• Chargers Will be in Los Angeles For 2012 NFL Season, Predicts One Site — LA Weekly
• Play ball with AEG — LA Times
• Southern California rivalry — Sports Business Journal
• Leaders debate special AEG stadium legislation — Daily News
• Hagman Urges Republicans to Block Bill Benefiting LA Stadium — Patch.com
• AEG seeks environmental protections for new downtown Los Angeles stadium — SD Examiner
• Breaking Down AEG's Stadium Bill — Blogdowntown
• No help for Kings, 49ers in Los Angeles stadium bill — Sacramento Bee
• Farmers Field looks to avoid litigation — ESPN
• San Diego worries about a Chargers run to Los Angeles — LA Times
L.A. lawmakers try to sell NFL stadium plan to colleagues
Patrick McGreevy and Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times
September 2, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-0902-stadium-legislation-20110902,0,2419089,print.story
Reporting from Sacramento -- As Anschutz Entertainment Group and its myriad backers roam the halls of the state Capitol crafting a last-minute bill to help pave the way for a football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, they face what is a perennial problem in Sacramento: Nobody likes L.A.
Not legislators from Northern California, many of whom are dyed-in-the-Gore-Tex environmentalists whose constituents will probably never attend a football game in the metropolis to the south.
And not the lawmakers from more neighborly San Diego County, who worry that an L.A. football stadium would allow the City of Angels to poach their Chargers.
Most of the L.A. political delegation and power structure is behind AEG's proposal to require an expedited process for any legal challenges to its $1.2-billion stadium. But it is how the Angelenos will woo the rest of the state that will make a difference.
"Why are we doing it for this one instance?" asked state Sen. Juan Vargas (D-San Diego), a Chargers fan. "Why not do it for a lot of projects that are large and will bring a lot of jobs? And why didn't we get [the bill] earlier? Why wasn't this done a month ago, two months ago, so people could get a chance to look at it?"
A final bill was being frantically drafted Thursday evening, with just five more business days before the end of the legislative session. According to several sources, the measure by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) would allow legal challenges to the stadium's environmental impact report to be heard immediately in the state court of appeals, which would have between 150 and 175 days to rule. That would avoid protracted litigation.
In exchange, AEG would pledge to build a carbon-neutral stadium with more public transit users than any other stadium in the country.
Environmentalists gave a tentative thumbs-up to the idea, with David Pettit, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, saying Thursday evening that a 175-day timetable was "in the ballpark."
AEG's push to get special treatment was spurred by a 2009 vote to grant a complete environmental waiver to a competing stadium proposal by Majestic Realty in the City of Industry. Some Northern California lawmakers still feel burned by voting for that exception, which passed only after business leaders promised thousands of jobs.
"I haven't seen one job yet," said Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord). "To a large degree, I regret that vote, and I don't want to do that again."
DeSaulnier said he was concerned by AEG's plan to gut an existing bill on an unrelated subject, insert language on the stadium and fast-track it through the Legislature.
"My problem is process," he said. "I don't like gut-and-amends."
The regional differences were apparent at a Thursday news conference on regulatory reform.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) was noncommittal when asked whether there should be an exemption for the stadium.
When Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, a Democrat from Los Angeles, cut in: "The senator is coming with me to the first game in the new football stadium," Steinberg issued what seemed a pointed reminder. "That's the most environmentally friendly football stadium, with the finest traffic mitigation in the country," he replied, laughing.
AEG officials have told lawmakers that their stadium would create more than 10,000 jobs for the state's slumping economy and that failure to pass legislation by Sept. 9 would jeopardize the project.
AEG officials were accompanied on visits to lawmakers' offices Thursday by business and union leaders, including Maria Elena Durazo, who heads the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.
"We're making our case for good jobs in Los Angeles," Durazo said. "We're telling them there is enormous urgency."
Durazo said the special legal protections for the stadium are needed to avert protracted environmental litigation. "We can't have delays that are going to take away the very real possibility of creating jobs."
Los Angeles legislators with strong environmental credentials also were pushing for the bill. "Under expedited judicial review, we can bring jobs to this community while building a carbon-neutral stadium that will prioritize transit more than any other NFL stadium," said Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills).
The bill has opposition from many fronts south of the Grapevine. Majestic has its own crew of lobbyists meeting with legislators. The firm announced Thursday that its project has been endorsed by Teamsters Joint Council 42 in the San Gabriel Valley.
And though Chargers officials vow to keep the team in San Diego, legislators like Vargas are wary of giving Los Angeles an edge.
"Are they going to take the Chargers?" he asked. "I'd like to know that. It makes a bit of a difference."
Chargers Will be in Los Angeles For 2012 NFL Season, Predicts One Site
Dennis Romero, LA Weekly
Aug. 31 2011
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/chargers_angeles_2012_nfl.php
The proposal to build an NFL stadium in the middle of our dense downtown still has many hurdles, including whether or not an environmental impact report will be required, final city approval, and, last but not least, the granting of an actual team.
That last aspect, predicts one online pundit, could be a shoo-in.
In fact, the website footballphds.com bets the San Diego Chargers are moving to L.A. for the 2012 season. Here's how the site believes this will go down:
-Anschutz Entertainment Group, the would-be developer of the downtown stadium, and owner of neighboring LA Live and Staples Center, would make the announcement during this football season.
-Because corporations like AEG can't be owners (they must be individuals), footballphds thinks AEG chief Phil Anschutz would take the lead and buy close to 100 percent of the Chargers for as much as $900 million. (He's a multi-billionaire).
-Superstar sports agent and team owner Casey Wasserman would take a small stake in the team.
-Anschutz and AEG would pay $24 million to terminate the Chargers' San Diego stadium lease.
-The Chargers would come to the L.A. Coliseum while the downtown stadium is built.
Believe it?
Update: On Wednesday Chargers special counsel to the president Mark Fabiani told the Weekly this scenario is a pipe dream. Fabiani:
... The Spanos family [which owns the team] is never going to sell a majority or controlling interest in the team -- to anyone. All rumors to the contrary are completely false.
Play ball with AEG
LA Times Editorial
September 04, 2011
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/04/opinion/la-ed-aeg-20110904
Lawmakers in Sacramento have a responsibility to legislate for the public, not for donors or the politically connected; they have a duty to write laws that apply to everyone, and not to allow certain interests to benefit from carve-outs and exemptions. And yet, sometimes the state's broken legislative system forces Californians to choose between that kind of bad lawmaking and worse consequences.
Such is the case with SB 292, the bill to expedite judicial review of AEG's proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles in return for AEG's commitment to exceed the state's environmental requirements for the facility. It's wrong to pass a bill just for AEG. Cutting a special deal for a high-profile developer is unfair to other builders, encourages backroom corruption and fails to address the systemic problems that bedevil growth in California. And yet, failing to pass this bill would be worse.
Importantly, SB 292, carried by state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) and coauthored by a geographically and ideologically broad group of legislators, does not exempt AEG from any of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. If the bill passes, AEG would still be required to complete an environmental impact report, and it would still be subject to lawsuits brought by opponents. The bill does not immunize AEG from so-called frivolous lawsuits, a vague notion that AEG's chief executive, Tim Leiweke, has been pursuing for months without making much headway.
The bill does give AEG special treatment in one respect: It accelerates the judicial process that would be employed to review any challenge to the project. Any lawsuit would be directed immediately to the appellate courts, bypassing Superior Court, where projects can languish for a year or more. Once in court, the two sides would be required to adhere to a tight briefing schedule, winnowing down to 175 days a process that typically takes nine to 12 months. That kind of acceleration is unusual though not unheard of. Federal law occasionally grants appellate courts original jurisdiction in areas where speed is of the essence, as in cases involving voting rights.
In return for these concessions, AEG has promised to go beyond what state environmental law demands. The new facility would have to be the most environmentally sound in the NFL, and it would have to be carbon-neutral, which the developer can achieve by maximizing the use of public transportation and other improvements; if those come up short, AEG would be forced to purchase enough carbon credits to reach that goal.
This bargain, then, benefits the environment and green-lights a project that promises tens of thousands of jobs, substantial new tax revenue and the revitalization of Los Angeles' struggling Convention Center. That is too much to pass up.
CEQA needs broad reform, and some of the elements in this bill might help frame that effort. But while the Legislature dawdles, its negligence should not stop this important project from going forward. Lawmakers should pass this bill.
Southern California rivalry
Dan Kaplan, Sports Business Journal
September 5, 2011
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/05.aspx
With labor peace freshly assured in the NFL for the next decade, could the league finally return to Los Angeles, bereft of a team since 1994?
Periodically rising to the front of the NFL’s to-do list, Los Angeles in recent years has resided on the league’s back burner, a distant concern to the labor talks. That’s left two potential stadium sites, each pushed by a billionaire, to duke it out over which would be the best home for a team in America’s second-largest market.
In the absence of firm league guidance, however, and perhaps because the NFL believes competition results in the best deal, the tone and politics in Los Angeles have turned downright nasty.
“These guys throw things on the wall and see if they stick,” said Tim Leiweke, president and CEO of AEG, which is proposing a stadium in downtown Los Angeles.
“These guys” is developer Majestic Realty, which since 2008 has proposed a venue in City of Industry, a corporate haven a couple of dozen miles from the city center. Referring to John Semcken, Majestic’s vice president, Leiweke said, “this man has essentially gone out there and spun the truth and been wrong every time, and he knows nothing about our stadium.
“I don’t believe a word he says,” Leiweke added.
AEG’s Tim Leiweke (top) has accused Majestic’s John Semcken (right) of lobbying state legislators against the Farmers Field project.
Leiweke accused Semcken of falsely taking credit for building Staples Center, which AEG owns and operates, and of never having developed a stadium or arena, an AEG specialty.
In an interview before Leiweke’s remarks, Semcken declined to comment on AEG’s competing project, although in the past he has criticized it publicly. And a Majestic spokesman, speaking for Semcken, said, “Majestic Realty is one of the most successful real estate firms in the country, and with John did all the negotiations with the city for Staples Center.”
Part of the acrimony stems from the Southern California rivalry between Majestic owner Ed Roski and AEG’s Phil Anschutz. The two developed Staples Center together before Roski declined to respond to capital calls and his share was diluted. And it also stems from, sources said, very different outlooks on the football question by the two men.
Majestic, said one source close to the situation, believes it has the solution to finally return football to Los Angeles, and the source said that had AEG not suddenly pitched its own plan last year, the NFL would have already chosen City of Industry. Meanwhile AEG believes, this source said, that City of Industry has had since 2008 to convince the NFL and lure a team, but has failed.
With few public funds available for new stadiums in California, the sites have bickered over which side would provide the biggest return, and which could truly get off the ground.
In the earlier interview, Semcken contended that because Roski controls the 600 acres in City of Industry outright, and as part of the stadium would be built against a hill, reducing steel costs, the project is more efficient. City of Industry’s billed price tag is $800 million, while Farmers Field, the AEG proposal, tops $1.3 billion, though it has a roof and a $700 million naming-rights agreement announced in February.
Leiweke points to the Farmers deal as evidence of his project’s viability and mocks Roski for not finding a title partner in City of Industry. Semcken’s spokesman responded that Majestic has not looked for naming rights, and believes it’s better to do so with a team in hand.
How much money a stadium can deliver is crucial. A team owner would likely need to pay a relocation fee to the league, and the developers could be constrained in what they offer a new team if stadium financing costs exceed projections. They are betting the lucrative Southern California market would solve this math.
“When no one in the market owns a team and there is clearly no substantial subsidy, you have an economic riddle which needs to be resolved before a team can come back to the market,” said Casey Wasserman, founder of Wasserman Media Group and a key Farmers Field supporter. “The riddle is twofold: How do you generate enough revenue to compel an NFL owner to relocate, while having enough economic activity left after a deal has been made with the team to finance a privately paid for stadium?”
For Wasserman the answer is simple: downtown Los Angeles and Anschutz’s enormous wealth. Leiweke brushed off suggestions that the Farmers Field project does not have as good a return by saying essentially it’s Anschutz’s money and so it doesn’t really matter.
However, that does leave a team banking on one man. And a football source said profit margins are not incidental.
“Yes, margin matters a lot,” this source said. “Generically, the margin available to the club/league is crucial. That is what pays the players.”
The Majestic spokesman, who asked that his name not be used, said, “In our building [the team’s take] will not be a fixed number, which makes it extremely attractive to potential owners. “It would place any team in the top five in the league [in revenue and profit], if not higher,” the spokesman predicted.
Whether that’s true is impossible to say, but what is true is that no NFL team seeking greener pastures has bitten on Roski’s long-standing offer: a minimum guarantee of revenue, control of the stadium operating company, but in return for a quarter of the team. Roski expects to make his money developing the land near the stadium, and from his stake in the club.
AEG is offering a more traditional model of a team as tenant guaranteed a certain amount of revenue, a model employed successfully at Staples Center.
The trend in the NFL, however, is for teams to control their own stadiums, so whether tenancy flies in the sport is unclear. Farmers Field would be housed next to a convention center and near L.A. Live and the Staples Center, forming another major part of the downtown entertainment district.
Meanwhile, emotions are raw over AEG’s recent state capital lobbying efforts seeking to win protection from environmental challenges to its project. In response, Semcken has personally met with legislators in Sacramento, the California capital.
“We won’t go forward if City of Industry is trying to stop us,” Leiweke said of the political equation. “They will do anything they can, including spinning the facts and making false statements.”
Roski in 2009 won from the state legislature such environmental cover for his project, and now AEG wishes for a similar arrangement. AEG officials believe Semcken is personally lobbying against them, and is upset he would do so when Majestic has the same deal.
The Majestic spokesman responded that politicians in Sacramento invited Semcken, and pointed out that when Roski won his victory in 2009, he had settled numerous environmental objections to his project. Farmers Field, by contrast, is not far enough along, the spokesman said, to even warrant objections.
Both sides are actively wooing teams that might want to relocate. With the regular season starting Thursday, however, there is little chance of movement on the issue because the NFL will not want word leaking that one of its teams is about to move.
“Nobody is going to make any commitment during the season,” Semcken said.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told CBS Sports executives last month that the league would take its time carefully reviewing the two sites, said Sean McManus, CBS Sports chairman.
And that could mean unless the league is willing to put its weight behind one site soon, for some time, football in Los Angeles may remain out of bounds.
Leaders debate special AEG stadium legislation
Dakota Smith, Daily News
September 4, 2011
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_18818009
Los Angeles lawmakers on Friday touted developer Anschutz Entertainment Group's downtown football stadium as an innovative facility that will transform the South Park neighborhood into a walkable, transit-accessible hub.
That's why otherwise green-minded lawmakers said they were willing to back new legislation that would bend the landmark California Environmental Quality Act to accommodate the project.
"This would be the most environmentally friendly stadium in the country," said Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, who introduced Senate Bill 292 that would provide a myriad of protections and requirements for the stadium.
But environmentalists are balking.
They argue the language in the bill - which is backed by a powerful group including Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, and other L.A.-area politicians - falls short in detailing environmental protections.
"If they are promising a green stadium, this proposal falls short of that," said Nidia Bautista, policy director for Coalition for Clean Air, a statewide advocacy organization.
With only five days left before the Legislature breaks for recess, the AEG bill will likely take center stage next week as environmentalists, developers and politicians argue over just how green the project truly is, and what impact the law would have on future stadium projects.
AEG has spent more than a year lobbying for legislation to protect its proposed 72,000 seat stadium from lawsuits.
In the last few weeks, the company worked feverishly with legislators to create a bill requiring that any lawsuit challenging the stadium's environmental impact report would bypass the Superior Court and go directly to the Court of Appeals to be resolved within 175 days.
"Approval of the legislation will ensure thousands of good paying jobs, and a true economic boost for our local economies while building a new event and convention center for Los Angeles - all while protecting the environment and the CEQA process and at no cost to the taxpayers," AEG president Tim Leiweke said in a written statement.
In exchange for the expedited legal review, AEG agreed to build a "carbon neutral stadium" and increased transit options, like expanded bus lines.
The bill "sets a new standard for environmental reviews and legal reviews," said Padilla, adding his top three reasons for supporting the legislation are "jobs, jobs, and jobs."
Downtown supporters agree.
"We see too many projects stalled and killed by abusing the CEQA process," said Carol Schatz, CEO and president of the Central City Association, who joined legislators in Sacramento announcing the bill Friday.
With these CEQA provisions, she added, jobs could be created.
But even those in favor of the stadium are deeply unhappy with Padilla's proposal.
"There is a bill we could support, but it's not this one," said David Pettit, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sought a compromise bill with AEG.
It's unclear how AEG will enforce its promise to reduce carbon emissions or who would check that the stadium is indeed carbon neutral, Petit said.
Pettit wants the bill to more clearly explain how AEG will cut pollution. For instance, AEG could offer free bus passes to fans traveling to the stadium - taking drivers off the road and reducing car emissions.
The politicians are clear on what allowances they are offering AEG, "but less clear on the benefits for the community and the environment," Bautista said.
One of her worries is the truncated time frame to resolve lawsuits.
"You want to make sure the community has ample time to express concerns about a project that is happening in their neighborhood," she said.
This is the second statewide legislation proposed for a football stadium in recent years. In 2009, Assemblyman Isadore Hall III, D-Compton, sponsored a bill for the City of Industry that ultimately eliminated lawsuits that were challenging the Majestic Realty Co.'s $800 million stadium project.
The Majestic project is now a competitor to AEG's downtown stadium, both of which are trying to land a NFL team.
With Hall's bill, which Padilla supported, the City of Industry was promised the nation's first green NFL stadium, a project that was described as the "most energy efficient and environmentally sustainable NFL stadium in the United States."
Hagman Urges Republicans to Block Bill Benefiting LA Stadium
Melanie C. Johnson, The Patch.com
September 2, 2011
http://walnut.patch.com/articles/assemblyman-hagman-urges-republicans-to-block-bill-benefiting-la-stadium
Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills) is calling on all Republican lawmakers to vote against a proposed bill that would limit expected lawsuits challenging a $1.5 billion NFL stadium and convention center project in Los Angeles on environmental grounds.
Hagman, who represents Walnut and Diamond Bar, called out Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles) and said that the California Environmental Quality Act needs to see some changes.
The state needs to reform CEQA so "the projects that can't afford high priced lobbyists or aren't hand-picked by the Speaker (John Perez) can have a chance," Hagman said.
Anschutz Entertainment Group is seeking protection from drawn-out legal challenges developers of the proposed downtown stadium say would tie up the project in the courts until it dies.
Majestic Realty has a proposal of its own to build a professional football stadium in the City of Industry, which is also in Hagman’s district. When Majestic was pushing its project in 2009, local cities, including Walnut, sued in an effort to block the stadium based largely on environmental concerns.
The lawsuits evaporated, however, after the California Assembly passed Assembly Bill 81, legislation that exempted the stadium project from CEQA in September 2009. The state Senate followed suit a month later, and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it into law on Oct. 22, 2009.
Walnut settled its case with the City of Industry and Majestic, an agreement that called for the city to receive $9 million to use for traffic mitigation and improvement projects linked to the stadium’s construction and annual fees ranging from $350,000 to $500,000 to be paid to the city based on the number of events each year at the venue.
Hagman voted in favor of Majestic's exemption.
The lawsuit legislation is expected to be introduced in the Assembly next week, right before the legislative session ends. Perez and the bill’s author, state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) released some of the proposed law’s language on Friday.
The proposed bill calls for lawsuits challenging AEG’s environmental impact report be settled within 175 days of the city’s approval of the document. Lawsuits would go to the 2nd District Court of Appeal instead of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The legislation also mandates that AEG construct a stadium with no net greenhouse gas emissions, and it must have the lowest level of attendance by cars or trucks of any NFL stadium nationwide, a car trip ratio of less than 90 percent of the other stadiums.
Speaker Perez, whose district includes where the proposed LA stadium would be, said it would be more environmentally friendly than any other in the nation. “After more than a decade, it's time for the NFL to return to Los Angeles,'' he said.
Padilla called the stadium project a “game changer” for Los Angeles and the region, citing the jobs it would create and the continued revitalization of downtown.
Bay Area Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) said the proposed bill is another example of a special interest being allowed to get around state laws.
“This bill is being introduced in the final hours of a legislative session and without full deliberation," Huffman said. "It will be a very rushed process, with a last-minute, off-the-floor hearing, probably late at night, after most of the media has gone home.”
AEG seeks environmental protections for new downtown Los Angeles stadium
Gerald Nicdao, San Diego Sports Examiner
September 5, 2011
http://www.examiner.com/sports-in-san-diego/aeg-seeks-environmental-protections-for-new-downtown-los-angeles-stadium
One of the major hurdles facing AEG’s proposed downtown Los Angeles stadium project may be cleared by the end of the week.
Last Friday, State Senator Alex Padilla and Assembly Speaker John Perez—both from Los Angeles—unveiled legislation that would expedite potential environmental lawsuits AEG would face in its attempt to make Farmers Field a reality in downtown Los Angeles
The piece of legislation is not the same as protection given to Ed Roski’s Majestic Realty Co. Two years ago, Majestic Realty secured an exemption from environmental lawsuits as it tries to build an NFL stadium in the City of Industry, about 25 miles east of the proposed AEG facility.
AEG sees the piece of legislation as the most important road black the group is facing in its quest to bring an NFL team to Los Angeles.
"We've made it very clear that we will not move forward without this," Leiweke told ESPN.com. "We cannot and will not move forward with this project with that uncertainty hanging over our head because the NFL will not commit to Farmers Field with that uncertainty hanging over our head."
In exchange for the bill, AEG is promising to build the greenest stadium in the world. It will build a carbon-neutral facility and help to enhance public transportation options to and from Farmers Field, adjacent to L.A. Live and Staples Center.
But the plan is being criticized on many fronts.
Environmentalists are screaming that the process would not allow enough time for proper review of AEG’s environmental impact report.
"Bringing an NFL stadium and football team to L.A. will create new jobs and boost the local economy, but it cannot be done at the expense of downtown residents and monstrous traffic jams in Los Angeles," David Pettit, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told ESPN.
Of course, representatives from San Diego are voicing their opposition. Not because it sets an awful precedent—as I wrote in this space two years ago about Majestic Realty’s deal—but because lawmakers question why Los Angeles is receiving special treatment and other cities in the state are not.
"Why are we doing it for this one instance?" San Diego state senator Juan Vargas told the Los Angeles Times. "Why not do it for a lot of projects that are large and will bring a lot of jobs? And why didn't we get it earlier? Why wasn't this done a month ago, two months ago, so people could get a chance to look at it?"
Local officials echo Vargas’ sentiment. They want fair deal if San Diego gets its stadium proposal off the pre-planning stages.
“If our state leaders believe that a stadium project in California should be granted certain limitations with regard to CEQA and subsequent litigation, then they should apply that same consideration to all stadium projects,” San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders told the Union-Tribune. “This isn’t just about building a new stadium in San Diego. At stake is the creation of a sports and entertainment district that will create thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars in private investment.”
The Chargers are towing its own talking points when it comes to this.
Two years ago, when Majestic Realty received its exemption from the state government, the Chargers didn’t make a big deal about it.
The same is happening as the California legislature takes up AEG’s bill this week.
“It doesn’t affect us one way or the other in terms of anything—other than when we get our project ready to go in San Diego, we will expect to get the same benefits that the Los Angeles developers got,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani told the UT.
And that’s the mess the California legislature got itself into two years ago. If it is going to give exemptions and special deals to Los Angeles in order for it to build a new stadium, then local officials in the San Francisco Bay Area and in San Diego are going to want the same.
Breaking Down AEG's Stadium Bill
ERIC RICHARDSON, Blogdowntown
September 03, 2011
http://blogdowntown.com/2011/09/6378-breaking-down-aegs-stadium-bill
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.
No help for Kings, 49ers in Los Angeles stadium bill
Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee
September 4, 2011
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/no-help-for-kings-49ers-in-los.html
Los Angeles lawmakers rolled out a bill Friday that would hasten environmental reviews and help a major developer build a downtown NFL stadium there, but the plan provides no help to other budding sports venue projects in Sacramento and Santa Clara.
The proposal spearheaded by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and Sen. Alex Padilla is solely focused on expediting environmental reviews of Farmers Field, a $1.3 billion project adjacent to Staples Center in Los Angeles that also involves replacing part of the downtown convention center. It requires that the developer, Anschutz Entertainment Group, attempt to control traffic spikes that would result from the 68,000-seat stadium.
The two Democratic lawmakers framed the proposal as a job creator, projecting that it would bring 12,000 jobs during construction and 11,000 permanent jobs once the project is completed. Senate Bill 292 is backed by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, whose powerful executive secretary-treasurer, Maria Elena Durazo, was in Sacramento with other labor leaders Thursday to lobby lawmakers.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said earlier this week he thought the stadium exemption would work as part of a broader change to environmental reviews. Some Democrats are against the idea of passing bills that aid one specific project, especially after facing negative reactions to a 2009 exemption for a competing NFL stadium development in the City of Industry. And lawmakers based in San Diego see no reason to potentially help Los Angeles take the Chargers away, one possibility for the NFL.
Of course, Los Angeles isn't the only city with a professional sports project. The San Francisco 49ers are trying to build a new stadium in Santa Clara to open by the 2015 season. Sacramento is hoping a new downtown arena will keep the Kings in town. Financing appears to be more of a challenge for both projects than in Los Angeles, where AEG has deep pockets and Farmers Insurance has committed $700 million over 30 years for naming rights.
Asked if he'd expand SB 292 to aid stadiums in Sacramento or Santa Clara, Pérez suggested it was more appropriate to grant CEQA changes on a case by case basis. "This is a wonderful groundbreaking example," Pérez said of Farmers Field. "I gotta tell you, I haven't seen very many other developers who want to say, we'll completely finance it ourselves and hold this to the highest environmental standard of anyone in the country."
Environmentalists have applauded AEG's proposals to incorporate environmentally-friendly design into the stadium, including waterless urinals, waste composting and solar panels. But they consider any exemption or easing of the California Environmental Quality Act protocols a bad precedent.
Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney David Pettit raised concerns earlier this week that the project would add too much traffic to the area. After seeing SB 292, he said in a statement today, "Members of the California Legislature propose to give AEG special treatment in return for things AEG would need to do anyway. This weak, last-minute back room deal is a missed opportunity for Los Angeles and a dangerous precedent for California. It can and should be fixed."
Even if some Democrats oppose SB 292, proponents are counting on bipartisan support to send it to the governor. The Assembly speaker has lined up several Republican co-authors in both houses, appealing to their longstanding opposition to CEQA procedures.
Farmers Field looks to avoid litigation
Arash Markazi, ESPNLosAngeles.com
September 3, 2011
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/6922972/legislation-put-forth-limit-farmers-field-challenges
State lawmakers introduced legislation Friday that would expedite legal challenges to Farmers Field, Anschutz Entertainment Group's $1.2 billion proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and Senator Alex Padilla, who authored the bill, introduced the legislation one week before the Sept. 9 deadline for action on bills when Sacramento lawmakers will break for recess.
"This bill has the support of legislators from both houses and both parties," Padilla said. "It would pave the way for the most environmentally friendly sports stadium in the country in addition to putting thousands of people to work. The bill is a culmination of many weeks of discussions that will allow a thorough and expeditious judicial review of the Los Angeles Convention Center and events center project upon completion of a full (environmental impact review). There are a number of reasons I am authoring the bill but three most important are jobs, jobs and jobs."
Last week AEG president and CEO Tim Leiweke told a state Senate panel in Los Angeles that plans for the stadium would stop if state lawmakers didn't introduce special legislation that would protect AEG from frivolous lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act.
"We've made it very clear that we will not move forward without this," Leiweke said. "We cannot and will not move forward with this project with that uncertainty hanging over our head because the NFL will not commit to Farmers Field with that uncertainty hanging over our head."
The bill, which was still being drafted late Thursday night, would allow legal challenges to the stadium's environmental impact report to be heard immediately in the California Court of Appeal, which would then come to a decision within 175 days. The expedited process would bypass the Superior Court and avoid the protracted litigation AEG has been fearful of.
In exchange, AEG has pledged to build a carbon-neutral stadium with more public transit users than any other stadium in the country and have committed to making Farmers Field one of the only stadiums in the country to have a net zero carbon footprint.
The six-month time period for possible lawsuits is twice as long as what Leiweke initially proposed. The current proposal, however, is thought to be more acceptable to legislators who believe anything less than five months would be unrealistic, considering the project's environmental impact report is expected to exceed 10,000 pages.
Leiweke has continually promised lawmakers AEG would complete the most extensive environmental review in the history of downtown Los Angeles.
A competing stadium proposal in the City of Industry has been "shovel-ready" for two years after developer Ed Roski secured an exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act in 2009. The ruling exempts the Industry project from state environmental laws and protects it from environmental lawsuits. Legislators were roundly criticized for passing the exemption, making it virtually impossible for AEG to secure a similar deal for their stadium proposal.
"We are not asking for an exemption," Leiweke said. "We are going to do a full EIR. It will be the best EIR ever done in downtown Los Angeles and we are halfway through it. We are committed to building the most environmentally friendly stadium ever built."
Although the bill seems to have the support of most legislators in Los Angeles, the real battle will be convincing lawmakers to the north and south, which will not be easy considering the two teams most commonly linked to a move to Los Angeles if the stadium is built are the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders. The San Francisco 49ers, currently trying to secure financing for a new stadium, have also been mentioned.
With the NFL unwilling to expand its 32-team league anytime soon and with San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco playing in the three oldest stadiums in the league, it is highly likely Los Angeles' next NFL team will come from their neighbors to the north or south, which will be on the mind of some lawmakers who don't want to use public funds to finance a stadium in their backyard but also don't want to lose their team to a privately financed stadium in Los Angeles.
"It will not be the legislature who determines what teams comes to Los Angeles," Padilla said. "It will not be the governor, it will not be city hall, it will not be the mayor. Only the NFL owners will determine which team relocates to Los Angeles. The opportunity for us is to present a viable option and one with tremendous economic benefit for consideration to the NFL."
Not only could the bill face opposition from lawmakers in San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco, but the proposed legislation has also been roundly criticized by environmentalists, many of whom are skeptical of the stadium's transportation plans which claim Farmers Field will have the lowest "cars per football game ticket holder" ratio in the country.
"Bringing an NFL stadium and football team to L.A. will create new jobs and boost the local economy, but it cannot be done at the expense of downtown residents and monstrous traffic jams in Los Angeles," said David Pettit, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in a statement. "Members of the California Legislature propose to give AEG special treatment in return for things that AEG would need to do anyway. This weak, last-minute, back-room deal is a missed opportunity for Los Angeles and a dangerous precedent for California. It can and should be fixed."
Pettit offered to work with AEG to bring an NFL team to an environmentally friendly stadium. "But this current proposal does not deliver on that promise," he concluded. Roski was able to gain support for his exemption by promising jobs and an NFL team if it was granted, but two years later his 600-acre site in Industry is still empty. But with California's unemployment rate at 12 percent, the second-highest of any state in July, there could be some traction to help a project that developers claim will create 18,000 temporary and permanent living-wage and union jobs.
Leiweke has said AEG would like to break ground on the stadium and convention center expansion by June 1, which would still be possible under the current timetable in the proposed bill if the environmental impact report is completed by January and AEG successfully resolves any legal challenges within six months.
Leiweke said he expects Roski's Majestic Realty group will file or back a lawsuit in an attempt to stop the downtown project. He also claimed John Semcken, vice president at Majestic and its stadium plan's point man, was with lobbyists in Sacramento recently urging legislators not to pass any law that would help Farmers Field avoid litigation.
"They spent the week in Sacramento and I think they did themselves a disservice because almost everyone that came back to us was shocked at how they trashed us," Leiweke said last week.
Semcken didn't deny he was in Sacramento speaking to legislators but said he and Majestic have no plans to file a lawsuit to stop the downtown stadium project.
"In over 70 years Majestic Realty has never sued a competitor and has no plans to sue a business partner," Semcken said. "We are 100 percent committed to returning the NFL to our region and have shown the league and the teams the tremendous economic upside of our project."
Roski, who is the president and chairman of Majestic Realty, helped build Staples Center with Philip Anschutz and also owns a piece of the Lakers and Kings with Anschutz. He has said if AEG gets a team and is in position to build Farmers Field he would not stand in the way.
Padilla and Perez seemed optimistic their bill would get the necessary support it needs from lawmakers next week to allow plans for Farmers Field to move forward.
"This goes above and beyond what is normally a part of an EIR process," said Perez. "This is an unprecedented bill on all marks. It preserves the environmental standards, it strengthens the mitigation and it doesn't limit anybody's ability to avail themselves of the judicial process. It just shortens the timeline so that everybody achieves greater certainty in terms of the outcome."
San Diego worries about a Chargers run to Los Angeles
Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times
September 5, 2011, 9:24 p.m.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-chargers-20110906,0,6044302,full.story
Reporting from San Diego— The San Diego Chargers went to Miramar Marine Corps Air Station last week for a light practice and a round of autograph signing in front of an appreciative crowd of several hundred Marines and their family members.
Soon the Marines will deploy to a place viewed with dread by many in San Diego: Afghanistan.
There is growing concern locally that the Chargers will also deploy to a place regarded with a mix of trepidation and disgust: Los Angeles.
A decade after the Chargers' ownership suggested that the franchise needs a new stadium if it is to remain in San Diego, there is no plan on the table.
Battered by years of controversy over the city's budget problems — including its burgeoning pension liability — City Council members have busied themselves with projects of immediate concern to their constituents: potholes, library hours, lifeguard staffing and fire protection.
The business and political establishment that once could cut a deal over lunch is no more.
"As San Diego has matured, what we've seen is a decentralization of the power base," said county Supervisor Ron Roberts, who plans to meet soon with Mayor Jerry Sanders and Supervisor Dianne Jacob to see if a private-public proposal can be cobbled together with the Chargers.
The hour appears late.
"It is indisputable that most people in San Diego, whether football fans or not, want the Chargers to stay," said George Mitrovich, president of the City Club of San Diego, the city's leading public forum. "But there's been a collective failure by business, government and the Chargers to achieve what the people want."
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, two competing proposals to build a stadium and lure an NFL team seem to be racing along. Although other teams are mentioned, the top target appears to be the Chargers.
Still, as Roberts and others see it, San Diego retains two enormous advantages. First, there is no indication the Spanos family wants to sell controlling interest in the Chargers, which would seemingly be a requirement for any stadium builder.
And, second, the family has repeatedly said it prefers to remain in San Diego if a replacement for aging Qualcomm Stadium in Mission Valley can be had.
Last week, the Spanos family's spokesman, La Jolla attorney Mark Fabiani, emailed an unequivocal denial to a blogger who wrote that a secret deal had been made to have the Chargers move next year to Los Angeles and shift control to AEG's Philip Anschutz.
If there is lukewarm support for a new stadium, it may boil down to wins and losses. When San Diego voters approved funding for Petco Park in 1998, the Padres were in the midst of a World Series season. The Chargers, despite some winning seasons, last went to the Super Bowl in 1995.
"The Chargers are like the guy who takes the girl to Sizzler for dinner and wonders why she's not impressed," said Carl Luna, a political science professor at San Diego Mesa College. "The Padres took us to Mr. A's," a reference to one of the city's top eating and drinking spots.
The mayor is among those in San Diego who believe the Los Angeles boosters and media are underestimating the financial and regulatory difficulty of building a stadium.
Sanders recently visited Indianapolis, Denver and Kansas City in pursuit of stadium ideas. In each of those cities, the venue used money from a voter-approved tax — an idea that appears dead on arrival in San Diego.
In California, tax proposals require a two-thirds majority to pass. San Diego has a history of strong opposition to taxation. Last year, voters overwhelmingly rejected a half-cent sales tax that the mayor insisted was needed to avoid massive layoffs, including police and firefighters.
The Petco Park proposal was arranged so that only a simple majority was needed. It passed with 60%.
Any proposal that includes a public subsidy — a direct tax, a discounted sale on public land or use of city bonding capacity — will meet with strong local opposition and possible litigation (as did the Petco plan). City officials have promised a public vote by fall 2012.
"A football team is a private business that doesn't share profits with the public, regardless of the public investment," said David Rolland, editor of San Diego City Beat, a weekly newspaper devoted to politics, arts and entertainment.
Considering the city's problems with maintaining public services, "saying no to a general-fund-subsidized sports stadium is a slam-dunk," he said.
Fred Schnaubelt, devoted Libertarian and former City Council member, puts his opposition to public financing in a historical context:
"Since ancient Rome," he said, "bread and circuses have distracted the people from more serious matters and the messes governments have created. Never underestimate an NFL billionaire's ability to get the politicians out front to explain to the masses how rich the city will become and how 'world class' with a new football stadium."
Roberts and others insist that a proposal fashioned as part of a redevelopment plan, with the prospect of jobs, tax revenues and spin-off businesses, could pass muster with voters, much like Petco Park.
"The Chargers are a significant part of the San Diego character," he said, "and I think people feel that."
Vladimir Kogan, a journalist, UC San Diego doctoral student and co-author of the book "Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failures in San Diego," thinks the redevelopment-style plan might gain acceptance, although the "public subsidy will still be enormous" through the shifting of redevelopment and tourist-tax funds.
If San Diego residents consider it unthinkable that a team would abandon what locals call "America's Finest City," they need only remember that several professional basketball teams have departed, including the Clippers to Los Angeles in 1984.
"If the Chargers leave, it will break my heart," said Mitrovich, "but my heart's been broken before."