• Ending a costly political football game — Santa Rosa Press Democrat
• Editorial: All businesses deserve NFL stadium's deal — OC Register
• A close call on AEG's stadium — LA times
• A tale of two bills: AEG's fast-tracker & the bigger picture — KPCC
• Questions about CEQA fast-track legislation now on Governor Brown's desk — KPCC
Legislature lets rich guys win again
John Wildermuth, Record Searchlight
September 19, 2011
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/sep/19/john-wildermuth-legislature-lets-rich-guys-win/
Once again, the California Legislature has shown it slavishly follows the Golden Rule: He's who's got the gold, makes the rules.
And there aren't many with more gold than Phil Anschutz, No. 34 on the Forbes magazine list of the richest Americans.
Anschutz and his Anschutz Entertainment Group held lawmakers hostage in the legislative session's last week, and they didn't even blink. They just rolled over with a smile.
AEG wants to build a 75,000-seat, $1.2 billion football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, right next door to Staples Center, which AEG also owns. Problem is, California has all these pesky environmental laws, which let people take developers to court to guarantee they follow those rules.
And California courts being what they are, that can take time, as anyone who's battled local environmentalists over a 10-home development knows.
But things work differently when you're a rich guy with a billion-dollar project.
AEG said that unless it got a special state law, right now, that would stop it from having to follow the same drawn-out process that every other developer in the state has to deal with, it was going to pick up its stadium plans and go home.
"We've made it very clear that we will not move forward without this (bill)," Tim Leiweke, AEG president and CEO, told a Senate panel in August.
No problem. Los Angeles state Sen. Alex Padilla put together legislation that provided AEG with a fast-track appeals process that would require all challenges to the stadium's environmental impact report to be filed directly with the Court of Appeal and force all challenges to be resolved within 175 days after the impact report is released.
Now anyone who has ever had to deal with environmental lawsuits will tell you that this is absolutely warp speed and likely only works if the L.A. stadium project jumps the line of almost every other appellate challenge on the court's calendar.
But it absolutely had to happen, Padilla said when he introduced the bill, SB292, early this month.
"There are a number of reasons I'm authoring the bill, but the three most important are jobs, jobs and jobs."
Of course the $5,000 AEG gave Padilla's ballot measure committee last year likely didn't hurt, nor did the $338,835 AEG passed out to California politicians and their causes between 2009 and June 2011 (tune in next February to see how much cash flowed in the last six months of this year).
The stadium bill rolled through the Legislature with strong bipartisan support and is now on the governor's desk, awaiting his signature.
Now I don't know whether the downtown L.A. stadium plan is a good thing or not for the city, county or the state, although it's worth remembering that when a developer starts talking about what a wonderful deal his project will be for you, it's a good time to put a hand on your wallet. Or that despite the "special help" the Legislature gave billionaire developer Ed Roski two years ago, there's still no 75,000-seat football stadium in the city of Industry.
I do know someone who can't afford to write $50,000 checks to the state Democratic Party (and $25,000 to the California GOP) and call out armies of lobbyists isn't going to get the kind of all-hands-on-deck attention from the Legislature that the Anschutz team did.
Bills written specifically to change long-held state regulations to benefit one developer or a single project are almost always a bad idea, especially when they're dropped in the hopper in the final days of the session, leaving little time for a full study.
If the rules surrounding challenges to environmental impact reports need to be reworked, they need to be changed for everyone trying to get a project done in the state, not just the guys with the deepest pockets or the most juice.
Of course that would mean a thoughtful, reasoned discussion between leaders of the two parties, aimed at determining whether there's a problem and what's the best way of solving it for the benefit of California and its residents.
You know, legislating.
John Wildermuth is a longtime writer on California politics. Via FoxandHoundsDaily.com.
Ending a costly political football game
Editorial, Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Monday, September 19, 2011 at 3:00 a.m.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110919/OPINION/110919624/1042?p=all&tc=pgall
No one should doubt the National Football League's clout.
The NFL's popularity, even the promise of it, is political currency. That's why state lawmakers have twice granted special treatment to developers promising a new football stadium for Los Angeles, which has been without an NFL franchise since 1994.
In the latest iteration, AEG, a sports and entertainment promoter, is promised a fast-track review of environmental challenges to its stadium plan. To keep the $1.3 billion project on track, any lawsuits would bypass trial courts, and the Court of Appeal would be required to rule within 175 days.
With Santa Clara, San Diego, Sacramento and other cities likely to seek the same treatment for their new stadiums and arenas, a related measure empowers the governor to order expedited legal proceedings for building projects valued at more than $100 million.
Both measures were pushed through on the final day of the legislative session and are awaiting action by Gov. Jerry Brown. They reflect widespread concerns that the California Environmental Quality Act is routinely used to impede economic development and thwart competition, especially after project sponsors prevail in the regular review process by city councils or boards of supervisors.
We think those concerns are legitimate.
At the same time, we believe that assessing potential environmental impacts and identifying possible mitigation measures, as required by CEQA, are vital protections for California's citizens, its environment and, ultimately, its economy.
Those protections shouldn't be abandoned.
Given the desperate need for building projects and attractions that will put people to work, coupled with ample evidence that CEQA can be abused, resulting in protracted litigation, Brown has reason to sign the L.A. stadium bill. If he does, he's not likely to deny himself the power to streamline reviews of other big projects.
But California needs to do better than an arbitrary system that invites corruption and favoritism at the highest levels of state government. If the present CEQA process is too time consuming and too costly for the biggest developers, what about smaller developers and public agencies? Not everyone can match the lobbying muscle that AEG, which owns more than a dozen arenas and operates cycling's Tour of California, brings to Sacramento. Shouldn't all project sponsors enjoy some relief?
The next step ought to be a legislative review of CEQA, which was signed into law by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970.
California would benefit from an examination of the strengths and flaws of CEQA, with an eye toward providing environmental protection for residents and avoiding time-consuming litigation that discourages people seeking to start or expand businesses in California.
Doing anything less turns economic development into a game of political football. And football is a game better left to the pros than the pols.
Editorial: All businesses deserve NFL stadium's deal
OC Register
September 17, 2011
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/stadium-317495-law-bill.html
To paraphrase NFL coaching great Vince Lombardi: When it comes to building a new NFL stadium in Los Angeles, avoiding onerous California state environmental regulations isn’t the most important; it’s the only thing.
Senate Bill 292 is a typical “gut-and-amend” atrocity accomplished in the final hours of the just-ended legislative session. A bill about education was “gutted” of its previous contents and “amended” to fast-track “the environmental appeals process so Anschutz Entertainment Group can build its proposed $1.2 billion stadium near Staples Center more quickly,” reported NBCSanDiego.com.
In this file image provided by AEG, a proposed NFL football stadium, to be named Farmers Field, is depicted next to Staples Center in Los Angeles in this artist's rendering.
SB292’s author, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, contends the bill would create 23,000 jobs, 12,000 for construction, 11,000 permanent. Construction would be $1.2 billion. “The sheer scale and magnitude of this project will be felt statewide,” Sen. Padilla said. Also immense is the hypocrisy of the legislators who voted for this bill, which passed with bipartisan margins, 63-13 in the Assembly and 32-7 in the Senate.
What about a single dry cleaners or muffler shop? Why can’t mom-and-pop outfits, or any company, for that matter, get similar favorable treatment with the state’s onerous environmental laws? Most jobs creation is at small businesses. Why can’t they get an even break?
“If it's good enough for the NFL, it's good enough for everybody,” John Eastman told us; he’s a law professor at Chapman University School of Law. “We ought to give breaks from these onerous regulations to everybody. This shows that these regulations are an immense burden on all businesses. At a time when we're not generating enough business to support even basic government service, you would think it's time to relax the regulations enough to get back on track.”
The Legislature granted a similar exemption in 2009 to developer Ed Roski for his proposed NFL stadium in the City of Industry.
“The law is the law,” Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, told us of why he voted against SB292. “If the law is too tight, we should change the whole law. The Legislature has a habit of carving out last-minute exceptions for billionaire developers seeking football teams.” Mr. Norby objected to the “last-minute nature of gut-and-amend bills,” in which little chance purposely is left to review the bills.
Although stadium advocates say no public funds will be used in building the new stadium, Mr. Norby pointed out that “a public bond would be used to tear down the Los Angeles Convention Center” to make room for the new stadium. And he criticized the bill’s jobs-creation claims because it “obviously is intended to steal a team from somewhere else in the state, probably the San Diego Chargers, maybe the Oakland Raiders. If the regulations are too onerous for the stadium, which they are, then we ought to change them for everybody.”
We agree. Gov. Jerry Brown should blow the whistle on this out-of-bounds bill and veto it.
A close call on AEG's stadium
Jim Newton, LA times
September 17, 2011
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/sep/17/opinion/la-le-postscript-aeg-stadium-20110917
Few issues have drawn such one-sided response from our letter writers as the proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. So when The Times published an editorial on Sept. 4 supporting a state bill to expedite judicial review of the project (a narrower accommodation than the broad protection from environmental lawsuits that developer AEG had asked for originally), and a follow-up editorial on Sept. 12 calling for a comprehensive review of the California Environmental Quality Act, several readers expressed incredulity over the paper's position. Steve Murray of Huntington Beach, whose submission was published last week, ended his letter, "What is your editorial board thinking?"
Jim Newton, the Opinion section's editor at large and a columnist, responds:
This was a tough call for the editorial board, but not an unthinking one. It pitted two strongly held views of our group in opposition: The board has supported the stadium, which promises to deliver badly needed taxes and jobs and offers hope to the city's Convention Center, but the board also has been opposed to special deals and environmental exemptions for particular developers.
So, we chewed it over in our normal fashion. The board, composed of 10 editors and writers, meets three times a week to discuss possible editorials. Those meetings are presided over by the editor of the editorial pages and sometimes are attended by the publisher or the paper's chief operating officer (no members of The Times' news staff are invited or allowed to participate). In this case, before discussing the specific proposal, members of the board met with opponents of the project as well as supporters and the proponent, AEG Chief Executive Tim Leiweke. We discussed the matter with land-use lawyers, elected officials and community activists.
The board already had voiced its support for the stadium, but we had opposed Leiweke's call for an exemption that would insulate AEG from "frivolous lawsuits" filed under the California Environmental Quality Act. Indeed, we had opposed such an exemption for another proposed stadium in the City of Industry. This bill, however, was crafted differently than the Industry exemption. It required AEG to comply with CEQA's requirements, including the preparation of an environmental impact report, and allowed opponents to sue to block the project. Moreover, in return for an expedited legal review, AEG agreed to provisions that would enhance the stadium's compatibility with the environment.
Not all members of our board were persuaded, and we still do not all agree that this is the right way for the project to proceed. Our editorial reflected those differences, noting our reluctance to back one-time deals while also stressing the benefits of this project. On balance, we concluded that this bill was worthy of our support.
A tale of two bills: AEG's fast-tracker & the bigger picture
Molly Peterson, KPCC 89.3
Sept. 16, 2011
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/2011/09/16/tale-two-bills-aegs-fast-tracker-bigger-picture/
Two pieces of legislation now on Governor Jerry Brown's desk would streamline (or "fast track" if you prefer that) the state's legendary environmental review process called CEQA. To me, they seem pretty different. Since they're complicated, I'm breaking them down.
SB 292 would apply only to the Farmers Field/AEG stadium project proposed for downtown Los Angeles. AB 900 would apply to what it terms "leadership projects" that meet certain criteria - either put forward by agencies or endorsed by the governor. (I've got a lot of open questions about that one.)
It's worth pointing out how the AEG stadium bill differs from AB 900, and what all that means for Governor J.B.
TWO THINGS CEQA LOVERS COULD LIVE WITH ABOUT SB 292 (if they want to)
1. It should make a Farmers Field where car traffic is at least 10 percent less than any other NFL stadium. The law places specific reporting and monitoring requirements for counting car trips ("trip ratio") on AEG, not just for a year, but for the first five years, and if it's not working by then, the city has the right to make AEG do stuff differently. For its part, the city is supposed to re-visit the question of how to come in with fewer car trips than any other stadium, and it has authority over the project for its entire life.
2. The LA stadium bill is clear about what it wants from carbon neutrality. Emissions reductions in basin first, offsets second; offsets in basin first, anywhere else second. "Offset credits shall be employed by the applicant only after feasible local emission reduction measures have beenimplemented. The applicant shall, to the extent feasible, 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." Ron Kaye makes fun of this, but the language is (relatively) strong and clear.
ONE (MAYBE INCONVENIENT) TRUTH FOR GOVERNOR BROWN
Brown told the LA Times he liked AB 900. "The CEQA reforms are an effort to improve the jobs climate...I think that will be good." But if he likes Giorgio, he's got to love Primo too. AB 900 contains a provision wherein it doesn't take effect unless SB 292 has. And based on what I'm reading, AB 900 is far more likely to see a courtroom than 292. So in the end, everyone might be right back where they started.
Questions about CEQA fast-track legislation now on Governor Brown's desk
Molly Peterson, KPCC 89.3
Sept. 16, 2011
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/2011/09/16/questions-about-ceqa-fast-track-legislation-now-go/
Please forgive me for completely missing the news that AB 900, the environmental review fast-tracking bill about which I wrote last week, is further along. Apparently the hollowed-out bill that was filled in with CEQA reforms for Senate votes a week ago has also passed the Assembly - it had to have been after 3:30 AM Saturday, since the Senate still had the bill then, but since I wasn't on a cot in a Capitol hallway, I don't know exactly.
Eric Richardson of Blogdowntown and I had a lively discussion about this last week. So I decided to read the text of both the AEG stadium speeder-legislation (SB 292) and the big-scale assembly bill that would do the same thing for a whole cohort of anonymous future projects.
In this post I'll lay out some major provisions of AB 900 and raise questions about their impact on CEQA, the state's long-maligned, elephantine, planning law that keeps the legal industry in business.
1. As written, the bill would fast-track "leadership projects" valued at 100 million dollars and up. Does anyone know how many projects this would take in? I would think even just one a fancy hotel could be 100 million in construction costs. So if 3 more fancy hotels go in around Farmers Field, they get to go in fast. Doesn't that make urban planning really hard? Is the point of streamlining CEQA to speed job creation? If this is really for jobs, why not tie the qualifying projects to jobs or job hours? SB 292 can, at least, specifically refer to 12 thousand construction jobs and 11 thousand permanent convention center and hospitality jobs AEG's promising in its preamble. AB 900 doesn't have that.
2. Projects should be certified LEED silver. So why silver and not gold? Why anything when you can't know when you're fast-tracking a project how it will actually rate on the LEED clipboard, since the points are awarded as constructed? This, too, doesn't do much for Senator Steinberg's sometime-cause of SB 375-smart-growth-urban planning. How will California care about that (if it wants to)?
3. The governor is empowered to certify projects on his own, but he's explicitly freed from judicial review. (No wonder Governor Brown likes it.) He's supposed to use the guidelines of the general definition of a project, but without judicial review, who's gonna make him (or any future governor)?
4. Covered projects "where applicable" should achieve "a 10-percent greater standard for transportation efficiency than for comparable projects." This seems squishy twice. Where applicable is spongy like cake. Eric Richardson argued to me that 10 percent is a loose attempt to parallel SB 292's transportation efficiency standard. But the detail described above in SB 292 is lacking in 900: no enforcement provisions, no reporting back, no life-of-the-project authority.
5. Projects can offset greenhouse gas emissions, "including greenhouse gas emissions from employee transportation, as determined by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Division 25.5." This is a reference to AB 32, which doesn't itself apply to "leadership projects." Instead, that law has empowered state agencies to make rules that curtail greenhouse gases. NRDC's David Pettit quips about AB 900's emissions provision, "it's like asking the CHP to regulate airplane speeds." I prefer a Liz Lemon quote here. "What the what?"