Focus of Disney Bill Narrowed to Appease Critics

SACRAMENTO —  Seeking to blunt criticism, the Walt Disney Co. has narrowed the focus of controversial legislation that could allow the $3-billion Port Disney development to be built on 250 acres of landfill along the Long Beach shoreline.

Critics have argued that the bill, carried by Sen. Ken Maddy (R-Fresno), was so general that it would have applied to coastal landfill statewide, not just in Long Beach. But on Tuesday Maddy introduced amendments to tailor the bill to the Long Beach theme park development.

Maddy said scaling back the language in the proposal “is a move in the direction of satisfying the opposition. It narrows the issue down to this project alone being . . . the exception” in the law.

Maddy, Republican leader in the upper house, had hoped to get the Senate Natural Resources Committee to consider the bill on Tuesday. But because lawmakers did not have enough time to digest the amendments, the panel postponed until later this month consideration of the legislation.

David Malmuth , vice president of Disney Development Co., said he was surprised by the delay, but it would not pose a setback to the proposal. Malmuth said the revised measure “couldn’t be more specific than it is right now,” clarifying the authority of the Coastal Commission to allow Disney to build a theme park on landfill.

However, the amendments have not quieted complaints about the bill from environmental groups and the California Coastal Commission staff. Peter Douglas, executive director of the Coastal Commission, said the Maddy measure still “opens up the floodgates to similar projects up and down the state.”

Opponents also maintain that the law does not need any clarification, and that such recreational uses as theme parks, restaurants and rides are not allowed on coastal landfill.

Besides an ocean-oriented theme park known as DisneySea, Port Disney would include hotels, restaurants, shops, boat slips and a cruise ship terminal on 443 acres. Of the total project, Disney plans to create 250 acres of new landfill by using at least 20 million cubic yards of material, according to one consultant to the company.

Disney has announced its intention to build a second West Coast theme park either around the Long Beach waterfront or beside Disneyland in Anaheim, where the company is considering a concept similar to Florida’s Epcot Center. A decision on a site could come by the end of the year, and Disney executives have not completely ruled out going ahead with both projects.

Last October, Disney released an economic report predicting that the area would reap an economic bonanza, including 59,000 construction jobs lasting at least one year in Long Beach; nearly 37,000 permanent jobs in Southern California, two-thirds of them in Long Beach; and nearly $3 billion a year in economic activity, with about $1.5 billion in Long Beach.

The Maddy bill is an outgrowth of discussions between Disney and Coastal Commission staff members, who earlier this year told the entertainment giant that the Coastal Act prohibits recreation projects built on new landfill.

Consequently, Disney decided to push for legislation which company officials say merely spells out what is permitted by existing law. Disney executives also stressed that even if the measure is ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed into law, the Coastal Commission and more than two dozen other local, state and federal agencies still would need to review the project.

The measure is supported by a variety of groups in Long Beach, including the City Council, Board of Education and the Chamber of Commerce. It is also favored by Curtis L. McCray, president of California State University, Long Beach, and the California Professional Firefighters.

Some opponents suggested that Disney, despite an intense lobbying effort, would have had a hard time on Tuesday getting the Natural Resources Committee to approve the bill. To attract support, they said, the company sought to refine the language in the measure.

“I don’t think they had the votes and to have any hope of getting the bill, they had to scale it back,” said John White, a lobbyist for the American Oceans Campaign, a national nonprofit group set up to preserve and protect the seas.

Disney’s Malmuth declined to discuss the company’s support on the committee, saying that it would not be “productive to talk to you about what votes we had.”

While it was still unclear what will happen when the bill is heard by the Senate Natural Resources Committee, Disney may face an easier time winning approval of the revised proposal.

Sen. Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton), a member of the panel, said that while the bill initially seemed to require that the Legislature dictate the Port Disney approval process, the revamped version would allow the Coastal Commission to consider the project on its merits.

Johnston described the language in the earlier bill as looking like “a promotional brochure for Disney” and the wording in the latest version as “much more restrained.”