Committee hears Convention Center expansion update as fire-safety questions and signage revenue risk surface

The Finance & Budget Committee received its monthly update on the Los Angeles Convention Center expansion and heard staff say the project remains on track for pre‑Olympics readiness while facing technical, budgetary and permitting risks.

City project staff opened the presentation by saying the expansion began in October and is scheduled through May 2029 to prepare the site for exclusive use during the 2028 Olympics. The presenter stated, “el proyecto está cumpliendo con la meta” and described previously reported delays that staff said have been mitigated.

Why it matters: the expansion is a multibillion-dollar capital program with multiple interlocking approvals and revenue assumptions tied to digital signage, bond sales and other sources. Committee members pressed staff on the assumptions and contingency planning because schedule slip, permitting denials or engineering redesigns could materially change the project’s finances.

Signage revenue and Caltrans approvals: staff described a revenue model that presumes digital signage content will be limited to the project site and estimated average gross revenue of about $38 million per year if approvals are secured. Staff warned that Caltrans approvals for visibility improvements (including possible tree removals) are unresolved; if Caltrans does not permit the planned visibility, staff estimated a downside revenue impact in the tens of millions: “if Caltrans does not approve those signs we’re talking about 30, 50 million more or less,” the presenter said. Staff said they will continue work with Caltrans and report back to the committee when approvals are secured.

Budget and contingencies: Committee members were given a breakdown of the program budget. Staff cited a total project budget figure of roughly $2.5 billion with about $1.6 billion allocated to construction and multiple contingency/reserve lines (staff described city-held contingencies and a large allowance for unforeseen circumstances). Staff said certain items — including some signage and permitting allowances — were excluded from base prices pending further procurement and permit outcomes.

Event-of-relief claims and schedule impact: staff explained the project’s claims process for relief events: developers must notify the city promptly; they then have 60 days to file claims, and the city has a prescribed response period. Staff said the project has had multiple notices of events, some of which advanced to claims, and that process-driven responses are being used to avoid an accumulating backlog.

Fire-safety concerns: Councilmembers focused on fire-safety issues for a portion of the project that would create a street‑level passage (referred to in committee discussion as the “Pico passage”). Members asked whether the project’s design complies with applicable fire standards (members referenced NFPA 502 and modeling assumptions for large fire scenarios). A Fire Department official, Price, told the committee the standard under discussion is NFPA 502, noted that some older detection systems in the area had been operating under prolonged ‘firewatch’ conditions, and warned the city will not be able to certify a new facility if key safety systems remain disconnected or uncertified.

What’s next: staff promised further updates on Caltrans negotiations, the fire-safety analysis (including model assumptions and mitigation options), and contingencies for signage revenues; the committee asked for a written follow-up and an update at a subsequent meeting.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this report are from the committee’s public record and include city project staff (presenter), City project executive Jennifer Olsen and Fire Department official Price.