But the doubts that have been raised publicly and privately by the Spanos family — the owners of the Chargers — about the the city’s financing plans and expectations of quick environmental OKs appear to have sunk in with the NFL’s upper brass. The league’s executive vice president, Eric Grubman, had a good news-bad news reaction to the meeting with San Diego officials in an email to the Union-Tribune:

Grubman was also positive after the meeting … praising the city for its large team of environmental experts and for giving the NFL a thorough understanding of its accelerated timeline for environmental approvals and a January public vote.

 

Grubman also said the city’s proposed stadium design has “all the key elements we would expect at this stage.”

 

But he stressed that the design was only conceptual, no actual negotiations took place on Tuesday and that the financing plan presented by the city includes “very significant funding from NFL and Chargers sources.”

That was a reference to the $400 million to $500 million that the team and the league are expected to kick in for construction and related costs.

Is a mostly subsidized stadium not good enough?

Grubman’s critique prompted a sharp response on social media from some who wondered how the world’s most lucrative professional sports league could gripe about a proposal in which taxpayers bore two-thirds or so of the cost of a stadium for the league.

But as an indication of how NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and other team owners felt about the Chargers’ interest in moving, it was telling. Past assumptions about the league not wanting to risk a backlash over a moneymaking team leaving a community that had supported it for more than a half-century may have been based on a sentimental view about how the NFL operates.

So where do things go from here? The Union-Tribune’s coverage suggests a meeting in less that two weeks could be absolutely crucial:

[San Diego officials will make] a presentation scheduled for Aug. 10 in Chicago to the NFL’s relocation committee — a group of six team owners overseeing possible franchise moves to Los Angeles.

 

The day after that presentation, all 32 NFL owners are scheduled to meet in Chicago to discuss how to handle relocations to the Los Angeles area, where the Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams are working on stadium projects.

How — and how much — does Atkins want to help?

The fact that the San Diego political establishment is not united on the stadium issue came up again Tuesday. The involvement of Atkins in the meeting with Grubman was treated as a huge plus by Mayor Faulconer, but her decision not to join him at the press conference and the vagueness of her confirmed comments led editors of the Voice of San Diego to wonder what help she was actually providing.

On Twitter, VOSD’s Liam Dillon paraphrased her position this way: “Atkins: I’m happy to expedite the mayor’s Chargers plan, but I don’t have a position on the mayor’s Chargers plan.”

An aide to Atkins said she was ready to help the city and the team maneuver through the obstacle course of state environmental rules in building the stadium. But the City Council member whom Atkins appears closest to — former interim Mayor Todd Gloria — is very cool to Faulconer’s stadium push.

So how much Atkins actually wants to do to help keep the Chargers in San Diego is open to question. For now, city Republican leaders appear far more inclined than elected city Democrats to subsidize a Chargers stadium, wherever it is located and however the taxpayers’ share of costs is provided.

This EIR is supposed to have far more details about the impacts of the project on affected communities and the environment. But the new lawsuit — filed by the County of Kings, Citizens for California High-Speed Rail Accountability and the Kings County Farm Bureau — alleges that there are major conflicts and omissions between the old EIR and the new one. It also alleges that the California High-Speed Rail Authority, in preparing the new EIR, routinely minimized environmental impacts and the need for mitigation measures despite knowing of contrary evidence.

The lawsuit, which can be read here, was prepared by attorneys Douglas P. Carstens and Michelle Black of the Chatten-Brown & Carstens law firm based in Hermosa Beach. It contends that the shortcomings of the EIR are so numerous and significant that the document should be “recirculated” to allow the commenting process on potential impacts to start anew. It asks that construction be blocked until an adequate, fully legal EIR is completed.

The case will be before Judge Allen Sumner,  who was first appointed to the bench by Gov. Gray Davis. It is expected to have its initial hearing late this year.

This litigation is separate from a lawsuit involving mostly the same plaintiffs that led another Sacramento Superior Court judge, Michael Kenny, to rule in November that the state government had an inadequate financing plan and insufficient environmental reviews to legally begin work on the bullet train project’s 300-mile “initial operating segment.” A state appellate court is now considering Kenny’s decision, acting on an expedited basis at Gov. Jerry Brown’s request.

Vast list of problems detailed

Here are some of the key problems cited in the new lawsuit:

Railroad impacts: The new EIR includes “no mention regarding the need for expansion of the electrical grid or the recent objections UPRR and BNSF railroads have voiced to the California Public Utilities Commission about electro-magnetic fields and the possible interference of the freight rail and their positive train control systems.” Plaintiffs say the problems were well-known before the new EIR was certified in April.

Another ignored problem: ”The EIR failed to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts caused by the Section’s interference with existing rail transportation. BNSF Railway Company commented that the Authority’s preferred alignment, a substantial portion of which would run adjacent to BNSF’s right-of-way, would adversely impact BNSF’s ability to maintain and use its current right-of-way, would limit opportunities to construct new spurs to serve clients, and would raise height clearance issues.”

EIR was premature: The plaintiffs also contend that the rail authority jumped the gun with the new EIR. Rail officials “are only 15-30 percent finished with the first segment that is Madera to Fresno, and at this time does not even have a vendor selected to create the design for the Fresno to Bakersfield segment.”

The lawsuit contends this goes against established standards on how much design and planning work must be done before a credible environmental review can be completed.

“According to the Authority’s predecessor agency, the Intercity High Speed Rail Commission, in its High Speed Rail Summary Report and Action Plan, at least a 35 percent level of design is necessary to conduct environmental review,” the lawsuit notes.

“Similarly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency state that a 60 percent level of design is necessary for the environmental analysis to be sufficient for issuing a Clean Water Act section 404 Permit. By relying on an insufficiently detailed design, the Authority failed to provide enough information necessary for environmental review under CEQA.”

Effects on plants and species: A key goal of an environmental impact report is assessing the likely impact on sensitive plants and species in the project area. Once again, the plaintiffs contend the rail authority cut corners and didn’t follow standard practices.

“EIR preparers conducted an assessment of the possible presence of an endangered species (Fresno Kangaroo Rat) by attempting to recreate land use from the aerial photographs provided within Google Earth. Although such a method might be useful for targeting surveys, it is not a substitute for protocol-level surveys in appropriate habitat, which should have been done before certification of the project-level EIR,” the lawsuit states.

“The survey extent for many biological resources was too small because the area studied was usually within 250 feet of the Section footprint. Because one major impact of the project is fragmentation of existing habitat and decreased landscape connectivity, the study area should have been much larger.”

Geological and seismic risks hidden: Among the most serious allegations in the lawsuit are that the new EIR purposefully ignored the rail authority’s own report about the riskiness of its route.

On Sept. 12, 2013, in response to a California Public Records Act request by Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, the rail authority released an internal report on geologic and seismic hazards facing the Fresno-Bakersfield route.

According to the lawsuit, the report  “concluded that the risks of ground rupture, seismically induced ground deformations, shallow groundwater, soil corrosivity, and land subsidence were moderate to high along the Section alignment. The Report determined that most of these geotechnical hazards are distributed across the Central Valley or run perpendicular to the section alignment.”

But the new EIR did not acknowledge the rail authority’s own findings that geologic and seismic hazards were probably unavoidable on the planned route. Instead, the EIR concluded such risks were only in “localized areas.”

Plaintiffs argue that this “demonstrates the EIR’ s failure to disclose the Section’s system-wide potentially adverse impacts to decision-makers and the public.”

Less intrusive alternatives not considered: The rail authority had an obligation to examine other route options to see whether they were less problematic but did not do so with several different issues, according to the plaintiffs. These issues include geologic/seismic risk; noise and vibration risks to Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield; and using tunnels instead of above-ground tracks in “urban centers” such as Hanford.

Major impacts cited for first time: The lawsuit alleges that the new EIR — for the first time — mentions heretofore undisclosed new impacts from the project. Perhaps the most notable:

— “New significant impacts to historic resources in downtown Fresno, including subterranean historic resources. These significant historic resources included residential features and privies associated with Chinatown. These features are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.”

— “Approximately 96 active and inactive oil, gas, and water wells that would be impacted within 50 feet of the Section’s right-of-way.” Plaintiffs say that the rail authority acknowledges the “substantial increase in severity of this impact,” yet identifies “no mitigation measures.”

Under state law, a project’s environmental impact report must be “recirculated” for new comments when there are newly discovered “significant new impacts to landowners.”

The law “requires recirculation when: (1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; or (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.”

The lawsuit cites problems that fit each of these categories — at least if Judge Sumner agrees.

Kathy Hamilton is the Ralph Nader of high-speed rail, continually uncovering hidden aspects of the project and revealing them to the public.  She started writing in order to tell local communities how the project affects them and her reach grew statewide.  She has written more than 225 articles on high-speed rail and attended hundreds of state and local meetings. She is a board member of the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail; has testified at government hearings; has provided public testimony and court declarations on public records act requests; has given public testimony; and has provided transcripts for the validation of court cases. 

March 30, 2013

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — The unusually speedy approval of a new NBA arena for the Kings basketball team in the heart of downtown Sacramento leaves many details and unanswered questions on the table, including how this arena project possibly will be completed and ready for opening by 2015.

Approved by the Sacramento City Council, the latest plan uses overstated revenue projections, grossly overstated projected attendance numbers and city-owned parking garages to sweeten the finances. As with all of the previous schemes to keep the Sacramento Kings in town in a luxurious arena, neither city officials nor local news media have ever performed due diligence to expose the questionable business deal it will be for taxpayers.

Local media have been cheerleading the project, with little criticism or analysis. It’s another typical government-involved project, with bad numbers, pie-in-the-sky plans, lots of hype and no accountability.

Impacts on the city

A project of this magnitude will impact downtown parking, local businesses, housing and commercial property prices, traffic congestion and even air quality. Projects a fraction of this size are required to comply with extensive state mandated regulations, including Environmental Impact Reports and the state’s California Environmental Quality Act.

Many say that, given how Sacramento officials have already rammed through the term sheet approval in record time, they will also try to ram the development process through, without giving residents and businesses the standard allotted time to question the process and project.  And given the California Legislature’s recent history working around CEQA regulations for politically favored projects, could city officials already be working to ensure this project also is exempted from the state’s strict environmental guidelines?

Sacramento CEQA exemption

I contacted Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to find out if he plans on sponsoring legislation for the Sacramento arena similar to AB 900 and SB 292, which were passed last year and streamlined the CEQA process for Los Angeles-area sports stadiums. AB 900 was a general bill and expires on Jan. 1, 2015.  But SB 292 specifically was targeted at the $1.2 billion stadium for downtown Los Angeles being sponsored by the Anschutz Entertainment Group.

“It will be up to the government to decide if the project falls under the AB 900 criteria,” said Rhys Williams, Steinberg’s spokesman.

But in a later phone call, Williams said, “No plan was in place to fast track the stadium through CEQA, unless the project meets AB 900 criteria.” Williams also noted that Steinberg authored AB 900.

I also contacted Sacramento City Manager John Shirey to inquire about a CEQA exemption for the arena project. Shirey was not available, but spokeswoman Amy Williams said she hand’t heard of anything involving CEQA exemptions for the arena project, and said she would ask others working on the project for the city. I did not hear back from Williams.

Interestingly, I also contacted Anaheim city officials. Anaheim was in the running two years ago to acquire the Kings. Part of their proposal was to increase the size of the Honda Center indoor arena. Ruth Ruiz, Public Information Officer with Anaheim, forwarded the city-led Environmental Impact Report summary which found the Honda Center would not fall under CEQA guidelines because the expansion was only intended to enhance the design and services offered at the arena, and would not increase the maximum seating capacity.

Unnecessary financial risk

Arena opponents are concerned that Sacramento is opening itself up to risk it cannot afford. Eye on Sacramento, a public policy watchdog group, compared Sacramento to Stockton, which filed for bankruptcy protection after spending tens of millions of dollars on an arena and other publicly financed facilities.

Others are concerned about the increasing number of government projects will continue to be exempted from California’s unusually strict environmental regulations — regulations which have killed many private sector projects.

Part Two of this two-part series will be on the stadium and jobs creation.