Re: C.E.T.S Resolution and CALTRAIN Pollution

To: Members of the Council:

Ask not what Caltrain can do for you, but what you can do for your
constituents.

The Baby Bullet, without an EIR, should have been aborted at its
conception. The Extreme Makeover should have been challenged at its
birth by the cities.

Instead Ms. Fergusson went before the JPB, representing the council
without the knowledge of other members, asking for more train service to
cater to developers.

Placing more housing beside the heavy rail tracks, as in the Derry
Project, and adding more trains beside existing housing is exacerbating
a serious public health hazard.

The proponents of more train service are not stakeholder sensitive
receptors living along the tracks but are those with commercial
interests for the most part.

As in the past the residents will undoubtedlyl be ignored despite
decades of petitions, letters, and appearances before the boards and
councils.

We urge that the Menlo Park Council not sign the Resolution as it is
written.

Margaret Petitjean

attached mail follows:

fyi, Margaret, feel free to distribute as you see fit

-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: David Whittum <whittum@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Mar 24, 2007 7:22 PM
>To: dumbarton_comments@caltrain.com, boardsecretary@caltrain.com
>Subject: Request & Comment pursuant to Public Resources Code 21167 et seq
>
>faxed as two pages just now to 650.508.6281
>
> March 24, 2007
>
>
>Marie Pang, Environmental Manager
>Caltrain
>P.O. Box 3006, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
>email: dumbarton_comments@caltrain.com
>
>Members of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board,
>c/o Board Secretary, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
>1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA, 94070-1306
>Fax: 650.508.6281 boardsecretary@Caltrain.com
>
>
>***by email, fax, and certified mail***
>
>
>Re: Request pursuant to Public Resources Code 21167 et seq
> Dumbarton Corridor Environmental Documents, SCH#2006102137
> http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/ProjDocList.asp?ProjectPK=576838
> &
> Public Comment for the Administrative Record pursuant to Public
> Resources Code 21167.6
>
>
>Board of Directors c/o Board Secretary and Ms. Pang:
>
>This is to request to receive a copy of the environmental study for
>this project, including the Notice of Preparation and any subsequent
>studies or notices, including Initial Study if any or DEIR, FEIR, and to
>be mailed notice as specified in Public Resources Code 21108 or 21152.
>
>For future environmental documents and hearings on this matter,
>please include me on the mail routing. Where documents
>are available via url or CD, please mail that url
>or CD to me in lieu of a mailed hard copy.
>
>Likewise please mail written notice to me of public meetings wherever held
>at which issues relating to environmental impact of this project
>may be raised, including meetings which may be held in other cities and
>counties. Please be advised that it is my intention to provide engineering
>assistance to neighborhoods potentially affected by this project to insure
>that the health and welfare of the public is protected.
>
>As you know from previous correspondence, including written
>input in the CEQA process for the Mathilda Project (SCH#2006012030),
>for which Caltrain is a Responsible Agency,
>my measurements confirm that Caltrain locomotives do not conform to noise
>levels referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations, neither with respect to
>passby (90dBA at 100 feet) nor idling (70dBA at 100 feet) at locations
>near Sunnyvale Station.
>
>The result is tremendous noise impact in residential neighborhoods due to
>your choice of equipment, consisting of locomotives built from reconditioned
>parts.
>
>Additionally, as you know, neither horn noise [min 96dBA max 110dBA at 100 feet]
>nor crossing bell noise [85dBA at the base] is subject to local municipal
>control once installed, governed as these levels are by the Federal Railroad
>Administration and the CPUC, including CPUC General Orders.
>
>Lastly, as documented in illustrated correspondence to you in
>September of 2004, the base noise of the idling locomotives has a
>disturbing impact on interior noise levels, in excess of 70dBC
>indoors at 500 feet, depending on the engine and the operator.
>
>Further details can be seen in
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~whittum/hdna/comment2.pdf
>http://home.earthlink.net/~whittum/hdna/errata.txt
>
>documents already available in hard copy in your
>files having been mailed to and acknowledged rec'd by
>the Board Sec'y as published in a previous Board agenda.
>
>Thus the CEQA process is the only opportunity for a neighborhood to
>address these issues. A neighbor concerned about noise, must address those
>concerns to you in writing, at every opportunity in a timely fashion, and
>appear in person at every public hearing, and resbumit their comments in writing
>at that time. Failure to do so can result in dismissal of a subsequent suit,
>due to failure to exhaust remedies. More significantly, failure to do so can
>result in the absence of a credible legal threat, and can cause an agency such
>as yours to relax in its pursuit of an accurate environmental assessment.
>
>In fact, a neighborhood association concerned
>about noise impact of your operations would be well advised to immediately seek
>1-2 hours of advice from an attorney experienced in CEQA, and to locate an
>engineer not already working for the transit agencies, one who would fairly consider
>the impact of your proposal on residential life in the neighborhood concerned.
>
>Because of this huge hurdle for a neighborhood association to protect its
>way of life, it is incumbent on your organization to consider seriously
>and fairly the impact of noise from this project, and not seek - as many
>agencies do - to use the CEQA process to fashion a boilerplate legal defense.
>The best CEQA defense is a fair study.
>
>Quality of life near mass transit hubs is only as important as mass transit.
>Most folks think neither is very important to them personally they'll live
>where it's quiet, and drive to work, and let "other people" take the train
>and bus. Please look out for us "other people", your customers.
>Your attention to the spirit of the California Environmental Quality Act
>and the California Noise Control Act can affect folks attitudes about
>transit hubs, and the success of the services you aim to provide.
>
>I leave you with a thought from California Health & Safety Code 46000(f):
>
>"All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment
>without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or
>welfare."
>
>Thank you for any attention you can give to the noise impact of your
>operations.
>
>
>Very truly yours,
>
>
>
>David Whittum, PE
>306 Angel Avenue
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086
>email:whittum@ieee.org
>(650)906-7681
>
>PS And please pick up the piles of rails you left lying in our neighborhood,
>before another one catches fire.
Received on Sat Mar 24 23:10:39 2007