Oppose NFL's use of the Rose Bowl and even more HUGE events there

The Issue

Please consider signing the petition using the electronic signature below to oppose the NFL at the Rose Bowl.

Pasadena. On January 3rd the Coalition for Preservation of the Arroyo, a newly formed public interest group, joined by the East Arroyo Neighborhood Preservation Committee, the Linda Vista Annandale Association, and the San Rafael Neighborhoods Association, sued Pasadena in Los Angeles Superior Court on environmental grounds. The lawsuit contends that Pasadena violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in amending its municipal code to allow expanded use of the historic Rose Bowl Stadium by the NFL while construction of a permanent NFL stadium is pending in Los Angeles.

In doing so, the City failed to comply with local and state laws in approving the five-year use of the Rose Bowl for up to 13 NFL games.

Background. City of Pasadena Citizens voted overwhelmingly (72% against) in opposition to the NFL at the Rose Bowl on Nov 7, 2006. A majority of every District in Pasadena was opposed. See: http://www.pasadenafirst.com

But Pasadena City officials have now approved a project for renting the Rose Bowl to the NFL for up to 5 years as swing space for an NFL team that would ultimately occupy the Farmer's Field stadium being pursued by AEG. They are doing this to try to raise capital to pay for a huge cost over-run of the recent Rose Bowl Statium renovation project, an over-run now approximated at $40 million dollars or so. But should this project go forward its dollar cost will pale by comparison to its environmental and human costs, in addition to the political tragedy associated with a project being jammed down the throats of Pasadena citizens that already voted overwhelmingly against it in 2006. Mayor Bogaard and Pasadena City Council Members, what happened to representative goverment?

Renting to the NFL would increase from 12 to 25 the number of "large scale" displacement events allowed at the Rose Bowl (> 20,000 attendance) each year, events that currently force everyone out of the area at 3am on a typical UCLA game day. This includes an estimated 10,000-12,000 recreational users on a typical Saturday or Sunday in the Fall. This is more than a 100% increase of such displacement events, and warrants a great deal more thought in terms of consequences than has been given to it by City officials pursuing this project. Such a move will not only displace thousands of peaceful, socioeconomically and racially diverse residents now using our parks, pools, and recreational facilities each week (softball, baseball, soccer, dog training, aquatic center, golf, aerobics, jogging, etc...), but will have severe environmental impacts. On some Autumn weekends the Rose Bowl would become unusable for casual recreation due to UCLA games on Saturday and NFL games on Sunday, with set-up and clean-up spanning the Friday before and Monday thereafter. Such a change may also create untold havoc for local Pasadena neighborhoods and businesses as residents may avoid much of the area for long stretches of time on game days due to traffic, shown in the DEIR to have significant and unavoidable impacts.

While some businesses could benefit (hotel/bars), many might experience a financial downside as a result of such traffic disruptions. Crime may increase, as will noise, garbage, damage to facilities and playing fields that would be used for parking instead of soccer, and air pollution. Emergency services (police, fire, medical) could be compromised to the Pasadena area as a result.

The Environmental Impact Report, for which Pasadena paid ca. $400,000, states quite clearly that air quality would be negatively impacted, and pollutants including PMs (particulate matters) "would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds" and therefore "daily cumulative emissions generated by the proposed projects would be considered a significant impact". PMs are well known to be linked to severe human health issues. We should be looking for ways to reduce PMs in Pasadena, not exploring projects where the data clearly shows they would exceed accepted thresholds. The DEIR states particulate matter (PM) and other pollutant levels, measured 3 miles away from the Rose Bowl at a facility near Caltech, would rise to nearly an order of magnitude (10x) higher than SCAQMD thresholds. PMs in the Rose Bowl area itself would undoubtedly be even worse owing to the geography there, where the 'bowl' holds onto air and pollutants much longer than elsewhere. No mitigation measures would change this, according to the DEIR. This kind of anticipated result from an EIR study should imply a "no go" for a project.

Indeed, of the 7 areas studied in the DEIR, 4 areas unequivocally show "significant and unavoidable" impacts to our environment. Take traffic: on a Sunday game, of the 66 intersections studied, 32% would score terribly on level of service (F, E, or D) regardless of mitigation measures, and 74% of intersections would be significantly impacted, according to the DEIR. A weekday game would be far worse, with 83% of intersections significantly impacted and well over half of them receiving terrible grades for level of service.

Despite this information informing us of some of the high costs of such a project, the DEIR fails to measure accurately the environmental impact to our local Pasadena neighborhood quality of life and local wildlife/ecology, and to the displacement of the thousands of local residents who use the area for recreation. The DEIR study seems to avoid very important issues the Pasadena City Council/RBOC might not want highlighted in it, rather than uniformly providing a fair and unbiased and comprehensive assessment. Those of us that live in Pasadena know full well the impact of big UCLA games and annual Rose Bowl game days. While we celebrate these occasions and our historic Rose Bowl, do we want to add 13 more such events per year, all packed into the same 5 month period, just so the NFL can play here?

Such a question begs we ask other questions. What are the anticipated cumulative impacts to our neighborhoods and quality of life? How can this be determined without already having a specific NFL contract on the table so we know what we are evaluating in the first place?

Additionally, (i) What would the specific benefits be to critical Pasadena City issues, such as Pasadena Unified Schools? (ii) How many new jobs would be created for Pasadena area residents, and at what frequency of work and benefits, and for what length of time? (iii) What downside economic effects are there that need to be considered? For example, for businesses not in food and liquor, would folks avoid Pasadena on NFL game days, making lots of small businesses suffer instead of prosper? (iv) What socioeconomic and racial demographic will be displaced from the Rose Bowl area on NFL events, and what demographic replaces them at the games? (v) What happens when the NFL departs and the economic vacuum is left behind? Will the municipal code return to its originally intended 12 displacement game schedule, or will the Pasadena City vote to further amend the code and start looking for other ways to raise more cash? (vi) What impact can we expect on Pasadena emergency services, including fire, ambulance, and police? (vii) For residents that use the Rose Bowl because it is safe and well lit, many who come from comparatively high crime neighborhoods, where are they supposed to go instead? Where are women supposed to go for a 3-mile walk that is comparatively safe and enjoyable? City officials really need to have a substantive dialogue with citizens of Pasadena and surrounding communities on such a wide range of topics that need to be considered. This project will impact everyone's life that resides in the area, and we deserve substantive, detailed answers to such questions.

The San Rafael Neighborhood Association (SRNA) Board of Directors recently voted to OPPOSE the proposed temporary use of the Rose Bowl by the National Football League (NFL). SRNA joins the Linda Vista Annandale Association (LVAA) in this action. This position is supportive of The Governors Advisory Panel Report from the Urban Land Institute (ULI), an impartial group that is urging Pasadena not to offer the Rose Bowl as a temporary NFL home.

The Pasadena City Council and the Mayor's Office have not invested sufficiently in educating the community of the proposed change. The City claims it delivered flyers to residents living within 500 ft of the structure. Go to the Rose Bowl and ask yourself how many houses there are within 500 ft! It's hard to imagine they were willing to admit this publicly at the Planning Commision Special Meeting on Sept 19th, but they did. This petition and associated information seeks to change the tide on information dissemination and to help inform the community of a project that will impact our local quality of life in a dramatic way, and that was turned down by 72% of Pasadena voters in 2006.

Copy your local representatives and let them know you too are angry and willing to take action on this matter!

Support the Coalition for Preservation of the Arroyo!!

Easy e-mail string to hit all relevant addresses:

RoseBowlNFLComments@cityofpasadena.net, bbogaard@cityofpasadena.net, district1@cityofpasadena.net, mmcaustin@cityofpasadena.net, jmcintyre@cityofpasadena.net, nsullivan@cityofpasadena.net, vdelacuba@cityofpasadena.net, smadison@cityofpasadena.net, ttornek@cityofpasadena.net, dsinclair@cityofpasadena.net