South Pasadena’s Historic Opposition to a Surface Extension
In 1959, the State of California adopted its Master Plan of Freeways and Expressways and extended the planned Route 7 (now the SR-710 and the I-710) from its original Long Beach to Huntington Drive destination, northward to the Foothill Freeway. In 1960, the cities of Alhambra, Los Angeles, Pasadena, and South Pasadena were notified by the state of alternatives being studied to determine the exact path of the planned freeway.
In November of 1964, the California Highway Commission officially adopted the “Meridian Route” as the freeway alignment. Within a month, the City requested reconsideration of the adopted route. In February of 1965, the segment of the Long Beach SR-7 Freeway between Route 10 (now I-10) and Valley Boulevard was opened. Since that time, completion of the freeway segment between Valley Boulevard in Los Angeles and Del Mar Boulevard in Pasadena has been the subject of numerous administrative proceedings, court actions, and legislative initiatives.
In 1973, after the passage of both the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City sought and was granted an injunction prohibiting Caltrans from constructing the extension project until an environmental impact report (EIR) was properly completed. Caltrans submitted an EIR four times between 1973 and 1992 and it was rejected each time by Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). The injunction was not lifted until 1998, when FHWA accepted a supplemental EIR and issued the Record of Decision (ROD) – the agreement that committed the federal government to fund a large portion of the project. At this point the City of South Pasadena filed a federal lawsuit citing failure to protect clean air, the environment and historic properties.
On July 19, 1999, United States District Court Judge Pregerson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants Caltrans, et al., from proceeding with the 710 Freeway Project. Judge Pregerson’s lengthy opinion set forth numerous, substantial violations of federal law that would have to be cured to complete the project, including violations of the Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Act, and Historic Preservation Act. No attempt has been made by the defendants to satisfy the violations found by Judge Pregerson. To the contrary, essentially agreeing with the Court, FHWA in December, 2003, rescinded the ROD, and the California Transportation Commission in April, 2004, withdrew its Notice of Determination (NOD).
The Tunnel Alternative
In late 2002, Caltrans, in consultation with the FHWA, determined that consideration of a tunnel was appropriate as an alternative to a surface extension along the 710 corridor. Over the next year, representatives from Caltrans, the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) met publicly with various city councils along the corridor to present this alternative concept and to recommend further study of a tunnel alternative. In June of 2003, the South Pasadena City Council voted not to oppose "sound research” of a tunnel alternative. However, this was not to be misconstrued as support for the tunnel. The ultimate position of the South Pasadena City Council will depend on the integrity of the research.
In 2004 the MTA selected a team of outside consultants, led by the engineering firm Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas (PB), to conduct a feasibility analysis of the tunnel approach. The limited purpose of the analysis was to: a) determine if a tunnel is technically, operationally, and financially feasible; b) describe the preliminary potential physical, environmental, financial, and social impacts to neighboring communities; c) validate the concept of a deep-bore tunnel; and d) develop a more refined project scope and cost. After several months of delay, the MTA’s Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report (the “MTA Study”) was finally issued in June of 2006.
The Special Advisory Committee
In response to the MTA Study, and in an effort to dedicate ample time and analysis to its review, the Mayor and City Council appointed seven South Pasadena residents to a Special Advisory Committee on the subject. Their report agreed that the MTA Study showed that a tunnel was technically feasible, but went on to say that the MTA Study did not provide sufficient information upon which to responsibly determine its environmental and financial feasibility, and that more study was needed.
Current Status
Tunnel Feasibility Study: In March of 2007, Metro and Caltrans initiated plans for another, more extensive Feasibility Study that also received federal funding through the efforts of Congressman Adam Schiff, with the stipulation that the Study consider all practicable routes. On November 28, 2007, the City Council approved an updated Resolution adding "route-neutral" to the description of the "sound research" the City would not oppose regarding a bored tunnel alternative. Caltrans and Metro initiated the SR-710 Tunnel Geotechnical Study process in July, 2008, and the City is participating with representatives on the Steering Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee.
SCAG RTP: In late 2007, SCAG issued its Draft 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG removed the 710 surface route from the plan, but included the completion of the 710 Tunnel in the “funded project” part of the RTP, rather than the “strategic project” (i.e., unfunded) part of the RTP. In its official comments to SCAG, the City requested that they move the 710 Tunnel into the “strategic project” part of the plan, since funding is not committed, available, nor reasonably available in the near future.
On June 8, 2008, City staff along with representatives from the cities of Pasadena and La Canada-Flintridge and Assemblymember Portantino’s office appeared at SCAG’s Transportation and Communications Committee meeting to request that they move the 710 tunnel into the “Strategic Project” portion of the RTP. The Committee voted not to do so, and the Regional Council approved the RTP as it was later that same day.
Metro LRTP and “Measure R”: On March 12, 2008, Metro issued its Draft 2008 Long-range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for Los Angeles County. Metro also included what they termed the 710 “Gap Closure” Project in its Plan, but only as a potential, unfunded project. In its official comments to SCAG, the City supported the placement of the SR-710 tunnel in the “strategic unfunded” part of the plan. At their meeting on June 26, 2008, the Metro Board deferred approval of the LRTP until their November meeting to see if a bill (AB2321) to place a half-cent LA County sales tax measure (Measure R) on the November ballot to fund transportation projects would be passed and signed into law.
At their July meeting, the Metro Board approved an ordinance for the proposed sales tax measure that incorporated an Expenditure Plan that included $780 million in funding for the SR-710 tunnel. The City objected to that funding since the SR-710 tunnel did not fit any of the categories Metro cited for an exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Metro did not remove the SR-710 tunnel from the Expenditure Plan as the City requested, so the City filed a CEQA lawsuit against Metro on August 27.
The Governor signed AB2321 on September 25, 2008, so “Measure R” was placed on the November 4th ballot. On October 15, the City Council of South Pasadena passed a resolution opposing “Measure R”, as did several other San Gabriel Valley cities and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. The voters approved “Measure R” by a slim margin so the City’s CEQA lawsuit is continuing.
For more information, click on the links below:
|
