City of South Pasadena Facebook South Pasadena Public works tiwittle South Pasadena Nixle South Pasadena Police Facebook South Pasadena Police Twitter South Pasadena Police Youtube Newsletter sign up


Home > Departments > Transportation > 710 Freeway
 

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.

Final Geotechnical Summary Report

Caltrans have posted the Final Geotechnical Summary Report SR-710 Tunnel Technical Study online, to review the Report go to, http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/710study/ In May, 2010, DVD’s of the Final Geotechnical Summary Report will be available at public libraries with the Study Area as well as on the Caltrans District 7 website at www.dot.ca.gov/dist07.
Should you need further information or clarification n this final report, please call Abdi Saghafi, Project Manager, at (213) 897-9810 or contact via e-mail at: abdi_saghafi@dot.ca.gov

The City of South Pasadena had representatives on both the Steering Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. Both bodies have reviewed the draft geotechnical summary report and have presented the City throughout the process. The City’s representatives were:
Steering Committee:
Prime: Councilmember Philip Putnam
Alternate: Councilmember Mike Ten
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC):
Prime: Richard Gutschow
Alternate: Joseph Birman
Staff Liaison:
Dennis L. Woods, Transportation Manager

Status

SR-710 North Extension (Tunnel): The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) have proposed a tunnel for extending The 710 freeway. In 2006, Metro performed a feasibility assessment study of a tunnel to connect I-710 at Valley Boulevard to Interstate (I-) 210. The project area has been defined as between I-10 to the south, State Route (SR-) 2 to the west, I-210 to the north, and I-605 to the east. Based on requests from local communities, the study was to be guided by “route-neutral” principles for the extension of I-710. Route-neutral means that all routes receive equal attention and no route for the tunnel is favored over another. It also requires that all practical routes for extending I-710 be considered. As part of the route-neutral concept, Caltrans along with the CH2M HILL team, identified five study zones, representing the potential corridors for extending I-710.

The purpose of the geotechnical study is to determine the geologic, groundwater, and seismic conditions within the selected study zones to identify factors that affect the geotechnical feasibility of designing and constructing the proposed tunnel, and to provide a basis for a comparison of the geologic conditions with respect to tunneling design and construction.

Private Public Partnership: Metro is exploring the Public-Private Partnership project delivery method to partner with the private sector and deliver currently unfunded transportation projects. The program is to identify specific highway or transit projects that could be constructed through financing and project implementation arrangements with the private sector. The SR-710 North Extension Tunnel is one of the projects that would have to be financed by a Private Public Partnership. To learn more about a PPP go to, http://www.metro.net/projects/public_private_partnerships.

Metro Prepares Two (2) Administrative Draft Public Private Partnership Reports on the SR-710 North Extension

 Metro has produced two administrative draft reports that includes the SR-710 tunnel. Please note that Metro Staff has indicated that these reports are preliminary and have been not fully vetted by Metro staff.

According to Metro staff, the work products produced by Metro’s Public-Private Partnership expert consultants, InfraConsult LLC, are purely economic evaluations to determine whether, based on risk analyses, life of project costs and other business factors, it would be useful to consider collaborative private sector participation (whether by project development, delivery and/or maintenance and operation) in the delivery of Metro projects. These analyses are not a part of the CEQA/NEPA process, they do not affect the environmental impact analysis and are not the basis on which decisions are made by the agency, Metro, to move forward with the projects.  Metro is evaluating how projects could best be delivered, when or if Metro Board elects to deliver them.

The consultants’ deliverables are qualitative and quantative analyses of the concepts being developed during the planning process, which the consultants will use to prepare business cases for the six projects currently under PPP delivery consideration which includes the SR-710. Business cases are developed to determine whether “traditional” project delivery or one involving collaborative private sector participation would be the best business decision for Metro. 

Metro staff further indicates that they are planning to conduct stakeholder outreach and industry forums.  These will be held for the purpose of educating stakeholders about public-private partnership concepts and the PPP Program, discussing Metro’s initial thoughts on project delivery, and soliciting feedback, comments and suggestions from industry experts who have experience in public-private partnership contracting and project delivery, to benefit the solicitation process.   

Please remember, though, that this is not an environmental impacts assessment process, but an evaluation of business decisions for Metro.

May 14, 2010 Metro Report- Project Definition SR-710 Tunnel Project 2010 05 14 Metro Report Project Definition - 710 North Tunnel)

July 8, 2010 Metro Study Infraconsult Executive Summary for PPP’s 2010 07 08 Metro Study Infraconsult Exec Sum PPP)

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: