Position Paper for the 710 Freeway

By Ernest B. Arnold

I am not in favor of the 710 freeway, nor am I in favor of a tunnel study.

My position on the 710 Freeway and the tunnel has evolved with the history of this issue. The City of South Pasadena has been entangled with CalTrans, Alhambra, Pasadena and Los Angeles over the 710 Freeway since roughly 1958, but things really got going during the mid 1960's.

Starting with some basic points of reference:
1. Every incorporated city is a "Municipal Corporation" with certain rights and obligations. One of the rights a city has is total and absolute authority over their city streets.

2. Every city has the obligation to provide municipal services such as police, fire, water, sewer, parks & recreation, public works (maintain the streets, sidewalks, etc.)

Because the state recognized these rights and obligations, whenever a freeway was planned, they negotiated with every city (or in the case of unincorporated areas, the county) an acceptable route through those jurisdictions. The right of "imminent domain" only applies to the taking of private property for the public good. One government agency cannot take the property of another government agency and claim it is for the public good.

From 1964 until about 1988, the City of South Pasadena tried to negotiate the acceptance of a "Westerly Route" for the 710 Freeway. It was the official position of the City that a freeway was need, but that the proposed Meridian Route cutting through the center of the city, along the north south axis of the city would greatly inhibit the ability of the city to provide municipal services such as police, fire, water, sewer, parks & recreation, and public works. The proposed route would divide a small city in half, destroy the continuity of the city and take 10% of our tax base.

At first CalTrans claimed that the Westerly Route could not be built, and was not feasible. Jess Reynolds, took early retirement from Cal Trans and, designed the Westerly Route with full engineering drawings. These drawings were presented to Cal Trans in 1970 for study. The City paid ½ the cost ($25,000) for Cal Trans to study the plans to determine whether the route was feasible. In 1972 Cal Trans returned the determination that the Westerly Route was feasible, but would cost about $90 million and was more expensive that the Meridian Route. What then happened during the 1970's is the implementation of all the environmental laws(including CEQA, and NEPA) that resulted in the requirement of environmental impact studies and concerns for clean air, historic properties etc.

My position on the freeway is predicated on the reality that:

1. The State and Los Angeles have refused to recognize South Pasadena's right has a municipal corporation to self rule and have not negotiated in good faith.

2. The State has passed two laws that effectively discriminated against South Pasadena (Martinez I and II) by singling out South Pasadena as the only city in the State through which a freeway can be built WITHOUT a freeway agreement.

3. In 1988 after 24 years of trying to build the freeway, the City adopted the position that no freeway was necessary and a non-freeway solution should be sought to handle the regional traffic issues, only after it was clear that was the only solution that would preserve our rights.

4. During our fight for no freeway, starting in 1988 we have acquired certain allies in El Sereno, La Canada and Pasadena in addition to national environmental groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Defense Council, Sierra Club, etc.

I reject the premise of the proposed freeway tunnel study.

1. The tunnel study is predicated on the need for a freeway. No critcal need has been established.

2. Based upon the actions of the state over the past 40 years there is no reason to believe that a tunnel would be built to protect South Pasadena's interest.

3. A tunnel is unacceptable to our allies in El Sereno and La Canada, and I do not abandon allies.

4. The proposed study is not a complete assessment of the impacts or feasibility of a tunnel freeway. IT is merely a preliminary evaluation that can only conclude that the tunnel will be more costly than the surface alternative.

5. If the City of South Pasadena switches its' position again to one that completion of the 710 freeway is needed if only we can find an acceptable route. Given the existence of the Martinez Bill taking away our right to sign a freeway agreement and the cost of a tunnel, we will get the surface freeway and have no defenses to stop it. South Pasadena has not been the inflexible party in this dispute. Look at the record. We have been willing to compromise; it has been the freeway proponents that have insisted upon one route. That is why I say:

• If the completion of the 710 Freeway were critical, an alternative compromise route would have been accepted.

• If the Meridian Route was feasible the State could have completed an acceptable EIR/EIS during the last 30 years, but they have failed in 5 attempts.

Ernest B. Arnold