Breaking Down AEG's Stadium Bill
Gensler
Rendering of AEG's proposed Farmers Field, which would rise next to Staples Center and L.A. Live.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Assembly speaker John Perez and State Senator Alex Padilla on Friday introduced a bill to speed approvals for AEG's proposed $1.2 billion Farmers Field project. With just four working days left in the legislative session, the pair have their political work cut out for them in getting the bill passed.
The then-conceptual bill has been the subject of much talk in recent months, with AEG and city officials touting jobs and economic development, and advocacy groups decrying any move to bypass California's environmental protections.
Just what does the bill do, though? Now that it has been introduced and can be found online, we can finally take a look at the specifics, and just how they are different than the exemption given to the City of Industry stadium proposal in 2009.
Streamlining Challenges: The big carrot the bill holds for AEG is a streamlined process for any challenges brought against the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have delayed major projects for years, and AEG has stated emphatically that it is not willing to wait through that process.
SB 292 would send any challenges straight to the Court of Appeal, and sets a tight timeline on when cases must be filed and heard. Challenge petitions must be filed within 30 days of the city's Notice of Determination on the EIR, and opening briefs are due 40 days later. AEG's reply brief would be due 25 days after that, with the petitioner able to file their own reply 20 days later. The court must then hear and decide the case within 60 days.
That's 175 days total, for those scoring at home. Another 30 days could be tacked on if a case is appealed to the state's Supreme Court.
Early Mediation: The bill also sets up a mediation process for issues raised during the draft EIR's public comment process. The mediation is nonbinding, but if the commenter and AEG agree on mitigation during mediation, the measure is required to be implemented and cannot be brought as a lawsuit later.
Cutting Down Traffic: Under the bill's terms, AEG is required to implement measures that would achieve a "trip ratio" (cars divided by spectators) that is 10% lower than any other NFL stadium. Just how AEG should do that is vague, though the bill says that "[a]ny trip reduction measure used at another NFL stadium shall be presumed feasible."
If AEG doesn't meet those numbers, the city would be able to require additional traffic mitigations such as transit capacity expansion, charter buses or station expansion.
The Industry Exemption: So how is this similar or different from the 2009 exemption given to Majestic's proposal to build a stadium in the City of Industry?
Majestic had done a full EIR for a previous project proposed on the site, and argued that it should be able to use that document instead of a new one since the stadium use was less intensive than the original project proposed.
The developer went to the state to seek the exemption only after the environmental documents had been certified and lawsuits had been filed.
Majestic did end up going to mediation and settle with the City of Walnut, with the city getting traffic measures and a community fund. Other challenges were thrown out when the bill went into effect.
By contrast, SB 292 would allow all challenges to go through, but would require them to be dealt with quickly.
What's Next? Perez and Padilla have four working days to get SB 292 passed. Friday, September 9, is the last day to pass a bill and put it on the Governor's desk in this session.
And if they don't get that done? At last week's hearing Downtown, State Senator Kevin De Leon said the legislature could be called back for a special session later this month.
downtown vibe on September 04, 2011, at 10:04PM – #1
I've read the bill and these things stood out to me.
Why are traffic improvements not required before the stadium opens? The traffic will impact downtown from day 1, not two years after a football team has been playing.
Comparing the car traffic generated to other football stadiums and then basing your street improvements on whether or not it compares favorably, is totally bogus.
The LADOT and CALTRANS have a method for estimating car trips generated by a project. The streets are graded before the project and after the project with a letter grade. An "A" would mean traffic is moving smoothly, and "F" would mean that the street was over capacity and not functioning.
So basically, I read this bill as "AEG will not be graded on whether or not the football stadium causes gridlock downtown. Instead, if the new stadium generated 10% less car trips than any other stadium, then NO improvements will be required. "
The report will easily show this to be the case, and AEG will get out of tens of millions of dollars in street improvements. Clever. But get it through the Assembly fast before somebody catches on!
David McBane on September 05, 2011, at 10:19AM – #2
downtown vibe - I've read the bill (by the way, to anyone else - it is only 16 pages and a pretty quick read) and I have some comments to your comments.
You are correct that this piece of legislation does not require the traffic mitigation measures be done before the stadium opens but you are forgetting that the separate Conditions of Approvals & EIR will. I've worked on a ton of developments in the City of L.A. and in order to get the Certificate of Occupancy EVERYTHING, including traffic mitigations, has to be done beforehand.
You're taking this requirement to mean it is replacing the requirement to look at all impacted streets. That is not right - this requirement that the trips generated be 10% less than every other NFL stadium's trip generation is IN ADDITION TOO the requirement to look at every impacted street. Again, you are forgetting that the requirement to look at every street impact is part of the standard EIR process and will be addressed in the Conditions of Approval for the stadium.
So your conclusion that AEG will be able to get out of paying for street improvements is just off-base. AEG will be paying for a lot of improvements to not just the streets but to the public transit system (which is the only way for AEG to reduce the trip generations down to only 90% of the next highest stadium).
Also, the City is allowed to impose additional traffic mitigation measures after the stadium is built if the ones called for in the EIR turn out to be inadequate. That's HUGE! Normally, a City gets one shot at imposing the correct mitigation measures and if they turn out to be inadequate, it's tough luck for the City since they can't impose any at a later date. This piece of legislation gives the City the right to impose more mitigation measures at a later date. Very nice.
downtown vibe on September 05, 2011, at 07:24PM – #3
AEG has given money to at least 30 state assembly members and senators. They started a long time ago. This took a lot of planning.
Why didn't they spend that money to get the faulty CEQA laws amended for everyone?
Now we will have a precedent. Everyone will be obligated to make the same end run around the state's environmental laws.
Government needs to be credible.
IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE LAW, GET RID OF IT.
By the way, congratulations to the FBI for arresting Kinde Durkee, one of California's largest political money managers. Who will be next?
Zuckerkhan on September 06, 2011, at 01:40AM – #4
Doesn't anyone want to mention there is no other NFL stadium that has the Mass Transit Plan already in place, like Farmers Field? Expo Line (Culver City-Done by 2012/ Santa Monica 2015), Blue Line (Long Beach), Red Line (Valley/Hollywood), Purple Line (K-Town/Mid Wilshire), Goldline (Pasadena and East LA, with further 210 FWY coming by 2015/2016). These projects are already in place or being built now. Also, Union Station is the major hub for MetroLink and Amtrak. AEG already has a process set up to purchase tickets to an AEG event, then directly get a MetroLink round trip ticket easily. Lastly, the DTLA MTA connector will allow more seamless travel from point to point.
Lets not forget about the Silver Line Bus that travels on the 110 from the South Bay.
I use to live by Hollywood and Highland and I can easily see AEG needing to help out with some sort of Shuttle Service like the Hollywood Bowl. People won't mind taking a bus as long as it's point to point. Multiple stops (or lots of stops, messes it up).
AEG (with the work/help of Metro) needs to fix up the Chick Hern/Pico Station.
And please remember DTLA handles about 500K car trips in and out every work day. DTLA is dead Sat and Sun. So, yes, DTLA can handle this.
Monday night football games, makes me wonder and AEG needs to be very proactive on this one. Sundays are not a problem at all.
David McBane on September 06, 2011, at 02:45PM – #5
downtown vibe - You ask "Why didn't [AEG] spend that money to get the faulty CEQA laws amended for everyone? The will to wholesale change CEQA needs to come from a lot of different people and be debated. If AEG lead the way, any purported changes would just get shot down because they were being lead by a corporation with its own interests.
I agree with you that it's not a good situation where AEG is getting special treatment but it is also a bit of an experiment. Maybe if it goes really well, people can use it as an example of how to change CEQA for everyone. Plus, the City of Industry is the one that really set the precedent. AEG is just following their lead. Let's also note that the state has done a lot better in this situation (compared to the Industry proposal) to extract some significant concessions from AEG like the extra trip mitigation measures and ability to impose additional measures at a later date. The state didn't do any of that for the Industry proposal.