BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 353 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 353 (Cedillo) As Introduced February 10, 2011 Majority vote TRANSPORTATION 11-0 APPROPRIATIONS 13-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |Jeffries, Achadjian, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Bonilla, Buchanan, | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |Mitchell, Galgiani, | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, | | |Logue, Miller, | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, | | |Portantino, Solorio | |Solorio | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | |Nays:|Donnelly, Lara | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Repeals provisions that allow the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to build a freeway meeting certain conditions without first securing a freeway agreement with the affected local jurisdictions. EXISTING LAW : 1)Prohibits Caltrans from constructing a freeway that would permanently close a local street or road, except pursuant to a freeway agreement between Caltrans and the effected local jurisdiction. 2)Authorizes Caltrans to enter into an agreement with a city council or board of supervisors having jurisdiction over a street or road if a proposed freeway route would close the local street or road; or, Caltrans may make provisions for alternate routing of the street or road. 3)Authorizes Caltrans to construct a freeway without the above-specified agreement if certain conditions are met, including that the affected freeway segment is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and that Caltrans meet and confer with the affected cities and counties. AB 353 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, repealing the freeway agreement exemption effectively eliminates any foreseeable opportunity to build an at- or above-surface project to complete the freeway gap closure, which likely would be much less costly than a subsurface alternative. Without the exemption, any at- or above-surface alternative will require Caltrans to secure a freeway agreement with long-time opponents to the surface freeway, such as South Pasadena, which is unlikely to happen. Strictly speaking, however, having this exemption in statute for almost 30 years has had no impact toward moving the I-710 project forward, thus there should be little real impact to its repeal in terms of resolving the issues surrounding this project. COMMENTS : I-710 is a major north-south interstate freeway running 23 miles through Los Angeles County. The freeway runs from Long Beach to Alhambra, stopping short of the originally planned terminus in Pasadena. Construction of the segment between Alhambra and Pasadena, through South Pasadena, has been delayed for decades due to community opposition. Failure to complete the I-710 contributes to traffic congestion in northeastern Los Angeles and the northwestern San Gabriel Valley, as there are no north-south freeways in the heavily populated area between I-5 (Golden State Freeway) and I-605 (San Gabriel River Freeway). Over the past forty years, alternative concepts have been proposed and evaluated to complete the I-710 freeway and close the 4.5-mile gap in the corridor. Generally, the alternatives that were considered would have traversed through highly developed urbanized neighborhoods and required a substantial volume of right of way along the alignments. As a result, community members, particularly residents of South Pasadena, opposed the freeway gap closure project because of concerns about the impact of the freeway on their community. Consequently, Caltrans was never able to secure a freeway agreement with South Pasadena that had been needed to construct the freeway. In 1982, legislation (AB 1623 (M. Martinez), Chapter 117, Statutes of 1982) was enacted to resolve this dispute by exempting Caltrans from the need to secure a freeway agreement for this project. However, in spite of the freeway agreement exemption, none of the previously proposed and evaluated AB 353 Page 3 alternatives have been successful in satisfying the regional mobility needs and community and environmental concerns. As a result, the freeway gap closure project remains unconstructed. Within the past few years, the concept of a tunnel to complete the freeway gap closure has been proposed as a potential option to surface alternatives. Metro completed a feasibility assessment of a tunnel alternative to close the freeway gap. Generally, the assessment concluded that the tunnel concept is feasible. Potential environmental impacts were identified but preliminary assessments concluded that these impacts could be minimized, eliminated, or mitigated. The report concluded that no insurmountable environmental issues were identified that would preclude further consideration of the tunnel alternative. As a result, Metro is conducting further, more detailed studies to validate the findings of this initial assessment and to determine whether the tunnel concept can ultimately serve as a viable alternative to complete the I-710 freeway. By repealing the freeway agreement exemption, this bill effectively eliminates any foreseeable opportunity to build an at- or above-surface project to complete the freeway gap closure. Without the exemption, any at- or above-surface alternative will require Caltrans to secure a freeway agreement with long-time opponents to the surface freeway, such as South Pasadena. This is unlikely to happen. Proponents of this bill assert that, by repealing the freeway agreement exemption, they can demonstrate a commitment to South Pasadena that they no longer intend to pursue a surface solution for the I-710 freeway gap closure project. With that, proponents hope to allay South Pasadena's opposition to the tunnel alternative. (Reportedly, a tunnel solution will not require any local streets and roads to be closed in South Pasadena.) Writing in opposition to this bill, the 710 Coalition asserts that this bill is premature. It argues that the environmental impact study is underway and that the task of that study is to recommend the best possible plan for filling the freeway gap. The 710 Coalition argues that the environmental study should be completed first and then, if the study confirms that no local streets will be involved, the freeway agreement-law can be repealed. AB 353 Page 4 Previous legislation: AB 1930 (Scott) and SB 1497 (Schiff), both from 2000, sought to repeal the freeway agreement exemption. Both bills died in the Assembly. AB 2556 (D. Martinez), Chapter 1234, Statutes of 1993, eliminated deadlines for complying with conditions previously imposed by AB 1623 (M. Martinez). AB 1623 (M. Martinez), Chapter 117, Statutes of 1982, authorized the exception to the freeway agreement requirement, under certain conditions. Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000517