EPA Letter on 710 Freeway Could Further Delay Project

In a move that could further delay the proposed Long Beach Freeway extension, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said that previous estimates of the long-stalled project’s environmental impact are inadequate and that new studies should be conducted before construction begins.

Felicia Marcus, the EPA’s regional administrator for California, in a March 4 letter to her counterpart at the Federal Highway Administration, challenged the need for the $1.4-billion roadway, which would slice through El Sereno, South Pasadena and part of Pasadena.

Marcus said a 1992 environmental impact statement on the 6.2-mile route needs updating--a process that could take more than a year. But the highway administration, which gave its preliminary approval to the project in November, said it sees no need to reconsider.

The tiff between the two bureaucracies is the latest chapter in the freeway saga, which has dragged on for 35 years. South Pasadena has virulently opposed the project, which would bisect its historic downtown while closing the gap between the San Bernardino and Foothill freeways.

South Pasadena seized upon the EPA stance Wednesday, asserting that it should derail the project.

“This is what we’ve been saying for years,” said city spokesman Alan Maltun. “It would be unwise to move forward without heeding this advice. It would make a mockery of the federal transportation system.”

But transportation officials countered that they saw no need for another environmental review of the project--though they said they won’t rule out further study of South Pasadena’s alternative proposal, which is for a street-based traffic corridor.

“The EPA and other agencies have the right to comment on this project,” said Steven Akey, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation. “We stand by our view. There is no need for a supplemental review at this time.”

EPA senior policy advisor Nancy Sutley said her agency has the right to raise serious concerns. “Reasonable people differ,” she said. “The EPA believes there have been significant changes to warrant a supplemental review.”

Adding to the controversy, the EPA has suggested that not only is the street-based alternative a viable option but that the extension “will not substantially relieve congestion”--a major goal. “If you build a road, people will come,” Sutley said.

Although the EPA does not control transportation issues, its opinion may have its highest impact in court. South Pasadena is expected to file what it calls an “Armageddon lawsuit” to kill the project after the extension is formally approved. Federal officials said such approval could come this summer.

“This EPA letter is dynamite,” said Antonio Rossman, South Pasadena’s attorney in the matter. “This will be the first thing I present in court.”

Before then, neighboring Alhambra is scheduled to go to trial next month in its lawsuit against the federal government over the lack of progress on the freeway construction. The city alleges that traffic has been redirected onto its streets because of the freeway gap, causing environmental problems.

“Alhambra is opposed to performing yet more studies on this freeway,” said Steve Onstot, the city’s special environmental counsel.

Last week, a federal historic preservation advisory council also suggested more review of the extension project.