City Finalizes 710 Freeway Resolution

By Francine Rios

City council unanimously passed a resolution to further revise the City’s position on the SR-710 and rescind Resolution 7171.

In addition to the new language , Resolution 7172 states if this region doesn't come into compliance with the Clean Air Act, it may jeopardize transportation funding. (This clause was introduced by Councilman Michael Cacciotti and discussed in open session July 6 but sent back to City staff to determine proper language before approval July 20.)

Councilman Richard Schneider said the Clean Air Act language—along with a new phrase that requests multimodal alternatives (rail, bus and bicycle systems) throughout San Gabriel Valley with connections to Ontario International Airport and the Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Metro Airport—is necessary to provide electricity to the transportation system while meeting federal air quality standards.

Schneider also attempted to clarify new language added to 7171—and kept in 7172—about an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),  which essentially states South Pas will actively participate in an EIR for all other alternatives to the surface freeway upon reintroduction of legislation that conforms to A.B. 353 as introduced by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles). 

Cedillo said he would not amend A.B. 353 to require Caltrans to enter into an agreement with the city, unless South Pas cooperates in environmental assessment of other alternatives, Pasadena-Star News reported earlier this month. 

“It is not a change in our position. ...We did not give away any of our rights, and we did not say that we were going to automatically support the environmental report when it comes out," Schneider assured residents. "So we haven’t given anything away, and hopefully we’ll get the repeal of the Martinez legislation and strengthen our resolution with the additions that Mr. Cacciotti put.”

To read about the history of the Martinez legislation, click here. 

RESIDENTS STILL APPREHENSIVE

Through the current law, the Department of Transportation (DOT) can only build a freeway without a direct agreement with a presiding City council under a few conditions. First, an impasse must have existed for at least 10 years after the freeway route was initially approved. Second, DOT must receive a valid EIR and establish community outreach programs. 

Because of this law, some feel the new language will cause the City to not only lose out to a tunnel but a surface route as well. 

"This phrase addition clearly opens the City of South Pasadena to accept an EIR conclusion that will certainly state 'through mitigation the freeway is possible' and any judge in the State would uphold it," an architect living in South Pas, who asked not to be named, wrote to Patch. 

"Anyone as familiar with the EIR process as I am, knows that an 'adequate' EIR showing any proposed project—no matter how environmentally unfriendly it appears—can be completed and deemed 'adequate' on anything," the resident continued. 

Bill Sherman came forth with similar sentiments Wednesday. 

“The next battle to be fought is when the EIR and EIS reports are completed in 2014. The people of South Pasadena can best prepare for this battle by clearing the City council of pro-tunnel advocates and other dead wood. ...The candidates for 2011 and November 2013 must be closely questioned on the views,” he concluded.

Nevertheless, South Pasadena's litigation attorney Tony Rossman advised City council to move forward with the modified resolution July 6. 

"We should give Sacramento a chance to live up to their word about the EIR and getting rid of the surface route option,” . 

To view Resolutions 7147, 7171 and 7172, click on the PDFs to the right.