Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of all state highways and associated property. Existing law designates and describes state highway routes, and also describes the state highway routes in the California freeway and expressway system, including all of Route 710 in the County of Los Angeles.

This bill would remove the portion of Route 710 located north of Route 10 from the California freeway and expressway system.

(Without Reference to File)

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 29

Author:(Holden)

As Amended Ver:September 5, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Restricts the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) from considering a freeway or tunnel as a feasible alternative for State Route (SR) 710 between Interstate (I-) 10 and I-210, and redefines, as of January 1, 2024, which portions of SR 710 are included in the state freeway and expressway system to exclude the section of SR 710 generally between I-10 and I-210.

The Senate Amendments:

Restrict Caltrans from considering a freeway or tunnel as a feasible alternative for SR 710 between Interstate I-10 and I-210, and delete the following provisions from the bill:

1. Requiring the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) to establish terms for the disposal of the state-owned highway segments between Interstates 10 and 210 while implementing projects in the SR 710 North Project Study Area.
2. Granting to the Cities of Alhambra, Pasadena, and South Pasadena the right of first refusal to acquire the property within their respective city limits after the terms have been established.
3. Authorizing the California Transportation Commission to relinquish the highway stubs north of I-10 and south of I-210 under conditions established through direct consultation and agreement with the Cities of Alhambra, Pasadena, and South Pasadena.

COMMENTS:

SR 710 is a major north-south interstate running 23 miles through Los Angeles County, from Long Beach in the south to Alhambra in the north, stopping approximately 6 miles short of the originally planned northerly terminus in Pasadena. Efforts to complete the segment between I-10 in Alhambra and I-210 in Pasadena, sometimes dubbed the "freeway gap closure," have started and stalled several times over the past 60 years. In fact, Caltrans owns and still maintains hundreds of homes in the corridor that were bought as far back as the 1960s to preserve the corridor for the freeway long ago proposed but as of yet not delivered.

Many believe that failure to complete the SR 710 North improvement project 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 and I-605. Over the past fifty years, alternative concepts have been proposed and evaluated to build the SR 710 freeway between I-10 and I-210. Community members, particularly residents of Pasadena, have opposed the freeway project because of concerns about the impact of the freeway on their community.

Most recently, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified five alternatives to improve transportation in the area. The alternatives include: a transportation system management/ transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) approach, light-rail transit and/or bus rapid transit, a tunnel under Pasadena, and a no build option. Of these options, constructing the tunnel is the most costly option at an estimated $3 to $5.6 billion. The TSM/TDM alternative is designed to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system by improving capacity on the local street system and reducing the effects of bottlenecks and chokepoints. These relatively low-cost, low-impact strategies include coordinated traffic signal timing to help relieve congestion, ramp metering to control the entry of vehicles onto a freeway, and minor street widening and intersection improvements to improve traffic circulation.

In May of 2018, the LA Metro Board of Directors voted to no longer consider project alternatives that are deemed "unfundable," specifically referring to the tunnel, and began developing details for funding the TSM/TDM alternative. In November of 2018, as the implementing agency, Caltrans finalized the EIR and recommended the TSM/TDM option as the preferred alternative. This officially enables LA Metro to begin spending regional funds to implement the TSM/TDM program.

Committee comment: There have been a number of legislative efforts to limit or predetermine the outcome of the SR 710 North project. To date, none of these measures have been signed into law. This bill is different, because both the state and the region have concluded their studies of the alternatives and made a determination for the project going forward. This bill simply amends existing law to conform with the determined outcome.

According to the Author:

"The 710 has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley for too long. The well-intentioned proposal to build a freeway 50 years ago has led to a neighborhood deteriorating physically and an ongoing feud that has left both sides with the consequences of inaction. AB 29 will remove the most disputed section of the SR 710 from the state's Freeway and Expressway system. This is in line with the stated intentions of Caltrans and the local transportation authority, LA Metro, to stop pursuing the construction of a freeway tunnel and begin pursuing a collaborative, community supported alternative. It removes the possibility of a freeway being built in the future, in order to allow the community to move on."

Arguments in Support:

According to the City of Pasadena, "Removing the roadway from the state highway inventory is a first step in knitting the communities back together."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, "[this bill], does not provide the City of Pasadena with the flexibility to develop the freeway stubs associated with the 710 property".

FISCAL COMMENTS:

Unknown because amendments limit the bill, but unlikely to have any costs.

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-0-4

YES: Frazier, Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Chu, Cunningham, Friedman, Gipson, Grayson, Medina, Nazarian, O'Donnell

ABS, ABST OR NV: Fong, Bigelow, Daly, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-5

YES: Gonzalez, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, McCarty, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Bloom, Brough, Diep, Fong

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-13-10

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones- Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Choi, Diep, Flora, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Voepel, Waldron

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chau, Chen, Cooley, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Gray, Patterson, Ting

UPDATED:

VERSION: September 5, 2019

CONSULTANT: Eric Thronson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0002388

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 29

Author: Holden (D), et al.

Amended: 9/5/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 12-0, 7/9/19

AYES: Beall, Bates, Dahle, Dodd, Galgiani, McGuire, Morrell, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/30/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-13, 5/28/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: State Highway Route 710

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes various changes to the Interstate (I) 710 freeway, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Grants the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes.
   
2. Provides Caltrans the authority to lay out and construct all state highways between the termini designated by law and on the locations determined by the California Transportation Commission.
   
3. Designates I-710 as the highway from state route (SR) 1 to SR 210 in Pasadena.
   
4. Statutorily defines the California freeway and expressway system to include designated routes, including I-710 in its entirety, and defines a freeway as a highway where the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands.
   
5. Requires a state agency to follow certain procedures and establishes specific priorities for disposing surplus residential property, as specified.

This bill:

1. Clarifies that several additional preliminary project alternatives identified in the 2012 Alternative Analysis Report prepared by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) known as “F-5” and “F-7,” or any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the I-710 North Gap are prohibited from being deemed as feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the I-710 North Gap Closure project.
2. Removes, commencing on January 1, 2024, a portion of I-710 between Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena from the state freeway and expressway system, as specified.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, “The 710 has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley for too long. The well-intentioned proposal to build a freeway 50 years ago has led to a neighborhood deteriorating physically and an ongoing feud that has left both sides with the consequences of inaction. Assembly Bill 29 will remove the most disputed section of the SR 710 Freeway and Expressway system. This is in line with a move by the local transportation authority, LA Metro, to stop pursuing the construction of a freeway tunnel and begin pursuing a collaborative, community supported alternative. It removes the possibility of a freeway being built in the future, in order to allow the community to move on. AB 29 will take this controversial option off the table for future consideration and encourage a solution that is community- led and provides the greatest community benefit.”
2. I-710. For over 50 years, Caltrans has intended to close a roughly five mile unconstructed gap in the freeway by extending I-710 from I-10 in Los Angeles through South Pasadena to I-210 in Pasadena. Currently, I-710 North ends abruptly just north of I-10, feeding into local traffic on Valley Boulevard in Alhambra and causing congestion on the neighboring freeways. The gap affects the surrounding cities of Alhambra, South Pasadena, Pasadena, and a portion of Los Angeles. The extension project has been in the planning stage since the 1960s but, despite state and eventual federal approval, has been challenged by the community and delayed numerous times for a variety of reasons often related to the environmental review process. In 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the I-710 freeway extension but a court decision criticizing the environmental review halted construction.
   
3. Measure R. In 2008, Los Angeles County passed by a two-thirds vote a half-cent sales tax to raise additional funds for congestion relief, road repairs, and rail extensions over the course of 30 years. The adopted expenditure plan included $780 million for the I-710 North gap closure, intended to go toward a tunnel connector at an estimated total cost of nearly $4 billion. Shortly after the passage of Measure R, Caltrans began a boring and seismic feasibility study in the area.
   
4. A traffic light at the end of the tunnel? Though the tunnel was a favorable alternative functionally from the draft environmental impact report (EIR), financially it was another matter. Measure R only allocated $780 million for the tunnel project, far short of the $3 to $5.5 billion the tunnel could cost. Recognizing this, at a board meeting in May 2017, the Metro Board of Directors approved a motion specifying that the $780 million from Measure R be put toward local fundable projects for traffic relief. With the motion passing on a 12-0 vote, the Board recommended allocating $105 million to the transportation system management/transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative – a means of obtaining more immediate results via traffic light and intersection improvements, among other fixes for local roads. For a fraction of the cost, the TSM/TDM investment would yield results within a few years, as opposed to at least five years with the tunnel.
5. Environmental impact report. In 2015, Caltrans released its draft EIR assessing the costs, benefits, and impacts of five alternative projects for the SR 710 gap:
   
   1. No build — no planned improvements to the SR 710 North Corridor.
   2. Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) operational improvements — strategies and improvements to increase efficiency and capacity for all modes of transportation.
   3. Bus rapid transit (BRT) — high‐speed, high‐frequency bus service through a combination of new, dedicated, and existing bus lanes.
   4. Light rail transit (LRT) — a passenger rail operated along a dedicated guideway, similar to other Metro light rail lines.
   5. Freeway tunnel with design and operational variants — starts at the existing southern stub of I-710 in Alhambra, just north of I‐10, and connects to the existing northern stub of I-710.
      

After the draft report was published, around 8,000 public comments were received with 1,328 specifically supporting the tunnels and 237 opposing the tunnels.

On November 26, 2018, Caltrans released its final EIR on the I-710 North project. The EIR identified the TSM/TDM as the final direction for the I-710 North corridor moving forward, eliminating all other alternatives (including a tunnel) from future consideration.

1. I-710 today. With a clear pathway now set for the I-710 North corridor, the provisions specified in this bill attempt to provide for additional direction. First, this bill removes the freeway designation on a portion of I-710 north of I‑10 starting January 1, 2024. Second, this bill provides further clarification that several additional preliminary project alternatives pertaining to bored tunnels identified in the 2012 Metro analysis report on I-710 are no longer deemed feasible for any environmental review process for the I-710 North Gap Closure project. The amendments taken in the Senate Appropriations Committee are duplicative of the provisions currently included in SB 7 (Portantino).

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) related to the removal of specified portions of SR 710 from the freeway and expressway system. (State Highway Account)

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/5/19)

City of La Canada Flintridge

City of Pasadena

City of South Pasadena

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Sierra Club California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/5/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-13, 5/28/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Choi, Diep, Flora, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chau, Chen, Cooley, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Gray, Patterson, Ting

Prepared by: Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

9/5/19 15:36:12

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 29 (Holden) - State Highway Route 710

Bill Summary:

AB 29 would remove the portion of State Route (SR) 710 between Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate 210 (I-210) from the California freeway and expressway system, as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 30, 2019

Fiscal Impact:

• Minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) related to the removal of specified portions of SR 710 from the freeway and expressway system. (State Highway Account)

Author Amendments:

The author’s amendments would do the following:

• Eliminate two additional specified freeway alternatives that include bored tunnels, as well as any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the SR 710 North Gap, as feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the project.
• Delay the removal of a portion of SR 710 from the freeway and expressway system until 2024 and specify that only those portions of SR 710 between Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena will be removed from the system (retaining the “stubs” as part of the freeway and expressway system).
  

Committee Amendments: The committee amendments would add a co-author.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 29 (Holden) - State Highway Route 710

Bill Summary:

AB 29 would remove the portion of State Route (SR) 710 between Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate 210 (I-210) from the California freeway and expressway system, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown costs for staff time and workload for the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to renegotiate and update existing freeway agreements and declarations for connections between local roadways and the redefined freeway termini. (State Highway Account)

Background:

Existing law establishes SR 710 from SR 1 to I-210 in Pasadena as part of the state highway system, and also specifies that SR 710 in its entirety is part of the state’s freeway and expressway system. Existing law defines a freeway for these purposes as a divided arterial highway for through traffic with full control of access and with grade separations at intersections. Existing law grants the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes.

Existing law authorizes Caltrans to enter into an agreement with a local entity with jurisdiction over local roadways involving connections with, or carrying a local road over or under a freeway, and authorizes Caltrans to do any and all necessary work on the local roadway. Existing law prohibits a local street, road, or highway from being opened into or connected with any freeway unless and until the California Transportation Commission adopts a resolution to that effect, and under any terms and conditions that will best serve the public interest.

As noted above, the existing definition of SR 710 specifies that the entire length of the highway from SR 1 in Long Beach to I-210 in Pasadena is a part of the state highway system and the state’s freeway and expressway system. However, the 4.5 mile segment between the City of Los Angeles border just north of I-10 and the stub that extends just south of the I-210 freeway in Pasadena has never been constructed due to vehement community opposition. Over nearly fifty years, alternative concepts have been proposed and evaluated to complete the I-710 freeway, the alignment of which traverses highly developed urbanized neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Pasadena.

After years of controversy and contentious lawsuits over the proposed options for completing the gap closure, Caltrans recently issued a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the SR 710 North project. The EIR identified Transportation System Management / Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) operational improvements as the final direction for the corridor, which includes traffic light and intersection improvements, among other fixes for local roads. This decision, which was also recognized as the Locally Approved Alternative by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO), effectively eliminated the tunnel and surface expressway alternatives from future consideration. The resolution adopted by METRO allocates $105 million in local Measure R funds for the development and implementation of TSM/TDM projects listed in the EIR, and defers a decision on any other alternative for future consideration by their board until the community collectively agrees on the value of that investment and funds are identified to implement a project.

Proposed Law:

AB 29 would remove the portion of SR 710 from I-10 to I-210 from the state’s freeway and expressway system. Specifically, this bill would remove a provision that designates SR 710 in its entirety as part of the state’s freeway and expressway system, and instead specify that the freeway and expressway system only includes SR 710 from:

• SR 47 to SR 1
• SR 1 to SR 10 (I-10)

Related Legislation:

SB 7 (Portantino), which is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would restrict Caltrans from implementing a freeway tunnel, surface freeway, or expressway for the SR 710 gap, and revise the requirements related to the sale of surplus nonresidential property. The bill would also prohibit Caltrans from increasing rents for tenants in SR 710 properties who participate in the Affordable Rent Program.

AB 287 (Holden), which was held in the Assembly Transportation Committee in 2017, would have required Caltrans and METRO to establish an SR 710 Advisory Committee, prohibited the committee from recommending a tunnel or freeway extension, and prohibited Caltrans from building a freeway tunnel or surface freeway to close the gap.

AB 533 (Holden), which was held in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in 2018, would have removed a portion of SR 710 from the state’s freeway or expressway system by January 1, 2024 or when the SR 710 North Project is complete, whichever is sooner.

Staff Comments:

Currently, SR 710 is included in the freeway and expressway system in its entirety, including the incomplete portion north of I-10 to I-210. This bill designates the SR 710 as a freeway only from SR 1 to SR 10, removing the designation from the portion north of SR 10. It is, however, unclear what the practical effect of this is, as the entirety of SR 710 remains a designated highway from SR 1 to SR 210 in statute and therefore would still be owned and controlled by Caltrans, including the “stubs” of former freeway that connect local roadways to I-10 and I-210, respectively. However, removal of the stub properties from the freeway and expressway system would nullify current agreements and declarations adopted by CTC. Staff notes the likelihood that these agreements will need to be renegotiated with local entities who own roadways that connect to the redefined termini on the north and south end of the SR 710 gap, which may include reconfiguration of the connections between local roads and I-10 and I-210, respectively, depending on the outcome of agreements with local entities.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 29 Hearing Date: 7/9/2019

SUBJECT: State Highway Route 710

DIGEST: This bill makes various changes to the state route (SR) 710 freeway.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Grants Caltrans the full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes.
   
2. Provides Caltrans the authority to lay out and construct all state highways between the termini designated by law and on the locations determined by the CTC.
   
3. Designates SR 710 as the highway from SR 1 to SR 210 in Pasadena.
   
4. Statutorily defines the California freeway and expressway system to include designated routes, including SR 710 in its entirety, and defines a freeway as a highway where the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands.
   
5. Requires a state agency to follow certain procedures and establishes specific priorities for disposing surplus residential property, as specified.

This bill:

1. Defines the section of SR 710 between SR 1 and I-10 as part of the state freeway and expressway system, removing from this system the section of SR 710 between I-10 and I-210.
2. Requires the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to work in direct consultation and agreement with various local entities, sections of unincorporated Los Angeles County, and California State University Los Angeles on:
   1. The implementation of projects in the SR 710 North Project Study
   2. Establishing the terms of the disposal of real property located at specified termini within the SR 710 North corridor.
3. Provides the Cities of Alhambra, Pasadena, and South Pasadena the right of first refusal to acquire real property within their city limits pursuant to the abovementioned process.
4. Establishes the process for the relinquishment of excess SR-710 property from Caltrans to local municipalities, as specified.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, “The 710 has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley for too long. The well-intentioned proposal to build a freeway 50 years ago has led to a neighborhood deteriorating physically and an ongoing feud that has left both sides with the consequences of inaction. Assembly Bill 29 will remove the most disputed section of the SR 710 Freeway and Expressway system. This is in line with a move by the local transportation authority, LA Metro, to stop pursuing the construction of a freeway tunnel and begin pursuing a collaborative, community supported alternative. It removes the possibility of a freeway being built in the future, in order to allow the community to move on. AB 29 will take this controversial option off the table for future consideration and encourage a solution that is community- led and provides the greatest community benefit.”
2. SR-710. For over 50 years, Caltrans has intended to close a roughly five mile unconstructed gap in the freeway by extending SR 710 from Interstate 10 (I-10) in Los Angeles through South Pasadena to I-210 in Pasadena. Currently, SR 710 North ends abruptly just north of I-10, feeding into local traffic on Valley Boulevard in Alhambra and causing congestion on the neighboring freeways. The gap affects the surrounding cities of Alhambra, South Pasadena, Pasadena, and a portion of Los Angeles. The extension project has been in the planning stage since the 1960s but, despite state and eventual federal approval, has been challenged by the community and delayed numerous times for a variety of reasons often related to the environmental review process. In 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the SR 710 freeway extension but a court decision criticizing the environmental review halted construction.
   
3. Measure R. In 2008, Los Angeles County passed by a two-thirds vote a half-cent sales tax to raise additional funds for congestion relief, road repairs, and rail extensions over the course of 30 years. The adopted expenditure plan included $780 million for the SR 710 North gap closure, intended to go toward a tunnel connector at an estimated total cost of nearly $4 billion. Shortly after the passage of Measure R, Caltrans began a boring and seismic feasibility study in the area.
   
4. A traffic light at the end of the tunnel? Though the tunnel was a favorable alternative functionally from the draft EIR, financially it was another matter. Measure R only allocated $780 million for the tunnel project, far short of the $3 to $5.5 billion the tunnel could cost. Recognizing this, at a board meeting in May 2017, the Metro Board of Directors approved a motion specifying that the $780 million from Measure R be put toward local fundable projects for traffic relief. With the motion passing on a 12-0 vote, the Board recommended allocating $105 million to the transportation system management/transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative – a means of obtaining more immediate results via traffic light and intersection improvements, among other fixes for local roads. For a fraction of the cost, the TSM/TDM investment would yield results within a few years, as opposed to at least five years with the tunnel.
5. Environmental impact report. In 2015, Caltrans released its draft environmental impact report (EIR) assessing the costs, benefits, and impacts of five alternative projects for the SR 710 gap:
   
   1. No build — no planned improvements to the SR 710 North Corridor.
   2. Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) operational improvements — strategies and improvements to increase efficiency and capacity for all modes of transportation.
   3. Bus rapid transit (BRT) — high‐speed, high‐frequency bus service through a combination of new, dedicated, and existing bus lanes.
   4. Light rail transit (LRT) — a passenger rail operated along a dedicated guideway, similar to other Metro light rail lines.
   5. Freeway tunnel with design and operational variants — starts at the existing southern stub of SR 710 in Alhambra, just north of I‐10, and connects to the existing northern stub of SR 710.
      

After the draft report was published, around 8,000 public comments were received with 1,328 specifically supporting the tunnels and 237 opposing the tunnels.

On November 26, 2018, Caltrans released its final EIR on the SR 710 North project. The EIR identified the TSM/TDM as the final direction for the SR 710 North corridor moving forward, eliminating all other alternatives (including a tunnel) from future consideration.

1. SR-710 today. With a clear pathway now set for the SR 710 North corridor, the provisions specified in this bill attempt to provide for additional direction. First, this bill removes the freeway designation on a portion of SR 710 north of Interstate 10. Second, this bill requires Caltrans and Metro to directly work with a number of local entities and further requires all of these stakeholders to agree on how transportation projects will be carried out and how real property will be disposed within the SR 710 North corridor. Lastly, this bill sets up the relinquishment process of portions of SR 710 that will no longer remain designated as a freeway.
2. Too Soon? While the introduction of this bill is well intended and serves as an endeavor to close out a 50-plus year process surrounded by contention, the provisions specified in this bill may be premature. For example, the freeway designation removal of a portion of SR 710 may trigger compliance issues with the region’s federal air quality conformity requirements. Current air quality models incorporate the freeway completion of the SR 710 north corridor; thus, Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments will need to assess/forecasts the TSM/TDM EIR alternative into air quality models and/or identify additional measures to ensure conformity. Second, the completion of projects and the disposal of real property in the SR 710 north corridor are linked to the abovementioned EIR and the $105 million TSM/TDM revenue provided by Metro. This bill requires Caltrans and Metro to directly consult and directly enter into an agreement with a variety of entities relative to the disposal of real property and the implantation of projects within this corridor. However, it is unclear whether all entities identified are required to be in accordance with these provisions or the agreement applies only to their areas within their jurisdiction. Moreover, the impacts are unclear if the agreement(s) provided by these entities are not consistent with the TSM/TDM alternative identified in the 2018 EIR decision. For instances, would alternative decisions prompt another EIR process? Additionally, it is unclear who would serve as the designee for various areas identified in the bill; the bill simply identifies these areas by zip code however also requires these areas to participate in the consultation and agreement process in some manner. Lastly, the abovementioned policy issues were similarly reported at a recent community group/stakeholder meeting held by the Caltrans Los Angeles district office where air conformity compliance and the TSM/TDM EIR preferred alternative may be compromised with any changes to the current dissolution process underway. As a result, the author and committee may wish to consider amending this bill to strike out the required consultation and agreement provisions for local entities and instead establish an optional consultation process between local entities and Caltrans and Metro relative to the development of projects within the SR 710 North Corridor.

Related Legislation:

SB 7 (Portantino, 2019) — Restricts Caltrans from implementing a freeway tunnel, surface freeway, or expressway for SR 710 between SR 10 and SR 210, as well as amends existing law related to state-owned properties in the SR 710 corridor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com: Local:

Assembly Votes:

Floor: 57-13

Approps: 12-1

Trans: 11-0

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 3, 2019.)

SUPPORT:

City of Pasadena

City of South Pasadena

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Sierra Club California

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 29

Author:(Holden)

As Amended Ver:May 22, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Defines the section of State Route (SR) 710 between SR 1 and Interstate (I) -10 as part of the state freeway and expressway system, removing from this system the section of SR 710 between I-10 and I-210.

Major Provisions

1. Defines the section of SR 710 between SR 1 and I-10 as part of the state freeway and expressway system, removing from this system the section of SR 710 between I-10 and I-210.
2. Requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), in consultation with affected local communities and the California State University, Los Angeles, to establish terms for the disposal of the state-owned highway segments between Interstates 10 and 210 while implementing projects in the State Route 710 North Project Study Area.
3. Grants to the Cities of Alhambra, Pasadena, and South Pasadena the right of first refusal to acquire the property within their respective city limits after the terms have been established.

COMMENTS:

SR 710 is a major north-south interstate running 23 miles through Los Angeles County, from Long Beach in the south to Alhambra in the north, stopping approximately six miles short of the originally planned northerly terminus in Pasadena. Efforts to complete the segment between I-10 in Alhambra and I-210 in Pasadena, sometimes dubbed the "freeway gap closure," have started and stalled several times over the past 60 years. In fact, Caltrans owns and still maintains hundreds of homes in the corridor that were bought as far back as the 1960s to preserve the corridor for the freeway long ago proposed but as of yet not delivered.

Many believe that failure to complete the SR 710 North improvement project 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 and I-605. Over the past fifty years, alternative concepts have been proposed and evaluated to build the SR 710 freeway between I-10 and I-210. Community members, particularly residents of Pasadena, have opposed the freeway project because of concerns about the impact of the freeway on their community.

Most recently, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified five alternatives to improve transportation in the area. The alternatives include: a transportation system management/ transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) approach, light-rail transit and/or bus rapid transit, a tunnel under Pasadena, and a no build option. Of these options, constructing the tunnel is the most costly option at an estimated $3 to $5.6 billion. The TSM/TDM alternative is designed to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system by improving capacity on the local street system and reducing the effects of bottlenecks and chokepoints. These relatively low-cost, low-impact strategies include coordinated traffic signal timing to help relieve congestion, ramp metering to control the entry of vehicles onto a freeway, and minor street widening and intersection improvements to improve traffic circulation.

In May of 2018, the LA Metro Board of Directors voted to no longer consider project alternatives that are deemed "unfundable," specifically referring to the tunnel, and began developing details for funding the TSM/TDM alternative. In November of 2018, as the implementing agency, Caltrans finalized the EIR and recommended the TSM/TDM option as the preferred alternative. This officially enables LA Metro to begin spending regional funds to implement the TSM/TDM program.

Committee comment: There have been a number of legislative efforts to limit or predetermine the outcome of the SR 710 North project. To date, none of these measures have been signed into law. This bill is different, because both the state and the region have concluded their studies of the alternatives and made a determination for the project going forward. This bill simply amends existing law to conform with the determined outcome.

According to the Author:

"The 710 has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley for too long. The well-intentioned proposal to build a freeway 50 years ago has led to a neighborhood deteriorating physically and an ongoing feud that has left both sides with the consequences of inaction. AB 29 will remove the most disputed section of the SR 710 from the state's Freeway and Expressway system. This is in line with the stated intentions of Caltrans and the local transportation authority, LA Metro, to stop pursuing the construction of a freeway tunnel and begin pursuing a collaborative, community supported alternative. It removes the possibility of a freeway being built in the future, in order to allow the community to move on."

Arguments in Support:

According to the City of Pasadena, "Removing the roadway from the state highway inventory is a first step in knitting the communities back together."

Arguments in Opposition:

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no direct state costs, since this bill does not create additional work for Caltrans and because removal of this section of SR 710 from the state freeway and expressway system will limit Caltrans' operational options but does not directly result in a change in the disposition of any property owned by the state.

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-0-4

YES: Frazier, Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Chu, Cunningham, Friedman, Gipson, Grayson, Medina, Nazarian, O'Donnell

ABS, ABST OR NV: Fong, Bigelow, Daly, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-5

YES: Gonzalez, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, McCarty, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Bloom, Brough, Diep, Fong

UPDATED:

VERSION: May 22, 2019

CONSULTANT: Eric Thronson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000453

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 29

Author:(Holden)

As Amended Ver:May 13, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Defines the section of State Route (SR) 710 between SR 1 and Interstate (I) -10 as part of the state freeway and expressway system, removing from this system the section of SR 710 between I-10 and I-210.

Major Provisions

1. Defines the section of SR 710 between SR 1 and I-10 as part of the state freeway and expressway system, removing from this system the section of SR 710 between I-10 and I-210.
2. Requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), in consultation with affected local communities and the California State University, Los Angeles, to establish terms for the disposal of the state-owned highway segments between Interstates 10 and 210 while implementing projects in the State Route 710 North Project Study Area.
3. Grants to the Cities of Alhambra, Pasadena, and South Pasadena the right of first refusal to acquire the property within their respective city limits after the terms have been established.

COMMENTS:

SR 710 is a major north-south interstate running 23 miles through Los Angeles County, from Long Beach in the south to Alhambra in the north, stopping approximately 6 miles short of the originally planned northerly terminus in Pasadena. Efforts to complete the segment between I-10 in Alhambra and I-210 in Pasadena, sometimes dubbed the "freeway gap closure," have started and stalled several times over the past 60 years. In fact, Caltrans owns and still maintains hundreds of homes in the corridor that were bought as far back as the 1960s to preserve the corridor for the freeway long ago proposed but as of yet not delivered.

Many believe that failure to complete the SR 710 North improvement project 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 and I-605. Over the past 50 years, alternative concepts have been proposed and evaluated to build the SR 710 freeway between I-10 and I-210. Community members, particularly residents of Pasadena, have opposed the freeway project because of concerns about the impact of the freeway on their community.

Most recently, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified five alternatives to improve transportation in the area. The alternatives include: a transportation system management/ transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) approach, light-rail transit and/or bus rapid transit, a tunnel under Pasadena, and a no build option. Of these options, constructing the tunnel is the most costly option at an estimated $3 to $5.6 billion. The TSM/TDM alternative is designed to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system by improving capacity on the local street system and reducing the effects of bottlenecks and chokepoints. These relatively low-cost, low-impact strategies include coordinated traffic signal timing to help relieve congestion, ramp metering to control the entry of vehicles onto a freeway, and minor street widening and intersection improvements to improve traffic circulation.

In May of 2018, the LA Metro Board of Directors voted to no longer consider project alternatives that are deemed "unfundable," specifically referring to the tunnel, and began developing details for funding the TSM/TDM alternative. In November of 2018, as the implementing agency, Caltrans finalized the EIR and recommended the TSM/TDM option as the preferred alternative. This officially enables LA Metro to begin spending regional funds to implement the TSM/TDM program.

Committee comment: There have been a number of legislative efforts to limit or predetermine the outcome of the SR 710 North project. To date, none of these measures have been signed into law. This bill is different, because both the state and the region have concluded their studies of the alternatives and made a determination for the project going forward. This bill simply amends existing law to conform with the determined outcome.

According to the Author:

"The 710 has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley for too long. The well-intentioned proposal to build a freeway 50 years ago has led to a neighborhood deteriorating physically and an ongoing feud that has left both sides with the consequences of inaction. AB 29 will remove the most disputed section of the SR 710 from the state's Freeway and Expressway system. This is in line with the stated intentions of Caltrans and the local transportation authority, LA Metro, to stop pursuing the construction of a freeway tunnel and begin pursuing a collaborative, community supported alternative. It removes the possibility of a freeway being built in the future, in order to allow the community to move on."

Arguments in Support:

According to the City of Pasadena, "Removing the roadway from the state highway inventory is a first step in knitting the communities back together."

Arguments in Opposition:

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee no direct state costs, since this bill does not create additional work for Caltrans and because removal of this section of SR 710 from the state freeway and expressway system will limit Caltrans' operational options but does not directly result in a change in the disposition of any property owned by the state.

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-0-4

YES: Frazier, Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Chu, Cunningham, Friedman, Gipson, Grayson, Medina, Nazarian, O'Donnell

ABS, ABST OR NV: Fong, Bigelow, Daly, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-5

YES: Gonzalez, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, McCarty, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Bloom, Brough, Diep, Fong

UPDATED:

VERSION: May 13, 2019

CONSULTANT: Eric Thronson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000453

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 29

Author:(Holden)

As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Defines the section of State Route (SR) 710 between SR 1 and Interstate (I) -10 as part of the state freeway and expressway system, removing from this system the section of SR 710 between I-10 and I-210.

Major Provisions

See summary.

COMMENTS:

SR 710 is a major north-south interstate running 23 miles through Los Angeles County, from Long Beach in the south to Alhambra in the north, stopping approximately 6 miles short of the originally planned northerly terminus in Pasadena. Efforts to complete the segment between I-10 in Alhambra and I-210 in Pasadena, sometimes dubbed the "freeway gap closure," have started and stalled several times over the past 60 years. In fact, Caltrans owns and still maintains hundreds of homes in the corridor that were bought as far back as the 1960s to preserve the corridor for the freeway long ago proposed but as of yet not delivered.

Many believe that failure to complete the SR 710 North improvement project 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 and I-605. Over the past fifty years, alternative concepts have been proposed and evaluated to build the SR 710 freeway between I-10 and I-210. Community members, particularly residents of Pasadena, have opposed the freeway project because of concerns about the impact of the freeway on their community.

Most recently, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified five alternatives to improve transportation in the area. The alternatives include: a transportation system management/ transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) approach, light-rail transit and/or bus rapid transit, a tunnel under Pasadena, and a no build option. Of these options, constructing the tunnel is the most costly option at an estimated $3 to $5.6 billion. The TSM/TDM alternative is designed to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system by improving capacity on the local street system and reducing the effects of bottlenecks and chokepoints. These relatively low-cost, low-impact strategies include coordinated traffic signal timing to help relieve congestion, ramp metering to control the entry of vehicles onto a freeway, and minor street widening and intersection improvements to improve traffic circulation.

In May of 2018, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Board of Directors voted to no longer consider project alternatives that are deemed "unfundable," specifically referring to the tunnel, and began developing details for funding the TSM/TDM alternative. In November of 2018, as the implementing agency, Caltrans finalized the EIR and recommended the TSM/TDM option as the preferred alternative. This officially enables LA Metro to begin spending regional funds to implement the TSM/TDM program.

Committee comment: There have been a number of legislative efforts to limit or predetermine the outcome of the SR 710 North project. To date, none of these measures have been signed into law. This bill is different, because both the state and the region have concluded their studies of the alternatives and made a determination for the project going forward. This bill simply amends existing law to conform with the determined outcome.

According to the Author:

"The 710 has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley for too long. The well-intentioned proposal to build a freeway 50 years ago has led to a neighborhood deteriorating physically and an ongoing feud that has left both sides with the consequences of inaction. AB 29 will remove the most disputed section of the SR 710 from the state's Freeway and Expressway system. This is in line with the stated intentions of Caltrans and the local transportation authority, LA Metro, to stop pursuing the construction of a freeway tunnel and begin pursuing a collaborative, community supported alternative. It removes the possibility of a freeway being built in the future, in order to allow the community to move on."

Arguments in Support:

According to the City of Pasadena, "Removing the roadway from the state highway inventory is a first step in knitting the communities back together."

Arguments in Opposition:

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no direct state costs, since this bill does not create additional work for Caltrans and because removal of this section of SR 710 from the state freeway and expressway system will limit Caltrans' operational options but does not directly result in a change in the disposition of any property owned by the state

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-0-4

YES: Frazier, Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Chu, Cunningham, Friedman, Gipson, Grayson, Medina, Nazarian, O'Donnell

ABS, ABST OR NV: Fong, Bigelow, Daly, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-5

YES: Gonzalez, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, McCarty, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Bloom, Brough, Diep, Fong

UPDATED:

VERSION: December 3, 2018

CONSULTANT: Eric Thronson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000209

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 29

Author:(Holden) – As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill removes from the state freeway and expressway system a section of State Route (710)—a stub extending northward from SR 10 to a nearby surface street. The removal of this section of SR 710 from the system, in effect, precludes Caltrans and other transportation authorities from pursuing extension of SR 710 northward to SR 210, which would transect Pasadena.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No direct state costs, since this bill does not create additional work for Caltrans and because removal of this section of SR 710 from the state freeway and expressway system will limit Caltrans’ operational options but does not directly result in a change in the disposition of any property owned by the state.

COMMENTS:

1. Background and Purpose. SR 710 runs 23 miles through the County of Los Angeles. It begins in Long Beach and runs north for 26 miles to Alhambra, where it intersects SR 10 and then terminates on a surface street, six miles short of connecting to SR 210. No north/south freeway in the immediate vicinity connects SR 10 and R 210. Many blame the lack of interconnection as exacerbating surface street congestion.

For decades, transportation planners have considered connecting SR 710 to SR 210. The connection, however, has been controversial among local property owners and residents. More recently, state and local planners analyzed several alternatives to freeway interconnection and have expressed their intention to pursue a project other than interconnection. The author describes this bill as in keeping with that stated intent.

1. Related Legislation.
2. SB 7 (Portantino) restricts Caltrans from implementing a freeway tunnel or surface freeway or expressway for SR 710 between SR 10 and SR 210. SB 7 is pending in the Senate Committee on Transportation.
3. AB 553 (Holden), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, similar to this bill, would have removed a specific portion of SR 710 from the freeway and expressway system. AB 533 was held in the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing.
4. AB 287 (Holden), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, would have required Caltrans, along with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), to create an SR 710 North Advisory Committee, prohibited the advisory committee from considering a tunnel or freeway extension, and explicitly prohibited Caltrans from building a freeway tunnel or surface freeway to fill the SR 710 gap. AB 287 was held in the Assembly Committee on Transportation.
5. SB 204 (Liu), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have authorized LA Metro, in consultation with Caltrans and acting jointly with affected cities, to develop and file with the California Transportation Commission a local alternative transportation improvement program to address transportation problems and opportunities in the SR 710 study area. Governor Brown vetoed the bill.
6. SB 545 (Cedillo), of 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have required any solution for SR 710 between Valley Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles and Del Mar Boulevard in the City of Pasadena not be a surface or above-grade highway. SB 545 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 29 (

Author:Holden) – As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

SUBJECT: State Highway Route 710

SUMMARY: Defines the section of State Route (SR) 710 between SR 1 and Interstate (I) -10 as part of the state freeway and expressway system, removing from this system the section of SR 710 between I-10 and I-210.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Grants the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) broad authority to have full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes. The department is authorized and directed to lay out and construct all state highways between termini designated by law.
2. Declares that it is essential to the future development of the State to construct a statewide system of controlled-access freeways and expressways.
3. Identifies the state highways to be included in the Freeway and Expressway System.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: SR 710 is a major north-south interstate running 23 miles through Los Angeles County, from Long Beach in the south to Alhambra in the north, stopping approximately 6 miles short of the originally planned northerly terminus in Pasadena. Efforts to complete the segment between I-10 in Alhambra and I-210 in Pasadena, sometimes dubbed the "freeway gap closure," have started and stalled several times over the past 60 years. In fact, Caltrans owns and still maintains hundreds of homes in the corridor that were bought as far back as the 1960s to preserve the corridor for the freeway long ago proposed but as of yet not delivered.

Many believe that failure to complete the SR 710 North improvement project 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 and I-605. Over the past fifty years, alternative concepts have been proposed and evaluated to build the SR 710 freeway between I-10 and I-210. Community members, particularly residents of Pasadena, have opposed the freeway project because of concerns about the impact of the freeway on their community.

Most recently, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified five alternatives to improve transportation in the area. The alternatives include: a transportation system management/ transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) approach, light-rail transit and/or bus rapid transit, a tunnel under Pasadena, and a no build option. Of these options, constructing the tunnel is the most costly option at an estimated $3 to $5.6 billion. The TSM/TDM alternative is designed to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system by improving capacity on the local street system and reducing the effects of bottlenecks and chokepoints. These relatively low-cost, low-impact strategies include coordinated traffic signal timing to help relieve congestion, ramp metering to control the entry of vehicles onto a freeway, and minor street widening and intersection improvements to improve traffic circulation.

In May of 2018, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Board of Directors voted to no longer consider project alternatives that are deemed “unfundable,” specifically referring to the tunnel, and began developing details for funding the TSM/TDM alternative. In November of 2018, as the implementing agency, Caltrans finalized the EIR and recommended the TSM/ TDM option as the preferred alternative. This officially enables LA Metro to begin spending regional funds to implement the TSM/TDM program.

According to the author, “The 710 has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley for too long. The well-intentioned proposal to build a freeway 50 years ago has led to a neighborhood deteriorating physically and an ongoing feud that has left both sides with the consequences of inaction. AB 29 will remove the most disputed section of the SR 710 from the state’s Freeway and Expressway system. This is in line with the stated intentions of Caltrans and the local transportation authority, LA Metro, to stop pursuing the construction of a freeway tunnel and begin pursuing a collaborative, community supported alternative. It removes the possibility of a freeway being built in the future, in order to allow the community to move on.”

Committee comment: There have been a number of legislative efforts to limit or predetermine the outcome of the SR 710 North project. To date, none of these measures have been signed into law. This bill is different, because both the state and the region have concluded their studies of the alternatives and made a determination for the project going forward. This bill simply amends existing law to conform with the determined outcome.

Related legislation: SB 7 (Portantino) restricts Caltrans from implementing a freeway tunnel or surface freeway or expressway for Route 710 between Route 10 and Route 210. This bill is awaiting hearing from Senate Transportation Committee.

Previous legislation: AB 553 (Holden) of 2017, similar to this bill, would have removed a specific portion of SR 710 from the freeway and expressway system. AB 533 was held in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

AB 287 (Holden) of 2017 would have required Caltrans, along with LA Metro, to create an SR 710 North Advisory Committee, prohibited the advisory committee from considering a tunnel or freeway extension, and explicitly prohibited Caltrans from building a freeway tunnel or surface freeway to fill the SR 710 gap. AB 287 was held in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

SB 204 (Liu) of 2012 would have, among other things, authorized LA Metro, in consultation with Caltrans and acting jointly with affected cities, to develop and file with the California Transportation Commission a local alternative transportation improvement program to address transportation problems and opportunities in the SR 710 study area. Governor Brown vetoed SB 204.

SB 545 (Cedillo) of 2009 would have required that any solution for SR 710 between Valley Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles and Del Mar Boulevard in the City of Pasadena not be a surface or above-grade highway. SB 545 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, calling it unnecessary as Caltrans and LA Metro worked toward a solution.

SB 545 (Cedillo) of 2002 would have prohibited the SR 710 freeway gap closure project from being constructed as a surface or above-grade highway. SB 545 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Eric Thronson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093