Fate of 710 Extension in Hands of Federal Highway Official : Freeway: Having lost in the state Capitol, South Pasadena is now lobbying in Washington against the project. Administrator Rodney E. Slater has not yet decided on funding.

No one could accuse South Pasadena of not doing everything possible over the last four decades to stop the Long Beach (710) Freeway extension from plowing through its historic neighborhoods.

Even as the California Transportation Commission gave final state approval to the eight-lane highway last week, the city’s mayor and city manager were in Washington lobbying Federal Highway Administration officials who will decide whether to fund the 6.2-mile route through Los Angeles, Alhambra, South Pasadena and Pasadena.

The extension’s fate now rests largely with Federal Highway Administrator Rodney E. Slater; without the federal funding, the $670-million extension cannot go forward. If approved, the roadway linking the San Bernardino (10) and Foothill (210) freeways would split South Pasadena in half, threatening nearly 1,000 homes and six times as many trees.

“We feel confident federal officials will, as before for the last 30 years, not approve the state’s project,” said Ken Farfsing, South Pasadena’s city manager, referring to federal rejection of various state studies on the Long Beach Freeway. “We have more support in Washington than at the state level”

Although legal challenges to the route’s environmental impact report on behalf of the 3.5-square-mile city with 24,000 residents could delay the project five years beyond its predicted construction date of between 2005 and 2010, Slater is really the city’s last hope to kill the extension, say highway lobbyists.

“A legal battle is limited and can really only delay the freeway. What it really comes down to is political pressure on the Federal Highway Administration,” said John Phillips, a Washington attorney who fought the Century Freeway for Law in the Public Interest, a now-defunct legal agency.

Although South Pasadena is the lone city in the region opposed to the project, it has enlisted an army of preservationists, lawyers, lobbyists and Reps. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) and Walter R. Tucker III (D-Compton) to fight the freeway in Washington. Tucker’s opposition stems from his fear that funding of the freeway extension would reduce money available for the Alameda Corridor project, which would improve the transportation links between the Los Angeles harbor area and Downtown Los Angeles.

Farfsing said indications are that the lobbying effort is paying off. “I believe the federal government will at least ask for a supplementary report on the route’s impact before a decision,” he said.

South Pasadena officials are also banking on the Clinton Administration not wanting to support Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, who backs the extension. It can’t hurt, either, that the city’s former mayor and an outspoken freeway opponent, Evelyn Fierro, is now Slater’s special assistant.

Bill Wells, leader of the 710 Coalition--a group of 36 businesses, cities and labor unions supporting the freeway--disagrees. “I am confident the federal government will finally close the missing link in the Southland’s freeway grid,” he said. “The people of South Pasadena must accept the reality.”

*

South Pasadena’s hopes of stopping the project got a surprising boost in a letter last week from Slater to Rep. Tucker. Slater wrote that he will not make a decision on the project until it meets “all federal requirements,” including clean air and environmental statutes, and until his agency has studied questions raised by another federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which has said the project would devastate historic homes on the route.

That means a decision probably will not be made before 1995, said Tony Kane, associate administrator of the highway agency. He said the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, which resolves disputes between federal agencies, has asked for further studies on the number of historic homes that would be destroyed and on a $110-million low-build alternative proposed by South Pasadena.

The low-build approach calls for improvements to local streets, use of devices to speed traffic flow and increases in public transit, including the Pasadena Blue Line. But state Department of Transportation officials have said the low-build plan would increase drive times and pollution.

Caltrans officials say only two historic homes would be destroyed by the freeway link because most such homes would be moved. But preservation groups, state preservation officials and South Pasadena are still examining that research. That analysis is expected to be completed by December.

The delay is good news for South Pasadena, said Elizabeth Merritt, deputy legal counsel for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Merritt said Caltrans’ analysis of historic homes fails to list all the homes it should and its critique of the low-build plan uses what she called incorrect data.

“The fact the state approves the project doesn’t mean the feds will agree. They will be the ones sued and they don’t like looking stupid,” she said.

If the federal government approves the route and its environmental impact assessment, other hurdles will still exist. South Pasadena officials said they would then file their lawsuit of last resort--what they call the “Armageddon lawsuit”--challenging the adequacy of the route’s overall environmental study and questioning whether the public knew all the facts.

A minimum of two years’ litigation would then begin, according to those on both sides of the 710 debate. South Pasadena could further delay the project by suing the state in advance of a federal decision, challenging the fact that state officials decided on the route while studies sought by federal officials were still outstanding.

Funding from the state and federal government would then become the hurdle. By the time the project could begin, early in the next century, the costs are expected to have increased to more than $1 billion, with 85% coming from the federal purse. Of that amount, $300 million would be needed immediately to purchase homes and clear the land. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the state transportation commission, the Southern California Assn. of Governments and Congress all must approve funding.

Also unresolved is South Pasadena’s say in the project. A bill that would allow Caltrans to build the extension without the city’s approval has reached the governor’s desk.

Wilson has not decided whether to sign the bill, a spokesman said.