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
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-1
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-1
COMMENTER
ASSIGNED
COMMENT LETTER
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-2
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-1
COMMENTER
ASSIGNED
COMMENT LETTER
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-3
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-1
COMMENTER
ASSIGNED
COMMENT LETTER
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-4
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-1
COMMENTER
ASSIGNED
COMMENT LETTER
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-5
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-1
COMMENTER
Commenter/ City of Public Hearing Transcript
Eva Swanburg – Duarte
ASSIGNED
COMMENT LETTER
NUMBER
Assigned Public Hearing
Comment
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
Daniel Walker – Glendora
PH 2-16
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, 50
Commissioner Lamb – Claremont
Commissioner Brunasso – Claremont
PH 3-40
PH 3-41
Commissioner Markley – Claremont
PH 3-42, 48
Commissioner Worley – Claremont
PH 3-47, 49
Los Angeles – no comments received
Robert Clark – Montclair
PH 4
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-6
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-1
COMMENTER
ASSIGNED
COMMENT LETTER
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
Council Member Templeman – San Dimas
PH 6-22 et seq, 28
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
Planning Commissioner Ostrander – La Verne
Chairman Kendrick – La Verne
Dennis Reeves – La Verne
PH 7-12
PH 7-13 et seq, 69-71
PH 7-15, 20, 73-80
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
Planning Commissioner Kriezel – La Verne
Mr. Fredericksen – La Verne
PH 7-66-67
PH 7-83 et seq
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-7
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-1
COMMENTER
ASSIGNED
COMMENT LETTER
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
Los Angeles Public Hearing- No comments received
PH 11
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
Frank Tucker – Arcadia
PH 14-24
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
Karen Ang – Arcadia
PH 14-38
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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
PH 15-21 et seq
page 13-8
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
Ms. Arelene Andrew – La Verne
Karen Ang – Arcadia
Anonymous
Margaret Arballo – San Dimas
Ernest Arnold, RAMRC
Ernest Arnold – South Pasadena
Sue Ashley – Claremont
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
NUMBER
PH-La Verne 7-1 et seq, 29, 68
PH-Arcadia 14-39 et seq
Comment Letter 15
PH-San Dimas 6-21
Comment Letter 42
PH-South Pasadena 9-13 et seq
PH-Claremont 3-1 et seq
Sue Aspley
Comment Letter 14
Sue Avery
Mark Bailey – Montclair
Comment Letter 5
Mr. Balian – South Pasadena
Carvel Bass, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Curt Bender – La Verne
Douglas Bernash, City Engineer, City of Monrovia
Ben & Lillie Berry
Council Member Bertone – San Dimas
Cindy Bierman – San Dimas
PH-Montclair 5-2 et seq
PH-South Pasadena 9-2 et seq
Comment Letter 84
PH-La Verne 7-31 et seq
Comment Letter 163
Comment Letter 19
PH-San Dimas 6-22 et seq, 28
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
Mr. and Mrs. Bradley
Craig Bradshaw – Claremont
Comment Letter 17
Comment Letter 62
PH-Claremont 3-36 et seq, 43-46, 50
Craig Bradshaw, City Engineer, City of Claremont
Comment Letter 116
Rusty Braun
Comment Letter 65
Comment Letter 106
Kathleen Brindell and William Decker
Mr. Broadbent – Arcadia
PH-Arcadia 14-3
Commissioner Brunasso – Claremont
PH-Claremont 3-41
Michael Bryan
Comment Letter 32
Comment Letter 4
Susan Campo
Emily Cao
Mr. Cardenas – South Pasadena
Robert Chang
Comment Letter 107
PH-South Pasadena 9-1, 9-12
Robert Chang
Comment Letter 45
Comment Letter 101
David Chen
Comment Letter 66
David Chen
Comment Letter 67
Comment Letter 144
Elizabeth Chu
Robert Clark – Montclair
William Coats
William E. Coleman, Jr.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
PH-Montclair 5-1, 20
Comment Letter 143
Comment Letter 1
page 13-9
Comments and Responses
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
NUMBER
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
Christopher and Dana Corliss
Comment Letter 108
Christopher Corliss
Beth Costanza – Arcadia
Comment Letter 86
PH-Arcadia 14-24
Jeff Davidson
Comment Letter 49
Comment Letter 153
Robert Davis
Andrea Davis-Griffin
Comment Letter 55
Cathy J. Di Jerlando
Comment Letter 77
Robyn Di Jerlando
Comment Letter 78
Rocco Di Jerlando
Mark Dickerson - Azusa Pacific University
Comment Letter 79
Comment Letter 92
Margaret Dickinson
Comment Letter 138
Margaret Dickensen
Robert Donaldson – Azusa
Comment Letter 139
PH-Azusa 15-16 et seq
Mary Dougherty – Arcadia
PH-Arcadia 14-15 et seq
Elaine Drew
Comment Letter 44
Comment Letter 7
James Duffy
Councilman Dutrey – Montclair
PH-Montclair 5-18 et seq
Judy Duvall
Comment Letter 18
Eric Duyshart
Mayor Pro Tem Ebiner – San Dimas
Comment Letter 28
PH-San Dimas 6-5 et seq
Steven Elie / Musick, Peeler & Garret, for City of South Pasadena
Francisco Espinoza
Ms. Ervin – South Pasadena
Comment Letter 20
PH-South Pasadena 9-5 et seq
Patricia Farris, Cal Poly Pomona
Rosemary Faust, chairman of the board, Rancho Cucamonga
chamber
Mr. Fredericksen – La Verne
Curtis Frick – La Verne
Michael Friedman, MD, President,
{DUPLICATE of #100}
Michael A. Friedman, City of Hope
Comment Letter 76
Comment Letter 81
Comment Letter 68
PH-La Verne 7-72
PH-La Verne 7-49 et seq
CEO,
City
of
Hope
Comment Letter 112
Comment Letter 100
Jack Fry, Sprint
Comment Letter 129
Jack Fry, Sprint
Comment Letter 130
Ellen Fusco
Comment Letter 88
Comment Letter 146
Edward Gabriel
Avinash Gokli
Jason Golding, Associate Planner, City of Duarte
Amparo and Raul Gomez
Paul Greenwood
Paul Greenwood – Arcadia
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
Comment Letter 64
Comment Letter 145
Comment Letter 16
Comment Letter 149
PH-Arcadia 14-28
page 13-10
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
Barry C. Groveman
Tom Hacker –- Duarte
Commissioner Hamilton – Azusa
Lisa Hanf, EPA, Manager, Federal Activities Office
Commissioner Hanks – Azusa
Ian Harmer
Karen Heit – South Pasadena
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
NUMBER
Comment Letter 114
PH-Duarte 1-2 et seq
PH-Azusa 15-20
Comment Letter 121
PH-Azusa 15-21 et seq
Comment Letter 6
PH-South Pasadena 9-35 et seq
Morley Helfand
Bob Herman – Claremont
Comment Letter 148
Gina Hewes
Comment Letter 37
Comment Letter 105
Brenda Barham Hill, Claremont University Consortium
Bob Hoherd – Arcadia
PH-Claremont 3-29
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
Stanford Huang – Arcadia
William Hung
Gus Hyland – South Pasadena
Irwindale
Comment Letter 54
PH-Arcadia 14-19 et seq
Comment Letter 117
PH-South Pasadena 9-18 et seq
Bruce Jarn
Comment Letter 74
Comment Letter 41
Mr. Jenkins – San Dimas
PH-San Dimas 6-30
Mr. Jenkins – La Verne
Eileen Johnson – South Pasadena
Mark Johnston, PRS, TRAC, RailPac, MARP
Jerry Juergens – Claremont
PH-La Verne 7-12
PH-South Pasadena 9-28 et seq
Comment Letter 82
PH-Claremont 3-14 et seq
Jerry Juergens
Comment Letter 12
Lester Kan
Leonard Karsana
Comment Letter 46
Comment Letter 152
Arella Karspeck
Comment Letter 132
Cecil Karstensen
Comment Letter 13
Cecil Karstensen
Comment Letter 33
Comment Letter 134
Cecil Karstensen
Cecil Karstensen
Cecil Karstensen – Claremont
Mrs. Karsana – Arcadia
Chairman Kendrick – La Verne
Jim Kiel – Azusa
Arthur Killian
Planning Commissioner Kriezel – La Verne
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
Comment Letter 135
PH-Claremont 3-18 et seq
PH-Arcadia 14-43 et seq
PH-La Verne 7-15, 20, 73-80
PH-Azusa 15-11 et seq
Comment Letter 141
PH-La Verne 7-83 et seq
page 13-11
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
NUMBER
Commissioner Lamb – Claremont
PH-Claremont 3-40
La Verne
City of La Verne (Warren C. Siecke, Transportation and Traffic
Engineering)
Staff Report to Planning Commission, Community Services, City of
La Verne
Ms. Linda Lapham – San Dimas
Comment Letter 75
Comment Letter 166
Bruce Lathrop
Comment Letter 165
PH-San Dimas 6-12 et seq
Comment Letter 110
Harold Leacock
Albert Lee Jr. – Arcadia
Comment Letter 36
PH-Arcadia 14-4, 29-31
Mr. Lefebvre – Arcadia
PH-Arcadia 14-7 et seq
Jonathan Lew
Tany Ling
Selma Lockman – La Verne
Paul Looney – San Dimas
Comment Letter 11
Comment Letter 59
PH-La Verne 7-43 et seq
PH-San Dimas 6-17 et seq
City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
Los Angeles – no comments received
Comment Letter 115
Los Angeles Public Hearing- No comments received
PH-Los Angeles 12
Ms. Luong (through interpreter) – Arcadia
Dennis Madvig – Glendora
Dennis Madvig – Azusa
Alice Mah – Monrovia
Commissioner Markley – Claremont
Michael McAndrews, attorney representing Miller Brewing
Dawn McCallis – Claremont
Henyka McCorsh
Council member McHenry – San Dimas
Christina McQueen
Member of the Public – Arcadia
Drew Merryman
Tom Merryman – Glendora
PH-Los Angeles 4
PH-Arcadia 14-38
PH-Glendora 2-14 et seq
PH-Azusa 15-19
PH 8-1 et seq
PH-Claremont 3-42, 48
Comment Letter 123
PH-Claremont 3-16 et seq
Comment Letter 155
PH-San Dimas 6-9 et seq
Comment Letter 26
PH-Arcadia 14-2
Comment Letter 29
PH-Glendora 2-7 et seq
Blaine Michaelis, City Manager, San Dimas
Comment Letter 160
D. Michaelis
Craig Miller – Arcadia
Comment Letter 93
Henyka Mislowski, SOCATA
PH-Arcadia 14-35 et seq
Comment Letter 10
Anthony Morales, tribal chairman of the local Native Americans
Anthony Morales – Irwindale
Comment Letter 50
PH-Irwindale 13-1 et seq
Mr. Morel – Arcadia
PH-Arcadia 14-41 et seq
Sharon Moreno – Claremont
Mayor Morris – San Dimas
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
PH-Claremont 3-33 et seq
PH-San Dimas 6-29
page 13-12
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
Bryan Moscardini, L.A. County Dept. of Parks, Project Coordinator
Marshall Mouw – Glendora
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
NUMBER
Comment Letter 119
PH-Glendora 2-12 et seq, PH 2-22
MTA
Comment Letter 98
Muliadi
Comment Letter 53
Comment Letter 147
Michael and Suzanne Mulvehill
Marilyn Nixon – Glendora
PH-Glendora 2-9
Jim Nizolek
Jim Nizozek – Glendora
Comment Letter 27
PH-Glendora 2-16
James Okazaki, Los Angeles Department of Transportation
(LADOT)
Lawrence Onaga, City of Azusa
Ed Ortell – Azusa
Comment Letter 124
Manuel Ortiz – Irwindale
Planning Commissioner Ostrander – La Verne
Rob Owen
Deborah Page
Kristin Parisi – Glendora
Kristin Parisi
Steve Parisi – Arcadia
Krishna Patel, City of San Dimas
Mr. Patel – San Dimas
Councilman Paulitz – Montclair
Sandra Pelletier
Comment Letter 154
PH-Azusa 15-8 et seq
PH-Ortiz 13-7 et seq
PH-La Verne 7-13 et seq, 69-71
Comment Letter 133
Comment Letter 83
PH-Glendora 2-1 et seq
Comment Letter 109
PH-Arcadia 14-22 et seq
Comment Letter 159
PH-San Dimas 6-31
PH-Montclair 5-15 et seq
Don Penman, Arcadia, Asst. City Manager
Comment Letter 60
Comment Letter 118
Jeremy Person, CEDG Inc.
Comment Letter 25
Jeremy Person, CEDG Inc.
Comment Letter 47
Wendell Player
Comment Letter 23
Pomona Meeting
Pomona Public Hearing- No comments received
Comment Letter 48
PH-Pomona 11
Cheryl Powell, Caltrans District 7
Comment Letter 56
Cynthia Rainey
Comment Letter 69
Celia Ramirez
Mayor Pro Tem Ramirez – Irwindale
Comment Letter 31
PH-Irwindale 13-10 et seq
Abe Rasheed
Comment Letter 63
Marilyn Raskin
Comment Letter 87
Comment Letter 120
C.F. Raysbrook, CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Regional Manager
Dennis Reeves – La Verne
Luke Reynolds
Dwight Richards – La Verne
Diane Rios
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
PH-La Verne 7-30
Comment Letter 136
PH-La Verne 7-59 et seq
Comment Letter 51
page 13-13
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
Oscar Rivas
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
NUMBER
Junje Ro
Comment Letter 21
Comment Letter 9
Junje Ro
Comment Letter 43
Junje Ro
Donald Rodriguez – La Verne
Comment Letter 151
Ricky Rodriguez
PH-La Verne 7-33 et seq
Comment Letter 3
Leslie Rogers, USDOT, FTA
Comment Letter 127
Gino Roncelli
Comment Letter 52
Comment Letter 8
Hans Rosenberger
Councilman Ruh – Montclair
PH-Montclair 5-21 et seq
Leonard Rusch
Comment Letter 113
Sam
Comment Letter 58
Comment Letter 125
Sam (no last name)
Sanaheen
Planning Commissioner Sanchez – La Verne
Comment Letter 61
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
Comment Letter 162
Patricia Sanderson Port, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS
Mr. Shrag – South Pasadena
Michael Siddons
Charleen Seijas
Charleen Siijas – South Pasadena
Jerry Silberberg
Geri Silveira
Geri Silveira – La Verne
J.R. Simpson
Jeffrey Smith - SCAG
Walter Smith, BNSF
David Solow, CEO, SCRRA
Richard and Linda Spaulding
George Stamp – Glendora
Dick Stanford – Azusa
PH-South Pasadena 9-25 et seq
Comment Letter 24
Comment Letter 40
PH-South Pasadena 9-15 et seq
Comment Letter 39
Comment Letter 72
PH-La Verne 7-51 et seq
Comment Letter 80
Comment Letter 94
Comment Letter 73
Comment Letter 122
Comment Letter 142
PH-Glendora 2-10 et seq, 23, 24
PH-Azusa 15-1 et seq
Angela Stella
Comment Letter 128
Michael Stolte
Comment Letter 96
Alice Stosius
Comment Letter 35
Comment Letter 161
Robert M. Strong, U.S. DOT, FTA, Airway Facilities Division
Eva Swanburg – Duarte
Kwok Tam, Director, Public Works, City of Irwindale
Louise Taylor and Linda Dempsey, Monrovia Unified School
District
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
PH-Duarte 1
Comment Letter 111
Comment Letter 126
page 13-14
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
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
Mr. Ulloth – South Pasadena
Comment Letter 91
PH-South Pasadena 9-22 et seq
Paul Ulrich
Comment Letter 150
Laura Vargus
Comment Letter 85
Comment Letter 140
Michael Vercillo
Michael Viera, Citrus College
Comment Letter 71
Comment Letter 99
Michael Viera - Citrus College
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
Curtis Walker – Arcadia
Comment Letter 70
PH-Arcadia 14-1
Daniel Walker - Sierra Club
Daniel Walker – Glendora
Comment Letter 95
PH-Glendora 2-17 et seq
Dianne Walter, City of Glendora
Comment Letter 157
Dianne Walter, City of Glendora
Alan Weeks – South Pasadena
Comment Letter 158
Amy Weiderman
Greg Weingarten – San Dimas
Paul Wheeler, Wheeler and Wheeler, Architects/Jerry Juergens, Spring
Street Center
Paul Wheeler – Claremont
Wayne Whitehill
Monzel Wickliffe – San Dimas
PH-South Pasadena 9-51 et seq
Comment Letter 22
PH-San Dimas 6-20
Comment Letter 97
PH-Claremont 3-4 et seq, 32
Comment Letter 131
PH 6-1 et seq
Anthony Witt, City of Claremont
Comment Letter 156
Robert Wittry
Comment Letter 89
Robert Wittry
Comment Letter 90
PH-Pasadena 10-1 et seq
Robert Wittry – Pasadena
Commissioner Worley – Claremont
Brian Worley – La Verne
Jerard Wright
PH-Claremont 3-47, 49
PH-La Verne 7-64 et seq
Comment Letter 2
Benny Wu
Comment Letter 102
Stella Wu
Comment Letter 103
Matthew Wu
Comment Letter 104
Rudy Yanez – Glendora
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
PH-Glendora 2-25
page 13-15
Comments and Responses
TABLE 13-2
ALPHABETIZED LIST OF COMMENTERS
Murray Young
Murray Young – Pasadena
Alexander Zajack – Arcadia
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
ASSIGNED COMMENT
LETTER OR PUBLIC HEARING
NUMBER
Comment Letter 38
PH-Pasadena 10-7
PH-Arcadia 14-32 et seq
page 13-16
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-17
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 1
RESPONSE TO LETTER 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
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-18
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 1
RESPONSE TO LETTER 1
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-19
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 2
RESPONSE TO LETTER 2
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-20
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 3
RESPONSE TO LETTER 3
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-21
Responses to Comments
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-22
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 4
RESPONSE TO LETTER 4
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-23
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 5
RESPONSE TO LETTER 5
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-24
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 6
RESPONSE TO LETTER 6
Comment 6-1
Your support for the project is acknowledged.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-25
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 7
RESPONSE TO LETTER 7
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-26
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 8
RESPONSE TO LETTER 8
Comment 8-1
Your support for the project is acknowledged.
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-27
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 8
RESPONSE TO LETTER 8
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-28
Responses to Comments
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 soundinsulating 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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-29
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 10
RESPONSE TO LETTER 10
Comment 10-1
Your support for the project and the environmental review process is
acknowledged.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-30
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 11
RESPONSE TO LETTER 11
Comment 11-1
Your support for the project is acknowledged.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-31
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 12
RESPONSE TO LETTER 12
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-32
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 13
RESPONSE TO LETTER 13
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-33
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 14
RESPONSE TO LETTER 14
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-34
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 15
RESPONSE TO LETTER 15
Comment 15-1
Your support for the project is acknowledged.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-35
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 16
RESPONSE TO LETTER 16
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-36
Responses to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 16
RESPONSE TO LETTER 16
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.
Gold Line Foothill Extension – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR
February 2007
page 13-37