BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 292
Page 1
CORRECTED : 10/19/11 Changes per consultant.
( Without Reference to File )
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 292 (Padilla)
As Amended September 7, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :Vote not relevant
HIGHER EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS
(vote not relevant) (vote not relevant)
NATURAL RESOURCES 5-1 APPROPRIATIONS 11-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Brownley, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Dickinson, Monning, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Skinner | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Huffman |Nays:|Donnelly |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes expedited judicial review procedures and
requires implementation of specified traffic and air quality
mitigation measures under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) for the proposed downtown Los Angeles football
stadium and convention center project. Specifically, this bill :
1)Expedites judicial review for environmental impact report
(EIR) and other initial (pre-construction) project approvals:
a) Requires a petition challenging certification of the
EIR, or the granting of any initial project approvals, for
the stadium project to be filed with the Second District
Court of Appeal within 30 days of the lead agency's notice
of determination on the EIR.
SB 292
Page 2
b) Requires the petitioner to file and serve the opening
brief within 40 days of filing the petition.
c) Requires the respondent and real party in interest to
file and serve the opposition brief within 25 days of the
filing of the opening brief.
d) Requires the petitioner to file and serve the reply
brief within 20 days of the filing of the last opposition
brief.
e) Provides that Rule 8.220 of the California Rules of
Court, which permits the court to grant an extension of
time to file briefs for good cause, does not apply.
Instead prohibits the court from granting any extension,
except upon showing of extraordinary good cause, and limits
any extension to minimum the court deems necessary.
f) Permits the court to appoint a special master to assist
with the case. If a special master is appointed, requires
the project applicant to pay all reasonable costs, up to
$150,000. Permits the court to require additional special
master costs in excess of $150,000 be paid by the
applicant.
g) Requires the court to hear and decide the case within 60
days of the filing of the last timely reply brief.
h) Requires all briefs and notices to be served
electronically.
i) States that no provision of law that is inconsistent or
conflicts with the expedited judicial review in the bill
shall apply to a petition for writ of mandate.
2)Establishes special procedures for public participation in
CEQA review of the project:
a) Requires the project EIR to include a specified notice
that the EIR is subject to the provisions of the section
added by this bill.
b) Requires the lead agency to conduct an informational
workshop within 10 days of release of the Draft EIR and
SB 292
Page 3
hold a public hearing within 10 days before close of the
public comment period.
c) Requires the lead agency and applicant to participate in
nonbinding mediation with any party who submitted comments
on the Draft EIR and requested mediation within five days
of the close of the public comment period, with the cost to
be paid by the applicant. Requires mediation to end within
35 days of the close of the public comment period.
d) Requires the lead agency to adopt any measures agreed
upon in mediation. Prohibits a commenter from raising an
issue addressed by that measure in a lawsuit.
e) Permits the lead agency to ignore written comments
submitted after the close of the public comment period,
with specified exceptions for materials addressing new
information released after the close of the public comment
period.
f) Requires the lead agency to provide all EIR documents
and comments in an electronic format, certify the record
within five days of filing the notice of determination,
provide the record to a party upon written request, and
provide the record to the Court of Appeal within 10 days of
the filing of petition for review.
3)Imposes supplementary measures to limit private car trips and
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project:
a) Declares the intent of the Legislature that the project
minimize traffic congestion and air quality impacts that
may result from private car trips to the stadium through
the existing requirements of CEQA, as supplemented by the
measures specified by this bill.
b) Requires the lead agency, as a condition of approval of
the project, to require the applicant to implement measures
to achieve and maintain "carbon neutrality" (zero net
emissions of greenhouse gases from private car trips) by
the end of the first season a National Football League
(NFL) team has played at the stadium. Requires the lead
agency to place highest priority on feasible emission
reduction measures on the stadium site and neighboring
SB 292
Page 4
communities. Requires use of offset credits only after
feasible local measures have been implemented, and requires
that the applicant place the highest priority on the
purchase of offset credits that produce emission reductions
within the city or the boundaries of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
c) Requires the applicant to implement specified measures
to ensure that the stadium achieves a "trip ratio" (cars
divided by spectators) that is no more than 90% of the trip
ratio at any other NFL stadium (i.e., 10% less car trips
than the best comparable stadium).
d) Requires the lead agency to adopt a protocol to
implement these measures, including criteria and guidelines
to determine trip ratio.
e) Requires the applicant to report to the lead agency
after the second, third, fourth and fifth NFL seasons,
regarding the results of trip reduction measures.
f) Requires the lead agency, following the fourth season
trip ratio report, to determine whether there is adequate
data to determine whether the 90% trip ratio has been
achieved. If data is not adequate, the lead agency is
required to collect the data necessary to make the
determination, with reasonable costs paid by the applicant.
g) If, after the fifth season trip ratio report, the lead
agency determines that the trip ratio is more than 90% of
the trip ratio of the other NFL stadium with the lowest
trip ratio, the lead agency shall require the applicant to
implement additional feasible measures to achieve the 90%
target. Any trip reduction measure used at another NFL
stadium shall be presumed feasible. The feasibility of any
mitigation measure not used at another NFL stadium is
governed by the substantial evidence test. The applicant's
obligation to pay for transit improvements is limited to:
i) Temporary expansion of transit line capacity to
serve stadium events.
ii) Providing charter buses or similar services to serve
stadium events.
SB 292
Page 5
iii) Paying a fair share of a public fixed or light rail
station used by event spectators.
h) Provides that the expedited judicial review procedures
described above do not apply to a lawsuit challenging these
additional mitigation measures. Provides that compliance
or non-compliance with these additional mitigation measures
shall not be result in the stadium being required to cease
or limit operations.
i) Requires the applicant to submit additional annual trip
ratio reports if the lead agency requires additional
mitigation measures, until the lead agency determines the
applicant has achieved the 90% target for two consecutive
seasons, or until the tenth season, whichever is earlier.
4)Other:
a) Specifies that a lawsuit challenging a subsequent
project approval shall be governed by CEQA's existing
judicial review procedures.
b) Provides that the provisions of the section added by the
bill are severable.
c) Makes operation of the bill contingent on completion of
the project EIR before June 1, 2013, by providing that the
section added by this bill shall be repealed if the lead
agency fails to certify the EIR by June 1, 2013.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, pursuant to CEQA, a lead agency with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
discretionary project to evaluate the environmental effects of
its action and prepare a negative declaration, mitigated
negative declaration, or EIR. If an initial study shows that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment,
the lead agency must prepare an EIR.
2)Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public
agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or
approve the project. Challenges alleging improper
SB 292
Page 6
determination that a project may have a significant effect on
the environment, or alleging an EIR doesn't comply with CEQA,
must be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing
of the notice of approval.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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
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.)
COMMENTS : CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or
approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. If
the initial study shows that there would not be a significant
effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a
negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the
SB 292
Page 7
project may have a significant effect on the environment, the
lead agency must prepare an EIR.
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project,
identify and analyze each significant environmental impact
expected to result from the proposed project, identify
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent
feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project. If mitigation measures are required or
incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting
or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.
Generally, CEQA actions taken by local public agencies can be
challenged in Superior Court once the agency approves or
determines to carry out the project. CEQA appeals are subject
to unusually short statutes of limitations. Under current law,
court challenges of CEQA decisions generally must be filed
within 30-35 days, depending on the type of decision. The
courts are required to give CEQA actions preference over all
other civil actions. However, the schedules for briefing,
hearing, and decision are less definite than in this bill. The
petitioner must request a hearing within 90 days of filing the
petition and, generally, briefing must be completed within 90
days of the request for hearing. There is no deadline specified
for the court to render a decision.
This bill would establish special procedures and requirements
for the proposed Convention Center Modernization and Farmers
Field Project (football stadium) in downtown Los Angeles. The
expedited judicial review procedures contemplate the Court of
Appeal rendering a decision on any lawsuit challenging the City
of Los Angeles' approval of the stadium under CEQA within 175
days, reducing the existing judicial review timeline by 100 days
or more, while creating new burdens for the court and litigants
to meet the compressed schedule. If the deadline to decide the
case is not met, the bill would permit the applicant to
unilaterally opt-out, terminating the case as well as the
applicant's obligation to achieve the bill's mitigation
requirements. The mitigation requirements would require the
stadium to achieve "carbon neutrality" for private car trips by
the end of the first NFL season and 10% less car trips than the
best comparable stadium over a five to 10-year period.
SB 292
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0002985