BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 292
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 292 (Padilla) - As Amended: September 2, 2011
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:N/A
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill creates an expedited judicial review process for the
Convention Center Modernization and Farmers Field Project
(project) in the City of Los Angeles, requires specified air
quality and traffic mitigation measures, and makes certain
requirements of the local agency responsible for permitting the
project.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potential costs of an unknown amount to the state-funded court
system to process and hear challenges to the project's
environmental review within the timeframes prescribed by the
bill. (General Fund.)
It is possible that, absent this bill, the state would face
similar costs resulting from challenges to the project that
would occur over a period longer than timeframes prescribed by
this bill. In addition, it is possible this bill will result
in minor overall savings to the courts to the extent the bill
reduces the opportunity for the court to hear legal challenges
to the project's environmental review that would otherwise
occur. In any case, The Administrative Office of the Courts
indicates it likely could absorb with existing resources any
workload resulting from this bill.
2)Potential costs of an unknown amount to the lead agency,
likely the City of Los Angeles, with primary responsibility
for permitting the project to hold workshop and public
hearing, conduct mediation, and process and release documents
as described in this bill. Presumably, these costs will be
SB 292
Page 2
covered by the developer of the project.
3)Potential revenue increase of an unknown but possibly
substantial amount resulting from greater economic activity
and increased property values in the vicinity of the project
in downtown Los Angeles. (Various state and local funds.)
SUMMARY (continued)
Specifically, this bill:
I. Expedited Legal Review
1)Creates a process applicable to permitting of the project that
requires (a) any legal challenge be filed with the Second
District Court of Appeals within 30 days of the lead agency's
filing of its environmental impact report (EIR) or other
initial project approval, that (b) specifies truncated
timeframes within which petitioners and respondents may file
and serve briefs related to challenge.
2)Waives the court's authority to grant an extension of time to
file briefs for good cause and instead authorizes the court to
grant an extension only upon showing of extraordinary good
cause and limits any extension to the minimum the court deems
necessary.
3)Authorizes the court to appoint a special master to assist the
court's expedited review, requires the project applicant to
pay up to $150,000 for the cost of the special master and
authorizes the court to request the applicant to pay
additional costs for the special master.
4)Requires the Court of Appeal to issue a decision on any
challenge within 60 days of the filing of the last timely
brief related to the challenge.
5)If the court fails to issue a decision within the 60-day
period, authorizes the project applicant to withdraw from the
case at any time prior to the court issuing a decision,
thereby depriving the Court of Appeal its jurisdiction over
the case and absolving the applicant from the requirement to
fulfill the air quality and traffic mitigation measures
otherwise required by this bill.
SB 292
Page 3
6)Authorizes a petitioner with the Court of Appeal, within 15
days of the applicant's filing of notice to withdraw, to file
an identical petition with the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles, on which the Superior Court must rule within
30 days after the filing of the petition or within 15 days of
the filing of an opposition to the petition, whichever is
earlier.
7)Requires all briefs and notices to be served electronically.
8)Limits the courts authority to stay or enjoin construction or
operation of the project to imminent threats to public health
and safety and damage to unforeseen Native American artifacts
or important historical, archeological or ecological values.
II. Lead Agency Requirements
1)Requires the lead agency, likely the City of Los Angeles, to
hold an informational workshop and a public hearing within
specified timeframes following release of the draft EIR.
2)Authorizes a commenter on the draft EIR, within five days
following close of the public comment period, to request of
the lead agency nonbinding mitigation, which must conclude
within 35 days of the close of the public comment period and
in which the lead agency and project applicant must
participate.
3)Requires the lead agency to adopt, as a condition of project
approval, any measures agreed upon by all parties in mediation
and prohibits a party from challenging project approval on the
basis of measure agreed upon during mediation.
4)Limits, to new issues or information or changes to the
project, the types of information that the lead agency may
consider that is submitted after the close of the public
comment period.
5)Specifies timeframes within which the lead agency must release
draft EIR and supporting documents and take other actions
relate to project review and permitting.
III. Air Quality and Traffic Mitigation
1)Requires the project to implement measures that (a) reduce to
SB 292
Page 4
zero the net emissions of greenhouse gases from private
automobile trips to the stadium and (b) achieve a trip ratio
(meaning private automobiles arriving at the stadium for
events divided by the number of spectators at the events) no
more than 90% of the trip ratio at any other stadium serving a
team of the National Football League (NFL).
2)Requires the lead agency to require, as a condition of the
permit, the project to achieve specified air quality and
traffic mitigation measures, and to develop protocols and
criteria for assessing the success of those measures.
3)Directs the lead agency to prioritize feasible measures that
reduce greenhouse gases at the stadium site and in neighboring
communities and to only allow offset credits after the project
applicant has implemented feasible local emission reduction
measures.
4)Requires the project applicant to report on its mitigation
measures to the lead agency at specified times.
5)Requires the lead agency to determine the success of those
measures and to require the applicant to undertake additional
feasible measures, if needed.
6)Declares as feasible any trip reduction measure used at
another NFL stadium, unless a preponderance of evidence
demonstrates otherwise.
7)Prevents noncompliance with required mitigation from resulting
in nonoperation or limited operation of the stadium.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends the potential cultural,
financial and employment benefits to the City of Los and
Angeles and the region of the of the proposed Convention
Center Modernization and Farmers Field Project justify an
exceptional process of expedited judicial review for the
project, provided the process includes adequate assurance that
the environment will be protected and opportunity for public
review and comment and judicial review.
2)Background . Despite being one of the nation's most-populous
regions and one of its largest media markets, the Los Angeles
SB 292
Page 5
area has not hosted an NFL football franchise since the
Raiders left L.A. in 1995 for Oakland. Since that time,
various parties have worked to secure the return of NFL
football to the Los Angeles area.
One potentially promising plan, which is the subject of this
bill and advanced by the Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG),
involves construction of a new, downtown Los Angeles stadium
next to the city's convention center. Boosters contend the
prospect of a new downtown stadium will help secure the
commitment of an NFL franchise to relocate the Los Angeles.
These project proponents fear, however, that the project will
be challenged under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
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 shows
public officials how to avoid or mitigate the project's
environmental effects.
CEQA provides an open, public process which can prove lengthy.
In addition, lead agency actions and determinations are open
to legal challenge under CEQA by private parties. It is not
uncommon for projects to be delayed significantly as the
courts work through CEQA-based contentions. Some contend that
project opponents abuse CEQA, using the act's procedural
requirements to tie up worthy projects.
3)Special Law for a Unique Project. This bill applies only to
the environmental review of the Convention Center
Modernization and Farmers Field Project in the City of Los
Angeles. Project proponents reference the various cultural
and economic benefits the project likely will provide,
particularly in light of the currently depressed state of the
economy. Others note, however, that the economy is struggling
statewide and that similar projects providing similar benefits
SB 292
Page 6
should receive treatment under the law similar to the
treatment of the Convention Center Modernization and Farmers
Field Project.
4)Related Legislation. In 2009, the Legislature passed ABX3 81
(Chapter 30, Hall), which, similar to this bill, provided
relief from CEQA requirements for a proposed stadium project
to be built in the Los Angeles region. Unlike this bill,
which seeks to expedite the CEQA process, ABX3 81 exempted a
stadium project and the lead agency's analysis from CEQA
requirements and from any legal requirement concerning the
content of a general plan or consistency with a general plan.
Nor did ABX3 81require environmental mitigation measures of
the stadium project subject to the CEQA exemption provided by
that bill.
5)This committee has received no letters or formal expression of
support or opposition to this bill as of September 6, 2011.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081