A Closer Look at Modified 710 Resolution

South Pasadena Transportation Manager Dennis Woods said one purpose of  resolutions was to find a streamlined mechanism to portray South Pasadena’s message: A surface freeway is completely unacceptable. 

"Our resolution puts emphasis on completing good environmental work that includes a full breadth and comprehensive evaluation of multimodal alternatives in the [Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)]," Woods told Patch Thursday. 

The new resolution (7171) presented to council Wednesday night had most of the same language as the existing resolution (7147), but included additional “Whereas” clauses as well as new phrases that came out of talks between Assembly member Gil Cedillo, Mayor Mike Ten and others.

To view both resolutions, click on the PDFs to the right. 

“I’m for striking all the 'Whereas' clauses and adding [the new phrases] to our current resolution,” said Council member Philip Putnam Wednesday night. 

The new clauses contain language that essentially say South Pas will actively participate in an environmental review for all other alternatives to the surface freeway upon reintroduction of legislation that conforms to AB 353 as introduced by Assembly Member Cedillo. 

"We hope Cedillo will provide the tenets of the original AB 353 into a new bill number," Woods explained. 

Yet one added clause in particular has residents worried, because many feel it would cause the City to lose its recourse to challenge a tunnel among other alternatives. It states: "Until and unless adequate environmental review shows to the contrary, the South Pasadena City Council does hereby oppose any proposal, surface or subsurface to extend the SR-710 Freeway."

South Pasadena's litigation attorney Tony Rossman said agreeing to this modified resolution would take the surface option off the table completely—an alternative that is still being considered according to City staff. 

"We are not clear on what a tunnel alternative might look like or what the alignment might be," Woods said. "There is speculation as well as solid evidence that Caltrans and Metro are definitely studying a subsurface alternative as a potential project for the quote on quote gap closure."

Rossman said he shared some of the frustrations expressed at the council meeting Wednesday, but he also advised City council to move forward with the modified resolution. 

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

In the end, council members unanimously passed the modified resolution with mixed feelings. 

“I like our current resolution,” said Putnam. “The city has always been against repealing the Martinez bill. I mean, we are opposed to anything above and below ground, but we’ve always been open-minded here. That being said, there are things that bother me with this new resolution.”

To learn more about the Martinez bill, click here. 

Another "Whereas" clause was tabled by Council member Michael Cacciotti to the next council meeting as a consent item, so staff could work out the details of the language. 

"We've successfully utilized legal measures to stop the surface freeway from being build thus far and this next step is using the legislative opportunities presented by Assembly member Cedillo to allow South Pasadena electeds and residents to have a say in any future SR-710 extension by supporting the City’s right to enter into a freeway agreement that is currently enjoyed by all other jurisdictions in California," Woods said.