Commenter Comment Summary Response to Comment Action Taken Agencies
CDFW MND does not address potential
presence of Crotch’s bumble bee or
provide measures to reduce
impacts; suggests mitigation
measures for Crotch’s bumble bee
MND sufficiently addresses Crotch’s bumble bee
impacts; MM-BIO-1 includes a pre-construction survey
for CBB; suggested MMs/protocol surveys are not
necessary for CEQA purposes.
None needed
Suggests revisions to MM-BIO-3 for
avian nest impacts (clarifications on
buffer/avoidance area)
Suggested revision is acceptable. Suggested MM
revisions do not affect project requirements and could
provide additional wildlife protections.
Incorporated requested revisions in
final IS/MND
Suggests revisions to MM-BIO-5
extending monitoring period for oak
tree planting from 5 to 10 years
Suggested revision is acceptable. Additional annual
monitoring inspections will provide valuable
information.
Incorporated requested revisions in
final IS/MND
Caltrans Concurs with findings in
Transportation section; applicant to
ensure construction-related traffic
does not adversely impact State
Highway operations
Non-comment; no response needed. None needed
LARWQCB Downstream hydro/water quality
impacts: MND does not analyze
impacts on downstream waters,
particularly impacts from flow
reduction on habitat and water
quality
Downstream Eaton Spreading Ground intercepts all
dry weather flows from Pasadena, thus impacts from
diverted water on downstream habitat not expected by
project. IS/MND has been revised to reflect water
quality improvements identified in the PDR,
emphasizing the project’s lack of adverse downstream
impact.
Incorporated language to address
downstream water quality and
habitat impacts from project.
Alternatives: MND should consider
project alternatives that would
minimize impacts; Regional Board
policy is that “diversion projects
intended to address upstream
discharges should be undertaken as
a last resort to comply with receiving
water limitations”; present an
alternatives analysis to demonstrate
how the chosen project is the Least
Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
CEQA does not require MNDs to include alternatives
analysis (only EIRs); LEDPA is a requirement of Army
Corps Clean Water Act 404 permits; this
topic/requirement can be addressed in the permitting
process, does not warrant revision of the IS/MND.
None needed
Attachment D – Response to Public Comments on Eaton Wash IS/MND Mitigation: compensatory mitigation
for impacts to water quality and
beneficial uses should be proposed
in the MND
Compensatory impacts are only required if a
significant impact is identified – none were identified.
None needed
Individuals
Mark Denne Email asking about the nature of
mitigations proposed and if the
project would increase the height of
the fencing on the SW corner of the
Del Mar Bl bridge
No response needed in the IS/MND, CEQA mitigation
is included in the MND; fencing is not a mitigation
measure and isn’t applicable to our project.
Dawn responded directly to
community member.
Ken Kules
(word)
Downstream hydro/water quality:
MND does not evaluate downstream
impacts in broader hydrologic
system; should consider impacts on
downstream recharge (Main San
Gabriel Basin recharge system via
Eaton Spreading Basin; Central
Basin recharge system via Rio
Hondo Spreading Grounds);
Similar to the LARWQB comment; but offers additional
detail.
Incorporated language to address
downstream water quality and
habitat impacts from project.
Legal framework for diversion: MND
doesn’t identify legal framework
under which proposed surface
diversion would occur; MND does
not analyze consistency with the
adjudicated framework governing
Raymond Basin (does the City have
the right to divert this water); does
not evaluate how different potential
legal bases for diversion would
affect project operations; does not
provide an adequate basis to
assess project’s regulatory
approvals; does not state whether
the project requires water rights
approvals under jurisdiction of the
State Water Resources Control
Board
Not an environmental impact issue, a legal regulatory
framework comment. Not required in IS/MND.
Project applications to the USACE
(408, 404), LARWQCB (401), CDFW
and LA County have been
submitted. These Agencies are the
legal authority who decide if
impacts to the downstream water
quality, habitat and water rights are
allowable.
Downstream hydro/water quality:
MND does not provide sufficient
evidence to evaluate downstream
hydrologic impacts because
project’s hydrologic info (diversion
timing, expected capture-flow rates
and duration, or estimated annual
diversion volumes) is not provided
Similar to the LARWQB comment Incorporated language to address downstream water quality and
habitat impacts from project.
Construction traffic: MND fails to
provide analysis of haul routes, trip
frequency, and duration of hauling
activity in relation to specific land
use surrounding the site and
combined effects on these land
uses; IS/MND acknowledges the
potential for construction traffic
effects but does not provide data or
analysis demonstrating that such
impacts would be minor. Instead,
the discussion references the City’s
haul permit process without
identifying enforceable standards or
demonstrating that the permit
would address the specific
constraints
MND provides appropriate discussion of haul traffic
and related impacts for CEQA purposes; this is an
urban area that experiences heavy daily traffic and in
which construction traffic is not an uncommon
occurrence; in this context CEQA does not require a
granular analysis of construction traffic.
MND states, “The full extent of the material haul route or routes would be determined by the contractor and
the City Public Works Department once a disposal site
has been identified. It is anticipated that the local
route would follow East Del Mar Boulevard to access
Sierra Madre Boulevard (which is a designated City
truck route) to connect to I-210, which is a designated state truck route (City of Pasadena 2016).”
None needed
Construction traffic: Concern with
MND’s reliance on future
discretionary process without
identifying haul routes, operational
limits, etc defers LTS determination
Specifying exact haul route is not needed for
appropriate CEQA analysis of this topic, see above;
approval of traffic-control plan is not a discretionary action under CEQA
None needed
Construction traffic: Requests
quantification of total daily peak
construction truck trips; analysis of
available haul routes and roadways
capacity, safety, and land use
compatibility along these routes;
substantial evidence demonstrating
LTS determination or incorporation
of specific, enforceable MMs
See above None needed
supported by objective performance
standards
Downstream hydro/water quality:
MND does not provide a sufficient
analysis of the quality of water to be
diverted and how pollutant loading
in the Eaton Wash channel would be
reduced and therefore does not
support a conclusion that the
project goal will be achieved (related
to hydro question about violating
water quality standards or
degrading surface or groundwater
quality)
Questions about the purpose of the project; WQ data
requested in the comment is not required for CEQA
environmental impact analysis. Preliminary Design
Report (PDR) online discusses water quality
compliance requirements in the Eaton Wash, Rio
Hondo and LA Rivers.
None needed
Project operation/treatment vs
discharge: MND fails to
define/quantify operational basis
for “relative use of infiltration versus
mechanical treatment and
discharge”; therefore, MND does
not contain substantial evidence
that water quality and related
impacts would be less than
significant. MND does not quantify
expected infiltration rates, does not
identify infiltration capacity, and
does not evaluate the proportion of
flows that would be infiltrated
versus mechanically treated and
discharged under typical or peak
conditions.
Not necessary for CEQA impact analysis. We are not
proposing to discharge new/additional pollutants to
the channel or groundwater, which would be subject to
environmental impact analysis. PDR online discusses
geotechnical information and the design alternatives
that were proposed to the City and the final design
chosen.
None needed
Tech studies omitted from MND:
MND references technical studies
that are not included in the
document or otherwise made
available for public review
PDR and geotech study are part of the public record
and can be made available but are not required to be
published with the MND. Technical documents cited
are available online at the project website:
bit.ly/EatonWashProject
None needed
Ken Kules
(PDF)
Project operation/treatment vs
discharge: MND fails to define key
operational parameters governing
Same comment from Word doc, rephrased with
additional detail. Project Operations and Maintenance
None needed
diversion frequency, duration, and
infiltration loading, resulting in an
unbounded project scenario for
evaluating hydrologic and
geotechnical impacts; IS/MND does
not provide a stable, finite, and
accurate project description
(O&M) Plan and PDR and online for public review at
the project website: bit.ly/EatonWashProject
Project operation/treatment vs
discharge: Omitted operational
criteria [from the PD] are material
because they directly govern:
volume, rate, and persistence of
recharge; frequency and duration of
repeated wetting cycles; reservoir
recovery time between diversion
events; groundwater mound
potential; the extent of lateral
migration of infiltrated water;
frequency and magnitude of treated
discharges to Eaton Wash
Same comment from Word doc, rephrased with
additional detail
None needed
Project engineering/geotech design:
MND does not evaluate whether
recurring infiltration could alter
subsurface conditions adjacent to
the channel wall or embankment
(increased soil moisture, seepage
gradients, altered drainage
conditions; increased lateral
pressures; implications for longterm structural performance, maintenance, or service life
Same comment from Word doc, rephrased with
additional detail. Project O&M Plan and PDR and
online for public review at the project website:
bit.ly/EatonWashProject
None needed
Agency stakeholder input: MND
does not discuss whether
consultation occurred with relevant
public agencies interested in Eaton
Wash infrastructure structure;
accurate disclosure of the project’s
physical relationship to Eaton Wash
Not an environmental impact issue, a legal regulatory
framework comment. Not required in IS/MND. Project
applications to the USACE (408, 404), LARWQCB
(401), CDFW and LA County have been submitted.
These Agencies are the legal authority who decide if
impacts to the downstream water quality, habitat and
water rights are allowable.
None needed
infrastructure Is necessary for
meaningful interagency review
Lauren Siegel Design/project purpose: project
could restrict percolation to
Raymond Basin, reconsider need for
below-ground gallery to support
downstream ecosystems
Similar to Kules comments; no new/additional topics
that would not be covered by those responses. Project
applications to the USACE (408, 404), LARWQCB
(401), CDFW and LA County have been submitted.
These Agencies are the legal authority who decide if
impacts to the downstream water quality, habitat and
water rights are allowable.
None needed
Construction impacts: suggests a
transportation and dust-control plan
are needed and repurposing
excavated soul to minimize
community disruptions
MND provides appropriate discussion of haul traffic
and related impacts for CEQA purposes; SWPPP will be
developed by the contractor and must adhere to PMC
requirements for Construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
None needed
O&M costs: City should identify O&M
responsibilities and costs
Not a requirement of CEQA. Project O&M Plan and
PDR and online for public review at the project
website: bit.ly/EatonWashProject
None needed
Design/project purpose: City should
prioritize nature-based solutions,
need for clear public
communication
City is implementing different types of solutions to
meet their MS4 obligations; including nature-based
and infrastructure-based projects; this project includes bioswale and native planting area, 3.5 acres of new
passive park space, permeable pavers, and other
elements of nature-based solutions and other
elements of nature-based solutions to address surface
runoff and treatment.
None needed