Dear Mayor Nash, Vice Mayor Wolosin, Council Members Combs, Mueller and Taylor, and City Staff,
We are writing from the Menlo Park neighborhoods of Park Forest, Linfield Oaks, Felton Gables, Mills Court and its adjacent apartments, the Marquis Townhomes, San Antonio Street, The Classics at Burgess, and others along the Caltrain rail line in Menlo Park.
Since the January 14, 2020 meeting when Council discussed moving forward with a study of a fully elevated Caltrain grade separation project, our neighborhoods have come together in support of significantly reducing the negative impact of trains in our homes and lives, starting with the imminent and persistent scourge of train horns but also extending to visual, rumble, and light-plane impacts related to future development along the rail line.
With regard to tonight’s agenda item of the study of the fully elevated option to train grade separation, we stand with the January 2020 recommendations of our Felton Gables neighbors and respectfully request that you consider these in depth. The detailed suggestions were referred by Council to subsequent conversations between Staff and two members of the former Rail Subcommittee; however these discussions did not occur.
In addition to the original suggestions, below, we respectfully add one more consideration: that the study estimate peak noise and vibration as well as averages. Study models often predict averages, but this should also predict the amount of variability.
The impact and consequences of the City’s grade separation decision will last well more than a century and affect many generations of Menlo Park residents to come. We urge a more thorough and careful study, particularly in the more heavily residential areas along the tracks, north of Oak Grove Ave. The considerations for improving the study begin with the below suggestions prescribed for discussion in January 2020.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marcy Abramowitz and Maria Amundson, Felton Gables
Scott Barnum, Park Forest
Alex Beltramo, Mills Street / San Antonio Avenue
Sue Connelly, The Classics at Burgess
JoAnne Goldberg, Linfield Oaks
Amy Mushlin, Mills Court
Matt Normington, Marquis

Felton Gables Fully Elevated Project Scope Recommendations - 1/14/20
In Phase 1, we would like to see Task 7.4 - Visual Renderings -- expanded, as follows:
1. Two vantage points should be expanded to three. These should include:○ a “backyard” visual, say from 20-25 feet away from the tracks, ○ a second visual from a relatively close distance, say 150-200 feet away, ○ And a third visual from further away, say, a 1/5th or 1/10th of a mile.
2. The proposed three locations for visual studies are too few for a structure of this size, which will pretty much span the entirety of the Caltrain corridor from south to north. We believe visual study locations should expand from three to probably, eight:
○ Certainly, the station area and the grade separated crossings should be included.
○ Additionally, the study should include areas between the crossings, which are where most of the negative impacts of a FE track would be felt, especially if the tracks outside of Downtown are not on a viaduct, but instead on a concrete and dirt berm. We suggest looking at both the east and west sides of the tracks south of Ravenswood, between Oak Grove and Glenwood, and between Glenwood and Encinal.
3. We recommend adding a new task, call it Task 7.7, to to address changes to the daylight plane on adjacent properties. A significantly raised track will permanently change light and shadows. If a building were being constructed on the Caltrain line next to homes, this analysis would be required, and it should be in the consideration set now.
4. We are pleased to see Task 7.1, Collection of Sample Projects included in this study. We suggest expanding the scope of this task slightly to include local impacts - even anecdotal ones - of the FE projects that AECOM identifies. We would also suggest that the Council ask AECOM to share the output of this Task with Council early on, before beginning the rest of Phase 1.
With Regard to Phase 2, we have two suggestions:
1. For Task 9 - Real Estate Impacts, we would like to see AECOM look beyond its own prior studies to include input from knowledgeable real estate professionals when assessing “livability impacts” of a FE line.
2. For Task 10 - Development of Comparison Method, we believe that Segment 1 - North of Oak Grove should be broken into two parts: Oak Grove to Glenwood and North of Glenwood. We understand the proposed designation was chosen because this area is mostly residential, which makes sense. However, under both Option C and FE, the area from Oak Grove to Glenwood would be home to a significantly elevated structure -- be it 20 feet, 10 feet or somewhere in between -- whereas the area further north would have lesser impacts. If the entire area is considered as one, the impacts on Oak Grove to Glenwood would be muted, which wouldn’t be fair to that neighborhood.