BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1459
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 1459
(Kim) - As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Toll lanes: County of Orange
SUMMARY: Prohibits the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) from seeking or providing funding for the
construction of a toll lane on a public highway in Orange County
unless the toll lane project is first approved by a two-thirds
vote of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).
Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the
history of Orange County's sales tax measure for
transportation and the Interstate 405 (I-405) high-occupancy
toll (HOT) project.
2)States that it is the intent of the Legislature to protect the
will of the voters of Orange County by requiring a two-thirds
vote of OCTA in order to approve construction of a toll lane
funded by Caltrans on a public highway in Orange County.
3)Prohibits Caltrans, notwithstanding certain provisions of law,
from seeking or providing funding for construction of a toll
lane on a public highway in Orange County unless the toll lane
AB 1459
Page 2
project is first approved by a two-thirds vote of OCTA.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prescribes the membership of OCTA as follows:
a) Five members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors,
appointed by the board;
b) Ten city members, each of which must be a mayor or a
city council member serving within the county; and,
c) Two public members appointed by a majority vote of the
other 15 voting members of OCTA; public members may not be
elected officials.
2)Grants OCTA broad authority to acquire, construct, develop,
lease, own, operate, and control transportation facilities in
Orange County.
3)Generally requires lead agencies with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this
action, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
4)Sets forth the process, parameters, and guidelines for
preparing an EIR, including procedures meant to ensure
opportunities for public participation.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: In 2006, Orange County voters voted to renew a
half-cent sales tax for transportation (Measure M2). The
measure included funding for a project to add one general
purpose lane in each direction on a 16-mile stretch of I-405
AB 1459
Page 3
between Costa Mesa and Seal Beach. The project is being
developed jointly between Caltrans and OCTA, with Caltrans being
the lead agency.
The I-405 draft EIR was released in May 2012 and included three
build alternatives in addition to the no-build alternative. All
of the build alternatives included at least one general purpose
lane in each direction, as provided for and approved in Measure
M2. One of the build alternatives included HOT lanes as part of
the proposed solution.
The proposal to develop HOT lanes met with contentious public
outcry. Opponents argued that HOT lanes would essentially be a
"tax on a tax" because the lanes would first be built with sales
tax measure money and, after they were built, drivers would have
to pay yet again to use them. Others argued that the HOT lanes
would hurt local businesses because there would be few exits
within the HOT lane facility and traffic would bypass cities
within the interior stretches of the HOT lane corridor.
OCTA ultimately voted to recommend to Caltrans that the project
proceed with construction of one general purpose lane in each
direction, without HOT lanes, consistent with Measure M2.
However, Caltrans, as the project lead, has the final decision
on the project alternative and in July 2014 opted to proceed
with the HOT lane alternative, despite OCTA's objections.
To date, the issue of the I-405 HOT lane project is not yet
entirely resolved. Earlier in the year, Caltrans committed $82
million from deferred operations funds to the project and, in
response, the OCTA Board of Directors directed its staff to
re-engage in discussions with Caltrans related to the project.
Specifically, staff was asked to return to the board with an
alternative option for OCTA to proceed as the lead agency for
the HOT lane alternative. The board also directed staff to
begin developing policies that will be required for operations,
management, and excess revenue use.
The author introduced AB 1459 to ensure no toll facility is
AB 1459
Page 4
constructed in Orange County without a two-thirds vote of the
OCTA Board of Directors. The author asserts that "Caltrans does
not have the right to leverage over one billion dollars in local
money to build a project that was not approved by the residents
of the county, and was not approved by the local transportation
authority." AB 1459 is meant to address what the author
characterizes as an overreach of power by Caltrans and to
empower the local transportation agency to make the ultimate
decision regarding which alternative gets built.
Opponents object to AB 1459 because they believe it undermines
the flexibility of OCTA and Caltrans to find the best solutions
to reduce traffic congestion in this highly impacted
transportation corridor.
Committee concerns: The current process is not broken and does
not need to be fixed. The situation in Orange County is playing
out just as it should, with appropriate checks and balances in
place. Caltrans, with which the Legislature has vested broad
authorities and powers and full possession of the state highway
system, is the lead agency on the I-405 improvement project. In
its estimation, the HOT lane is the superior alternative for
longer-term, more sustainable congestion relief in the corridor;
hence it identified it as its preferred alternative. In fact,
Caltrans is not alone in this estimation. In 2012, OCTA staff
recommended to the Board of Directors that OCTA that they adopt
the HOT lane alternative as the recommended preferred
alternative for the project.
The OCTA Board of Directors, weighing the pros and cons of the
various project alternatives as well as the public opinion on
the project, as is appropriate, voted first to reject the HOT
lane alternative then later voted to re-engage with Caltrans in
considering the HOT lane alternative. Clearly the board, in its
many deliberations and votes, is striving to balance residents'
concerns with critical transportation needs.
AB 1459
Page 5
The bottom line is this: if these two agencies do not cooperate
with one another, no project will get built. OCTA cannot build
on the state highway system without a cooperative agreement with
Caltrans and Caltrans cannot practically build the HOT lane
alternative without OCTA's cooperation related to, for example,
property acquisition, project financing, and operations.
Contrary to the author's fears, OCTA will, in reality, have a
say on which project alternative gets built. Subjecting its
board to an arbitrary two-thirds vote requirement will harm the
process, not fix it.
Double-referral: This bill will be referred to the Assembly
Local Government Committee should it pass out of this committee.
Previous legislation: AB 2036 (Mansoor) of 2014, would have
required approval by a two-thirds vote of the people within
Orange County to authorize a toll road in that county. AB 2036
failed passage in this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
AB 1459
Page 6
Opposition
Automobile Club of Southern California
HNTB
Orange County Business Council
Self-Help Counties Coalition
Analysis Prepared by:Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
AB 1459
Page 7