this page intentionally blank - foothill gold...

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Readers’ Guidance: This chapter provides responses to all comments submitted on the Draft EIR/EIS of April 2004. All comments have been numbered and a corresponding numbered response is shown. Please note that the although this Final EIR is being issued in order to take actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, the chapter also includes discussions of impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Construction Authority has opted to retain these NEPA discussions for the readers of and commenters on the Draft environmental document.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Comments and Responses

Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR page 13-1 February 2007

CHAPTER 13 - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 13-1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides responses to comments submitted by persons, agencies and organizations on the Draft EIS/EIR that was issued for comment in April 2004. These included written comments, and comments submitted via transcripts at public meetings. All comments received are reproduced in the chapter.

Responses were developed to either answer questions raised, or to refer the commentor to the appropriate location in the EIS/EIR where detailed information about the issue raised is found.

13-2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS All persons, agencies and organizations submitting comments were assigned a tracking number, shown in Table 13-1. Table 13-2 is shows the alphabetical listing of commentors.

Numbers were assigned in the order of comments received. Individual comments raised in letters, comment cards or e-mails were assigned numbers under the main tracking number; these numbers were marked on copies of the comment letter or form. Copies of the comment letter or form, along with the individual comment number are shown at a reduced scale on the left half of a comment response page. Individual responses are provided under the corresponding tracking number and are shown on the right half of the page.

For comments provided at public hearings, copies of the pages of transcripts on which comments were made are reproduced. Comments at public hearings are numbered within transcript for the city in which the hearing took place. The second part of Table 13-1 lists the name of individual commentors and the assigned public hearing comment numbers. Table 13-2 is shows the alphabetical listing of commentors.

TABLE 13-1 COMMENTER

ASSIGNED COMMENT LETTER

NUMBER

William E. Coleman, Jr. 1 Jerard Wright 2 Ricky Rodriguez 3 Susan Campo 4 Sue Avery 5 Ian Harmer 6 James Duffy 7 Hans Rosenberger 8 Junje Ro 9 Henyka Mislowski, SOCATA 10 Jonathan Lew 11 Jerry Juergens 12 Cecil Karstensen 13 Sue Aspley 14 Anonymous 15





NUMBER

Amparo and Raul Gomez 16 Joe Borland 17 Judy Duvall 18 Ben & Lillie Berry 19 Francisco Espinoza 20 Oscar Rivas 21 Amy Weiderman 22 Wendell Player 23 Michael Siddons 24 Jeremy Person, CEDG Inc. 25 Christina McQueen 26 Jim Nizolek 27 Eric Duyshart 28 Drew Merryman 29 Eric Duyshart 30 Celia Ramirez 31 Michael Bryan 32 Cecil Karstensen 33 Michael Hudson, City of Montclair, responding for SANBAG 34 Alice Stosius 35 Harold Leacock 36 Gina Hewes 37 Murray Young 38 Jerry Silberberg 39 Charleen Seijas 40 Bruce Jarn 41 Ernest Arnold, RAMRC 42 Junje Ro 43 Elaine Drew 44 Robert Chang 45 Lester Kan 46 Jeremy Person, CEDG Inc. 47 Pomona Meeting 48 Jeff Davidson 49 Anthony Morales, tribal chairman of the local Native Americans 50 Diane Rios 51 Gino Roncelli 52 Muliadi 53 James Hughes 54





NUMBER

Andrea Davis-Griffin 55 Cheryl Powell, Caltrans District 7 56 Patricia Sanderson Port, U.S. Department of the Interior 57 Sam 58 Tany Ling 59 Sandra Pelletier 60 Sanaheen 61 Mr. and Mrs. Bradley 62 Abe Rasheed 63 Avinash Gokli 64 Rusty Braun 65 David Chen 66 David Chen 67 Rosemary Faust, chairman of the board, Rancho Cucamonga chamber 68 Cynthia Rainey 69 Chard Walker 70 Michael Viera, Citrus College 71 Geri Silveira 72 Walter Smith, BNSF 73 Irwindale 74 La Verne 75 Steven Elie / Musick, Peeler & Garret, for City of South Pasadena 76 Cathy J. Di Jerlando 77 Robyn Di Jerlando 78 Rocco Di Jerlando 79 J.R. Simpson 80 Patricia Farris, Cal Poly Pomona 81 Mark Johnston, PRS, TRAC, RailPac, MARP 82 Deborah Page 83 Carvel Bass, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 84 Laura Vargus 85 Christopher Corliss 86 Marilyn Raskin 87 Ellen Fusco 88 Robert Wittry 89 Robert Wittry 90 John Jay Ulloth 91 Mark Dickerson - Azusa Pacific University 92 D. Michaelis 93





NUMBER

Jeffrey Smith - SCAG 94 Daniel Walker - Sierra Club 95 Michael Stolte 96 Paul Wheeler, Wheeler and Wheeler, Architects/Jerry Juergens, Spring Street Center 97 MTA 98 Michael Viera - Citrus College 99 Michael A. Friedman, City of Hope 100 Robert Chang 101 Benny Wu 102 Stella Wu 103 Matthew Wu 104 Brenda Barham Hill, Claremont University Consortium 105 Kathleen Brindell and William Decker 106 Emily Cao 107 Christopher and Dana Corliss 108 Kristin Parisi 109 Bruce Lathrop 110 Kwok Tam, Director, Public Works, City of Irwindale 111 Michael Friedman, MD, President, CEO, City of Hope {DUPLICATE of #100} 112 Leonard Rusch 113 Barry C. Groveman 114 City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation 115 Craig Bradshaw, City Engineer, City of Claremont 116 William Hung 117 Don Penman, Arcadia, Asst. City Manager 118 Bryan Moscardini, L.A. County Dept. of Parks, Project Coordinator 119 C.F. Raysbrook, CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Regional Manager 120 Lisa Hanf, EPA, Manager, Federal Activities Office 121 David Solow, CEO, SCRRA 122 Michael McAndrews, attorney representing Miller Brewing 123 James Okazaki, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) 124 Sam (no last name) 125 Louise Taylor and Linda Dempsey, Monrovia Unified School District 126 Leslie Rogers, USDOT, FTA 127 Angela Stella 128 Jack Fry, Sprint 129 Jack Fry, Sprint 130 Wayne Whitehill 131 Arella Karspeck 132





NUMBER

Rob Owen 133 Cecil Karstensen 134 Cecil Karstensen 135 Luke Reynolds 136 Richard Sanders 137 Margaret Dickinson 138 Margaret Dickensen 139 Michael Vercillo 140 Arthur Killian 141 Richard and Linda Spaulding 142 William Coats 143 Elizabeth Chu 144 Jason Golding, Associate Planner, City of Duarte 145 Edward Gabriel 146 Michael and Suzanne Mulvehill 147 Morley Helfand 148 Paul Greenwood 149 Paul Ulrich 150 Junje Ro 151 Leonard Karsana 152 Robert Davis 153 Lawrence Onaga, City of Azusa 154 Henyka McCorsh 155 Anthony Witt, City of Claremont 156 Dianne Walter, City of Glendora 157 Dianne Walter, City of Glendora 158 Krishna Patel, City of San Dimas 159 Blaine Michaelis, City Manager, San Dimas 160 Robert M. Strong, U.S. DOT, FTA, Airway Facilities Division 161 Patricia Sanderson Port, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS 162 Douglas Bernash, City Engineer, City of Monrovia 163 Micheal Hudson, City of Montclair 164 Staff Report to Planning Commission, Community Services, City of La Verne 165 City of La Verne (Warren C. Siecke, Transportation and Traffic Engineering) 166





NUMBER

Commenter/ City of Public Hearing Transcript Assigned Public Hearing Comment

Eva Swanburg – Duarte PH 1-1 Tom Hacker –- Duarte PH 1-2 et seq Kristin Parisi – Glendora PH 2-1 et seq Tom Merryman – Glendora PH 2-7 et seq Marilyn Nixon – Glendora PH 2-9 George Stamp – Glendora PH 2-10 et seq, 23, 24 Marshall Mouw – Glendora PH 2-12 et seq, PH 2-22 Dennis Madvig – Glendora PH 2-14 et seq Jim Nizozek – Glendora PH 2-16 Daniel Walker – Glendora PH 2-17 et seq Rudy Yanez – Glendora PH 2-25 Mr. Tessitor – Glendora PH 2-26 Sue Ashley – Claremont PH 3-1 et seq Paul Wheeler – Claremont PH 3-4 et seq, 32 Elizabeth Tulac – Claremont PH 3-11 et seq, 30, 31 Jerry Juergens – Claremont PH 3-14 et seq Dawn McCallis – Claremont PH 3-16 et seq Cecil Karstensen – Claremont PH 3-18 et seq Mark Von Wodtke – Claremont PH 3-21 et seq Bob Tenner – Claremont PH 3-26 et seq Bob Herman – Claremont PH 3-29 Sharon Moreno – Claremont PH 3-33 et seq Craig Bradshaw – Claremont PH 3-36 et seq, 43-46, 50Commissioner Lamb – Claremont PH 3-40 Commissioner Brunasso – Claremont PH 3-41 Commissioner Markley – Claremont PH 3-42, 48 Commissioner Worley – Claremont PH 3-47, 49 Los Angeles – no comments received PH 4 Robert Clark – Montclair PH 5-1, 20 Mark Bailey – Montclair PH 5-2 et seq Mark Von Wodtke – Montclair PH 5-11 et seq Councilman Paulitz – Montclair PH 5-15 et seq Mr. Cannell – Montclair PH 5-17 Councilman Dutrey – Montclair PH 5-18 et seq Councilman Ruh – Montclair PH 5-21 et seq Monzel Wickliffe – San Dimas PH 6-1 et seq Mayor Pro Tem Ebiner – San Dimas PH 6-5 et seq





NUMBER

Council member McHenry – San Dimas PH 6-9 et seq Ms. Linda Lapham – San Dimas PH 6-12 et seq Cindy Bierman – San Dimas PH 6-14 et seq Paul Looney – San Dimas PH 6-17 et seq Greg Weingarten – San Dimas PH 6-20 Margaret Arballo – San Dimas PH 6-21 Council Member Bertone – San Dimas PH 6-22 et seq, 28 Council Member Templeman – San Dimas PH 6-26 et seq Mayor Morris – San Dimas PH 6-29 Mr. Jenkins – San Dimas PH 6-30 Mr. Patel – San Dimas PH 6-31 Ms. Andrew – La Verne PH 7-1 et seq, 29, 68 Planning Commissioner Sanchez – La Verne PH 7-6 et seq, 16-19 Mr. Jenkins – La Verne PH 7-12 Planning Commissioner Ostrander – La Verne PH 7-13 et seq, 69-71 Chairman Kendrick – La Verne PH 7-15, 20, 73-80 Dennis Reeves – La Verne PH 7-30 Curt Bender – La Verne PH 7-31 et seq Donald Rodriguez – La Verne PH 7-33 et seq John Bockes – La Verne PH 7-38 et seq Selma Lockman – La Verne PH 7-43 et seq Curtis Frick – La Verne PH 7-49 et seq Geri Silveira – La Verne PH 7-51 et seq Dwight Richards – La Verne PH 7-59 et seq Brian Worley – La Verne PH 7-64 et seq Mark Von Wodtke – La Verne PH 7-66-67 Planning Commissioner Kriezel – La Verne PH 7-83 et seq Mr. Fredericksen – La Verne PH 7-72 Alice Mah – Monrovia PH 8-1 et seq Mr. Cardenas – South Pasadena PH 9-1, 9-12 Mr. Balian – South Pasadena PH 9-2 et seq Ms. Ervin – South Pasadena PH 9-5 et seq Ernest Arnold – South Pasadena PH 9-13 et seq Charleen Siijas – South Pasadena PH 9-15 et seq Gus Hyland – South Pasadena PH 9-18 et seq Mr. Ulloth – South Pasadena PH 9-22 et seq Mr. Shrag – South Pasadena PH 9-25 et seq Eileen Johnson – South Pasadena PH 9-28 et seq Karen Heit – South Pasadena PH 9-35 et seq





NUMBER

Alan Weeks – South Pasadena PH 9-51 et seq Robert Wittry – Pasadena PH 10-1 et seq Murray Young – Pasadena PH 10-7 Pomona Public Hearing- No comments received PH 11 Los Angeles Public Hearing- No comments received PH 12 Anthony Morales – Irwindale PH 13-1 et seq Manuel Ortiz – Irwindale PH 13-7 et seq Mr. Blancarte – Irwindale PH 13-9 Mayor Pro Tem Ramirez – Irwindale PH 13-10 et seq Curtis Walker – Arcadia PH 14-1 Member of the Public – Arcadia PH 14-2 Mr. Broadbent – Arcadia PH 14-3 Albert Lee Jr. – Arcadia PH 14-4, 29-31 Bob Hoherd – Arcadia PH 14-5 et seq, 9-14 Mr. Lefebvre – Arcadia PH 14-7 et seq Mary Dougherty – Arcadia PH 14-15 et seq Stanford Huang – Arcadia PH 14-19 et seq Steve Parisi – Arcadia PH 14-22 et seq Beth Costanza – Arcadia PH 14-24 Frank Tucker – Arcadia PH 14-25 et seq Paul Greenwood – Arcadia PH 14-28 Alexander Zajack – Arcadia PH 14-32 et seq Craig Miller – Arcadia PH 14-35 et seq Ms. Luong (through interpreter) – Arcadia PH 14-38 Karen Ang – Arcadia PH 14-39 et seq Mr. Morel – Arcadia PH 14-41 et seq Mrs. Karsana – Arcadia PH 14-43 et seq Dick Stanford – Azusa PH 15-1 et seq Ed Ortell – Azusa PH 15-8 et seq Jim Kiel – Azusa PH 15-11 et seq Robert Donaldson – Azusa PH 15-16 et seq Dennis Madvig – Azusa PH 15-19 Commissioner Hamilton – Azusa PH 15-20 Commissioner Hanks – Azusa PH 15-21 et seq



TABLE 13-2 ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS

ASSIGNED COMMENT LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING

NUMBER Ms. Arelene Andrew – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-1 et seq, 29, 68 Karen Ang – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-39 et seq Anonymous Comment Letter 15 Margaret Arballo – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-21 Ernest Arnold, RAMRC Comment Letter 42 Ernest Arnold – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-13 et seq Sue Ashley – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-1 et seq Sue Aspley Comment Letter 14 Sue Avery Comment Letter 5 Mark Bailey – Montclair PH-Montclair 5-2 et seq Mr. Balian – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-2 et seq Carvel Bass, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment Letter 84 Curt Bender – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-31 et seq Douglas Bernash, City Engineer, City of Monrovia Comment Letter 163 Ben & Lillie Berry Comment Letter 19 Council Member Bertone – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-22 et seq, 28 Cindy Bierman – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-14 et seq Mr. Blancarte – Irwindale PH-Irwindale 13-9 John Bockes – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-38 et seq Joe Borland Comment Letter 17 Mr. and Mrs. Bradley Comment Letter 62 Craig Bradshaw – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-36 et seq, 43-46, 50 Craig Bradshaw, City Engineer, City of Claremont Comment Letter 116 Rusty Braun Comment Letter 65 Kathleen Brindell and William Decker Comment Letter 106 Mr. Broadbent – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-3 Commissioner Brunasso – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-41 Michael Bryan Comment Letter 32 Susan Campo Comment Letter 4 Emily Cao Comment Letter 107 Mr. Cardenas – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-1, 9-12 Robert Chang Comment Letter 45 Robert Chang Comment Letter 101 David Chen Comment Letter 66 David Chen Comment Letter 67 Elizabeth Chu Comment Letter 144 Robert Clark – Montclair PH-Montclair 5-1, 20 William Coats Comment Letter 143 William E. Coleman, Jr. Comment Letter 1





NUMBER Christopher and Dana Corliss Comment Letter 108 Christopher Corliss Comment Letter 86 Beth Costanza – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-24 Jeff Davidson Comment Letter 49 Robert Davis Comment Letter 153 Andrea Davis-Griffin Comment Letter 55 Cathy J. Di Jerlando Comment Letter 77 Robyn Di Jerlando Comment Letter 78 Rocco Di Jerlando Comment Letter 79 Mark Dickerson - Azusa Pacific University Comment Letter 92 Margaret Dickinson Comment Letter 138 Margaret Dickensen Comment Letter 139 Robert Donaldson – Azusa PH-Azusa 15-16 et seq Mary Dougherty – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-15 et seq Elaine Drew Comment Letter 44 James Duffy Comment Letter 7 Councilman Dutrey – Montclair PH-Montclair 5-18 et seq Judy Duvall Comment Letter 18 Eric Duyshart Comment Letter 28 Mayor Pro Tem Ebiner – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-5 et seq Steven Elie / Musick, Peeler & Garret, for City of South Pasadena Comment Letter 76 Francisco Espinoza Comment Letter 20 Ms. Ervin – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-5 et seq Patricia Farris, Cal Poly Pomona Comment Letter 81 Rosemary Faust, chairman of the board, Rancho Cucamonga chamber Comment Letter 68

Mr. Fredericksen – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-72 Curtis Frick – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-49 et seq Michael Friedman, MD, President, CEO, City of Hope {DUPLICATE of #100}

Comment Letter 112

Michael A. Friedman, City of Hope Comment Letter 100 Jack Fry, Sprint Comment Letter 129 Jack Fry, Sprint Comment Letter 130 Ellen Fusco Comment Letter 88 Edward Gabriel Comment Letter 146 Avinash Gokli Comment Letter 64 Jason Golding, Associate Planner, City of Duarte Comment Letter 145 Amparo and Raul Gomez Comment Letter 16 Paul Greenwood Comment Letter 149 Paul Greenwood – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-28





NUMBER Barry C. Groveman Comment Letter 114 Tom Hacker –- Duarte PH-Duarte 1-2 et seq Commissioner Hamilton – Azusa PH-Azusa 15-20 Lisa Hanf, EPA, Manager, Federal Activities Office Comment Letter 121 Commissioner Hanks – Azusa PH-Azusa 15-21 et seq Ian Harmer Comment Letter 6 Karen Heit – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-35 et seq Morley Helfand Comment Letter 148 Bob Herman – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-29 Gina Hewes Comment Letter 37 Brenda Barham Hill, Claremont University Consortium Comment Letter 105 Bob Hoherd – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-5 et seq, 9-14 Michael Hudson, City of Montclair Comment Letter 164 Michael Hudson, City of Montclair, responding for SANBAG Comment Letter 34 James Hughes Comment Letter 54 Stanford Huang – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-19 et seq William Hung Comment Letter 117 Gus Hyland – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-18 et seq Irwindale Comment Letter 74 Bruce Jarn Comment Letter 41 Mr. Jenkins – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-30 Mr. Jenkins – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-12 Eileen Johnson – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-28 et seq Mark Johnston, PRS, TRAC, RailPac, MARP Comment Letter 82 Jerry Juergens – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-14 et seq Jerry Juergens Comment Letter 12 Lester Kan Comment Letter 46 Leonard Karsana Comment Letter 152 Arella Karspeck Comment Letter 132 Cecil Karstensen Comment Letter 13 Cecil Karstensen Comment Letter 33 Cecil Karstensen Comment Letter 134 Cecil Karstensen Comment Letter 135 Cecil Karstensen – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-18 et seq Mrs. Karsana – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-43 et seq Chairman Kendrick – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-15, 20, 73-80 Jim Kiel – Azusa PH-Azusa 15-11 et seq Arthur Killian Comment Letter 141 Planning Commissioner Kriezel – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-83 et seq





NUMBER Commissioner Lamb – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-40 La Verne Comment Letter 75 City of La Verne (Warren C. Siecke, Transportation and Traffic Engineering)

Comment Letter 166

Staff Report to Planning Commission, Community Services, City of La Verne

Comment Letter 165

Ms. Linda Lapham – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-12 et seq Bruce Lathrop Comment Letter 110 Harold Leacock Comment Letter 36 Albert Lee Jr. – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-4, 29-31 Mr. Lefebvre – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-7 et seq Jonathan Lew Comment Letter 11 Tany Ling Comment Letter 59 Selma Lockman – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-43 et seq Paul Looney – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-17 et seq City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation Comment Letter 115 Los Angeles – no comments received PH-Los Angeles 4 Los Angeles Public Hearing- No comments received PH-Los Angeles 12 Ms. Luong (through interpreter) – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-38 Dennis Madvig – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-14 et seq Dennis Madvig – Azusa PH-Azusa 15-19 Alice Mah – Monrovia PH 8-1 et seq Commissioner Markley – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-42, 48 Michael McAndrews, attorney representing Miller Brewing Comment Letter 123 Dawn McCallis – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-16 et seq Henyka McCorsh Comment Letter 155 Council member McHenry – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-9 et seq Christina McQueen Comment Letter 26 Member of the Public – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-2 Drew Merryman Comment Letter 29 Tom Merryman – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-7 et seq Blaine Michaelis, City Manager, San Dimas Comment Letter 160 D. Michaelis Comment Letter 93 Craig Miller – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-35 et seq Henyka Mislowski, SOCATA Comment Letter 10 Anthony Morales, tribal chairman of the local Native Americans Comment Letter 50 Anthony Morales – Irwindale PH-Irwindale 13-1 et seq Mr. Morel – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-41 et seq Sharon Moreno – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-33 et seq Mayor Morris – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-29





NUMBER Bryan Moscardini, L.A. County Dept. of Parks, Project Coordinator Comment Letter 119 Marshall Mouw – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-12 et seq, PH 2-22 MTA Comment Letter 98 Muliadi Comment Letter 53 Michael and Suzanne Mulvehill Comment Letter 147 Marilyn Nixon – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-9 Jim Nizolek Comment Letter 27 Jim Nizozek – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-16 James Okazaki, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT)

Comment Letter 124

Lawrence Onaga, City of Azusa Comment Letter 154 Ed Ortell – Azusa PH-Azusa 15-8 et seq Manuel Ortiz – Irwindale PH-Ortiz 13-7 et seq Planning Commissioner Ostrander – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-13 et seq, 69-71 Rob Owen Comment Letter 133 Deborah Page Comment Letter 83 Kristin Parisi – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-1 et seq Kristin Parisi Comment Letter 109 Steve Parisi – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-22 et seq Krishna Patel, City of San Dimas Comment Letter 159 Mr. Patel – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-31 Councilman Paulitz – Montclair PH-Montclair 5-15 et seq Sandra Pelletier Comment Letter 60 Don Penman, Arcadia, Asst. City Manager Comment Letter 118 Jeremy Person, CEDG Inc. Comment Letter 25 Jeremy Person, CEDG Inc. Comment Letter 47 Wendell Player Comment Letter 23 Pomona Meeting Comment Letter 48 Pomona Public Hearing- No comments received PH-Pomona 11 Cheryl Powell, Caltrans District 7 Comment Letter 56 Cynthia Rainey Comment Letter 69 Celia Ramirez Comment Letter 31 Mayor Pro Tem Ramirez – Irwindale PH-Irwindale 13-10 et seq Abe Rasheed Comment Letter 63 Marilyn Raskin Comment Letter 87 C.F. Raysbrook, CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Regional Manager Comment Letter 120 Dennis Reeves – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-30 Luke Reynolds Comment Letter 136 Dwight Richards – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-59 et seq Diane Rios Comment Letter 51





NUMBER Oscar Rivas Comment Letter 21 Junje Ro Comment Letter 9 Junje Ro Comment Letter 43 Junje Ro Comment Letter 151 Donald Rodriguez – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-33 et seq Ricky Rodriguez Comment Letter 3 Leslie Rogers, USDOT, FTA Comment Letter 127 Gino Roncelli Comment Letter 52 Hans Rosenberger Comment Letter 8 Councilman Ruh – Montclair PH-Montclair 5-21 et seq Leonard Rusch Comment Letter 113 Sam Comment Letter 58 Sam (no last name) Comment Letter 125 Sanaheen Comment Letter 61 Planning Commissioner Sanchez – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-6 et seq, 16-19 Richard Sanders Comment Letter 137 Patricia Sanderson Port, U.S. Department of the Interior Comment Letter 57 Patricia Sanderson Port, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS Comment Letter 162 Mr. Shrag – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-25 et seq Michael Siddons Comment Letter 24 Charleen Seijas Comment Letter 40 Charleen Siijas – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-15 et seq Jerry Silberberg Comment Letter 39 Geri Silveira Comment Letter 72 Geri Silveira – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-51 et seq J.R. Simpson Comment Letter 80 Jeffrey Smith - SCAG Comment Letter 94 Walter Smith, BNSF Comment Letter 73 David Solow, CEO, SCRRA Comment Letter 122 Richard and Linda Spaulding Comment Letter 142 George Stamp – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-10 et seq, 23, 24 Dick Stanford – Azusa PH-Azusa 15-1 et seq Angela Stella Comment Letter 128 Michael Stolte Comment Letter 96 Alice Stosius Comment Letter 35 Robert M. Strong, U.S. DOT, FTA, Airway Facilities Division Comment Letter 161 Eva Swanburg – Duarte PH-Duarte 1 Kwok Tam, Director, Public Works, City of Irwindale Comment Letter 111 Louise Taylor and Linda Dempsey, Monrovia Unified School District

Comment Letter 126





NUMBER Council Member Templeman – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-26 et seq Bob Tenner – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-26 et seq Mr. Tessitor – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-26 Frank Tucker – Arcadia PH 14-25 et seq Elizabeth Tulac – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-11 et seq, 30, 31 John Jay Ulloth Comment Letter 91 Mr. Ulloth – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-22 et seq Paul Ulrich Comment Letter 150 Laura Vargus Comment Letter 85 Michael Vercillo Comment Letter 140 Michael Viera, Citrus College Comment Letter 71 Michael Viera - Citrus College Comment Letter 99 Mark Von Wodtke – Montclair PH-Montclair 5-11 et seq Mark Von Wodtke – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-21 et seq Mark Von Wodtke – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-66 et seq Chard Walker Comment Letter 70 Curtis Walker – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-1 Daniel Walker - Sierra Club Comment Letter 95 Daniel Walker – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-17 et seq Dianne Walter, City of Glendora Comment Letter 157 Dianne Walter, City of Glendora Comment Letter 158 Alan Weeks – South Pasadena PH-South Pasadena 9-51 et seq Amy Weiderman Comment Letter 22 Greg Weingarten – San Dimas PH-San Dimas 6-20 Paul Wheeler, Wheeler and Wheeler, Architects/Jerry Juergens, Spring Street Center Comment Letter 97

Paul Wheeler – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-4 et seq, 32 Wayne Whitehill Comment Letter 131 Monzel Wickliffe – San Dimas PH 6-1 et seq Anthony Witt, City of Claremont Comment Letter 156 Robert Wittry Comment Letter 89 Robert Wittry Comment Letter 90 Robert Wittry – Pasadena PH-Pasadena 10-1 et seq Commissioner Worley – Claremont PH-Claremont 3-47, 49 Brian Worley – La Verne PH-La Verne 7-64 et seq Jerard Wright Comment Letter 2 Benny Wu Comment Letter 102 Stella Wu Comment Letter 103 Matthew Wu Comment Letter 104 Rudy Yanez – Glendora PH-Glendora 2-25





NUMBER Murray Young Comment Letter 38 Murray Young – Pasadena PH-Pasadena 10-7 Alexander Zajack – Arcadia PH-Arcadia 14-32 et seq

Responses to Comments


COMMENT LETTER 1 RESPONSE TO LETTER 1

Comment 1-1 Support for the Build LRT to Azusa Alternative by 2009 is acknowledged. The availability of funding will determine how quickly the project can be built. Please see the Executive Summary for a discussion of “Next Steps.” Comment 1-2 Support for grade separation at Santa Anita Avenue is acknowledged. On February 15, 2005, the City of Arcadia approved a grade separated crossing at Santa Anita Avenue, with the incremental costs to be borne by the City (PDR, page 4-5). Please see revised Chapter 3-15, Traffic and Transportation for more information. Comment 1-3 Relocation of the granary in Monrovia is being facilitated by the City of Monrovia. As mentioned by the commentor, this relocation would avoid the need for triple tracks west of Irwindale. Comment 1-4 Rail alignments and station locations have been determined through consultation between the Authority and affected cities, with input from the engineering team, railroad agencies, and the public. Freight rail operations will be served on separate tracks than those used for LRT. Comment 1-5 The location of the Maintenance Facility was determined through consultation between the Authority and the cities along the corridor. Layout of the facility is determined through consultation between the Authority and LACMTA. Comment 1-6 Please see Comment 1-1.




Comment 1-7 Please see Comment 1-4. Comment 1-8 Subsequent to the Draft EIS/EIR, two railroad grade separations have been proposed in Azusa and Pomona to avoid conflicts between freight and LRT operations. Please see Chapter 2 for a revised description of the alternatives, which include these grade separations. Comment 1-9 Please see Comment 1-4. Comment 1-10 Please see Comment 1-4. Comment 1-11 Freight rail operations will be served on separate tracks than those used for LRT. Comment 1-12 Since the Draft EIS/EIR was released, alternative layout options for the Claremont station were developed and studied to determine whether LRT, Metrolink, and freight service could be accommodated within the existing rail right of way. After consultation with Metrolink and MTA operations staff, these options proved not to be feasible. It has been confirmed that the Claremont station needs to provide for two LRT tracks on the north side of the Construction Authority-owned right of way with a center platform station, with two Metrolink/freight track and two side platforms on the south side. This layout was developed in conjunction with the City of Claremont, MTA, and Metrolink staff. The station layout would require approximately 30 feet of additional right of way on the south, between Indian Hill and College Avenue. Access to the LRT platform would be provided from the existing, historic Claremont Depot. Access to the Metrolink




Comment 1-12, continued:

platforms would be provided from College Avenue. Parking would be provided in a structure on the existing Metrolink parking lot. Please see revised Chapter 2 Alternatives for more information.

Comment 1-13

Subsequent to the Draft EIS/EIR, the potential use of the Pacific Electric right of way was eliminated from consideration.

Comment 1-14

Support for the project is acknowledged.




Comment 2-1 Subsequent to the Draft EIS/EIR, Segment 1 has been redefined to extend from the Sierra Madre Villa station in Pasadena to Azusa. Previously, Segment 1 ended in Irwindale. The Final EIS/EIR addresses the resulting change in environmental impacts. Please see revised Chapter 2, Alternatives for revised descriptions of the proposed project.




Comment 3-1 There will be no sound barriers for the portion of the Foothill Extension within the I-210 freeway right-of-way since the alignment is located in the middle of the freeway and there are no noise-sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the LRT alignment. With the absence of noise-sensitive receptors, the FTA noise methodology does not call for mitigation. However, the City of Pasadena is initiating its own studies of this issue and may provide mitigation for Pasadena stations that are located within the freeway right-of-way.



Comment 3-2 The Authority will construct the project in accordance with LACMTA’s design criteria for this issue, as stated here: “Electronic display signs (Variable Message Signs) are required in all stations to provide train information as well as limited advertising messages. In addition, the electronic display signs will provide equivalent public information to the hearing impaired.” It will be up to the operator of the Foothill Extension (i.e., LACMTA) to implement the exact messages it desires to communicate to the public.

Comment 3-3 The design features of an LRT station are developed jointly by the Construction Authority and the city in which the station is located. In general, project funding from the Authority is provided for the basic, required components of the station (determined by LACMTA system guidelines), while aesthetic features are funded by the city.




Comment 4-1 Please see Chapter 3-4, Community Facilities and Services, for a discussion of any parks or trails and their proximity to the proposed rail alignment. Any new development of trails that would link with Foothill Extension stations would be at the discretion of the city in which the station is located.




Comment 5-1 Your comment regarding limited parking at the stations in Phase I is acknowledged. Parking demand for each Foothill Extension station was forecasted based upon expected patronage at each station. Parking levels for opening day service and to be in place by 2025 have been defined. As reported in the March 2005 Project Definition Report, each city has made a decision on the location(s) of parking and the number of spaces to be provided on opening day and in 2025. Please see revised Chapter 2, Alternatives, for a detailed description of station design, including the number of parking spaces to be provided.




Comment 6-1 Your support for the project is acknowledged.




Comment 7-1 Your support for the Foothill Extension project is acknowledged. Your address has been added to the project mailing list to receive future notices regarding the proposed project.





Comment 8-2 Freight rail operations will be served on separate tracks than those used for LRT. Subsequent to the Draft EIS/EIR, two railroad grade separations have been proposed in Azusa and Pomona to avoid conflicts between freight and LRT operations. Please see Chapter 2 for a revised description of the alternatives, which include these grade separations.

Comment 8-3

Parking demand for each Foothill Extension station was forecasted based upon expected patronage at each station. Parking levels for opening day service and to be in place by 2025 have been defined fro the Final EIS/EIR. Please see Revised Chapter 2, Alternatives, for a detailed description of station design, including the number of parking spaces to be provided. The location and appearance of parking facilities is being coordinated with each city. In some cases, parking may be initially provided on a surface lot and converted to a parking structure as demand grows. As reported in the March 2005 Project Definition Report, each city has made a decision on the location(s) of parking and the number of spaces to be provided on opening day and in 2025. Your comments regarding parking policy are acknowledged. Where parking is funded by the Federal Transit Administration, it must be provided free of charge for riders. If parking is provided using other sources, different parking policies may be implemented.

Comment 8-4 Vehicle configurations, including potential provisions for bikes and luggage, are the decision of LACMTA, which purchases and operates the LRT vehicles. Accordingly, the Authority cannot respond to your suggestion.




Comment 8-5 Support for grade separation is acknowledged. The operating scenario for the Foothill Extension does not include any locations where the LRT would operate concurrent with street traffic flow, known as street running (as happens in a portion of Phase I). The operating speed between stations would be up to 55 mph. A grade separation analysis was completed for the 43 grade crossings along the alignment. Please see revised Chapter 3-15, Traffic and Transportation for more information. Subsequent to the Draft EIS/EIR, grade separations for freight and LRT lines in the form of elevated structures have been added in Azusa and Pomona. Please see Chapter 2, Alternatives, for more information.



COMMENT LETTER 9 RESPONSE TO LETTER 9 Comment 9-1 The proposed Foothill Extension is largely at-grade since it will be built on existing rail right-of-way; it will not be underground.

Comment 9-2 In general, noise from an electrically powered LRT system is low, with noise impacts typically occurring only where trains run very near homes and where there are grade crossings and warning devices must be sounded. In most situations, noise would be mitigated by providing noise barriers (soundwalls), in some locations by providing sound-insulating windows, or a combination of such measures. Please see revised Chapter 3-11, Noise and Vibration, for a complete description of how noise impacts were evaluated, where impacts occur, and how they will be mitigated, if found to be significant.

Comment 9-3 There is not yet evidence that homes near the alignment would be subject to a loss in value after noise mitigation has been implemented. It is important to note that your address at 312 San Miguel Dr. is more than 1000 feet from the proposed alignment, and about the same distance from the nearest potential at-grade crossing (Santa Anita Avenue). At these distances, it is not believed that your property would be subject to impact.

Comment 9-4 The project alignment follows an existing railroad alignment, which transitions from the middle of I-210 about one-half mile to the west of Santa Anita Avenue, passing in a southwesterly direction through Arcadia. To continue the alignment in the middle of the freeway would require rebuilding the highway to create a new area to accommodate the rail alignment. Impacts associated with such reconstruction would be significantly greater than those associated with use of the existing rail right-of-way; construction costs would also be much higher.




Comment 10-1 Your support for the project and the environmental review process is acknowledged.




Comment 12-1 Since the Draft EIS/EIR was released, alternative layout options for the Claremont station were developed and studied to determine whether LRT, Metrolink, and freight service could be accommodated within the existing rail right-of-way. After consultation with Metrolink and MTA operations staff, these options proved not to be feasible. It has been confirmed that the Claremont station needs to provide for two LRT tracks on the north side of the Construction Authority-owned right-of-way with a center platform station, with two Metrolink/freight track and two side platforms on the south side. This layout was developed in conjunction with the City of Claremont, MTA, and Metrolink staff. The station layout would require approximately 30 feet of additional right-of-way on the south, between Indian Hill and College Avenue. Access to the LRT platform would be provided from the existing, historic Claremont Depot. Access to the Metrolink platforms would be provided from College Avenue. Parking would be provided in a structure on the existing Metrolink parking lot. Please see revised Chapter 2 Alternatives for more information. Information on the procedures for acquisition of property is discussed in Chapter 3-1.




Comment 13-1 The potential use of the former Pacific Electric right of way has been eliminated from consideration. Please see revised Chapter 2 Alternatives for more information.

Since the Draft EIS/EIR was released, alternative layout options for the Claremont station were developed and studied to determine whether LRT, Metrolink, and freight service could be accommodated within the existing Construction Authority-owned rail right of way. After consultation with Metrolink and MTA operations staff, these options proved not to be feasible. It has been confirmed that the Claremont station needs to provide for two LRT tracks on the north side of the Construction Authority-owned right of way with a center platform station, with two Metrolink/freight track and two side platforms on the south side. This layout was developed in conjunction with the City of Claremont, MTA, and Metrolink staff. The station layout would require approximately 30 feet of additional right of way on the south, between Indian Hill and College Avenue. Access to the LRT platform would be provided from the existing, historic Claremont Depot. Access to the Metrolink platforms would be provided from College Avenue. Parking would be provided in a structure on the existing Metrolink parking lot. Please see revised Chapter 2 Alternatives for more information.

Comment 13-2 The entire Foothill Extension is planned to be built with two LRT tracks, with a separate track for freight service. In the Claremont area, there would be two tracks for Metrolink and freight service.




Comment 14-1 The focus of environmental analysis under CEQA and NEPA is on the proposed project’s effect on physical changes (CEQA) and/or any economic or social effect that may cause a physical change (NEPA). Causal relationships between noise and vibration impacts, and property values have not been established. Therefore, property value analysis as a result of the presence of the proposed project is not discussed in the EIS/EIR. However, the commentor’s opinion will be considered by the Lead Agencies in deciding whether, and under what conditions, to approve the proposed project.

Comment 14-2 Intersections of Indian Hill Blvd at First Street and at Santa Fe Street were identified as intersections that would require some traffic mitigation measures as a result of the proposed project. Please see revised Chapter 3-15, Traffic and Transportation, for a detailed description of the analysis and mitigation proposed.

Comment 14-3 Quality of life is not evaluated per se under CEQA and NEPA. The EIS/EIR does evaluate specific conditions, such as air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic that contribute to the quality of life, where quantitative evaluations of impacts can be made. The document also describes mitigation measures that would be implemented where significant impacts (under CEQA) or adverse effects (under NEPA) are shown to result from the proposed project. The intent of mitigation measures is to reduce impacts that are generated by a proposed project to levels that are similar to existing conditions. Your comment will be considered by the Lead Agencies in deciding whether, and under what conditions, to approve the proposed project.




Translation of letter:

"As with all projects there are pros and cons. The extension of the METRO will reduce [air] pollution and [will facilitate travel over large] distances. But what chiefly concerns us that the value of our property could be affected and that it will change what is at present a quiet place into a busy/congested one. We support this project and hope that [ultimately] all will turn out for the good."

Spanish response follows English.

Comment 16-1 Support for the project is acknowledged. The issue of the effect of the proposed project on traffic patterns, noise, and vibrations has been evaluated and can be found in the revised Chapter 3-15, Traffic and Transportation, and revised Chapter 3-11, Noise and Vibration. Translation of these chapters or other parts of the EIS/EIR is available if requested.

The focus of environmental analysis under CEQA and NEPA is on the proposed project’s effect on physical changes (CEQA) and/or any economic or social effect that may cause a physical change (NEPA). Relationships between the proposed project and property values have not been clearly established. Therefore, property value analysis as a result of the presence of the proposed project is not discussed in the EIR/EIS. Studies in other cities indicate that properties within walking distance of a transit station often see an increase in property values.

Your comment will be considered by the Lead Agencies in deciding whether or not to approve the proposed project.




Commentario 16-1 Soporte para el proyecto proponido esta agradecido. Tomará en cuenta su comentario la agencia principal en la acción de aprobar o no aprobar el proyecto proponido.

La cuestión del efecto potencial del proyecto sobre pautas de tráfico, ruido, y vibración ha sido analizado, y se encuentre en el capítulo 3-15 revisado (Traffic and Transportation) y también en el capítulo 3-11 revisado (Noise, Vibration). Una traducción de aquellos capítulos o otras partes del documento EIS/EIR están disponibles a petición.

El foco del análisis ambiental según la ley ambiental del estado (CEQA) y la ley ambiental federal (NEPA) es el efecto potencial del proyecto reflejido en cambios físicos (CEQA) y/o efectos sociales o económicos que pueden resultar en un cambio físico (NEPA). El interrelacionamiento del proyecto proponido y valores de propiedad no ha sido confirmado definitivamente. Por lo tanto, análisis de los valores de propiedad como resultado de la presencia del proyecto no está discutido en el documento EIR/EIS. No obstante, análsis en otras ciudades indica que se aumentan (antes que disminuan) los valores de las propiedades que se puede alcanzar andando de una estación de transito.

this page intentionally blank - foothill gold...

Documents