Team: Almost everything having been said and committed to be done I'm
sure we will change the world. However, careful consideration must be
given to transit-oriented development that is too close to the heavy
diesel rail and freight line traversing along the Peninsula. (see EPA
Locomotives - Diesel) Diesel is lethal!

The FRA's environmental impact report
states that the blasting train horns have a "severe" impact on residents
660' from the tracks.

For example, the Derry Project's EIR states that the residents will be
exposed to the "train-related pollution". Sound wall, insulation,
special windows and air conditioning are being used for mitigation.

Stanford's General Plan states that El Camino Park would need a sound
wall due to the railroad if housing were to be built there.

State officials wrote that transit housing is generally recommended for
"light rail".
Studies show that most people in so-called transit villages do not use
public transit.

The Public Utilities Commission has commented on development near rail
in Menlo Park (letters available).

Numerous petitions have been presented from railside residents, most of
whom have no mitigation for the ever-increasing air and noise pollution.

Last Tuesday, numerous residents of the proposed Dumbarton Rail Project
presented before the city council asking for light rail to reduce air
and noise pollution. (This would not be possible with freight).

Congress has amended the Swift Rail Act to allow for "quiet zone" with
supplementary safety measures at the railroad crossings, but this will
not solve the diesel emissions. Therefore, it would be prudent to
retain the "commercial" or "industrial" zoning
where it now exists unless and until this major source of diesel
emissions is eliminated or significantly lessened.

In the latest publication from the MTC on transit-oriented housing (I
will bring this to next meeting) Menlo Park is not even on the map.
Furthermore, transit needs on the Peninsula are envisioned with rapid
buses along the King's Highway - the El Camino Real.

The land use in this area ideally should remain commercial with
connectivity by other means.

As to trees, Menlo Park is buried in the wrong trees in the wrong
places. While shading, they also block the sun and light adding to
energy use (to say nothing of the severe allergies therefrom). When I
changed insurance companies all of the branches of trees were required
to be cut down. The Fire Department and PGE require a 10' distance from
buildings.

In our Heritage Tree Ordinance, the replacement is required 10' from
buildings, fences, etc.

Why is there not a landscape design element that requires the placement
of trees within those distances in the first place and of the type that
will not become monster problems with roots invading foundations and
lifting hardscapes, especially of neighbors.

I could go on about the pollution of our waterways and environment with
animal waste but it is all on the EPA website.

While a lonely voice in the dark, officials now say that fulfilling
Transit Oriented Development's Promise Will Take Careful
Planning..."some possible TOD sites in the Bay Area may be located near
abandoned industrial sites, freeways or busy arterials, and other
sources of pollution. All potential hazards must be adequately
addressed before development can occur at these sites." Heavy diesel
rail and congestion at crossings are a clear and present danger.

In short, serious thought must be given to adding new housing along the
Caltrain Corridor until all the anticipated changes are already in
place. Mitigation for existing railside residents is a must and should
be a number one priority. When I bought this property a tenant was
moving out after three weeks due to the train-related pollution when the
trains were far fewer. This month another lease was broken. Let's call
them Unlivable communities along Caltrain tracks and not add to the
public health hazards.

Margaret Petitjean

attached mail follows:

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/intro.html
Received on Sun Apr 22 14:10:16 2007