Native American Contacts Los Angeles County January 27,201 0

Native American Contacts Los Angeles County January 27,201 0

I Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Linda Candelar~a. Chairwoman 501 Santa ~ o n i c a Blvd, # Gabrielino Santa Monica CA 90401 (31 0) 587-2203 31 0-428-5767- cell (31 0) 587-2281 lcandelarial @gabrlelinoTribe.org

Thls llet Is Current only as of the date of thls document.

Dlslrlbullon of thls l ls l does ,101 relleve any person of slalutory respor~slblllly os defltlcd In Section 7050.5 of tho Health and Safely Code, Sectlon 5097.94 01 the Publlc Rosuurca C d e and Sccllon 5097.90 of the Publlc Rasonr#ccs Code. Also. loderill Natlonal Envlronmental Pollcy Act (NEPA), Nallonol Hlsturlc Proscrvstlon Act, Sectlon 108, and federal NAGPRA

This 1181 IS Only sppllcable tor contacting local Natlvc A~nerlealls wllh regard l o cultural resourcos for the proposed SCH*2010011062; C E M Notlce of Preparallon (NOP); drsn Envlronmental lmpsct Ropad (DEIR) tor the Eostsldc Tronslt Corrldor Phass 2 Project; located In the San Gobrlcl Valley, Rlo Hondo area; Los Angelescounty. Culltornla.

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER P.O.Box 1016.6615 Passons Blvd.

Pic0 Rivera,CA 90660-1016

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager 10s Angeles County MTA One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 9001 2

City of Pico Rivera OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

6615 Passons Boulevard. Pico Rivera,California 90660 (562) 801-4368

Web: rvww.oico-rivera.org . e-stnil: [email protected]

Charles P. Fuentes City Manager

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Los Angeles County MTA One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 900 12

February 10,20 10

City Council Gregory Salcldo

Mayor

Bob J.Archuleta Mayor Pro Ten,

David W.Arrnenta Councilmember

Re: Invitation to participate in the Environmental 1ievie.c~ Process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase Two project

Dear Ms. Yu:

'Thank you for inviting the City of Pico Rivera to be part of the Eastsidc Transit Corridor Phase Two project environmental review process. The City is eager to participate and provide comment during this important phase of the planning stages. The City accepts your invitation to participate and would like to be included in all meetings and be provided all materials related to this project.

Should you have any questions, please contact Julia Gonzalez, Community and Economic Development Deputy Director at (562) 801-4332 or Art Cervantes, Public Works Deputy Director at (562) 801-4415.

Sincerely,

CHARLES P. FUENTES City Manager

Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

March 12,201 0

Arthur T. Leahy Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

Dear Mr. Leahy:

I am writing in response to your February 4,2010, letter to Secretary o f Energy, Steven Chu. Thank you for inviting the Department of Energy to be a participating agency in the enviranmeutal review process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project.

The Department of Energy wi l l not be a participating agency because the Department has nojurisdiction or authority with respect to the project, no expertise or information relevant to the project, and does not intend to submit comments on the project.

If you have any questions, please direct them to Carolyn Osborne of my staff at carolvn.osborn@,ha.doe,~oy or 202-586-4596.

Sincerely,

Carol Borgstrom, Direc r Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

@ Prinled wllh wy ink M recycled paper

O!e1:.651?822

so 4.222 .;. ?,i:mqO!~

;%:!err From SGfirn . US PGSTAGE

City of Whittier 13230 Psnn Ctraat, Whittier, California 90602-1772

(562) 945-8200 www.cityofwhittier.org

Bob Henderson Mayor

Greg Nordbak Mavor Pro Tem

Cathy Warner Council Member

Owen Newcomer Council Member

Joe Vlnatieri Council Member

Stephen W. Helvey Clty Manager

February 26,2010

The Honorable Don Knabe County Supervisor, 4'h District 822 Hall of Administration 500 West Temwle Street

Re: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II -Washington Route Support

On June 9, 2009, the Whittier City Council considered Metro's alternative routes for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II and voted unanimously to support the Washington Boulevard alternative. The City Council determined that this route offers the best alignment into Whittier and should be considered for further environmental analysis.

The Washington Boulevard route alignment is the best alternative to assist residents who commute to jobs within the region, and will allow businesses to recruit quality employees who reside in other communities by offering them a viable commute alternative.

The availability of light rail service along Washington Boulevard will improve the area's commuter traffic congestion for workers traveling to and from Los Angeles and will bring regional balance to jobs and housing in Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera, Montebello and Commerce.

A light rail service on Washington Boulevard will provide direct service to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), Whittier's largest employer and a major provider of health care in the region.

A light rail service on Washington Boulevard near PIH and the Five Points intersection will provide the opportunity to redevelop that area as a prime site for Transit Orientated Developments (TOD).

The Whittier City Council does not support an alignment along the 60 Freeway, as it does not provide the benefits to the Whittier community that are afforded along the Washington Boulevard alternative.

Supervisor Don Knabe February 26,2010 Page 2

If you plan to take a position on Metro's extension alternatives into your district, we would welcome your consideration of the Washington Boulevard route and the benefits it would provide to Whittier, Pico Rivera, Commerce and Santa Fe Springs. We would be pleased to provide input and further information to you and your staff at any time.

Bob Henderson Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of La Habra Heights City Council City of La Mirada City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team

City of Whittier 13230 Penn Street, Whittier, California 90602-1772


Bob Henderson Mayor

Greg Nordbak Mayor Pro Tern



Joe Vinatieri Council Member

Stephen W. Helvey City Manager

February 26, 2010

The Honorable Gloria Molina County Supervisor, 1'' District 856 Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear supervisor Molina:

Re: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II - Washington Route Support

On June 9, 20.09, the Whittier City Council considered Metro's alternative routes for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II and voted unanimously to support the Washington Boulevard alternative. The City Council determined that this route offers the best alignment into Whittier and should be considered for further environmental analysis.






Supervisor Gloria Molina February 26, 2010 Page 2

If you plan to take a position on Metro's extension alternatives into your district, we would welcome your consideration of the Washington Boulevard route and the benefits it would provide to Whittier, Pico Rivera, Commerce and Santa Fe Springs. We would be pleased to provide input: and further information to you and your staff at any time.

Sincerely, &%/A Bob ~enderson Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of Commerce City Council City of Montebello City Council City of Pico Rivera City Council City of Santa Fe Springs City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team



Bob Henderson I February 26.2010 Mayor I Greg Nordbak Mayor Pro Tern




Stephen W. ~ e i v e y City Manager

The Honorable Gary Miller Congressman, 42" District 1800 E. Lambert Road. Suite 150 Brea, CA 92821

*Y' Dear ~ o n ~ r e s s d ~ i l l e 6

Re: ~ a s t s i d e Transit Corridor Phase II -Washington Route Support

On June 9, 2009, the Whittier City Council considered Metro's alternative routes for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase I1 and voted unanimously to support the Washington Boulevard alternative. The City Council determined that this route offers the best alignment into Whittier and should be considered for further environmental analysis.


w The availability of light rail service along Washington Boulevard will improve the area's commuter traffic congestion for workers traveling to and from Los Angeles and will bring regional balance to jobs and housing in Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera and Montebello.

A light rail service'on Washington Boulevard will provide direct service to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), Whittier's largest employer and a major provider of health care in the region.

,


I The Whittier City Council does notsupport an alignment along the 60 Freeway, as it does not provide the benefits to the Whittier community that are afforded along the Washington Boulevard alternative.

Congressman Gary Miller February 26,2010 Page 2

If you plan to take a position on Metro's extension alternatives into your district, we would welcome your consideration of the Washington Boulevard route and the benefits it would provide to the Whittier area. We would be pleased to provide input and further information to you and your staff at any time.

Sincerely,

Bob ~ e h e r s o n Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of La Habra Heights City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team

City of Whit t ier 13230 Penn Street, Whittier, California 90602-1772


Bob Henderson Mavor

Greg Nordbak Mayor ProTem



Joe Vlnatieri Council Member

Stephen W. Helvey city Manager

February 26,2010

The Honorable Grace Napolitano Congresswoman, 38Ih District 11627 E. Telegraph Road, #I00 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

&&&c=.d- Dear C o n g r e s s w o m ~ o l i t a n o :




The availability of light rail service along Washington Boulevard will improve the area's commuter traffic congestion for workers traveling to and from Los Angeles and will bring regional balance to jobs and housing in Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera and Montebello.

A light rail s e ~ i c e ' o n Washington Boulevard will provide direct sewice to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), Whittier's largest employer and a major provider of health care in the region.


I The Whittier City Council does not support an alignment along the 60 Freeway, as it does not provide the benefits to the Whittier community that are afforded along the Washington Boulevard alternative.

Congresswoman Grace Napolitano February 26, 2010 Page 2


Sincerely,

Bob Henderson Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of Montebello City Council City of Pico Rivera City Council City of Santa Fe Springs City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team


(562) 945-8200 www.city~fwhittier.org

Bob Henderson Mayor

Greg Nordbak Mayor Pro Tem

Cathy Warner Councll Member

The Honorable Linda Sanchez Congresswoman, 39Ih District 17906 Crusader Avenue, Suite 100 Cerritos, CA 90703

A/4d5 Dear Congresswop&nchez:

I Re: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase Il -Washington Route Support Owen Newcomer Council Member

Joe Vinatlerl Council Member

Steplien W. Helvey City Manager



The availability of light rail service along Washington Boulevard will improve the area's commuter traffic congestion for workers traveling to and from Los Angeles and will bring regional balance to jobs and housing in Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera and Montebello.

A light rail service' on Washington Boulevard will provide direct service to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), Whittier's largest employer and a major provider of health care in the region.

. A light rail service on Washington Boulevard near PiH and the Five Points intersection will provide the opportunity to redevelop that area as a prime site for Transit Orientated Developments (TOD).

I The Whittier City Council does notsupport an alignment along the 60 Freeway, as it does not provide the benefits to the Whittier community that are afforded along the Washington Boulevard alternative.

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez February 26,2010 Page 2


Sincerely,

Bob Henderson Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of La Mirada City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team

13230 Penn Street, Whittier, California 90602-1772 (562) 945-8200 www.cityofwhittier.org

Bob Henderson Mayor



February 24, 2010

The Honorable Ron Calderon Senator, 3oth District State Capitol Building, Room 5080 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Senator Calderon:



Joe Vinaiieri council Member

* The Washington Boulevard route alignment is the best alternative to assist residents who commute to jobs within the region, and will allow businesses to recruit quality employees who reside in other communities by offering them a viable commute alternative.





A light rail service on Washington Boulevard near PIH and the Five Points 'intersection will provide the opportunity to redevelop that area as a prime site for Transit Orientated Developments (TOD).


Senator Ron Calderon February 24,2010 Page 2


Bob ~ A d e r s o n Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of Commerce City Council City of La Mirada City Council City of Montebello City Council City of Pico Rivera City Council City of Santa Fe Springs City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team

City of Whittier

Bob Henderson Mayor


Cathy Warner Councll Member

Owen Newcomer Counoll Member

Joe Vinatierl Counoll Member


13230 Penn Street, Whittier, California 90602-?772 (562) 945-8200 www.cityofwhittier,org

February 24,2010

The Honorable Chuck Calderon Assemblyman, 58th District State Capitol Building, Room 21 17 Sacramento, CA

Dear ~ssembl~manp&i86n:

I Re: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II - Washington Route Support


.* The Washington Boulevard route alignment is the best alternative to assist residents who commute to jobs within the region, and will allow businesses to recruit quality employees who reside in other communities by offering them a viable commute alternative.

I The availability of light rail service along Washington Boulevard will imorove the area's commuter traffic conaestion for workers tr&eling to and from Los Angeles and will bhng regional balance to jobs and housing in Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera, Montebello and Commerce.




Assemblyman Chuck Calderon February 24,2010 Page 2


Bob ~en&rson Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of La Mirada City Council City of Montebello City Council City of Pico Rivera City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team



Bob Henderson Mayor

February 24, 2010

Cathy Warner Council Member I Dear Assemblyman Hagman:



The Honorable Curt Hagman Assemblyman, 6oth District State Capitol Building, Room 41 16 Sacramento, CA 94249

Joe Vinatieri Councli Member


Re: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase I1 - Washington Route Support







Assemblyman Curt Hagman February 24,2010 Page 2

If you plan to take a position on Metro's extension alternatives into your district, we would welcome your consideration of the Washington Boulevard route and the benefits it would provide to the Whittier area. We would be pleased l o provide input and further information to you and your staff at any time.

Sincerely,

Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of La Habra Heights City Council City of La Mirada City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team



Bob Henderson I February 24. 2OlO Mayor I Greg Nordbak Mayor Pro Tem

The Honorable Tony Mendoza Assemblyman, 56'h District State Capitol Building, Room 5144 Sacramento, CA 94249

Cathy Warner Council Member I Dear Assemblyman Mendoza:


Joe Vlnatleri Council Member


Re: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II - Washington Route. Support

On June 9, 2009, the Whittier City Council considered Metro's alternative routes forthe Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II and voted unanimously to support the Washington Boulevard alternative. The City Council determined that this route offers the best alignment into Whittier and should be considered for further environmental analysis.

.* The Washington Boulevard route alignment is the best alternative to assist residents who commute to jobs within the region, and will allow businesses to recruit quality employees who reside in other communities by offering them a viable commute alternative.




1 . The Whittier City Council does not .support an alignment along the 60 Freeway, as it does not provide the benefits to the Whittier community that are afforded along the Washington Boulevard alternative.

Assemblyman Tony Mendoza February 24,2010 Page 2


Bob ~en ie rson Mayor

cc: City of Whittier City Council City of Santa Fe Springs City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team

City of Whittier 13230 Penn Street, M'hi?!ier, Cz!ifernia 90602-!772






Stephen W. Heivey City Manager

Board of Directors Whittier Area Chamber of Commerce 81 58 Painter Avenue Whittier, CA 90602

Dear Board of Directors:





9 A light rail service on Washington Boulevard will provide direct service to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), Whittier's largest employer and a major provider of health care in the region.



Whittier Area Chamber Board February 25, 2010 Page 2

We would welcome the Chamber of Commerce's consideration of and support for the Washington Boulevard route and the benefits it would provide to the Whittier area. Your members' participation in the process would be appreciated. We would be pleased to provide further information to you and the Chamber staff at any time.

Mayor

cc: City of whittier City Council City of Commerce City Council City of La Habra Heights City Council City of La Mirada City Council City of Montebello City Council City of Pico Rivera City Council City of Santa Fe Springs City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team

RESOLUTION NO. 8274

A RESOLUTION OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA, STATING THE CITY'S SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EASTSiDE GOLD LINE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE ll

WHEREAS, the City of Whittier is committed to being a partner in the Eastside Gold Line Transit Corridor Phase II project;

WHEREAS, the Los Angels County Metropolitan Transportation Atlthorily (Metro) is in the scoplng phase of the Eastside Gold Line Corridor Phase II project and will receive public comments until April 14, 2010, at which time the Environmental Analysis will begin;

WHEREAS, Metro is only evaluating two alignnients at this time from the current terminus at Atlantic Boulevard and Pomona Boulevard, which are a Garfteld AvenueNVashlngton Boulevard option ending at the Presbyterian lntercornmunity Hospital and a SR-60 alignment ending at the I-605lPeck Road;

WHEREAS, the Environmental Analysis will study potential effects of construction and operation on both alignments and identify mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse affects on the project;

WHEREAS, the Environmental Analysis will refine the two alternatives through the use of such environmental criteria as: fiscal impact, passenger growth, safety and security, community impacts, energy use, hazardous materials, environmental justice, noise and vibration issues, land use development, historic resources, geological and soil issues, traffic effects and air quality;

WHEREAS. the Environmental Analysis will lead to a single locally-preferred option which will be presented to the Metro Board during Fall 201 1;

WHEREAS, the project's intention is to improve mobility within the proposed area and plan for projected populationgrowth and future congestion issues;

WHEREAS, the chosen alignment will impact the social-economic fabric of the City for decades to come; and

WHEREAS, the City of Whlttier is committed to providing its residents with alternative modes of transportation:

NOW THEREFORE, THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OF WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council agrees to collaborate with Metro in bringing the Eastside Gold Line Corridor Phase II alignment to the City of Whittier.

Resolution No. 8274 Page 3

CITY OF WI-IITT'IER ) ) ss

STATE OF CAI.IFORNIA )

I, Kathryn A. Marshall, City Clerk-Treasurer in and for the City of Whittier,

California, hereby certify that the foregoirig resolutiotl was duly introtl~rced and adopted

at a regular meeting of the City Couricil of said City lleld on the 9"' day of March 2010,

by the following roll call vote.

AYES: J. A. Vinatieri C. Warner 0. Newcomer

J. G. Nordbak R. L. Henderson

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

WITNESS nly liarid and the official seal of the City of Whittier, California, this

J [ , , I : . . Y of ..I: i . : ! _ 2010.

3 ,' ', I

1,;' /jY/.-,i 4 8 , .,, T/ /,..~L,,t.,~;-)~~~\J~,L~i. -\ . . 1 . . .. . ... " -

KATHRYN A. MARSt IALL. City Clerk-Treasurer

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS

" - "*" .""... r " U " * ~ > < , , ,

LOSANGELES. CALlFORNIA hKi532325

March 10, 2010 -- Asset Management Division

Mr. Arthur T. Leal~y Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, California 90012-2952

Dear Mr Leahy:

This is in response to your letter dated February 4,2010, requesting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps"), Los Angeles District to participate as a cooperating and participating agency in the development of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project ("Project"). The Corps understands that the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA"), as Federal lead agency, will prepare an EJS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508, and section 6002 of the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

According to the scoping information packet provided with your letter, FTA has refined its range of alternatives to include two build alternatives-the SR-60 Light Rail Transit ("LRT") Alternative and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. The alignment of the SR-60 LRT Alternative in the southern portion of the SR-60 right-of-way and the location of its Santa Anita Station would occur in the Whittier Narrows Flood Control Basin. In addition, the alignment of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative along Washington Boulevard would traverse Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River Channels.

Certain Corps approvals may be required depending on the alignment alternative selected. Corps approval would be required for ( I ) proposed alterations to a flood control system, (2) the use of land in which the Federal Governnlent holds a property interest, and (3) impacts to waters of the IJnited States. These approvals are Federal actions in which we, as a Federal agency, have independent legal responsibility to comply with the NEPA. Additional information for each approval follows.

Whittier Narrows Flood Control Basin, Rio Hondo Channel, and San Gabriel River Channel are Federally autl~orized flood damage reduction projects of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area. In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 5 408, for any request to temporarily or permanently alter, occupy or use a Federally authorkzed flood damage reduction project, the Corps must determine that such use will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the flood damage reduction project for its intended purpose. The level of review and approval would depend on the significance of the proposed alteration or modification. Please refer to the enclosed documents for additional information.

As you are aware, the Corps operates arid manages the Whittier Narrows Flood Control Basin on behalf o f the Federal Government. Property interests acquired by the Corps for the safe and effective operation o f a flood damage reduction project must be managed in accordance with Federal regulation and policy. A formal request for the use o f land in which the Federal Government holds a property interest and management o f the land has been delegated to the Corps requires the review and approval o f the Corps.

A Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permit may be required for the discharge o f dredged or fill material into waters o f the United States. Please be advised that the CWA 404(b)(l) Guidelines at 40 C.F.R. Part 230 and Corps regulations at 33 C.F.R. 5 332.1 require an applicant for a Department o f the Army permit to take all appropriate and practicable steps to first avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to waters o f the United States, and then compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been undertaken. I f you have any questions pertaining to section 404 of the CWA, please contact Ms. Phuong Trinh, Regulatoly Project Manager, by phone at (213) 452- 3372 or via e-mail at Phuong.1 1.'[email protected].

By this letter, the Corps hereby agrees to coordinate with the ETA as a cooperating agency under 40 C.F.R. 55 1501.6(b) and 1508.5, 33 C.E.R. Part 325, Appendix B, paragraph 8(c), 33 C.F.R. 5 230.16, and as a participating agency under 23 U.S.C. 5 139 to ensure that FTA's resulting EIS may be adopted by the Corps for purposes o f exercising our regulatoly authorities under section 404 o f the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 5 1344, and section 14 o f the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 408.

We expect that as a cooperating and participating agency for the project, we will be invited to attend coordination meetings, participate in the development o f the coordination plan, comment on the purpose and need statement and the range o f alternatives, identify issues that could delay or prevent the granting o f a pennit, consult on technical studies, and include information in the EIS sufficient for us to perform our NEPA and CWA responsibilities for all Corps decisions that the project would require.

l f you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Phil Serpa, Asset Manager, by phone at (213) 452-3402 or via e-mail at P h i l l i ~ . S . S e ~ ~ ~ a ~ u ~ a ~ ~ ~ a r m v ~ ~ ~ ~ i l , or you can reach me at (2 13) 452-3961.

Sincerely,

ANTONIO R. VlLLARAlCOSA M w

April 2,201 0

Commission LEE KANON ALPERT,~rnkfenr EDITH W R E Z , vm~wrhrr FORESCEE HOOAN-ROWLES JONATHAN PARPREY THOMAS S SAYLES BARBARAE MOSCHOS,$*~~CI~CI~

Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, California 90012

S. DAVID FREEMAN 1"ie"n Oc"0c0c1 llboaqv

W A N RAI ~wopumwpmw

Dear Ms. Yu:

Subject: Participating Agency Invitation Acceptance and Scoping Comments for Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) appreciates the written invitation dated February 4,2010, to become actively involved as a participating agency in the environmentai review prooess for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project, and does hereby elect to accept the offer.

LADWP staff attended the interagency scoping meeting on February 18,2010, and was informed that public agencies have until April 14,2010, to submit written comments regarding the proposed project in order to identify potential issues to be addressed in the environmental document.

The proposed transit conldor alignment for the Washington Boulevard Alternative would encroach on a LADWP transmission ilne right-of-way (Victorville-Century Line 258) in the vicinitv of Washington Boulevard, west of ~aramount ~oulevard. In the city of ~icoRtvera. consequently, weare providing the following comments:

1) The power transmission line rights of way are an Integral component of the transmission line system, which provides electric power to the City of Los Angeles and other local communities. Their use is under the jurisdiction of the Federal North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Safety and protection of critical facilities are the primary factors used to evaluate secondary land use proposals. The rights of way serve as platforms for access, construction, maintenance, facility expansion and emergency operations. Therefore, the proposed use may from time to time be subject to temporary disruption caused by such operations.

2) Provide plans that illustrate the LADWP Right of Way boundaries within the proposed Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. Include towers and clearances from proposed improvements.

Water and Power Conservation . . .a way of life 1 11 Norlh Hopc Slnel, Los Angcln, California 90012-2607 Marrmg adddccs: Box 51 11 1, Los Angeles 90051-5700

Telephone: (213) 367-4211 Ca61c address: DEWAPOLA WOddamlanMosB

Ms. Kimberly Yu Page 2 April 2, 2010

3) Conductor Clearances will be subject to the review and approval of the Transmission Engineering Group. The LADWP may need a copy of the conductor survey illustrating the cross sections showing our existing conductors and proposed improvements. See enclosed Department Conductor Survey Instructions. The Transmission Engineering Group will use the data to calculate and confirm that conductor clearances meet G.O. 95, Rule 61 3-8.

4) All construction activities shall adhere to the Department's Standard Conditions for Construction. See enclosure.

5) Provide cross sections of existing and proposed improvements within and adjacent to the LADWP Right of Ways. Note: Cut and flli slopes inside the LADWP Transmission Line Right of Ways steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical require retaining structures or geotechnical report approval.

6) Provide the location and elevations (heights) of all above and below ground structures. All ground elevations are to remain unchanged from existing conditions after proposed improvements associated with the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project are completed. Note: Ground cover for all below ground utilities shall not be less than four (4) feet.

7) When grading activity affects the Transmission Line Access Roads, the developer shall replace the affected access roads using the Department's Access Road Design Criteria. See enclosed.

8) Cathodic protection system, if any, shall have a design that does not cause corrosion to the LADWP facilities. A detailed design of the cathodic protection system shall be submitted for approval to the LADWP.

9) No grading shall be conducted within the LADWP Right of Ways without prior written approval of the LADWP.

10) No structures shall be constructed within the LADWP Right of Ways without prior written approval of the LADWP.

11)The LADWP prohibits drainage structures or the discharging of drainage onto the Transmission Line Right of Ways. Concentrated runoff can cause erosion especially to the transmission line tower footings.

12)The developer shall compact all fill slopes within the LADWP Right of Ways. The compaction shall comply with applicable Building Code requirements.

.13)An area at least 50 feet around the base of each tower must remain open and unobstructed for necessary maintenance, Including periodic washing of insulators by high pressure water spray.

Ms. Kimberly Yu Page 3 April 2, 2010

14)No grading is allowed below the top of tower footing within the transmission line right of ways, In the immediate vicinity of the towers.

15)Additional conditions may be required following review of detailed site plans, gradingldrainage plans, etc.

16)This reply shall in no way be construed as an approval of any project.

For questions regarding the above comments, please contact Mr. David Nevarez at (21 3)'367-3621.

For other questions, please contact Mr. Hal Messinger of my staff at (213) 367-1276.

Sincerely,

Charles C. Holloway Manager of Environmental Planning and Assessment

HM:rp Enclosures clenc: Mr. Hal Messlnger

CONDUCTOR SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION ENGINEERING

Please perform a survey of each Department transmission line affected by the project. For each span (the section of wire behveen hvo towers) provide the following information:

1. The tower numbers of the Department transmission lines related to the span. The tower number is located near ground level on at least one leg of each tower.

2. Survey the top-of-concrete of each footing of each tower related to this survey. For example, a survey involving one span would involve two towers, each with four footings, for a total of eight top-of-concrete shots.

3. Survey at least 6 points along the span- the 2 points where the wire attaches to the insulator and 4 additional points along the wire (preferred spacing of 200 - 300 feet). Include additional points where special features of the proposed improvements cross the transmission line (such as high points, street lights, signs, etc.). For each point provide the following infomation:

a. The station relative to that particular span b. The elevation of the wire c. The existing ground elevation d. The proposed ground elevation e. Date and Time f. Temperature g. Sunlight (sunny, partly cloudy, or cloudy) h. Approximate wind speed

Important: All (6) wire shots on each individual span shall be completed within one hour after the first wire shot is made. Failure to comply with this requirement will render data useless.

Updated: 1011 512008

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Energized transmission lines can produce electrical effects including, but not limited to, induced voltages and currents in persons and objects. Licensee hereby acknowledges a duty to conduct activities in such manner that will not expose persons to injury or property to damage from such effects.

Department personnel shall have access to the right of way at all times.

Unauthorized parking of vehicles or equipment shall not be allowed on the right of way at any time.

Unauthorized storage of equipment or material shall not be allowed on the right of way at any time.

Fueling of vehicles or equipment shail not be allowed on the right of way at any time.

Patrol roads andlor the ground surfaces of the right of way shall be restored by the Permitee to original conditions, or better.

All trash, debris, waste, and excess earth shall be removed from the right of way upon completion of the project, or the Department may do so at the sole risk and expense of the Permitee.

All cut and fill slopes within the right of way shail contain adequate berms, benches, and Interceptor terraces. Revegetation measures shall also be provided for dust and erosion control protection of the right of way.

All paving, driveways, bridges, crossings, and substructures located within the right of way shall be designed to withstand a combined weight of 40,000 pounds In accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials H20-44 (M18) wheel loadings.

The location of underground pipelines and conduits shall be marked at all points where they cross the boundaries of the right of way and at ail locations where they change direction within the right of way. The markings shall be visible and identifiable metal post markers for underground pipelines. Utility markers flush with surface may be used on pavement.

General Grounding Condition

All aboveground metal structures including, but not limited to, pipes, drainage devices, fences, and bridge structures located within or adjoining the right of way shall be properly grounded, and shall be insulated from any fencing or other conductive materials located outside of the right of way. For safety of personnel and equipment, all equipment and structures shall be grounded in accordance with State of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 2941, and National Electric Code, Article 250.

Groundina Condition for Cellular Facilities on Towers

All aboveground metal structures Including, but not limited to, pipes, drainage devices, fences, and bridge structures located within or adjoining the right of way shall be properly grounded, and shali be insulated from any fencing or other conductive materials located outside of the right of way. For safety of personnel and equipment, all equipment and structures shall be grounded in accordance with American National Standards Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard 487-latest edition, IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding.

Permitee shall neither hold the Department iiable for nor seek indemnity from the Department for any damage to the Licensee's project due to future construction or reconstruction by the Department within the right of way.

Fires and burning of materials is not allowed on the right of way.

Permitee shali control dust by dust-abatement procedures approved by the Department, such as the application of a dust palliative or water.

The right of way contains high-voltage electrical conductors; therefore, the Permitee shall utilize only such equipment, material, and construction techniques that are permitted under applicable safety ordinances and statutes, including the following: State of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Industrial Relations, Chapter 4, Division of Industrial Safety, Subchapter 5, Electrical Safety Orders; and California Public Utilities Commission, General Order No. 95, Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction.

Permitee is hereby notified that grounding wires may be buried in the right of way; therefore, the Licensee shali notify the Department's Transmission Construction and Maintenance Business Group at (818) 771-5060, or (818) 771-5076, at least 48 hours prior to the start of any construction activities in the right of way.

Vehicle Parking

An area within 50 feet on one side of each tower measured along the longitudinal direction of the right of way, 25 feet on the opposite side of each tower, and ten feet on the remaining two sides of each tower, shall remain open and unobstructed for maintenance and emergencies, including periodic washing of insulators by high- pressure water spray.

Truckinq Operations and Storaae Operations

An area within 50 feet on one side of each tower measured along the longitudinal direction of the right of way, and 25 feet on the remaining three sides of each tower, shall remain open and unobstructed for maintenance and emergencies, including periodic washing of insulators by high-pressure water spray.

An area within 100 feet on all sides of each tower shall remain open and unobstructed for maintenance and emergencies, including periodic washing of insulators by high- pressure water spray.

Detailed plans for any grading, paving, and construction work within the right of way 2

shall be submitted for approval to the Real Estate Business Group. Department of Water and Power, P.O. Box 51 11 1, Room 1031, Los Angeles, California 90051-0100, no later than 45 days prior to the start of any grading, paving, or construction work. Notwithstanding any other notices given by Permitee required herein, Permitee shall notify the.Department's Transmission Construction and Maintenance Business Group at (818) 771-5060, or (818) 771-5076, no earlier than 14 days and no later than two days prior to the start of any grading, paving, or construction work.

19. "As Constructed" drawings showing all plans and profiles of the Permitee's project shall be furnished to the Real Estate Business Group, Department of Water and Power, P. 0. Box 51 11 1, Room 1031, Los Angeles, California 90051-0100, within five days after completion of Licensee's project.

20. In the event that construction within the right of way is determined upon inspection by the Department to be unsafe or hazardous to Department facilities, the Department may assign a line patrol mechanic at the Permitee's expense.

21. If the Department determines at any time during construction that the Permitee's efforts are hazardous or detrimental to Department facilities, the Department shall have the right to immediately terminate said construction.

22A. All concentrated surface waterwhich Is draining away from the permitted activity shall be directed to an approved storm drain system where accessible, or otherwise restored to sheet flow before being released within or from the right of way.

22B. Drainage from the paved portions of the right of way shall not enter the unpaved area under the towers. Drainage diversions such as curbs shall be used on three sides of each tower. The open side of each tower shall be the lowest elevation side to allow storm water which falls under the tower to drain. The area under the towers shall be manually graded to sheet flow out from under the towers.

22C. Ponding or flooding conditions within the right of way shall not be allowed, especially around the transmission towers. All drainage shall flow off of the right of way.

22D. Permltee shall comply with all Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirements.

23A. Fills, including backfills, shali be in horizontal, uniform layers not to exceed six inches in thickness before compaction, then compacted to 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials D1557.

238. The top two inches to six inches of the concrete footings of the towers shall remain exposed and not covered over by any fill from grading operations.

23C. Permitee shall provide the Department with one copy each of the compaction report and a Certificate of Compacted Fill, for clean fill compaction within the Department's right of way in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials D1557, approved by a geotechnical engineer licensed in the State of California.

24. A surety bond in the amount to be determined by the Department shall be supplied by the Permitee to assure restoration of the Department's right of way and facilities, and compliance with all conditions herein.

25. The Permitee shall obtain and pay for all permits and licenses required for performance 3

of the work and shall comply with all laws, ordinances, rules, orders, or regulations including, but not limited to. those of any agencies, departments, districts, or commissions of the State, County, or City having jurisdiction thereover.

26. The term "construction", as used herein, refers only to that construction incidental to the maintenance or repair of the existing (requested facility) and shall not be construed to mean permission to construct any additional (requested facility).

27. Signs shall not exceed four feet wide by eight feet long, shall not exceed a height of 14 feet, shall be constructed of noncombustible materials, and shall be installed manually at, and parallel with, the right of way boundary.

28. Remote-controlled gates, or lock boxes containing the device or key for opening the remote-controlled gates, shall be capable of being interlocked with a Department padlock to allow access to the right of way by the Department. Permitee shall contact the Right of Way Supervisor at (818) 771-5048 to coordinate the installation of a Department padlock.

29. Permitee's cathodic protection system, if any, shall have a design that does not cause corrosion to Department facilities. A detailed design of the Permitee's cathodic protection system shall be submitted for approval to the Real Estate Business Group, Department of Water and Power, P. 0. Box 51 11 1, Room 1031, Los Angeles, California 90051-01 00, no later than 45 days prior to the start of construction or Installation of the cathodic protection system.

30A. Permitee shall install K-rails at a distance of ten feet from each side of the tower base for protection of towers. A distance of five feet from the tower base may be acceptable in locations where the patrol roads would be obstructed.

30B. Permitee shall install removable pipe bollards, spaced four feet apart, and at a distance of ten feet from each side of the tower base for protection of towers. A distance of five feet from the tower base may be acceptable in locations where the patrol roads would be obstructed.

31A Permitee shall provide and maintain a minimum 16-foot wide transition ramp for the patrol roads from the pavement to the ground surface. The ramp shall not exceed a slope of ten percent.

318. Permitee shall provide and maintain a minimum 16-foot wide driveway and gate at ail locations where the (roadlstreet) crosses the Department's patrol roads. The desipned gates must be capable of being.interlocked with a ~epartment padlock to allow access to the right of way by the Department.

32. Permitee shall post a sign on the entrance gate to the right of way, or in a visible location inside the entrance gate, identifying the contact person's name and telephone number for the prompt moving of (vehlclesltrucks/trailers/containers) at times of Department maintenance or emergency activities, or any other event that (vehicles/trucks/trailerslcontainers) must be moved. In emergency conditions, the Department reserves all rights at any time to move or tow (vehiclesltrucksltrailersl containers) out of specific areas for any transmission operation or maintenance purposes.

ACCESS ROAD DESIGN CRITEKIA

1. When grading activity affects the Transmission Line access roads, the developer shall replace the affected access roads using the following access road design criteria. Typical Road Sections are attached.

2. The access road right-of-way width shall be 50 feet minimum.

3. The access road drivable width shall be 14 feet minimum, and increased on curves by a distance equal to 400 divided by the radius of curve. Additional 2 feet on either side of the road shall be provided for berms and ditches, as detailed in the attached Typical Road Sections.

4. The minimum centerline radius of curves shall be 50 feet.

5. The vertical alignment grades shall be limited to 10 percent.

6. Roads entirely located on fills or with cross sections showing more than 30 percent fill along the drivable width of the road require paving.

7. Intersections or driveways shall have a minimum sight distance of 300 feet in either direction along the public street.

8. The developer shall provide a commercial driveway at locations where the replaced access roads terminate at, or cross public roads.

9. The developer shall provide lockable gates on DWP property or easement at locations where access roads terminate or cross public roads.



Bob Henderson Mayor






March 24,2010

Mayor Pete Dames City of La Mirada 13700 La Mirada Boulevard La Mirada, CA 90638

Dear Mayor Dames:


On March 9, 2010, the Whittier City Council considered Metro's alternative routes for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II light rail and voted unanimously to adopt a resolution supporting the Washington Boulevard alternative route. The City Council determined that this route offers the best light rail alignment into the Whittier area and should be considered for further environmental analysis.

The Washington Boulevard route is the best alternative to assist residents who commute to jobs within the region, and will allow businesses to recruit quality employees who reside in other communities by offering them a viable commute alternative.

The availability of light rail service along Washington Boulevard will improve the area's commuter traffic congestion for workers traveling to and from Los Angeles and will bring regional balance to jobs and housing in Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Commerce, and other area cities.

A light rail service on Washington Boulevard will provide direct service to presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), Whittier's largest employer and a major provider of health care in the region.

A light rail service on Washington Boulevard near PIH and the Five Points intersection will provide the opportunity to redevelop that

I area as a prime site for Transit Orientated Developments (TOD). 1.

The Whittier City Council does not support an alignment along the 60 Freeway, as it does not provide the benefits to the region that are afforded along the Washington Boulevard alternative.

Mayor Pete Dames March 24,2010 Page 2

We would welcome the La Mirada City Council's consideration of and support for the Washington Boulevard route and the benefits it would provide to our area. We would be pleased to provide further information to you and your staff at any time.

Bob ~ e ~ & r s h n Mayor'

cc: Whittier City Council Richard Powers, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Kimberly Yu, Metro Central Area Team

!MAAGED City of Whittier

APR 5 2010 13230 Penn Street , Whittier, Cal i fornia 90602-1772

(562) 945-8200 www.cityofwhittier.org tE( ORDS hlANACERlENT CE.NTER I April 2. 2010

Bob Henderson Mayor






Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro . . . . . . .

One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu:

I am writing to express my support of the Washington Boulevard Route for the proposed Gold Line Extension. This route has the potential to provide more benefits to residents along the entire route than the SR-60 alignment.

Of the two proposed routes, Washington Boulevard has the largest number of the transit dependent population with one-half mile of the stations. In comparison with the SR-60 route, Washington Boulevard has 13.5% of the population that is under 18 years (6.7% for SR-60); 15.1% of those 65 years and older (9.9% for SR-60); 9.7% who have no access to a personal vehicle (4.5% for SR-60); 10.5% who already use public transit (5.6% for SR-60); and 10.2% who are low-income riders (6.3% for SR-60). This is the area of greatest need for this service and the facts speak clearly in favor of the Washington Boulevard Route.

The other Whittier City Council Members and I are also concerned that the SR-60 Route will merely be a commuter route ending at a park-and-ride lot, traveling one way in the morning and returning in the evening, with few riders during the off-peak hours. In contrast, the Washington Boulevard Route will serve people in both directions throughout the day as this route passes through densely populated areas and travels along key economic sites in Commerce and ends at the Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH), the larger employer in the area. I would also support a light rail station at the Metrolink Station in Commerce as this multi-modal connectivity would be of great benefit to a number of our residents.

The Council of Governments (COG), with a membership of 27 cities, of which I am the City of Whittier's representative, will hold a meeting on April 7, 2010, at which time it is anticipated that the group will vote in support of the Washington Boulevard Route for the Gold Line, based on the statistics discussed above.

I Sincerely,

City of Whittier 13230 Penn Street, Wh~tt~er, California 90602-1772 (562) 945-8200

April 5, 2010 4@' Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu:

As the City of Whittier's Director of Community Development, I am very much in support of the Gold Line Washington Boulevard Extension. I feel that this route can only benefit Whittier and the other cities it passes through with opportunities for business and commercial development. This view is also shared by the Whittier Chamber of Commerce, Whittier College and many others in the community.

The Washington Boulevard Route travels through communities whose residents, businesses, and employers would be well-sewed by the light rail system, as opposed to the SR 60 Route, which basically would only serve commuters twice daily, terminating in a Park and Ride lot. I believe the environmental review document must fully analyze the SR 60 Route's likely adverse impacts on surface streets and SR 60 freeway ramps. Without significant investment to mitigate these impacts, I believe ridership estimates for this Route maybe exaggerated and significantly increase the cost per rider for this option.

My staff and I feel that the Washington Boulevard Extension will pave the way for innovative Transit-Oriented Development projects for business, retail, and housing opportunities. This will encourage a stronger local economy while also having the effect of espousing a greener lifestyle that is also consistent with intent of AB 32 and SB 375. Reducing our dependence on individual cars and reducing air pollution will significantly benefit the residents of Whittier by increasing the quality of life in our community.

The Washington Alignment would terminate near the Whittier BoulevardNVashington Boulevard intersection. This is Whittier's largest intersection and is known as "Five Points." By stopping at this intersection, the Washington Boulevard Route will provide for good dispersal of traffic for those coming into Whittier for employment or other business. This location is also adjacent to Whittier's largest employer, Presbyterian

Ms. Kimberly Yu April 5, 2010

Intercommunity Hospital, within easy access to the former 74-acre Fred C. Nelles site, for which major redevelopment is planned, and near the Greenway Trail, which would provide pedestrian and bicycle access for many residents in the westerly half of Whittier. Local and regional bus services can also use this site to transport passengers to major shopping districts, schools, and employers in Whittier and surrounding communities.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or wish further information, please feel to contact me at (562) 464-3380 or via email at [email protected].

r of Community Development


(562) 945-8200 www.cityofwhlttier.org

IMAGED

APR 5 2010

RECORDS MANAGEMENT CENTER

Bob Henderson Mayor




Joe Vlnatleri Council Membsr

Stephen W. Helvey Clty Manager

( April 2,2010

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

I Dear Ms. Yu:

As both a member of the Whittier City Council and the City Council Light Rail Transit Subcommittee, I would like to express my support of the Washington Boulevard Route for the Gold Line Extension.

In addition to City Council support, I would like to make you aware of the support of this route by the Washington Boulevard Coalition, a grassroots organization of concerned residents, transit riders and business people. They will also be contacting you to express their support.

I recently met with a simllar City Council Subcommittee in the City of Commerce, which also supports the Washington Boulevard Route. Support is not limited to Whittier and Commerce alone - other cities which will be sewed by this route include La Habra Heights, La Mirada, Pico Rivera and Santa Fe Springs.

The Washington route has the highest overall daily ridership figures, highest overall net new riders, greatest overall user benefit hours and minimal disruption to streets due to its aerial alignment. lmplementatlon of the Washington Boulevard Route can accommodate the aerial stations configuration with minimal impacts to community quality of life and traffic circulation. The Washington Route has a large employment base in Commerce, Pico Rivera Town Center and Presbyterlan Intercommunity Hospital, a major employer and healthcare provider in Whittier.

The Washington Boulevard Route has the potential to greatly benefit a vast number of Southeast Los Angeles County residents, by providing accessible, efficient public transportation service. With over one million additional passenger trips made over a single year above the SR-60 route, the Washington Boulevard Route offers an easy choice for the region.

Thank you for your consideration.

e Vinatleri

City of Whittier 13230 Penn Street, Whitlier, California 90602-1772 (562) 945-8200

April 5, 2010

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu:

The City of Whittier supports the Gold Line Washington Boulevard Extension. We are not alone in supporting the Washington alignment - local residents, public transit riders, business people and elected City officials are very much in favor of this route for the Gold Line Extension.

By now you have heard from our City Council Members regarding their support of the Washington Boulevard Route, and have received numerous public comment cards from the Whittier community expressing their support, to which we hope you will give thoughtful consideration.

In attending the public scoping meetings, it became apparent that City staff and our residents do have concerns, especially in regards to the SR-60 Route, which we request that you consider during the environmental review:

SEISMIC SAFETY - Both extensions will primarily be of aerial construction. While we are confident that the construction will be to the highest seismic safety standards, no construction is fully earthquake-proof, only earthquake-resistant. And, despite the construction of the aerial line, an earthquake could cause serious damage. Only the SR-60 Route has the additional risk of running along the active Whittier Narrows earthquake fault line.

WILDLIFE HABITAT - The SR-60 Route will go through the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area. This is a very sensitive environmental area, and home to many sensitive species of both animal and plant life. With the continual encroachment of human construction, wildlife habitat is destroyed every day. Whittier Narrows is a vital part of the conservation of wildlife in the Southeast Los Angeles County area, and damage or loss of this area would have catastrophic effects on the wild environment that will last for generations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - The SR-60 Route travels through the toxic Superfund site, and could adversely affect the quality of the ground water in the area. The

Kimberly Yu April 5, 2010 Page 2

possibility of toxic substances entering and polluting the ground water would have severe adverse effects on the health of the residents in the Southeast Los Angefes County area. We understand that there are some uncharted oil fields along the alignment of the SR-60, which need to be fully investigated during the EIR.

LIGHT RAlL VS. HIGH SPEED RAlL - It is anticipated that one of the high speed rail alignments could use the south side of the SR-60, so this issue should be reviewed during your environmental analysis. Also, Caltrans may want to widen the SR-60 and any light rail construction may affect their ability to carry out this plan

COMMUTER VS. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION - Please continue to analyze anticipated passenger use. As the SR-60 Route would terminate in a Park and Ride lot, there are concerns that this route would simply become a morning and evening commuter shuttle, especially since it does not travel into areas with a high concentration of public transit users. In contrast, the Washington Boulevard Route travels through communities whose residents, businesses and employers would be well-served throughout the day by the light rail system and can access the route on foot or local feeder bus.

METROLINK CONNECTION - Please consider that the Washington Boulevard Route could have a station connecting with the existing Metrolink Station in the City of Commerce. This would provide an excellent incentive to encourage people to avail themselves of public transportation, by increasing connections and convenience, so that public transit becomes a viable alternate to private autos.

As you can see from the above, these reasons lead us to believe that the Washington Boulevard Route is the best solution for the Gold Line Extension.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and ideas. If you have any questions about the issues raised in this letter, please contact Martin Browne, Transit Manager, at (562) 698-2131 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

~ssis iant City Manager

Bob Henderson Mayor






City of Whittier 13230 Penn Street, Whittier, California 90602-1 772


April 2,2010 [ I 0 0 2 4 9

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

IMAGED

APR 5 2010

RE(:OIIDS hlAMACEMENT CENTER

I am writing this letter in support of the Washington Boulevard Extension to the Gold Line. As a member of the Whittier City Council and the City Council Light Rail Transit Subcommittee, I am very interested in having this light rail sewice come into Whittier and see the benefit of extending Light rail into this historically undersewed region of Los Angeles County.

I have attended public scoping meetings, where the benefits of the two alternatives being considered by Metro were discussed. The Washington Boulevard Extension has the greatest benefit, not only to Whittier, but to the other cities along the route.

I would like to cail your attention to the financial aspects of the two routes. While the SR-60 alignment is cheaper to build at $1.8 billion compared to $2.2 billion for the Washington alignment, these figures do not include all the environmental mitigation and property acquisition costs required to build the project. Furthermore, the Washington Boulevard alternative is less costly per boarding, per mile of track, and per station as shown below.

Cost per annual boardings: SR-60: $1.8 billion 1 4 million riders = $450 per person carried in the first year (if all costs were depreciated in the first year.); Washington: $2.2 billion 15.1 miliion riders = $431 per person

Cost per mile of track: SR-60: $1.8 billion 16.9 miles = $261 million per mile in the first year; Washington: $2.2 billion I 9.3 miles = $237 million per mile

Cost per station: SR-60: $1.8 billion 14 stations = $450 million per station in the first year; Washington: $2.2 billion 1 6 stations = $367 million per station.

( Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

&en Newcomer Council Member

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

1955 Workman Mill Rood, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. 8ox 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (562) 699-741 1 , FAX: (562) 699-5422 www.locsd.org

STEPHEN R. MAGUIN Chief Engineer ond General Monoger

March 30,2010

File No: 02-15-18-00.00-00

Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu:

Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Proiect

This is in reply to your letter, which was received by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Dislricts) on February 8,2010. The proposed transit corridor mutes cross Districts Nos. 5 15 and 18. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:

:; The Districts maintain seworage.:fa&ilities within-the projeot area. that,may he affeoted by the proposed project. Approval to construct improvements within a Districts' sewer casement and/or over or near a 1)isrricts' sewer is required bcforc construction may begin. For a copy of the Districts' buildover procedures and requirements, go to www.laosd,~, Itiformation Ccntei, Will SET& ~ m ~ r a n i ; . ~ b t a i n WillSeive Lettei,aiid olick on the appropriate link'onpage 2: For more specific information regarding the buildover procedure, please contact Mr. Tony 'Wehbe' at extension 2720.

! The proposed project may impact existing andlor proposed Districts' ttunk sewers over which it will be consmoted. Existing and proposed Districts' trunk sewers are located directly under and/or cross directly beneath the proposed project alignment. The Districts cannot issue a detailed response to or permit constmotion of the proposed project until projeot plans and specifications that incorporate Districts' sewer lines are submitted. In order to prepare these plans, you will need to submit a map of the proposed project alignment, when available, to the attention of Ms. Martha Tremblay of the Districts' Sewer Design Sec-tion at the address shown above. ThqDistricts will then provide you with the plans for all Districts' facilities that will be impacted by the proposed project. Then, when revised plans that incorporate our sewers have been prepared, please submit copies of the same for our review and comment. '

. The Districts own, operate, and maintain only the large trunk sewers that form the backbone of the regional wastewater conveyance system. Local oollector and/or lateral sewer lines are the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which they are located. As such, the Districts cannot comment on aiy deficiencies in the sewerage'syst& forfhe proposed project except to state that presently ni~deficiencies a i s t in Districts"facilities that serve the projedtCarea: ' For'information o8deficieri$i& f i r a sp&ific Ciiyfs Se)vera& system you~ho~lddontict thit Cit)i's'De@iientijf

II I.. &blic:~&i.~sand/&r.th& b<&@eres ~u"y~e$afientofPubli~C~~r&iii : : : . . -. - . . . 4 : : , . , ' , , , , , : . . ...,., . . ., ...,.... , : :, ! .,>::$..,-;.., :<..>:. -. .:;.!I: : ..t,'::.

4 The wastewater -generated by. the proposed projecSwill.be treateh .at the Joint WqterPollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a design capacity of 400 mgd and ourtently

Dm#: l535507.1 e

Recycled Papar

Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager -2- March 30,2010

processes an average flow of 281.1 mgd, or the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a design capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 26.5 mgd.

5 . In order to estimate the volume of wastewater the project will generate, a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors is available online. Go to w.Iacsd.org, Information Center, Will Serve Program, Obtain Will Serve Letter, and click on the appropriate link on page 2.

6. The Districts are authorized by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, Information Center, Will Serve Program, Obtain Will Serve Letter, and click on the appropriate link on page 2. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at extension 2727.

7. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treattnent facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, he limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities.

If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Maguin

Adriana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department

c: T. Wehbe M. Tremblay

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- CALIFORNIA NATURALRESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERNREGtON OFFICE 770 FAlRMONi AVENUE, SUIIE GLENDALE, CA 912031035

MAR 2 6 2010 Mr. Arthur T. Leahy Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, California 90012-2952

Dear Mr. Leahy:

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) received your invitation, dated February 4, 2010, to participate in the Environmental Review Process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. Although I am not interested in participating, please keep me informed about the progress of the project.

In accordance with the provisions of the Central Basin Judgment (Judgment), in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. C 786,656, Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District, eta v. Charles E. Adarns ef a/, the court designated DWR as Watermaster to monitor the groundwater extractions in the Central Basin. Therefore, DWR has an interest in the Basin. Your proposed project is in the Basin, and it may affect the groundwater if any portion of the project is constructed below the ground surface.

All of the rights to use water from the Basin have been allocated to parties to the Judgment, and you are not a party to that Judgment. Hence, you do not have any water rights in the Basin, and you are not authorized to extract any groundwater from the Basin. Watermaster cannot allow you to drill wells and to pump water in order to de- water any portion of the project unless you obtain water rights in the Basin.

If you wish more Information about the groundwater basin or Watermaster, please call Milan Cernosek at 818-500-1645, extension 252.

Mark ~ t & r t Chief Southern Region

and Watermaster

cc: Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, California 90012-2952

Water Replenishment District of Southern California

4040 Paramount Boulevard Lakewood, California 90712

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRlCT OFSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Wficw 0 t h General Manager

March 29,201 0 Via E-Mail and Regular Mail

Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angela, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu:

Invitation to Become l'arlicipnting Agency on Proposed Transit Improv~ments in thc Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Proiect, Etlvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Tho Metropolitan Watcr llistriet of Southern California (Metropolittan) received an invitation to become a patlicipating agency on the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Proiect Fnvironmental Impact statement (~rq&t) . 'i'he Federal Transit Administration and the ~ n ~ e l e s County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (collectively, Agencies) are acting as the Lead Agenoia under the National Environmental Policy Act for this Project. The Project proposes to provide transit connection to the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension by linking communities farther east of Los Angeles to the regional transit nehvork and to improve mobility within the project area by enhancing transit options in a sustainable manner. This public notice also identified Metropolitan as an agency that may have interests due to our legislative andlor regulatory jurisdiction, and has invited Metropolitan to be a patticipating agency in the development of the Project's environmental analysis. This letter contains Metropolitan's response to the Public Notice as a potentially affected public agency.

Metropolitan ureviously provided comments for the Earlv Scouin~ Notice dated November 20. L -

2007, copy of which is-enclosed for reference. Our letter identified Metropolitan's Middle '

Feeder Pipeline as intersecting the six Potential Routes within the proiect site. Metropolitan reviewed the Alternative ~naiysis Study and Alternatives ~ n a l ~ s i s ll&ort ~ddcnduni (2009) and concluded thc Build Alternatives (State Routc 60 Light Rail Transit and Washinfiton Boulevard Light Rail Transit) would affect ~e t ro~o l i t an ' s Middle Feeder. We wantto ensure that the Draft EIS addresses our concerns over potential environmental impacts to Metropolitan's infrastructure. We encourage the Agencies to work with Metropolitan on pipelines and rights-of- way procedures by contacting Metropolitan's Substmctures Information Line at (213) 217-6564.

7W N. Alameda Slreel, Los Angeles, Califomla 90012 Mailing Address. P.0 Box 54153, Los Angeles, California, 90054-0153 . Telephona (213) 2176000

Ms. Kimberly Yu Page 2 March 29,2010

While we welcome the invitation, Metropolitan will decline the opportunity to become a participating agency in the Agencies' environmental review process. We will review the Agencies' environmental document during the formal public review process and provide comments as necessary.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and look forward to receiving the Draft EIS and future environmental documentation on this Project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ms. Brenda S. Marines at (213) 217-7902.

Very truly yours,

Manager, Environmental Planning Team

BSM/bsm (Public FoldedePUlLettedI8-FEBIOA-doc- Kimberly Yu, Intent to Prepare an E1S for the EaslsideTransit Corridor)

Enclosure: November 20,2007 Letter

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California And Eastside Transit Corridor, Phase 2

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

METROPOLITAN WAlER DlSTRlCJ OFSOUlHERN CALIFORNIA

Executive Office

November 20,2007 Via E-mail

Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los ,4ngelei CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu!

Early Scoping Notice for an Alternative Analysis of Provosed Transit Imvrovements in the Eastside Extension Phase I1 Transit Corridor

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) received a copy of the Early Scoping Notice for an Alternative Analysis of Proposed Transit Improvements in the Eastside Extension Phase I1 Transit Corridor (Project). The Federal Transit Administration and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority are initiating work on the Alternative Analysis Study. The corridor is east-west oriented and would provide the cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera, Monterey Park, Industry, Downey, Whittier, Commerce, Rosemead, South El Monte, South San Gabriel, Santa Fe Springs, Bell, and unincorporated portions of County of Los Angeles with improved fixed-guideway transit service between the terminus of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (currently under construction), located at Atlantic Avenue and Beverly Avenue, and eastward to approximately three miles east of State Route 605. This letter contains Metropolitan's response to the Public Notice as a potentially-affected public agency.

Metropolitan owns and operates the Middle Feeder pipeline and facilities that is located within the project site. The Middle Feeder pipeline is a 72-inch pipeline that runs in a northerly to southerly direction along Vail Street. The Potential Routes will intersect the Middle Feeder at Washington Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard, Beverly Boulevard, and at State Route 605. Metropolitan is concerned about the possible impact of the Project to the Middle Feeder and to other Metropolitan facilities in the vicinity.

We are concerned with potential impacts to this facility associated with future excavation, construction, utilities or any redevelopment that may occur as a result of proposed activity under the proposed Project. Development and redevelopment associated with the proposed Project must not restrict any of Metropolitan's day-to-day operations andfor access to its facilities. Nor can the Project affect the water quality of Metropolitan supplies by allowing for non-compatible land uses.

7 0 N. AJameda Slreel, LosAn@es, Califemla NO12 .Mailing Addrw: P.O. 6~x66163, LorkgeIes, Caliornb, W015.3. Telephone: (213) 2 1 7 W

Mr. Kimberly Yu Page 2 November 20,2007

In order to avoid potential conflicts with Metropolitan's rights-of-way, we require that any design plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines or facilities be submitted for our review and written approval. Approval of the Project where it could impact Metropolitan's property should be contingent on Metropolitan's approval of design plans for the Project. Detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way may be obtained by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at (213) 217-6564. To assist in preparing plans that me compatible with Metropolitan's facilities, easements, and properties, we have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, andlor Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future environmental documentation and the Draft EIR on this Project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ms. Brenda S. Marines at (213) 217-7902.

Very tmly yours,

WZrL Delaine W. Shane Manager, Environmental Planning Team

BSM/bsm (Public FolderrJEPURcncnlOB-NoV.07A.d~- Kimberly Yu)

Enclosure: Planning Guidelines Map

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Facilities

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICES 100 S. MAW STREET, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-3702 PHONE (213) 897-0362 FAX (213) 897-0360 l T Y (213) 897-4937

April 1,2010

Kimberly Yu Project Manager, Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu:

Thank you for Metro's February 4 invitation to participate as a Cooperating Agency in the federal environmental review process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project.

The Department of Transportation will participate as a cooperating agency due to the potential impacts of the two light rail Build options that are proposed on our State Route 60 (Pomona Freeway). We will also be a Responsible Agency in the CEQA process as a permit or easement would be required from our Department for the light rail project to be built within our highway right-of-way.

Please contact me for review of any documents and for any meetings related to preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for this proiect so that I can - - coordinate with the various functions within our Department including Environmental Planning, Intergovernmental Review, Design and Traffic Operations.

I can be reached at (213) 897-0213 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

LINDA C. WRIGHT Chief, Public Transportation Branch Ofice of Regional Planning and Public Transportation

c: David Sosa, Chief, Office of Regional Planning & Public Transportation Elmer Alvarez, Chief, Intergovernmental Review Branch

''CUlhanr improves rnobIIIly acro~s Calfomfa"

1 i)!;~ne C)uHor!i MTA Oircctor 5050 Clark Avontrr, I.akevdciod, CA 0071 2

Re: Letter of Supper? for Propcrscd Ftiasc l l Goldline E;tst.;ide Liylrl Hail Extension

'S'lts I.; lo convey the City of Corrlrr ierw'~ 3irpp01.t for the sul~joct pmjcct especially for Ih? i~roposed Washirigtorr Boulevrird Aliyrlrnwn! (Allerr:ative 4). We strongly encourage ::ciir, your !staff, arlc tho h4et:o Board lo considcr studying this allttrnative. Along with ycocirisirr:.) r r u r r ~ l ~ e i ~ ;IS i l relates io (iolclrllial ridersliip, ?vc bclicvc it is t he best al!erna!ive i? II::~ our city anif ilr; 40.000+ jobs lr) Iho overall regional transportallon network. Ltnking jot)!; and housrrlg 1s of course, a precrn~r~er>t goal of rrlass transit. Wo are riot ;rlotio 111 oiicmirraging your fuiltier considcratior! of !tic Wasliington Ooulevtird Alignrnuril. .Shere are other cities l oc~ ted in t l i c i soullioastcrn portion of llle sludy crrua i!icliidiirc) Pico Rivera. Wt!iilier. ar~t l Sailla Fe Spfioys tllal HTO ro(lirostii~g your corllintied c:or!imitnie11t lo analyze this proposed ;rliynrnttnt

'Wc.! ht?littvr: t;i~pliort for the 'vvnshington [>oulevrird Aligrlrrri:tr~l is tirriely and nocclssnrf c?l;:wc::ally <:onsidrrin!.] inl~?rc:;l sIic,wrr by otlicir cllit?s i r i otllor ali<lnrnonts and otlcr Ill(? f ! j l l ~ \~ l l l $ j r;Oll l l l lOri l ! j (Of yOI11 1~~111~1 i~~~: i t10 l l .

Vi/r+ think it is irnpi?rlar>l ,>i>i! trrnt?ly to r;c:rii l 1111:; rni?si;;lgc? lo y(:iiir staff anti Metro 3o~ t i i i l l~ i r t C:orliilri.tccl is (?r>i.:(~rrragi!i:l l:~y i ! ? ~ pnlt?nt!;~l St:nelrt:i !lie ro i~ l f j puSuS t i ! (>or~~rlrerce arid lht? ;rclj:tcenl cilios i r i tliat it links our significant ernployrncnt base lii 11-11': rcgionnl Irnri:;i;orl;iticln ni!lkvorli jlirlkirrg julr!; 9,e~illi l iousir~g is a key objcc:live i~f a i y tilass Irar~sit)

o (;or:~merce's support for t!ici Wa~l i r i lg to~t al~g"ir~ierit 1s predicated lipor) tvletro's <:onsiderotion for a slalicjn ;it Wasliirigto~?iC;arficid~ This sllrtiorr will solidify the :;nn!ir:ctincl ot (:on.~rnerce's large errtplovrnent i)aso to tho regiorl ~ l n d p~ t~ t l t i a l l y r)onctit our busiricss i l l id rosiderilial cos~iriiiiriity as well as linking our true re:;iot>al dcslinatinris includrog tlie (:ilai:!til arid c~ommerce Casirio to t l l ~ !ri>1>sporta11on netviork

C:ori~tiierc;es $irpl)ort 1 consisleri( will1 ioci!nt lii$lli-lovol strpjx)rt frotrl ni:iyht)oririi~ CI~IB!; it1 l l ic soutlie;~!;tert~ ;~ortiij~.t 01 thi: stiidy area including Pico Rivcr;~. Whittier, 3ild \possil)ly Si)nli$ Fe S~)I.IIIOS) host! rt~embership or1 !lie Ciatuway Citics have voir;etl supl)ort 11:)r tllc W ~ ~ l i i r l g I o ~ > C l~~ i l ( ?v i~ rd allernativc.

Wi! un(l~?rsl:3r1d !hat i x r r support for 1Itt.i ~pioposcd Wariliinytorl Boulovnrtl does not bind or legcilly oblrgate thc City III airy way. We josl wall1 to scnd lhe Inussago that Commerce nil otller cttios in the area do not wanl the Washrnglon k3oi~levard aito~.riativc clrniini~ted frorrl ful.l!icr ~:onsitlera!icrn. Tllc City underslands that ;11l of !lie alturnetivcs st?lected for cotlsidcration will have tlieir f?oleniial !>enofit 8s well cis itiolr potet>ttaI or~vi rorr r~ i t i t~ t~~l 11np8c;t Llioroughly analyzed as ;,art (J! thc iiIR/E!S ilia! is cllrrontly ho~riy [,repared lor the project.

F~nally, we uriderstand the project may lake 7 lo 10 years including feasibility, design and construction RII of which is coritirlgerrt ttpon fundinc~ for the project. Nctnetlh?lcss. Commerce wants to bc an involved and engaged stalccholder irr the proccs!;. Corrrrnercu recognizes that engagcti and active participatiorl in early planning cffor!s !or 3 prcjoct of suck! regional importance can result in a projet:! wtiict, rniininlizcs ~rnpcicts dnd cnaxinlizes benefits.

Thank yoti 111 advance, for yoi~i' consideration We wish to coniplinlent your stoff 2s wall as yool. oirtrci~ch con~irltarils Arcllano Assuci;rtus in brlncjing this project forward it1 a lpiofessiunal and engrigitrg n:onncr. We look fotwi>rd to rrlsint~ining arl active partrcipation thrr~ughout this prclcess.

Melissa Holguin Monday, April 12,2010 1:59 PM

Subject: FW: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2: LA City OHR Response Date: Friday, April 9, 2010 5:16 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: Edgar Garcia [[email protected]] Sent: ~riday, April 09, 2010 5:03 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2: LA City OHR Response

Ms. Kimberly M. Yu:

Thank you for contacting us regarding the DEIR/EIS for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project. It appears however that the scope of the project lies outside the boundaries of the City o f Los Angeles. Please contact me directly i f we may be unaware of a component of the proposed project that lies within city boundaries. We are more than happy t o provide any support or assistance.

Thank you,

Edgar Garcia

Edgar Garcia, Preservation Planner Office of Historic Resources Los Angeles Department o f City Planning 200 N. Spring Street, #620 Los Angeles, CA 90012 www.preservation.lacity.org Tel: 213-978-1189 Fax: 213-978-0017 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 1 of 1

Name:

Affiliation (i.e.

r n R 25 mi0

Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Public Scoping

Comment Sheet 000256

organization, resident, r @sf I

business):

Address: /3 $-i9/ <a/- @ A?' r / c? , 8~r

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your comments on the alternatives or on any other project infofmation.

Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed by April 14, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 213-922-3005.

@ Metro r n t m n t

Nombre:

Corredor de Transporte hacia el Este Fase 2 Alcance Pfiblico

Tarjeta de Comentarios 1100257

Afiliaci6n (organizaci6r1, residente, negocio):

Domicilio:

Numero de Telt5fono/Celular

Correo Electr6nico:

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus comentarios relacionados con las alternativas o cualquler otro aspect0 de este proyecto

Por favor utilice el lado inverso para comentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes del 14 de abril a: Kimberly Yu, Directors del proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22.2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 o por correo electr6nico a [email protected] o fax 213.922-3005.

@ Metro

Metro Easts ide T rans i t Corridor Phase 2 Publ ic S c o p i n g

C o m m e n t Sheet 000258 Name: t b l t b e b ~ S L * S S ~ , ih,

Affiliation (i.e. organization, resident, business): T ~ S L L4?-d< Address: g570 I.&-& % t i i l ~ & i?J+-tk Phone/-: 67 2 - 3 6 4 3 - 6 & 0

& T d : /

Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. We welcome your comments on the alternatives or on any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed by April 14,2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 213-922-3005.

Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Whittier Scoping Meeting

The Salvation Army Santa Fe Springs, 12000 E. Washington Blvd., Whittier, 90606 February 27, 2010, 10:OO a.m. - 12:OO p.m.

Comment Sheet 000259 Name: 3 &Y\d6 Affiliation (i.e. organization, resident, business):

Address:

Phone/Cell:

Email:

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your comments on the alternatives or on any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed by April 14,2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 21 3-922-3005.

Corredor de Transporte hacia el Este Fase 2

Tarjeta de Comentarios 000,?60

Nombre:

Aflliaci6n (organizaci6n, residente, negocio): - &I‘$/&& 1 ,/ Domicilio: @ Z S - ~ ~ J % D c ~ /,y2? &8 Nurnero de Tel&fono/Celular

Correo Electr6nico:

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecernos sus comentarios reiacionados con las alternativas o cualquier otro aspect0 de este proyecto

Por favor utilice el lado inverso para cornentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes del 14 de abril a: Kimberly Yu, Directora del proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22.2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 o por correo electr6nico a [email protected] o fax 21 3.922.3005.

Corredor de Transporte hacia el Este Fase 2 ~ l c a n c e Pdblico

Tarjeta de Comentarios 0 0 0 2 6 1

Nombre:

Afiliaci6n (organizaci6n, residente, negocio): &Sf &&, Domicilio:

Numero de Telbfono/Celuiar 6 b Z - gb - m 2 4 Correo Electr6nico:

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus comentarios relacionados con las alternativas o cualquier otro aspect0 de este proyecto

Par favor utilice el lado inverso para cornentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes dei I4 de abril a: ~irnberly Yu, Directors del proyecro, Metro, One ~ a r e w a ~ Plaza. 99.22.2, Los ~ n ~ e l e s , CA 90012 o por correo eleclr6r1ico a [email protected] o fax 213.922.3005.


Tarjeta de Comentarios

Nombre: R R G ~ !nl% Run Afiliacibn (organizaci6n, teskbie, negocio): - E GR{, ~ f i

Domicilio: 3qC7';Ct &dl?

Numero de Tel6fono/Celular 5 6 2 ) 6 q 5 - oYRC Correo Electrbnico:

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecernos sus comentarios relacionados con las alternativas o cualquier otro aspect0 de este proyecto

Rp M \ FZ n U V I M R O R r e r J T F 3 7 - F R t C- 3-

Por favor utiiice el lado inverso para comentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes del 14 de abrii a: Kimberly Yu, Directora del proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99.22.2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 o por correo electrbnico a [email protected] o fax 213.922.3005.

Name:

Affiliation (i.e. organization, resident, business):

Address:



J Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your comments on the alternatives or on any other project Information.


Corredor de Transporte hacia el Este Fase 2 Alcance P6blico

Tarjeta de Comentarios 0 0 0 2 6 4

Nombre:

Aflliacibn (organizacibn, L' dc residente, negocio):

3 $ / 4 F k c ' e 4 - L Domicilio: d k &r Nurnero de Tel6fono/Celular r~6$) 6 0 - 606."3- Correo Electrbnico:

Cracias por su Inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus cornentarios relacionados con !as alternativas o cualquier otro aspecto de este proyecto

Par favor utiiice el lado inverso para comentarios adicionaies. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo @ antes del 14 de abril a: Kimberly Yu, Directors dei proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza. 99.22.2, Los Angeies, CA 90012 o por correo electr6nico a [email protected] o fax 213-922-3005.

(9 Metro



Name:


Address: '4 o ,\-& -- - \

Phone/Cell: 7 , x(yn



83/31/2018 18: 37 5626965262 NO FUN LEFT BEHIND PAGE 01/01

Name:

. .

M e t r o Eastside Trans i t Corridor Phase 2 Publ ic Scop ing


Affiliation [i.e. organizatidn. .resident, business):

Address: . . . . . .

Phone/Ceni

Ernail:

d Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your comments on the alternatives or on any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for additional comments. commend inayalso be milled by April 14, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99.22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 213-922.3005.

Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Montebello Scoping Meeting

Montebello Senior Center at City Park, South Wing, 115 S. Taylor Ave. February 25 2010, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m

Comment Sheet 0 0 0 2 6 7 '

Name: a%-h .& b&hd.l Affiliation (i.e. organization, resident, business):

Address: b/46 k /mn4r At. 8/07 bs h,OPbs Crl 94038

Phone/CeII:

Thank you for your interest in this ~ e t r o project. We welcome your comments on the alternatives or on any other project information.

%-60 R o u k z

ot itr Chvrcher! .a S,yn2?o?ur I a c d / / , o Irc h k l w r 1; s p s i - h ~ d s And C~hnttrr.1~ I ' d v ~ e S.

(ovaa) Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed by April 14, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 213-922-3005.


Subject: FW: Comment on Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 I 3ate: Thursday, April 8,2010 7:35 AM

From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]>

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 6.:58 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Comment on Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

000268

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager

I I am very excited about the possibility of a light rail system going along the 60 Freeway. This is an ideal route that will serve many purposes. This route will help to take a lot of traffic off of the Pomona Freeway. People will be able to drive to the end point and park their car

then continue on the train into the Los Angeles area. This will also take traffic off of city streets. In contrast the Washington Blvd. route ends in the middle of a city area. People will have to drive through cities to get to the station to catch the train. This will add traffic in the city area of cars that would have normally been on the freeway. This will also add to air pollution and traffic noise.

The planned station stops along the 60 Freeway are all destination stops. Garfield Ave., The Montebello Town Center Mall, Santa Anita Ave. and Peck Road. All of these stops in themselves would motivate a person to take the train to get there. These locations as you travel on the roads now are not easily accessible. There are no connecting bus routes that take you to these stops. In contrast the proposed Washington Blvd. route is already easily served by bus routes and the stops along Washington Blvd. are not destination stops. There is nothing special along the route that gives you a reason to take the train to get there.

Page 1 of 2

I The 60 Freeway Route is cheaper to build. The impacts to arterial roadways would be minimal. It would reduce traffic on the 60 Freeway and city streets.

The Washington Blvd, route has so many drawbacks. It is too expensive and would do nothing to help take traffic off of a congested freeway. It would run through residential areas and affect the quality of life of the people along the way. It may cause eminent domain to peoples homes. It would travel near schools and cross routes used by children to get to and from school. It would draw traffic into city areas instead of reduce it. I would rather see you pursue the no build alternative than to choose the Washington Blvd. Route

My vote is for the 60 Freeway Route.

Respectively,

Joseph Mackey

6768 Citronell Ave.

Pico Rivera. Ca 90660

Melissa Holguin Monday, April 12, 2010 12:55 PM

Subject: FW: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Study Comment Date: Friday, April 9, 2010 5:15 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

From: [email protected] [[email protected]] 000269 Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 5: 10 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Study Comment

Ms Kimberly Yu Project Manager

Dear Ms. Yu,

First I want to express my choice for the Eastside Metro route is the SR-60 alignment to Peck RoadI1605.

All of the data that I have seen suggests the 60 Freeway route to be the most economical and would cause less impact on present City roadways. This route would also serve the car commuters on the 60 Freeway with park and ride stations that will greatly reduce the freeway traffic and as a result reduce the air pollution along the corridor. This route would also serve the most cities. The construction of this route would be less disruptive as it would run through areas that are less dense with established homes that would be in the way.

The Washington Blvd. route is not cost effective. It is more expensive to build and the fact that it will run through areas of established homes and business that may have to be removed to accommodate the trains will add to the expense of the route. This route would interfere with present truck routes and cause severe traffic jams on present City roadways and increase the air pollution in the cities where the stations are as cars will have to drive to the stations to catch the train.. This route will do nothing to reduce traffic

Page 1 of 2

on our freeways. The people on this train route could get to their destination just as easily on a bus. As the environmental study is conducted. I hope they take into consideration the impact any possible eminent domain would have on the lives of the people whom may be faced with the fact of their homes; where they raised their children, being demolished. I don't feel any project is more valuable than the lives of these people and all the stress they will have if they are faced with eminent domain. I hope that you will consider the no build option if it turns out to be a fact that eminent domain of peoples homes will occur.

To choose a route, I feel the 60 Freeway route is the only sensible choice.

Thank You

John Thorne Whittier

9 M e t r o

.... -:;:--. "TTl& . ......i.kw*!r.. . ;:,5-.: , j. ;? ;,~ ..... <.,,,*,, ;........ ....... ;.-.?,i,: ... . ; , . .,q ......

Metro ~ a s t s i d e Transit Corridor P h a s e 2 Pi~b l i c Scoping

C o m n i c n t Sheet

Name: &,'t.cC . &( &..- / < ,L~<~~~..~~*.,& 4 <.) .'.c~-- . . . . ........ t-- ---- AFfiliat~on (i.e. organization, resident. bus~ncss) : d / ~ ? L < : - - ~ ~ - . ~ h ~ . - - + ~ [ . ~ < - ~ ~ ~ ~ - h ~ ./' , ~.~-: . . . . . .......

Address: c; -, ,, "-,.- . 2 . ..........

0 +. Ptione/Cell: -, -1

/ . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . _. I - - Emnil: . .~LL~w.&.&~JLL-.!. ~ ~ ? I < . E L ........... .......

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. Wc welcome your comments on the alternatives or o n any other project infornrst ion.

/. , , - ~ L L L & . . A ~ ~ . & ~ & : - ~ - ~ ~ ~ & . A ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~ ~ L ~ & ~ ~ - & & L : L . ~ & (L&z/&&.

Please L.SE the revCI'se s!de for ida i t i~s,?! Cc:nrxi?ritS. Comments may a!so be mailed by April 14, 2010 to: Ki:~.bcriy Ya, Pruject Mancper, !,Aetro, One (;areway I'laza. 99-22~2. is.: A,igele,;, CA 9001 2, emailed ro t rk i f i~ tnerro. t~ct or faxed :c Zi3.972.3C05. Y--...

,.=?=-TI %I!.* :.;,:;...+& . ......"clwIk, ..- ?. -

. i ! : . . , , : .. ;:,; -.: .. ::.* ..: . . . . . . . . , , > . , : 1.. :.,. , , Metro Easts ide Transit Corridor Phase 2

Public Scoping

Comment Sheet

Name: ........... .~ J;./, .: ~.L-.~ */., ,, , . .. . ..... ...

AFfil~ation ( i c . organi lat ion, resident, business):

~ ----- .... ..... ...

Address: ',, ., -, . ,_... ,,.:,i. / .;;:..,. /' ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . i .;. . Phonc/Cell: .L.<_/L:L_-L~- ,I ......... ....................

Ernail: .., :!, ,. . ,, j&I .... ?. . ...... - . ... ......................

Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. We welcome your conirnents on the alternatives o r on any other project information.

Picase i i ze the reverse side for additional conirt~.?!?ls. Com1nr7nts rnzy a l ro be mailcd by April 14, 2010 to: K;rnbcrll Y i l ? ISroject Manager, l,Aetio, Ore L a t e w a y i'laza, (19.;!2-2, Los Angsles, C A 90012, ermj,led :o

vukimrner~o. i : r t ,-~.... .. 01. faset1 i n 213.922-3005

1.i:-- . . <. . . . .: ,; ,r@#~:" - . .... .~ .b.& y 5 t L a ..,%w, ~,, , '~'Y'.-.?,',," ,.... , , ; ..:. ,....,. , , . .;.. , . I ' . ,. . . . .'.~ '.<.

M e t r o Easts ide "Transit Cor r ido r Phase 2

Comment Sheet

. . Narnr: ~ --:L~:,!L kk2.L & J 2 k 3 3 i . %:!:- ~ ~ ~ . - ~ -~ ~- ~- ~ . ~.

A f f i l i a t io~ i (i.e. organization, rcsidt!nl,

"7 - bt~siticss): _ hi><. , : .. zL?:cl /- ~ ~ . . . - . ~~ ~ ~~

Address: . , " A;*. I../ ,.-.. , ,

~$2 k.~L2-15 8 : ~ > h.2. ~ 5~ ~- -:-.-~~&L~:?~~f;.~~,.~:!.!;$..~T~~~:~[.~.s~~ , Phone/Cell: ~ ~ -~

Thank you for your interest in this Met ro project. We wclcotne your conirnents on the alterriatives or o n any other project infcil-mation.

plejjc use the reverse sidc l o r ndd$ri~>:lsl cornrnc i l ts . Corn,>:::nti niay a ! s o bc niailed by Apr I 1.I. 2010 to: ~ ,mt>~t l j 'y ! , , projt!r[ I\.lan:igcr, klztro. (ii!t! Cale\\G'ay FJlazir, 99.22.). !.i,.: ;\i;e?lc:, CA 9031?, ernailcd !o

YJJi~Ln_t.&~fig 'or h x c d to 2 1 3 9?2-:iillj5.

a Metro

Comrnent Sheet 000273 _.~-,

.... . . . . . ......... Ndrne : ( & I &.L_ . . ..

Affilrat~orl (6.c. organization, res iden t . business) : -=: ,?_k-& ... c d ( ~ . ....... w_:-% _ _ ~. .~ .~ ..

4 - / - Address: -pK,@P3.. . .

&-' c--?,. .. -, -> .............. Phone/Ccl l : 2 . - 1 ... 2 . ..........-..

.. Email: -/?!&!A.&t -.-

+hank you for your interest in th i s Metro project. We welcor?>r y o u r c o r n l n c n t s o n the nlternati~/es or o n any o the r project i n f o r m a t i o n .

..... -_-.~~____ _-_I-_--

i ........

..... ..... .. ...............

Please use tthe revt3rse side for addl t iunal connrnc!nls. COI-:~IIIC!I~S nlay also be mailed by Apr~! 1 4 . 20iO to K inbe r i y Yu, Project ivlanager, h!letro, One Gateway P l a z : ~ . 99.22.2, L.os Ar~gcles, CA 9001 2, e n ~ s i l c d to

y~)~,@!~ih$r_o~~g. or faxed to 21 3.922.3005.

@ Metro ,*-..-

. ,,, .,. ,.. ?,. . .>, .,.," ., .< . , .. ~. ,: I ) . , . . . . ' , . . . :

Metro Eastside Transit Cor r ido r Phase 2 Public Scoping

Comment Sheet

. Nome: . . , . , . . L . . . ' . . . . . . ~ ~

Affiliation (i.c. organization, resident, ' . . business): . . . L : i . . . - . ~~ .

, . r . . , Addrcss: . 7 ... . -; - . . .:.< 1 .~.i..: ~...L.:-. . , . . .~ i'.l::-~.n..,.L, . . .

. ,: Phone/Cell: -__- .-,. . . L.: ~.... d ;I . ~~

Tharik you for your in te res t in this Metro project. We v i e l ~ o n l ~ your cornments on the al!ernatives or on any other project information.

-1 / ?? .,<: , ,.. ,;.,>~d~ , : i .,.- & ,.., ,, :-:~. , , ( *I. . ., .. , .i

-- - :_ -_ i - i : --.-. 2.; L.T..-..

P l e i l ~ e iise tlie reverse s~de fr,r add~tior;ai coi-r.n;rrits. Con;n:t:l?rs may also be , ~ , ~ j l ~ d by ~ p ~ i l 7 4 , 2010 to:

ti!n:iierly Yu , Prolrct Mariage!, Ivli-::o, One CaTc,,my P11z3, 179-2?.? 1.cis A1-,~cies, CA 90012, en,a;itrd -.,,,- ~,uki@'me!ro.nrt L -..-- or faxed 11; 213.9?2.:oiis

Q Metro

Name:

A f f i l i d t i ~ i i (1.e.

........... ...;,,. \&@.I 1. ~ri:: 7 , . .:,- .... <a, I, ... .> '.....!.* .. ........ .:,. . . . . . . . , .

.:'i . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M e t r o Eastside T r a n s i t Corridor P h a s e 2

Public Scoping

Comment Sheet

organization, rcs idcr~t . busirtess): A -.-> .&: - >- /- &~,7-. . . . . ,q V#<&\'. . . . . . &&! &$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address: ~ ~~~ A . ............... - -/a,v/ . . . . . . . . . N'P 116' . . . . . .

Thank you for your interest in this hrletro project. We wclcome your co i i i~? ients o n the alternattves o r o n any other project information.

P!ease use the reverse side for additional cornmr~i ts . Cosrirner~rs mny also bc t i ~ a i l e d by April l a , 2070 to:

Kimberiy Yi), Project Managct, ivic:ro;One Gateway I'lsza, 99.;!2.:!, 1.0s Angcles, CA 90012, erridiled t a %k~.@p?rn!o..ne~ or f a x ~ d to 21 3.922-3005

Metro Eastsicle Transit Corridor Phase 2 Public Scoping

Comment Sheet ,. . ~ , I ." ,; . i

Name: . . L . . . . . . . .

Affiliatiori ( ie . organization, resident, business): .. ~ . . .- ~~~~

, , j .. -. '.. L,'. .. Address: --

. . ;/;CG.LLIL i:i:l- (..(: - . % . . '6 L .

Phone/Cell: ~ . ~ .~ ..

TIiank you for your interest in t t i i 5 Metro project. We welcome your commertts on the c~lternativrs or on any oiher project information.

-~

Please iisr the reverse side Tor addit;on.il romrner i t s Curnr.::erlts niay also be mailed by Apr,l 1 4 , 2010 to

Ki tnber iy YL:, Pmject Manzger, Mrlro. Oiic Clrtervay I'lara, 99-22.2, i.os A,lgcles, CA 90012, e m a ~ l e d to v~ki/itrnetro.;e; a -.-. --. - or faxed to 213-922.5005

. . ,. i. , ;,;; . ...... ..... ,,*.%.< ,<;:,, 7.t",>s.: ..,) >.?< .:,j:v, .... ..:?:*.-::;:.I.. ,. ...,... ...,J:?:!::'..

Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 P r~b l i c Scopinrr . -

Comment S h p t

Name: ...... ... f,+.i-i d .........

AFfilintiori (i.c. organization, resident. business): ................. ~ ~~ ~ .&.-.-. . ~~~~ . ~. ~

Address: 1.3.3 %~--& 1. Kb2.e~ ! ~?-.. ......... ~5 -- ..~.

Phor~e/Cell: h~-.th.~b- e.& C fi c- . lb..k-.i3 ...... ~-

Email: xr- TL&K-!. ..L.F-~{:C~-&-.C~&&Q~ ~I..K.&L-.P .s:>--- Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. We u/elcornc your cornmcnts o n the a l t e r ~ ~ n t i v ~ ~ o r o n any other project information.

~ ~ ~~~ -. ..

, />ec-~qUflw; ,~O

--

s 4d2-~ .... o--g-3"3- - ... ....- -............. ....... ,- . . - F R , ~ , ! ! . . - . LLJ d-,; . . -7- . . =--. .. _. ..- . -. .....

- Gat/ ..... . . . . . . . . ......... +--- f j / K / $ a s p 1 A<.

.. - . 1-i . . f . E,,. ~ Q .

.. . . . . . . . . .... . . ...... . : ... &&? A 4 . 2 < Y kT.6. . E ~ . -7 '3 3 r/ 2 ,u c"--. c; 4- L A ...... - ....... ...................................... .--. . -- ......

~ .--- ~ ..-- ~~~~ ~ ~~ Tf:.f?CZ. f Z ! ~ % c3-v ( c-'r ' " /2ia ..... .. LA- . . .. --, - ,.-ts 7-e- .a- ........... J < ... -I/_ - - . I Z' ..................... I ......

'--, / - /--&:&~ f. .. ~- ..... .

Please use the reverse sidi for additionai comlnr:nls. Comments m a y also be mailed by April 1 4 , 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Marlager, Metro, Olie Gateway I'lals. 99-22.?, 1.0s Angclcs. CA 90012, ei i~ai lcd to

y~~kimnit:ts-mgt or faxed to 213.922.3005.

Name:

Affi l iation (i.c. organizal ior~, resirlent, busitless):

Address:

Phone/Ccll:

Email:

, < , ,,..

........ ,,:. ;,,,! -;,: ..'.I' " . .: .,< i , , . . ,- . :.. 1::.


Cot-r~tnent Sheet

Thank you for your interest in !his Metro project. \We welcome your comrnct i ts o n rhc alternatives or o n any other project information.

Please use tilt. revt!t-se s ~ d e for addit~onal comments. Cornmnts m a y also be rliailed by Api i l 1 4 . 2010 to: K i r~ber ly Yu, Project Manager. :detro, One Gateway Plaza. 99-22-2, L.os irngeles. CA 90012, ern:lileti to

y-uki@~,-neiro.net o r Cased to 213.922-3005.

..""P' -. * .3;yl !it,&3$<::.--~ J,J\ '!!::?*:* <:, . : >, : ,',. ~,: ,>.# .,. . . , ? * . . . . <s'.:;::.'

Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Public S c o p i n g

Comment Sheet ,/3

Name: . I

v Afti l iation (i.e. organization, resident, business):

, C~ Address: . . d 5 k . . . . .. . ~IL .~ ~ . .- ~

Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. We welcornc your comments o n the alternatives o r o n any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for addrtioria! comrnrncs. Comrnei3ts m3y ; ! s o be mailed by April 14 . 2010 to:

Kir;iberl.jYu, Prolccr MAnager, Metro. One Gateway P!aza. 99.22-?. I.us Angeles, CA 90012, ernailed to

,[email protected] or foxed ro 21 3.925.3005. 2..- .~

.A,r-+--- *~ .*,, **$?. . Lil:.qJ 4.a . ' - .. - o,

:.... n... ..yn c. ~~,.. ... ,: .., -.<. ... ,.: , ,.,, :.. :.-., , ,:,.: , . . . . . , :. , . ,:>.~.'.> M e t r o Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Public Scoping

C o m n ~ e n t Sheet U00281

Name: .......

Affi l iation (i.e.

(20ArdhTQ.. organization, residcrit, business): LdiL.-@-F-..~ - ..... . . . . .i ...... - - - - . . . . . .

Address: &L\~~I & E. ~B.AU[-&.-.&-U-. ...... ~ : . ... Phone/Cell: . ,, . .a& . . . 5!'...koS ........... .......

Erna i l : .. .................... ...... .--

Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. \Ve welcome your comments on the alternatives o r on any other project in format ion.

Please use the revetsc side for additional con~nlents. Conir;irr~tr inay also be rnailetl by April 1 4 , 2010 to: Kirnberly Yu. Project Mdtiager, Metro, On? Gateway Plaza. 99-22-2, 1.0s Angelss. CA 90012, emailed to y M m e t r o . n e t .. ....... o r inxed to 31 3.92%.3005

...... r.--. ,."lb &r*:'* .... -. - .... ,.;!h+.w.. : ! ........... ; , .:; ~ , , , ... ..;: ,,.. ,- .

.~; ., :. :.. .<,*,: .:...... !.\:.<'

Met ro Ir'astside Transit Corr idor Phase 2 Public Scoping

Cotnnrent Sheet

Name: . . . . I

Affiliatiori (i.c. organization, resident, business): ....

AdJrcss:

Phone/Cell: . . . . . . . . .

Email: .......-.LY.<T.6hq.i.g!.i. .. @-.a n.(.2..~: . B nl ............. ,

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We \velconie your comincn ts o n the alternatives or o n ariy other project information.

Please use t t i r reverse side for additional csr~l tncnts. Colnnlenis rnay also be niailed by April 1 4 . 2010 to: Kimberly YIJ, Project Manager, Metro. One Gateway Plaza. 99-22-2. Los Angelcs, CA 90012, eniailcd to yuk -~@met ro ,~ i~? t or f a x ~ d 10 2 1 3.922.3005.

.uo!iI?ul.lo~u! j>a!old Jat (J0 hue UO JO

san!l?uJalle a q i uo sluaruu~03 J ~ O X JLUO>JBM a M , ~ ~ a l o ~ d olaaB s!ya u! ~ s a ~ a ~ u ! J ~ O X JOJ n o i y u i l y ~

'. . '-- ,.,, ;;;,$+&;'. "? L'X ..,,,,:. .. <

,8<;,,;!.:~,!?. p:.,;:: .:..... !...,. ...:.. ??X .. ? ,~.: ........ .:: ..... . . . . . ., .


Cornnient Sheet

Narrie:

..... Af f i l ia t io~ i (i.e. -I organization, resident,. business):

C. p- . . . . . . . . - ......... -- ~ ~

Address: ... ! klo C& L 9 . o e- ~ d h i ~ i t j . ~ ; P f l . 7- : .- . . Phonc/Celi: -..~-561.-~2:~...3 &..-!-.~.z:Lkk ... b 0 s - IIrnail: . . ............ ... . -

Thank you for your it l terest i n this Metro project, Wc wc l co rne your cornmefits 01% t h e al tcrnat ivrs o r o n any other project information.

.- ___rl e. .... d u i _ - ~ _ *s 6 ~ - & e A ~ & : . t : ~ + . . . : k c c ~ ~ &A&. C. C' T 7 LC I*] I 'Cg/

Please use the reverse side for additiorial comments. Cornrntnts t imy aiso be mnilecl by April 1 4 , %010 to: Kinibcrly Yu, Project M;ltiager, t\,lciro, One Cnrevtay I'laza, 99.22.2. 1-05 iIrige!c.s. CA 90012, emailed to

yukis~nici!o_~t'.( 111 i d x r t l to 21 3.922.3005.

,&...7:;.- ,"J, "' 1 u.

r ..< . . ,' >3 - -. .. run. ..,> ,,,, r:,,;;7,,...,:.. .. .,.,~,? , . c . , $ ~. ..

?.('.?., ,: ,;,:;c,':,.:.,: '? ,; , :, ,~~,-:,. .. . . Metro Easts ide Transit Corridor Phase 2

Public Scoping

Cornmetit Sheet

Name: s U S . . . . . .. .. . . ~ ~

A f i l i o t ion (i.e. organization, resirlcnt. ..

business): b.l cL!.A~~.k .. . . ~ . ~ ......

Address: ~ ~ L O G ~ L L Q . %.\, 5 .$ .CA~.SLOI.CL~~ Phone/Cell: ( %'a1)..9.?\ 5, - '-!:)...%a -_-~._---llll..lll, -- Email: ~ . . ~

Thank you for your interest ill this Metro project. We welcome your comments o n the nltcrnntives

- - & - - . u ~ . ' l ~ $ s a - . ~ l k . ,

Please L . S ~ the reverse side for additional con?rnents. Cor~tnierils rnay also be mailed by April 1 4 . 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Merro. One Gatevray Plaza, 99.22.2. 1.0s Ar;eelrs, CA 90012, elnailed to

y~1ki@1net(o,rict or faxed to 21 3-922-3005.

I" .,, ~l;:yJ]* ....... i..

.

Metro Eastside lransit Corridor Phasc 2 Public Scoping

C o n i m e r i t Sheet

/:I , ..,, N a m e : .~-.-LL~%!L</&ZL- -~&-&f../h~fd~l ~~~.~ .~ ~.

Affi l iation (i.e. organiz;~tion, residetit, b ~ ~ s t t i c ~ s ) :

Address: - ......... ....

Phone/Ccll: .... .... ~- . ..............

"Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your comrncnts o n the a l t r r ~~a t i ves or on any other project information.

Please u s e the reverse sidc for addi t ior i~ l con?rnerlts. Co~mments rnay also be mailed by April 14, 2010 to: Kirriberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, Ooe Catew;iy Plaza, 99.22.2. Los Angcles, CA 90012, ernailed lo

yuki@I~~~tr~d~c! or faxed to 21 3.922-3008.

,., <,.. .,--... . , & . . \ . " t k ~ ~ ~ ~ " .. - ..... : %T..yJJ=

::.?*)% L;.:!, ,;:>;:.;:!f;!:.!:;,.-, ~

Metro Eas ts i de 'Transi t Corridor Phase 2 I'ubiic Scoping

Comment Sheet

Name: . , -- Affiliation (i.e. organization, residcnt. bnsiness): ~ - ~ .. . -~ ~ ~~

. - . Address: A ; . , ,: '.' , .. . . i , . ,. . . /i . ,/, ,

/ . I . I , % _ ..l+~r.. ... -L-:..~ J.-.L~~. .-2z2! Phone/Cell: l i l - L . - ~ A ~ - - . c z : = . .. ~ ~~ ~. . . . .... - -.

Email: ~ ~ ~ - . .

Thank you for your interest in t h i s Metro project. We welcome your comments o n the alternatives o r o n any other project information. - 2. ... . . , , , . , , . I . ?,.< \...jkt . , , G;~: f i j.. - .y>> , - . L . ~ , ~ - + L

Please USE t i i f reverse side for ~dd~c lo r i a l co!i?rnen(s. Corntncnts n:sy also be mailed by April 1 4 , 2010 to: Kirnberiy Yu, Project ldanager, fv!erro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 , Los Angeies, CA 90012, emailrd :o

y i j k i i i i , r n r t m ~ ~ t or f u e d to 213-922-3005.

,($?g;qa . YiY>'.j'J> ............... A,. ,..., \

--,;., .<.< ... <: , r. ....:, .y''.: ,,,, :;.,~*?*:;:,:.~.;::, . :.~:<$, .>:,.:,

Metro E a s t s i d e Transit Corridor Phase 2 Public Scoping

Cornmcnt Sheet

,:? Name: 5 . . .....Ld..........

Affi l iation (i.c. 7 <..

orgat~izat iun, resident, business): . ..

Address: -. ...... -- - .-

Phone/Cell: .-

Email: .. . ... --- -- . - . -...-.

Thank you for your interest in rhis Metro project. We vrclzome your comments o n the altcrn;ltives or o n any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for additional cornnierits. Comi?ients may also be inailed by April 14 , 2010 to: Uin~bcrly Ytt, 13rolecr Manager, bleiro. One Catcv~ay P1a;ca. 99-22.2 , L.os Angeles. CI\ 90012, e,nailed to y~&ficrrn~rg! or faxed Lo 21 3-722.3005.

(

0 Metro



Afft l intion (i.e. organization, resident. 4 ~ J . L . ~d.1. .P. .r' business): ~.. ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ - ~ ~ ~ . Gr:-.~~. .. .

Address: ~ . . ~

-7 Phone/Cell: . . L C ! . . . . .. ~ . . . ~ . . ~ ~ .-

Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. We u/clcome your comrrlents o n the alternatives or on any other project information.

Please use rile reverse side for additiorial con?ments. Comnicnts [nay aiio be ~na i led by April 1 4 . 2010 to: Kinlberly YII, Projecr Manager, Ivletro. One Gateway I'lazn, 99-22-2 , Los Arigelt:~, CA 90012, e~i la i l rd to

pd&@nre_t(a,nct or fancd to 211.921-30Q5.


Comment Sheet

Nnnie: - .. A's . i3?~...d-s&?. ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~.~~

Affiitatiort (i.r. organization, resident, business): ~ '2~5 .. 6' ~ C J J , . ~~ ~ . . . ~ . . ~~~ . .~. ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~

9 - ~ d d r u s s : 1-22 + Y-._~Q)LO//.-~ ~i~-c.e~,-(Jh_~th~i.~.~_-.'/o L 1 Phone/Cell: $62 ..~ 5 X 7 - Q / ~ 6 ~~~ ~ ~~ . .~~~ . ~~- - ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ . . ~~~~ .

Email: _f~%$&~!~~.~.+l@~~fl~?-!!.:~~-. . -~ ~~ ~... .~..

Thank yo11 far your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your co fnn i c~ i t s on the alternatives or o n any other project infortnat ion.

-. .. . ..

- ~ L . Q ~ ~ L ~ : L ~ ~ . o ~ - - L o s ~ ~ & ---.---A d-J&do G~L!-c L.. a 0 '3

f --,k~i6il~~~nb~~~~.~om~%-c~ul&lr.d.~:. 5 4 6 .$.rrk+~Ld.di---~- J/u4&& a 3 1 - csu-P &;rmc.z% Jluu.kt*&..~~~~~~ IV!+!:CLW!I ... . 5 - (-

rl . . . - u J /eLJqc? .~.cL~-w... . i i ~ f ~ b : g+~!.%c/.vr-c~ ( c ~ o . b ~ - ~ k i ~ . ~-

Please use rile reverse side for additional cotnnierits. Con~nic t l is may also be m:iiled b y April 11. 2010 to: Ki~ilberiy Yu. Projecr Manager, I'Aetro, One Gateway Plaza. 99.22.2, 1.0s k i~g r l es . CA 90012, crnoiled to pk!@~w!jo,p.g or filved to 21 3-9?Y-3005,

@ Metro -e.-

,<,, ;;;;g$$,$t, . , %YJJd..l ;:;'% . . : : . , a. . . . - ..;: ..-,. ;?: .,*::; ). . : ! ; ; : .,- ;., ,:.:;.y. .


OUi)292 Comment Sheet

n 7 Name: .- .J ,r'-.'-.&~~e~~ ~ .... . . . . .. . . ~.. . ~ ,. ~ .,

Affi l iation (i.e. organization, resident. business):

Address:

Phone/Ccli:

Thank you for your interest i n this Mc t ro project. We welcome your comments o n the alternatives or o n any other project information.

P!rase use the reverse side hi ;dd,tionrrI coni~ncnts. Cor~irnenrs m a y also be rna~lcd hy April 1.:. 2010 to. Kin>bc.riy Yu. Pi.oiect Ivlanager, k~lerro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22.?, La5 Angrlex, CA 90012. rrnai l t .? lo

~j~:Si@!t?~ti-o.r!c(oi faxed ifi Z ! 3.122-3UOj.

. ., ,>.&,. +ni: 5' , 1 ... . !:$b- : . , ~ u ~ ~ D ...... r-:L.-L&

...................... .;,.'......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~ ..,~.; . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Public Scoping

Comi:nent Sheet OOU293 ..' >. J,'? ,.s.-

Nar~ie: .~~ . .. .......... + ! - -

/ / I

Af f i l i a t ion (i.e. organ iza t ion , res ident ,

-Jj< '/&'k ,il . ./ business) : L._.... LL . ............... ..... .... -. .. -, . . .I / ' / ,,'~--.~ Address: ..-aw- ~~:~-.J-~>+~, ,, 4$2.<..<?fc. +, 9A'&,:, a::,L&& .7.$&cxg.!, .

Phone/Cel l : ...... i - i - ~ 5 < ~ . : +,?>.. _ _ _ ..:/C.~-.I‘~ -, L-: 2 , ................................

Ernail: .--7~&ew -~ ,-. , -->c . - , . . ~ p ; : c ~ L L ~ d t L , ~ ~ ~ : , ,. .-.a -* , ,'

, -, '. -,' , J -, ; . -/

T h a n k you for y o u r in te res t i n t h i s M e t r o p ro jec t . \We we lcorne y o u r c o m m e n t s o n t h e alternatives o r o n any other p ro jec t in fo r tna t ion .

Please use the reverse side <or addi!ional corr?iTienis. Con- t t i i en ts r l~ay ~ ! S O be rnailcd by Apr i l 1.:. 2010 to: K~mbi-r iy Yu. Proiect M ~ r i a g e r . A4er:o. 0r:e Gateway Plaz-,, 9'3.22.2, 1.0s kngeles, CA 90012, ema~ led ru

~i~I. [email protected] :gt or faxed :a 213.922-3095 k-1.. -- . .

Narne:

Affi l iation 1i.e orgntitzation, bus~ness):

Address:

Phonc/Ccll:

Ernail:

resident

.....-- + Y e 7, .lL . . >,..- . , ........ , * - 1- .; I!?.,

,.>!,,? !.o<!>>!->.<: :,..;. ,,: .:<:.; .? < ,,:' .,, < ,, . A . . : . , . : ,,

Metro Easts ide T r a n s i t Corridor Phase 2 Public S c o p i n g

Comment Sheet

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We we l co~nc your cotnments o n t l lc alkertiatiues o r on any otl ier project infortnation.

Please c r % r - the reverse side for :idcitior~al cormni.nt5. Co,nr>ierits o1ay also he mailed by /\pr:i 14, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project M:~riager. Metro. 0115 Gateway Plaza, 99.23-2, Los Angcles. CA 90012, emailed to

yuk~@rnei ro ,net or faxed to 217-92?-3005

i

"<,>,M


Cornmetit Shettt 000295

Namo: / . / i:) ~ , l > < < . < : . . , . ~ L L

. -.~~.~.. ~ ~ ~ . ---.- . .~ .- .

Affi l iation ( i .c . organization, resident, business): ,.;: . .~ &, . . . ~ ~ lft*5,7?4 ~~~ . ‘!L47lj,~d Address: , - -. .. .~ L),4/ . 7.. T/(~~)-. - -~, . \ <?-& l j :;, Phone/Cell:

Ernail: .. ~~

Thank you i o r your interest i n this Metro project. We welcome your cornments o n the alternatives o r o n any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for additional conilnrnls. Cornrncrits niay also be mailed by April 14, 2010 to: Kirriberly Yu, Project Manager, Meiru, One Gateway Plaza, 9922.2, 1.0s Angclcs, CA 90012, eniailed to ygklf~~o)in~r_q!lgt or faxed to ?13.422.3005.


Name:


Address:

Phone/Cell:

Etnail:

lhallk you for your interest in this Metro project. Wc welcolne your comments o n the al ternat ives or o n any other project information.

J

Pieasr irse t i le rcvcrsc s ~ d e i ~ r arldliiolial comments Com&??nrs rnay also be rnailcd by April 14, 2010 to: Kcrnbetly Yu. Proiec: M ~ n n g e r , Metro. One Gateway Plaz.3. 9'322-7 , 1 - 0 5 Angeles, CA 90012, en,a;leii to

[email protected]~ifi,.xei or faxed ro 21 3.922-3008.

@ M e t r o

. --.., , , . , . . .Il.

- . . . .+ L l!i.

. . . , . . . , . . . . > . .

Metro Easts ide Transit Corridor Phase 2 Public Scoping

Comment Sheet I '

000297 Name: G. l~ ( [ :j ,?, L. ('.'( /\ Atfi l iation (i.e. organization, r r s~ r l cn t , business): . . .. ~. .. . .-- .. . ... . ~~.~ . . ~.

Address: . . ? - - i ,111 ~ . ~ ~ , h ~ + ~ - ( , -- --. (.',- ' > l i d & i Phone/Cell: ..~ ~~

Email: .i 2 : : . . ...

Thank you for your interest i n this Met ro project. We welcome yotrr comments o n the alternatives o r o n any other project infortnat ion.

.~ -..... .~~ ~ . .

4 c.c<,.? - . -. - - - -c.c~. -- . -. -- - - .. -. -. -. .. . . - -- --- - - -- - . - .-

Please use the reverse side for addit ior~al cornni+rils. Cornrncnts r i i a y 2150 Lic mai led by April 1.1, 2010 to: Kirnberiy Yu, l'roject Manager, Metro, O l l r C;iteway Plaza, 41.22-2. 1.0s Aii$eles, CA 90012, ernallt)d ro y!k*zgh-o.rlgor iaxcd to 21;-922-3005.

,. ,-,c.-- , (nu.' ' , . ............. '.-

..i.<, ,,' L.. L:&

. ~ , * ,<< .,.,, . ,<:..,:. :*v ?,\. ~ ..> . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. .: .. ,.! : ..:. Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Public Scopirig

Comrr~ent Sheet

Name: ....... /< f 3 ........... >,?> e ,,-> ........

Affi l iation (i.c. organizatiorl, resident, business): .... /\ ,L> c ir ... , ' c@-~ . (4 ~~~~ 45*, . ......... 0 c Clfl . -- -

Address: ..)............ G - . . ........................

2- - 4 C' Phone/Cell: 2 . ..L.......... d& /o 6 6 Email: hq n ~ . ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ! ~ . . . c " c " . c " ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ _ c _ c ~ : ~ t r .................

Thank you for your interest in this Met.ro project. \We welcorne your comments o n the alternatives ar o n any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for zddit~onal comments. Co,nrr!snts tnay also be rnailed by April 14, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, f'roject Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 5'322.2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, cm;~ilcd to vuki(@r~ietro,~lt?t or faxed to 11 3-922-1005.

Metro Eastside Transi t Corr idor Phase 2 Public S c o j ~ i n g

Comment Sheet ,' /

/ .: ... . /' Ncrme: ,- ,:,:,< 0 . <,,~ t,., ~ < . ~ ,.-(.*;.., ! s / ; ~ ~.

Aff i l iat ion (i.c. organizzatior~, resldctit;

J.<4, f?:,~,: .. b t i s i ~ i ess ) : A ~ r?' ~. :,(' / - c ,. , , . . i ~ ,' . ': .!. <,.) ~ ~:- ,., .L~/<...: . ..

Address:

P l ior~c/Cr i i : Z . ~ . .

El~ ia i l : A ' e ~ . ~ k ; - :~!-.~!-&A/-?L-:.L~-L?-~~L.~LI?~~~?~ .~ - -~ ~ -~ .

Thank you for your interest in this Mt:tro project. We welcotnc your comments on t h e alternatives o r o n any other project infortnat iot i .

~ ------ .... ~ ~ ~~ ~. . . I , -Ix/' .; ,

.:p ,. ~t.: J2. ;.2.ic< - ,.~ L<:;/* .< . - /;;'l.:.{-u( .,~ . ['Li!'.L.~. <. ,< .. '.<<?. . . : L: - 7-------

~

. .

Please use tlir reverse side for <l i i i t iozial commen!s. Conimcnts rnay also be riiailod by April 1.1, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager. Metro, One Galeway Plaza, 09.22.2. Lo.; Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to

y u k i @ r n e t r a n f i oor iaxct l to 21 3-922.3005.

r..! .... :;.,:,,,,,c ..... : ..... ,..$ . (,??, ................. .... :,.-> 2% ... ... . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metro Eastside Tra~isi t Corridor Phase 2 Public Scoping

Comment Sheet 0OC300 Name: . ---- Affi l iation (i.e. 4 AU ~3 orgaoizntiort, residerrt, business): ~ ~~ ~ .. ~ - ~ . ~~ . .~~ ~- .......

Address: .......... ...

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We wrlcorne your cotrirncnts 011 the alternatives o r on any other project information.

Please usu the reverse side f ~ r additional cornmcnts. Comments niay also be mailecl by April 1 4 , 201O TO:

Kimberly Ytr, Project Manager, Metro, One Galeway Plaza, 99-27.2, Los Ange!es. CA 10012, cmailcd to

y i l k i ( ~ 7 1 n e t r ~ ~ n a o r faxed tc 21 3.922.3005.

(9 Metro

Nilt l le:

Aff i l iation (i.e

..<..-. e.... %'I?: Lza & ...... ,<,:i,k&i&~'* , . , < . .: 1 y ; w . .. .:i,$+..,l)'$,~~.,~~:....: .... :.: ........ v-.- <> ,.:.,. ". . . . . . .I::: . . , ,

Metro Easts ide Transit Corridor Phase 2 Pub l i c Scoping

Comment Sheet

organiz:ltion, resident, business): : 1 ,<.: 2 ,<~.,

. ............. .- ... -~ .. . ..

Address: : . . . . . . . . . , 0 . , . . . . /'.q L ; J C , : J ......

Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. We welcome your cotnments on the nltertiatives or o t ~ any other project information.

~

~ ' L X W.G& i.,-~-,icA l.-< j;%-.( ,:,.+y. +tt , ~ 2 - c q d ~ . r r > r , ' -C-r L"c/ . L --A SL_

1. _ L'! , , --~ , / . . L ? , 4 - '6 - r .: ., . # &- t: t:t:..t:.t:t:.t:. .--

i

-,i;. ,( <,:~,<,-t & L?<L. _( A. K.<.<L,*~% 1'1 h.u-,-c . 2 ..: L~-.! -5 - . . .-.. . .... t--

. J;,.. l.,.,;~ , , . , tYif; ALJ - 1 y . ~ .,.. J,>L -/@ ,( 4 -::?krd4 .. '. - ......... ....... - - if .- ........... I. .........

Please use tlie reverse side for nddtt~onal cornrrrents. Comments 11ia7 also be ~ n a i l t d by April 1 4 , Z O T O to. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, Otie Gatzv/ay Plaza, 99-22.2.. 1.0s Angeies, CA 90012, enlaiird lo

ul ; i@~n~e~!o. r~yt nr bred !o 11 3-922.3005. Y~ . . . . . . . . - .

Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Public Scopilig

Comment Sheet 0 0 0 3 0 2

Name:

Affi l iation (i.c. ;, .-, ! / organization, resident, business):

Address:

Phone/Cell:

Emall:

Please rrse the reverse side for additional coniments. Com~~?t .n ts m a y also be in~ai i rd by April 1 4 . 2010 to. Kimberly Yii. Project Manrrgrr. Metro. One Calcway Piaza. 99-22.?, 1.0% Angzles, CA 90012, enia~led to y"ki@~nctro.net.or faxed to 213.922-3005.

i Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Public Scoping

Comment Sheet

Narnc:

A f i l i a t i o n (i.c. o rgan iza t ion , res iden t , bus iness) : / ? . L ~ : ~ D ~ C ~~.~~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ... -....

Address: LU~.C-.?..&&~LB?. 2ifl?-&.-& .~.--&?&&,~--5%2<. ..%,

PI ionr /CeI I : .-q&~ ~ L L : ~Z&,.-L .- . .-~-- 7 ' ,. Ernail: ~l..e~rtL_ia-.Q~..;f.'!a.i~,. .

T h a r ~ k y o u for youc i n te res t in this M e t r o p ro jec t . \Ve w e l c o m e y o u r c o m m e n t s or1 t h e a l ternat ives o r o n any o the r p ro j ec t i n f o r m a t i o n .

Please use the reverse s ide for addit ional conlments. Cornrnerl ts n iay also be mai led by Apr i l 14 , 2010 to: Klniberly Yu, Project Manager, Ivietro, O r i r Gateway Plaza, 99.22.2. I.os ~ \ n g r l e s . CA 90012, crnai!r:d to

y~~k@.~gos! or f a r td to 21 3.922.3005.

@ M e t r o :.yt.z-


Comment Sheet 0 0 0 3 0 4 \

Name: ................. _ ... - - - . Affi l iation (i.e. organization, resident,

\ ' , \ \I ' business): a'' .!~~L~-.-.LL~!xLLI..!\<~~~~$-~~ .. L!...,.:?. .... (..\L !~~ >>.>[ ~>~jfij~!~:; /\5\(\ Address: _I ) . Q P ....--~%LxA~.s- X -. .................... - . .

Phone/CeIt: A . : c- . 4 3 3 . . . ........

'Thank you for your interest i n this Metro project. We welcome your comrnents on the a l ternat ives or on any other project in format ion.

Please use the reverse side for additional cornrnenls. Conir i~cnts niay also be mailed by Aprf l 1.4, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, hlerro, 01le Gateway Pfazn. 99-?%-2. Los Angcles. CA 90012, ernailed to @@_ng~o@ or faxed to 21 3-9:!2-3005.

Melissa Holguin Monday, April 12, 2010 1:51 PM

Subject: FW: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 5:49 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:00 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Dear Ms Yu

I have a business in Montebello, at Via Campo & Garfield. I would like t o know how my business will be impacted. 1. The Washington Blvd. route, shows, that it would travei south o f the 60 Freeway and turn south, west of Garfield Avenue. Would that mean that the land necessary for the Garfield station would be on the west side of Garfield Avenue? 2. The SR-60 route shows that it would also travel south of the 60 Freeway, and, also have a station a t Garfield Avenue. Would the land necessary for this station be east or west of Garfield Avenue? Please reply.

Thank you, Norris Agajanian


Subject: FW: gold line extension Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010 7:35 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected] To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]>

-----Original Message----- From: Paul Caballero [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:21 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: gold line extension

Miss Yu, I'm a Whittier resident and have been to a few of the meetings regarding the placement of the Gold Line extension.

As you can imagine I am very much in favor of the placement following Washington Blvd ending at the Five Points in Whittier. It will be a great advantage for me as an individual but also I believe this plan has much more potential to carry more riders, bring economic benefit to the areas the line will run through and reduce traffic in the area.

I appreciate the time and effort you and your team have gone through at the public meetings I have attended and look forward to the next phase of development for this project. Thank you very much for your time, Paul Caballero 8429 Painter Ave Whittier CA 90602

Page 1 of 1 I


Subject: Re: EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 Date: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:58 PM From: Melissa Holguin [email protected]~ To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]>, Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>

From: I(imberly Yu < y u k i @ m e t r o . n e t > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:21:04 -0700 To: Yesenia A r i a s [email protected]>, M e l i s s a H o l g u i n [email protected]~ Subject: F W : EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2

From: Shirli Braun [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 11:18 AM 000307 To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2

Ms. Yu: Please choose the SR-60 for the location of your train. We here in Pico Rivera live directlv over the San Andreas fault line. You will be malting constant repairs to your rail line, if a quake does not completely collaspe it. We also have a gang problem in Pico Rivera. Washington Blvd, is the dividing between two violent, generational gangs, Pico Nuevo and Rivera. To choose the Washington Blvd alternative is to blatantly disregard the safety of the riders. The Rosemead Blvd. station will become a shooting ground for the gangs. Your train will get shot up and will become filthy with graffitti. The cost of maintenance will be staggering. The SR-60 is a much better choice and I myself would definitely talte a trip on a safe route such as this. For those who are taking a train trip to the mall, Montebello Town Center has so much more to offer than Pico Rivera Town Center. These two malls are not even comparable. Montebello has a great food coul-t, movie theatres, and many great shops. And it's entirely indoors unlil<e Pico Rivera Town Center. We also do not want our residents displaced, we are united on this issue and will fight all the way to lteep this fkom happening. Thank you, Miss Yu and METRO, for listening to the people. We will definitely ride on the SR-60, b u t m Washington Blvd. You will see that no one will want to ride because it will just not be safe. Again, thank you!

Ms. Braun


Subject: FW: Good Gold Line to Whittier 1 Date: Monday, April 12,2010 7:35 AM

From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]~

From: Ms. Nicole Gonzalez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:13 PM 000308 To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Good Gold Line to Whittier

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would reduce traffic congestion and pollution for commuting students as well as the thousands of visitors to campus each year.


Subject: FW: Comment Sheet Date: Monday, April 12,2010 1:39 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]~

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:29 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Comment Sheet

From L. Benjamin a resident of Whittier since 1949

Whittier is an island

An island surrounded by overcrowded freeways

An island that we, the residents of Whittier, must drive on our local residential streets and roads for approximately six miles before we can join the thousands of drivers on these smog producing 'freeways'.

If SR6O is approved, we will remain an island, only a further distance to the proposed Light Rail Station

Prior to the removal of the Pacific Electric Red Line, we had the freedom to move about most of the L.A. Orange County areas by this economical transportation system as the 'Red Line'

came directly into Whittier. The rails for this system were still seen at the intersection of r Whittier Blvd. and Philadelphia Streets until a few years ago.

The Washington Blvd. Alternative would seem to be a much more rational plan for Whittier. The proposed station at PIH would, in essence, be a partial repeat of the old 'Red Line".

Regional Chamber Alliance 1201 6 E Telegraph Rd Suite 100 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angekes, CA 9001 2

April 12, 2010

Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 9001 2

Dear Ms. Yu,

I am sending this letter on behalf of the Regional Chamber Alliance (RCA), representing the Santa Fe Springs, Whittier. Pico Rivera, Norwalk, and La Mirada chambers of commerce, to support the proposedEastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project through the Washington Blvd, corridor.

The RCA embraces the Washington Blvd. route because it would enable millions of people to travel throughout the Washington Blvd corridor having access to work, medical appointments, shopping and the flexibility to get from city to city with ease. We believe this route would have the greatest possible impact on the regio'n by connecting the underserved communities of, Whittier, Commerce, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, and Montebello.

The Washington Blvd, alternative has the highest overall ridership figure, highest overall net new riders, greatest overall user benefit hours and minimal disruption to streets due to its aerial alignment. Implementation of the Washington Blvd. alternative can accommodate the aerial station configuration with minimal impacts to the community life and traffic circulation. The Washington alternative has a large employment base in the Cities of Santa Fe Springs, Commerce, Pico Rivera, Whittier, and Montebello.

We are grateful to. have this opportunity to present Metro with our letter of support and hope that it encourages you to consider the positive impact this route will have on the businesses and residence in this area.

Sincerely,

Kathie Fink Chief Executive Officer Santa Fe Springs Chamber of Commerce

0 Metro , *,

ME~T'RO EASTSIDE T17ANSIP CORRIDOR P H A S E 2 PUBLIC SCOPINC;

W a k e LJp W h i t t i e r - M a r c h 10, 2010

COMMENT SI-IEEI- 000312 --> '-

Nanic: . ',4'/iC . I / , ~ ( l ~ i : ~ ~ ~ . < ~ l / ARiliation ( i e . organization, resident, business): \ ( i . 1 .I-, t , ~ ( -T / -$ , ( : ~- -. Address: 1 / $: 'r., !, <;! (: ',i\ 1~~~ (11. ( /\ <.'.., 1 li..:/~/ /-)-7 11.. :)i- <:>i I,..( (. X- ,/

i Phonc/Mobilc: .:(: ;,) (-,<? 7 . '> / Enia i l . [ [ ~ ... / . j /.~J''>/.] [:. '1) iir t.(,t,,,i: 1 - 1 . 6 .. - <.*,!:'.;,, ('K,),L{,

Tliarik you for your interest in t l i i s Metro project. We welcome your cornrrients on the alternatives or on arry other project iriforrnation.

__,./ ": .~ . ., / . ) ... I , /'), A-,,;/( -1 ,; id,; : . ' [ '! 1 . - . ~ J 1,. ( - - - ? - .-. 1'. i I C I 1. \

,. - . , , ( j - . . 1 ; - Ic,A <-: f [-[hi c:/ p,u . . ~ k " ; t - ~ ~ ~~.~~~~ . . -- ~~ -

I;-' L /, %? 1 % , , --- . / I < ,A , ~ ~ ~ ; . ~ j ~ b . / / \ ' ~ ~ ~ ( ~ j h . . ) b(>;,t(-<;

/ -)) ;, c') 1 .; yF/L )<f,($ --*,]/,,)\ +..) 7//' , - , i;,

, 1'; A . . , j ,?, [ ,A )(.(->;-:

\ I I/;, . i , ,' ? ( L ' ,c'. c 1 , ) . 7 f / a : . . / ( . < ? . I . ---. '

/ / . , ,

, l,, (.::,<: ,i ? -L( (. (-',i:/.!,,: / ($~ / (.. /<-- --,~ y./ 5: ,.-, &V/, I. -: '-fi~. L'L~. 9,/.,/>( .c-,.

Pictist. kist! ttlc r?;etse i i t lc lur ;ici<li!io!l;li :.orlinic~r~!h. Coi t l r~ ler l l i rrl;iv ;lis:: ht! n1;lilod i l y April 1 4 ZC13 !L:

hirn!xri,. '(u, I'roicit h i ~ n o g c ~ . [.,lcrro. 013. G.itc\s;,~:~ i'i;~r,~. 9 7 - 2 2 :, is:, P,!v?Ics. CA 9001 2 . CVII;,~IC,? !:; .' -

v , ih i : f i rn~t rn nf.1 il.*j.rl I,, I ! i.'i! 'i,.~?:

METRO EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PtiASE'2 PUB\-IC SCOI-'ING

Wake Up Whittier -- March 10, 2010

COMMENT SHEU

. . Name: i L i i / ..?A ( , /-1~ Alfiliation ( i t . organization, resident. f ' 1 , , .., ,,_ . business): j.,'l C r C , 6 f . . [i j. ,:..:; ic..~,~:, ,/,.. .? ..., (. , ,- , ,! ., .;,: j ' ( "

? / .- ' .

.1 , , $ ' I* , . ;, ," .. Address: + , , , . .. . [, , , ( , j , , . , , 4 ., ,. . ,., !

/ ' / 8. // , . .

i'honc,!hlobile: .,. ., .~ / , , , . . #&;;A- *-- ,... , / r ,. . 1 ,> ,,p,.:,~,<;. . ( , , . . . . . , . I t mail: , ; ., , . , , . .... :','. ' / (;/,:.<-,, :. .: ,'... i-, < : , /' ,: ,',:..\,

-. . .

1-hank you For your interest.in t l i i s Metro project. We welcome your conlrncnts on the alternatives or on any other projcct information.

i ' l ~ d 5 ~ its<: t ! i ~ !CYerse SICIF for i~(lii~~!:>iii/ (S.ITI~~C'I~IS. (:om~nrn:r- in.!) ;il\i ilc r,iail<!il by Apr~ i !.I. 20'6 tg

i : ! . t h i , I . 1 I I , , . j I , gO(jj 2, c.,r:,illi.(l 1-3 yilh~@r~ietro.riet ,>i i;ixi:cl to 2 1 3 9?:'.31Ji;5

METRO EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PI-IASE 2 PUBLIC SCOPINC

Wake Up Whittier - March 10, 30110

COMMENT SI-IEET . - . . -

, i ,' ., . :> <' Nanic: . . , ,, ... . .

Afiiliatiori l ie . organizal~ori, resident. . , i

, : .: //,, ,, business): / , , . , , . ;. , . ; , I , / ::., .,:. ! , , I ; . .

. '7 Address: ' I , : : ,L:j,.. !/;. . , ,.f . . .c . - f ' / , .,. ,, . I

I'lioric/Mobilc. , ~. ( , . / , ,

- . . > I i~ Email: , . ~- . . ' . . .+.<. . . . . , . .. i

. . ,

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcocne your comments on tllc alternatives or on any other project information.

MFTRO EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PUBLIC SCOPINC,

Wake U p Whitticr -- March 10, 2010

COMMENT SI-IEE7

Narnc: [I ,, %., i , ,, \ \ I:,, ' I < , ' s : ! , j

i Aftiliation ( i c . o rg~r i iza t io~ i , rcsidc>nt, < ,

O l ~ ~ i f l c s s ] : , , , I 1 , ; : . ' ',..

Atldress: ,. . : . , , , . 1 ' . I I Phonc/Mobilc. . . ! . : i . ' I

-~.. ., ..7 , ~ - . . Irriail: .

! . .!I.::.> i . , . . . . I : l ' i ' - 1 . . . ' , : . .

Thank you for your interest in !his Metro project. We welcorile your comr-nrrits on tho alternatives or on any other project information.

I @ . ", M e t r o

ME-TRO EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIOOK PHASE 2 POBL-IC SCOPING

Wake Up Whittier .-- March 10, 2010

COMMENT SHEET

Na rn r : . .

A f i l i a t ~ o n (i.c. organizatiori, resident, . . b~rs incss) : . . . .

Address: \.

Pt ione/Mobi lc:

Crnail: \, . .

Thank you lor your iriterest in t l i i s Me!ro project. Wcvrclcorne y o u r corn lnc l i is o n the alternatives or on

any other project infor inat ion.

I 5 ! r ! I I t i i , .>!r i f i icnth. Curr?rl?i!(its n?::, ;i!sn hl: nl.lilctl L,y April 1~1 , 23;h !-: I , i t I I : ! : , I , 9 . . A~:gii.!~r, (:A 3fj!)1 .' c , r , c , , ! , ? t j ::j

vt~Lifi>,-r>etr<, "PI , , ' i , , ,<*<l k c . 71 7 :?- ' -

Manic:

Mt-rRO EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PUBl.IC SCOPINC

Wake Up Whittier - March 10, 2010

COMMENT SHEET

Affiliallon ( i e . org;~niz:~tion, resideri!. . .

8 , ..

b~~s i i i ess ) : i

Address: asl.cj (2 l i 1. \ /~. (LL\.t, ~ ~ ; ~ 1 ~ ~ : 1 : [ ; ~ ~ . 4 ~ (-I\ - IJhone/Mobilc.

E r n a i l

Thank yoit for your interest in t h i s Metro projecl. \Ve welcome yuur cornrnerlls on the alternatives or on any other project informalion.

METRO EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PUBLIC S C O P I N G

Wake Up Whittier - March 10, 7.010

COMMENT SHEEP

f ' Narnc: pb, t - ,. I ( :, . c . -/ . - <

/ Aftiliation ( I C .

orgor~iratiorl, resirlent, , : , , i ,

busir~ess). . . . : I b . , . . , . ( . . , . , . . . ,.?-. 8 . i . , , .~

Address:

Thank you ?or your interest i n this Metro project. 1Vc welconle your cotnments on the ;~ltcrnatives or on any other project information.

!J!<,~<,,c .a:.? !;ic rr::cr:,e !,i:Jc! lur ,~ : !~ : l~ i~ ,c r !~~ l :s~:.t:ri!:rit~ <:,.>r?irt~<!ri!>.!t.~.:; 2~ hr r~,.~iIcd by Aprxi l . 4 :!Ol? 1. :, l l ! 1 , 1 . : ! : , <'.": C i::.;..sy F'l.,.:.,, 93 2: .: \ : 1 , (;A 9001.' r r , : . ! < ! c . j :.: [email protected] :,: i.t<i>,.l I ( , :I: 3 ':?.';' I!::':

METRO EASTSIDE 'TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PUBLIC SCOPING

Wake Up Whittier -. March 10, 2010

COMMENT SHEE1

Affiliation ( i t . , , , ~ , . . . :, #, , , ... . ./ , L , , 1 4 ? - - ,, , . ., , 1 >.,; 1 .r., t~ c:. . organiraiiori, resident, -- J business): . , y I . . ; . I . ; , , , - . . . ,. , f ;- ' ' ! ,., !/:. t - : ( , > , it ;*.,,;::..(

. / 1. ; Address: I . ,

,; i t . ; ; . ..;; , ( < I.-;<: ! . . I 1 v.. . ,/ :> . . , ( : . , :: , , ! 7 .

Thank yoo for yotrr ~nterest in this i\.lcfro project. LVc welcome your cornrncnts on the altcrna!ives or on sr!y other p r o j e ~ t inforrn;~tion. , . .

, , I -. T r~ , ., . ; ~ & ~ . - I+ ~..::& [ : . l i i::: :.Q ..': : . .,.j ..,, ', .' .... l , , d , !:,....<;f:; 1";; 1 ;> \>,-. .~.- Q:. L j t . t:,. - . < . , l([7i,; + 1 , ;%, ,., ,,:;..; , -17 T k l ,, r!

MET-RO EASTSIDE TRANSI'T'CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PUBLIC SCOPINC

Wake Up Whittier-. March 10, 2010

COMMENT SHEET

N;~me:

Affiliation (i.c. -,L. +.,

organiralion, rcsidcn!, ., .~ , . J .,, .,, i j ;. , ,,! i ' :-,; .,;?,) I , ;,(

business): - . L.., /: I .

, .> { (,,. , W ' Address: , ' 1 \. \.;\.~ \\.~,-.nIt.;. ,.

. .. . . ' ! ' , 'I--. ' , \ i I ,

. ..&. , Phone/Mob~ie .L . . .. I, :s~.~.. .: , ' ~ % . . , L,.,..'.;

Email: d' .. ..

.J

Thank you for your interest in th i s lvleirc project. We welcornc your comments or1 the alterr~a!ives or on any other project itiforniatton.

Citizens for Better Nldkiity

As an orgsnkation, we agree wit l~ .tet plan for she Washington Rlvtl. &ltllh~e Enst extention. TBiS [)fan will greatly bocrsr the growing d&elopmeet, with the

increase in property ~ a l n e , also it will assist in the retlution of iuitomotivc trnffic with in~provetl msy itcccss to downtown shopping, dinning, snct entertitinments.

Recent histoi-y has borne this oat simply thrsugh observntion of gmwth ocuring irlong f~he prc-existing goltllinc from rn~ion stiltion to Sierrn Mntire Villit. This same phenolnena is alsu ;icssring itlung the eslention from downtonvn to 3'' an Atlantic Rlsri. Also untlcr consitlcration %!its tlx? 611 frrvy ulinernent ~vh ic l~ we strongly believe ~vould not be tlre passenger generater in contpnrison to the

Wnsl~ingtcln Rivd. Route.

Citizens for Better Mobility (C'BkIJ hnr been follo\~ing the constuction of \'nrions mil protUects im the local area since 1992, nrl~ea a s in~ l l group ofus met a t the opening i ~ f the Redline suRuvay equipment n~nintan;~ce fkciliy trnnnheres

it n'us the start of the creation of our special group. Subway car 505 nvits the initial knecting locntion of s tive member consorriuln, ~ v t ~ e n the conversntion

tleveloped h f o R small grsss root thinlcmnic focusing on vat.iou?; rail prodjects irt the southlanntl ti1 this (In).. CB%I %t3ili contunie to tlevelope ant1 prirsnethe

pliknning, contsruction, ant1 oper;ttional itleas of trialisit proci,jects in the area airtl ilaountl the country. We lilic also co c ~ l l t ~ b o l . ~ t e wit11 other agencies tin

organixntiot~s slmring si~nitar. interesr perta.ining tn tile improvement of public tr.iisisporti~lion.

Vie like to thunlt the Goltltine city of Whittier organizatio~~ for aRllov\.ing us to attentl your. scopingmeeting this rmst Yl;fl~rch, at the Snlvittion Army' Ipncility in Santa Fc Sprhigs, Ca. to presents preseataiion of support of the W;tshington

Blvtl alienln~ent that was overly in fal'or among the in~itetl guess.

ITarold R. Lencock / 909-229-2130

Craig F. 'Thompson / 909-973-0935

Corredor de Transporte hacia el Este Fask 2


1 ~c / a R@c Nombre:

Afiliaci6n (organizaci6r1, residente, negocio): fl e5,'dode PW ,.d s > +/,, @r Dornicilio: 12.4 Z 6 ?/,;/@de/~ b a sf d h . . //,'cY Numero de Tel6fono/Celular

Correo Electr6nico:

Gracias por su interes en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus comentarios relacionados con las alternativas o cualquier otro aspecto de este proyecto I/ 0 n&G F,/ L I Z ~ . & ~ s p

Por favor utilice el lado inverso para comentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes del 14 de abril a: Kimberly Yu, Directora del proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza. 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 o por correo electr6nico a [email protected] o fax 213-922.3005.

Nombre:


Tarjeta de Comentarios ' 11 (1 fl 3 2 3

Aflliaci6n (organizacibn, residente, negocio):

Domicilio: 3 , . &pf 3 ~L&A ed 45'0% Nurnero de u /

TelBfono/Celular - T62 - 6 46 y663 Correo Electr6nico:

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus comentarios relacionados con las alternativas o cualquier otro aspecto de este proyecto

Por favor utilice el lado inverso para comentarios adicionaies. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes del 14 de abril a: Kimberly Yu, Directors dei proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99.22-2, Los Angeies, CA 90012 o porcorreo electr6nico a [email protected] o fax 213.922-3005.


. . Comment Sheet

<

Name: 1/ $&@is Affiliation (i.e. organization, resident, business): K"ZO$-/,$&.k?idbD cAi/lY Address: q Y 9 Ud7' lAdc7'.a Phone/Cell: i.4 g434# Email:


Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed by April 14,2010 to: . i(imberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to

[email protected] or faxed to 213.922.3005.

Corredor de ~ r a n s ~ o h e hacia el Este Fase 2 Alcance PlSblico

Tarjeta de Comentarios UUU325

~ 1 , n\ 0

Nombre: ~fl,C':na-L Afiliaci6n (organizacidn, residente, negocio): ! @ C S : d ~ ~ .

Domicilio: 7.539 M : I I U ~ A I/< Y o c u C.

Numero de Tel6fono/Celular 565') ?.7U 5?7 01 Correo Electr6nico:

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus comentarios relacionados con las alternativas o cualquier otro aspect0 de este proyecto

Por favor utilice el lado inverso para comentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes de l l 4 de abril a: Kimberly Yu, Directors del proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99.22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 o por correo electr6nico a [email protected] o fax 213-922-3005.

Corredor de Trans~orte hacia el Este Fase 2


Nombre: ,@ 04' 44 4 a"TJ~vbf$~. Afiiiacidn (organizacidn, residente, negocio): cb - d h i / # ) ~ ~ . Domicilio: \ <e~ ;& f l & Numero de TelBfono/Celular

Correo Electrbnico:

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus.cornentarios reiacionados con las alternativas o cualquier otro aspect0 de este proyecto

Por favor utilice el lado inverso para cornentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes del14de abril a: Kimbesly Yu, Directora del proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99.22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 o por correo electr6nico a [email protected] o fax 21 3-922.3005.



Nombre: 2 b. ~~~~1

Afiliacidn (organizacidn, residente, negocio):

Domicilio: - lfflqhf uhi-fh?~ ?&OY "

Numero de Telc?fono/CeIuIar (56 2)' Ye-. 7783, Correo Electrbnico: &$9(jiern ZOO/ @ h@-f~d;/. L-e?7 i

Gracias por su inter& en este proyecto de Metro. Agradecemos sus comentarios relacionados con las alternativas o cualquier o t

Por favor utilice el lado inverso para comentarios adicionales. Los comentarios pueden ser enviados por correo antes del 14 de abril a: Kimberly Yu, Directors dei proyecto, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22.2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 o por correo electrdnico a [email protected] o fax 213.922-3005.

a Metro Comment Sheet - Eastride Transit Corridor Phase 2 metro.net City of dosemead - Legislative Affairs Meet ing

I Tuesday, Apri l 6, 2010

Name: & I EVIOW,&-?~ZC, s w a ~ & & V

Aff i l iat ion (i.e. organization, resident, 000328 business): ROC- h i bl&+L& Address: .%bJ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ! ~ , ,-, c% q1?7;0 Phone/Cell: 6: ( k & b ) H - ~ - ~ 0 X ) Z'ay / O (bZb_I,%s-oqG~ Email: film%@ W-, K \ ; ? - / M , O ~

Thank you for your interest i n th is Metro project. We welcome your comments o n any o f t he four alternatives o r on any other project informat ion.

Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed to: I<imberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 213-922-3005.

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:25 PM

Subject: FW: Eastside Transit Corridor Date: Wednesday, April 14,2010 11:41 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

-----Original Message----- 000329 From: janice harbin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:36 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor

I strongly recommend that the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 selection be the Washington Boulevard route and not the 60 Freeway route. It will benefit more cities, more businesses, more people and cost less. It just makes senses to build the Light Rail Transit in conjunction with Washington Boulevard. I look forward to be able t o use i t in the future. I have often used the Green Line and appreciate having it as a viable option for traveling in Southern California.

Thank you, Janice Harbin Whittier Resident

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14,2010 1:27 PM

Subject: FW: Metro GoldLine Eastside Transit Corridor - City of Whittier Comments Date: Wednesday, April 14,2010 9:51 AM From: Clagett, Lillian <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]>

Sent to the wrong address.. Please let me lknow that you received this email.

Thank you Lillian 213 765 1250 000330

From: Clagett, Lillian Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:49 AM To: '[email protected] Subject: Metro GoldLine Eastside Transit Corridor - City of Whittier Comments

Hello Yuki, Sorry so late..but just found my notes from the mtg on Feb 27, 2010.

I have been a commuter to Downtown LA since April 1999. The most frustrating aspect of the commute via GreenIBlue line is the back tracking that I do just to catch the train. I live 1.5 miles from PIH. But to catch the green line have to drive 8 miles in another direction away from downtown LA. The beneficial part I see is convince if it is brought through Whittier where I can take a shuttle to the station and leave my car a t home or drive to a station that is not out of the way and get to work faster. We have no bus service that is convenient. We are lagging behind in transportation for our city and in the outlaying metropolitan areas. If you drive down Washington Blvd to LA it has a lot of lights and when you use Telegraph by Home Depot and the 5 Fwy it is horrible because the lights are not synchronized. Safety issue trains DO NOT cause accidents..they can't leave the track. So it is the drivers who are not paying attention to what is going on around them. Also, this train will serve the La Mirada area as well. I see a lot of positives if the train will run to Whittier area. I will be on it..\ just hope I don't retire before I see the dream. Please come to my beautiful city of Whittier or La Mirada. Thank you Lillian

Lillian Clagett State Bar of California Coordinator of Records 213 965 2250 Lilllian.Clage [email protected]

Page 1 of 2


Subject: A Golden Goal--Extending the Gold Line to Whittier Date: Wednesday, April 14,2010 9:33 AM From: Price Joe <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]>

Dear Ms. Yu,

Throughout the process of Metro's solicitation of comments on the Phase II proposal for the Gold Line extension, I have made public comments on behalf of Whittier College, many members of the Whittier Chamber of Commerce, and neighbors and family in the Whittier area. I now write to offer a final summary of my comments embracing the proposal to extend the Gold Line along Washington Blvd.

Extension of the Gold Line to Whittier is the better option for serving the public. It would provide efficient, safe, and frequent transportation to an underserved set of cities and their citizens. It would improve access to a regional medical center. It would serve the public by expanding opportunities for students to volunteer in non-profit organizations throughout the Los Angeles region. It would be more economic than the Route 60 option by almost every means of accounting, such as cost per rider mile and cost per construction mile. It would be less socially disruptive than the Route 60 option. It would have a lower environmental challenge and impact than going through the Montebello landfill and the Whittier Narrows area. It would avoid having to deal extensively with the Army Corps of Engineers in the Whittier Narrows flood-plane.

In short, the extension of the Gold Line to Whittier makes good sense by costing less per rider mile, by reducing vehicular traffic (including transportation to stations), by serving the public in multiple ways (improving access to health care providers and improving access for volunteers to provide social services, for which Whittier is already well known), and by minimizing social and environmental impact.

While remaining hopeful about the prospect of the Gold Line extension along Washington Blvd., I appreciate the thorough way in which Metro has engaged the process of providing the public with fora to learn about proposed routes and to solicit input from potentially affected communities and their citizens.

Sincerely yours,

Joe Price

Joseph L. Price

Page 1 of 2

Connick Professor of Religious Studies and

I Assistant to the President for Community Relations

Whittier College Whittier, CA 90608

562-907-4803 (voice) 562-464-4517 (fax)

Joseph L. Price Genevieve S. Connick Professor of Religious Studies Whittier College Whittier, CA 90608

562-907-4803 (voice) 562-464-4517 (fax)


Subject: Washington route Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:38 PM From: David Damico [email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> 000332

Hi Ms Yu, I'm voting for the Washington route. As a commuter from Whittier to

downtown, there's no convenient transportation for us. Thanks and you're a great public speaker!

David Damico


Subject: Gold Line eastside extension route Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:08 PM

( From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> 000333 Dear Yuki,

My preference is for the eastside Gold Line extension to be along Washington Boulevard. It would be much more useful in reducing my driving than it would if i t followed the Pomona Freeway.

As I am getting older, I hope to reduce my driving more and more. The Washington Boulevard route would be best for me in doing that.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond,

Jon Myers Whittier resident

Melissa Holauin Wednesday, April 14,2010 1:30 PM

Subject: Fw: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 - Public Comment Period Closes April 14! Date: Tuesday, April 13,2010 8:45 PM From: Jim Sass <[email protected]> Reply-To: Jim Sass <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]>

Dear Ms. Yu,

Thank you for all the preparation and outreach that you have done during this Scoping Period. The meetings and these requests have provided great opportunities for stakeholder participation.

Although I spoke at one of the meetings, I want to take this final opportunity to express support for the Washington Boulevard alignment of the Eastside extension. Metro's own analysis makes clear that the Washington Boulevard alignment is superior to the SR-60 alignment by all reasonable standards. Rather than re-state the facts and figures, I will simply note that no amount of political pressure can malze the SR-60 alignment a superior option for Los Angeles County.

You can rest assured that you and your team have done well in publishing the facts and soliciting public response. Metro can be proud of your work. As the process moves forward, I can only hope that the decision makers will base their decisions on the facts rather than politics.

Sincerely,

James S. Sass

6252 Washington Avenue

Whittier, CA 90601

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14,2010 157 PM

Subject: FW: In Support of Gold Line to Whittier Date: Wednesday, April 14,2010 11:38 AM

1 From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

From: Gallardo Irene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:22 AM 000335 To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: I n Support of Gold Line to Whittier

Ms. Yu, I wr i te in support of t h e Gold Line route t o Wh i t t i e r . I t would greatly

improve public transportation t o and from Wh i t t i e r College fo r our students. Thank you!

I rene 5. Gallardo Assistanf t o the President

& please consider the environment before printing this email


Subject: FW: Gold line extension Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:36 AM From: Kiniberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]~

-----Original Message----- From: Tim Kung [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14,2010 10:44 AM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Gold line extension

Ms. Yu:

My understanding is that the two most important factors both lean toward the Washington extension: - the number of riders anticipated was much higher (over 5M boardings versus 4M along the 60) - the cost per rider of extending along Washington is lower than the 60 freeway extension

Please consider the Washington extension! It would be a great way to connect a fantastic community here right through an under-appreciated part of LA. And a million extra riders per year is a tremendous number of people off the freeways.

Best, Tim Kung

Page 1 of 1

Tim Kung 5833 Bright Ave. Whittier, CA 90601

Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager, Metro One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Ms. Yu

I write to encourage Metro to consider the Washington 8oulevard/Whittier option as the next extension of the Gold Line.

Whittiel; as you surely already know, has a rich rail liisto~y, and was (and still is!) connected to the greater Ins Angeles area by rail. Adding passenger Metro service to this mix would open up a great additional feeder into the Metro system from this side of the Puente Hills.

In fact, the likely location of a station terminus - the Presbyterian Hospital at the corner of Whittier Blvd. and Washington Blvd. - sits right across from the Greenrvay Trail. The (:reenway Trail has been a fantastic addition to Whittier, with thousands of people using it to get to school, do errands and get exercise. The Trail rvould provide an additional feeder to that station, permitting people across the toTm from easily traveling to the Washington station.

Tim Kung

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14, 2010 157 PM

Subject: FW: Supportthe Gold line to Whittier Date: Wednesday, April 14,2010 11:35 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Vesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

-----Original Message----- From: Adams Charles [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14,2010 11:03 AM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Support the Gold line to Whittier

Dear Ms. Yu:

I want to add my voice to those supporting the option for extension of the Gold line to Whittier.

You are familiar with most of the reasons for this, and I think the evidence on virtually all points is pretty overwhelming in favoring the Whittier route. But for me, i t boils down to who will be served. It strikes me that the Whittier extension actually serves people, where the other option does not in the ways that it needs to. It is very difficult to understand that the route following the 60 will have any effect on commutes or traffic. And i f i t does, that would only happen on weekdays a t specific hours. Beyond that, the route seems to have little purpose. The route to Whittier serves a heavily populated area that has the right demographics to suggest that i t will make a real difference to many people's lives.

I will probably be long retired by the time this line will be completed, so I am not sure my comments are altogether made out of self interest. They emerge from what seems to me to be a logical conclusion. Let's serve the most people we can.

Thank you for considering all the comments you have gotten. I am impressed with how open the process has been. -- Dr. Charles S. Adams Professor, English Whittier College 13406 E. Philadelphia St. P.O. Box 634 Whittier, CA 90608

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14, 2010 157 PM

Subject: FW: Gold Line Extension Date: Wednesday, April 14,2010 11:35 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:15 AM

000338 To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Gold Line Extension

1 am not that tech savvy. So I am emailing my comment. I live in La Habra Heights and work in Whittier. I feel that the extension would be beneficial since it would stop a t a regional hospital. Cindy Birt 562-697-7520.

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holauin Wednesday, April 14,2010 2 5 2 PM

Subject: Re: Support for Washington Boulevard Allignment Date: Wednesday, April 14,2010 2:52 PM From: Melissa Holguin [email protected]~ To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>

000339 -----Original Message----- From: Howard Les <[email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 201 0 5.1 8 pm Subject: Support for Washington Boulevard AllignmenZ

ADVANTAGES OF GOLD LINE WASHINGTON ALIGNMENT

Name: Leslie Howard Affiliation: Resident, Professor of Sociology at Whittier College, Board Member of First Day Homeless Coalition and Hispanic Outreach Taskforce, President of Park Pinehurst Homeowners Association Address: 7322 Bright Avenue #F PhoneICell: 562 754-7301 Email: [email protected]

TO: Kimberly Yu, Metro Gold Line Extension Project Manager, Metro, [email protected]

Dear Ms. Yu:

I favor the Washington alignment because it has greater potential walking and feeder line ridership than the 60 option and has a much larger transit dependent ridership within walking distance of the stations. Choice ridership is good and is served by both of the proposed lines, but service to the transit dependent is of the highest priority. The Bus Riders Union makes some convincing arguments about the populations typically served by bus vs. trains that require much higher initial investment. The Washington line addresses this in part by conveniently serving more transit dependent people the 60 line.

As a professor at Whittier College, I am heai-tened by promised availability of convenient public transit for commuting students as well as for more effectively connecting the campus to the greater LA area for work, internship, and service activities.

Page 1 of 2

Finally, I am excited by the possible synergies between the Gold Line development and potentially transit-oriented development of the Nelles property, adjacent to the proposed terminus. Also, this light rail project would realize the transit-oriented possibilities envisioned in our recently revised Uptown Specific Plan for infill with greater residential/commuter density.

Thank you and your staff for all of your work within this process as well as for your history of explaining transit development to our students.

Sincerely, Les Howard

Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital

April 12, 2010

Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu,

On behalf of the Presbyterian lntercommunity Hospital (PIH) Board of Directors, I am sending this letter in support of the Metro Goldline Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project through the Washington Boulevard Corridor.

PIH embraces the Washington Boulevard route because it would enable millions of people to travel throughout this route and have access to work, medical appointments, educational facilities, shopping or just the flexibility to get from city to city with ease. For the City of Whittier itself, it would offer a great opportunity for the new development at the Nelles site, provide a transit alternative for Whittier College students and faculty and be able to bring riders directly to our hospital for medical care. It is centralized where people live and work so we believe this route is the best way to serve the most people. This route would also have the greatest impact on the region because it will improve the transportation options for the communities of Montebello, Commerce, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier.

The Washington Boulevard Alternative has the highest overall ridership figures, highest overall net new riders, greatest overall user benefit hours and minimal disruption to streets due to its aerial alignment. Implementation of the Washington Boulevard Alternative can accommodate the aerial station configuration with minimal impacts to community life and traffic circulation. The Washington Boulevard Alternative has a large employment base in the Cities of Commerce, Pico Rivera, Whittier and the surrounding areas.

We are grateful to have this opportunity to present Metro with our letter of support and hope that it encourages you to consider the positive impact this route will have on the businesses, residents and employers in this area.

Sincerely,

James R. West President and Chief Executive Officer Presbyterian lntercommunity Hospital

April 13, 2010

VIA E-MAIL [email protected]

Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

SUPPORT OF WASHINGTON BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT for EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 WHITTIER. CALIFORNIA

Many of us over the age of 50 may never see the completion of the Gold Line Extension to our community. But as adults, it is our responsibility to make sound decisions today that will benefit our children and future generations. The Washington Boulevard Alignment makes sense today, and it makes sense for our future.

As a business owner for 16 years in the Whittier area, I have learned that a successful business requires you to carefully monitor yourexpenses and invest your revenues wisely. The fact is that the Washington Boulevard Alignment will provide more transit stations, and reach a larger number of businesses and residents, all at a lower cost per rider.

As an Architect, I am trained to be a visionary, a creative problem solver and sensitive to the environment and knowledgeable of effective land use: Contrary to the alternative route, the Washington Boulevard Alignment has fewer environmental and geotechnical obstacles to solve.

The purpose of light rail is to get people out of their cars. This alignment will more effectively utilize existing mass transit systems, and will provide a more direct link with future Orange County systems. There are also more opportunities present along the Washington Boulevard Alignment for redevelopment and transit-related projects.

I support the Washington Boulevard Alignment because it makes the most sense economically, environmentaily and geotechnicaliy; and will be the most effective for future generations.

MCDONNELL GROUP

R.D.-MCDONNELL, AIA, CSI Principal

13215 E. Penn St., Suite 310 o Whittier, CA 90602 o Email: [email protected] o Fax: (562) 907-4428 o Voice: (562) 907-4426

JIM EMERY, GRI Broker. (icnerd lAonag9

April 7,2010

Ms. ICimberly Yu Project Maiage~, Metro One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, Ca. 90012

15025 EWIllTIER BLVD. IVHITTIER. CA 90603

BUS, (562) 915-2221 DIRECT (562) 788-5332

FAX (562) 696-1454 PAQER (714) 268-3335

Dear Ms. Yu,

As a life long resident of Whittier and owner of the largest and highest producing Real Estate company in Whittier, I an1 writing to you to ad my support along with nlany of my associates and friends to the Washington Boulevard Metro Light Rail Alternative Proposal. Our office is located in Whittier, however we sell many homes each month in all of the siurounding cities. By choosing the Washington Boulevard Route the home values and the demand for homes in these co~n~nunities would be greatly benefited.

Many of our current and liopefully future residents need to cotnmni1te daily to Los Angeles, itnd even beyond, for employment. Whittier and the surrounding Cities are made up to a big part by working class blue collar families. M a ~ y of which have only one or even no cars. These folks need to rely on public transportation. Having a light Rail Station in ow coininunity would serve as a convenient and well need vehicle for our present and future residents as they travel to and from work daily. I a11 quiet certain ridership would be very high if the Washington Boulevard route was choseti.

We strongly believe that the Washington Boulevard Alternative makes the most sense of all the proposcd alternatives, as it would serve the needs of the resident of all of the surxounding cites and at the san~e time increase the desirability to attract new residents and help to increase ow property values.

ames H, Emery PresidentlBroker

Attacb; list of signat1u.e~ of local Realtors a ~ d Residents that support the Washington Boulevard Alternative

Each Oflice Is lndependenlly Owned And Operated,


Subject: FW: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:01 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]>

From: Esther Mejia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:02 PM To: Yu, Kimberly

0 0 0 3 4 3

Subject: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

To whom it may concern, As a community member and stakeholder I am writing to support the Washington Blvd. Light Rail Transit option for the Metro Eastside Transit Corridor. There is a need for additional public transportation in that route.

Best regards,

K. i Ul c I-+ ! i-5 c , lf.136 5. L!.aticf A\/?. ~ L Q S i?nc)e!e:., (':A iJO!i! 5 ( 2 l3)741,-5.31 7 i!x,i. 3 2 2 Fax (21 3)746-!i3 i ?

Page 1 of I


Subject: FW: Support for Gold Line to Whittier Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:01 PM

1 From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

From: David Paddy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:57 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Support for Gold Line to Whittier

Dear Ms. Kimberly Yu, I am writing in support of the proposed extension of the Gold Line to Whittier. As a professor a t Whittier College, I can think of countless advantages this would have for our students, especially in terms of helping them gain access to so many of the museums, libraries and events throughout the Los Angeles area. It would truly help open up Whittier to the rest of the city. In so many of our courses, we try to give students a sense of the importance of sustainability and better environmental living, which public transportation like this could only help to reinforce and bring into practice. Finally, as residents of Whittier my wife and I would find the Metro line to be an amazing asset for Whittier and it would be something we would take great advantage of. Having previously lived in cities like Washington, D.C. and London, I know the joys of a great metro system. I can think of no negatives.

Thank you for your time, David Paddy and Carolyn Brucken, Whittier


Subject: FW: Going for the gold in Whittier! Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:10 PM

i From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]~, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]~

From: Judith Naimi-Yazdi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:10 PM To: Yu, Kimberly

0 0 0 3 4 5

Cc: Vanessa Andrade; McKernan George Subject: Going for the gold in Whittier!

Dear Ms. Kimberly Yu:

Kaplan International Center at Whittier College is a year-round English language school that teaches international students. As short term residents of the area, few are in possession of a car and therefore rely heavily on the public transportation system. In summer, we average around 400 students whose main purpose is to tour the sites of the greater Los Angeles area. Of course, we feel strongly that the extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would improve the students' transportation for educational and recreational trips throughout the LA area. In addition, the "tourist dollar" is an important part of the economy of the area. With the convenience of the Gold Line, tourists, such as our students, and residents alike will be able to make more frequent visits to downtown. We hope that you will endorse the Whittier proposal for the Gold Line. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Judith Naimi-Yazdi Judith Naimi-Yazdi Academic Manager, DSO Kaplan International Center at Whittier College 13509 Earlham Dr. Whittier, CA 90608 Tel. 562-693-9023 Fax 562-693-9592

This message is confidential, and it is intended only for its intended recipient. If you are not that intended recipient, this message was sent to you in error. Please do not review this message, store it, or distribute i t in any way. Instead please notify the sender and delete this message and any attachments.

Lewis Operating Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue IF. 0. Box 670 / U~land, California 91785-0670 (909) 985-0971 FAX: (909) 949-6700

April 9, 2010

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Ms. Kimberly Yu

Project Manager

One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2

Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: Support of the Gold Line Extension via the Washington Boulevard route

Dear Ms. Yu:

The Lewis Group of Companies ("Lewis") is one of the nation's largest and fiscally sound

privately held development companies. We are currently exploring development opportunities

in eastern Los Angeles County, including a potential mixed use development in the City of

Whittier.

Lewis Is pleased that the Lo5 Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("Metro")

will be extending the Gold Line. We believe the light rail extension of the Gold Line along either

the SR-60 or Washington Boulevard routes will be beneficial to the transportation needs of the

region; however, Lewis contends the Washington Boulevard route would have superior benefit

to the communities in the region for the following reasons:

The Washington Boulevard route is projected to have a greater number of new transit

riders and highest overall ridership.

The Washington Boulevard route will provide transit to the highest number of low

Income households and households without vehicles.

The Washington Boulevard route is more compatible with existing and proposed

development objectives.

The Washington Boulevard route provides transit alternatives to employees, students,

and visitors at both Whittier College and Presbyterian intercommunity Hospital.

Lewis is appreciative of Metro's continued efforts to provide transit solutions in this region and

we look forward to seeing the Gold Line extension come to fruition.

Sincerely,

Executive Vice President

Wednesday, April 14,2010 2:21 PM

Subject: FW: Attn: Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager (Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2) Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:03 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias [email protected], Melissa Holguin [email protected] Conversation: Attn: Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager (Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2)

From: Rosa Ugarte [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:01 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Attn: Ms. Kimberly Yu Project Manager (Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2)

To: Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager

(Metro) One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

We local business owners and property owners are barely learning that Metro has proposed a rail transit system (Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2) through our local city streets. Only by word of mouth and rumors did we become aware of such a large project. Some of us have attempted look up this project on Metro's website, but find it quite difficult to navigate as the site has numerous links. Our greatest concern is how we will be affected by this project. What can we do to ensure our daily operation of businesses, and properties will be protected? We would like to be contacted and be kept informed as much as possible through phone/email/ and panel discussions. The following contact l i s t below is from the individuals of business owners and property owners who would like to be involved as much as possible as these projects progress. Here is a l is t for the moment, and we will keep updating you of others who would like to be informed. Can you please inform us that you have received this email.

Name:Rosa Ugarte Business Name/Property Address:Ordonez Mexican Restaurant 872 N Garfield Ave. Montebello CA 90640 # of ~ r s In Business/Yrs of Property Ownership: 33 years Phone Number: 323-707-4488

Page 1 of 3

Email: r [email protected]

Name: Rosa Ugarte Business NameIProperty Address: Piccolo Mondo Italian Restaurant 886 N Garfield Ave, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In Business/Yrs of Property Ownership: 6 years Phone Number: 323-707-4488 Email: r [email protected]

Name: Rosa Ugarte/ Carlos R Valle Business NameIProperty Address: Ordonez Mexican Products, Inc. (Corporate Office) 866 N Garfield Ave, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In BusinessIYrs of Property Ownership: 33 years Phone Number: 323-707-44881 323-864-9054

Name: Leticia Pelayo Business NameIProperty Address: City Music DJs 880 N Garfield Ave, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In BusinessIYrs of Property Ownership: 2 yrs

(

Phone Number: 323-791-0303

Name: Song Jachol Business NameIProperty Address: Garfield Coin Laundry 888 N Garfield Ave, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In Business/Yrs of Property Ownership: 3 yrs Phone Number: 213-200-1399 Email:

Name: Jennifier Lin Business NamelProperty Address: Via Nails 2843 Via Campo, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In Business/Yrs of Property Ownership: 8 years Phone Number: 323-832-9245 Email:

Name: Edelmira Urbina Business NameIProperty Address: Elegante Men & Women Hair Design 864 N Garfield Ave, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In Business/Yrs of Property Ownership: 12 years Phone Number: 323-724-1436

Page 2 of 3

Email:

I Name: Jane Mar Business NamefProperty Address: Chinese Garden Restaurant 856 N Garfield Ave, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In BusinessfYrs of Property Ownership: 47 years Phone Number: 323-722-6484 Email:

Name: Diana Guo Business NamefProperty Address: East West Bank 2825 Via Campo, Montebello CA 90640 # of Yrs In BusinessfYrs of Property Ownership: 35 years Phone Number: 323-723-2311 Email:

Page 3 of 3

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2 2 1 PM

Subject: FW: Good as Gold Line to Whittier Date: Tuesday, April 13,2010 1:02 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: Overmyer-Velazquez Rebecca [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:52 AM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Good as Gold Line to Whittier 0 0 0 3 4 8

Dear Ms. Yu,

I arn writing in support of the Washington Blvd. route since it would improve public transportation to and from Whittier. If that route is selected, it is likely that a shuttle service would connect the station at PIHIS Points with Uptown Whittier and the College. I am a Whittier College professor and I am enthusiastic about the following potential impacts of this route on our students:

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would expand the opportunities for Whittier College. studentsto volunteer their services to various organization throughout LA.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would improve access for students to internships and jobs.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would enhance the educational experience of Whittier College students by expediting their access to museums, libraries, and research sites throughout the LA area.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would reduce traffic congestion and pollution for many commuting students as well as the thousands of visitors to campus each year.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would improve the safety of students' transportation for educational and recreational trips throughout the I,A area.

Moreover, the Washington route has the highest overall daily ridership figures, highest overall net new riders, greatest overall user benefit hours and minimal disruption to streets due to its areal alignment. Implelnentation of the Washington Boulevard Alternative can accommodate the aerial stations

Page 1 of 2

configuration with minimal impacts to community quality of life and traffic circulation. The Washington Alternative has a large employment base in Commerce, Pico Rivera Town Center and Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, a major employer and healthcarc provider in Whittier.

The SR-60 route has the fewest overall transit supported land uses, lowest overall employment density, lowest overall population density, most overall property acquisitions and passes through an environmentally sensitive area. This is the most transit unfriendly route and seems to mostly serve the car commuters on eastbound SR-60 with four park-and-ride stations.

Thank you for your consideration,

Rebecca Overmyer-Velazquez Associate Professor Department of Sociology Whittier College 562-907-4200 ~ 4 3 5 3

Page 2 of 2


Subject: FW: Metro Light Rai l Route , Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:01 PM

From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: Patricia Lund [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:55 AM 0 0 0 3 4 9 To: Yu, Kimberly Cc: [email protected] Subject: Metro Light Rail Route

Hello. The Whittier Republican Women Federated, a t our meeting on April 9, passed a unanimous resolution supporting the WASHINGTON BOULEVARD route for the new Metro line. We are a large, active group in Whittier who are interested in community action and the growth of Whittier. We feel the Washington Blvd. Route would be most helpful for our population. Please add our group to the list of supporters for this route.

Thank you, Patricia Lund, President, WRWF [email protected]

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14,2010 2 2 2 PM

Subject: FW: My Comments Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:00 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

From: Alice Serna [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:26 AM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: FW: My Comments

From: Alice Serna

Sent: Tuesday, April 13,2010 11:24 AM

To: '[email protected]' Subject: My Comments

Well, after reading the Whittier Daily News and seeing that a Coalition of 27 cities and numerous unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County unanimously endorsed the light-rail extension along Washington Boulevard from East Los Angeles to Whittier, I felt I had to voice my opinion once again. I strongly disagree with their decision since none of the people who are for this light-rail extension reside on Washington Blvd., they do not care what impact it would have for many of the residence that do live directly on Washington Blvd. My home faces north on Washington Blvd, not only will the construction of this project be a big inconvenience for the other people who live directly on Washington Blvd., but the dust, noise, detours and huge machinery involved with this project would be bother-some. I own the only 2-story home on the main street and do not want to see that eye sore every time I look out my front door. My question at one of the meetings was whether the value of my home would depreciate because of this light-rail, and no one was able to answer my question. I strongly agree with

Page 1 of 2

Montebello Mayor Molinari who says the route of the Pomona Frwy would be more beneficial and supports that route. Please feel free to contact me

' at anytime.

Thank you, Alice Serna


Subject: FW: Get the Gold Line to Whittier via Washington! . Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:00 PM

r From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: Hill Christine [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:36 PM 000351 To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Get the Gold Line to Whittier via Washington!

Dear Ms Yu,

Please accept this email as a letter of support for the Gold Line extension to take the Washington Blvd route. As a former college student in Whittier, and a working professional commuting from Whittier to the greater Los Angeles area, I have used public transportation for

I 3 years. To put it simply, it was very difficult to get from Whittier to downtown Los Angeles, the airport, and other local attractions. Through my daily use of public transportation, I saw firsthand how many other people depend on public transportation to get them to their jobs.

1 believe it would be in the best interest of Whittier, and the larger Los Angeles area, for a l l of the surrounding communities to be joined by the light rail system. Not only would it increase the number of people who would use public transportation, but it would also reduce traffic congestion along heavily used streets (Washington BlvdIWhittier Blvd) and highways.

Additionally, the metro can tap into a, thus-far, underutilized resource of revenue through encouraging college students to use public transportation. There has been a great initiative in West Los Angeles connecting Santa Monica Community College and UCLA to neighborhoods in the area, however, it has yet to be done in suburbs to the east. Whittier College, Rio Hondo College, and local high schools would all benefit from this new addition, especially as many of these students are interested in accessing the great number of activities the wider Los Angeles area has to offer.

It has been my long held dream to be able to take public transportation to go shopping in Pasadena, or catch a flight at LAX, or spend the day a t the beach. I am sure many other people in this area share the same dream. I urge you take advantage of this opportunity to INVEST in public transportation and utilize it to i ts fullest.

Page 1 of 2

Sincerely,

Christine Hill Admissions Counselor Whittier College 13406 Philadelphia S t Whittier, CA 90608 (562) 907-4238 [email protected]

Please consider the ecoloaical impact before printing this email.


Subject: FW: Bring the Gold Line to Whittier! Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:27 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

From: Herrick Jenny [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:46 AM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Bring the Gold Line to Whittier!

Dear Ms. Yu,

I am writing to express my strong belief that the Gold Line would be of immeasurable benefit to the Whittier Community College. I know that many of our students, faculty and staff would be daily riders (and I would be one of those riders, as I live along the Gold Line in Highland Park and face an hour+ of traffic daily). Our students coininute from all over Los Angeles, and the extension would surely ease their cornmutes and congestion. It would also enable students to more readily access the cultural benefits of the greater Los Angeles area. I would estimate that fewer than half of our students have cars, and because of this, planning class field trips becomes tricky. The Gold Line would enable students to visit museums, concerts and plays and to hold jobs and internships in and around greater Los Angeles. At the moment, these things are not possibilities for a large number of our students. The extension to Washington ~ l v d . would most likely prove most beneficial to the the Whittier College community and to the Whittier community (among others) at large.

I thank you for your time and consideration, and I strongly support the Gold Line extension.

Sincerely, Jenny Herrick

Assistant Professor of Art Whittier College

Page 1 of 1


Subject: Good Gold Line to Whitter Date: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:07 PM From: Swift Cheryl <[email protected]> 0 0 0 3 5 3 To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]>

Please consider Whittier College as an important source of trips if the Gold Line extension comes to Whim'er. Faculty, s ta f f and students are likely to take advantage of this for their personal trips, class trips, and commute.

Cheryl Swift

Cheryl Swift PhD

James lrvine Professor of Biological Sciences

Chair, Environmental Science

Departments of Biology and Environmental Science

Whim'er College

Whim'er, CA

Page 1 of 1


Subject: Gold Line to Whittier Date: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:56 PM From: Ginger Maneske [email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> r[ 0 0 0 3 3 t Hello. Ms. Kimberly Yu

I'm just dropping you an email to help emphasize the importance of having the Gold Line extended to Whittier. This would be such a great opportunity for students in Whittier to explore Los Angeles more. Not only would it provide the easy transportation, we would be able to attend jobs, internships, libraries, museums, etc, t o help further our education and help expand our knowledge and experience in getting to know what kind of opportunities are out there for us. I would greatly appreciate this act to go through because I don't have a car, and sometimes the bus does not have easy routes for me t o take, so to get from point A to point B can sometimes be challenging. Extending the Gold Line to Whittier would also cut down on the amount of pollution that Los Angeles commuters produce. This Gold Line would be very easily accessible for most of the commuter students a t Whittier College, and also help with the amount of pollution that's going on. And being a part of the Environmental Club a t Whittier College, and assisting in the the whole college going green, this would be such a great addition to what we are trying to promote as well and cleaning up the city a little more. Thank you for your time in reading this and I hope this goes through, making i t easier for future Whittier College students.

Ginger Maneske


Subject: Gold Line to Whittier thumbs up! Date: Monday, April 12,2010 3:43 PM

1 From: Ross Linda <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]>

Hello Ms. Yu,

I am the Director of Career Planning a t Whittier College where I advise and counsel students everyday about their future plans. One of the most common concerns that students have about exploring potential career paths, joining in some of the wonderful community service opportunities in the greater LA area, or simply finding a job to help them pay for their college education, is how to get beyond the borders of little Whittier without a car. Many students would find their horizons literally open up to valuable instructive internships and professional opportunities if they had the means to simply board the Gold Line into the city. We also are encouraging our campus to reduce i t s carbon footprint and having access to this option would be greatly beneficial for the humans and the planet! The benefits would extend into the future since it would introduce the next generation of commuters to a new way of getting to work in So. California.

Thank you for your time, Linda

Linda A. Ross, MA Director of Career'Planning Whittier College PO Box 634 Whittier, CA 90608 562-907-4230 www.wtiittier.edu/career

"The greatest achievements were at first and for somefime, dreams" James Allen

~ V E I Irrrrl 1 ; ~ 1 1 1 0 1

: 0 1. 1. 1: c; I:,

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14,2010 225 PM

Subject: please extend Gold Line to Whittier Date: Monday, April 12,2010 3:28 PM From: Bak John <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> 000356 Dear Ms. Yu:

Please act t o extend the Gold Line t o Whittier. In my job a t Whittier College, I work to build connections between the community and the college for the benefit of both. Having a Gold Line terminus here would greatly facilitate the development of stronger and more productive college-community relations in addition to serving more people in general. Thank you for giving serious consideration to making this the recommended option.

Sincerely,

John Bak

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John J. Bak

Director, Foundation Relations

Office of Advancement

Assistant Professor

Theatre and Communications Arts

Whittier College

13406 Philadelphia Street

P.O. Box 634

, Whittier, CA 90608

Advancement Tel: 562-907-4298

Theatre Dept. Tel: 562-907-4834

Advancement Fax: 562-907-4927

Email: [email protected]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 2 of 2

Wednesday, April 14,2010 225 PM

T o whom it may concern

I was excited to see that Washington Blvd in Whittier was a strong candidate for the extension of the Metro Gold Line, and I wanted to voice my strong support.

When I lived in Little Tokyo, I was a daily Metro ride (Red Line) to my work in Universal City. I was always happy to walk to Union Station and then the short walk to my work from the Universal City station. It was a great feeling to never have to get into my car to get to work and back.

After relocating back to Whittier, I am now spending more time in my car than I prefer, and a Gold Line option would be fantastic. It is also a great option for my leisure time and getting into the city.

As a visiting Professor at Whittier College this year, 1 know that giving the students that type of public transit access will encourage exploration of all the art and culti~re that LA has to offer.

It appears to me from the ridership v. cost analysis that Whittier is the best available option, and I personally hope it is chosen.

Scott Sauter

Page 1 of 1


Subject: good gold line to Whittier Date: Monday, April 12,2010 2:17 PM From: Sanders Kay <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> 0 0 0 3 5 8 Dear Ms. Kimberly Yu:

I am a professor a t Whittier College who commutes daily to Whittier. I am writing you to express strongly my support for the proposed extension of the Gold Line via the Washington Blvd, route. As an extensive traveler globally, I am always saddened that in my own hometown we fail to provide safe, efficient, fast, and inexpensive transportation options for the city populace; while every other major metropolitan area in the world can.

Please support the extension of the Gold Line onto Washington BI. so that students and the community can access an important destination point of the Whittier community. Below are several points that highlight how important the Washington BI. extension is:

The extension of the Gold Line t o Whittier would expand the opportunities for Whittier College students to volunteer their services to various organization throughout LA.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would improve access for students to internships and jobs.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would enhance the educational experience of Whittier College students by expediting their access to museums, libraries, and research sites throughout the LA area.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would reduce traffic congestion and pollution for many commuting students as well as the thousands of visitors to campus each year.

The extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would improve the safety of students' transportation for educational and recreational trips throughout the LA

area.

Thank you for your time.

Kay Sanders

Melissa Holauin Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:25 PM

Subject: Yes! Gold Line to Whittier! Date: Monday, April 12, 2010 2:12 PM

I From: Robert B. Marks <[email protected]> To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]>

Dear Ms. Yu,

As a 32-year resident of Whittier who has seen my opportunities to explore LA diminish because of the clogged freeway traffic, I want to say how much it would mean to me, my friends, and the residents of Whittier (and all points between LA and Whittier) to have the Gold Line extended out Washington Blvd to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital. We would/could al l use it. And, PIH is one of the best hospitals in the LA area!

Thank you for listening,

Robert B. Marks Richard and Billie Deihl Professor of History Whittier College PO Box 634 Whittier, CA 90608 (0) 5621907-4966 (H) 5621693-5233 (f) 5621464-4581

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14,2010 2 : 2 5 PM

Subject: FW: Gold Line for Whittier Date: Tuesday, April 13,2010 7:37 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ron thomson Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:19 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Gold Line for Whittier

As a resident of Whittier, I am writing to support the Gold Line extension along Washington Blvd.

While most of the pros and cons of the two contending routes can be articulated by a recitation of data--potential ridership, cost per mile, impact on the environment, etc.--one factor remains unquantified. Strong citizen support is essential to the success of the extension.

That is why I hope that endorsement of the Washington route, by potential riders like me, will tip Metro's decision in favor of the Whittier terminus.

-- Ron Thomson 1233 1 Camilla St. Whittier, CA 90601

Page 1 of 1

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 2:25 PM

Subject: FW: Best Gold Line extension location Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:36 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]~

From: Susan Gotsch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:19 PM To: Yu, Kimberly ~ 0 0 3 6 1 Subject: Best Gold Line extension location

To: Ms. Kimberly Yu

I am writing to urge that the Washington Blvd, route be selected for the Gold Line extension. I speak as a Whittier resident, a strong supporter of public transportation (which I used extensively when living in Chicago and in the East), and as a faculty member a t Whittier College (former Dean). For me, one of the most important reasons is that the extension of the Gold Line to Whittier would expand the opportunities for Whittier College students, both those who could commute via the Gold Line t o classes, and for those who could become more involved in LA.

We strongly urge students to volunteer their services to various organizations; having the Gold Line would expand these opportunities to LA. Many faculty build in field trips to the city-museums, libraries, and research sites-which again, could be expanded in LA. In addition, there would be more internship possibilities.

My understanding is that the Washington Blvd. route would also be a better choice because:

it would have the highest overall daily ridership figures, highest overall net new riders, and the greatest overall user benefit hours it will cause minimal disruption to streets and can accommodate the aerial stations configuration with minimal impacts the alternative may have additional negative impacts on the environment,

Page 1 of 2

and I it will serve the larger employment base in Commerce, Pico Rivera Town

Center and Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital

Thank you for considering my request.

Susan D. Gotsch, Ph.D. 12331 Camilla St. Whittier, CA 90601


Subject: FW: support for WASHINGTON BL- LRT Date: Tuesday, April 13,2010 7:35 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]~

From: amanda marin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:36 PM To: Yu, Kimberly

0013362

Subject: support for WASHINGTON BL- LRT

Hello, I am writing to you to share my suppol-t for the WASHINGTON BLVD -LRT option. As a lifetime resident of Whittier, CA, I lmow firsthand the difficulties of living in a city with limited freeway access. In addition, I have seen the growing congestion for the 5,605, and 60 fi-eeways which are nearly the only options for a commuter. By choosing the WASHINGTON BLVD - LRT option, many more residents would have a desirable option of using light rail. The sr-60 LRT option would mimic options already available. The WASINGTON BLVD- LRT option would create new necessary options for transit. As an individual who often uses the Gold Line to go to downtown Los Angeles I am a big supporter of light rail tranist. However, the traffic from Whittier to the nearest Gold Line station has at times been in excess of 1 hour. A LRT in Whittier would be the most beneficial to residents of the Los Angeles basin. Thank you, Amanda Masin

5664 Milton PI Whitties, CA 90601 562-234-2658


Subject: FW: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Comments Date: Tuesday, April 13,2010 7:35 AM

' From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]>

From: Christina Galindo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:59 PM To: Yu, Kimberly 0 0 0 3 6 3 Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Comments

Hello Ms. Kimberly Yu,

Please include my email in the documentation of public, comments for evaulation of the existing alternatives of the Eastside Transit Route. I think the environmental impacts that should be considered for the Washington Boulevard route are as follows: (1) Earthquake susceptibility - Pico Rivera has been the epicenter to a recent earthquake and many faults run under the City of Pico Rivera while the route along the Rte 60 would be less susceptible to earthquakes. (2) Crime and gang violence - The route along Washington Boulevard is a dividing line between two rival gang's in Pico Rivera. The risk of gang violence, "tagging" and other physical destruction of property around the metro line would be increased. i f the railway is built along this dividing line. (3) Displacement of .residents - Based on the two possible alternatives, it appears more residents would be displaced i f the railway were built along Washington Boulevard. The residents of Pico Rivera are not willing to give up their homes in exchange for a railway. (4) San Gabriel River crossing - The riverbed which runs perpendicular to Washingtong Boulevard at the edge of Pico Rivera would be an obstacle for the railway to cross into neighboring Whitter, Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk. It would be an additionalexpense of the Washington Boulevard route that does not exist with Rte 60.

Thanks for your time, Christina Galindo

Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:25 PM

Subject: FW: Reevaluating Alternatives I Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:35 AM

From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias [email protected], Melissa Holguin [email protected] Conversation: Reevaluating Alternatives

From: Derrick Lo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:07 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Reevaluating Alternatives

0 0 0 3 6 4

Let me start off by saying that I am very pleased with Metro's strong community outreach efforts, whether it be the regularly scheduled sets of public meetings, the Facebook pages, or the live video streaming (as was done with the recent Regional Connector meeting). It is because of that that I, along with others interested in the continued expansion of Metro Rail, am able to follow the planning process and provide my comments. That being said, I have been following the Gold Line Eastside Extension II project since it began the early scoping process. Now it has been narrowed down to two alternatives: SR-60 and Washington Blvd. May I just say that I am, once again, deeply disappointed with Metro's nonsensical planning. What makes SR-60 and Washington Blvd. logical routes to carry forward into the DEISIDEIR process? The SR-60 would have the Gold Line run alongside the 60 Freeway where there is low density suburban sprawl, expansive strip malls, and tons of wide open space. There are no walkablelpedestrian friendly destinations to speak of. The Washington Blvd. alternative, though a bit better than SR-60, is still terrible. It is an industrial truck corridor (and therefore not very pedestrian friendly) that ends at an isolated hospital. There is nowhere near enough density to warrant an elevated rail line. Most importantly, it completely misses the historic heart of Whittier! My fellow transit advocates and I all agree that these are both TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE options. If these are the final two alternatives, then I recommend the NO BUILD option. What a waste of taxpayer money this would be. Simply extending the rail line farther east for the sake of extending the rail line farther east is simply unacceptable. How about an alternative that caters to PEDESTRIANS (AND NOT CARS)? I recommend re-exploring the BeverlyNhittier Greenway option. An alignment down Beverly would not preclude a potential future HRT extension down Whittier Blvd. and having the train follow an old ROW would provide the best community aesthetic. Since Montebello doesn't want to destroy their newly

Page 1 of 2

completed streetscapes for at-grade LRT, I recommend a subway option under I Beverly. The high cost would be somewhat offset by the use of the Whittier

Greenway.

I sincerely hope you will take my comments and recommendations into consideration as the DEISIDEIR process begins.

Page 2 of 2

Melissa Holguin Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2 2 5 PM

Subject: FW: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 - Public Comment Period Closes April 14! Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:34 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]~

- - From: Van Ajemian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 12,2010 8:32 PM To: [email protected]; Yu,Kimberly Subject: RE: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 - PublicComment Period Closes April 141

Yuki, good evening.

What is needed is direct input by Metro passengers at a level which the MTA board has not permitted until now. The majority on the MTA board should be passengers. Does even one board member regularly ride the bus, light rail, subway or even the Metro Rail?

Probably not. Understandably, it would be unwise to bring this matter up. Unfortunately, the potential of Metro t o serve the public will always be less than what is possible because o f this exclusion.

Van Ajemian, JD [email protected] Montebello, California 90640

> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:05:41-0400 > From: [email protected] >To: [email protected] > Subject: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 - Public Comment Period Closes April 14! > > >

> Having trouble viewing this email? >Click here > > > >


Subject: FW: The larger picture. Date: Tuesday, April 13,2010 7:33 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: on day, April 12, 2010 10:49 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: The larger picture.

I know there are two choices now.

To help make a decision on what route. Would it be smart to think about where the route would go after this decision. My question is it better to continue down the 60 fwy past ElMonte or down Washington Blvd. past Whittier.

Thanks

. I Steve Manookian 562-695-3558

0 + r o d ' r , r -7 2 I - A

, B- 6 sYa- ;

r 3 - u q y. 4

C u o $ 3

Metro ~asts ide ran sit Corridor Phase 2 I Pico Rivera Scoping Meeting

Pio Pico Women's Center, 9214 Mines Ave., Pico Rivera February 22, 2010, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00..p.m.

Comment Sheet 0 0 0 3 6 7

Name: Reynaldo Hcrvlsnole z Affiliation (i.e. organization, resident, business):

Address: qZ60 L V c t s h ; ~ ~ - L ~ ~ha lUf '?ko t , b e e 90660

Phone/Cell: ( 3 6 2 , ) 449- 98SZ

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your commentson the alternatives or on any other project information. X sf-i-o>?~lv rnulw.ye 4-h c G3ccs

, . e , The nmis 3Us~;kv .F / I F . nnu rrdl'ns qnd

Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed by April 14, 2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99.22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 213-922-3005.

p b + +a ~ A P h r a c ~ + e ,

1 beJli-ue +LVL S L C T R o ~ I e 40 1-k 7- WO~LIO( be b e - f t r ~ 2'4- ~ o w l d d i *sp \acc ,bpac+ lr3-T j0cofJ)t ioccav ic c e u 1 4 run

~ 1 0 ~ ~ o r ~ Y I + A e Creeto~y, There sre nlkrn4tr rowks frnvel . '

L ~ S . (LO*ID( b-e &srd cc, h1'l.e *c~s.~rccc-ft%v\ ,> go~;ly aM #he 60 r .- r ec WCLL 1. 1 h e c0,s-t r ~ r t k 4 60 ~ f l i J'S m-h loss j k q r ~ -/-he

.. .

""3 ' i ' o s - t - 0 ~ 81 d. L R 7. a w e bG Iij F u k v c /;Y\es coCll4 he b ~ ; !+ "-"+'on. &am t l \ a + ' p a i n t . ,BU mu IJI ~ I S O Y u f l OFF -j)t9+

0u-l-e +O r d e s - k , ~ q 4 ; e n ~ in -\-he a r e a .

Wednesday, April 14,2010 2:35 PM

Subject: FW: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 -Public Comment Period Closes April 141 Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:16 PM From: Kimberly Y u <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias [email protected], Melissa Holguin [email protected] Conversation: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 - Public Comment Period Closes April 14!

From: Project Amiga [mailt~:~roject~arni~a@~ahoo.corn] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:16 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Fw: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 - Public Comment Period Closes April 14!

South El Monte needs Metro East. The only way to move our public to where the jobs are is by public hansportation. Our community is at 18% unemployment, the youngest population and in need of public transportation. Now is the time to support a project that makes sense and will be cost effective.

Irene E. Poi-tillo Project Amiga South El Monte, CA

Page 1 of 1

RFSOLUTION NO. 2010-~~j-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS ENDORSING THE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT FOR THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRlDOR PHASE I1 PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is considering alternate routes for the Eastside Transit Conidor Phase I1 project, which is proposed to "bridge the gap between the Metro Gold Line and the activity centers not currently served by rail";

WHEREAS, Metro is currently evaluating two possible alignments starting from the Gold Line terminus at the intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and Pomona Boulevard in East Los Angeles, including the Washington Boulevard alignment, which follows SR-60 to Gartield Avenue and then travels south on Washington Boulevard to the Presbyterian lntercomunity Hospital near Whinier Boulevard; and the SR-60 alignment, which follows SR-60 to IdOSiPeck Road;

WHEREAS, Metro is in the scoping phase for the Eastside Transit Conidor Phase I1 project and will receive public comments through April 14,2010;

WHEREAS, the City of Whittier has requested support for the Washington Boulevard alignment, and the Washington Boulevard alignment would also benefit residents of La Habra Heights;

WHEREAS, the Eastside Transit Conidor Phase I1 Alternative Analysis demonstrates that the Washington Boulevard alignment has more potential riders, stronger passenger growth prospects, better connection to employment for ttansit-dependent populations, and the least impact on surrounding land uses than the SR-60 alignment; and

WIIEREAS, the SRdO alignment would traverse a potentially sensitive biological resource at the Whinier Narrows Recreation Aree, and pass directly through a SuperfUnd site, potentially harming the Los Angeles region's sensitive environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Nabm Heights endorses the Washington Boulevard alignment for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase I1 project, which follows SR-60 to Garfield Avenue and travels south on Washington Boulevard to the Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this E h d a y of March ,2010 by the City Council of the City of La Habra Heights in the State of Califom

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Baroldi, Bergman, carroll , Vipperman, a n d Westerhoff NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Shauna Clark, City Clerk do hereby attest to and certify the attached ResolutionNo. 2010-46 adopted by the City Council of the City of La Habm Heights on March 1 1 ,2010.

Shauna Clark, City Clerk 3 . \ ( . 10

Date

1;" ec City of Pico Rivera ILL

i; d City Council Gregory Salcido

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC MOYO~O~

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Bob J.Archuleta

Mayor Pro Tem

661 5 Passons ~oulevard. Pico ~iveia,~aiifornia 90660 David W.Armenta .. , Cooncilmember

(562) 801-4332 Fax (562) 949-0280 GustavoV.Camacho

Web: ~v+v~v.~icn-rivera.org . e-!nail: [email protected] Councilmember

Jeff Brnuckma~ln Director

Kimberly Yu Project Manager Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

April 14,2010

Re: METRO EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 -WASHINGTON BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT SUPPORT IMPACTS COMMENTS AND CONCERNS

Dear Ms. Yu:

As a Gateway Cities Council of Governments member, the City of Pico Rivera would like to individually and collectively express support for the Washington Boulevard alignment. The Washington Boulevard alignment has proven to be the superior alignment as travel times, route length, capital costs pcr lnilc and projected average weekday ridership numbers have surpassed all others. However, there are several impacts that should be thoroughly analyzed, mitigated and made part of the EWEIS process.

A station with a park-and-ride has been preliminarily discussed by Metro, with the park-n-ride to be located within the Pico Rivera Towne Center. Staff requests that possible alternative sites be evaluated. A parking analysis for transit users and commercial parking users for this park-n-ride should be included in the environmental document. Security and maintenance issues associated with park-n-ride should also be evaluated and mitigated for. In order to supplement additional comments, staff requests the anticipatedlpreliminary station location and design specifications be provided as soon as they are available.

The following is a list of general impacts that should be analyzed within the Draft EIWEIS.

* Provide specific infosmation regarding proposed/potential mitigation measures for residential properties affected during and after construction. (i.e, possible acquisition, sufficient outrcacWnotification, access, noise, vibrations, lighting, parking, traffic, circulations, dust, security, maintenance, etc.)

0 Provide specific infosmation regarding proposed mitigation measures for businesses affected during and after construction. (i.e. possible acquisitions, traffic, circulation, site distance, signage, access, lighting, noise, vibrations, parking, dust, loss of clientele,

Metro EastsideTransit Conidor Phase 2 April 14,2010 Page 2 o f 2

security, sufficient ootreach/notification, niainteiiance, etc.) 'The EIRlElS should include an ecoiio~nic analysis detailing the impacts to the business community and City. How will Metro assist businesses to ensure they do not fail due to loss of clientelc during construction?

0 Ensure that all residential, con~mercial, and industrial property owners are giver1 sufficient and proper notification. A residential and business impact liaison should be available to alleviate concerns. Surrounding and affected residential, com~lercial and industrial properties should have proper and ample notice to comment on the draft EWEIS.

Q Ensure Metro works with the City of Pico Rivera to address all aesthetic and safety (pedestrianltraffic) concerns. Washington Boulevard is a high traffic and pedestrian thoroughfare. Development on public right-of-way should be properly mitigated. Metro should ensure that City staff have ample opportunity to comment on preliminary and specific design concepts. Ample a?-1, landscaping and safety features should be included and made part of the overall project budget.

The California High Speed Rail Authority (CAI-ISRA) cul~ently has two possible ali~nments that traverse Pico Rivera. The EIRJEIS must address the land use, social, aesthetic and economic impacts if all alignments are built.

The City would like to reiterate its support and enthusiasm for the Washington Boulevard alignnicnt. The benefits of regional light rail will be shared by the region, residents and business owners alike. I-Iowcver, developn~ents of this size and magnitude have significant impacts that must bc mitigated appropriately. Should you have any questions please call me at 562 801-4332 or Art Ccrvantes, Public Works Deputy Director at (562) 801-4415.

Cordially, h

Deputy Director Coii~munity & Economic Development Departnieiit

Attachments: Resolution No. 6449

City of Pico Rivera CR"T' CLERK'S OFFiCE

661 5 Passons Boulevard. Pico Rivera,California 90660 (562) 801-4390

Web: ,'?I*<. nice-riveraorq . e.muil: [email protected]

i)aryl,\. Bctaneur Cily Clcrk

June 10.2000

City Council GracieGallegos

M")or

Bob J. Archulers tAoyor~lo nrn

DavidW.Armenta Co~n~i lnen iber

Ronald M.8eilke Caun~ilmembcr

Gregory Salcido Counrllmenrber

I, Duyl A. Betancur, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed City Clerk of the City of Pico Rivera, California and that the foregoing Resolution No. 6449 Suppoqing Washington Boulevard Route as The Primary Route and Whittier Boulevard as a Secondary Route for the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension is a copy of the original in the Cily Clcrk's Office.

I declare the foregoing to be trueand correct under penalty of perjury, this day ofJune, 2009 - .&l2-&~ LLLLLLLLL

1)an.i A. Betancur. City Clerk . . City of Pico Rivera. California

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PIC0 RIVERA, CAEIFORWL+ SUPPORTING WASHINGTON BOZiLEVARD ROUTE AS THE PRIMARY ROUTE AND WWRTPER BOULEVARD AS .4 SECONDARY ROUTE FOR THE METRO GOLD LINE EASTSIDE EXTENSION

WHEREAS, Melro has colnpleted the Alternatives Analysis (AA) study that evaluares porential alternatives for the second phase of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Exteusion cul-rently under construction. The goal of the proposed study is to improve mobility in the corridor by connecting to co~nmunities further east of' Los Angeles. Communities in the study area include the cities of Bell, Co~nmercc, Downey, El IvIonte, Industry, Los Angeles, Montebellu, Monterey Pwk, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte, Whittier and unincorporated portions of 1,os Angeles County; and

WHEREAS, the Eastside Transir Conidor Phase 2 project seeks to iinprove transit service to an area hainpered by traffic congestion and currently not served by the rail system. Travel deinand in the direction of downtown 1,os Angeles is particularly pronounced and projected io intensify in the coming years. Freeways and arterial slreets in the area are frequently choked with traffic during peak hours, yet the area is expected to grow quickly over the next few decades.

WHEREAS, Metro is recommending the advancement of light rail transit (L.RT) alternatives into the Draft Environ~nental Impact StatemenlIDraft Environmental Impact Report (DEISDEIR) for further technical and environmental review. There are four light rail altematives: SR-60, Beverly Boulevard, Beverly/Whittier Boulevard and Washington Boulevard. Metro is in the process of further eliminating andlor refining altematives through focus groups with key stakeholders. In addition to these alternatives, Metro will also smdy a "No Build" Alternative and a Transponation Syslelns ~Managenent (TSUI) Alternative (i.e., senlice improvements to existing bus lines) in the DEISJUEIR; and

WHEREAS, the Washington Boulevard alternative would continue eastward from the I'hase 1 terininal station via the sane alignment as the Beverly and Whic~ier alternatives but continues south along South Garfield Avenue on aerial structure to Washington Boulevard where it turns east and follows Wshing~on Boulcvard on an aerial structure to the terminal station at Lambert Road. Washington Boulevard ranges in width from four to six lanes, and is a major truck route and cornmuter alternative to 1-5. It

WESOLUTXOX NO; 3 4 3 Page 2 of 3

passes through areas mostly zoned for commercial and industrial uses. The elevated component along parts of Garfield Boulevard and all of Washington Boulevard will serve to eliminate conflicts with truck traffic along the Washington Boulevard conidor; and

WHEREAS, the Washington Boulevard alternative offers a number of advanrages: it serves a larger regional population; has the highest ridelship out of the four alternatives; it creates Inore even geographic distribution between major transportation corridors, including the SR-60, 91: and 1-105; and it travels through major transportation corridors through Pico Rivera, Montebello, Commerce, Santa Fe Springs. and Whinier: and

WHEREAS, the Whinier Boulevard alternative would follow east along the 60 fuv, turn south at Garfield Boulevard and east at Beverly Boulevard. The light rail alterr~alivc would turn south at Montebello Boulevard and east on Whittier Boulevard through the City of Pico Rivera to the City of Whittier; and

WHEREAS, the Whittier Boulevard alternative would provide for the second hishest ridership numbers out of the four alternatives.

KOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera, California? does hereby resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council adopts this resolution in support of the Washington Boulevard afternativ: as the primary route of the Eastside Gold Line Transit Conidor Phase 2.

SECTIOFV' 2. The City Council adopts this resolution in support of the Whittier -. Boulevard alternative as the secondary alternative route of the Eastside Gold Line Transit Corridor I'hase 2.

SECTION 3. The Council Funher authorizes and directs staff to take all actions necessary to coinmwiicate d ~ e City's position, mitigate impacts and to advocate for its final adoption.

SECTION 4. "rhe City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoprion of this Resolution, and it shall become effective irnmediately upon its approval.

RESOLUTTON NO. m, Page 3 of 3

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this & day of June , 2009.

,

.. i' - _ _ _ _ _

Gracie ~al iegos , Mayor

ATTEST: APROVED AS TO FORM:

-.-- -P

aryl A, Betancur, City Clerk

AYES: Archuleta , Beilke, S a l c i d o , Gallegos NOES: None ABSEST: Armenta .%STAIN: None


Subject: FW: EPA Comments on Eastside Transit Corridor - Scoping, Purpose and Need, Alternatives , Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:34 AM


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:27 AM To: [email protected]; Yu, Kimberly Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: EPA Comments on Eastside Transit Corridor - Scoping, Purpose and Need, Alternatives

Hello Ray and Kimberly.

Please see attached EPA scoping comments on the Eastside Transit Corridor Project. A hard copy of the letter will follow by mail.

Thank you. Regards, Susan Sturges

Susan Sturges, Life Scientist US Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Review Office 75 Hawthorne St, CED-2 San Francisco, CA 94105

phone: 415-947-4188 fax: 415-947-8026 [email protected]

Page 1 of 2

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

4 8 1 4 m,

Federal Transit Administration Los Angeles Metropolitan Oflice

00031 2 \,.-

888 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1850 Los Angeles, California 9001 7

Subject: Scoping Comments for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 in Los Angeles County, California

Dear Mr. Tellis:

The U.S. Environ~nental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Federal Register Notice published on January 25,2010, requesting comments on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposal to prepare a Draft Environmental Itnpact Statement (EIS) for the Eastside Transit Conidor Phase 2 in Los Angeles County, California. Our comments are provided p~zsuant to the National Environtnental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

On April 12,2010, EPA accepted an invitation to become a "Pasticipating Agency" (as defined in 23 USC 139 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Eflicient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)) and a "Cooperating Agency" (as defined in NEPA). We look fo~ward to working with FTA to ensure that the SAFETEA-LU implementation procedures assist both our agencies in meeting our statuto~y missions.

We commend FTA and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for seeking to improve public transportation service, especially in an area of high transit dependence, high traffic congestion, and impacted air quality. EPA provides Section 6002 SAFETEA-LU comments on the project's purpose and need and range of alternatives in the enclosed detailed comments. EPA's scoping comments, as described in the detailed comments, focus on: (1) air quality; (2) integration with existing facilities; (3) green design and construction; (4) the Operating Industries Inc. Landfill Superfund site; (5) impacts to environniental justice communities; and (6) impacts to water resources.

We appreciate the oppo~tunity to provide comments on the preparation of the Draft EIS and draft Purpose and Need Statement and Range of Alternatives. When the Draft EIS is released

Prir~ted on Recycled Pnper

for public review, please send one hard copy and one disc copy to the address above (mail code CED-2). If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-947-4177 or [email protected].

~incei .e l~,

Susan Sturges Life Scientist Environmental Review Office (CED-2)

Enclosure: EPA's Detailed Comments

CC: Kimberly Yu, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transpoitation Authority

EPA SCOPING COMMENTS FOR EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, APRIL 14,2010

Section 6002 SAFETEA-LU Early Coordination - Purpose and Need and Range of Alternatives

Section 6002 of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that the lead agency provide an opportunity for involvenlent by Participating Agencies in defining the Pu~pose and Need and in determining the Range of Alternatives for a project as early as practicable during the environmental review process. EPA provides the following comments on Purpose and Need and Range of Alternatives, as identified in the January 25,2010 Federal Register notice.

Purpose and Need Federal Transit Administration (FTA) offers the following project purpose within the

P;rpose and Need Statement for comments by the Participating Agencies:

"The pwpose of this project is to itnprovepitblic transit service and /tiobilily in the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2. The project woztldprovide the study area' with itnprovedfixed-guideway east-west transit service from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (Phase 1) to cities farther east of the city of LosAngeles. Possible eastern extensionsfronl the Metro Gold Line Phase 1 terminus at Atlantic Boulevard ~vould geneially continue east parallel to or along State Route- 60 or soztth along Garfield Avenue, turning southeast along Washington Boulevwd The overall goal of theproposedproject is to improve mobility in the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 by extendiizg the benefits of the existing Metro Gold Line and bus investments beyond the current terminus .... "

The Purpose and Needsfor a project should be broad enough to cover the' full breadth of a reasonable range of alternatives. It is critical that the Purpose and Need should not prescribe a solution nor should it imply a predetermined solution, such as an improved fixed-guideway. The Purpose and Need should focus on the underlying problems to address and the reasons a project is considered and should not he written in a way that includes the solution itself. EPA recommends removing references to specific solutions or alignment descriptions from the purpose statement and also removing references to the project's name "Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2" in defining the scope of the project. Alternatively, EPA recommends that FTA consider restating the purpose statement similarly to the project purpose statement in the Scoping Information Packet dated February 4,2010 provided to EPA by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) which more appropriately and broadly define the purpose and the intended scope of the project.

Range of Alternatives The Draft El~viro~lmental Impact Statement @EIS) should explore and objectively

evaluate a range' of reasonable alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, and briefly . . discuss the reasons for eliminating some alternatives from fusther evaluation (40 CFR 1502.14). EPA recommends that the DEIS include a summary of the screening methodology that was used to determine the Range of Alternatives for inclusion in the DEIS. The methodology summary

. .

should include infolGation about which criteria and measures were used at each screening level and how they were integrated in a comprehensive evaluation. The DEIS should also include a description of alternatives that were considered but withdrawn with a summary of why they were eliminated.

Considering that the two proposed Lighf Rail ~ra 'nsit (LRT) alternatives appear to service very different areas (i.e., the SR-60 LRT Alternative terminating in the South Monte area further north, and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, terminating in the Whittier area further south), EPA recommends that the DEIS discuss whether the proposed corridors would have overlap or similarities in ridership for the proposed project scope or if these alternatives would serve different needs and communities. ,If the latter, discuss the benefits and disadvantages of each of the alternatives when considering the overall identified needs for the project.

The DEIS should also identify opportunities for the altelnatives to avoid or minimize adverse environ~nental impacts while fulfilling the project purpose. This may include alignment shifts, buffers, localized design modifications, changes in construction practices, or spanned crossings of sensitive biological resources. As further described below, there is a likely need for a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit for fill of waters of the United States during the NEPA analyses for the Project. This will require documentation that a reaso~iable range of alternatives were analyzed in order to comply with CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Compliance with the 404(b)(l) Guidelines will require that a range of alternative's be evaluated before determining the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).

Air Quality

The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) implements local air quality regulations in the SCAB to carry out Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, as authorized by the EPA. The current SCAB nonattainment designations under the CAA are as follows: carbon monoxide - serious nonattainment; 8-hour ozone - severe tionattainmetit; particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PMlo) - serious nonattainment; and pakticulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PMz,~) - nonattainment. The SCAB has the worst 8-hour ozone and PM2.s problems in the nation, and attainment of these NAAQS will require massive reductions from mobile sources, given the rapid growth in this emissions category and the long lifespan of diesel engines. Because of the air basin's nonattainment status, it is important to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, mobile source air toxics (MSAT) and particulate matter from this project to the maximum extent.

Recommendations: . Ambient Conditions: The DEIS should include a detailed discussibn'of ambient air conditions (i.e., baseline or existing conditions), the area's attainment or nonattainment status for all NAAQS, and potential air quality impacts (including cumulative and indirect impacts) from the construction and operation of the project for each fully 'evaluated alternative.. The DEIS should include estimates of all criteria pollutant emissions and diesel particulate matter (DPM). EPA also recommends that the DEIS

disclose the available information about the health risks associated with construction and truck emissions aud how, the proposed project will affect current emission levels.

8 Relevant Requirements: The DEIS should describe any applicable local, state, or federal requirements~ The DEIS shoulddescribe applicable requirements for Federal Actions that require FTA or Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding or approval and are subject to the Transportation Conformity requirements in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and for Federal Actions that are subject to the General Conformity requirements in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.

e conformity: The DEIS should ensure that the emissions fiom both the construction and the operational phases of the project conform to the approved State Implementation Plan and do not cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. To meet the transportation conformity requirements, the DEIS should demonstrate that the project is included in a conforming transportation plan and transpostation improvement program.

0 Construction: The responsible agency should include a Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan in the DEIS and adopt this plan in the Record of Decision (ROD). In addition to all applicable local, state, or federal requirements, EPA recommends that the following mitigation measures be3ncluded in the Construction En~issions Mitigation Plan in order to reduce impacts associated with emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other toxics from const~uction-related activities:

Fugitive Dust Sotirce Controls: Stabilize open storage piles and disturbed ateas by covering andlor applying water or chemical/organic dust palliative where appropriate. This applies to both inactive and active sites, during workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions. Install wind fencing and phase grading operations where appropriate, and operate water trucks for stabilization of surfaces under windy conditions.

0 When hauling material and operating non-earthmoving equipment, prevent spillage and litnit speeds to 15 miles per hour (mph). Limit speed of earth-moving equipment to 10 mph.

Mobile and Stationary Sotirce Controls: 0 Minimize use, trips, and unnecessary idling of heavy equipment. . Maintain and tune engines per manufacturer's specifications to perform at EPA

certification levels, wh.ere applicable, and to perform at verified standads applicable to retrofit technoloaies. Emvlov periodic. unscheduled inspections to limit - . . A

unnecessary idling and to ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained, tuned. and modified consistent with established specifications. The ~alifornia Air Resources Board has a number of mobile source anti-idling requirements which could be employed. See their website at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/mspro9/tr11ck-idlin9/truck- idling.htm . Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing adherence to manufacturer's recomn?endatious. . If practicable, lease new, clean (diesel or retrofitted diesel) equipment meetiug the most stringent of applicable Federal' or State standardsz. In general, commit to the

' EPA's website for notiroad mobile sources is htto:/ /www.e~a.~ov/~~o~oad/.

' best available emissions cotltrol technology. Tier 4 engines should be used for project construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible3. Lacking availability of non-road cons~uction equipment that meets Tier 4 engine standards, GSA should commit to using the best available emissions control technologies on all equipment. Utilize EPA-registered particulate traps and other appropriate controls where suitable to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and other pollutants at the construction site.

Adtninistrative controls: e Identify all commitments to reduce construction emissions and update the air quality

analysis to reflect additional air quality improvements that would result from adopting specific air quality measures. Identify where implementation of mitigation measures is rejected based on economic infeasibility.

e Prepare an invektory of all equipment prior to construction and identify the suitability of add-on emission controls for each piece of equipment before groundbreaking. (Suitability of control devices is based on: whether there is reduced normal availability of the construction equipment due to increased downtime andlor power output, whether there may be significant damage caused to tlle construction equipmentengine, or whether there may be a significant risk to nearby workers or the public.) Meet CAlZB diesel fuel requirement for off-road and on-highway (i.e., 15 ppm), and where appropriate use alternative fuel sources such as natural gas and electric power. Develop a construction traffic and parking management plan that minimizes traffic interference and maintains traffic flow. Identify sensitive receptors in the project area, such as children, elderly, and infirm, and specify the means by which you will minimize impacts to these populations. For example, locate construction equipment and staging zones away from sensitivereceptors and fresh air intakes to buildings and air conditioners.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainable Comtnunities Sirute~ies

The State of ~alifornia has increased its focus on potential climate change and impacts of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and executive Order S-3-05 recognize the impact that climate change can have within California and provide direction for future reductions of greenhouse gases. In fact, the Natural Resources Agency recently adopted Amendments to the California Envirolunental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30,2009, which became effective on M a c h 18,2010~. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) is aimed at curbing sprawl and reducing vehicle miles traveled in an effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions. SB 375 requires Metropolitan

For ARB e~nissions slandi~rtl~, sec: I~tt~~://~~~vw.ilr~ri~.~~v/~~~s~~rodoffr~i~dlo~~!.I~l!t!!~. ' I)ir.sel c ~ l e i ~ ~ c s < 25 hv rate0 i)o\ver staned ~llwsinx in 'l'ier 4 >ludul Years in 200s l.:irrer 'l'ier 4 ilic$cl cnrinrs will be pilased in depeiding onthe rated power (e.;, 25 hp - <75 hp: 2013; 75 hp - < 175 hp: 2012-2013; 1% hp - < 750 hp: 201 1 - 2013; a n d l 750 hp 201 1- 2015). %Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions are available on-line at: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/g~~ideIinesI.

Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS), which demonstrates how the region will meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set by CARB.

The State of California is also a 2009 iecipient of EPA's Smai? Growth Implementation Assistance (SGIA). The State of California requested assistance in developing a local government sustainable comn~~tnity framework to provide guidance to local jurisdictions in determining which combination of greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies, smart growth practices, and sustainability polipies are best for their communities. At the Federal level under the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, EPA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Depa~tment of Transportation are working together to help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of T~ansportation will assist EPA in implementing the SGIA for the State of California.

EPA recommends that, as practicable, the DEIS identify the cumulative contributions to ' . .

greenhouse gas emissions that will result from implementation of the project, In addition, we recommend that the DEIS discuss the potential impacts of climate,change 011 the project and describe how the project meets the intent of statewide and national sustainability initiatives and goals to develop sustainable communities. Finilly, the DEIS should identify if there are specific mitigation measures needed to 1) protect the project from the effects of climate change, 2) reduce the project's adverse air quality effects, andlor 3) promote pollution prevention and environmental stewardship.

Integration with Existing Facilities

The DEIS should explore the extent to which proposed alternatives will integrate with existing transportation facilities. The document should discuss how the project will impact existing vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths due to project construction or operation. All potential alternatives should identify the opportunities available to better connect all modes of transportation, including heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, standard bus service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Measures to minimize or mitigate impacts to vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian paths should be addressed in the DEIS.

Green Design and Construction

Green Infiash.uclure EPA encourages FTA and LACMTA to implement "green infrastructure," such as

hioretention areas, vegetated swales, porous pavement, and filter strips in any onsite stormwater management features. These features can serve as both stormwater treatment and visual enhancements. More detailed information on these forms of "green infsastructure" can be found at http:/lcfpub.epa.~ov/npdes/home.cfm?~a~n id=248..

Industrial Materials Reuse and Recycling For the construction of new infsastructure, EPA recommends industrial materials

recycling, or the reusing or recycling of byproduct materials generated from industrial processes.

Nonhazardous industrial materials, such as coal ash, foundry sand, construction and demolition materials, slags, and gypsum, are valuable products of industrial processes. .Industrial materials recycling preserves natwal resources by decreasing the demand for virgin materials, conserves energy and reduces greenhouse gas.emissions by decreasing the demand for products made from energy intensive manufacturing processes; and saves money by decreasing disposal costs for the generator and decreasing materials costs for end users. EPA recommends that, for any new construction proposed, the DEIS identify how indushial materials recycling can be incorporated into project design. More information can be found at: h~://ww.epa.nov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/im/index.htni.

Operating Industries Lnc. Landfill

As previously identified by LACMTA,'EPA acknowledges that one of the likely Ijroposed alternatives, the SR-60 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative, may cross an existing EPA Superfund site, the Operating Industries Inc. Landfill (011 Superfund Site). Any activities that could potentially disturb the 011 Superfund Site must be coordinated through the EPA Superfund Program process. Please contact Shiann-Jang (S.J.) Chern, Remedial Project Manager, of our Superfund Program at 415-972-3268 for project coordination with the 011 Superfund Site as additional information becomes available related to proposed activities in proximity to the 011 Superfinld Site.

Based on the limited information provided in the scoping materials, it is unclear if the SR-60 LRT Alternative would be constructed within the existing highway right-of-way or would be expanded beyond its footprint.

EPA recommends that the DEIS provide details on: 1) the proposed location of the comidor in proximity to the 011 Superfund site; 2) the type of activities that would occur; 3) the duration of these activities; 4) the anticipated impacts (e.g., handling hazardous wastes during the construction, construction impacts to the 011 site operation, and vibration impacts during the construction and long-tern1 operation) these activities would have on the 011 Superhnd Site; and 5) proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce the project's effects to tlie 011 Superfund Site.

E~~vironmental Justice and Community and User Outreach

The DEIS should identify whether the proposed alternatives may disproportionately and adversely affect low income or minority populations in tlie surrounding area and should provide appropriate mitigation measures for any adverse impacts. Executive Order 12898 addresses Environmental Justice in minority and low income populations, and the Council on Environmental Quality has developed guidance conce~ning how to address Environmental Justice in the environmental review process (htip://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pd~. Community involvement activities supporting the project should include opportunities for incorporating public input, especially in Eiiviromnentai Justice communities, into the facility area design process to promote context sensitive design. In addition, the DEIS should detnonstrate compliance with Title VI of tlie Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, in past, would include analyses for seivice equity and fare equity.

Recommendations: e Identify whether the proposed alternatives may disproportionately and adversely affect

low-income or minority populations and provide appropriate mitigation measures for any adverse impacts. Assessment of the project's impacts should reflect consultation with affected populations and mitigation measures should be considered where feasible to avoid, mitigate, minimize, rectify, reduce, or eliminate impacts associated with a proposed project (See 40 C.F.R. 1508.20). Mitigation measures identified in the DEIS should reflect the needs and preferences of the affected low-income and minority populations to the extent practicable.

e Document the process used for community involvement and communication, including all measures to specifically outreach to potential environmental justice communities. Include an analysis of results achieved by reaching out to these populations. EPA has developed a model plan for public participation that may assist GSA in this effoit. The Model Plan for Public Participalion, EPA OECA, February 2000, is available at: http://www.epa.novlcomaliance/resources/~ublications/e/model public part plan.pdf.

Waters of the United States, .

Given the proximity of the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers and the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, this Project may involve the discharge opdredged or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands and watelways. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. require authorization By the US. Asmy Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the CWA. The Federal Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230 promulgated under CWA Section 404 (b)(l) provide substantive environmental criteria that must be met to permit such discharges into waters of the U.S.. These criteria require a permitted discharge to: (1) be the LEDPA; (2) avoid causing or contributing to a violation of a State water quality standard; (3) avoid jeopardizing a federally listed species or adversely modifying designated critical habitat for a federally listed species; (4) avoid causing or contributing to significant degradation of the waters of the U.S.; , and (5) mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters. A fully integrated DEIS that adequately addresses these criteria would facilitate the CWA Section 404 permit review process. EPA recommellds integrating NEPA and CWA Section 404 requirements in the development of the DEIS.

The waters assessment should be of an appropriate scope and detail to identify sensitive areas or aquatic systems with functions highly susceptible to change. EPA also recommends the following in the DEIS for the assessment of existing conditions and environmental consequences of each proposed alternative:

a Include the classification of waters and the geographic extent of waters and any adjacent riparian areas. Characterize the functional condition of waters and any adjacent riparian aseas.

s Include wildlife species affected that could reasonably be expected to usewaters or associated riparian habitat and sensitive plant taxa that are associated with waters or associated riparian habitat. The Whittier Nanows Recreation Area contains riparian habitat which may contain nesting least Bell's vireo and neighboring suitable coastal sage scrub habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher.

e Analyze the potential flood flow alteration. e Analyze the potential water quality impact and potential effects to designated uses. e Address techniques proposed for minimizing surface water contamination due to

increased runoff from additional impervious surfaces.

Avoidance, Minimization andor Mitigatior? Measures

To demonstrate compliance with CWA Guidelines, the DEIS should identify measures and modifications to avoid and minimize impacts to water resowces. Temporary and permanent - impacts to waters of the U.S. for each alternative studied should be quantified; for example, acres of waters impacted, etc. For each alternative, the DEIS should report these numbers in table form for each impacted water and wetland feature.

The DEIS should also address techniques proposed for minimizing surface water contamination due to increased runoff from additional impervious surfaces. The project will require aNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permit and an - accomvanvinn Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Where the-proposed project will . . - . . . .

expand or add new impervious surfaces, the current stormwater detention basins and structures may no longer be effective.

Recommendations: Because the oroiect croises the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers, the water . "

quality analysis in the DEIS should include an estimate of increase in impe~?rious surfaces, estimates of increases in stormwater runoff locations and volume, and locations for specific design features to minimize discharges and dissipate energy. he DEE should include the following:

. , .

Identify specific locations, on a map, where runoff is expected, along with a map indicating where specific design features for stormwater management will be placed (bioswales, etc.). These options should be presented as a past of the DEIS process and not deferred until a later stage.

e Include storm water performance standards for both construction site sediment control and post-const~uction project design standards in the DEIS and.ROD.

- Provide information regarding the placement, selection, and performance of proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the DEIS. Commit to design, install, and maintain BMPs to control total suspended solids (TSS) carried in iunoff post-construction of the project. -Commit to employ BMPs to maintain or reduce the peakrunoff discharge rates, to the maximum extent practicable, as compared to the pre-development conditions.

On April 10,2008, EPA and the Corps issued revised iegulations, "Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule" (Mitigation Rule) (40 CFR 230), governing compensatoly mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams, and other waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These regulations are designed to improve the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation to replace lost aquatic resource functions and area and include a mitigation hierarchy with an inherent preference for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs before the use of an on-site mitigation site.

Recoinmer~daiions: * Include discussion in the DEIS to reflect current regulations. The link to the final

Mitigation Rule. which went into effect on June 9,2008. can be found at h t t ~ : ~ / w . e p a . ~ o v / ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / 2 0 0 8 / ~ ~ r i ~ ~ ~ y - l 0 / ~ 6 9 1 8 a . p d f . Ensure that all mitigation provosed for waters of the U.S.'is in cotnpliance with the Mitirration Rule. - . .. -

* Discuss mitigation for temporary and unavoidable indirect impacts. Temporary impact mitigation should consider additional compensatory mitigation for temporal loss of fi~nctions as well as establishing numeric criteria and monitoring of the temp'orary impact site to ensure that aquatic functions are fully restored. Indirect impact mitigation should consider opportunities to reduce any potential effects from shading and to compensate for possible wetland habitat fragmentation.

April 13, 2010

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LO$ ANGELES 822 KENNETPI tIAIlN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 1 LOS ANGELCS, CALlFORlilA 90012

Tolaphona (2131 974 4144 1 FAX 1213) 626 6961

D O N I<NARE SUPERVISOR, FOURTH DISTRICT

Ms.'Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu:


I am writing in support of the Gold Line Washington Boulevard Extension for Metro's Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II project. This route offers the best alignment into my district and should be considered for further environmental analysis.




A light rail service onwashington Boulevard near PIH and the Five points intersection will provide the opportunity to redevelop that area as a prime site for Transit Orientated Developments (TOD).

Ms. Kimberly Yu April 13, 2010 Page 2

This project could have immeasurable benefits to every community along this route, in terms of business development and transportation service for our residents. The business community has indicated that they see the Washington Boulevard Extension as a way to bring both customers and employees into the region and strengthen our economic base.

c: City of Whittier Councilmembers Mr. Steve Helvey, City Manager Mr. Arthur T. L.eahy, CEO Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Ms. Nancy Mendez, City of Whittier Mr. Curtis Pedersen, Chief of Staff Ms. Julie Moore, Deputy Ms. Andrea Avila, Deputy


Subject: Support for Washington Blvd alignment GOLD LINE Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:18 PM From: [email protected] !I 0433 . . . 4 To: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> Cc: Melissa Holguin [email protected]~, <[email protected]>

Kimberly I would like to add my support to the Washington Blvd alignment forthe proposed eastside Gold Line Phase II extension. As a transit professional for nearly 16 years with 10 years working in the UK private transportation sector, I can understand the benefits of a light rail system for an area. Although I live and work in Whittier, I have simply looked a t the facts from the AA report and then made a logical choice from the numbers.

The main goalof the project is to move a lot of people quickly and effortlessly and provide them with mobility choices so they become less reliant on the private car for their routine daily trips.

Costs for the two alignments at the moment are only showing the building costs and do not include costs for mitigation. Therefore an updated cost sheet is needed as soon as possible which would include annual operations and maintenance, including the location for the maintenance facility, build only costs and costs for mitigation for both alignments.

Cost is an issue with Washington Blvd slightly higher but as you can see from the High Speed rail project - cost is not really a huge factor - it just has to be done a t any price to avoid gridlock and wasted time stuck in traffic. Traffic queens are not going to get any better in the future unless several things happen a t the same time; # I . Cost to operate a car increases through tolls, increased fuel charges with higher taxes on fuel (ring fenced for public transit), and parking charges at end destination points like shopping malls, employer provided facilities or on street charges. #2. Customers are provided with suitable alternatives which are fast, frequent, friendly and accessible and give the perception that the public transit option is quicker and cheaper than the car and provides the comfort and convenience of a car. A light rail project covers #2 very well.

The SR-60 relies heavily on car drivers getting out of their cars and into a train which is culturally (certainly in this part of the country/world) strange and will not easily happen. The SR-60 route is predominately a park and ride option and not an option for the residents and businesses of the SE LA County area.

The SR-60 route passes through some environmentally sensitive areas and the impacts of this route need to be seriously evaluated as the Whittier Narrows is a great resource to the community and having a train run through it will potentially harm the local wildlife. There are

Page 1 of 4

allegedly uncharted oil fields which need to be investigated along the SR-60 along with the toxic superfund s i te which has been clearly highlighted as a problem area requiring serious mitigation and EPA approval. The SR-60 really has very little eastbound passenger traffic to the Peck Rd station which is worrying as these large trains will be perceived to run 'empty' during the off peaks and weekends. These off peak and weekend trips need to be reviewed and their consequences documented as it would be a waste of money to operate 'empty' trains on the SR-60 route.

There are plenty of TOD sites along the Washington route which will truly benefit from investment and development over the coming years and I know several cities along the Washington Blvd alignment that would welcome this route for these benefits alone.

Something to consider is that the City of Montebello City Council voted 4-0-l(abstain) to support the SR-60 and only one member of their Council remains since that vote was taken, nearly two years ago. It was not a unanimous vote a t the time and the vote was taken long before a lot of the facts for the two routes were published. This needs to be addressed during the scoping as we are unsure of the political will of this City at this present time.

I sat and listened to a lot of the SR-60 Coalition talk about this alignment during the public ( scoping meetings and came away unconvinced that this route would benefit the South East LA

County area as much as the Washington Blvd route. There was very little substance in their arguments and when I started to read the AA report to the Metro Board, I was convinced that the Washington Blvd is the only choice that makes any real mobility and transportation sense for the region.

A direct link to the Commerce Metrolink Station is important for transfers. We do not want to be in the LAX situation with the Greenline that passes by the airport requiring a further connection for passengers.

Speed for the Washington Blvd route is important to compete with the cars and provide a smooth, 'quick' ride so areal is the only way for this alignment as it provides a dedicated route which is safe and "fast'.

Access to the PIH and Whittier College for patients, students and employees is important and the Washington Blvd route provides the greatest benefit from the two alignment choices.

The High Speed train alignment and the future widening aspirations of Caltrans need to be assessed over the next few months as there will be a lot of competition for the south side of the SR-60 and not every project can be constructed.

I I would personally either give up one of the SR-60 lanes in each direction to an HOV lane or add a HOV lane all the way along the SR-60 from Peck Rd to the 101. This would give you the option to operate a high speed BRT along the SR-60 with park and ride stations built in the same places as suggested for the LRT. The BRT would simply use the HOV lanes and stop a t each station and continue all the way to Union Station on i ts dedicated lane. Or wait for the High Speed train to be built and this would take care of this travel choice for supporters of the SR-60 LRT.

The Washington Blvd alignment provides the obvious Phase Ill link to OC along Lambert Rd from the PIH - this needs to be considered in some way during this scoping analysis. Phase Ill needs to become a reality before the track is ripped up and a Class I bikeway trail is built. Phase II lost the potential to be built along the Whittier Greenway trail as the tracks had already been removed and a bikeway fully completed - it is hard to put something back even if a train used to operate prior to the bikeway. If people know a Phase Ill is on its way whilst the track is st i l l there then you have a better chance to win the public over and build your LRT track to Brea.

The logical choice of the two alignments is the Washington Blvd route as it carries 25% more people a year than the SR-60 alignment: 5.1 million people along the Washington Blvd route compared to just 4 million each year along the SR-60. These additional trips are made on the Washington Blvd route because this alignment takes people to where they want to go.

It has been a pleasure working with Metro and their consultants with this project and I truly appreciated their professionalism and assistance. I look forward to continuing to work with these staff members through the next stages of this project.

The Washington Blvd Coalition has spread the word to the local community and letters of support have been sent from PIH, Supervisor Don Knabe's office, Whittier Chamber of Commerce, area Chamber of Commerce groups, COG, City of La Mirada, City of Whittier, City of Commerce, local school districts, local businesses, residents, City staff, Republic Women, Uptown Restaurant Group and resolutions passed by Pico Rivera, La Mirada, Whittier, La Habra Heights. This is truly a well supported alignment.

Sincerely,

Martin Browne Transit Manager - Transit Division City of Whittier

7333 Greenleaf Ave Whittier, CA 90602. Tel: (562) 698 2131 Fax: (562) 907 0043 [email protected]

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential andlor legally privileged information. The information is intended for the sole use of the recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of information received in error is strictly prohibited.

Page 4 of 4 I

02/23/2018 85: 14 5629481748 LACOE HEAD START PAGE 81/82

02/23/2010 65: 1 4 5629401740 LACOE HEAD START

city of Whittier 13230 Penn Street. Whitlier, California 90607-1772 (562) 945-8200

Goldline Route into Whittier via Washinston Boulevard

Hello - You have received this teller because you have expressed an interested in the Goldline Phase II Light Rs~l syslem or because you have attended one of the many publrc meelings about Ihls lrans~t l ~ne proposal in the pas1 two years. I work for the Cily of Whillier as Transit Manager and will coordinate the oulreach over the next few months to support the Washington Blvd alignment.

The sludy work has now shifted from the Allernatives Analysis phase to lhe Environmenlal Analysls stage. There are only TWO alternalive roules rernainrng for the environmental sludy seclion of the analysis. One route is along the south side of the SR-60 ending near Peck Rd and the 1-605. The olher route will use Garfield and Washington Blvd to enter the City of Whitticr by Presbyterian Inlercomrnunity Hospilel The decislon to select an alignment w~l l be made in less lhan 18 months so lhere is no1 much Ilme to show our support for the Washinglori Blvd oirgnment.

The Whiltier Cily Councii supporls the Washington Blvd alignment and would iike you lo be a part of the process by allending one of the four Public Scoping meetings which are being held by Metro at the end of February or by writing to Metro directly. We would like as many people and business represenlalives as possible to attend lhese meetings to show the wmmunily's supporl for the Washington Blvd alignment. We feel Wsshington Blvd IS h e strongest option for Metro to choose, as it has the hlghest ridership and benefils the residents and employees of Whlltier businesses far more lhan the SR-60 oplion. These public scoping meetings are vitally important and we need you to allend and share your opinions in favor of the Washington Blvd alignment.

The dates, times and locations are below:

Mon. Feb 22 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. PIO Ptco Women's Center. 9214 Mines Ave.. Plco Rivera.

Wed, Feb 24 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. South El Monle Senior Center. Dining Room, 1556 Cenlral Ave., Soulh El Monk

Thur. Feb 25 6 p.m. lo 8 p.m. Senior Center at Cily Park South Wing. 115 Soulh Taylor Ave.. Monlebello

Sat, Feb 27 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. The Salvation Army Santa Fe Springs. 12000 E Washington Blvd. Whillicr

Thank you for helping us spread the word and for your support over the pas1 few years. We took forward lo hearing from you or rneeling you at these upcoming Public Scoping meelings.

Metro has a helpful websile with maps and a history of the study: h l t p . / / w meIro.neUprojectsleasts1de~hase2/

If you nave any furlher queslions, please feel free to contacl me al 562-698-2131 or use our new e-mail address: [email protected]~, If you would like to add your e-mail address lo our dalabase please let us know.

Regards.

City of Whittier, 7333 Greenleaf Ave.

Whittier. CA 90603 Tel: 562 698 2131 e-mail. ~dl i~e@CllvoiWhi l t ier.orq

Please fonvard to olher people lhal may be interested In this pmjoct. if you do no1 wan1 your address lo be o part of this GoldLlne Phase Ii dislribution list, please respond by requesting your address to be removed


Subject: FW: Response from Department of Defense regarding Cooperating Agency

, Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:41 PM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]~

-----Original Message----- From: Bowers, Terry L M r OSD ATL [mailto:[email protected]] vn5 t i u Sent: Tuesday, April 13,2010 1:28 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Response from Department o f Defense regarding Cooperating Agency

Ms. Ray Tellis FTA Los Angeles Metropolitan Office email address [email protected]

RE: Invitation to Participate in the Environmental Review Process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project

Dear Mr. Tellis:

Thank you for your invitation to participate in the Environmental Review Process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. The Department of Defense respectfully declines to be a cooperating agency for the environmental review on this project.

I also request that future requests for participation be sent to our California regional office, which should be able t o better serve these types of requests.

Commander, Navy Region Southwest 937 North Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92132-5100 (619) 532-2925

Very respectfully,

Terry Bowers Management Analyst (NEPA) Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) (703) 693-9447 terry,[email protected]

Page 1 of 1


Subject: FW: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project I Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:06 PM

From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: Yesenia Arias [email protected]~, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

7 From: Thomas R. Lopez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:18 AM To: Yu, Kimberly

0doS"t'rj

Cc: Al Fuentes Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project

Kimberly, the City of Santa Fe Springs would like to accept your invitation to become a participating agency in the environmental process for the subject project. We look forward to working with you and other Metro staff on this very significant transportation project that will provide high-capacity transit service to the Gateway Cities region.

TOM R. LOPEZ Assistant Director of Public Works City of Santa Fe Springs (562) 868-0511 ext. 7342

The City of Santa Fe Springs encourages you to be environmentally friendly. Save paper and print this einail only if necessary.

" V i t y of Santa Fe Springs Email Disclaimer "*

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the organization. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The city accepts no liability for any damages caused by a virus transmitted by this e-mail.

City of Santa Fe Springs, 11710 E. Telegraph Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA, USA, I www, santafesprings.org


Subject: FW: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 , Date: Tuesday, April 13,2010 1:05 PM


From: Ho, Amy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:27 AM To: Yu, Kimberly 00;l317 Cc: Saykali, Elias; Dowling, Brian Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Dear Ms. Yu,

The City of Monterey Park is hereby accepting Metro's invitation to become a participating agency in the Environmental Review Process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in determining the alternative to the future extension of the Goldline.

Sincerely, Amy HO Principal Management Analyst City of Monterey Park 320 W. Newmark Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754 (626) 307-1383 (626) 307-2500 (facsimile)

Page 1 of 1

Directors

AlexSaulus President HealthPirst Medical Group

j im Osborn Vice Presldent Whittier Fertilizer

lose Medina Vice President Funeraria Del Angel Morrow's

Cheryl Romero Treasurer Preferred Bank

Koko fudge Past President Crowue Plaza Hotel

Omar Martinez Famers Insurance

Oscar Mendoza Rubio's Mexican Grill

Sylvia Soutilerland Southern California Edison

Bil l Kalpakoff CalMet Services

Serglo Quinones Cobe Chemicals

Victor Caballero Mid Valley Yellow Cab

David Briano State Farm

Adrfan Lechuga A Mi Hacienda

Shaun Radcliff Great Western Materials

Yon Stroff Extra Space Storage

Dr. Liza Dimaranan Pico Rivera Optometric

Wesley Kruse Kruse Propertles

Ray Cbavez Friends of the Library

5016 Passons Boulevard Plco Rivera, CA 90660

(562) 949-247 Pax (562) 949-8320 www.picoriverachamber,org

April 12,2010

Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Metro One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Yu,

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Plco Rivera Chamber of Commerce, as well as our 200 business members, I am sending this letter in support of the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project through the Washington Blvd. Corridor.

The Pico Rivera Chamber embracesthe Washington Blvd. route because it would enable milllons of people to travel throughout the Washington Boulevard Corridor having access to work, medical appointments, - shopping or just the flexibility to get from city to city with ease. It is centralized where people live and work so we belleve this route is the best way to serve the most people. The Washington Blvd, route would also bring stations to the route which will undoubtedly bring more commerce to the surroundlng businesses. We also believe this route would have the greatest possible impact on the region by connecting the underserved communities of Montebello, Commerce, Santa Fe Sprlngs, Whittler and Pico Rivera.

The Washington Blvd. Alternative has the highest overall ridership figure, highest overall net new riders, greatest overall user benefit hours and minlmal disru~tion to streets due to its aerlal allznment. -

Implementation of the Washington Blvd. Alternative can accommodate i 1 the aerial station configuration with minimal Impacts to the community i

life and traffic clrculation. The Washington ~lteinatlve has a large employment base in the Cities of Commerce, Plco Rivera, Whittler and the surrounding regional employers.

We are grateful to have this opportunity to present Metro with our letter of support and hope that It encourages you to consider the positive impact this route will have on the businesses and residence In this area.

Sincerely,

Alex Saulus President, 2010.2011

-----Original Message----- From: Kerman, Ann Sent: Thursday, March 25,2010 6 5 2 AM To: Yu, Kimberly; '[email protected]' Subject: Fw: [Metro.net] customer comment

Comment from

First Name: RICHARD Last Name: HERRERA Email: [email protected] Phone: 323-652-6320 URL:

ON THE EAST SIDE TRANSITCORRIDOR 2, WHY WOULD THE WHITnER/BEVERLY BE NOTCONSIDERED ANY MORE. ... THAT IS SUCH A MAJOR VEIN IN THE COMMUNITIES OF ELA, MONTEBELLO, PIC0 RIVERA, AND WHITTIER,,,iT WOULD BE SO CONVlENlENT FOR SO MANY PEOPLE ... I AND QUIETA FEW PEOPLE THINKTHAT WHERE YOU WILL GET MORE BANG FORYOU BUCK!!! IT WOULD BE AN INSTANT SUCCESS.. ..THE WASHINGTON CORRIDOR WOULD BE NICE BUT IT NOT NEARANY MAJOR POPULATION CONCENTRATIONS OF HOUSING AND SHOPPING ..... PLEASE RECONSIDER A PERFECT RAILWAY CORRIDOR IS BIENGTHROWN OUT PREMATURLEY ..... THANKYOU ... RICHARD IN MONTEBELLO ...

Melissa Holguin Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:08 PM

Subject: FW: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 -Comment Sheet Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:58 AM

I From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: "'[email protected]"' <[email protected]>, Melissa Hoiguin [email protected]~

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:19 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Cc: [email protected] Subject: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 - Comment Sheet


Comment Sheet

Name: Michele, Rosemary, Annette & Alfred Montanez

Affiliation (i.e. organization, resident, business): Resident of Whittier, CA

Address:

Thank you for your interest in this Metro project. We welcome your comments on the alternatives

or on any other project information.

Please use the reverse side for additional comments. Comments may also be mailed by April 14,2010 to: Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 213-922-3005.

As life long residents of Whittier, CA my family and I enjoy the respectable people who take pride and care for our quaint city. We made the decision to purchase a house in this city because of the deep rooted Christian ethics and quiet, respectable nature of Whittier. Our Uptown district is well known because of it's quaint demeanor and has been specially chosen to be the background for many movies and television shows.

We are dealing with gangs and taggers who have already infiltrated our city and by adding the Gold Line it will only attract more gangs, taggers and bring violence to the citizens of Whittier.

Our family is opposed to this construction which will make it easier to for non favorable visitors to infect our lovely city.

Page 2 of 2

Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:08 PM

Subject: FW: Comments t o Notice of Scoping Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project due 4.14.2010 Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:57 A M From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: '[email protected]' [email protected], Melissa Holguin [email protected] Conversation: Comments to Notice of Scoping Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project due 4.14.2010

000381

From: Joyce Dillard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:17 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Comments to Notice of Scoping Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project due 4.14.2010

Comments to Notice of Scoping Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project due 4.14.2010

Oil field considerations including methane gases and other hazardous gases need to be addressed as the route covers areas of concern. Subsidence issues also must be addressed.

Fracking is a method of extracting oil and considerations must be made if the oil fields become active.

Groundwater basins and parties responsible need to be identified. Are all the groundwater basins adjudicated? If not, does the individual property owner have responsibility?

Routes are beneficial to economic development. For the area around the City of Industry, is the Football Stadium being considered? If so, a thorough estimation of growth needs to be addressed since the area is vely minimally residential.

The California High Speed Rail also plans routes similar. Will the tracks be above and below the right of way, or side-by-side?

Studies are needed to see if the ridership matches development of both the light rail and high speed rail.

Joyce Dillard P.O. Box 3 1377 Los Angeles, CA 9003 1

Page 1 of 1


Subject: FW: Letter for Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:57 AM From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: "'[email protected]"' <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin [email protected]>

From: Batistelli, Martin Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:56 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Letter for Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Please accept my letter regarding the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2. 1 have placed a signed copy in the mail to you.

Martin Batislelli Supervising Engineer, Rail Facilities Engineering Transit Systems Engineering

htt~://intranetl/Wavside Svstems <http://intranetl/Wayside - Systems>

MIS: 20-2-4 Tel: (21 3) 922-3246 Fax: (2 13) 922-3255

From: Martin Batistclli 15482 La Subida Dr. Hacienda Heights, California 91745

To: Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 MS 99-22-2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, California 90012

April 14, 2010

Dear Ms. Yu,

I would like to express my support for the SR 60 LRT alternative for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2. There are many reasons that the SR 60 LRT alternative is superior to the Washington Boulevard alternative.

Lowest cost. The SR 60 LRT alternative is the lowest cost of the two alternatives. This is important given the scarce resources currently available.

Lower environmental impact. Nearly the entire Washington Boulevard alternative is proposed to be an aerial guideway on existing streets. An aerial structure will be a visual blight in the communities and neighborhoods that it runs through. The sound of the passing cars will be heard for a longer distance than if the tracks are at-grade. The aerial guideway will pass very close to and overlook homes and apartments along the corridor. Residents will co~nplain about the high visibility of the trains and the guideway, the noise and the trains looking down on their homes. They will complain about track and OCS maintenance performed at night. The SR 60 LRT alternative is a better suited for an LRT corridor. Much of the route is through retail, industrial, commercial, or park areas along an existing freeway corridor. There will not be as much an impact as there will be with the Washington Boulevard alternative.

User friendly route. The SR 60 LRT alternative uses a simpler east-west route across the area. The Washington Boulevard alternative starts in an easterly direction, then heads south, and finally continues in south-easterly direction to terminate in the middle of Whittier. This type of conf~~sing route is an obstacle to attract new riders to transit. The SR 60 LRT alternative also has the advantage of the shortest travel time.

Help alleviate worsening traffic on SR 60. The SR 60 LRT alternative will be visible to thousands of drivers alollg SR 60. This will make the LRT trains visible to more people than the Washington Boulevard alternative. This will help attract more riders to transit. This will get more commuters out of their caF.

Greater potential for growth. The SR 60 LRT alternative gives the line greater potential for future growth. There is an opportunity to extend the line further east into an area that

that has been underserved by transit and specially Metro. There are thousands of potential riders ready to leave their cars behind if given the opportunity. There is a vast industrial area that will be a destination for future riders. There is the potential of a new football stadium being built right in the path of this corridor. If built, this stadium will be a popular destination for riders from along all existing rail lines. Transit could be designed into the stadium. This will present an opportunity to serve a regional sports center as in other major cities.

The SR 60 LRT alternative will be the better choice and can serve more riders in the long-term. Future citizens will praise our foresight if this alternative is selected.

Sincerely

Martin Batistelli


Subject: FW: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase l l Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:57 AM

I From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: "'yarias@are~~anoassociates.com"' <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]>

From: Omar Hernandez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:15 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Cc: "Gonzales, Joseph; Manuel Mancha; Tony YBarra; [email protected]; Aileen Flores; Aurora Jackson; [email protected]; Eugene Moy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tony YBarra; "Aguinaga, Louie; *Gonzales, Joseph; Amy Ho; Donna Ramirez; Manuel Mancha; Omar Hernandez Subject: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase I1

0003133

April 14, 20 10

Kimberly Yu 1 Gateway Plaza, MS 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 9001 2

RE: Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase I1

Dear Ms. Yu:

The SR-60 Coalition would like to express our support for the SR-60 Light Rail Transit alternative. In addition to being coalition members, the cities of Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, El Monte, Industly and South El Monte have all signed resolutions in favor of this alternative. In addition, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, an organization representing 33 cities unanimously supported the SR-60 alternative as their preferred alternative.

The support for the SR-60 Light Rail Transit is based on our belief that the SR-60 alternative is a superior alternative. The superiority is based on several factors, including but not limited to:

More transit oriented developments along the SR-60 corridor. Fastest Travel Time Minimal Impact on Streets/Residents/Businesses Strong Coalition suppol-t (El Monte, Rosemead, Montebello, Monterey Park

I and South El Monte) Per mile, 1776 riders compared to 1684 Washington line Whittier Narrows had 1.5 million users per year NEW NFL STADIUM in City of Industly.

Some of the concerns that we would like addressed include:

Disagree with ridership numbers. Employment Centers in South El Monte, Rosemead, Montebello, and City of Indust~y have not been taken into account. Two major Community Colleges each with over 30,000 students, Rio Hondo and East LA College have not been included in the ridership counts. Weekend numbers have not been talcen into account. Whittier Narrow numbers have not been taken into account. Poor Outreach (i.e. banners not having dates, times or locations, late dissemination of materials, poor coordination with municipalities and school districts) Scoping Information Packet contains "design configuration" information for SR-60 but does not do the same for Washington Line (alignment bias) Economic hardship to businesses along Washington line due to closure of

streets (study needs to be done on the affect that building Eastside Extension had on businesses in East Los Angeles) Metro stating that the costs of both alignments are similar even without preliminary engineering. Both sides of the SR-60 not being studied is a major drawback since the North side has no environmental mitigation that is required. The Washington Alternative ridership figures contain elevated numbers from a section along Washington Blvd. from Montebello to Pico Rivera that is mainly industrial. The Montebello Bus line cul~ently runs every 30 minutes along Washington Blvd due to a lack of ridership along this corridor. Please provide information pertaining to ridership figures by sectors for the Washington alignment to clarify the counts that you are utilizing.

We want to emphasize that we, at the coalition, would want to participate in all aspects of the Environmental review process. Please keep us informed on all major occurrences within this project. I would like to personally thank you for your endeavors and professionalism. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (626) 579-6540.


Subject: FW: Gold Line Extension East Phase 2 Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:56 AM

I From: Kimberly Yu <[email protected]> To: "'[email protected]"' <[email protected]>, Melissa Holguin <[email protected]>

From: Ben [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:20 PM To: Yu, Kimberly Subject: Gold Line Extension East Phase 2

Re: Comment on the Gold Line Extension East Phase 2

Ben Aranda

Monarch Litho

1501 Date Street Montebello, CA 90640-6324 (323) 727-0300

Mrs. Yu:

I am writing in regards to the Eastside Extension Phase I1 Washington Blvd. Route. My company is located within the project area at Washington and

Page 1 of'2

Date Streets in Montebello. Here are my concerns that you should be I looking into:

1. How many businesses will be taken through eminent domain on this route specifically the route that runs throught the industrial areas from the Montebello/Commerce border to the Montebello/Pico Rivera Border?

2. What is the mitigation plan during construction of the Washington Line since this area from Commerce to Pico Rivera is a commercial trucking corridor. What will the traffic be like after the construction and will heavy weighted truck trailers weaken the aerial structure. Will lanes be taken away on Washington Blvd. due to the aerial structure running through the middle of the street?

I 3. Where is Metro deriving their ridership numbers being that the Montebello/Commerce border to the Montebello/Pico Rivera Borders consists of mostly factories and zoned industrial and commercial?

Sincerely,

Ben Aranda

Documents

Native American Contacts Los Angeles County January 27,201 0