WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 1 WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Response to the SR-710 North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement August 3, 2015 www.wpra.net WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONPAGE NUMBER Document Cover1 Table of Contents2 Executive Summary3 WPRA Draft EIR/EIS Response Key Contributors10 Historical Overview of the SR-710 Project13 2.1 Project Definition Project Need, Purpose and Study Area 16 2.2 The EIR Process61 2.3 The Analysis and Definition of Alternatives88 2.4 The Alternative Environmental Impact Assessment110 3.1 Land Use116 3.2 Growth120 3.3.1 Community Character and Cohesion132 3.3.3 Economic Impacts133 3.3.4 Environmental Justice141 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services142 3.5 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 146 3.6 Visual Quality159 3.7 Cultural Resources172 3.8 Hydrology and Floodplain182 3.9 Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff183 3.10 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography185 3.13 Air Quality189 3.14 Noise and Vibration202 3.15 Energy213 3.16-3.21 Natural Communities, Wetlands and Other Waters, Plant Species, Animal Species 215 3.24 Construction and Tunnels223 3.25 Cumulative Impacts275 WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 3 INTRODUCTION Executive Summary The West Pasadena Residents Association (WPRA) is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to maintainingandenhancingthecharacterofSouthwestPasadenaandthequalityoflife throughoutPasadena.Werepresent7,000householdsandhavenearly1,000dues-paying members. BecausetheSR-710StudyProjectwillhaveaverylargeandpermanentimpactonour community,ourBoardofDirectorsandavolunteerteamofexpertshavereviewedtheState Route 710 (SR-710) North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement(EIR/EIS)releasedonMarch6,2015.Alistofkeycontributorsthatsupportedthis effort is provided at the end of this Executive Summary. TheapprovalofMeasureRinNovemberof2008presentedanexcitingopportunityforLos Angeles County to improve its transportation infrastructure in a meaningful way.Unfortunately, webelievethatMetrohassquanderedthisopportunityandhasnotseriouslyconsidered environmentallyresponsibleandfeasiblealternativestomeaningfullyaddressregional transportation issues in the SR-710 Study Area. Fromitsinception,theSR-710Studyenvironmentalprocesshasbeenimproperlyconducted. Theprojectdefinitionisunstableanddistorted.TheSR-710andI-710projectshavebeen improperlysegmented,preventingthepublicandstakeholdersfromfullyunderstandingthe entiretyoftheprojectanditsco-relatedimpacts.TheProjectNeedstatementalsoisunstable.TheDraftEIR/EIShasadifferentProjectNeedstatementthanwhatwaspresentedinthe Alternatives Analysis Report. This substitution was made without explanation.Such tactics call into question the validity of the alternatives selection process.Furthermore, the Project Need is based on flawed assumptions and is not justified by the data presented.Instead, it is based on an out-of-date, pro-automobile, pro-speed paradigm that erroneously assumes that highway building inandthroughcitiesreducescongestionandincreasesmobility.Inaddition,italsofailsto considerchangingpublic,stateandnationalprioritiestoreducegreenhousegasemissions.It completely ignores the California state law SB743, which calls for the reduction of greenhouse gasemissions,thedevelopmentofmulti-modetransportationnetworks,andadiversityofland uses.Finally,theenvironmentalprocesshasfailedtoadequatelyaddresstheProjectNeedfor safety.Forthetunnelalternative,safetyhasbeengrosslycompromisedinordertoachievethe desired performance and cost objectives. TheEIRprocessalsohasbeenconductedinamannertojustifyandsustainadecisionalready made:thefreewaytunnelasthepreferredalternative.BoththeMetroorganizationandboard membershavehistoricallyadvocatedforthetunnel.MetrosfavoritismcontinuesintheDraft EIR/EISwiththebiasedselectionoftheStudyAreaboundariesandalternatives,thebiased bundling of options, the deferral or complete failure to address large environmental impacts for the tunnel alternative, data averaging, and the selective presentation and manipulation of data. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 4 TheSR-710AnalysisoftheAlternativesisalsogrosslydeficient.Forexample,theSR-710 Study failed to considera multi-mode alternative, despite numerous community inputs to do so duringthescopingprocess.Thisisegregiousparticularlyinlightofthe1999injunction prohibitinga710surfacefreewayextensionduetoCaltransfailuretoconsideramulti-modal lowbuildalternative.Thealternativeselectioncriteriaonlyconsiderednorth-southcorridors ratherthantheefficiencyofthetransportationnetworkasawhole.TheGlendaleregiona primarysourceofthe710tunneltrafficaccordingtheMetrowasexcludedfromtheStudy Area;consequently,Glendale/Burbankoptionswerenotconsidered.Inaddition,optionsthat providemeaningfulLRTandBRTconnectivityandbroaderareaservicewereignored.The TSM/TDMalternativefailstoaddresssafetyandconnectivityissuesassociatedwiththe210 stub in Pasadena and the termination of the 710 freeway in El Sereno. Remnants of historic 710 extension aspirations, these transportation and safety nightmares have divided and plagued these communities for more than a half century.Moreover, the Draft EIR/EIS proposes several tunnel alternative options that we do not find credible.This includes the no truck option, which is not enforceableeitherintheneartermorfuture,andthesingle-boretunneloption,whichisnot reasonable because it exceeds margins of safetyand passes unacceptablefire and accident risks onto tunnel users. TheDraftEIR/EISenvironmentalimpactassessmentisalsogrosslyflawed.Itlackssufficient information to substantiate many claims and defers decisions and analyses required for a credible and dispassionate environmental impact evaluation. For many technical areas, it fails to establish the criteria for significant environmental impacts; consequently, claims of no significant impact are not substantiated. Missing information, deferred designs and analyses, and failure to establish criteriaforsignificantimpactshasresultedinaveryimmatureand/orweakformulationof mitigation measures for this phase of the EIR process. Also, we have found numerous significant Findings of Inadequacy in the Draft EIR/EIS technical assessment.Highlights are summarized below: 3.1Land UseAcceptable mitigations for many Land Use related environmental impacts were not provided. ThereportassumesthatlocalGeneralPlans,locallanduseplans,andstate,regionaland localtransportation-relatedplanswillbemodifiedtoimplementtheBuildAlternatives without justification.It does not consider the possibility that requests for modifications may be denied.Thereportfailstoacknowledgethattheproposedventilationtower(s)willhavesubstantial adverseimpactsonanumberofscenicvistas,willsubstantiallydamagescenicresources, and,willsubstantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterandqualityofthesiteandits surroundings.ThisinturnwillhavesubstantialadverseimpactsonCulturalResources, specially the Old Pasadena National Register Historic District. 3.2Growth Growth data are misrepresentedandgrossly overstated. Some data is irrelevant to the study area and the anomalous 2008 recession year was used as the base year for calculating growth.ThereportfailstoacknowledgedocumenteddeclininggrowthratetrendsinLosAngeles County. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 5 Thereportfailstoproperlyassessgrowth-inducedenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtogoods movement, expanded freeway capacity and changes in traffic patterns. 3.3Community Impacts The report fails to acknowledge the City of Pasadena as a site of cultural significance or address impacts to the communitys identity, tourism and economic vitality if the tunnels are built. For example, impacts to the Tournament of Roses Parade, the Norton Simon Museum and Old Pasadena are not addressed. The economic impact analysis dismisses indirect effects of the build alternatives and presents misleading results. It fails to recognize the unique economic impacts for the tunnel alternative and trivializes the consequences of business relocations, especially in Environmental Justice communities. Also, the report dismisses the disproportionate impacts of construction for the communities of Pasadena, El Sereno and Monterey Park approximately 22% of all Pasadena employees are expected to have a high likelihood of disruption. Moreover, the economic impact analysis improperly uses the project cost as the only determining factor for employment calculations; consequently the report is biased in favor of the most expensive alternatives. Finally, the report fails to either recognize or assess the impacts to the Tri-Cities economic region, which includes Pasadena, Glendale and Burbank. The report fails to properly identify issues, environmental impacts, or mitigations related to Disadvantaged Communities in the Study Area, and has both failed to inform, and misinforms, these communities in a manner that perpetuates environmental injustice. The accepted CalEnviroScreen tool was not used to properly identify Disadvantaged Communities.For example, Northwest Pasadena has been ignored. Impacts on unincorporated counties (e.g. El Sereno and East Los Angeles) have been trivialized because of improper screening methods and the proposed elevated LRT line in Los Angeles is a burden to that community.Moreover, tunnel tolls place a disproportionate economic load on the disadvantaged who have been assigned a minimal value in the cost benefit analysis because they are more likely to use transit. 3.4Utilities / Emergency Services The utility impact analysis is limited to facilityrelocation analysis. It does not describe the size,appearanceorlocationofrequiredelectricalfacilitiessuchaselectricalsubstations,or the adequacy of transmission and distribution facilities, or the sources of power.Its unclear where water used for construction and de-watering will come from or how it will be disposed. This is especially crucial given the drought emergency in Southern California. ThereportfailstoanalyzetheHuntingtonMemorialHospitalMasterDevelopmentPlan Amendment and does not adequately analyze impacts on emergency services near the tunnel portals. Thetunnelalternativefailstoincorporatereasonableoptionsforfirstrespondersafetyand tunnel access/egress. 3.5 Traffic and Transportation / Pedestrian and Bicycle FacilitiesIt is not demonstrated that the Tunnel Alternative is consistent with local, regional and state transportation strategies, especially SB743, which calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 6 emissions, development of multi-mode transportation networks, and mass-transit responsive land uses. The report indicates that the SCAG traffic model has not been validated and adjustments made to the Heavy Duty Truck Model were not adequately explained. The traffic analyses are flawed and deficient.They fail to properly analyze spillback and bottlenecks, induced traffic, tolls and toll diversion, ramp metering, intersections and segments near the tunnel portals, emergency services near the tunnel portals, cut through traffic along the Pasadena Ave. / Saint John Ave. / Fremont corridor, and parking impacts. Traffic models and analyses are based on outdated population and automobile traffic growth estimates and ignore current and future generational transportation trends.The report fails to support claims that the Tunnel Alternative will reduce traffic on local streets and in neighborhoods. Impacts due to shifting traffic patterns are minimized.This includes, but is not limited to changes in land use, development, and demographics. The LRT alternative is very limited in scope and the design provides inconvenient connections with the Gold Line north and south. The TSM/TDM alternative fails to address safety and traffic issues at the stubs in Pasadena and El Sereno.The report fails to assess Tunnel Alternative impacts on Rose Bowl Stadium traffic. 3.6 Visual / Aesthetics The Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) failed to adequately consider Pasadenas rare and unique visual attributes and underestimates the Tunnel Alternative environmental impacts.Key Views studied do not reflect high-impact views in Pasadena.A VIA of the north tunnel portal cannot be made because the design and location of the electric substation and ventilation towers have been improperly deferred. The report improperly minimizes the visual impacts of Tunnel Alternative sound walls. Visual impacts during the years-long tunnel construction are trivialized and mitigations are deferred. The VIA fails to consider the reasonable possibility of a TBM breakdown and repair operation from above ground. 3.7 Cultural Resources The report fails to identify Pasadena as a site of cultural significance. Note:TheWPRAadoptsandincorporatesthecommentsubmittedbybothPasadena Heritage and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 3.8Hydrology and FloodplainEncroachmentontheLagunaRegulatingBasinisinadequatelyaddressedandthereis insufficientinformationtoconcludethatadequatedownstreamdrainagecapabilityexiststo accommodate the build alternatives. 3.9Water Quality and Storm Water RunoffInsufficientinformationwaspresentedtoensurethattunnelconstructionwouldnot compromise the Raymond and San Gabriel water basins.WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 7 Contaminationofwellsanddisposalofwaterusedduringtunnelconstructionwasnot adequately addressed. 3.10Geology/Soils/Seismic/TopographyFor the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, the Draft EIR/EIS fails to establish either environmental impacts or significance criteria for ground settlement cause by tunnel boring.Tunnel seismic design criteria have not been established.Key geological/seismic designs, investigations and analyses have been inappropriately deferred until after the alternative selection is made. Seismic modeling performed to date is inadequate to determine the feasibility and safety of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, and meaningful modeling has been deferred until after the alternative selection is made. There is no evidence that geological/seismic lessons learned from historic tunnel seismic events were adequately considered or incorporated into tunnel designs. 3.13Air QualityThe air quality analysis does not adhere to generally accepted policies and practices followed by California air quality and health agencies for analysis of Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) impacts on near roadway residential areas.The report also uses outdated guidance for the calculation of cancer risks; consequently, cancer risk estimates are underestimated. Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses have been improperly deferred until after the alternative selection is made. The MSAT Analysis improperly takes credit for air quality improvements outside the scope of the project, mischaracterizing and underestimating the negative health impacts of the freeway tunnel alternative to the public, stakeholders and decision-makers. The Health Risk Assessment is not conservative; health risks were assessed for the year with the lowest MSAT emissions. Inadequate information is provided to assess the air dispersion model for the Tunnel Alternative. There is very little and conflicting information on the exhaust facility location, design and air pollution control system.The model does not consider unfiltered air escaping from the tunnel exit and reduced dilution that occurs at night.Dispersion model parameters are inadequately described and a sensitivity analysis was not performed. Criteria for establishing receptor locations was not established and the location of the receptors could not be resolved with information provided; consequently, receptor air quality environmental impacts could not be validated. Concentrations of air pollution inside the tunnel are not discussed and may produce high health risk for regular tunnel users, or for drivers that are delayed in the tunnel due to congestion or accidents. The report fails to acknowledge the uncertainty of estimated emission rates and modeling results, and the values shown imply precision that does not exist. A Health Impact Assessment has not been performed. 3.14Noise and VibrationThe noise impact analysis indicates there will be up to an 11 dB increase in noise adjacent to the 210 stub at the north portal, which far exceeds the Federal Transportation Agency noise WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 8 thresholds for allowable increases.The report also fails to recognize Ambassador Auditorium as a concert hall.Vibration impacts from tunnel boring were not adequately addressed. The vibration impact assessment related to tunnel blasting has been deferred until geotechnical information is evaluated. 3.15EnergyTheEnergyimpactsanalysisisconfusing,lacksinformationandincludesincorrect assumptions regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).For the Freeway Tunnel and LRT alternatives, the amount of energy required for the Tunnel BoringMachine(TBM)operationsisnotspecified.Meaningfulplansforelectricity provision are deferred; thus environmental impacts cannot be assessed. 3.16 to 3.21Natural Communities,Wetlands and OtherWaters, Plan Species, Animal Species, Threatened and Endangered Species, Invasive Species Current sources were not used for the identification of special status species. Animal species surveys are incorrectly reported and there are erroneous statements about wildlife corridors.Botanicalfield studies were notconducted in a manner that allows for ameaningful impact assessment.Invalid assumptions are made about rare plant persistence. AssertionsaboutthehabitatvalueofwetlandsareinconsistentwithNaturalEnvironmental Study (NES) survey data. 3.24 Construction Impacts The report fails to consider the possible breakdown of a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) in the environmental impact analysis. Repair operations for the Seattle Alaskan Way Viaduct TBM indicate that this could result in a very large impact to communities above the tunnel route. A decision on the location and design of the tunnel exhaust towers and utility substation in Pasadena has been deferred. The tunnels are built to very minimum fire and safety standards and fail to employ features used in recently built long tunnels using lessons learned from major tunnel disasters. The tunnels lack intermediate exits, egress routes to the surface, multiple access passages from one road deck to another and internal safe havens. The single-bore tunnel alternative lacks cross transits to and from a non-existing parallel tunnel. The proposed tunnel operations plan fails to prevent hazardous materials and vehicles from entering the tunnel portals. Challenges associated with transporting the TBMs from the port to the construction sites were not acknowledged. A feasibility plan, environmental impacts and costs associated with this unique and impactful construction activity were not provided. It was not demonstrated that the design, build and operational standards cited are appropriate for the Tunnel Alternative. 3.25 Cumulative Impacts The report improperly considers cumulative impacts related to numerous projects (e.g. the I-5, the I-710, I-10/I-605 Direct Connector, I-110 widening, Devils Gate Dam, other LRT projects, etc.).WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 9 The cumulative impacts assessment is incomprehensible.Forty projects have been identified as having cumulative impacts.The I-710 South Draft EIR/EIS alone is 26,204 pages in length. For the reasons cited above and in more detail in this document, we consider the SR-710 Draft EIR/EISdeficientandinadequate.Weaskforarecirculationofthereporttocorrectforthese deficiencies. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 10 WPRA Draft EIR/EIS Response Key Contributors Note:With one exception identified, all contributors are volunteers.For the purpose of this response, contributors have acted as individual citizens and do not represent the organizations where they are employed. NameContributionQualifications Justin Chapman Lead EditorProfessional writer and editor. WPRA Board member and Secretary. Nina Chomsky, Esq. Land UseAttorney specializing in environmental law and land use. President of the Linda Vista Annandale Association.Former Pasadena Design Commissioner. Bill Christian, Esq. NEPA, CEQAEnvironmental attorney at The Nature Conservancy.Previously worked for ARCO, the EPA and the State of Alaska.Teaches environmental policy at Claremont College. Kristine Cloward Noise and VibrationAssociate at the RCH Group. Technical experience in air quality, GHG emissions, noise, integrated waste management, and environmental monitoring. Vince Farhat, Esq. Transportation, Community Impact, Editor Commissioner, Pasadena Planning Commission.Former Pasadena Transportation Commission. Scot Fruin, Phd. Air Quality and HealthUSC Assistant Professor in Preventive Medicine, Division of Environmental Health. Research focused on air pollution exposure assessment. Sarah GavitTeam Leader, Project Definition, Process, Alternatives, Transportation, Growth NASA planetary system engineer, project manager and consultant. WPRA Vice President. City of Pasadena SR-710 Alternative Working Group. Frank Gilliland, Md. Air Quality and HealthDirector of the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center. Physician and researcher specializing in detrimental health impacts of freeway pollutants. Avram GoldTunnel Research, Construction Retired supervising sound editor for major motion pictures and television. Gary HackneyUtilities, Water Quality, Economics Retired civil engineer and water industry professional. Mic HansenLand Use, Cultural Resources,Editor Commissioner and Chair, Pasadena Planning Commission, Commissioner, Pasadena Design Commission. Former WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 11 Commissioner and Chair Pasadena Historic Preservation Commission.Member, Pasadena General Plan Update Advisory Committee.Board member and past chair, Pasadena Heritage. Warren Haussler Growth, Port ResearchEngineer.President and owner of Keck-Craig Engineering. Roger KintzEnvironmental JusticeEnvironmental Justice Coordinator for the EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control. Deborah Kirtman CEQA, Process, Visual Impacts Retired project manager, Environmental Science Associates.Jesse LattigCultural ResourcesPreservation Director for Pasadena Heritage. Ian Lockwood, PE TransportationPaid transportation consultant.Regional Office Director at Toole Design Group, Orlando FL. Previously of Glatting Jackson, AECOM and the City of West Palm Beach. Paul MillerNoise and VibrationPrincipal Consultant at RCH Group. Expertise includes energy, integrated waste management, air quality and noise analyses. Sue MossmanCultural ResourcesExecutive Director for Pasadena Heritage. Audrey OKelley Contributions EditorWPRA Director, Past President Chairmain of Connecting Pasadena Project. Sophie Parker, Phd. Natural Communities, Wetlands, Species Acting Director of Urban Conservation at The Nature Conservancy. Ecoregional and regional ecologist. Andre de SalisGraphic SupportProduct designer at BMW Designworks USA. Ann ScheidCultural Resources, Community Impact Greene and Greene Archivist at the Gamble House/USC. Former Pasadena city planner and architectural historian for the State of California.Authored two historical books on the City of Pasadena and multiple scholarly articles on cultural resources and preservation. Bert Steece, Phd. Modeling for Air Quality and Health Professor of Statistics Emeritus at USC Marshall School of Business. Former Dean of Faculty.Specialist in statistical modeling, time series analysis (forecasting), and econometrics, including for air pollution. Mitch Tsai,NEPA, CEQAEnvironmental attorney at Mitch Tsai WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 12 Esq.Law.Lee WallaceAir Quality and HealthEnvironmental Affairs Manager at Sempra Energy. Previously Regional Affairs Manager of Air Quality External Relations for the Southern California Gas Company. Gazelle Raye Wichner Land Use, Community and Economic Impact Experience in complex real property valuation and analysis, including major highway and rail corridors. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 13 Historical Overview of the 710 Project In the 1930s, the Department of Highways (DOH, later known as the California Department of Transportation or Caltrans) designated the route (of what is now SR-710 extension, sometimes referred to as the gap) as LRN 167, from Long Beach to Monterey Park. The route was extended to South Pasadena in 1949. In 1959 the Master Plan of Freeways and Expressways extended the route to I-210. The Department of Highways began location studies in 1960, changed LRN 167 to Route 7 in 1963, and issued its Project Report identifying seven alignments in 1964. Following a couple of public hearings in Pasadena, the California Highway Commission (CHC) adopted the Meridian Route (Huntington Drive to I-210) in November 1964. South Pasadena requested a reconsideration, which was denied. Second and third requests for reconsideration in 1966 and 1967 were also denied. The Long Beach Freeway opened between Route 10 and Valley Blvd. in February 1965. The City of Los Angeles signed the Freeway Agreement in April 1965. Alhambra and Pasadena followed suit in May 1966 and March 1967, respectively. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the state-adopted route in June 1967. In November 1969, the CHC directed the DOH to study the Westerly Route proposed by South Pasadena. In the 1950s until 1978, Caltrans began purchasing more than 500 private houses and lots in Los Angeles, Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Pasadena with a plan to demolish them and build a surface freeway connecting the SR-710 in Alhambra to the I-210 in Pasadena. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law in January 1970, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was signed into law in November 1970. DOH issued its Adopted Line Report in February 1972. Pasadena accepted the Adopted Line in March 1972. South Pasadena resolved to recommend the Westerly Route for the SR-7 extension in April 1972. CHC reaffirmed its adopted alignment the same month and concluded that the Westerly Route was not feasible in November 1972. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was formed in January 1973 and released the EIR (I-10 to Huntington Drive) the same month. South Pasadena, et.al. sued to stop construction, also the same month, pending compliance with NEPA & CEQA. An injunction prohibited Caltrans from constructing the extension project until an EIR was properly completed. Caltrans submitted an EIR four times between 1973 and 1992 and was rejected by the FHWA each time. South Pasadena amended its General Plan to show parks across the adopted route in March 1973. U.S. District Judge E. Avery Crary arbitrated the settlement. An EIS was stipulated that month. The state sued to prohibit a park on the adopted route in May 1973. In July 1973 Judge David A. Thomas ruled in favor of the state on the parks issue. Judge Thomas directed South Pasadena to place the adopted route on its General Plan in September 1973. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 14 Caltrans released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in March 1975. Pasadena, South Pasadena, and& Alhambra jointly agreed to the Plan C alignment (which was a modified Westerly Alignment) in July 1975. The state legislature passed AB 1716 (Arroyo Seco Park Preservation Act) to prevent the route from encroaching on parks in August 1975. Caltrans tentatively approved the Plan C alignment in September 1975. Wishbone (a one-way couplet; Pasadena Ave. & St. John Ave.) construction was nearly completed in March 1976. LA County Supervisors supported completing the project to Huntington Drive in August 1976. Caltrans released its Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) in September 1976. Community workshops and public hearing were held on the SDEIS from October to December 1976. Los Angeles joined Pasadena in suit to complete portions of the Gap Closure in December 1976. Caltrans submitted its FEIS to the FHWA recommending a freeway between Routes 10 and 210 in June 1977, but the FHWA rejected the FEIS on the basis of route segmentation and lack of local support in August 1977. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) was established in January 1978. Senate Bill 86 (the Roberti Bill) imposed conditions on state agencies disposing of residential properties in January 1979. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) held public hearings on project location in May 1980. LACTC reaffirmed support for the completion of the project in July 1980. Opposition and lawsuits in the 1980s and 90s from residents in the so-called 710 Corridor, many from South Pasadena and surrounding communities, forced Caltrans in the early 2000s to abandon plans to build a surface route. The federal injunction from 1973 was not lifted until 1998, when FHWA accepted Caltrans supplemental EIR and issued the Record of Decision (ROD) the agreement that committed the federal government to fund a large portion of the project. South Pasadena filed a federal lawsuit citing failure to protect clean air, the environment, and historic properties. In 1999 U.S. District Court Judge Pregerson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Caltrans from proceeding with the 710 Freeway Project. Judge Pregersons lengthy opinion identified numerous, substantial violations of federal law that would have to be remedied prior to completing the project, including violations of the Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Act, and Historic Preservation Act. No attempt has been made by the defendants to satisfy the violations found by Judge Pregerson. FHWA rescinded their ROD IN 2003. In 2004 the CTC withdrew its Notice of Determination (NOD). In 2002, with plans to build a surface road connecting the two freeways shelved, Caltrans decided to move forward with a tunnel alternative. In 2004, the Metropolitan Transportation WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 15 Authority selected a team of consultants, led by the engineering firm Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas to conduct a feasibility study for the tunnel. The narrow scope of the study focused on connecting the freeway stubs in Alhambra and Pasadena, and failed to analyze the needs of the surrounding region. Metro issued its Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report in 2006. In 2010, Metros board decided to move forward with the environmental review of the SR-710. The contract was awarded to CH2M Hill in 2011, with the public outreach contract going to Consensus, Inc. Metros State Route 710 Study: Alternatives Analysis Report was released in 2012, and included a recommendation for the following alternatives to be evaluated further: No build; Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management; Bus Rapid Transit; Light Rail Transit; Freeway Tunnel. Metro and Caltrans released the Draft EIR (totaling 26,625 pages) on March 6, 2015. The cities of Los Angeles, La Caada-Flintridge, Sierra Madre, Glendale, South Pasadena, and Pasadena all have passed formal resolutions opposing the proposed tunnel(s) alternative, but cities like San Marino, Monterey Park, and Alhambra continue to support Caltrans proposal. In addition to voting against the tunnel alternative, the Pasadena City Council adopted the Pasadena Preferred Alternative report by the SR-710 Alternatives Working Group, which recommended a multimodal alternative with the following elements: light rail transit; expanded bus service; local street network improvements; and bicycle transit. Regional cities, organizations, and individuals also came togetherin 2015 to form Beyond the 710, a group looking for the best ways to relieve traffic, connect communities, promote smart growth, and help people get to their jobs, schools, shopping, and recreation. The group is opposed to the tunnel alternative and has drafted a multimodal alternative. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 16 2.1 PROJECT DEFINITION - PROJECT NEED, PURPOSE AND STUDY AREA 1. The Draft EIR/EIS improperly segments the SR-710 and I-710 Projects; this has resulted in a misleading and inconsistent SR-710 project definition, and an inadequate alternatives and impacts analysis. TheSR-710andI-710arepartofthesamefreewaycorridor.Metro/Caltranshasimproperly segmented the SR-710 and I-710 megaprojects, grossly misrepresenting the need and purpose of the SR-710 Project to the public, stakeholders and decision-makers. ItisevidentthataprimarypurposeoftheSR-710Studyprojectistoservicethemovementof goods by trucks from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to points north and east using the 710corridor1.Segmentationoftheseprojectsremovesconsiderationofarangeofreasonable alternativestomeetregionaltransportationneeds,includingthosethataddresscurrentand predictedporttrafficgrowth.Segmentationalsoresultsinafailuretofullyanalyzethe cumulativeenvironmentalimpactsthatresultfromconstructingthetwocloselylinkedprojects. Wefirstbrieflysummarizesegmentationissues,andthenprovidedetailinthesectionsthat follow. In summary, a)The I-710 and SR-710 Projects have been inappropriately and illegally segmented. They are in fact a single, linked project; as separate projects each has greatly weakened utility2.b)Segmenting the two projects allows the SR-710 Project Need and Purpose statements to avoid addressing the effects of creating a new goods movement corridor in the SR-710 Study Area3. Consequently, b1) The Draft EIR/EIS uses an inaccurate and unstable (changing) project definition.b2) TheDraftEIR/EISomitscriticallyimportantalternativesrelatedtoincreasesin port-related traffic.b3) TheDraftEIR/EISfailstoadequatelyassessenvironmentalimpactsrelatedto port traffic and port growth. b4) The Draft EIR/EIS grossly misrepresents the project, its alternatives and impacts, crippling reasonable participation by decision-makers, stakeholders and the

1 Caltrans and Metro have recently altered public statements about intended truck use of the SR-710 portion of the corridor with no explanation (discussed below), and the Draft EIS/EIR is deceptively vague about whether trucks would use the tunnel or other alternatives.This issue is at the very heart of the projects impacts and, to be valid, the environmental analyses must be based on a clear decision on either truck use or preclusion. 2 The use of the federal term independent utility is essentially determinative of whether a project is connected to another action in such a way that a collective environmental impact assessment is required under NEPA. Decisions have held that the hallmarks of segmentation are where the proposed component action has little or no independent utility or involves such a large and irretrievable commitment of resources that it may virtually force a larger or related project to go forward notwithstanding the environmental consequences); North Carolina v. City of Virginia Beach, 951 F.2d 596 (4th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, in determining whether segmentation has occurred, federal courts ask whether the completion of the first action has direct and substantial probability of influencing [the] decision of the second). Here, the proposed improvement and expansion of the I-710 roadway drives completion of the Sr-710 project. 3 State Route 710 Study, Alternatives Analysis Report, December 2012, prepared for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Sections ES.1.3 Need and ES.1.4 Purpose.WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 17 public. c)Segmentation results in a failure to assess alternatives equally across project boundaries; this unequal treatment results in biased and inaccurate cumulative impact assessments for both 710 projects. **** a) The I-710 and SR-710 Projects have been inappropriately and illegally segmented. They are in fact a single, linked project; as separate projects each has greatly weakened utility. The EIR description of the SR-710 Project is limited to the stretch from Route 1 to Route 210 in Pasadena4.However, to state the obvious, the I-710 and SR-710 Projects would functionally alter the same roadway; both sections of the 710 have historically always been described as one freeway, sharing the same number and eventual connection to the Foothill Freeway. The SR-710 Project section has always been envisioned as an integral part of the I- 710 freeway. As evidence, we present the following: The planning of the Long Beach Freeway dates back to the 1940s, and although freeway names have changed with time, the 710 freeway has always been envisioned as a continuous north-south route that includes the SR-710 Project area in the north and what is now the 210 and 134 freeways5.The extension of the 710 to the Foothill Freeway was planned back in 19556.On April 25, 1957, the State Assembly unanimously passed a bill accepting a recommended proposed 187 miles of southern California highways into the state highway system, thereby qualifying for state and federal highway funds. As noted in the referenced newspaper article, the new Los Angeles mileage written into the highway system includes: ... Long Beach Freeway from Huntington Drive to Foothill Freeway, 2.8 miles; ....7 The I-710 and SR-710 Project sections are, in effect, part of the same freeway with closely aligned study areas. The study areas should overlap, but are artificially separated in places by less than 1.5 miles.The projects would serve potentially large increases in cargo traffic from the ports8 and commuter traffic along a contiguous north-south corridor.Each project includes a multi-lane freeway expansion, constructed using mass excavation and grading activities that

4 The California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, 622, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635 5 See http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy.html for the 1947 map of the Master Plan for LA Freeways and the 1949 Proposed Parkway Plan by the Automobile Club of Southern California. 6 Seehttp://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy-pt2.html. 7 Los Angeles Times, April 26, 1957, pg. 12:Southland Voted New Road Routes:Assembly passes Bill for 187 Miles of Highways to be added to State System. 8 I-710 Missing Link Truck Study: Traffic Analysis for the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion With and Without the I-710 Gap Closure. Preliminary Draft Final Report. Submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments. KOA Corporation. May 2009. Refer to http://www.no710.com/_critical-issues-links/2-concerns/2-tunnel_info/3-710scag-missinglink-tr-st.pdf. Within the study area, and based on the responses from fleet operator survey, 50 percent of the operators would use the I-710 if it connected to I-210, 44 percent of the operators would not use the I-710 if it is connected to I-210, and 6 percent of the responses were not sure. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 18 would adversely affect traffic flows and nearby communities for years to come.Each would cost billions of dollars and share long, and overlapping planning and construction periods. Both projects are now in the planning and environmental analysis phase. The I-710 is planned to be built from 20209 to 2027.10 The 710 Gap Closure is planned to be built from either 2020 to 2025 as stated in the Draft EIR/EIS, or approximately 2025 to 203011 according to the 2012 Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan. By segmenting the 710 environmental planning and impact processes into two projects, north and south, Metro has violated both NEPA and CEQA.Each statute independently prohibits separating the analysis of major actions that are closely linked. NEPA regulations provide that NEPA 40 CFR 1502.4:. Proposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact statement. Relevant Federal Highway Administration (FHA) NEPA guidelines provide segmentation rules for highway projects: 23 CFR 771.111(f):In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each environmental impact statement (EIS) or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall:1.Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope;2.Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and3.Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. An FHWA memo dated November 5, 1993 provides additional guidance on the development of logical termini, where logical termini for project development are defined as (1) rational end points for a transportation improvement, and (2) rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts. See http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp. A series of federal and state cases have held that piecemealing or improperly segmenting closely linked projects is improper.See, Laurel Heights Improvement Commission v Regents of the University of California,(1988) 47 Cal. 3rd 376, 393 and Daly v Volpe, 514 F2nd 1106, 1109-1110 (9th Cir., 1975). The Daly opinion noted that

9 I-710 Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation, Executive Summary, Section S.3.1 Cost and Schedule. 10 I-710 Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation, Chapter 2, Table 2.5-2 Construction Duration, http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/I710/images/eir-eis/2.0_Alternatives.pdf. 11 Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035, Southern California Association of Governments, April 2012, Table 2.2 Major Highway Completion Projects. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 19 piecemealing proposed highway improvements in separate environmental statements should be avoided (at 1109). another criterion for determining the reasonableness of a proposed highway segment is whether the length selected assures adequate opportunity for the consideration of alternatives....and provides independent utility (emphasis added, page 1110).12 Segmentation of the SR-710 and I-710 projects violates both CEQA and NEPA guidelines and is illegal, especially where the truncation of the project area for the SR-710 eliminates important analyses of the combined projects. The I-710 project plans to significantly increase the width and traffic carrying capacity of the I-710 freeway. Those effects are not fully analyzed in SR-710 Study Draft EIR/EIS. b) Segmenting the two projects allows the SR-710 Project Need and Purpose statements to avoid addressing the effects of creating a new goods movement corridor in the SR-710 Study Area. This has resulted in the following deficiencies in the Draft EIR/EIS. b1) The Draft EIR/EIS uses an inaccurate and unstable (changing) project definition. It is obvious that perhaps the key purpose of both the I-710 and SR-710 Projects is to facilitate goods movement from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to points north and east through Pasadena.The 710 Corridor exists today as a major truck route connecting the ports and their loading facilities with freeway routes to warehouses and distribution centers located to the north and east of San Pedro and Long Beach.The infamous gap between Alhambra and Pasadena on the SR-710 has been identified as a roadblock to the efficient flow of truck traffic. Currently, most truck traffic is diverted to the I-10, the SR-91 and the SR-60 freeways (SR-710 Draft EIR/EIS, Section 1.2.2.1, Capacity and Transportation Demand). There is ample evidence in documents, interviews and maps produced by Caltrans, Metro and the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) that their intended purpose in filling the gap is to facilitate goods movement from the ports.The No 710 Action Committee has documented examples in a memo dated September 26, 2012.13 See Attachment A.As just one example, Metros April 21, 2011 news release in The Source, Transportation News and Views states:

12 The use of the federal term independent utility is essentially determinative of whether a project is connected to another action in such a way that a collective environmental impact assessment is required under NEPA. From various federal court cases, the hallmarks of segmentation are where the proposed component action has little or no independent utility or involves such a large and irretrievable commitment of resources that it may virtually force a larger or related project to go forward notwithstanding the environmental consequences); North Carolina v. City of Virginia Beach, 951 F.2d 596 (4th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, in determining whether segmentation has occurred, federal courts ask whether the completion of the first action has direct and substantial probability of influencing [the] decision of the second). (Id) As noted above, the completion of the I-710 project, a principal object of which is to accommodate increased port goods movement by trucks, would strongly affect the need to complete the SR-710 project and the nature of the selected alternative.13 No title, No 710 Action Committee to Ron Kosinski, September 26, 2012. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 20 The710northgapclosurebetweentheI-10andtheI-210wouldcompletethenatural goods movement corridor that was begun several decades ago.14 The SR-710 DEIR/DEIS Cumulative Impacts Assessment for the I-710 South Corridor Project (pg. 4-21), clearly states that by adding highway system capacity to the goods movement infrastructure in Southern California, all of the Build Alternatives will have a beneficial effect in accommodating the forecast growth in the movement of cargo containers via truck within the I -710 Corridor. (emphasis added) Yet starting with the release of the 2012 Alternative Analysis Report (AAR), Metro has repeatedly denied that a purpose of the SR-710 Project is to facilitate goods movements from the ports.In Sec. 2.3 of the AAR it says, No freight rail alternatives were included in the preliminary set of 42 alternatives becausethe primary need identified for the project is to accommodate regional north-south travel demands, and the primary demand for mobility in the study area is that of people, not freight. (AAR, Sec. 2.3, Preliminary Screening (emphasis added)) The AAR discussion goes on to claim that port truck traffic will be naturally limited on the SR-710 / 210 route because. There are very few large warehouses in the study area compared to other parts of the SCAG region (SCAG 2012, Metro 200811), and the vast majority of truck traffic from the San Pedro ports is destined for intermodal yards and other facilities south and east of the study area (SCAG 2012). SCAGs RTP/SCS includes an east-west freight corridor to move goods from the ports to these facilities. The distribution of truck trips in the County is not expected to change substantially in the future because available and undeveloped warehouse space is primarily located in the same geographic areas as existing warehouse space, outside the study area (SCAG 2010). In addition, expansion of intermodal capacity serving truck traffic from the San Pedro ports is expected to take place at the existing facilities south and east of the study area, or potentially in the Victor Valley, far to the east of the study area (Metro 2009) (emphasis added). It is intuitively obvious that connecting the I-710 south to the I-210 freeway provides a direct goods movement corridor to both the Inland Empire to the east and destinations north of Los Angeles.See Figure A. Importantly, the Draft EIR/EIS omits mentioning that the corridor would provide a critical bypass to the currently congested I-5 truck route through downtown Los Angeles.See Figure B.It is manifestly unreasonable and ingenuous to assume that port-related truck traffic would not use the new I-710 / I-210 routes for traffic both east along the 210 freeway to existing and new warehousing and north paralleling the I-5 corridor to avoid downtown Los Angeles.In fact, a fleet operator survey taken as part of SCAGs 2009 I-710

14 Metros Highway Program Ramps Up for Big Year, Metros The Source, Transportation News and Views press release, March 21, 2011, by Steve Hymon, http://thesource.metro.net/2011/03/21/metros-highway-program-ramps-up-for-big-year/. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 21 Missing Link Truck Study showed that 50 percent of the operators would use the I-710 if it connected to I-21015. Figure A:The I-710 connection to the 210 will create an obvious and natural corridor for goods movement from the ports to points north and east (Source: WPRA drawing). Figure B:The I-710 connection to the 210 will create a bypass to the currently congested I-5 truck route through downtown Los Angeles (Source: WPRA drawing on Google map)

15 I-710 Missing Link Truck Study: Traffic Analysis for the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion With and Without the I-710 Gap Closure. Preliminary Draft Final Report. Submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments. KOA Corporation. May 2009. Refer to http://www.no710.com/_critical-issues-links/2-concerns/2-tunnel_info/3-710scag-missinglink-tr-st.pdf.WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 22 The Draft EIR/EIS does not commit to trucks or no trucks in its tunnel alternative; however, we assert that a no truck option is clearly not credible.This issue is more fully described in a Finding of Inadequacy in Section 2.3 of this document.In summary, The tunnels are intentionally being built to accommodate trucks (if this were not the case smaller tunnels would be built). The no truck operating mode is neither enforceable nor realistic with the proposed tunnel system design. Even if a no truck option were to be selected, a legally enforceable commitment by government agencies would be required to enforce a no truck operating mode. That is not discussed or proposed, and Without trucks and tolls, it is not evident that the project is financially viable. The foundation of the EIR/EIS argument about low truck use is speculative, unsupported and not realistic. The argument assumes that current warehousing locations will prevail in the future. While warehouse space is currently aligned along existing truck routes (see Figure C), the description of goods movement in the SCAG 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Chapter 2, p. 68) emphasizes that warehouse expansion is inevitable.Where it will occur is a matter of speculation.The RTP says warehouse space is projected to grow at a faster pace than demand for domestic warehousing. As space near the San Pedro Bay Ports reaches capacity, port warehousing will push out to the Inland Empire. Expansion in national and regional distribution facilities is also likely to occur in the Inland Empire, resulting in substantial congestion problems due to the increased truck volumes on regional highways. Figure C:SCAG Map of Warehouses in Southern California.16

16 See WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 23 Furthermore, the 2012 SCAG 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan, Goods Movement Appendix, specifically identifies the I-210 as a major east-west freight corridor servicing regional warehousing and manufacturing (pp. 20-22).An exhibit from this document shows the importance and distribution of warehouses and manufacturing along the I-210.See Figure D. Figure D:Manufacturing and Warehousing Concentrations Along the I-210(from SCAG 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan, Goods Movement Appendix) If the I-710 / I-210 connection were to be made, zoning will yield to accommodate strong economic pressures to build even more warehouse capacity along the 210 freeway and points east, especially to accommodate port-related goods movements. Warehouse zoning permits will inevitably increase as 210 and I-15 freeway-bordering properties become environmentally less http://maps.scag.ca.gov/web/Ex_2.7_Warehouses_w_Southern_California_Main_Line_Rail_Network_revised.jpg.A map is also provided in the SCAG 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan, Exhibit 2.7. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 24 desirable for residential use and attractive for commercial use supplementing the already congested SB-60 and I-10 routes. It is thus clearly illogical to assume that warehouses will not be built along the new truck routes. In the March 24, 2015 Fact Sheet, Metro tries to minimize the fact that port cargo trucks will use the SR-710 tunnels if built. CLAIM: The freeway tunnel will invite more trucks to travel through the area for goods transport from the ports. FACT: The vast majority of the trucks that already travel within the Study area are local trucks that are delivering merchandise to local businesses. Cargo trucks traveling to and from the ports typically begin/end in the area south of State Route 60 or distribution centers in the Inland Empire. This argument is irrelevant. Current freeway usage by port cargo trucks in the absence of the SR-710 tunnel freeway does not reflect future usage by cargo trucks if the tunnels are built.If the I-710 and I-210 freeways were to be connected, a new truck route would be created that would be used as a major goods conduit.As noted above, the fleet operator survey taken as part of SCAGs 2009 I-710 Missing Link Truck Study - compelling evidence of future truck use of the completed 710 corridor - showed that 50 percent of the operators would use the I-710 if it connected to I-21017.The Draft EIR/EIS does not address the implications of this survey, nor has Metro undertaken a new survey of how the completed 710 freeway route would be used by trucks.This represents a fatal flaw in the truck analyses. Rather than conducting a new truck survey, in February 2015 at an SR-710 North Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, Metro claimed that less than 1% of the traffic coming through the tunnel will be port trucks.18 See Figure E. This statement was not backed by evidence.Moreover, it is intentionally misleading because Metro defines port trucks as only those trucks where shipping containers are put on truck flatbeds directly at the ports.Metro fails to count trucks that are part of the end-to-end goods movement that services the ports.Thus, if a truck makes a stop at a warehouse before starting its long haul, it would not be counted.This blatant attempt to minimize the implications of heavy truck usage of a completed 710 corridor places the integrity of the environmental analyses in serious doubt. Figure E:Metro SR-710 North Study Technical Advisory committee Meeting No. 14 February 19, 2014, slide 12.

17 I-710 Missing Link Truck Study: Traffic Analysis for the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion With and Without the I-710 Gap Closure. Preliminary Draft Final Report, Southern California Association of Governments, KOA Corporation, May 2009. See http://www.no710.com/_critical-issues-links/2-concerns/2-tunnel_info/3-710scag-missinglink-tr-st.pdf. 18 Metro SR-710 North Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 14 February 19, 2014, slide 12. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 25 Port traffic has in fact been variable in the last ten years due to the Great Recession (2007-2009), labor disputes, increased dock congestion related to multi-carrier megaships and dock logistical problems.In the future, there are also threats to port growth as a result of changes in world trade routes (e.g. resulting from the expanded Panama Canal) and an increased emphasis on supply chain flexibility. Nonetheless, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are still expected to grow significantly.Forecasts in the SCAG 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan, Goods Movement Appendix, indicate that that goods movement at the ports will increase by approximately 150% from 2015 to 2035.The Draft EIR/EIS is grossly negligent in claiming that such a large growth in the ports would have no significant impact on a major new truck corridor that services those ports. By failing to disclose goods movement as a need and purpose of the SR-710 Study Project, and by failing to analyze its implications, the Draft EIR/EIS does not comply with NEPA requirements and guidelines, and CEQA statutes, guidelines and court rulings that call for an accurate, honest, and stable project definition: NEPA Title 40, Chapter V, CFR 1502.13 Purpose and need: The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action. NEPA Desk Guide, October 1999, 3.4.1 Determining Purpose and Need: Care is important in determining purpose and need because this determination defines the range of alternatives that can be considered and, as a result, greatly influences whether the action is likely to have a significant effect. 2014 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines 21005. I NFORMATI ON DI SCLOSURE PROVI SI ONS; NONCOMPLI ANCE; PRESUMPTI ON; FI NDI NGS:1. (a)The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 26 information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division, may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions. 2014 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, 15378[a]: Project means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. 2014 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines 15124. PROJ ECT DESCRI PTI ON: The description of the project shall contain the following information (b) A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision-makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project. County of I nyo vs/ City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193 [139 Cal. Rptr. 396]: In presenting the whole of an action in an EIR, the lead agency must prepare an accurate, stable and finite project description ... [that] is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. Furthermore, in the same legal opinion for the County of Inyo (Ibid, pages 192-193): A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affect outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposals benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the no project alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. CEQA Guidelines (15358[a][2]: Identifies effects as also indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. b2) The Draft EIR/EIS omits critically important alternatives related to increases in port-related traffic. The SR-710 EIR process has not considered practical alternatives, including expansion of freight rail capacity that would address goods movement from the ports.The Alternatives Analysis Report, Sec. 2.3 Preliminary Screening, p. 2-2, specifically states No freight rail alternatives were included in the preliminary set of 42 alternatives WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 27 because the primary need identified for the project is to accommodate regional north-south travel demands, and the primary demand for mobility in the study area is that of people, not freight. The only SR-710 Study alternative that briefly addresses port cargo traffic issues is the tunnel-freeway alternative.The BRT, LRT and TSM/TDM alternatives do not discuss truck use, nor would they serve this need.Thus, the Draft EIR/EIS fails to provide a reasonable range of alternatives to address improved freight transportation in the region. Missing alternatives not discussed include, but are not limited to, the following:1) Heavy rail additions and improvements, 2) Improvements in existing truck routes, 3) Near-term technologies for near-zero emission cargo transport and 4) Long term changes in port and goods movement technologies.Failure to include these alternatives has prevented the public and stakeholders from fairly participating in the EIR/EIS process. Failure to provide a reasonable range of alternatives violates NEPA regulations and CEQA statutes, guidelines and court rulings: NEPA CFR 1502.14 Alternatives including the proposed action: This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment (1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (1502.16), it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public. In this section agencies shall: (a) rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives 2014 CEQA Statues and Guidelines: 15126.6. CONSI DERATI ON AND DI SCUSSI ON OF ALTERNATI VES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT: (a) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. From Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 - The Legislature has defined "feasible," for purposes of CEQA review, as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Pub. Resources Code, s 21061.1; Guidelines, s 15364; Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 402, fn. 10, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278; Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 910, 165 Cal.Rptr. 401.) Both the California and the federal courts have further declared that "[t]he statutory requirements for consideration of alternatives must be judged against a rule of reason." (Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 910, 165 Cal.Rptr. 401; Village of Laguna Beach v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1028-1029, 185 Cal.Rptr. 41; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (1978) 435 U.S. 519, 551, 98 S.Ct. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 28 1197, 1215, 55 L.Ed.2d 460; Coalition for Canyon Preservation v. Bowers (9th Cir.1980) 632 F.2d 774, 783.) [FN4] As we have explained, "One of [an EIR's] major functions ... is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed by the responsible official." (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 197, 132 Cal.Rptr. 377, 553 P.2d 537, italics added; accord Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 400, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278; Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1083-1085, 230 Cal.Rptr. 413.) b3) The Draft EIR/EIS fails to adequately assess environmental impacts related to port traffic and port growth. Needless to say, if the project is improperly defined and does not consider a reasonable range of alternatives, then a legally compliant environmental impact assessment cannot be written. Simply identifying the I-710 South project as a cumulative impact is inadequate.The public and stakeholders in the SR-710 Study Area have not been made aware of the importance of the I-710 South Draft EIR/EIS, or encouraged to participate in that EIR process.There is little information on the subject in the SR-710 Draft EIR/EIS. It is clear that many of the environmental impacts of an inaccurate projection of increased port truck traffic have not been fairly addressed.At a minimum, air quality, noise, and growth inducing effects on population, land use and employment have definitely not been properly addressed. The Draft EIR/EIS for the SR-710 North Study states that, the project will not result in unplanned growththe study area is largely built out.None of the alternatives provide new access to undeveloped or underdeveloped areas (SR-710 Draft EIR/EIS, Vol. 1, Executive Summary, Table ES-1; p. 29).This conclusion is not supported by evidence in the document.The Draft EIR/EIS does not provide evidence to refute the reasonable expectation that a project designed to substantially increase capacity on a major transportation corridor serving the largest ports in the United States will result in changes in traffic patterns and land uses that lead to growth. It also fails to address the impacts that forecasted growth at the ports will have on growth in the SR-710 Study Area once the I-710 / I-210 connection is made.Consequently, the growth impact analysis is inadequate under both NEPA and CEQA.This is discussed further in a finding in Section 3.2, Growth, in this document. b4) The Draft EIR/EIS grossly misrepresents the project, its alternatives and impacts, crippling reasonable participation by decision-makers, stakeholders and the public. Because the Draft EIR/EIS uses an inaccurate and unstable project definition (see item 1 above), it fails to assess a reasonable range of alternatives for addressing port traffic, (see items 1 and 2 above) and does not allow for a fair discussion and assessment of environmental impacts by the public, decision-makers or the public (see item3 above), it is fundamentally flawed and does not fairly present the project and it alternatives to decision-makers and the public.Thus, the SR-710 Study Project EIR process constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates fundamental NEPA regulations and CEQA statutes, guidelines and court rulings. NEPA CFR 1502.1 Purpose: The primary purpose of an environmental impact WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 29 statement is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. 2014 CEQA Statues and Guidelines, 21005. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS; NONCOMPLIANCE; PRESUMPTION; FINDINGS:1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division, may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions. 2014 CEQA Statues and Guidelines, 1506.6 Public involvement:Agencies shall: (a) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures. County of I nyo vs/ City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193 [139 Cal. Rptr. 396]: In presenting the whole of an action in an EIR, the lead agency must prepare an accurate, stable and finite project description ... [that] is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. Furthermore, in the same legal opinion for the County of Inyo (Ibid, pages 192-193): A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposals benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the no project alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. c) Segmentation results in a failure to assess alternatives equally across project boundaries; this unequal treatment results in biased and inaccurate cumulative impact assessments for both 710 projects. Metro has documented their treatment of inter-project cumulative impacts in the I-710 and SR-710 environmental processes in a technical memo19 dated October 9, 2013.See Attachment B.In summary, I-710 Project Study:For the I-710 Project Draft EIR/EIS, the SR-710 Project was not addressed at all.For the I-710 Project Re-circulated Draft EIR / Supplemental Draft EIS, the SR-710 Tunnel Alternative was included in the No Build and Build Alternatives, with a sensitivity test for traffic forecasts if the SR-710 tunnels are

19 Metro Memo, October 9, 2013, I-710 Corridor RDEIR/SDEIS Summary of the Technical Memorandum for the Model Input Data and key Assumptions for Person Travel, http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/I710/images/i710_person_travel_tech_memo.pdf. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 30 excluded.Other SR-710 Project Alternatives (BRT, LRT, TSM/TDM) were not addressed at all in their impacts on person travel. SR-710 Project Study: For the SR-710 Project DEIR/DEIS, the I-710 Project is addressed as a cumulative impact20. Metros consideration of only the SR-710 tunnel alternative as a cumulative impact in the I-710 Re-circulated Draft EIR / Supplemental Draft EIS demonstrates clear bias toward the freeway-tunnel alternative, resulting in inaccurate impact assessments for both projects. For the I-710 Project the cumulative impacts of the SR-710 non-tunnel alternatives (BRT, LRT, TSM/TDM) are not addressed. For the SR-710 Project, the Draft EIR/EIS does not disclose which I-710 alternatives it assumed.Furthermore, there is no sensitivity analysis or consideration of the I-710 alternatives that are not assumed.This precludes a complete environmental impact assessment. 2. The Draft EIR/EIS SR-710 Project Need statement was changed without explanation creating an unstable project definition and uncertainty regarding the validity of the Alternative Analysis process. In Section ES.1.3, of the SR-710 Study Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR) (December 2012), the Project Need is clearly stated as follows: The lack of continuous north-south transportation facilities in the study area has the following consequences, which have been identified as the elements of need for the project:It degrades the overall efficiency of the larger regional transportation system.It causes congestion on freeways in the study area. It contributes to congestion on the local streets in the study area. It results in poor transit operations within the study area. In Section 1.2.2 of the Draft EIR/EIS, Volume 1, the Project Needs section has been re-written as follows: The need for the project is described in detail in this section, based on consideration of the following factors: Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety Social Demands or Economic Development Legislation Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages There is little explanation of why the project need description was so significantly altered between the AAR and the issuance of the Draft EIR/EIS.The new project need statement is vague, interjecting terms that are fuzzy, indefinite, and potentially encompassing a broad array of

20 App X:Metro Memo I-710 Corridor RDEIR/SDEIS Summary of the Technical Memorandum for the Model Input Data and key Assumptions for Person Travel WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 31 subjects, rendering an understanding of the need and purpose of the project impossible. Under this new definition of need, literally any project could be justified.The needs statement obscurity is especially problematic in light of the lack of objective criteria in the Draft EIR/EIS for selecting alternatives and for determining levels of significance of the environmental impacts.Indeed, the AAR contained 8 specific performance objectives and associated performance measures related to transportation system performance, environmental impacts, planning considerations, and cost efficiency (AAR, pp. ES-3, ES-4). These objective and measures were used during the screening process to select alternatives for the Draft EIR/EIS. All of these measures are omitted from the Draft EIR/EIS, where they are a critical element of the publics ability to understand just what objectives and performance measures have been and will be used to select the preferred alternative.Turning to the new criteria, while the substitution of Capacity, Transportation Demand and Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages might be seen as fairly consistent with the AAR Project Need statement and descriptions, the new words selected to describe those criteria are much more obscure, lacking even the specificity of the AAR versions.Further, the addition of Safety, Social Demands or Economic Development and Legislation are new and add poorly defined factors to the project need. How they will be interpreted in the selection and evaluation of the preferred alternative is left unexplained. These are significant additions and changes to the Project Need and fundamentally destabilize the project definition. Moreover, these changes appear to render the Alternatives Analysis invalid, requiring a supplementary analysis to determine whether different alternatives should be selected given the new Need additions.That assessment has not been provided. In addition, the substance and rationale for these major changes to the Project Need statement from when the Alternatives Analysis was conducted were not shared with the public prior to the release of the Draft EIR/EIS. Absent some compelling, disclosed reason for the alteration, the public had the right to assume that the selection and analysis of alternatives in the AAR would represent the underpinning of the analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS. In summary, absent other explanation, it is reasonable to assume that the changes in wording were made to circumvent problems with the justification for the freeway tunnel under the old, more specific statement of need. Additional problems arise in the wake of the new Need statement: 1)Capacity, Transportation Demand and Safety (Sec. 1.2.2.1) The AAR does not discuss how safety criteria and metrics were used to affect the assessment and selection of alternatives for the Draft EIR/EIS.Consequently, the Alternatives Analysis is incomplete and invalid. For example, safety concerns make any freeway tunnel alternative a poor choice.As proposed, both the single and dual-bore tunnels have no inspection stations for flammable vehicles, no intermediate exit/on ramps, no passages from one road deck to another, no egress routes to the surface and no underground safe havens. In addition, the single-bore tunnel option does not have cross-passages to a parallel tunnel.These safety deficiencies pass on unreasonable risks to both tunnel users and first responders. Moreover, the Draft EIR/EIS fails to adequately address the Safety Need in its assessment of environmental impacts. This deficiency is described fully in Finding of Inadequacy in Sections WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 32 2.3 and 3.24 of this document. 2)Social Demands or Economic Development (Draft EIR/EIS Sec. 1.2.2.2) The Draft EIR/EIS discusses the new Project Need for Social Demands or Economic Development in relationship to both the 20122035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) / Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Metros Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The referenced 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) states The SCS is a newly required element of the RTP that integrates land use and transportation strategies to comply with the federal Clean Air Act and to achieve California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions reduction targets. The stated vision for implementing these new requirements into the 20122035 RTP/SCS is to include three main principles: Mobility, Economy and Sustainability. Far from evaluating the alternatives based on these factors, and despite the fact that the tunnel alternatives would make attainment of each of these criteria more difficult, the discussion in the Draft EIR/EIS focuses only on the justification of a pre-made decision - to build the tunnel alternative. This bias is apparent from even a brief scanning of the Draft EIR/EIS Section 1.2.2.2, Social Demands or Economic Development. This section gives a strong endorsement of the tunnels with the following quotes: The SR 710 North Freeway Alternative (Tunnel) is included in the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS and 2015 FTIP. As noted above, the SR 710 North Freeway (Tunnel) is listed as one of the major highway completion projects planned for the region in the RTP/SCS. With completion of the freeway, transit, and active transportation improvements identified in the RTP/SCS, the SCAG region would meet federal air quality requirements. The SR 710 freeway tunnel is included in Metros LRTP. No discussion of the SR-710 non-tunnel alternatives was included in this section. Moreover, no mention of Economic or Sustainability performance measures appeared in the Alternatives Analysis Report; thus, the Alternatives Analysis is not responsive to these new project Needs.Both the Initial and Secondary Screening Performance Measures listed in the AAR (Table 2-1 and T-4) simply say Consistency with RTP/SCS goals and Consistency with Metro LRTP goals.Apparently, an analysis of the SR-710 alternatives against these criteria was never performed, or if performed, was not publicly shared because its findings contradicted arguments for the tunnel. Rather the AAR simply accepts on faith that the SCAG and Metro decision to implement the tunnels would best meet Economic and Sustainability principles. This conclusion is not supported, and we believe that a fair analysis that used accepted principles for economics and sustainability would firmly reject the tunnel alternative in favor of other choices. Only a limited and biased SR-710 Cost-Benefit Analysis was released in June 201521, but this analysis was shockingly inadequate as documented by numerous letters to Metro from both the public and government officials.

21 Analysis of Costs and Benefits for the State Route 710 North Study Alternatives, Metro, June 19, 2015. WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 33 3)Legislation (Draft EIR/EIS Sec. 1.2.2.3) The Draft EIR/EIS discussion of the new Legislation need focuses on both Measure R and more recent legislation that could affect the alternatives under consideration. The new legislative enactments include Senate Bills (SB) 86, 416 and 743 and Assembly Bill (AB) 751. However, no discussion of what specific Project Needs and requirements arise from this legislation is included.Without this evaluation, the Alternatives Analysis, alternative selection criteria and performance metrics are invalid and incomplete, especially in the wake of the enactment of SB 743. The Draft EIR/EIS describes this bill as follows: Senate Bill 743: Approved by Governor Brown on September 27, 2013, SB 743 creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. It requires the Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must ...promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Measurements of transportation impacts may include vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The passage of SB 743 represents a fundamental change in the intent and direction for future transportation projects in California.Transportation projects must be analyzed under CEQA using new alternatives criteria and transportation metrics.This enacted legislation requires significant changes to the SR-710 Study Project approach and, if its effects are properly included, should significantly affect its outcome.For example, the tunnel alternative increases VMT, increases greenhouse gas emissions and ignores the call for multimodal transportation options. Consequently, the Draft EIR/EIS must be revised and re-circulated.Significantly, while the Draft EIR/EIS recognized the seminal importance of SB 743, it is completely silent on plans to implement this law. CEQA and NEPA compliance Failure to provide a stable Project Need statement, to disclose the reasons for differences in the Project Need statement between the AAR and the Draft EIR/EIS, and to define how the EIR/EIS process will comply with important statutory and regulatory requirements such as SB 743, violate core CEQA and NEPA requirements. First, the alteration in the project need statement violates the fundamental goal of both NEPA and CEQA to ensure that the decisional process for projects includes transparency and early public input.See Save Tara v. City of W. Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 116, 136 (CEQAs goal is transparency on environmental decisionmaking) and Sierra Club v. Gates (S.D. Ind. 2007) 499 F. Supp 2nd 1101 (lack of transparency troubling does not meet NEPA goal of public input). By giving conflicting signals to decision-makers and the public about the nature and scope of the activity being proposed, the project description is fundamentally inadequate and misleading. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 655-656 and Westlands Water District v US Dept. of Interior, (9th Cir. 2004) 376 F. 3rd WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 34 853, 866-868. The statement of Project Need, which is an essential element in the project description, seems to have been redrafted behind closed doors to adroitly move the EIR/EIS process solidly in the direction of the freeway tunnel alternative. The change in the project need statement to a more obscure, omnibus array of criteria is especially objectionable in the context of the removal of performance objectives, measures and screening criteria that were included in the AAR.The lack of transparency in how and why this important foundational piece of the EIR/EIS process was altered infringes on CEQAs full disclosure command and leads to further legitimate questions about the integrity and objectivity of the environmental analysis process. Second, an accurate and stable description of project purpose and need is a critical piece of the EIR/EIS process since it guides the environmental impact evaluation that leads to the selection of the preferred alternative. NEPA guidelines and CEQA statues and rulings require an accurate and consistent project description. NEPA Desk Guide, October 1999, Sec. 3.4.1 Determining Purpose and Need: Care is important in determining purpose and need because this determination defines the range of alternatives that can be considered and, as a result, greatly influences whether the action is likely to have a significant effect.2014 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, 15124 Project Description: The description of the project shall contain.A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project. County of I nyo v City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185 (1977), 192, Cal. Rptr. 396, and Rio Vista Farm Bureau v County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal. App. 5th 351, 369-370): A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposals benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the no project alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.Without an accurate and consistent Project Purpose and Need, the Alternatives Analysis and selection process is compromised.City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142(9th Cir.1995), provides courts with a framework for analyzing the range of alternatives discussed by an EIS. "Project alternatives derive from an [EIS's] `Purpose and Need' section." Id. Thus, a court begins by determining whether or not the Purpose and Need Statement was reasonable. Id.; see also Friends of Southeast's Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir.1998)."The stated goal of a project necessarily dictates the range of `reasonable' alternatives Id. at 1155 (citing Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 192 (D.C.Cir.1991)). WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO SR-710 NORTH STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT 35 3. The need for the Project is based on flawed assumptions and is not justified. The Project Need is based on flawed assumptions and is not justified for the following reasons: a)The Project Need is defined in terms of a necessity to fill a Gap in LAs freeway system; a 60 year old plan that does not respond to current transportation system conditions. b)The Project Needs focus on a north-south transportation problem is misplaced; the real need is to improve the efficiency of the regional transportation system network, which is ignored. c)Neither historical nor predicted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) trends support the Project Need. d)It was not demonstrated that models predicting future VMT adequately consider current game-changing technologies that are rapidly changing travel behavior and will further reduce VMT and the need for a freeway tunnel. e)Growth data are misrepresented and gr