The 710 Freeway extension is heading back to court.
Two months after the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted against building a tunnel from the freeway’s terminus near Alhambra to the 210 and 134 freeways interchange in Pasadena, the city of Rosemead filed a lawsuit asking the court to throw out that decision.
Rosemead is suing Metro in Los Angeles Superior Court, saying the board’s vote was premature and violated state environmental laws.
“We want the MTA’s May 25 decision to be vacated, to have that undone,” said Dennis Ehling, attorney with Blank Rome LLP , a Los Angeles-based firm hired by the city.
The complaint alleges that Metro’s board should have waited until the final environmental study was certified by its partner, Caltrans, which isn’t expected until early next year. The lawsuit calls the action “a clear breach” of the environmental review process begun by Caltrans and Metro in March 2015.
Metro spokeswoman Kim Upton said the transportation agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The legal challenge comes as somewhat of a surprise, since the Metro board vote portended the end of any freeway extension after nearly 60 years of debate from city halls, which included a 1999 federal court decision won by South Pasadena scuttling a surface route.
Metro’s board rejected the 6.3 mile tunnel option, which would cost between $3 billion and $5.3 billion, saying the agency does not have the funds.
Instead, it chose as a “preferred local alternative” — a range of roadway improvements and other traffic management fixes along the 4.1-mile gap.
For those projects, the board allocated $105 million, taken from then $780 million pot intended for an “I-710 North Gap Closure (Tunnel) project” through Measure R, the half-cent transportation sales tax passed by voters in 2016.
Other projects also would be considered by Metro, including a new north-south roadway and improved freeway off-ramps at the 110. Metro could also include a new busway system. Cities were rushing to present projects to the Metro board as early as next month.
In a statement, Rosemead said it obtained an agreement with Metro not to move ahead on any projects nor spend any Measure R money for at least 55 days from July 20, so the court can consider its claim. Upton would not comment and did not confirm the existence of such an agreement.
“I am somewhat puzzled by the stance Rosemead is taking, given that they are not all that impacted,” said South Pasadena City Councilwoman Marina Khubesrian on Monday.
Rosemead’s complaint says even though the city is located several miles east of the 710 corridor, its streets are affected when cars are forced off the freeway at Valley Boulevard, creating a traffic glut.
Rosemead Boulevard, the nearest north-south thoroughfare, takes on a lot of this added traffic, according to the complaint.
The move comes a week after anti-710 representatives Khubesrian and Pasadena Mayor Terry Tornek, along with representatives from pro-tunnel cities such as Alhambra and Monterey Park, sat down with Los Angeles County Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Hilda Solis.
The meeting was described as a first step in a collaborative effort to spend Measure R money to fix traffic snarls in affected cities.
Ehling said the city is not asking the court to choose the tunnel but to choose an option that closes the 710 Freeway gap. He said the Metro board ignored two staff reports saying the tunnel was the best option for improving traffic flow.
The city hopes the court will force L.A. Metro to review other alternatives, especially the tunnel option.
“Rosemead and other cities in the neighborhood believe the tunnel is the preferred alternative,” Ehling said. “We believe the clear intent of voters was to close the gap and relieve the traffic problems.”
Khubesrian said she’s not sure what a court can do in this instance.
“The court can’t force Metro to fund a project when there is not funding,” she said.
The complaint has not yet been assigned to a courtroom, but Ehling believes a hearing is forthcoming.
