Today, Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), plans to release an environmental impact report of its proposal to build a football stadium in downtown Los Angeles and renovate the convention center. The report, which is 10,000 pages long, will address issues such as traffic implications, air quality, noise and safety.
After AEG President and CEO Tim Leiweke presents the report, there will be a 45-day period for public comments (although Councilman Bill Rosendahl wants 90 days due to the report’s length), and after being approved by the City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, it has 175 days to face any legal challenges. Meanwhile, in the City of Industry, Majestic Realty has a plan for a proposed stadium, which does not have to face the same tough environmental requirements as AEG.
A law signed by Governor Jerry Brown last September places several restrictions on a stadium in downtown Los Angeles, including requiring it to have the highest amount of attendance via non-automobiles out of any NFL stadium in the country.
As a direct result, AEG has made promises to upgrade intersections near the stadium, add a lane on the 101 freeway, and expand the light rail system. Additionally, AEG claims that a stadium and modern convention center would bring in $1.7 billion to downtown Los Angeles.
Is this an exaggeration? Are AEG’s efforts to deal with environmental restrictions going far enough? Does the report reveal any dramatically negative effects about the presence of a stadium downtown? Will this report increase or decrease AEG’s chances of clinching the right to build vs. Majestic Realty in Industry? Is all of this worth it to get an NFL team back in Los Angeles?
Sam Farmer, NFL Columnist, Los Angeles Times
Bill Rosendahl, Los Angeles City Councilmember, 11th District, which includes Brentwood, Del Rey, Mar Vista, Marina del Rey, Pacific Palisades, Palms, Playa del Rey, Playa Vista, Venice, West LA and Westchester.