Candidate Forum

By David L. Margrave

The South Pasadena Preservation Foundation

and Citizens United for South Pasadena

Councilman Margrave: Regionally, San Gabriel Valley communities must balance growth and moderate traffic congestion. Individual cities often have different objectives and solutions. Alhambra, Monterey Park and Rosemead are pushing the 710 Extension on the false (and outdated) premise that freeways facilitate the most favorable growth for all communities. They wish to alleviate the negative ramifications caused by their higher population- and commercial-density growth targets to "create" and transfer traffic congestion to neighboring communities. Many Foothill cities and residents--not acknowledged by "the proponents"--also oppose the 710 Extension.

It is important for responsible, compassionate citizens and leaders to respect neighboring communities and not demand a 710 extension in whatever form, no matter what. A 710 extension--tunnel or surface route--will bring 300,000 cars and cargo trucks north from the Long Beach Port to clog and disrupt the 210 and 134 Freeways, on a daily basis. The 210 and 134 are not designed to handle such traffic loads. The extension would only worsen already bad traffic gridlock.

One or two City Councilmen are pushing the false supposition that the tunnel will protect South Pasadena residents. The tunnel is not an innocuous solution. The tunnel's 100' smokestacks would pollute our air, and destroy our pristine skyline of church steeples and trees. It would dump traffic congestion on our neighbors to the north while providing no access to our own citizens. This boondoggle, projected at $15-$20 billion over the next twenty years, would preempt far more viable and suitable transportation alternatives for the Region. This complex, ill-conceived tunnel is an undesirable, unnecessary waste of public funds.

Light rail, heavy rail and reduced dependency on autos are the Future. Mass transit is a proper, cost-effective way to bring regional growth, relieve traffic congestion and protect our environment and quality of life. (back to top)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 2: What are your priorities in dealing with Caltrans over the next four years (e.g., what policies do you recommend)?

(a) To assure that a surface freeway will never be built

Councilman Margrave: Dealing with Caltrans is like playing poker with a stacked deck. Caltrans holds the cards and chooses what to deal and to whom. My views on Caltrans have not changed over 30+ years, and won't change in the next four. I recognize that to even the odds, you must become highly educated on transportation issues, develop a broad base of allies, and explore sensible alternatives.

I have intensively studied Caltrans reports and become familiar with applicable laws, policies, rules and regulations. Caltrans typically omits critical costs needed to build a successful project. Their personnel don't seem to know how to prepare forecast models to accurately guide development. Consequently, Caltrans transfers unknown costs and hardship to unsuspecting third parties. Poor planning, mismanagement and poor implementation lead to troubled projects plagued by cost over-runs, litigation and malady. Worse yet, many of Caltrans projects are rated F, or require upgrades when they open.

Caltrans' manipulations must be exposed. I will use my knowledge and experience to stop any 710 Extension! My resolve often makes me a target of powerful lobbies and opponents. Despite endless insulting attacks, I have never wavered.

If re-elected, I will use my experience to coordinate regional allies to stop the 710 Extension. Increasingly, educated public officials are seeing the 710 Extension as counterproductive and wasteful--whether surface, "bored tunnel", or "cut and cover". I will work with our Foothill friends to encourage light-rail and heavy-rail projects which are more efficient for moving people and goods. Like major cities on the East Coast, successful continued growth comes from mass transportation, not from building massive freeways all across the metropolitan area.

We must pursue successful long-term regional transportation solutions by encouraging properly-built light rail extensions from Pasadena to Glendale/Burbank and on out to the Ontario Airport. (back to top)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions 2. (b): In getting hundreds of Caltrans-owned homes in South Pasadena sold (and to whom and at what price?)

Councilman Margrave: Building on my answer in 2. (a), once we make it abundantly clear to Caltrans that thinking, caring, and conscientious citizens in the San Gabriel Valley won't support a wasteful, inefficient freeway, we can push to have the Caltrans-owned homes in South Pasadena sold.

We have a limited supply of affordable housing in South Pasadena. Many families struggle to afford to live here so that their children can attend our great schools. I would like to see the Caltrans homes sold to families--at prevailing market prices for these homes--and would like to restrict developers from buying large blocks of homes. If developers were to be allowed to buy a block of homes, they should first present their plans for providing affordable, suitable housing and receive approval by the City. South Pasadena has a scarce supply of affordable housing and needs to consider options for keeping this family community affordable.

I would like to see any new home development for the Caltrans homes adhere to standard easements and property distances to create a manageable population density and a style consistent with the rest of the city.

I would like to see all proceeds from the Caltrans-owned homes allocated to South Pasadena's Gold Line mitigation to resolve the current and future foreseeable deficiencies of the Line and/or to construct light rail projects in the San Gabriel Valley to benefit our citizens. (back to top)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 2. (c): Regarding the proposed tunnel alternative.

Councilman Margrave: As indicated throughout my responses to this Candidate Forum, I am opposed to the tunnel and its perils for our city and for neighboring communities. I am also concerned that the tunnel is another one of Caltrans' "bait and switch" tactics to deliver a less desirable freeway alternative. Once Caltrans has momentum and unilateral thinking that the tunnel freeway must go through, they will cite insufficient funds to utilize less desirable alternatives which may ultimately resemble the unacceptable 710 "Surface" Freeway Extension. This would be similar to Gold Line tactics where advanced technical remedies were promised to secure political and residential complacency in South Pasadena. Subsequently--and unknowingly to most affected citizens--the promised remedies were quietly abandoned as "no longer feasible" after funds had been used for the Los Angeles and Pasadena portions of the Line.

As many are aware, there is an alternative 710 Route known as the SR2 connection. This tunnel alternative would extend from south of the 10 Freeway in El Sereno north to the SR2 Glendale Freeway. If Caltrans has a true need to increase traffic on the 710, it could spend the $5-$12 billion budget (likely growing to $15-$20 billion over the next decades) building this extension. This route might better address Caltrans' issues of traffic congestion with fewer environmental problems. Of course, Los Angeles, Glendale and La Canada would have to approve. After analysis, I believe these cities will also see the tunnel option as a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer money.

The only reason to build more freeways is to promote more traffic. Our City and metropolitan area are better served by learning from the successful mass transit examples of other growing cities. Let's plan to reduce our need for cars and stop these destructive freeway proposals now! (back to top)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 3: What do you believe regarding positive and negative effects on quality of life of a 710 Tunnel under South Pasadena?

Councilman Margrave: Tunnels under South Pasadena would allow 300,000+ cars and trucks to travel north and south below us each day. The smog and filthy air would be brought to the surface via a smokestack-style chimney 100 feet tall (10 stories above the surface) and 40 feet in diameter.

The unhealthful exhaust would discharge in close proximity to residents living within 1,000 feet of the smokestack and would disburse across the City. During hot, still afternoons, this filthy air will primarily fall on our South Pasadena neighborhoods. There is no known filtration available, and none is anticipated.

The tunnel is not a positive solution. Would you want to have your family, your children, your grandchildren breathe such polluted air, 24 hours a day?! Not me. As a councilman, I will not accept a tunnel under my family or your family. Nor will I permit Caltrans to dump so many cars into the front door of our good neighbors in Pasadena.

A 710 extension tunnel or otherwise would allow Monterey Park and Alhambra to impose the burdensome costs of their expansive growth onto other cities in the San Gabriel Valley which have different values and priorities. These cities, not South Pasadena, are an impediment to sensible transportation development in our region.

Our communities would be better served by breaking the Southern California addiction to autos and to oil initiated after the oil, auto and tire manufacturers bought up and ripped out the Red Line cars and tracks spanning the Los Angeles area many decades ago.

Quality, cost-effective transportation improvements along with light- and heavy-rail expansion are better solutions. (back to top)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 4: The rationale for adopting the current Cultural Heritage Ordinance stated that "whereas (the City's cultural and historic heritage) is endangered by Southern California's relentless trend toward over-development...the City hereby desires to place a high priority on preservation of this fragile legacy." Two important factors compete with this goal: the need to make our city more economically viable and the requirement to comply with the law in accommodating our share of regional population growth. Where do you stand on this complex dichotomy?

Councilman Margrave: There is no complex issue here. Yes we must limit development. Key issues are addressed in the City's General Plan. Elected officials need to take the time to study the Plan to properly implement it.

To be sure, we must provide housing to accommodate our fair share of regional population growth. We can and must allow development in our older abandoned commercial zones such as Fair Oaks, Huntington Drive, Pasadena Avenue and Monterey Road. We must stop multi-family development in our single-family zones and down zone in areas deemed historic residential zones. We are a residential community and proud of it. As a City Council member, I'm going to continue to protect our homes.

At present, the City doesn't need much new housing to meet SCAG's targets. Based on consultations with members of the local real estate industry over the past decade, it is clear that the City has had a long-term shortage in senior housing. Over this time, I have actively encouraged and worked to fill this need for seniors. Near-term residential growth and housing targets could be met with minimal environmental impact by meeting the demand for quality senior housing. This will also enable our seniors to find suitable housing in South Pasadena rather than having to relocate to places like Palm Springs. The City should seek similar low-impact housing alternatives to manage future growth without harming our cultural and historic heritage.

The City cannot build its way out of congestion without first understanding what is needed. While our thoughtful General Plan is a useful guide, it also has inconsistencies and requires that certain portions be re-evaluated and updated. With cooperation from like-minded city officials, I will push the Council to form a Committee to focus on updating our General Plan and Zoning Code. (back to top)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 5: Overdevelopment does not necessarily mean new structures. Many of South Pasadena's oldest and most charming historic neighborhoods are made up of single-story bungalows. One by one, these charming streetscapes are being threatened by second story additions. Some cities do not permit "pop-tops" in historic residential neighborhoods because they obliterate history and destroy character-defining features of homes and neighborhoods. Would you like to see the City approval process be more lenient or more stringent in approving second-story additions to single-story residences? Why?

Councilman Margrave: Overdevelopment, destruction of our environment, and lenient building codes damage the quality of life that we have come to know and appreciate in South Pasadena.

Protecting historic residential neighborhoods is as important as any other aspect of local government. I believe we must create stricter rules in order to protect older historic residential units throughout South Pasadena. It's time to re-evaluate the work of prior volunteers and establish more controls to prevent the destruction of historic neighborhoods. If the Council does not make this a priority now, we may miss important opportunities to protect and save this important aspect of our City.

This has played an important role in my personal efforts to restore and preserve historic homes and sites. With proper representation of citizens' interests and support from my fellow Council members, I commit to make this an important priority of mine over the next 4 years.