Freeway Coalition Accused of Bias : Transportation: National Trust quits in protest. South Pasadena may follow.

A fragile commitment by freeway opponents to work with an advisory committee on the proposed extension of the Long Beach Freeway has begun to unravel amid complaints that the group is stacked in favor of freeway supporters.

Saying it won’t lend its credibility to a process that lacks balance, the National Trust for Historic Preservation pulled out of the Mitigation Advisory Committee on the extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway on Tuesday, the day before the panel’s third meeting. And the South Pasadena City Council might also withdraw its two members.

Mayor Harry A. Knapp said the council is waiting for the California Department of Transportation to respond to the National Trust’s complaint before deciding whether to drop out of the committee, which is charged with seeking ways to lessen the impact of the freeway extension through South Pasadena.

James McCarthy, a Caltrans spokesman, said the agency hopes the National Trust will reconsider and return to the 11-member advisory panel, formed as an outgrowth of the environmental impact report on the $660-million project. “They’re welcome to come back to the table,” he said. “We’re not going to be giving their seat away.”

McCarthy said Caltrans has not yet formulated an official reply to a five-page letter of protest from the National Trust. The letter says the group, which was South Pasadena’s only ally on the committee in opposition to the freeway, will not participate unless the committee is expanded to give greater voice to historic preservation and environmental interests.

David A. Doheny, acting president of the National Trust, said the group complained to Caltrans about the committee membership before the first meeting last month and was assured by Caltrans that those concerns would be resolved.

But, Doheny said, when representatives of South Pasadena and the National Trust sought to expand the committee by proposing that seats be given to the South Pasadena Unified School District, the Sierra Club and the California Preservation Foundation/Los Angeles Conservancy, the motion failed on an 8-3 vote.

Doheny said the vote reflected the fact that the committee was stacked by Caltrans with representatives of cities and agencies committed to the freeway project. The committee includes two representatives each from Alhambra, Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena and representatives of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the Southern California Assn. of Governments. State and federal highway officials are members without voting rights.

In his letter to the director of Caltrans, Doheny said, “It is not appropriate for the National Trust to lend its credibility and reputation to a committee that is so lacking in balance and objectivity.” He added that “never in our experience have we seen such a rigid determination to exclude relevant voices from the dialogue and to control the outcome.”

Doheny contrasted the Long Beach Freeway committee with a committee that Massachusetts set up to examine the Boston Central Artery Project. He said the Boston committee represented 21 organizations, including five groups that had filed lawsuits against the project.

Officials of the South Pasadena Unified School District say they want representation on the committee to correct misinformation in the environmental impact statement on the freeway project, which they have been complaining about without result for years.

Eva Rae Lueck, the district’s assistant superintendent of business services, said Caltrans for years ignored repeated letters of concern about the freeway until, in exasperation, the school board president declared in a letter that the district would not participate in the mitigation process. Although the district now seeks representation, Caltrans seized upon the earlier statement to justify excluding the district from the committee, Lueck said. Lueck said the district is facing many freeway impacts, including traffic problems around schools during construction and reduced enrollment as homes are displaced.

Supt. Lou Joseph said the freeway environmental impact statement is 6 years old and “there are many flaws. We don’t feel our concerns have been addressed.”

Alhambra Councilman Boyd G. Condie, who represents his city on the mitigation committee, said the problem with enlarging the committee is, “Where do you stop?” A case could be made for expanding the committee to add voices for the business community, state and county elected officials and others, Condie said, but the group would become unwieldy. Instead, he said, the committee has offered to obtain input from various groups through a subcommittee process.

Condie said the committee is charged with looking at ways of lessening the impact of the freeway as proposed, not in reopening the whole freeway issue, as some might like.

Freeway opponents in South Pasadena expressed doubts about the usefulness of the committee as soon as it was proposed by state highway officials in March. One opponent said it was just a chance for the city to design its own funeral and another said the only input South Pasadena would get would be to decide “whether we want petunias or carnations” along the freeway.

Mayor Knapp said the South Pasadena City Council will study the awaited Caltrans response to the National Trust complaint before deciding whether there is anything to be gained by remaining on the committee.

The committee has scheduled meetings through December with the intention of making recommendations to highway officials by January. The final design could begin soon after.

The proposed 6.2-mile extension to complete the freeway from Long Beach to Pasadena has been stalled for more than 30 years by disagreements over the route and court challenges. Earlier this year, state and federal highway officials, along with Gov. Pete Wilson, gave the project a tentative go-ahead.