by Winston Chua

ALHAMBRA - The Alhambra City Council Monday night gave ear first to a presentation from the California High-Speed Rail Authority and then to residents of the San Gabriel Valley who could be affected by a proposed high-speed rail project. It was the first of two presentations that the CHSRA will give to the City of Alhambra. Another meeting is scheduled to take place Thursday night at Fremont Elementary School at 7 p.m.

Although the meeting was designed to oppose any alignment of the CHSRA project that would impede on properties in the SGV without the consent of property owners, the Council took a stand to oppose the project altogether, according to Jessica Keating, assistant to the city manager.

The CHSR Project is an 800-mile stretch, rail system that will operate at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour in order to transport riders from San Francisco and Sacramento to San Diego in less than four hours.

The presentation was made specifically to Alhambra at the request of the Council and city staff because the Project may run through Interstate 10, possibly affecting residents who live on either side of the freeway on Ramona Road. Alhambra City Hall was filled to the brim Monday as residents filled every seat in the main meeting room and the seats in the Hall’s large lobby.

Despite the benefits the Project may bring to Alhambra, there were concerns that the CHSRA was not adequately addressing the concerns of the residents who would most directly be impacted by the construction or the establishment of a Rail; residents who lived near the 10 Freeway said that the sound walls are hardly enough protection from sound or noise, so how could a new project in greater magnitude have less of an impact?

“It’s hard to believe that going through everyone’s backyard is a good idea,” said Councilman Steven T. Placido. “It it’s going through our backyard, we should have a seat at that table.”

The former Alhambra mayor argued that the Project can in no way proceed without a CHSRA board member present at a presentation that directly represents the interests and constituents of Alhambra. That member would have been Richard Katz, who is scheduled for another engagement this evening.

Jose Martinez, the presenter and regional manager for the CHSRA tried to appease concerns by outlining the project’s strengths: that the project is one that has the approval of local voters; that state and federal funding will be enough to get the Project off the ground; and that noise pollution can be mitigated.

But after Martinez spoke, more than a dozen residents of Alhambra, San Gabriel and Rosemead expressed their discontent with the options presented by Martinez. Not one member of the audience in either the main hall or the lobby voiced his or her approval of the Project in its current form before the Council.

The regional manager had given the audience a map showing three possible routes that the Project might take along I-10, including options that might encroach upon residential territory, which he eliminated during his presentation. More than a handful of those who spoke were upset with all three options, citing noise and potential reduction in property value as two concerns.

Several, like Edward Garcia and Louise Gonzalez, said that they also do not want to be displaced. San Gabriel Councilman David Gutierrez said he agreed 100 percent with Placido and that the CHSRA must only be completed if it is done the right way and is well-planned.

Rosemead Councilwoman Sandra Armenta said that the proposed options will have a significant impact to those who live near the 10 Freeway and that the CHRSA has failed her constituents.

Hector Roman, who sat alongside his wife Patricia, urged the Council to be firm in its opposition to the Project running through Alhambra.

“We hope the City has the fortitude to oppose the Project the same way that South Pasadena has had the fortitude to block the 710 Freeway.”

Alhambra Councilman Luis Ayala made a motion to formally oppose all three Project options in the City of Alhambra, and the Council resolved to begin to formalize a letter to the CHSRA expressing that they will not entertain any of the three options brought forth by Martinez.

Other possible options for the Rail would be the SR-60, the union Pacific Railroad and the UP Adjacent, all of which are believed to be unviable options (for environmental and safety concerns). Should the CHSRA insist on using Alhambra as the final route (as was prepared Monday night), the Council plans to tie up the project in litigation, said Keating. Another meeting was scheduled on September 2 in Sacramento, but the city council and city staff moved both the location and time of the meeting, which is scheduled for October 7.

As for certain cities that have appeared to agree with the Project, Keating said that representatives she spoke with from those cities said they were “caught asleep at the wheel.”