BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 751
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 751 (Cedillo)
As Amended July 13, 2011
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |49-27|(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 30, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: ED.
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.
The Senate amendments :
Eliminate the entire contents of the bill and instead replace
them with provisions to repeal the authority of Caltrans to
build a freeway (meeting certain conditions) without first
securing a freeway agreement with the affected local
jurisdictions. This bill is now identical to AB 353 (Cedillo)
as it passed out of the Assembly.
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
AB 751
Page 2
confer with the affected cities and counties.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was an entirely different
bill dealing with a completely unrelated subject, education
finance.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis of AB 353, 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.
AB 751
Page 3
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
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.)
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0002538
AB 751
Page 4