In an email blast to Pasadena city officials last week, longtime San Rafael neighborhood resident Joan Terry sounded the alarm under the subject line “710 Extension proposals.”
“What part of ‘NO’ do you people not understand!? And how many times must the residents of this neighborhood have to step up and protect what is a first-class, highly desirable, residential neighborhood — the likes of which are rapidly giving way to overdevelopment and bad planning?”
Within minutes, Pasadena Councilman Steve Madison responded, calling the newly proposed routes by L.A. County and state transportation officials “appalling” and assuring residents it will be discussed by the City Council next week.
He recalled that he has been fighting the Long Beach (710) Freeway gap extension since at least 2000 when voters overruled the council and supported extending the Pasadena Avenue stub of the freeway to Alhambra, adding that the new proposals “would have a devastating impact on our neighborhoods and our quality on life in west Pasadena.”
Once again, as it has so often over the last half century, the push to close the “710 gap” is gaining momentum, igniting fear and anger among residents all along the possible routes through the Arroyo Seco, from El Sereno to South Pasadena, all the way to the Ventura (134) and Glendale (2) freeways in the north.
Just about everything involving the long-stalled 4.5-mile extension from Valley Boulevard in Alhambra to Pasadena is in dispute and has been since the 1960s.
Lawsuits, legislative intervention, protests, untold millions spent on planning, engineering, environmental studies, the purchase of 400 homes along the route, many now in disrepair — yet county and state officials have revived the project thanks to passage by voters four years ago of the Measure R sales tax increase worth more than $30 billion over 30 years.
“I understand freeways through communities have impacts, but there are also a lot of benefits,” said Duarte Councilman John Fasana, the San Gabriel Valley member on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
“I’m also in favor of transit, but I don’t think it’s going to replace the need of people and goods to move in cars and trucks. For this region as a whole, the 710 gap extension is a good thing. Most of the San Gabriel Valley supports it, especially the below-ground proposal.”
What energized the San Rafael Neighborhoods Assn., formed only recently after Pasadena closed its only fire station, was discovering back in May that two of the possible routes for the extension would go through the community.
Both would involve a tunnel under South Pasadena, which can legally block a freeway at grade. One would turn Avenue 64 into a six-lane highway at the surface; the other would end the tunnel at the north end of the San Rafael neighborhood for connection to the 134 and 210 freeways. As many as 200 homes and businesses would be threatened.
Both would involve a tunnel under South Pasadena, which can legally block a freeway at grade. One would turn Avenue 64 into a six-lane highway at the surface; the other would end the tunnel at the north end of the San Rafael neighborhood for connection to the 134 and 210 freeways. As many as 200 homes and businesses would be threatened.
“This is one of the only areas around with that pristine quality of life — the nature, the environment, the beautiful homes — it’s very unique. To see it destroyed is unfathomable. It would be a tragedy,” said Ron Paler, president of the neighborhood association, and one of the dozens of people who risk having their homes taken under eminent domain and leveled.
“What this feels like is this governmental entity has suddenly showed up at our doorstep and said we’re considering taking over your home and your neighborhood and putting in a freeway. We have $700 million in the bank, and we’re ready to start right now.
“Every time people think it is dead, it comes back to life.”
$700 million of taxes collected from the residents held in the bank because
a certain segment of the people who own the officials because of supporting
their election wants to buuild a road that noone else wants or needs so that
they can profit. The elected people keep saying “We must keep our promise-
it is the right thing to do>”
I think $700 million in the bank should be used to pay the bills the c ity
already owes and lower the taxes for the residents who are living through some
really tough economic times prevalent at the present time.
Tht money does not belong to the commissioners and officials, it belongs
to the people who live in the city. Thumbs down on the 701 extension -
“the road to hell”.
I grew up near one of the proposed routes “way back when.” The thought of what it would have done to my neighborhood still makes me cringe.
I’ve heard more politicians and city official mock the NIMBY folks–like they are some sort of cancer to what the politicians see as progress. These elected bodies don’t get that they, the politicos, are the cancer. It’s the quality of life in So Pas that makes it desirable. I see it changing just north, up by the 210 Del Mar exit, Cordova/ Arroyo, etc. They are adding 100′s of condos that are making portions of Pasadena a bumper to bumper night mare—all in the name of progress.
Our politicians are going to have to redefine progress. If they think adding to increases the tax base they are mistaken. Ultimately, it chips away at the very thing they think they’re acquiring.
People of So Pas–stand strong. Protect your turf and tell those politicians where they can really shove the 710 extension.
According to my cousin who lives near avenue 64, the residents are being told that the reason for the 6 lanes is to allow more truck traffic