BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 81XXX|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 81XXX
Author: Hall (D), et al
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-18, 9/10/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Land use: City of Industry: stadium complex
SOURCE : Majestic Realty
DIGEST : This bill waives environmental review and land
use planning requirements as they apply to a football
stadium project in the City of Industry.
ANALYSIS : The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or
cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an
environmental impact report on a project that it proposes
to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect
on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative
declaration if it finds that the project will not have that
effect, unless the project is exempt from the act. CEQA
provides for various exemptions from its requirements.
Existing law requires cities and counties to prepare,
adopt, and amend general plans containing specified
elements.
This bill:
CONTINUED
AB 81XXX
Page
2
1.Exempts the stadium project and the City of Industry's
analysis and approval of that project from CEQA and from
any legal requirement concerning the content of a general
plan or consistency with a general plan.
2.Requires the stadium complex and associated development
to comply with mitigation measures contained in a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program adopted by
the City of Industry.
3.Provides that the provisions of the bill would apply
prospectively and retroactively to any litigation pending
at the effective date of this act.
Background
CEQA obligates public officials to consider the
environmental effects of their decisions. The lead agency
that proposes to approve a project must conduct an initial
study to determine if the project may have significant,
adverse environmental effects. If not, the lead agency
issues a negative declaration and, after a 30-day review
period, proceeds with its review and decision. If the lead
agency finds minor effects that can be mitigated, it issues
a mitigated negative declaration and then proceeds. If the
lead agency finds that the effects of the project may be
significant, it prepares an environmental impact report
(EIR), a document that show public officials how to avoid
or mitigate the project's environmental effects.
Preparing the EIR begins when the lead agency sends notice
of preparation to other public agencies, soliciting advice
on the EIR's scope. If the project is of statewide,
regional, or area-wide significance, the lead agency holds
a scoping meeting with the other agencies. The lead agency
circulates its draft EIR and invites public comments during
a 45-day review period. After this public review, the lead
agency issues a final EIR that responds to the comments
that it received. After certifying the final EIR, the lead
agency files notice to allow the project to proceed.
CEQA allows a lead agency to prepare a supplemental EIR,
instead of a completely new EIR, to account for minor
AB 81XXX
Page
3
additions or changes to the project not covered in the
original EIR. Conversely, substantial changes to a project
would require a lead agency to prepare a new EIR.
State law requires each county and each city to adopt a
general plan-a comprehensive document that states the
long-range development plans of the jurisdiction. General
plans must contain seven mandatory elements: land use,
circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and
safety. General plans must be internally consistent,
meaning the various elements that make up a general plan
must not conflict with one another, and externally
consistent, meaning a jurisdiction's zoning codes and other
land use policies must not conflict with its general plan.
The City of Industry is small city within heavily urbanized
urban Los Angeles County. About 800 people live within the
city's 10 square-mile area. The city is immediately
bordered by developed land in the cities of Diamond Bar, La
Puente, Pomona and Walnut, several Los Angeles County
communities, and the junction of several major freeways.
Most of the city's territory is zoned for industrial use,
with nearly all remaining land dedicated to commercial
activity.
In 2004, the city approved the Industry Business Center
Project, a 4.8 million square-foot project to include
industrial, office, and commercial uses. Approval included
certification of the project's EIR. At that time, no one
challenged the EIR.
In 2008, the project's developer modified the 2004 project
proposal. As modified, the project would cover a smaller
area-just over 3 million square feet instead of the 4.8
million square feet in the original plan. The project's
land uses also would substantially change to include a
football stadium and related facilities capable of seating
80,000 people and parking for 25,000 vehicles. In response
to the changes to the proposed project, the city chose to
prepare a supplemental EIR-a document typically used to
reflect minor changes to a project not captured in an
EIR-rather than a wholly new EIR for the project.
Earlier this year, the City of Walnut filed suit against
AB 81XXX
Page
4
the City of Industry. Walnut's suit challenges the adequacy
of the review of the potential environmental effects of the
proposed stadium project. Walnut expressed concern about
the noise, traffic, air quality and light effects of the
project, all of which might affect Walnut residents who
live near the project site. In addition, Walnut
specifically contends that the City of Industry:
1.Failed to adequately consult with Walnut in its
preparation of the supplemental EIR in violation of state
land use planning laws.
2.Chose to prepare a supplemental EIR for the revised
project rather than a project-specific EIR, in violation
of CEQA.
3.Failed to analyze in the supplemental EIR environmental
effects associated with the stadium project.
Comments
The author and the City of Industry contend this bill will
allow construction of a major project-an NFL stadium and
other facilities-to move forward, thereby providing needed
jobs and other economic activity. Proponents described the
project as a "green" project that has received legally
adequate and extensive review of the project's potential
environmental effects. The City of Walnut nonetheless has
filed suit to challenge the adequacy of the City of
Industry's review of the environmental effects of the
project. Absent this bill, proponents argue, the project
will be delayed needlessly, possibly by several years, as
the courts resolve the legal challenges to the project.
Proponents fear such a delay will jeopardize the project's
financing and postpone the project's economic benefits.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no
direct state costs, and potential indirect costs of an
unknown amount, but possibly in the millions of dollars, to
state and local agencies, such as Caltrans or local public
works departments, that undertake projects to mitigate the
AB 81XXX
Page
5
environmental effects of the stadium project to the extent
such mitigation measures are not included in the city's
mitigation and reporting program.
SUPPORT : (Verified 10/14/09)
Majestic Realty (source)
California Labor Federation
California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
City of Industry
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
State Building and Construction Trades Council
United Food & Commercial Workers
UNITE HERE!
OPPOSITION : (Verified 10/14/09)
American Lung Association
American Planning Association California Chapter
Breathe California
California League of Conservation Voters
City of Walnut
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
County of Los Angeles
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
Heal the Bay
Jerry Sanders, Mayor, San Diego
June Wentworth, former Mayor of Walnut
National Parks Conservation Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The City of Industry contends it
adequately identified and planned for mitigation of the
environmental effects associated with the stadium project
when it approved the EIR for the original industrial
project and the supplemental EIR. The City of Walnut,
AB 81XXX
Page
6
however, disagrees and filed suit. Normally, a court would
evaluate the competing claims and rule accordingly, a
process that may take more than a year. This bill
circumvents this process by waiving CEQA and state land use
requirements as they apply to the stadium project.
Proponents contend the jobs and economic activity the
stadium project would generate: 120,000 construction jobs,
6,700 permanent jobs, and over $760 million in annual
economic activity, according to the bill's sponsors-as well
as the city's previous environmental analysis, justify this
circumvention of the normal CEQA and land use litigation
process.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents contend that the
criteria this bill applies to the City of Industry stadium
project could be applied to other large-scale,
job-generating projects throughout the state. If a waiver
is justified in the case of a stadium in the City of
Industry, then similar waivers also may be justified in
other pending development projects. The County of Los
Angeles notes that, while there are many reasons to support
construction of an NFL-worthy football stadium in Los
Angeles County, there is also reason to insist that the
stadium project be subject to the same environmental
regulations applicable to most any other project in
California. Hospitals, police stations, freeways and other
major infrastructure projects, the county observes, are
being built without CEQA exemptions.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Vacancy, Charles Calderon, Carter, Conway,
Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng,
Evans, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Ma, Mendoza,
Miller, Nestande, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Ruskin, Silva, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Villines, Bass
NOES: Anderson, Arambula, Block, Buchanan, Caballero,
Chesbro, DeVore, Feuer, Fletcher, Garrick, Huffman,
Monning, Nava, Niello, Nielsen, Salas, Saldana, Yamada
AB 81XXX
Page
7
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Blumenfield, Brownley, Duvall,
Krekorian, Bonnie Lowenthal, Skinner, Tran
DLW:nl 10/14/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****