S. Pasadena Seeks Legal Block to Freeway : 710 Extension: City Council wants injunction to prevent U.S. officials from approving environmental studies on project.

Fearful that lame-duck Bush Administration officials are trying to push through plans to extend the Long Beach Freeway, the South Pasadena City Council last week was seeking an injunction to block federal highway officials from approving environmental studies on the project.

The South Pasadena City Council on Wednesday voted to legally challenge what Mayor Harry A. Knapp called “unprecedented acts of public betrayal” by federal highway officials.

The legal action is the latest in a recent round of bitter arguments that began last month when the head of the Federal Highway Administration, Thomas D. Larson, announced that he considered it his responsibility “to complete the initial decision-making process” before he leaves office next week.

Based on the urgings of state transportation officials, Larson initiated a 30-day period of public comment on the environmental studies undertaken to detail the project’s impact.

When the 30-day period ends Jan. 15, Larson can approve the environmental study, an action that would be tantamount to approving the freeway extension.

Larson, who could not be reached for comment last week, said in a letter to local officials three weeks ago that he had not decided to approve the proposed 6.2-mile freeway extension “nor have I even decided whether a final decision (before Jan. 20) . . . is appropriate.” This still is Larson’s thinking, Federal Highway Administration spokesman Tom Jasien said last week.

Freeway opponents, however, say they think Larson will approve the project, which planners last year estimated could cost $660 million. Roadway supporters say they are less certain about the direction Larson will take.

When it was first envisioned decades ago, the Long Beach Freeway was planned to link the oceanside community it was named for with the mountains of Pasadena. The bulk of the roadway was complete by the mid-1960s, leaving a single gap between Pasadena and Alhambra. Transportation planners say it is the last significant gap in Los Angeles County’s freeway system. Larson’s announcement came as a 13-member local advisory committee--whose creation he proposed--was in the throes of debating how to reduce the proposed project’s impact. The committee does not expect to complete its work until late February--after Larson leaves office.

Previously, local officials had been under the impression that no final federal decision would be made on the environmental studies until the advisory committee completed its work. Under the current plan, more than 1,000 residential structures, including some historic buildings, sit in the proposed path of the roadway, which is designed to fill the gap between the San Bernardino Freeway in Alhambra and the Foothill Freeway in Pasadena.

Eight of the 13 representatives on the committee last month wrote a letter to Larson expressing their anger. Those who signed it included not only the traditional freeway opponents but also committee members--such as Jim Gosnell, director of transportation for the Southern California Assn. of Governments--who have generally supported the project.

“Cutting off public comment before our work is done is a great disservice,” the eight wrote.

“It’s outrageous. There is a lot of damage being created,” South Pasadena City Manager Ken Farfsing said of Larson’s action. Farfsing’s comment is typical of the freeway opponents who recently have enlisted lobbying support from U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina and other officials.

Opponents such as Mayor Knapp say that Larson--in the waning days of the Bush Administration--is trying to push through a decision. This represents, Knapp and Councilman Dick Richards wrote to Larson, the worst example of “bad faith, misrepresentation and betrayal” in the decades-long fight over the freeway.

But to freeway proponents it is absurd to suggest that federal highway officials are trying to “fast-track” a decision. “This thing has not been fast-tracked. It has lingered for years,” said Alhambra City Manager Julio Fuentes, noting that the project was proposed in the late 1940s.

From a legal and political standpoint, Fuentes said, freeway supporters will “do all that we have to do” to ensure the project succeeds. Even if Larson rules against the freeway, he said, “we are not going to sit idly by and watch this project die.”

Officials with the California Department of Transportation say that Larson’s recent announcement was based on the progress of the advisory committee. Caltrans spokesman Jim McCarthy said his agency last month made a report to Larson, noting that the committee had agreed on several major points:

* Eliminating a proposed interchange of the Long Beach Freeway with the Pasadena Freeway, thus sparing the need to move or demolish many houses, including historic ones.

* Banning commercial trucks.

* Reducing the freeway’s “footprint” from 176 feet in width to a maximum of 142 feet.

* Adding two tunnels beyond several already proposed as a noise and air pollution reduction measure.

Overall, planners say, these changes could reduce project costs significantly.

Last January, Larson suggested establishing the advisory committee, a rarely used strategy to settle disputes in the history of freeway fights across the nation.

Larson had said transportation planners could do more to address environmental and historic preservation issues and to build a consensus among officials in the four cities directly affected by the roadway--Alhambra, Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena.

Since September, in a series of highly emotional meetings overseen by state and federal highway officials, freeway fighters and roadway extension advocates alike have met. Longstanding enemies have sat side by side and engaged in a sometimes-awkward attempt to reach a consensus.

The next advisory committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday in Pasadena.

On the following day, the 30-day period ends for the public to comment on the environmental studies. Four years in the making, the studies were a direct result of a court ruling made 20 years ago when South Pasadena and other freeway opponents sued over the project.

Before the freeway can be built, federal officials must approve the environmental report. Once the report is approved, federal funds can be allocated. Then Caltrans must recommend a route that requires approval by the California Transportation Commission. Last January the Wilson Administration announced it would take “all necessary steps” to complete the project.

Beyond that, both opponents and supporters acknowledge, remains a crucial question: How will the new Clinton Administration--which has touted the virtues of infrastructure projects such as bridges and roads--react to the controversial project?