Dear Dr. Whittum:

Thank you for the 110 page document (including letter to Caltrain) which
you sent me by surface mail. Do I have your permission to share it with
others. It is worthy of publication and includes many references I have
researched over the past decades.

I am still not clear about your lawsuit. Is there a way of sending an
outline to me. Your attorney did send the court docket number but I
have not been able to locate and open it. Is it an action about noise
and air pollution in general in which other cities or residents could
join or is it strictly regarding engine idling? This is a problem with
Dr. Hagler and Fred Arm, Esq. the Richmond group near rail yards.
I recall a judgment for $500,000 to a couple against Union Pacific for
engine idling which was deemed harrassment.

The forwarded information relates to a decision on appeal regarding the
inadequacies of the EIR on the subject case; i.e:

"The court further held that the EIR was also deficient, where in its
reply to public criticism the EIR failed to assess the health effects of
toxic air contaminants from mobile sources on persons who live in close
proximity...

"The EIR was also deficient in failing to address the disturbance to
area residents...potential interference with sleep, including
physiologic response..

"The flaw in the EIR's noise analysis was its failure to provide, in
addition to a community noise equivalent level (a community noise
measure) analysis, the most fundamental information about the project's
noise impacts...addition....frequency and affects on sleep."

The Noise Element, one of the seven elements of the mandated General
Plans of all California cities, requires a noise contour map which
includes train noise.

The railroads are not exempt. It has been the opinion of many that the
"extreme makeover", reinventing Caltrain,
adding express Illegitimate Baby Bullets at 5 a.m., etc. required an EIR
and the lack thereof should have been challenged.
Under NEPA/CEQA guidelines, mitigation measures would have been required
for the significant additional negative impacts before Caltrain's
expansion which increased its diesel air and noise pollution, speed and
congestion at the crossings.

It is alarming to hear that with, or without, high speed rail, Caltrain
hopes to run ten rapid rail trains per hour. Instead of challenging
poor planning, our cities are embracing the changes without considering
the environmental impacts to nearby residents and added congestion and
safety concerns at the railroad crossings. Indeed, they are adding
housing despite well-established incompatibility of housing beside heavy
rail, freight and blasting horns which has been voiced by the Railroad
Division of the P.U.C., to say nothing of idling engines which you are
apparently experiencing and the heavier a×les for added weight of
thundering, vibrating freights.

H.U.D. has guidelines for distance of housing from tracks. The
Environmental Impact Report of blasting Horns at www.fra.dot.gov shows a
severe impact 660' from the railroad and a serious impact over 1,000'
from the tracks.

Deservedly, there should be a moratorium on housing beside heavy rail
and freight tracks at these distances. There is a dire need for
mitigation measures for existing residents in the interest of justice
and health and safety laws which are being ignored by the elected and
appointed officials,

For the benefit of newcomers I am re-copying this to our council and
others.

Margaret Petitjean, 489 Waverley Street, Menlo Park,CA 94025 Tel: 650
322-7154

H.O.R.N. (A national organization)
H.A.L.T. (Homeowners Against Loud Trains - Peninsula - established in
70s by Felton Gables and Palo Alto residents.)
Citizens for Noise Abatement-Peninsula.

attached mail follows:

According to Public Resource Code §21001(b)*, and the case you cited, I
would have to reply in the affirmative. We have more than enough
staututory authority to bury these beasts. We just need the guts to
take on Goliath. Their day of reckoning is rapidly approaching.

Fred
HORN
Pt Richmond

* Public Resource Code §21001.

§21001. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the
policy of the state to:

   (a) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the
future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and

enhance the environmental quality of the state.

   (b) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state
with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic,

and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise.

Margaret Petitjean wrote:

Re: CEQA

Dear doctors and lawyers all:

Re inquiry: Dr. Hagler note the counsel on this case and scroll down

to Toxic Air Contaminants and Noise Impacts for findings.

Should not heavy rail and freight expansion require a similar EIR?

Should horn blasts be exempt when considering sleep patterns of

residents of nearby communities?

Margaret

  _____

Subject:
Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners

From:
MPetitjean@webtv.net <mailto:MPetitjean@webtv.net> (Margaret Petitjean)

Date:
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:56:39 -0800

To:
MPetitjean@webtv.net <mailto:MPetitjean@webtv.net>

To:
MPetitjean@webtv.net <mailto:MPetitjean@webtv.net>

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2001/berkeley_keep_083001.html
<http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2001/berkeley_keep_083001.html>

  
Received on Thu Feb 15 13:51:08 2007