A full house of approximately 120 residents and city officials gathered Monday for a resident-led meeting at Hill-Harbison House to discuss plans presented to the city by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) on alternatives to the 710 tunnel project. Metro’s plans involve five projects which are related to $32 million in Measure R tax funding reserved for San Marino after the defeat of the tunnel option and the group now seeks traffic solutions between the end of the 710 freeway near Alhambra and the 210 freeway in Pasadena. The meeting served as a platform for residents to learn more about the proposal impacts and voice their thoughts on whether the quality of life in San Marino would be best served by fully accepting the proposals, partially accepting them or rejecting them altogether. The City Council is expected to set a vote on the proposed plan in June.
The projects currently being considered for funding include Huntington Drive intersection work ($12 million), Huntington Drive signal synchronization ($7 million), work in front of school sites on Huntington Drive ($6 million), work along Sierra Madre Boulevard ($4 million) and San Gabriel Boulevard signal synchronization ($3 million). From Metro reports, the project goals are to increase capacity and expedite the flow of traffic on existing local streets, while giving the city an opportunity to use the funds to customize roadway needs that best suit the community.
The meeting was spearheaded by Citizens for a Safe San Marino, a resident initiative started in 2017 in response to an increase in burglaries within the city. On Monday, member Dr. Ghassan Roumani, a resident for 40 years, presented combined maps of the five projects from a Metro-funded study. Stating research from the group’s calculations on the study’s data, he expressed concerns for the safety of school children along Huntington Drive with traffic volume increases by up to 64 percent on some residential streets and speed increases on Huntington Drive by 16 percent, which would alter the current average speed from 48 mph to over 52.5 mph.
“That’s a freeway,” exclaimed Roumani. “So we have to be very careful when we evaluate this particular aspect of the plan. We’re not using scare tactics. We’re talking about facts. We should look out, discuss and make a decision.”
With a background in researching the Metro project and the environmental impact reports (EIR) presented for it, group member and 29-year resident Dr. Raymond Quan shared perspectives from the reports and history of the initiative. With the end of the 710 freeway terminating between El Sereno and Alhambra, Quan explained that Alhambra has been struggling with traffic congestion coupled with a residential construction boom. He noted that the city has considered ways to relieve the load, including funneling traffic to Huntington Drive and streets north of it. Detailing projected traffic changes in 2035 from the reports, he shared that if San Marino accepts traffic synchronization signal work along Huntington Drive and San Gabriel Boulevard, the number of cars traveling through the city will increase and more people will be encouraged to take those routes.
“So it doesn’t take a genius to say if we build one here, guess what’s going to happen to our volume? It’s going to go up because it’s making the traffic flow better,” said Quan. “That’s what it’s supposed to do. That’s what Metro wants. That’s why they’re giving us 10 million to build traffic signal synchronization. They want to help us take the load off of Alhambra.”
Taking a look at the projects from a regional perspective, member and 20-year resident Stephanie Johnson noted that the Metro plan has a regional goal of traffic flow not tailored specifically to cities and expressed “there’s value for the city in taking a defensive tactic in this.”
“Basically this plan isn’t in the interest of any one city,” said Johnson. “It’s in the interest of the area generally. It’s in the interest of people who don’t live in this area so they can get where they need to go.”
After the speaker presentations, residents had the opportunity to share traffic stories and express their thoughts on the proposals. Marilyn Peck shared that as a resident along Huntington Drive for 47 years, she felt that Metro was only out for vehicles to speed through the San Gabriel Valley and wasn’t considering how residents specifically would be affected.
“They’re not thinking of people living along there, and some of you may not either because you don’t live on Huntington Drive,” said Peck. “So I would say that I feel that we should give the money back to Metro. They call it an improvement. Only in their minds.”
Resident Hal Suetsugu of Sycamore Drive said that the Metro funding gives San Marino the “opportunity to actually create a betterment for the city” and that the city can negotiate the proposals to increase roadway safety around schools.
“I think that maybe we should look at things that our community would like to have without sacrificing our quality of life,” said Suetsugu.
At the end of the sharing, a show of hands was taken to express whether all, parts or none of the proposals should be accepted. Residents also could share whether they felt they didn’t have enough information. A vast majority of hands were raised to reject all of the proposals.
City Council Member Steve Talt, Vice Mayor Gretchen Shepherd Romey and Mayor Dr. Steven Huang were present to take in resident stories. Afterward, Talt shared the general feeling he gained from residents’ thoughts.
“It’s trending to the negative,” Talt told The Tribune. “It’s either rejecting everything or taking a closer look at some of the alternatives. The important part of this meeting is that there’s been a lot of misunderstanding out there and I think we’re getting closer to having the public understand exactly what we’re doing.”
Talt stressed that a key concern of his was that many residents believe the project is out of the city’s control.
“People think that the city council has already decided. We haven’t,” said Talt. “In essence, what they’ve done is that they’ve offered this money to us. We still can accept or reject it along five different ways.”
