• Assembly approves AEG football stadium bill -- OC Register
• Touchdown on L.A. stadium bill is within reach — LA Times
• Coliseum, USC to negotiate lease — ESPN
• Farmers Field plan can be expedited — ESPN
• Assembly approves special treatment for downtown L.A. Stadium — LA Times
• Farmers Field 'Fast Track' Bill Passes California Assembly — LA Weekly
• Los Angeles stadium supporters put more pressure on lawmakers — LA Times
• Bill to spur construction of LA football stadium passes Assembly — Sac Bee
• So what about the traffic coming out of downtown stadium? -- LA Observed
• L.A. Coliseum Commission to consider firing top officials — LA Times
• It's back to basics and buzz as NFL starts up in Green Bay — LA Times
• Chargers' value would increase with move to L.A. -- LA Times
Assembly passes bill protecting AEG's stadium project
SCOTT M. REID, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
September 8, 2011
http://www.ocregister.com/sports/-316063--.html
The state assembly approved legislation Thursday that would give the Anschutz Entertainment Group’s proposed $1.2 billion Los Angeles stadium special protection from protracted legal challenges over the project’s potential environmental impact.
SB 292 passed the assembly by a 59-13 vote, and it is expected to be passed by the senate on Thursday and forwarded to Gov. Jerry Brown, one day before the legislature’s scheduled recess Friday.
While the bill does not give AEG an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, it does expedite the legal process for challenging the Farmers Field project’s environmental impact report. Legal challenges would go directly to a Los Angeles-based Court of Appeals, which would issue a ruling within 175 days.
In return for the streamlined process, AEG agreed to environmental safeguards that would be enforced by Los Angeles city officials. The stricter environmental guidelines attracted the support of environmental groups such as the California League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which criticized an earlier form of the bill only days earlier.
“Farmers Field will be the most far-reaching environmentally friendly stadium in the United States,” said Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles), co-author of the bill with Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima). “This bill requires that the percentage of attendees arriving at stadium events by public transit and other non-vehicle means will be 10 percent better than any other NFL stadium in the country.”
AEG officials have said the stadium project will not move forward without passage of the bill before the recess.
AEG hopes to complete it EIR early next year and reach a final agreement with the Los Angeles City Council in time to break ground next June and open the stadium in time for the 2016 NFL season opener.
Assembly approves AEG football stadium bill
Brian Joseph, Timothy Sandoval and Ramon Solis, OC Register
September 8, 2011
http://www.ocregister.com/news/assembly-315966-approved-sandoval.html
The State Assembly approved this afternoon last-minute legislation to expedite judicial reviews on Anschutz Entertainment Group’s proposed $1.2 billion downtown Los Angeles football stadium. The proposed stadium, known as Farmers Field, would be for a Los Angeles NFL team.
The bill — Senate Bill 292 — was just introduced nine days ago and is controversial for creating special rules for a single construction project. The bill includes no exemptions from environmental laws, but does allow for legal challenges to the project’s environmental impact report to be heard immediately. The case would be heard by the Court of Appeals — not the Superior Court — and the court would be required to come to a decision in 175 days.
AEG likes the bill because it shaves a lot of time off of potential legal challenges that could postpone the project.
Lawmakers like the stadium because AEG has proposed an environmentally friendly project.
“Farmers Field will be the most far-reaching environmentally friendly stadium in the United States,” Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez said in a statement following the bill’s passage. Pérez is a co-author of SB 292. “This bill requires that the percentage of attendees arriving at stadium events by public transit and other non-vehicle means will be 10 percent better than any other NFL stadium in the country,” the speaker said.
In 2009, the Legislature approved a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for a Majestic realty Co. proposed NFL football stadium in the City of Industry. That bill also was introduced late in the legislative session.
During the debate, lawmakers acknowledged that the bill has indeed been introduced late in the process, but said it was nonetheless worth it because it will create jobs.
“This is not a perfect bill. This is not a perfect process,” said Assemblyman Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles. “But let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
Assemblyman Jose Solorio also noted that this bill would likely create jobs in Orange County. Several times during the debate, lawmakers said that the proposed project would create 23,000 jobs.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office has been sharply critical of the job estimates associated with this project, saying that “the NFL franchise and stadium alone would likely not create 6,000 permanent jobs.”
The bill was approved on a 59-13 vote in the Assembly. It now moves to the Senate.
Touchdown on L.A. stadium bill is within reach
George Skelton, LA times
September 8, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-stadium-20110908,0,7156002.column?track=rss
Reporting from Sacramento
In gridiron jargon, promoters of a downtown Los Angeles football stadium have reached the legislative red zone. They're pounding toward the goal line.
They're at the 10 on first down, but time is running out.
This year's legislative session is slated to end Friday, although there's nothing written in stone about that deadline. Legislators could waive the rules and go into overtime, but it's not likely. They seem as sick of the Sacramento game as the public.
One of the heavily lobbied bills in play would fast-track legal challenges to Anschutz Entertainment Group's proposed 72,000-seat stadium, Farmers Field, next to Staples Center, which it also developed.
It would be nice for L.A. Basin football fans to have a local NFL team to root for again. It has been 17 seasons since the Raiders deserted to Oakland and the Rams to St. Louis.
Some degree of civic pride is at stake, although I tend to agree with the headline on a recent sports column by The Times' T.J. Simers, which read: "The best seat for games is the one in your house."
Simers wrote: "You take two NFL teams away at the same time and don't replace them for a span of 17 years, and as anyone [in L.A.] could tell you, it makes for great TV."
That's because with a local team come restrictions on televised games. The cruelest restriction is a local blackout on TV coverage of a home game if the stadium isn't sold out 72 hours before kickoff.
And these days, as Simers noted, "it's going to cost at least a car payment" to attend an NFL game.
Last season, the average ticket price for a San Diego Chargers game was about $158; for the San Francisco 49ers $142. That didn't include outrageous prices for parking, nachos and beer.
Of course, this stadium project isn't just about wealthy football hobbyists who can afford season ducats or millions of rooting couch potatoes.
Its chief selling point is job creation — and not just for the players, whose average salary last season was $1.9 million, or merely for the hordes of lobbyists and consultants hired by politically influential AEG to quarterback its bill.
Promoters contend this $1.2-billion project — essentially privately financed — would create more than 20,000 jobs, 6,320 of them permanent.
The bill, SB 292 — by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) and strongly pushed by Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles) — is aimed at cutting several months, if not years, off construction.
It would not exempt AEG from any requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a costly quicksand pit for many frustrated developers. It still would be subject to lawsuits.
But court rulings would come more quickly than normal. Suits would bypass the Superior Court and go directly to an appellate court. And a decision would have to be rendered within 175 days, rather than taking up to a year, as is typical.
In return, AEG has promised to make its stadium the most environmentally friendly in the NFL, and the Padilla bill would require it. Farmers Field would have to maximize public transportation and be "carbon neutral." Not as sweet a deal as the Legislature granted two years ago to a potential rival stadium in the City of Industry.
The L.A. bill was tweaked Tuesday to pick up the support of two key environmental groups: the Natural Resources Defense Council and the California League of Conservation Voters.
The measure passed the Assembly overwhelmingly on Wednesday and moved to the Senate.
If AEG should come up short, it won't be the fault of any legislative dysfunction. It would be the fault of AEG for delaying the legislative process by not announcing its specific proposal until last Friday.
The developer's representatives spent weeks trying to negotiate a private backroom deal between competing interests. The plan was to jam through a bill at the last minute without public hearings, leaving little time for the generation of public opposition.
Actually, given high unemployment and the stagnant economy, there's little to complain about in the measure — especially since Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) entered the game.
Steinberg asked the same question that has bothered Gov. Jerry Brown: Why pass a bill just to help one outfit? Why not grant the same lawsuit shortcuts to other large environmentally friendly, job-creating developers?
Shortcuts that would help developers of renewable energy and urban "in-fill" projects — such as a potential downtown Sacramento basketball arena aimed at keeping the NBA Kings from moving to Anaheim.
Steinberg is pushing a companion bill to do just that, and it makes sense. The governor would decide which projects qualified for lawsuit expediting. It's a needed step toward reforming the cumbersome environmental quality act and erasing the perception that California is anti-business.
"Thirty days ago if you'd asked me whether there was a mood in the Capitol to embrace changes in [the California Environmental Quality Act] I would have said, 'I don't think so,'" Padilla says. "The unemployment rate has led to a climate that I haven't seen in five years up here."
And it's football season.
Hopefully neither the Legislature nor the governor will trip over their cleats.
Coliseum, USC to negotiate lease
Arash Markazi, ESPNLosAngeles.com
September 8, 2011
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/6942126/coliseum-commission-usc-trojans-negotiate-master-lease
LOS ANGELES -- The Coliseum Commission, the nine-member governing body of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, unanimously voted Wednesday to engage in negotiations with USC on a master lease for the 88-year-old stadium.
An agreement is expected to be reached within 90 days and would give the university the exclusive right to use, manage and operate the stadium.
"We are pleased that the Coliseum Commission has voted to enter into negotiations with USC," said Thomas Sayles, USC's senior vice president for university relations. "We hope that through these negotiations the parties can agree upon a long-term lease that allows the Coliseum to be restored to its former glory and ensures its viability for many generations to come. Our goal is to make the Coliseum a proud landmark and gathering place for all Angelenos."
The vote was 8-0, with committee member Rick Caruso, who is a state appointee on the Coliseum Commission and on the USC board of trustees, recusing himself from discussions.
The only member of the commission who was adamantly against USC's request for the master lease was councilman Bernard Parks. He was the only one in an 8-1 vote in 2008 who was against USC's current lease because he objected to USC's having veto power over an NFL team returning to the stadium, a decision that effectively ended the Coliseum's 13-year pursuit of an NFL team.
On Wednesday, however, Parks seemed more open to the possibility of USC obtaining the master lease.
"What I voted for was for the [commission] to begin negotiations," Parks said. "There is nothing that obligates us. The process for discussion is what we voted on. You can always have the option of voting against the lease agreement if one should be forthcoming."
Parks said he would be open-minded during the negotiations and would be open to the university's gaining the master lease if the stadium, which is jointly owned by the State of California, Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles, remains accessible to the public.
"We'll see. It's all a part of the negotiation," Parks said. "My big concern is this facility is a public facility and what I want is for it to remain public as much as possible."
After the vote was announced, Coliseum Commission president David Israel and Kristina Raspe, USC's associate senior vice president of real estate and asset management, spoke briefly under the peristyle entrance of the Coliseum.
Both sides have yet to talk about the legal and financial details of a deal, but after preliminary talks it seems the commission and the school will be able to come to an agreement before the commission's Dec. 7 meeting. Even if Parks is unable to be convinced, an 8-1 vote would likely be the result, according to one commission member.
USC has wanted to gain control of the Coliseum for years and is finally poised to do so after commission members acknowledged earlier this year they would be unable to keep their promise to USC to make $50 million in improvements to the aging facility. Four years ago USC offered to pay $100 million to renovate the Coliseum in exchange for the master lease, but the commission rejected it. They believed a naming rights deal for the Coliseum would net them just as much, if not more. The economy, however, crashed soon after and with it went a couple of naming-rights deals the commission was working on.
After gaining control of the Coliseum, USC officials say they will begin plans to return the Coliseum to the condition that made it the home of two Olympic Games and two Super Bowls.
"Our goal is to ensure that the facility continues to be a long-term asset for the community and for the university," Sayles said. "As a loyal and dedicated tenant of over 90 years, we want to return the Coliseum to its former glory and be the caretaker it deserves for future generations. ... We have believed for some time that having a master lease would be in the best long-term interests of the community and the university."
The private university hasn't had a problem raising money for high-profile projects in recent years. USC will open a new $70 million athletic center next year and opened a $136 million student center last year. Five years ago USC opened the $147 million Galen Center, which is the home of the school's basketball and volleyball teams.
USC will launch what it's calling "the most ambitious fundraising campaign in the history of higher education" on Sept. 15, as the university seeks to raise $6 billion. A portion of that figure would go toward capital projects and infrastructure. The university has already raised more than $1 billion toward the $6 billion goal and anticipates reaching or exceeding its goal within seven years.
"There are those of us that see it as a potential opportunity to really rehabilitate the Coliseum to its greatness," said supervisor Don Knabe, who is the vice president of the Coliseum Commission. "Our opportunities for revenue raising is somewhat limited and with [USC] being the No. 1 tenant, there is that opportunity."
The Coliseum has recently been brought up as a potential temporary home of an NFL team if one decides to relocate to Los Angeles while a permanent home is being built. AEG has promised city officials it will make every effort to have an NFL team play temporarily at the Coliseum if ground is broken on Farmers Field. USC officials said they would be open to the possibility of an NFL team playing at the Coliseum on a temporary basis, with the revenue generated from those games being used to further improve the stadium.
The Rose Bowl, however, has expressed interest in serving as a temporary home to a Los Angeles NFL team as well and is in the midst of a $152 million renovation. A total of $168 million has been spent refurbishing the 89-year-old Rose Bowl since 2007. Meanwhile, the Coliseum has slowly been decaying since the Raiders left for Oakland in 1995, as commission members waited for an NFL team or a big naming-rights deal to come in and save the stadium.
"I agree with some of the complaints USC has made," Israel said. "During this period where there has been no NFL, [the Coliseum Commission] was waiting for the NFL to come back and make it perfect and modern again. So capital improvements were delayed and delayed and the decay became worse and worse because they kept waiting for the salvation of a National Football League team. The NFL did not want to play at the Coliseum and frankly they're right to not want to play at the Coliseum. The Coliseum is a wonderful place for USC and college football. The NFL and college football have completely different needs for a live audience."
Farmers Field plan can be expedited
Arash Markazi, ESPNLosAngeles.com
September 8, 2011
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/6941768/assembly-votes-expedite-farmers-field-plan
A bill to expedite legal challenges to Farmers Field, Anschutz Entertainment Group's $1.2 billion proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, passed the California State Assembly with overwhelming bipartisan support on Wednesday.
Senate Bill 292, which passed 59-13, will next be heard by the full Senate which will vote on it before Friday's deadline for action on bills when Sacramento lawmakers will break for recess.
"Farmers Field will be the most far-reaching environmentally friendly stadium in the United States," said assembly speaker John A. Pérez. "This bill requires that the percentage of attendees arriving at stadium events by public transit and other non-vehicle means will be 10 percent better than any other NFL stadium in the country."
Senator Alex Padilla, who authored the bill, introduced the legislation last week and on Tuesday spoke to the California State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, which voted 5-1 in favor of the bill, and later to the California State Assembly Committee on Appropriations, which voted 12-1 in favor of the bill.
"I think we've crafted a bill in a well-balanced way and we're not compromising any California environmental laws," Padilla said. "There is no public subsidy here. There is someone in Los Angeles willing to put over $1 billion of their own money in this proposal. If it is approved and the NFL decides to move a team here it will put 10,000 people at work during construction alone. Once that's done and the convention center is done there is another 10,000 permanent jobs on the tail end of that. This opportunity is huge."
The bill, which includes no exemption from environmental laws, 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 has committed to making Farmers Field one of the only stadiums in the country to have a net-zero carbon footprint.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and the California League of Conservation Voters on Tuesday also backed the bill after initially raising concerns.
After the bill was introduced on Friday, David Pettit, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, issued a pointed statement, calling the bill a "weak, last-minute, back-room deal" and a "missed opportunity for Los Angeles and a dangerous precedent for California" that "can and should be fixed."
On Tuesday, Pettit, after meeting with assembly speaker John A. Pérez and Padilla, praised the project as he stood in front of the California State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and supported the bill along with Warner Chabot, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters.
"We are totally on the same page now," Pettit said. "I think this is a great project, it's in the perfect location and you'll be able to take public transit. I was a Rams fan as a kid and I can't wait to have football back in Los Angeles. I made some very critical remarks about the first draft of the bill that I have taken a lot of heat for but I've worked closely with the speaker's office in innumerable calls and meetings and I think now we're at a place that's way better than we first started."
Pettit said he came around to supporting the bill after convincing Perez and Padilla to adjust a few aspects of it, which would make it more acceptable to environmentalists and politicians alike.
"There were discussions all through the holiday weekend and there were three main things we wanted that I had been critical of in the past and we got commitments on all three of them," said Pettit, who was still working on the new provisions in the bill moments before endorsing it. "We got stronger mitigation, we got longer-lasting mitigation for the life of the project, not just for the first 10 years, and we got rid of the opt-out provision. There were these opt-out provisions in the bill where AEG could take their ball and go home if they thought they were going to lose in court.
"They could opt out and go back to the normal process and go to the Superior Court. If they did that they weren't bound by the special protections they agreed to in the bill. That had to come out and it is now gone."
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," AEG president and CEO Tim 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.
The topic came up during the California State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources hearing when assembly member Jared Huffman, whose district represents Marin County and Sonoma County in Northern California, was more interested in including provisions that would prevent the proposed stadium from being the future home of a current NFL team in California than any environmental laws.
"My concern is if one of the existing franchises in another part of California is the one that picks up sticks and moves to this wonderful new stadium, it's probably fair to say then we are not creating new jobs in California, we are just relocating jobs," Huffman said. "If you wanted to put us at ease, those of us who are not LA-centric in our NFL support, it would be possible to have a provision that says none of this happens if it's a California franchise. ... I'm not sure why that's an unreasonable condition."
Padilla said the bill was not intended to dictate which NFL team can or can't come to Los Angeles and it would be wrong for lawmakers to put such restrictions on a city and a privately financed project which would create thousands of new jobs.
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 would come from their neighbors to the north or south. This is not lost on many lawmakers in San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco who don't want to use public funds to finance a new stadium in their backyard but also don't want to lose their team to a privately financed stadium in Los Angeles.
"This has been a hurdle since Friday but we continue to remind everyone that only the NFL decides which teams will move where," Padilla said. "That's not our role here. It's important to remember that unlike other sports stadium and arena conversations we've heard of, this project is completely privately financed. Those legislators in San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco should work with their local partners to try to find a private investment facility of their own but thus far we haven't heard that from them."
Assembly approves special treatment for downtown L.A. stadium
Patrick McGreevy, LA Times
September 8, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/football-stadium-assembly.html
The state Assembly on Wednesday approved legislation to smooth the way for construction of a $1.2-billion football stadium in downtown Los Angeles after Democratic leaders promised it would provide thousands of jobs for an economically distressed city and would set new standards for reducing traffic and air pollution.
Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles), a coauthor of the special bill, said the project by Anschutz Entertainment Group would comply with the state’s tough environmental laws even as it provides court review of any lawsuits challenging the 72,000-seat stadium project in a "timely manner."
"Farmers Field will be the most far-reaching and environmentally friendly stadium in the United States," Pérez told his colleagues.
Pérez said other projects also will be able to benefit from the special, speedy review that AEG would receive. An additional bill is being mulled in the state Senate to expand the exemption to new projects with a price tag over $250 million that win special environmental certification as green buildings. It would be joined to Pérez's bill in order for it to clear the upper house.
SB 292 was approved in the Assembly on a 59-13 vote. It would require any environmental lawsuit against the project to be filed directly in the court of appeal and for a decision to be made within 175 days. That would allow investors and the NFL some confidence that the project will not face years of costly delays, supporters say.
Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Silver Lake) said the project, which also includes modernizing part of the Los Angeles Convention Center, is critical to help the state out of its economic slump.
"Folks, we are in a crisis" Gatto said. "We have tremendous unemployment. "
The developers say the project would create more than 10,000 construction jobs and a similar number of permanent jobs once the stadium opens.
But Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) said if the stadium ends up wooing an existing California team, such as the San Diego Chargers, it would only be moving jobs from one city to another within the state.
Huffman told Assembly members that he opposes "special" legislation for one project at "the 11th hour" of the legislative year. He said it will encourage others to seek the same favor.
"It does set a precedent. I am troubled by that," Huffman said.
Assemblyman Chris Norby (R-Fullerton) said the law should not be different for developments "backed by a multibillionaire who can hire an army of lobbyists."
Farmers Field 'Fast Track' Bill Passes California Assembly
Dennis Romero, LA Weekly
Sep. 8, 2011
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/09/farmers_field_dtla_passes_assembly_eir.php
The forces behind downtown L.A.'s proposed stadium got their way in the state assembly today, it seems.
Anschutz Entertainment Group, the people behind Staples Center, are asking the legislature for a fast-track approval of its plans and for at least some protection from lawsuits over its environmental impact report.
State assembly speaker John Perez is carrying their day with SB 292, approved today by the assembly.
It would, in the words of Perez's office, allow for ...
expedited environmental reviews -- fast tracking job creation in the community while constructing a carbon-neutral stadium that will prioritize transit more than any other NFL stadium.
According to the bill's language, it would ...
... Establish specified administrative and judicial review procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the EIR and approvals granted for a project related to the development of a specified stadium in the City of Los Angeles.
Perez says it passed the assembly "with overwhelming bipartisan support."
It goes to the senate next and then, if it's approved, it'll head to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature or veto.
Be on the lookout for last-minute shenanigans Friday, however, the last day of the current legislative session. It's a time when last-minute changes are added so that as little debate as possible (often none, actually) can be aired before the public. Midnight is the deadline for that.
AEG proposes to build a $1.3 billion stadium atop the city-owned West Hall of the L.A. Convention Center.
Perez:
Farmers Field will be the most far-reaching environmentally friendly stadium in the United States. This bill requires that the percentage of attendees arriving at stadium events by public transit and other non-vehicle means will be 10 percent better than any other NFL stadium in the country.
The proposal to put a stadium in the middle of an area that includes LA Live and Staples Center is not without opposition, however.
Los Angeles stadium supporters put more pressure on lawmakers
Patrick McGreevy, LA Times
September 7, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/09/los-angeles-stadium-supporters-increase-push-for-legislation.html
Backers of an NFL stadium proposed for downtown Los Angeles stepped up pressure Wednesday on state lawmakers to approve special legislation protecting the project from protracted litigation.
Representatives of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and Southern Christian Leadership Conference held an event in front of the district office of state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) urging the staunch environmentalist to support SB 292. "We need jobs,’’ said Caroline O'Connor, a spokeswoman for the labor federation.
At the same time, Tim Leiweke, chief executive for stadium developer AEG, sent out an email to Los Angeles residents urging them to write letters to "swing votes’’ in the Legislature, including eight state senators, asking them to support the bill on Farmers Field.
"Whether you're eagerly anticipating Los Angeles' new NFL team, or cheering for your favorite musical act at a brand-new downtown outdoor venue, this bill will help keep Farmers Field on track to break ground next year,’’ Leiweke wrote.
Leiweke's appeal said potential swing votes that should be contacted include state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), Senate Republican leader Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga and Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton). Hall carried a bill two years ago that waived environmental rules for a competing football stadium in the city of Industry.
Leiweke also urged people to write their support to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not yet taken a public position on the AEG bill.
Bill to spur construction of LA football stadium passes Assembly
Capitol Alert, Sacramento Bee
September 7, 2011
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/bill-to-spur-construction-of-l.html
Legislation to help pave the way for construction of a new Los Angeles professional football stadium was approved by the Assembly today.
Senate Bill 292, crafted in the final week of the legislative session, passed the Assembly by a wide margin, 59-13.
The measure would not exempt the proposed football stadium project from state environmental laws, but it would create a process for expedited judicial review of environmental challenges.
Under SB 292, the Los Angeles-based 2nd District Court of Appeal would issue a decision on a stadium challenge within 175 days, cutting 100 days or more off the typical process, according to an Assembly analysis.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez painted the measure as a way to generate 23,000 construction and other jobs while imposing strict air quality and trip-reduction standards on the proposed Farmers Field Project.
SB 292 would apply only to the Los Angeles project, designed to encourage construction of a privately financed stadium capable of accommodating a National Football League team.
Revenue produced by the stadium is counted upon to finance a new Los Angeles convention center facility.
Opponents criticized accommodating a wealthy development group, Anschutz Entertainment Group, or AEG, with a stadium-specific bill in the final days of a legislative year.
"This is no way to run a railroad," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, a San Rafael Democrat who nonetheless applauded the bill as narrowly tailored and environmentally sensitive.
Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, questioned the value of many jobs that would be created by a new stadium -- ushers, ticket sellers, popcorn vendors and other such positions do not provide long-term stability, he said.
Norby said that no developer would build a football stadium without assurance of a team - and if the San Diego Chargers move to Los Angeles, as many fear, would that really be economic development for California?
"Moving professional sports teams within the state is not economic development, it's checkers - and ultimately there is a public price that must be paid," Norby said.
SB 292 now goes to the Senate amid talks among legislative leaders of expanding the concept to create similar exceptions on other construction projects, including a downtown arena in Sacramento.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has talked with Perez and Gov. Jerry Brown about a companion measure to accelerate judicial review for alternative energy manufacturing plants, clean energy projects and urban infill projects.
So what about the traffic coming out of downtown stadium?
Mark Lacter, LA Observed
September 7 2011
http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2011/09/so_what_about_the_tr.php
The city's preliminary deal with Anschutz Entertainment Group is light on the mitigation front, which has some traffic engineers wondering just how the developers plan to keep cars moving after the games. From the LA Weekly:
Robert Shanteau, a California consulting traffic engineer who helped create statewide standards for traffic signals that detect bicycles and motorcycles, is bothered that no City Council member seriously broached the subject of the massive costs to rebuild downtown roads and possibly freeway on-ramps and off-ramps. Those infrastructure needs were left out of both the MOU and the city's key analysis, the so-called "Comprehensive Economic Analysis of the Proposed Downtown Los Angeles Stadium and Convention Center Project." "In working for public agencies," Shanteau says, "I have found it impossible to provide unbiased professional input on a project when the City Council members have already made up their minds they want it."
Presumably, the traffic issue will come up in the environmental impact report that AEG is preparing on the stadium. Thing is, what happens if the mitigations proposed are not deemed adequate? Would the City Council be willing nix the entire project? Doubtful. And what happens if the stadium requires more infrastructure work than AEG is willing to pay for? Does that mean it's on L.A.'s dime? Better not be.
Traffic engineers and environmental leaders say congestion downtown can be expected to worsen drastically, despite rosy depictions by AEG, with "mitigation" around Farmers Field easily costing tens of millions of dollars. Under the city's longtime approach to development, they say AEG won't pay for more than a fraction of that, while taxpayers can expect to pay about 90 percent. And they expect the mitigations to fall short, leaving downtown with permanent new traffic problems. [AEG flak Michael] Roth sees it differently, assuring L.A. Weekly that an extensive traffic study launched by AEG, which he says has long been under way, will show that "we will be OK on traffic."
Quentin Fleming, a consultant who teaches strategic management at USC's Marshall School of Business, was at a June meeting in Mar Vista where Leiweke and an AEG traffic engineer again touted downtown's easy-in/easy-out access. Fleming couldn't believe what he was hearing. "AEG's claim defied reality," he says. "If the stadium is going to be as 'successful' as AEG claims, traffic is going to be a nightmare."
James Moore who handles transportation issues at the Rand Corp., tells the Weekly: "We have no business making the stadium decision without this level of [traffic] analysis in all dimensions."
L.A. Coliseum Commission to consider firing top officials
Rong-Gong Lin II, Paul Pringle, LA Times
September 7, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/la-memorial-coliseum-to-consider-firing-of-stadium-officials.html
The beleaguered Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission could hear a call Wednesday to fire its top leaders because of a growing financial scandal over the private business dealings of stadium managers.
City Councilman Bernard C. Parks called Saturday for the dismissal of the Coliseum's top two officials after a report in The Times that, citing records and interviews, said the Coliseum’s technology manager directed stadium business to a firm he founded.
In an email to other commissioners, Parks, whose district includes the Coliseum, said the panel should fire interim General Manager John Sandbrook and Finance Director Ronald Lederkramer as well as the technology manager, Leopold Caudillo Jr. Another Coliseum employee, David Shea, named in state records as an agent of the private firm, should also be ousted, Parks said.
Commissioners are also expected to discuss the future of USC’s lease agreement with the Coliseum. Because the financially struggling Coliseum is not likely to keep its promise to make $60 million in sorely needed renovations to the 88-year-old stadium, USC is expected to seek a “master lease” that would give the private university near-total control of the publicly owned stadium.
The USC-Coliseum negotiations have become an issue in trying to bring an NFL team to downtown Los Angeles. Anschutz Entertainment Group’s Tim Leiweke, the point man for the downtown football stadium, said last month that the Coliseum would be in play as a temporary home for a relocated NFL team only if it was USC -- not the Coliseum Commission -- that cut the deal.
Leiweke has said “there is no way economically we are the engine that drives a renovation” at the Coliseum. USC in the past has said it is willing to pay for renovations to the Coliseum if it receives a master lease.
The Coliseum Commission meets at 1:30 p.m. at the hearing room near Gate 33A, on the eastern end of the Coliseum.
It's back to basics and buzz as NFL starts up in Green Bay
Bill Dwyre, LA Times
September 7, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-green-bay-20110908,0,5097965.column
Say all you want about the NFL, and we do plenty of that here in jilted Los Angeles.
Call it greedy and arrogant, and you won't be wrong.
But never call it unlucky or stupid.
Thursday night's league opener sends New Orleans to Green Bay. The last two Super Bowl champions will slug it out before a national television audience that will tune in and stay there until the Super Bowl in February. The NFL is the ultimate television sport, featuring the competitive and violent tendencies that appeal to the ultimate sports fan. It is a rough and rugged reality, worshiped by millions who also use it for their organized fantasy.
Since 2002, the NFL has matched its previous two Super Bowl champions in its opener. Since 2004, the most recent champion has been the host. This year, opening in Green Bay works on so many levels.
This is the first game after an off-season labor dispute. That always carries with it anger and bad blood. Fans want to read about trades and expectations. For months, all they get is collective bargaining and salary caps. They, like those of us who have to write about it, know it is mostly a fraud and will end in time for the games, which it did.
In any major sport, getting the buzz back after a buzz-kill is difficult. But the NFL is getting on with the rest of its post-labor-dispute life perfectly.
It is going back to its roots, to a place where fans tailgate in snowbanks and embrace it; where Lambeau Field is named after the team's first coaching legend and nearby Lombardi Avenue is named after its next one; where a football team is as cherished as deer-hunting season.
The reality is that the NFL has become boardrooms, three-piece suits and Tim Leiweke talking about bonds and interim financing. When the success starts being measured in the billions, there is no turning back.
But the NFL will always need to be, in some form, the Packers and Green Bay.
It is a place, and a team, whose most famous football moment was a one-yard quarterback sneak. The dazzling San Francisco 49ers of the 1980s had "The Catch." The Packers, on a day so cold that the windchill was the only factor, had Bart Starr muscling into the end zone behind Jerry Kramer.
It is a place where the names Max McGee, Paul Hornung, Jim Taylor, Ken Bowman, Willie Davis, Bob Skoronski, Willie Wood, Dave Hanner, Elijah Pitts and Ray Nitschke, as well as Starr and Kramer and at least a half dozen others, remain household words. That was more than 40 years ago in Green Bay, and their names retain reverence.
And it is a place that has lived somewhat uneasily through the flamboyancy and unpredictability of Brett Favre and now breathes easily with Aaron Rodgers under center. He may be a Cal grad, and by stereotype a potential flower child. But he has turned out to be more Wisconsin, more working-class, more show-up-and-get-it-done-quietly than Favre, who brought Packers fans one Super Bowl title and several ensuing years of embarrassment.
Even star linebacker Clay Matthews, long hair flying from underneath his helmet, passes muster in Green Bay. They like it that his road to success includes making the team at USC as a walk-on. That work ethic works there.
Green Bay loved everything about its now deceased but-never-to-die Vince Lombardi. It loved how he stalked the sidelines, growled at players, made the Packers' signature play a simple power sweep, refused to give players big raises and then played Santa Claus at their kids' Christmas parties. Lombardi ate steak, drank Manhattans and worked long hours every day. So, still, does much of Green Bay and Wisconsin.
A recent NBC commercial shows Saints fans marching in to their appropriate song, spotting the big trophy sitting amid green-clad Packers fans and calling out, "Hey, that's our Super Bowl trophy." Packers fans go silent. Then a young girl says, simply, "We call it the Lombardi Trophy."
Which it is and always will be, whether or not it rests in Green Bay.
My brother-in-law Doug Born is long retired and even longer a Packers fan. As ready as the Packers players will be Thursday night, he will be readier. The hours in the day will lead to kickoff time, to the telecast, to a time when any excessive noise on the streets in any Wisconsin city will be unusual.
He will place the key plays in a memory bank, along with key plays from the Lombardi years, and months later we will talk about them. He worked as a teacher and administrator all his life, raised a family, paid his bills on time and loved the Packers. He is Middle America, just like they are.
Thursday night's traditional opener could have turned out to be the Giants-Chargers, or the Jets-Cowboys. That would have been fine. The football, as it always is in the NFL, would have been compelling.
But this year, the Saints versus the Packers is perfect. The win-one-for-Katrina-victims is still a good story line. So is the back-to-the-basics of city and football in Green Bay.
Doug Born will be in front of his TV set, his game back, his game face on. Any anger over how close greed and ego might have come to wrecking his game will dissolve in tackles and touchdowns.
The big guys in the fancy offices at NFL headquarters in New York will know that, feel it, and smile a lot.
They will either think they are smart or lucky. They are both.
Chargers' value would increase with move to L.A.
Jim Peltz, LA Times
September 7, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-san-diego-chargers-20110908,0,4221933.story
If the San Diego Chargers eventually move to the Los Angeles area, the NFL franchise could see its value jump by at least $200 million.
So concluded Forbes as the magazine Wednesday unveiled its annual ranking of how much the 32 NFL teams are worth.
The Chargers' value was estimated at $920 million, or 23rd highest in the league, a 1.4% increase from $907 million the prior year.
But with two competing proposals to build a new NFL stadium, if the Chargers moved to Los Angeles or an L.A. suburb, it "would increase the team's value by at least $200 million," or 21.7%, the magazine stated.
That would lift the Chargers' value to $1.12 billion and make it the eighth most valuable NFL team based on Forbes' latest ranking.
The Dallas Cowboys, with a value of $1.85 billion, were the most valuable NFL team for the fifth consecutive year. The Washington Redskins ($1.56 billion) were second, the New England Patriots ($1.4 billion) third and the New York Giants ($1.3 billion) fourth.
Overall, the average NFL team was worth $1.04 billion, also up 1.4% from last year, Forbes said.
A move to Los Angeles would boost the Chargers' value for several reasons, analysts said: A new stadium would offer more lucrative sponsorship opportunities, the larger population offers a wider customer base for premium ticket sales and the team would draw heightened media attention.
Los Angeles is "a stronger market for corporations and others to spend money at the stadium," said David Carter, executive director of USC's Sports Business Institute. "Any team relocating to Los Angeles would likely find itself in the top quartile of teams" in terms of NFL valuations.
But it's the Chargers, currently controlled by the Spanos family, who are considered the leading candidate to move if one of the two stadium proposals actually results in a new venue.
One is a stadium in downtown Los Angeles next to Staples Center backed by billionaire Philip Anschutz's AEG sports and entertainment concern. The other is a stadium in City of Industry backed by billionaire developer Ed Roski.
"The Chargers are only going to move to L.A. for a better stadium situation, and that would increase the value of the franchise," said Forbes Senior Editor Kurt Badenhausen.
Forbes noted that though the Chargers have a favorable lease at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, the facility was built in 1967 and "lacks modern amenities and sponsorship opportunities."
A new stadium generally "lends itself to more types of club areas that can be sponsored for companies that want to reach high-end clientele," Badenhausen said.
And, "The corporate base in L.A. is enormous relative to some of these other markets" and thus a deeper potential reservoir for an NFL team looking to sell higher-priced seats and sponsorships, he said.