Community Corner

Updated: Transportation Committee Passes Through 710-Oriented Bill

A.B. 353 would repeal a provision that prevents South Pasadena from having the power to veto the building of a freeway in the city.

South Pasadena is one step closer to regaining control over freeway construction within its boundaries.

The state's Assembly Committee on Transportation pushed through A.B. 353 Monday, a bill that aims to repeal a provision in the state code that, under certain conditions, allows Caltrans to build a freeway without having to clear it with any cities or towns the freeway would affect. If the provision is officially repealed, South Pasadena would reclaim veto power over freeway construction in the city.

The bill passed through the committee with a 9-0 vote. Fredy Ceja, a spokesman for Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, who introduced the bill in February 2010, said the bill is now headed to the appropriations committee. The Assembly floor awaits after that.

Find out what's happening in Montrose-La Crescentawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

In the meantime, the city waits to see if the bill will stay in its current form for the lengthy lawmaking process.

"It's still got a long way to go," said Sergio Gonzalez, assistant city manager. "As it's written, the city supports it. But if it gets amended along the way, the city would have to revisit its support."

Find out what's happening in Montrose-La Crescentawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

At the heart of the bill is talk of the proposed 710 Freeway extension, which has been going on for decades. Supporters generally believe an extension would help unclog traffic in the area, while opponents are fearful of negative environmental impacts, disruption and, in the case of South Pasadena, a logistical stake through the heart of the city.

The current law, according to the State Assembly Committee on Transportation, requires Caltrans to forge a pact with local leadership if a freeway was going to lead to the shutdown of any local streets or roads. Caltrans could also devise alternate routes for those closed roads.

But the 710 extension issue for South Pasadena falls under another facet of the law, which allows Caltrans to bypass making official agreements with local jurisdictions if the freeway segment to be built falls under the watch of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or Metro. If that happens, Caltrans is required to only “meet and confer” with affected cities.

South Pasadena's freeway veto power was taken away by a 1982 bill named A.B. 1623, or better known as the Martinez bill, named so for then-Assemblyman Matthew Martinez (D-Monterey Park). It was then renewed by the former Assemblyman's daughter, Diane Martinez, in 1994 in the form of A.B. 2556.

The debate has led to a  among Caltrans, Metro and the residents and leadership in the San Gabriel Valley and northeast Los Angeles.

Analysis from the Transportation Committee stated that the lack of a 710 extension would further strangle traffic in northeast L.A. and the San Gabriel Valley.  It also states that the success of AB 353 would “effectively eliminate” any chances to build an at- or above-surface version of the 710 extension. This would lead to consideration of a subterranean option, such as a tunnel, which has been previously proposed.

Early November, the South Pasadena City Council voted  stating its opposition to "any proposal, surface or subsurface to extend the SR 710 freeway."

Mayor Mike Ten had called upon various local leaders and state lawmakers, including Senator Kevin de Leon and Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, to lend their support to AB 353. 

De Leon  at the end of January, and voiced his opposition to a surface version of the 710 extension.

"I oppose wholeheartedly, unequivocally, with no wiggle room or abstract loopholes, any surface route," he said at the time. But what he did not oppose is the concept of a tunnel. "I won’t be persuaded by polemic and polarizing language. I have an open mind. I will sit down with everyone. If we have alternatives, I will listen."

Ten is also taking a wait-and-see approach to the tunnel concept.

"I've always been against the freeway; I fought it when I was in high school, and I'm fighting it again today," he said last week. "The concept of the tunnel is promising, but all that will come out in scoping."

Editor's note: This story has been changed from its original version to include Fredy Ceja, spokesman from Assemblyman Gil Cedillo's office, who returned a call from Patch Wednesday morning.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from Montrose-La Crescenta