours,
Peter Coughlan
Southgate and train-track adjacent resident since 2001
From: Bruce Arthur
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: PABAC Recommendations for Grade Separations at Meadow and Charleston Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:50:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee met on Tuesday December 2nd, and received a presentation from city staff and consultants about the plans for rail grade separations. After the presentation, the following motion was passed.
PABAC recommends the Hybrid options for Charleston and Meadow advance to 15% designs. PABAC does not recommend the Underpass options to advance.
Passage was unanimous:
Alan Wachtel
Art Liberman
Bill Zaumen
Bruce Arthur
Cedric de la Beaujardiere
Eric Nordman
Jane Rosten
Nicole Rodia
Paul Goldstein
Penny Ellson
Robert Neff
Thank you,
Bruce Arthur, Chair of PABAC
From: Eric Krock
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Council, City; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: require lithium iron phosphate batteries for grid scale storage, not lithium ion batteries Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:58:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayors, Councilmembers, and Supervisors - I’m a strong supporter of decarbonization, electrification, and grid scale storage. However, as the below article about the Moss Landing grid storage battery fire shows, we can’t trust storage providers to adequately guard against the risk of thermal runaway on their own in their system design, and in assessing facility risk, we also have to consider potential long-term health and environmental impact from battery fires disseminating toxic metals into the air and wetlands as happened at Moss Landing.
If grid storage is proposed in your area, please require newer battery chemistries such as lithium iron phosphate that have lower risk of thermal runaway than lithium ion, and please carefully evaluate the installation design to see how it mitigates the risk of contagion from one battery unit to the next.
Grid storage is the future of emissions reduction. But it needs more competent service providers than Duke Energy and better oversight than Monterey’s county board provided.
Thanks very much,
Eric Krock
755 Ramona Ave, Sunnyvale
mobile 408-836-5230
https://theconversation.com/when-the-worlds-largest-battery-power-plant-caught-fire-toxic- metals-rained-down-wetlands-captured-the-fallout-268848 Sent from my iPhone
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: lisa kelly
To: Council, City
Subject: Don"t make a bike path spur behind Chimalus Drive Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:46:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members -
Please do not build a new bike path spur in the greenbelt behind Chimalus Drive. It would be expensive, unnecessary, and a major disturbance to the residents on Chimalus, who have already faced years of problems due to chemical tanks at CPI.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the current bike path plans already will provide access to the Research Park, including crossing El Camino at the light at Portage Avenue/Hansen Way.
Let’s not spend our city money on expensive projects that hurt many and benefit no one.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Kelly
____________
Elizabeth Kelly (she/her)
[email protected]
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Linda Xu
To: Council, City; Transportation
Subject: Our opinions about Grade Separation on Charleston/Meadow Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 12:24:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear city councilor members and transportation committee members:
We are approaching to the city councilor meeting on 12/10/2025. We all know it is pivotal for the grade separation project on Charleston/Meadow. We really hope all councilor members can honestly speak out your opinions and please keep consistence between what you say and what you vote, unlike what happened in last Dec. meeting.
When you consider this project, please remember that Hybrid costs lowest and it does not require home acquisitions while Underpass with Roundabout costs highest and it requires the highest number of house acquisition. So, please make your decisions on the behalf of the majority of Palo Alto citizens, especially the affected families. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Linda and Eric