cla report on ceqa-stadium resolution

8/6/2019 CLA Report on CEQA-Stadium Resolution

1/13

REPORT OF THECHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

DATE: June 17,2011TO: Honorable Members of the Information Technology & Government Affairs Committee

Ge~TYF. ~ille~fl...../J~ Council File No. 11-0002-S9Chief Legislative Anal;'" - ......... Assignment No. 11-02-0101FROM:

SUBJECT: Resolution (Krekorian-Rosendahl) to oppose legislation to subvert or accelerate the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for a National Football League (NFL) stadium inDowntown Los Angeles.

CLA RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution (Krekorian-Rosendahl) to include in the City's 2011-12 StateLegislative Program, OPPOSITION to any legislation that would subvert or accelerate the CEQA process for aproposed NFL stadium in Downtown Los Angeles.SUMMARYResolution (Krekorian-Rosendahl), introduced on February 2, 2011, advises that the City Council is currentlyconsidering a speculative proposal to develop an NFL stadium where the Los Angeles Convention Center currentlysits. The Resolution further advises that media accounts have speculated that the developers of the stadium, AnschutzEntertainment Group (AEG), are currently seeking rei ief or an exemption from the CEQA process. The Resolutionadvises that the CEQA process provides vital, holistic analysis of development proposals- analysis that the CityCouncil needs in order to have a full and complete debate about the stadium proposal.BACKGROUNDThe California Environmental Quality Act is a State statute (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 etseq.), and its Guidelines for implementation (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 etseq.), require state and local agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities orprojects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that willsubstantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment, if feasible.The Los Angeles Municipal Code requires discretionary review (including environmental clearance) of proposedcommercial/industrial developments with more than 50,000 square feet, or residential projects having more than 50dwelling units, or a project that generates more than 500 trips. After a project is submitted to the PlanningDepartment, staff conducts a review to determine the type of environmental clearance that will be needed for aproposed development project, such as: Negative Declaration (ND); Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); or anEnvironmental Impact Report (ErR). If Planning Department staff determines that a proposed development projectwill have significant impacts on the environment, then an EIR is required to evaluate those impacts.


2/13

City of IndustlY & Environmental Clearance:On October 22,2009, the Governor approved AB SI(Hall), and thereafter, it was chaptered into law by the Secretarof State (Chapter 30, Statutes of2009-10). AB 81 was controversial because for the first time it carved out a one tiexception from CEQA that removed the ability of a municipality or private party to challenge the EIR in court, forproposed football stadium project in the City of Industry', AB SI was approved after an EIR for a "business center"project had been developed, and required all of the EIR mitigations to be applied to that project, and after aSupplemental EIR was prepared that reflected changes to the original project by including a football stadium. ABnoted that the stadium project would generate 12,000 potential construction jobs, 6,700 permanent jobs in the LosAngeles region, and over $760 million in annual economic activity, and over $21 million in tax revenues annually fstate, county, and local governments.More specifically, AB 81 enacted the following provisions relative to the environmental clearance process:1. Exempted the proposed stadium project and the City ofIndustry's analysis and approval of the project from CEQsince the project had been approved under a prior project that was larger in its proposed footprint (4.S Million squafeet instead of 3 Million square feet) and from future litigation from private parties concerning the content of aGeneral Plan or consistency with a General Plan.

2. Required the stadium complex and associated development to comply with mitigation measures contained in amitigation monitoring and reporting program adopted by the City of Industry.3. Provided that the provisions of the bill would apply prospectively and retroactively to any litigation pending at theffective date of enactment into law of AB SI.AB 81 noted that the City ofIndustry adequately identified and planned for mitigation of the environmental effectsassociated with the stadium project in 2004, when it approved the EIR for its Industry Business Center Project, a 4.million square foot project that included industrial, office, and commercial uses. Approval of the project includedcertification of the project's EIR, which was not challenged.In 200S, the project's developer modified the 2004 proposed project to cover a smaller area 00 million square feetrather than 4.8 million square feet as proposed in the original project. The project's land uses were changed to inclua football stadium and related facilities that would be capable of seating 80,000 people and provide parking for25,000 vehicles. Thereafter, a supplemental EIR was prepared to reflect changes to the original project, instead ofpreparing an entirely new EIR for the project.Planning Department comments:We asked the Planning Department for their comments relative to the CEQA exemption process allowed by AB 81and they indicated that it is important to note that this was the first bill of its kind, and was controversial, inasmuchCEQA has been in place since 1970.Planning indicates that in 2004 an EIR was prepared and certified for the site for an unrelated project. In 2009, aSupplemental EIR was prepared and certified for the stadium. It included mitigation conditions. Thereafter, the Citof Walnut, a neighboring city, challenged the project under CEQA.In support of a major economic project, the State legislature carved out a one time exception from CEQA for thisproject. The bill came after the EIR had been developed, and still required all of the EIR mitigations to be applied tthe project. Essentially, AB 81 removed the ability of a municipality or private party to challenge the EIR in court.

! The City of Industry was incorporated on June 18, 1956. It is located in the County of LosAngeles within a 12 square-mile area with a population of approximately 800 residents. The city isalmost entirely zoned industrial or commercial. The City of Industry borders the cities of Diamond Bar,La Puente, Pomona, and Walnut.


3/13

CONCLUSIONThe CEQA exemption allowed by AB 81 came after the City of Industry certified the EIR, and approved the project.It did not preclude the development of an EIR or the implementation of environmental mitigations. However, if asimilar exemption were enacted for a project currently in the development review process, it would raise questions ato how it would impact the EIR currently under preparation.As such, it is appropriate to oppose any legislation that would subvert or accelerate the CEQA process for a proposedNFL stadium in Downtown Los Angeles, inasmuch as it would circumvent CEQA, and the developer for the city'sproposed stadium is currently conducting public hearings for the EIR and there is no indication that the CEQAprocess is being accelerated or subverted.DEPARTMENTS NOTIFIEDCity PlanningCity AttorneyAttachments:Resolution (Krekorian-Rosendahl).AB 81 (Hall).

12,Ll-o ~. 0t~Roberto R. MejiaAnalyst

GFM:rrm


4/13


5/13

Assembly nm No. 81CHAPTER 30

An act to add Section 65701 to the Government Code, relating to landuse.

[Approved by Governor October 22,2009. Fi led withSecretary of State October 22,2009.]LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 81, Hall. Land use: City of Industry: stadium complex.(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a leadagency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify thecompletion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposesto 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 willnot have that effect, unless the project is exempt from the act. CEQAprovides for various exemptions from its requirements.Existing law requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and amendgeneral plans containing specified elements.This bill would exempt from CEQA any activity or approval, necessaryor incidental to, the development, planning, design, site acquisition,subdivision, financing, leasing, construction, operation, or maintenance ofa stadium complex and associated development included in the same projector approval together with any accessory roadway, utility, or otherinfrastructure improvement to that stadium complex and associateddevelopment, for which an application for the project or approval wassubmitted on or before January 31,2009, to the City ofIndustry, if specifiedrequirements are met. The bill would require the city to require the stadiumcomplex and associated development to comply with those mitigationmeasures that are contained in a mitigation monitoring and reporting programthat is adopted by the City of Industry in connection with the stadiumcomplex and associated development. Because a lead agency would berequired to determine the applicability of the exemption,. the bill wouldimpose a state-mandated local program.The bill also would exempt from any legal requirement conceming thecontent of a general plan or consistency with a general plan, and prohibitthose requirements from resulting in the invalidation of, the city's approvalof, and decisions regarding, specified actions taken with respect to thestadium complex and associated development included in the same projector approval and any accessory improvements to that stadium complex andassociated development. The bill additionally would provide that aconsistency determination is not required by the city for any decision withrespect to those actions.

97


6/13

Ch.30 -2-

(2) The bill would have retroactive application.(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse localagencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutoryprovisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act fora speeified reason.(4) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare afiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for thatpurpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency,and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008.This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared bythe Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant tothe California Constitution.The people of the State of California do enact asfollows:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) The state is in the midst of one of the most significant economicrecessions in the history ofthe United States, which has dramatically affectedthe economic health of the state's citizens.(b) The unemployment rate in California, as of July 2009, is atthe highestlevel since World War II, with statewide unemployment at 12.1 percent.As of July 2009, unemployment in Los Angeles County is at 12.5 percent,unemployment in San Bernardino County is at 13.9 percent, andunemployment in Riverside County is at 14.7 percent.(c) State and local government revenues have fallen and many localgovernments are facing significant budget shortfalls requiring reductionsin public services, including essential public services, and staff layoffs andfurloughs.(d) The state is addressing the serious economic decline through a numberoflegislative, programmatic, and budgetary measures in an effort to addressthe real need for economic stimulus to generate jobs and economic growthfor our citizens, the state, and local governments.(e) The City ofIndustry has approved a proposed stadium complex andassociated development project adjacent to State Route 57 and State Route

60, which will provide much needed economic activity in the Los Angelesregion, including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San BernardinoCounties.(f) The proposed stadium complex and associated development representsan approximately two billion dollar ($2,000,000,000) investment in the localeconomy. The proposed stadium complex and associated development willgenerate over 12,000 construction jobs and 6,700 permanent jobs in the LosAngeles region.(g) The proposed stadium complex and associated development willgenerate over seven hundred sixty million dollars ($760,000,000) in annual

97


7/13

-3- Ch.30

economic activity and twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000) in taxrevenues annually for state, county, and local governments.(h) In 2004, the City of Industry certified an environmental impact reportand approved a project of approximately 4,800,000 square feet on the projectsite. The 2004 environmental impact report analyzed aesthetics, air quality,biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardousmaterials, hydrology and water, land use and planning, mineral resources,noise, population and housing, public services, utilities, recreation, andtransportation and traffic associated with the 2004 project. The environmentalimpact report determined that there would be a less than significant impacton any biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, andrecreation. There was no legal challenge to the 2004 environmental impactreport or associated project approvals.(i) In 2008, the City ofIndustry prepared a supplemental environmentalimpact report for a proposed stadium complex and associated development.The supplemental environmental impact report analyzed aesthetics, airquality, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water, landuse and planning, noise, population and housing, public services,transportation and traffic, and utilities associated with the stadium complexand associated development, and included an analysis of greenhouse gasemissions associated with the stadium complex and associated development.

U) In 2009, the City ofIndustry certified the supplemental environmentalimpact report and approved an approximately 3,000,000 square foot projecton the project site and a new state-of-the-art stadium. The conditions ofapproval approved by the City ofIndustry for the stadium restrict the numberof events that may be held in the stadium to not more than 45 events in eachcalendar year, of which a maximum of 30 may be at full stadium capacity,and require compliance with the mitigation measures and project designfeatures listed in the environmental impact report or supplementalenvironmental impact report for the stadium complex and associateddevelopment.(k) The stadium complex and associated development, exeluding thestadium complex itself, comprises approximately 1,500,000 square feet lessbuilding square footage than the previous approved project for substantiallythe same project area.(f) The supplemental environmental impact report for the stadiumcomplex and associated development found that the traffic generated by thestadium complex and associated development would generate substantiallyless weekday traffic and less traffic annually than the original proposedproject at the same site. In addition, the site is served by an existingMetrolink station that is less than one-half mile from the project site.(m) Due to the substantial reduction in permitted industrial uses at theproject site and significant decrease in overall automobile trips as a resultof the stadium complex and associated development, the stadium complexand associated development will result in significantly decreased dieselemissions and reduced annual overall air quality impacts as compared tothe previously proposed project.

97


8/13

Ch.30 -4-

(n) Given the economic crisis facing the state, high rates of unemploymentin the construction sectors, high rates of unemployment in Los Angeles,Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and decreased state and localrevenues, the Legislature desires to address the economic crisis affectingthe state by providing for the ability ofthe stadium complex and associateddevelopment to proceed if the project complies with all project designfeatures and mitigation measures provided for in the City of Industry'Sproject approvals and the environmental impact report or supplementalenvironmental impact report.SEC. 2. Section 6570 I is added to the Government Code, to read:65701. Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, the City ofIndustry'sapproval of, and decisions regarding, the development, planning, design,location, site acquisition, financing, leasing, construction, operation, andmaintenance of a stadium complex and associated development includedin the same project or approval, for which an application for that stadiumcomplex and associated development was submitted on or before January31, 2009, to the City ofIndustry, and any accessory improvements to thatstadium complex and associated development, including, but not limitedto, roadways and utilities that serve the stadium complex or associateddevelopment, are exempt from any legal requirement concerning the contentof a general plan or consistency with a general plan, and those requirementsshall not result in the invalidation of those approvals and decisions.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a consistency determinationis not required by the City ofIndustry for any decision with respect to thedevelopment, planning, design, location, site acquisition, financing, leasing,construction, operation, or maintenance of a stadium complex and associateddevelopment included in the same project or approval, for which anapplication for that stadium complex and associated development wassubmitted on or before January 31, 2009, to the City of Industry, and anyaccessory improvements to that stadium complex and associateddevelopment, including, but not limited to, roadways and utilities that servethe stadium complex or associated development.SEC. 3. (a) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does notapply to any activity or approval, necessary for or incidental to, thedevelopment, planning, design, site acquisition, subdivision, financing,leasing, construction, operation, or maintenance of a stadium complex andassociated development included in the same project or approval togetherwith any accessory roadway, utility, or other infrastructure improvement tothat stadium complex and associated development, for which an applicationfor the project or approval was submitted on or before January 31, 2009, tothe City ofIndustry, and that meets all of the following requirements:(1) The supplemental environmental impact report for the stadiumcomplex and associated development was prepared and certified by the CityofIndustry within five years before the effective date ofthe act adding thissection.

97


9/13

-5- Ch.30

(2) A Metrolink station is located, as ofthe effective date of the aet addingthis section, within one-half mile from the project site for the stadiumcomplex and associated development.(3) The supplemental environmental impact report for the stadiumcomple.x ~nd associated development included an analysis of greenhousegas emissions.(4) The conditions of approval approved by the City of Industry, or themitigation measures in the supplemental environmental impact report forthe stadium complex and associated development, restricts the number ofevents that may be held in the stadium complex to not more than 45 eventsin each calendar year.(b) The City of Industry, upon determining that the requirements ofparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a), have been met, shallcertify satisfaction of those requirements.(c) Notwithstanding the exemption provided by this section, the City ofIndustry shall require the stadium complex and associated development tocomply with those mitigation measures that are contained in a mitigationmonitoring and reporting program that is adopted by the City of Industryin connection with the stadium complex and associated development.SEC. 4. This act applies prospectively and retroactively to any approvalsby the City of Industry with respect to the stadium complex and associated

development, and also applies prospectively and retroactively to any causesof action and claims that are pending as of the effective date of this act andfor which nofinal nonappealable judgment has been entered prior to theeffective date ofthis act.SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessaryand that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning ofSection 16 of Article IV ofthe California Constitution because the stadiumcomplex and associated development will provide unique and urgentlyneeded economic stimulus to the Los Angeles region, including Los Angeles,Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and including an estimated18,700 jobs, seven hundred sixty million dollars ($760,000,000) in annualeconomic activity, and twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000) in estimatedannual tax revenues.SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency orschool district has the authority to levy service charges, fees,or assessmentssufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act,within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.SEC. 7. This act addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governorby proclamation on December 19, 2008, pursuant to subdivision (f) ofSection 10 of Article IV of the California Constitution.

o97


10/13

3 81 Assembly BILL, 3rd Extraordinary Session - History http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-1 O/bil!/asmlab ~0051-01 00/abx3 ~81~

COMPLETE BILL HISTORY

BILL NUMBER A.B. No. 81 (3rd Ex. Sess.)AUTHOR HallTOPIC : Land use: City of Industry: stadium complex.TYPE OF BILL :

InactiveNon-urgencyNon-AppropriationsMajority Vote RequiredState-Mandated Local ProgramFiscalNon-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY2009Oct. 22 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter

Third Extraordinary Session.22 Approved by the Governor.19 Enrolled and to the Governor at 11:30 a.m.15 In Assembly. To enrollment.14 Withdrawn from committee. Art. IV,

suspended. (Ayes 28. Noes 7. Pagesuspended. (Ayes 28. Noes 7. Pagethird time, passed, and to Assembly.268. )

Sept. 10 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.Sept. 10 Read second time. To third reading. Art. IV, Sec. 8(b) of the

Constitution suspended. (Ayes 58. Noes 7. Page 408.) Read thirdtime, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 54. Noes 18. Page 409.)

Sept. 9 Read first time. To print. Referred to Com. on A.,E.,S.,T., &I.M. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.Re-referred. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (September 9). From committee;Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (September 9).

30, Statutes of 2009-10OcLOct.Oct.Oct. Sec. 8(b) of the Constitution

266. ) Joint Rule 10.5267.) Read second time. Read(Ayes 21. Noes 14. Page

1 4/5/2011 1:33


11/13

81 Assembly BILL, 3rd Extraordinary Session - Status http.z/ info.sen.ca.gov/pub/Ov-I O/biJ1lasm/ab ~0051-0 100/abx3 ~81_

CURRENT BILL STATUS

MEASURE: A.B. No. 81 (3rd Ex. Sess.)AUTHOR (S) Hall (Principal coauthor: Lieu) (Principal coauthor:

Senator Price) (Coauthors: Adams, Bill Berryhill, TomBerryhill, Charles Calderon, Conway, Cook, Davis,Emmerson, Galgiani, Hagman, Harkey, Hernandez, Logue,Mendoza, Miller, Nestande, Silva, Smyth, Solorio, andTorrico) (Coauthors: Senators Calderon, Dutton, andWright) .

TOPIC Land use: City of Industry: stadium complex.TYPE OF BILL :

InactiveNon-UrgencyNon-AppropriationsMajority Vote RequiredState-Mandated Local ProgramFiscalNon-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 10/22/2009LAST HIST. ACTION Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 3D,Statutes of 2009-10 Third Extraordinary Session.

COMM. LOCATION ASM ARTS, ENTERTAIN, SPORTS, TOURISM, & INTERNET MEDIACOMM. ACTION DATE 09/09/2009COMM. ACTION Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on

Appropriations.COMM. VOTE SUMMARY Ayes: 07 Noes; 00 PASSTITLE An act to add Section 65701 to the Government Code,

relating to land use.

1 4/5/2011 1:33


12/13

X3 81 Assembly BlLL, 3rd Extraordinary Session - Vote Information http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/billlasm/ab _0051-0100/abx3

UNOFFICIAL BALLOTMEASURE: ABX3 81AUTHOR: HallTOPIC: Land use: City of Industry: stadium complex.DATE: 09/10/2009LOCATION: ASM. FLOORMOTION: AB 81 HALL Assembly Third Reading Third Extraordinary Session

(AYES 54. NOES 18.) (PASS)

AYES

Adams Beall Bill Berryhill Tom BerryhillBlakeslee Bradford Charles Calderon CarterConway Cook Coto DavisDe La Torre De Leon Emmerson EngEvans Fong Fuentes FullerFurutani Gaines Galgiani GilmoreHagman Hall Harkey HayashiHernandez Hill Huber JeffriesJones Knight Lieu LogueMa Mendoza Miller NestandeJohn A. Perez V. Manuel Perez Portantino RuskinSilva Smyth Solorio Audra StricklandSwanson Torlakson Torres TorricoVillines Bass

NOES****

AndersonCaballeroFletcherNava NielloSaldana Yamada

ArambulaChesbro DeVoreGarrick HuffmanNielsen Salas

Block BuchananFeuerManning

ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING*********************************

Ammiano Blumenfield BrownleyKrekorian Bonnie Lowenthal

DuvallSkinner Tran

1 61912011 10:26


13/13

X3 81 Assembly Bill - VOTE INFORMATION http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pubI09-1O/biU/asm/ab_0051-0 1OO/abx3

UNOFFICIAL BALLOTME.ASURE: ABX3 81AUTHOR: HallTOPIC: Land use: City of Industry: stadium complex.DATE: 10/14/2009LOCATION: SEN. FLOORMOTION: W/O REF. TO FILE ABS1 Hall By Price

(AYES 21. NOES 14.) (PASS)

AYES****Alquist BenoitCogdi 11 CorreaHarman LiuPadilla PriceSteinbergYee

CalderonDeSaulnierMaldonadoRomero RunnerStrickland

CedilloDuttonOropezaWalters Wright

NOES

AshburnDuchenyLenoWolk

Corbett Cox DenhamHancock HollingsworthLowenthal PavleyWyland

KehoeWiggins

NO VOTE RECORDED****************

AanestadSimitian

Florez Huff Negrete McLeod

cla report on ceqa-stadium resolution

Documents