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