BILL ANALYSIS
AB 81 X3
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 9, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 81 X3 (Hall) - As Introduced: September 9, 2009
Policy Committee: Arts and
EntertainmentVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill would waive environmental review and land use planning
requirements as they apply to a football stadium project in the
City of Industry. Specifically, this bill would:
1)Exempt the stadium project and the City of Industry's analysis
and approval of that project from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and from any legal requirement concerning
the content of a general plan or consistency with a general
plan.
2)Require 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.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)No direct state costs.
2)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 environmental effects of the stadium
project to the extent such mitigation measures are not
included in the city's mitigation and reporting program.
AB 81 X3
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. 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.
2)Background.
a) The California Environmental Quality Act . 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
AB 81 X3
Page 3
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
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.
b) California land use laws. 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.
c) City of Industry. 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
AB 81 X3
Page 4
reflect minor changes to a project not captured in an
EIR-rather than a wholly new EIR for the project.
3)Walnut sues . Earlier this year, the City of Walnut filed suit
against 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:
a) Failed to adequately consult with Walnut in its
preparation of the supplemental EIR in violation of state
land use planning laws.
b) Chose to prepare a supplemental EIR for the revised
project rather than a project-specific EIR, in violation of
CEQA.
c) Failed to analyze in the supplemental EIR environmental
effects associated with the stadium project.
The case is currently pending before the California
Superior Court.
4)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, 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.
AB 81 X3
Page 5
5)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.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081