Coming Up Roses? Pasadena Hesitant About Bowl Renovations

The Pasadena City Council certified the Rose Bowl renovation’s environmental impact report (EIR) 5-3 last night, but most of its supporters are not “ready to adopt a statement of overriding considerations — the key statement that acknowledges that the benefits of the proposed $500[M] renovation outweighs the negative impacts,” according to Billy Witz of the L.A. DAILY NEWS. While the issue will be addressed again by the council June 6, NFL owners “presumably will whittle the current field of four stadium sites — Carson, the Coliseum, Anaheim and the Rose Bowl -– down” at their meetings in DC next week. But Pasadena City Manager Cynthia Kurtz said that she has “received assurances from NFL staff that the Rose Bowl wouldn’t likely be eliminated because it had calendar issues but that the matter was in the hands of owners” (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 5/17). Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard, who voted against certifying the EIR, said that “it made no sense to rush the process.” Bogaard: “It’s my opinion that we haven’t done it in the usual and professional way” (L.A. TIMES, 5/17).

Pasadena Wants NFL To Make Up Lost Revenue From Seat Contraction

IT’S IN THE GAME: Witz notes the city has “pledged to see that the Rose Bowl suffers no loss of revenue from the downsizing of the stadium” from 88,500 to 65,000, with accommodation for 75,000 for special events such as the Rose Bowl game. The city proposed that the NFL, “under a formula proposed by the [Tournament of Roses] make up any financial shortcoming.” Tournament of Roses CEO Mitch Dorger said that the losses would total “about $2[M] per year.” Dorger added that the city is also “backing specific guarantees that would be built into the lease that would allow for re-sodding of the turf in early December and limit the number of games the NFL would be able to play on it in the weeks leading up to the Rose Bowl game” (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 5/17).