St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and the developer of his proposed Inglewood, Calif., stadium have until Thursday to reply to the Federal Aviation Agency’s November determination that the venue would be a hazard for airplanes coming into nearby Los Angeles International Airport.
 |
KROENKE
|
The reply is due days before NFL owners meet next week to possibly decide whether to allow the Rams to relocate to Inglewood, or to perhaps instead give the nod to a competing proposal from the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers in Carson.
The NFL commissioned a study on the Inglewood site, but that looked largely at the safety issues, not the technical ones the FAA raised in its findings, which declared the venue would interfere with air traffic radar.
“We hired a consultant to look at safety and security for all the sites,” an NFL source said, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivities surrounding the upcoming owners vote on the L.A. market. “The report indicated that the stadium at Inglewood met all posted FAA regs. We went back to that consultant and have been told that it is not uncommon for stadiums near flight paths to draw FAA technical objections, but that their firm is not expert in this matter. It is a design, not a security, issue. [The] Rams have advised us that there are a number of remedies and that they will pursue one of those remedies to get sign-off from [the] FAA.”
 |
The FAA is concerned that the NFL stadium proposed for Inglewood, Calif., would be a hazard for air traffic at nearby Los Angeles International Airport.
Photo by: GETTY IMAGES
|
Kroenke’s developer, Wilson Meany, likewise minimized the FAA findings, calling them par for the process.
However, some experts described the FAA’s report, which concluded that false images of airplanes could show up on air traffic control readings because of the stadium roof, as troubling.
“It’s playing with fire,” said Pete Burgess, who was an air traffic controller for 30 years and today is an expert witness in aviation litigation. “If it gets an OK, then you are going to get air traffic controllers and pilots involved.”
J.E. Murdock, a legal adviser and blog editor for JDA Aviation Technology Solutions, said, “There are just so many variables. The FAA is not in the risk-taking business.”
Kroenke’s reply this week could cause the FAA to go back and revise its findings. As it stands now, the FAA’s proposed solutions clearly appear untenable.
The FAA recommended that the stadium either be moved, or its 138-foot height above ground level get slashed to 40 feet, meaning the structure would need to get sunk into the ground. That could add significant costs to the project and might require Kroenke to go back with a new referendum proposal to the city of Inglewood.
Sarah Biser, an attorney with McCarter & English who represents larger construction projects, agrees with the Inglewood developer that the issue is manageable.
“This is what happens in mega-projects,” said Biser, who added the FAA is likely to soften its finding that the project can only rise 40 feet.
The FAA actually can’t block the project, but the state of California may not issue a permit if there are such findings, said Seth Young, the McConnell Chair of Aviation and Director, Center for Aviation Studies at Ohio State University. California is one of the few states to require FAA approval before a permit is issued, he said.
Young predicted the L.A. World Airport Authority and the mayor of the city would want to sign off on the stadium before allowing a permit.
One option is for the developer to coat the stadium in radar deflecting paint that might mitigate some of the issues, though it’s unclear if that is enough.
A source close to another NFL team predicted that even if the FAA revised its findings, litigation from various parties could stall the project.
The proposed site is located three-and-a-half to four miles from LAX runways. That would make the stadium convenient for many Los Angelinos and out-of-town visitors but also in the path of oncoming air traffic.
