710 Freeway

Summary

When the City of South Pasadena originally sued Caltrans regarding the 710 Freeway, the lawsuit concerned the fact that Caltrans had not prepared an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. In 1973, Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entered into an uncontested court decree and injunction that obligated Caltrans to prepare the required environmental documentation. From that date forward, it seems to have been the clear legal strategy of South Pasadena and others to see to delay the project's emergence from the environmental planning stage.

Despite South Pasadena’s efforts to endlessly object to the project and to raise new environmental concerns, the 710 Project moved through the planning process to the point that a conditional, interim Record of Decision was adopted by FHWA in April 1998. The Record of Decision chose the freeway route and laid out the steps remaining in the planning process before a Supplemental EIS would be prepared addressing all environmental issues raised since the Final EIS in 1992.

In 1998, the City of South Pasadena attempted to amend its complaint in the 1973 lawsuit. The Federal Court refused and moved forward to dissolve the 25 year old injunction. The City of South Pasadena then filed a new federal lawsuit. After briefing on the issues, the Federal Court issued a new preliminary injunction barring right-of-way acquisition and construction until the Court could make a final decision on the merits of the lawsuit. The lawsuit is expected to be in court in late 2001, although the litigation team of the City of South Pasadena continues to urge delay.

The Details

The 1973 Lawsuit

The U.S. Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Just because there will be environmental impacts from a project, including transportation projects, does not violate NEPA. Instead, NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and consider any impacts that will occur prior to approving a major federal project or activity. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 based largely upon the federal law and applies to state and local agencies. In CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared that is almost identical to the document prepared under the federal law.

Shortly after Congress passed NEPA, the City of South Pasadena filed a lawsuit in Federal Court claiming that Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had failed to prepare a proper EIS for the 710 Freeway. Caltrans did not contest the need for an EIS and entered into an uncontested decree and injunction that barred Caltrans from acquiring more properties or beginning construction until a proper EIS was prepared in compliance with NEPA.

In 1974-75, the City of Pasadena petitioned the Federal Court to allow the construction of off-ramps and reconfigured streets at the northern stub of the 710 Freeway. The injunction was modified to allow the construction of what became known as the "Pasadena Wishbone" street configuration along St. John and Pasadena Avenue. The re-constructed streets and off-ramps help carry and dissipate traffic coming through the I-210/S.R. 134/I-710 interchange into the City of Pasadena, however, no similar relief was ever provided to the communities of El Sereno/Alhambra at the southern portion of the freeway gap. The 1973 lawsuit injunction remained dormant for about 25 years.

South Pasadena’s Diversion and Delay Tactics

Once the 1973 injunction was in place, the City of South Pasadena began a strategy to divert the 710 Freeway route around its community. The route most favored by the City of South Pasadena was known as the "Westerly Route." The Westerly Route would have dramatically turned the freeway route to the west into the center of the Monterey Hills and the community of El Sereno. In the process, the Westerly Route would have had a significantly greater environmental impact upon native wildlife habitats in the Monterey Hills and resulted in the loss of many more homes in the community of El Sereno. At this time, the interests of the City of South Pasadena were opposed to those of El Sereno.

In the 1992 Final EIS/EIR, the Meridian Street Alternative route was chosen as the preferred route of the freeway by Caltrans and FHWA concurred in the selection. At this point, the Westerly Route was dead. South Pasadena realized it had to modify its strategy and it picked up the pace of nominating buildings and districts for National Register status. The goal became to create an insurmountable wall of historic properties through which the 710 Freeway could not be built. Even South Pasadena’s litigation counsel became involved in writing letters trying to get the Keeper of the National Register for Historic Places to agree with exaggerated claims of historic status.

As part of its concurrence in the Final EIS/EIR, FHWA required Caltrans to convene an Enhancement and Mitigation Committee to identify additional mitigation to reduce the impact of the 710 Freeway on the affected communities. After two years of study(1992-93), the Committee recommended further depressing the freeway in all residential areas, six cut and cover tunnels, and the rebuilding of neighborhoods on top of the tunnels. Caltrans and FHWA concurred in nearly all of the Committee recommendations and the FHWA adopted a Record of Decision to memorialize the route selection and the committed project mitigation.

However, the 1998 Record of Decision was not the end of the environmental planning process. In the 1998 conditional Record of Decision, FHWA spelled out specific steps that Caltrans needed to take to further refine the project mitigation and prepare for a final environmental review of the 710 Project. Caltrans is currently working to complete these Record of Decision conditions.

The 1998 Lawsuit

When the FHWA signed the Record of Decision in April 1998, the City of South Pasadena commenced a new round of litigation against the 710 Project. First, South Pasadena’s lawyers went to the Federal judge in the original 1973 lawsuit asking to amend its 25 year old complaint with new causes of action. The Federal judge rejected South Pasadena’s attempts to revive a 25 year old dormant lawsuit. Instead the Federal judge ordered that the injunction against the 710 Freeway be dissolved.

Although the FHWA’s conditional Record of Decision already contained provisions that barred Caltrans from proceeding with right-of-way acquisition and construction until completion of a supplemental environmental review process, South Pasadena was determined to obtain a new injunction against the 710 Project. South Pasadena’s lawyers filed a state lawsuit over the state requirement to prepare an EIR and a separate federal lawsuit over the federal requirement to prepare an EIS. In the 1998 federal lawsuit, South Pasadena also claimed that Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments had violated the federal Clean Air Act.

The Federal Court judge hearing the new case agreed, over the objections of Caltrans and FHWA, to add the state law claims over violation of the California Environmental Quality Act to the Federal lawsuit. The issue over whether the Federal Court properly took jurisdiction over the state law issues is currently under appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, the Federal Court judge proceeded to hear arguments on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent Caltrans and FHWA from doing that which they were already barred by the 1998 conditional Record of Decision from doing: buying properties or constructing the freeway. Over the strong objections of Caltrans and FHWA, the Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction barring right-of-way acquisition and construction -- although the Federal Court order is redundant to the Record of Decision.

The attorneys for the City of South Pasadena also pressed hard to get the Federal Court to bar Caltrans from planning the freeway -- an activity that was already underway. The judge refused this request and therefore the existence of this lawsuit has not slowed the work towards completion of the 710 Freeway.

How South Pasadena Uses Litigation to Delay the 710 Freeway

The lawsuits filed by the City of South Pasadena are a key part of the City’s strategy to resist the development of the 710 Project. With the current preliminary injunction in place (which really was unnecessary since the 1998 conditional Record of Decision barred right-of-way acquisition and construction), the City of South Pasadena has attempted to confuse other public decision makers about the 710 Project and its readiness for planning and funding. Part of the public relations campaign waged by the City of South Pasadena is to claim the Project will "never happen" because there is an injunction.

At the present time, the injunction is a "preliminary injunction" meaning that the Federal Court is merely making sure things stay the same (continue the planning of the freeway up to authorization to proceed with construction) while the Court determines whether South Pasadena’s objections have any merit.

Since the granting of the preliminary injunction, neither South Pasadena nor the State/Federal defendants have moved forward to end this lawsuit. South Pasadena and other project opponents like it this way. They portray the pending lawsuit as creating uncertainty . The transportation agencies use the suits as reasons for not completing the 710 Freeway planning process.


	SOUTH PASADENA ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUIT Summary When the City of South Pasadena originally sued Caltrans regarding the 710 Freeway, the lawsuit concerned the fact that Caltrans had not prepared an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. In 1973, Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entered into an uncontested court decree and injunction that obligated Caltrans to prepare the required environmental documentation. From that date forward, it seems to have been the clear legal strategy of South Pasadena and others to see to delay the project's emergence from the environmental planning stage. Despite South Pasadena’s efforts to endlessly object to the project and to raise new environmental concerns, the 710 Project moved through the planning process to the point that a conditional, interim Record of Decision was adopted by FHWA in April 1998. The Record of Decision chose the freeway route and laid out the steps remaining in the planning process before a Supplemental EIS would be prepared addressing all environmental issues raised since the Final EIS in 1992. In 1998, the City of South Pasadena attempted to amend its complaint in the 1973 lawsuit. The Federal Court refused and moved forward to dissolve the 25 year old injunction. The City of South Pasadena then filed a new federal lawsuit. After briefing on the issues, the Federal Court issued a new preliminary injunction barring right-of-way acquisition and construction until the Court could make a final decision on the merits of the lawsuit. The lawsuit is expected to be in court in late 2001, although the litigation team of the City of South Pasadena continues to urge delay. *The Details* The 1973 Lawsuit The U.S. Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Just because there will be environmental impacts from a project, including transportation projects, does not violate NEPA. Instead, NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and consider any impacts that will occur prior to approving a major federal project or activity. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 based largely upon the federal law and applies to state and local agencies. In CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared that is almost identical to the document prepared under the federal law. Shortly after Congress passed NEPA, the City of South Pasadena filed a lawsuit in Federal Court claiming that Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had failed to prepare a proper EIS for the 710 Freeway. Caltrans did not contest the need for an EIS and entered into an uncontested decree and injunction that barred Caltrans from acquiring more properties or beginning construction until a proper EIS was prepared in compliance with NEPA. In 1974-75, the City of Pasadena petitioned the Federal Court to allow the construction of off-ramps and reconfigured streets at the northern stub of the 710 Freeway. The injunction was modified to allow the construction of what became known as the "Pasadena Wishbone" street configuration along St. John and Pasadena Avenue. The re-constructed streets and off-ramps help carry and dissipate traffic coming through the I-210/S.R. 134/I-710 interchange into the City of Pasadena, however, no similar relief was ever provided to the communities of El Sereno/Alhambra at the southern portion of the freeway gap. The 1973 lawsuit injunction remained dormant for about 25 years. South Pasadena’s Diversion and Delay Tactics Once the 1973 injunction was in place, the City of South Pasadena began a strategy to divert the 710 Freeway route around its community. The route most favored by the City of South Pasadena was known as the "Westerly Route." The Westerly Route would have dramatically turned the freeway route to the west into the center of the Monterey Hills and the community of El Sereno. In the process, the Westerly Route would have had a significantly greater environmental impact upon native wildlife habitats in the Monterey Hills and resulted in the loss of many more homes in the community of El Sereno. At this time, the interests of the City of South Pasadena were opposed to those of El Sereno. In the 1992 Final EIS/EIR, the Meridian Street Alternative route was chosen as the preferred route of the freeway by Caltrans and FHWA concurred in the selection. At this point, the Westerly Route was dead. South Pasadena realized it had to modify its strategy and it picked up the pace of nominating buildings and districts for National Register status. The goal became to create an insurmountable wall of historic properties through which the 710 Freeway could not be built. Even South Pasadena’s litigation counsel became involved in writing letters trying to get the Keeper of the National Register for Historic Places to agree with exaggerated claims of historic status. As part of its concurrence in the Final EIS/EIR, FHWA required Caltrans to convene an Enhancement and Mitigation Committee to identify additional mitigation to reduce the impact of the 710 Freeway on the affected communities. After two years of study(1992-93), the Committee recommended further depressing the freeway in all residential areas, six cut and cover tunnels, and the rebuilding of neighborhoods on top of the tunnels. Caltrans and FHWA concurred in nearly all of the Committee recommendations and the FHWA adopted a Record of Decision to memorialize the route selection and the committed project mitigation. However, the 1998 Record of Decision was not the end of the environmental planning process. In the 1998 conditional Record of Decision, FHWA spelled out specific steps that Caltrans needed to take to further refine the project mitigation and prepare for a final environmental review of the 710 Project. Caltrans is currently working to complete these Record of Decision conditions. The 1998 Lawsuit When the FHWA signed the Record of Decision in April 1998, the City of South Pasadena commenced a new round of litigation against the 710 Project. First, South Pasadena’s lawyers went to the Federal judge in the original 1973 lawsuit asking to amend its 25 year old complaint with new causes of action. The Federal judge rejected South Pasadena’s attempts to revive a 25 year old dormant lawsuit. Instead the Federal judge ordered that the injunction against the 710 Freeway be dissolved. Although the FHWA’s conditional Record of Decision already contained provisions that barred Caltrans from proceeding with right-of-way acquisition and construction until completion of a supplemental environmental review process, South Pasadena was determined to obtain a new injunction against the 710 Project. South Pasadena’s lawyers filed a state lawsuit over the state requirement to prepare an EIR and a separate federal lawsuit over the federal requirement to prepare an EIS. In the 1998 federal lawsuit, South Pasadena also claimed that Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments had violated the federal Clean Air Act. The Federal Court judge hearing the new case agreed, over the objections of Caltrans and FHWA, to add the state law claims over violation of the California Environmental Quality Act to the Federal lawsuit. The issue over whether the Federal Court properly took jurisdiction over the state law issues is currently under appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Federal Court judge proceeded to hear arguments on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent Caltrans and FHWA from doing that which they were already barred by the 1998 conditional Record of Decision from doing: buying properties or constructing the freeway. Over the strong objections of Caltrans and FHWA, the Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction barring right-of-way acquisition and construction -- although the Federal Court order is redundant to the Record of Decision. The attorneys for the City of South Pasadena also pressed hard to get the Federal Court to bar Caltrans from planning the freeway -- an activity that was already underway. The judge refused this request and therefore the existence of this lawsuit has not slowed the work towards completion of the 710 Freeway. How South Pasadena Uses Litigation to Delay the 710 Freeway The lawsuits filed by the City of South Pasadena are a key part of the City’s strategy to resist the development of the 710 Project. With the current preliminary injunction in place (which really was unnecessary since the 1998 conditional Record of Decision barred right-of-way acquisition and construction), the City of South Pasadena has attempted to confuse other public decision makers about the 710 Project and its readiness for planning and funding. Part of the public relations campaign waged by the City of South Pasadena is to claim the Project will "never happen" because there is an injunction. At the present time, the injunction is a "preliminary injunction" meaning that the Federal Court is merely making sure things stay the same (continue the planning of the freeway up to authorization to proceed with construction) while the Court determines whether South Pasadena’s objections have any merit. Since the granting of the preliminary injunction, neither South Pasadena nor the State/Federal defendants have moved forward to end this lawsuit. South Pasadena and other project opponents like it this way. They portray the pending lawsuit as creating uncertainty . The transportation agencies use the suits as reasons for not completing the 710 Freeway planning process.