BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 811
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 811 (Lara)
As Amended September 3, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :28-10
TRANSPORTATION 12-4 NATURAL RESOURCES 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, Achadjian, |Ayes:|Chesbro, Garcia, |
| |Ammiano, Bloom, Bonta, | |Muratsuchi, Skinner, |
| |Buchanan, Daly, Frazier, | |Stone, Williams |
| |Gatto, Holden, Nazarian, | | |
| |Quirk-Silva | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Linder, Logue, Morrell, | | |
| |Patterson | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Bradford, |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| |Holden, Pan, Quirk, Weber |
| | |
| | |
|-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Imposes specific requirements on the environmental
review and approval of the Interstate 710 (I-710) corridor
project. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines key terms, including:
a) "I-710 corridor project" to mean the proposed program of
improvements to I-710 in Los Angeles County between State
SB 811
Page 2
Route 60 in East Los Angeles and Ocean Boulevard in Long
Beach;
b) "Community Alternative 7" to mean an alternative
infrastructure plan developed by a coalition of community
partners, submitted for consideration to the lead agency
(i.e., the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans)) in response to the first draft environmental
review document, and voted on by the I-710 EIR/EIS
(environmental impact review/environmental impact study)
Project Committee to be included in the recirculated draft
environmental document; and,
c) "Lead agency" to mean Caltrans, unless another agency
assumes responsibility for the project.
2)Makes legislative findings and declarations that:
a) The proposed I-710 corridor project is a project of
national significance that is intended to expand capacity
to accommodate freight movement to and from the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach.
b) The proposed project may have adverse public health, air
quality, and quality-of-life impacts on nearby residents.
c) The proposed project should be aligned with the
principles laid out in the 2007 Goods Movement Action Plan,
which highlights the importance of goods movement projects
that provide local communities with benefits and
improvements.
d) The proposed project should be consistent with the
state's policy goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing public
transit use and active transportation.
3)Requires Caltrans, as the lead agency, to consider, within the
environmental review process, alternatives to address the air
quality, public health, and mobility impacts that the project
could have on neighboring communities.
4)Specifically requires that "Community Alternative 7," in its
entirety, be studied in the environmental review as a complete
SB 811
Page 3
project alternative.
5)Requires the approved environmental review document to include
an investment in identified mitigation measures where there
are impacts to affected communities and the Los Angeles River.
6)At least 90 days prior to approving the environmental document
for the proposed project requires the lead agency to submit to
the I-710 EIR/EIS Project Committee a report that describes
the identified mitigation measures and community benefits that
will be included in the project.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Sets forth legislative findings and declarations regarding
environmental quality, including the following:
a) It is the policy of the state that public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available that would substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of such projects;
b) Procedures required under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) are intended to assist public agencies
in systematically identifying both the significant effects
of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or
substantially lessen such significant effects;
c) In the event specific economic, social, or other
conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or
such mitigation measures, individual projects may be
approved in spite of one or more significant effects
thereof; and,
d) Public agencies that affect the quality of the
environment shall regulate such activities so that major
consideration is given to preventing environmental damage,
while providing a decent home and satisfying living
environment for every Californian.
2)Requires, generally, lead agencies with the principal
SB 811
Page 4
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaration, or EIR for this action, pursuant to CEQA.
3)Sets forth the process, parameters, and guidelines for
preparing an EIR.
4)Imposes various requirements for the development and
implementation of transportation projects, including adherence
to CEQA.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to Assembly Appropriations Committee,
Caltrans indicates that, in its current environment review
process, it is taking into account all the design elements in
Community Alternative 7 that impact the project. Due to
consideration of additional factors, Caltrans believes the scope
of Community Alternative 7 goes beyond actual project mitigation
measures most likely needed. Caltrans estimates evaluation of
these additional measures will increase environmental review
costs by $3 million to $5 million dollars above the based cost,
which is estimated at $45 million to $50 million.
COMMENTS : CEQA requires a lead agency, such as Caltrans, to
prepare an EIR for each project it undertakes, unless the
project is exempt from such review under CEQA. Generally, an
EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and
analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result
from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to
reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a
range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project.
Public participation in the environmental impact review is an
essential part of CEQA; consequently, CEQA sets forth an
iterative process and includes statutory timelines built into
the environmental review process to ensure adequate public input
and review opportunities. At the end of the process, the lead
agency formally approves the environmental review. The public
has an opportunity to challenge an EIR in court if it feels the
process was inadequate or the lead agency did not consider
appropriate alternatives.
An environmental review is currently underway to study the I-710
corridor. I-710, also known as the Long Beach Freeway, is a
vital transportation artery in southern California, linking the
SB 811
Page 5
Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to southern California and
beyond. An indispensable component of the regional, statewide,
and national transportation system, it serves both passenger and
goods movement traffic that travels from the ports to inland
railroad facilities. The existing I-710 corridor has excessive
health risks related to high levels of diesel particulate
emissions, traffic congestion, high truck volumes, high accident
rates, and many obsolete design features.
The objectives of the I-710 corridor project environmental
review are to develop transportation alternatives that will:
1)Improve air quality and public health;
2)Improve mobility, congestion, and safety; and,
3)Assess alternative, green goods movement technologies.
The I-710 corridor project study area extends for 18 miles from
the waterfront ports to the Pomona Freeway and encompasses 15
cities and unincorporated areas adjacent to the freeway.
Caltrans indicates that the alternatives currently under
consideration for the project will cost between $3 billion and
$5 billion, and staff notes that the most likely options are in
the higher range.
The project is in the early stages of the environmental review
process. A first draft of the environmental review document was
released last year. After significant public input, Caltrans is
working on a second draft, to be released sometime next year.
It is unknown when construction on the project might begin.
The author has introduced this bill to ensure the communities
along I-710 receive local benefits needed to mitigate freight
impacts, advance sustainability, and protect public health,
including measures to enhance the livability of neighborhoods
along the corridor that have suffered from decades of
freeway-related pollution and divestment. According to the
author, "The health impacts to communities within the project
area are especially important to consider. Mortality rates from
diabetes, motor vehicle crashes, coronary heart disease, and
emphysema are higher in I-710 corridor communities compared to
the rest of LA County. Residents in I-710 corridor communities,
while more likely to deal with aforementioned health issues, due
SB 811
Page 6
to their proximity to the freeway, are unfortunately less likely
to have health insurance coverage than others in LA County."
In May 2013, the I-710 EIR/EIS Project Committee, an advisory
body comprised of elected officials from the I-710 corridor
project communities and the project's funding partners, voted to
include "Community Alternative 7" in the recirculated draft
environmental document. "Community Alternative 7" is supported
by health and community advocates as a package of solutions
that, taken together, could meet the project's objectives as
well as have positive community benefits to communities along
the corridor. This bill would ensure the commitment to study
"Community Alternative 7" is fulfilled by requiring Caltrans to
include a study of this alternative in its environmental review.
Supporters of this bill assert that low-income communities and
communities of color-including those that live along the I-710
corridor from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to East
Los Angeles-are disproportionately harmed by air, water, and
noise pollution from freeways. They believe this bill will
ensure that, in developing one of the biggest goods movement
projects in the nation, project proponents will appropriately
consider project impacts and safeguard the health and air of the
region.
Project proponents are concerned that this bill inappropriately
inserts the Legislature into the CEQA process, for example, by
requiring a specific alternative to be considered in the
environmental review process.
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0002207