BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 751 SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: cedillo VERSION: 7/13/11 Analysis by: Art Bauer FISCAL: Yes Hearing date: August 23, 2011 URGENCY: YES SUBJECT: Freeway construction DESCRIPTION: This bill repeals a provision of existing law that allows the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to build a freeway without first securing a street closure agreement with the affected local jurisdictions. ANALYSIS: Since 1939, California law has required Caltrans to enter into an agreement with a city or county that will have a street permanently closed due to freeway construction through the community. In lieu of closing a street, Caltrans, with the concurrence of a local agency, may construct a new alignment for the local road as part of the freeway project Existing law, since 1981, provides an exemption to the street closure provision if the following conditions are met: The freeway is in the California freeway and expressway system and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has adopted a route for it. Construction has commenced, but not completed, leaving an uncompleted freeway segment. Caltrans has determined that there is at least one feasible alternative alignment for the route. The CTC has certified an environmental document for the unconstructed segment that includes consideration of the impact of the project on the local community. AB 751 (CEDILLO) Page 2 The unconstructed segment is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO). Caltrans has been at an impasse on a street closure agreement for ten years or more. If the above conditions are met, the CTC may adopt an alignment after a public hearing. This bill deletes from existing law Caltrans' exemption from the street closure provision. COMMENTS: 1. Purpose . The extension of the Long Beach Freeway (I-710) from its terminus in the City of Alhambra to a connection with the intersection of the Foothill Freeway (I-210) and State Route 134 is noteworthy for its litigious history. This bill would delete law enacted in 1981 that attempted to resolve the disputes over the various proposed alignments developed by Caltrans and allow construction to begin. Caltrans has never exercised the authority in the 1981 law. Statute first defined the predecessor to the I-710 in 1933, and in 1947, the Legislature added the extension through Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Pasadena to the description of the freeway. In 1959, the state included the I-710 in the state freeway and expressway system and completed the I-710 present terminus in 1965. The California Highway Commission, the CTC's predecessor, adopted a route to extend the freeway through South Pasadena and Pasadena to I-210 in 1964. By the time Caltrans began designing the project, the area had become heavily urbanized, and several homes in South Pasadena were found to be architecturally significant. Because of the impact on its community, South Pasadena refused to sign a street closure agreement with Caltrans. Further, community groups and South Pasadena sued over the adequacy of the environmental documents for the extension, resulting in the court enjoining Caltrans from constructing the I-710 extension from 1973 to 1998. After the court AB 751 (CEDILLO) Page 3 agreed that Caltrans prepared an adequate environmental document, the Federal Highway Administration authorized the construction of a project. The CTC also approved the project, but in 1999, the court once again enjoined Caltrans from further work because it had not adequately considered the air quality impacts of the extension. Finally, the CTC withdrew its approval of the project in 2004. With the removal of the exemption from street closure agreement, it is unlikely that a surface highway extension of the I-710 will be constructed because South Pasadena could refuse to enter into an agreement with Caltrans. 2. Tunnel Alternative . In the last decade, proponents of the I-710 have explored the concept of constructing a tunnel in the freeway corridor to close the gap between the existing terminus of the I-710 in Alhambra and the I-210/State Route 134. After analyzing the concept, METRO determined that the tunnel alternative is feasible and included $1 billion for the project in its Measure R, -percent local transportation sales tax program approved by the voters in 2008. In addition, METRO has included the project in a preliminary program of public private partnership projects that it intends to pursue. In the meantime, Caltrans is preparing an environmental analysis of the tunnel alternative. 3. Support and opposition to the bill . Over the years, local governments, community groups, preservationists, and other similar interests have opposed the freeway but have now removed their opposition. The City of South Pasadena supports this bill because it restores the applicability of the street closure agreement, which allows the city to prevent the construction of a surface freeway through its jurisdiction. Community groups, such as the Singer Park Neighborhood Association of Pasadena and the Los Angeles Conservancy support this bill as well. The only significant opposition to this bill is the San Gabriel Valley Association of Governments, which believes that removing the exemption from the street closure agreement "has the potential to derail the significant progress that has been recently been made on the 710 gap closure project." 4. Previous version of this bill . The current language of AB 751 (CEDILLO) Page 4 AB 751 was originally in another bill which passed the Assembly. The language of that bill was deleted and amended into AB 751. The votes shown below reflect the action taken on the predecessor to AB 751. Assembly Votes: Floor: 55-8 Appr: 13-2 Trans: 11-0 POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, August 17, 2011) SUPPORT: City of Burbank City of Pasadena City of South Pasadena Los Angeles Conservancy Natural Resources Defense Council Singer Park Neighborhood Association OPPOSED: San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments